Chicago Tribune | Print Edition -- SHE HAS SEEN THE FUTURE AND IT IS -- WEBLOGS
By Julia Keller
Tribune Staff Writer
September 7, 1999
Now hear this -- and e-mail the news to all your friends: The novel and the short story may be the snail darter and spotted owl of the literary world. It could be curtains for the sonnet, the rhymed couplet and the screenplay as well.
Like all familiar forms, they're on the endangered genres list, perhaps bound for extinction as the world makes way for an onslaught of new, hybrid genres enabled by hypertext (that is, links from one Website to another).
My pick for most promising new genre: the Weblog.
Weblogs are -- well, let's back up a bit. If I define a Weblog, I'm not being true to the fluid, floating, idiosyncratic spirit of the enterprise. Definitions are boundaries, and boundaries are anathema to Webloggers. Moreover, the best Weblogs are always shifting and evolving, always on their way to being something else.
To paraphrase Woody Guthrie's comment about a song: Trying to define a Weblog is like trying to take a picture of a bird in flight.
My left-brained editor insists, however, so here goes:
A Weblog is a Web site that maintains a constantly updated list of links to other sites; those links can deal with any subject or focus on a particular one. Webloggers typically offer pithy, sarcastic commentary about the links.
Weblogs, in effect, are annotated bibliographies of the world.
But that's not all. Because Webloggers are a self-selected group of mostly young (under 30), relentlessly verbal, fiendishly well-read, usually subversive folks who relish tying together the shoelaces of the stiffly homogenized corporate world, a Weblog can be highly personalized and exhilaratingly eccentric, with more than a touch of the rebel and the poet.
The best Webloggers provide a daily journal of what they're reading and what they're thinking about it. That chronicle -- at times funny, angry, cranky, sad, bored, unpredictable and contradictory -- is like an independent film on an endless loop. It's like a memoir of the future.
What makes a Weblog a truly creative pursuit and not just a soulless, arbitrary list is the individual voice that emerges from the screen, the personality that squeezes out between the links like sunlight between the slats of a Venetian blind.
And in yet another example of the coolly independent spirit of Weblogs, most Webloggers are decidedly underwhelmed by their work. There's precious little hype in the Weblog world (even though, of course, some might argue that the very act of creating a Weblog is hype enough for a lifetime, since it involves the constant valorization of one's most trivial impressions, fleeting opinions and halfbaked ideas).
"I have two rules: I don't do publicity and I don't sit for photographs," said Jim Romanesko, creator of two of the best-known Weblogs: obscurestore.com and mediagossip.com.
"I rarely use the term `Weblog.' I say it's just a site with links to stories that I find interesting," said Romanesko, and his voice shrugged even if his shoulders didn't. "I want to remain obscure."
He may loathe publicity, but publicity seems to love him: Romanesko, who moved to Chicago from St. Paul last weekend, recently was featured in stories in The New York Times and Salon.com.
As a result, mediagossip.com -- true to its moniker, a Weblog specializing in juicy tidbits about news-purveyors -- will, come October, be sponsored by the Poynter Institute, a non-profit journalism education foundation whose executives read about Romanesko and decided he was their man. The Weblog will adopt a new name, upon which Romanesko has yet to decide.
"But they'll keep the spirit of mediagossip.com," he promised. (obscurestore.com will continue on its quirky, zigzaggy path.)
Steve Bogart, creator of nowthis.com, was similarly self-effacing.
"Weblogs aren't really that new or unique. It's not really anything more than self-publishing and self-publishing has been around a long, long time," said Bogart, who lives in St. Louis.
"At their best, Weblogs are both content providers and context providers for the mass of information available on the Web. At their worst, they're exercises in vanity, giving us the illusion that we've done something valuable by copying and pasting a link."
His Weblog got under way in May 1997, Bogart recalled, because he needed "an outlet for my frustration at bad media. It was sort of a place where I could feel, like, `Well, I've said my opinion. It's out there if anybody cares to find it.' I'm not that much of a ranter in person."
Laurel Krahn, a Minneapolis resident, created windowseat.org in November 1998. Reading her Weblog is like breaking into a psychiatrist's office and rifling through the files until you come upon an especially juicy set of notes from a client session.
Krahn's work is part diary, part consumer's guide for television, movies and music, and part transcript of an all-night phone call with a best friend. Anybody's best friend.
She, too, though, refuses to hype Weblogs.
"It's not exactly a real new concept," Krahn said. "I've always had this urge to tell people about my favorite band or my favorite link. My site's been called `warmly personal.' And `eclectic.' That's nothing new for me."
In the last two years, Krahn said, she has seen Weblogs blossom from rather dreary lists of links to intensely personal reflections on the world, from a service model to an imagination-based one. Instead of remaining grimly utilitarian, Weblogs are bidding fair to be considered literary forms. The writing can be vivid and evocative, or playfully self-deprecating, or darkly funny.
Yet as Weblogs increase in popularity, danger looms: They may be co-opted by corporate entities.
Romanesko said, "I get e-mails from people saying, `Don't go corporate!' They like the fact that there are small, independent voices out there."
Naturally, though, the more ink, airplay and net time that Weblogs garner, the greater the chances that, sooner or later, you'll be looking at windowseat.com -- brought to you by the good folks at Chrysler.
That would be a shame, because corporate sponsorship might muffle the feisty voice of Weblogs.
Just think: If the Declaration of Independence were written today, doubtless it would be posted on the Web -- with links to dozens of Weblogs whose creators would scribble furious messages in support of the wildly radical concept of self-governance.
Finding a Weblog that suits your tastes -- by going from link to link, searching here and there, poking around the Web like Matt Drudge does garbage cans -- is a large part of the fun, so I don't want to be too prescriptive.
Here, however, are some of my favorites, in addition to the sites already mentioned:
- Kottke.org
- robotwisdom.com
- jjg.net
- lemonyellow.com
- memepool.com
- peterme.com
- flutterby.com
- Moreover.com
- Julienne.com
RT On Air
Thursday, 5 May 2005
Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq
Based on the title, this is very controversial reading but once you get past that initial uneasiness, he makes some interesting points. oh yeah.....I'm positive this Mike Whitney is not the whole hearted fast bowler who played cricket for Australia during the 80's. I'm sure he wouldn't want to jeopardise his blossoming media career by writing things like this.
Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq
By Mike Whitney
May 1, 2005 -- The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It's an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who've never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American Exceptionalism.
For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the "insurgency", and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There's simply no other morally acceptable option.
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."
The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a "duty" to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world's people know that the war in Iraq was an illegal (Kofi Annan) act of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism. Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar; Its Terror when we say so).
Terrorism or not, there's no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.
The argument most commonly offered by antiwar Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn't defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that We can't just leave them without security, creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.
We should remember that the war (which was entirely based on false or misleading information) was both illegal and immoral. That judgment does not change by maintaining a military presence of 140,000 soldiers on the ground for years to come. Each passing day of occupation simply perpetuates the crime.
At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the "insurgency", are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.
Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington's demonstration elections. This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it's a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state.
There's no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the past two years. The Bush administration hasn't shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we're nowhere near that period yet.
Who's killing whom?
It's not the insurgency that's killing American soldiers. It's the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world's remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harm's way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would; trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed.
Americans would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration's hands, not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah
We shouldn't expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators.) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.
Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day, according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq's publicly owned industries, banks and resources), an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, the return-in full force-of Saddam's Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services. (Pepe Escobar, Asia Times)
Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam (Rumsfeld's unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn't tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of whom were formerly employed in Saddam's secret police)
We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don't realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect, that if it wasn't for the resistance, the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, antiwar advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called humanitarian objectives designed to pacify the population. "Normalizing" aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.
We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination; ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of "democracy" or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world's people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime.
Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.
© Copyright 2005 by AxisofLogic.com
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq
By Mike Whitney
May 1, 2005 -- The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It's an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who've never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American Exceptionalism.
For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the "insurgency", and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There's simply no other morally acceptable option.
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."
The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a "duty" to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world's people know that the war in Iraq was an illegal (Kofi Annan) act of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism. Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar; Its Terror when we say so).
Terrorism or not, there's no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.
The argument most commonly offered by antiwar Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn't defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that We can't just leave them without security, creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.
We should remember that the war (which was entirely based on false or misleading information) was both illegal and immoral. That judgment does not change by maintaining a military presence of 140,000 soldiers on the ground for years to come. Each passing day of occupation simply perpetuates the crime.
At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the "insurgency", are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.
Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington's demonstration elections. This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it's a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state.
There's no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the past two years. The Bush administration hasn't shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we're nowhere near that period yet.
Who's killing whom?
It's not the insurgency that's killing American soldiers. It's the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world's remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harm's way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would; trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed.
Americans would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration's hands, not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah
We shouldn't expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators.) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.
Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day, according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq's publicly owned industries, banks and resources), an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, the return-in full force-of Saddam's Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services. (Pepe Escobar, Asia Times)
Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam (Rumsfeld's unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn't tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of whom were formerly employed in Saddam's secret police)
We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don't realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect, that if it wasn't for the resistance, the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, antiwar advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called humanitarian objectives designed to pacify the population. "Normalizing" aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.
We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination; ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of "democracy" or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world's people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime.
Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.
© Copyright 2005 by AxisofLogic.com
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Tuesday, 3 May 2005
Hilltop Hoods - Walk On Lyrics
Verse One - Suffa
I speak from the heart, but only when I drink,
And I only ever sleep when I'm too tired to think,
Restlessness, the reaction that you will find,
From stress I guess and having a compassionate mind,
I worry bout the machine of progress, ain't no stopping it,
The forest we destroy and the world we build on top of it,
Mercenaries get paid salaries to slaughter,
Girls obsessed with body image find calories in water,
Nurses comfort seven-year-old casualties of mortar,
A peasant's daughter caught up in a war for a border,
And at home we treat our refugees like criminals,
Detention centres just a catch phrase for a minimal
Security prison, we drive gold trimmed cars,
Down the road an Afghani kid grows up behind bars,
And we wonder why they hate the west,
When we treat them like they're second-class citizens at best,
We're all pawns in a game, the USA's miniatures,
Aussie foreign policy with George Bush's signature,
Peeps die for a watch and blue chip stock,
Did they do Big Pop or was it two bit cops,
I wanna sue kid rock for making rednecks think they're hip hop,
Wanna swallow people's pain and spit it from the hilltop,
Wanna affect change in the subjects that we talk on,
Connect strangers, work together and walk on.
Verse Two - Pressure
Polluting airways, mankind strays with no reforming,
So slap on that sunscreen and enjoy the global warming,
Cos ignoring world issues is what we all do best,
Just like Aussie politicians shoe shining for the U.S.
To save losing face, no thoughts to the fumes that trace,
Our sky lines and clogs our seas we swimming in consumer waste,
The fumes of hate rise globally but will it cease?
The day we try and find a little peace within the Middle East,
We shadow their borders yelling deplete their arms,
Its just war for black gold so they can grease their palms,
We all need a scapegoat, a villain to cop blame,
We're just wolves in sheep's clothing killing in gods name,
And that's world wide, like global over population,
We mine the world dry of natural resources to feed our nations,
Appetite for waste, I see it everywhere,
I feel like throwing a flag of protest in Tienanmen Square,
We need to care for mother earth and all of her natural defences,
But talk is cheap, and taking action is expensive,
We wear our hearts on our sleeves, our flags on our borders,
And that's why nuclear testings done in pacific foreign waters,
We follow reporters with the worth of a scholar,
And gather personal opinions from a rag worth a dollar,
Man this is not a subject; I feel lightly I can talk on,
The attitude is one man of many, so walk on.
I speak from the heart, but only when I drink,
And I only ever sleep when I'm too tired to think,
Restlessness, the reaction that you will find,
From stress I guess and having a compassionate mind,
I worry bout the machine of progress, ain't no stopping it,
The forest we destroy and the world we build on top of it,
Mercenaries get paid salaries to slaughter,
Girls obsessed with body image find calories in water,
Nurses comfort seven-year-old casualties of mortar,
A peasant's daughter caught up in a war for a border,
And at home we treat our refugees like criminals,
Detention centres just a catch phrase for a minimal
Security prison, we drive gold trimmed cars,
Down the road an Afghani kid grows up behind bars,
And we wonder why they hate the west,
When we treat them like they're second-class citizens at best,
We're all pawns in a game, the USA's miniatures,
Aussie foreign policy with George Bush's signature,
Peeps die for a watch and blue chip stock,
Did they do Big Pop or was it two bit cops,
I wanna sue kid rock for making rednecks think they're hip hop,
Wanna swallow people's pain and spit it from the hilltop,
Wanna affect change in the subjects that we talk on,
Connect strangers, work together and walk on.
Verse Two - Pressure
Polluting airways, mankind strays with no reforming,
So slap on that sunscreen and enjoy the global warming,
Cos ignoring world issues is what we all do best,
Just like Aussie politicians shoe shining for the U.S.
To save losing face, no thoughts to the fumes that trace,
Our sky lines and clogs our seas we swimming in consumer waste,
The fumes of hate rise globally but will it cease?
The day we try and find a little peace within the Middle East,
We shadow their borders yelling deplete their arms,
Its just war for black gold so they can grease their palms,
We all need a scapegoat, a villain to cop blame,
We're just wolves in sheep's clothing killing in gods name,
And that's world wide, like global over population,
We mine the world dry of natural resources to feed our nations,
Appetite for waste, I see it everywhere,
I feel like throwing a flag of protest in Tienanmen Square,
We need to care for mother earth and all of her natural defences,
But talk is cheap, and taking action is expensive,
We wear our hearts on our sleeves, our flags on our borders,
And that's why nuclear testings done in pacific foreign waters,
We follow reporters with the worth of a scholar,
And gather personal opinions from a rag worth a dollar,
Man this is not a subject; I feel lightly I can talk on,
The attitude is one man of many, so walk on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)