So I know that you have all been anxiously awaiting my return....yes I have been in exile for nearly ten months. Fear not dear readers, I have returned, and over the next few days will be filling your time with amazingly boring, utterly unimportant, completely self-aggrandizing pieces of complete literary bullshit! I know you can't wait, don't worry, neither can I!
-Rudee
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Beirut....Will we never learn?
It is so promising to see good ole' Condi Rice hanging out in the Middle East, refereeing what has become by now a tired conflict. What is unfortunate is that in the twenty plus years since our "Peacekeeping" force of Marines was killed in Beirut we have learned so little about Middle East politics. I will give credit to Bush for not immediately sending thousands of troops to pacify this region, but our policy in regards to the current conflict has been no less enlightened than are arming of the Taliban and Sadam Husein. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not understand Middle Eastern Politics. We do not understand them in theory or in practice. We tend to view the world through a western (if not American) set of binoculars. Unfortunately, we cannot possibly understand what is going on in the Middle East through this set of eyes.
First and foremost, if there is one thing to learn about the Middle East and in particular Lebanon, it is that nothing is as it seems. Yes it appears quite simple, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization is fighting against Israel. Nothing new here, a radical Islamic organization fighting against the world's only Jewish state. Unfortunately for all of us it just isn't that simple. See in the Middle East politics are not just discussed at a national level, but also at a secular (read religious) level, local level, tribal level, etc, etc. There is no easy comparison to garner in America outside of the Catholic Church taking up arms agains the Baptist Church, against the Seventh Day Adventist and so on and so on. Then within each of these groups you have a myriad of factions which each have their not only their own political agenda, but also their own militias, social services, and press offices with which to spread their opinion of the conflict. Such is the case with Hezbollah, an organization founded by the Shiite state of Iran in order to combat Israel. Hezbollah, not only is an organization whose fundamental principles often run perpendicular to the Lebanese government, but also an organization which still struggles to find an identity within the Muslim world. Caught between wanting to be a legitimate social and political organization and a true guerilla force, Hezbollah has worked at both aims and had measurable success in both arenas.
This is perhaps what makes this organization so dangerous. Not only is it an extention of the Tehran power apparatus (run by Ahjamenejad a ferverant anti-American, anti-western leader), but also a collection of loose Shiite tribal factions, all of which aspire to power and none of which care for the Jewish or American States. So what can be done in the midst of this crisis? Well that is a good question and one that American policy makers and diplomats have been trying to avoid. By allowing Israel to carry out continued operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US has sent a clear signal that it believes Israel has the right to defend itself. The real question is how long a nation (no matter how great, technologically advanced, or militarily superior) can hold out when surrounded by neighbors who not only hate it, but are willing to die to see it's destruction. As Golda Meyer once said: "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us".
First and foremost, if there is one thing to learn about the Middle East and in particular Lebanon, it is that nothing is as it seems. Yes it appears quite simple, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization is fighting against Israel. Nothing new here, a radical Islamic organization fighting against the world's only Jewish state. Unfortunately for all of us it just isn't that simple. See in the Middle East politics are not just discussed at a national level, but also at a secular (read religious) level, local level, tribal level, etc, etc. There is no easy comparison to garner in America outside of the Catholic Church taking up arms agains the Baptist Church, against the Seventh Day Adventist and so on and so on. Then within each of these groups you have a myriad of factions which each have their not only their own political agenda, but also their own militias, social services, and press offices with which to spread their opinion of the conflict. Such is the case with Hezbollah, an organization founded by the Shiite state of Iran in order to combat Israel. Hezbollah, not only is an organization whose fundamental principles often run perpendicular to the Lebanese government, but also an organization which still struggles to find an identity within the Muslim world. Caught between wanting to be a legitimate social and political organization and a true guerilla force, Hezbollah has worked at both aims and had measurable success in both arenas.
This is perhaps what makes this organization so dangerous. Not only is it an extention of the Tehran power apparatus (run by Ahjamenejad a ferverant anti-American, anti-western leader), but also a collection of loose Shiite tribal factions, all of which aspire to power and none of which care for the Jewish or American States. So what can be done in the midst of this crisis? Well that is a good question and one that American policy makers and diplomats have been trying to avoid. By allowing Israel to carry out continued operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the US has sent a clear signal that it believes Israel has the right to defend itself. The real question is how long a nation (no matter how great, technologically advanced, or militarily superior) can hold out when surrounded by neighbors who not only hate it, but are willing to die to see it's destruction. As Golda Meyer once said: "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us".
Just a Bit Tasteless....
So I know that I haven't posted in a long time and there has been a lot going on in the world, so I do hope to get caught up over the next few weeks. With all that is going on in the world it is strange that I have chosen this topic, but for some reason it is really annoying me so I decided to put the perverbial pen to paper.
Today I saw for the umpteenth time a preview for the new movie "World Trade Center". I don't know if I am alone on this, but it seems extremely tasteless to make a movie about an event where so many people lost their lives. Yes, I know there have been many movies made about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and of course Pearl Harbor. But none of these movies were produced less than five years after a life changing, world altering event. It is as if our capitalism knows no bounds. Let's generate a huge amount of profit by exploiting the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Wow! I am so excited to buy a ticket. I mean really, have we not seen enough documentaries on the History Channel and Discovery Channel, not to mention the repetitiveness of the network news channels. I have probably seen the second plane hit the tower no less than a thousand times. I am so glad that someone has put together a dramatic "human interest story" for us to all relate to.
Guess what? We lived through this disaster. And relived it day after day, week after week, and month after month for the five years that followed this tragic attack. This terrorist action has been used as an excuse to invade a soveign nation, to dramatically bloat the deficit, and to strip American's of fundamental rights guarenteed by our great Constitution. Not to mention degrading our reputation amongst the powers of the world and ensuring instability in the Middle East for the next century. So why not play out this drama on the big screen? It simply seems like too small a venue to portray the overwhelming emotion of the moment. The feeling of a country once thought invincible, attacked for the first time on it's own soil by a foreign enemy. Making a movie about this a mear few years later belittles the experience. It makes it seem as if this was not the massive and life chaning event that it was, and rather a mere blip in on our pop culture radar.
So often the right wing of our country tries to justify their defiling of the Constitution and the cancellation of our individual rights as a necessary step in a "Post 9-11 World". Perhaps it is time for this same political machine to speak out against a movie that trivilizes the experience as just another of our pop culture adventures. I certainly hope the American public sees this film as the propaganda that it is. Intended to solicit feelings fear and resentment that lead to irrational policy decisions. This is the only way in which the right will be able to continue to play the "9-11 Card."
Today I saw for the umpteenth time a preview for the new movie "World Trade Center". I don't know if I am alone on this, but it seems extremely tasteless to make a movie about an event where so many people lost their lives. Yes, I know there have been many movies made about the American Revolution, the Civil War, and of course Pearl Harbor. But none of these movies were produced less than five years after a life changing, world altering event. It is as if our capitalism knows no bounds. Let's generate a huge amount of profit by exploiting the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Wow! I am so excited to buy a ticket. I mean really, have we not seen enough documentaries on the History Channel and Discovery Channel, not to mention the repetitiveness of the network news channels. I have probably seen the second plane hit the tower no less than a thousand times. I am so glad that someone has put together a dramatic "human interest story" for us to all relate to.
Guess what? We lived through this disaster. And relived it day after day, week after week, and month after month for the five years that followed this tragic attack. This terrorist action has been used as an excuse to invade a soveign nation, to dramatically bloat the deficit, and to strip American's of fundamental rights guarenteed by our great Constitution. Not to mention degrading our reputation amongst the powers of the world and ensuring instability in the Middle East for the next century. So why not play out this drama on the big screen? It simply seems like too small a venue to portray the overwhelming emotion of the moment. The feeling of a country once thought invincible, attacked for the first time on it's own soil by a foreign enemy. Making a movie about this a mear few years later belittles the experience. It makes it seem as if this was not the massive and life chaning event that it was, and rather a mere blip in on our pop culture radar.
So often the right wing of our country tries to justify their defiling of the Constitution and the cancellation of our individual rights as a necessary step in a "Post 9-11 World". Perhaps it is time for this same political machine to speak out against a movie that trivilizes the experience as just another of our pop culture adventures. I certainly hope the American public sees this film as the propaganda that it is. Intended to solicit feelings fear and resentment that lead to irrational policy decisions. This is the only way in which the right will be able to continue to play the "9-11 Card."
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Next Great Evolution....
Today the Supreme Court announced that there was still some value to the Constitution of the United States and to our signature at the Geneva Convention. In the process, the court struck down the President's assertion that he had the right to try "Enemy Combatants" in military tribunals that do not follow the rules of our judiciary system, and were not authorized by Congress. So why is this a big deal? Well there are several reasons why (fair rights for those being held, the right to face ones accusers, etc etc), but the most important reason is that this is a major victory in the "war" against terrorism.
I know, many of you are not following me here, and those of you that fall on the right side of the political spectrum are cursing me at this moment, but it is true. Despite what Fox News, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Bush Administration want you to believe, holding prisoners indefinitely, convicting them in makeshift courts, and shipping them to prisons in other parts of the world to be tortured is not effective in fighting terrorism. The idea that by doing these things it will deter terrorist from attacking is ludicrous. You have a cadre of people who are so ardently and preferences entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to die for their cause and therefore will not be deterred by this kind of treatment. On the contrary this type of treatment only helps the terrorist cause. Still not following me? Let me lay it out again.
Terrorists are helped in two ways by the recent behavior of the Bush Administration. The first and most important is that they have succeeded in their mission. They have brought about change in the American system and proven that our government and judicial systems do not work (think how happy the communist would have been if we would have began restricing markets). Secondly, our reaction to terrorists, and our continued mistreatment of Muslim civilians around the world gives terrorists everywhere a rallying cry. When I watch TV at night and see ads for the US Army that are professionally produced, using and ad agency, marketing firm, and millions of taxpayer dollars I laugh. I laugh because I know that the terrorists networks around the world don't need to go to so much trouble to recruit, they simply show speeches given by George Bush, they show the torture at Abu Graib, the killings in Haditha, and the complete breakdown of the legal process in America. There is an old saying, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face", I never really understood it before, but I think I do now.
Now of course reading the above one some would say that I am in favor of appeasing terrorists. This is not the case, however, at some point in time we have to come to the realization that we are fighting an unconventional war and therefore must use unconventional means. I recall hearing Benjamin Netanyahu speak when I was in college. He talked about the differences between having Russia as an enemy during the Cold War and now having radical Muslims as our foes. He spoke of the Bay of Pigs and how both countries came to the realization of the consequences of mutual destruction and therefore chose not to engage. He then reminded us that radical Islamic terrorist have no fear of death, and therefore they must be dealt with in a different manner. These were interesting words coming from a hard-line hawk like Netanyahu, but he understood his enemy.
For years we have had the doctrine that we will not negotiate with terrorists. We draw the line in the sand and say that no one will hold a gun to our head. Israel has done the same since it's inception. Here we are over five decades later and Israel still experiences incidents of terrorism routinely. We have been hit by terrorist attacks in the United States, Europe continues to have to deal with violence, and the incidents of terrorism in US occupied Iraq occur everyday. What I am saying here is that we need a new strategy. Simply saying that we will not negotiate does not work. For as steadfast as we are in our beliefs, the radical Islamic are in theirs. This is a contest where someone either has to blink or there will continue to be casualties on both sides. The essence of human and cultural evolution is our ability to continuously come up with better ways to solve problems. Throughout history we have continuously improved our ability to handle difficult situations without resorting to violence. It is time for logic to intercede, for the great minds of this generation to use their gifts to bring an end to what has become the most pressing global emergency. Intelligence and ingenuity have brought the human race this far, why stop now?
I know, many of you are not following me here, and those of you that fall on the right side of the political spectrum are cursing me at this moment, but it is true. Despite what Fox News, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Bush Administration want you to believe, holding prisoners indefinitely, convicting them in makeshift courts, and shipping them to prisons in other parts of the world to be tortured is not effective in fighting terrorism. The idea that by doing these things it will deter terrorist from attacking is ludicrous. You have a cadre of people who are so ardently and preferences entrenched in their beliefs that they are willing to die for their cause and therefore will not be deterred by this kind of treatment. On the contrary this type of treatment only helps the terrorist cause. Still not following me? Let me lay it out again.
Terrorists are helped in two ways by the recent behavior of the Bush Administration. The first and most important is that they have succeeded in their mission. They have brought about change in the American system and proven that our government and judicial systems do not work (think how happy the communist would have been if we would have began restricing markets). Secondly, our reaction to terrorists, and our continued mistreatment of Muslim civilians around the world gives terrorists everywhere a rallying cry. When I watch TV at night and see ads for the US Army that are professionally produced, using and ad agency, marketing firm, and millions of taxpayer dollars I laugh. I laugh because I know that the terrorists networks around the world don't need to go to so much trouble to recruit, they simply show speeches given by George Bush, they show the torture at Abu Graib, the killings in Haditha, and the complete breakdown of the legal process in America. There is an old saying, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face", I never really understood it before, but I think I do now.
Now of course reading the above one some would say that I am in favor of appeasing terrorists. This is not the case, however, at some point in time we have to come to the realization that we are fighting an unconventional war and therefore must use unconventional means. I recall hearing Benjamin Netanyahu speak when I was in college. He talked about the differences between having Russia as an enemy during the Cold War and now having radical Muslims as our foes. He spoke of the Bay of Pigs and how both countries came to the realization of the consequences of mutual destruction and therefore chose not to engage. He then reminded us that radical Islamic terrorist have no fear of death, and therefore they must be dealt with in a different manner. These were interesting words coming from a hard-line hawk like Netanyahu, but he understood his enemy.
For years we have had the doctrine that we will not negotiate with terrorists. We draw the line in the sand and say that no one will hold a gun to our head. Israel has done the same since it's inception. Here we are over five decades later and Israel still experiences incidents of terrorism routinely. We have been hit by terrorist attacks in the United States, Europe continues to have to deal with violence, and the incidents of terrorism in US occupied Iraq occur everyday. What I am saying here is that we need a new strategy. Simply saying that we will not negotiate does not work. For as steadfast as we are in our beliefs, the radical Islamic are in theirs. This is a contest where someone either has to blink or there will continue to be casualties on both sides. The essence of human and cultural evolution is our ability to continuously come up with better ways to solve problems. Throughout history we have continuously improved our ability to handle difficult situations without resorting to violence. It is time for logic to intercede, for the great minds of this generation to use their gifts to bring an end to what has become the most pressing global emergency. Intelligence and ingenuity have brought the human race this far, why stop now?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Most Important Issue Ever! or Not
So it is very rare the congress actually takes on important issues, but over the past few days they have keyed in on what I believe is quite possibly the most important issue of our generation. They have been debating about and voting on an issue that effects almost every person in the country.
Yes this issue is so big, so important that it trumps many of the smaller, pettier issues of the day. In perspective, the looming nuclear crisis in Iran looks petty. The escalating violence in Iraq that continues to take American lives seems unimportant. Even the ongoing investigation into congressman William Jefferson falls down the priority list.
For those of you who aren’t with me yet, I’m talking about banning gay marriage. Oh wait. Did I catch you off guard with that one? Yes it is an even numbered year, that means that at some point this fall we will be voting, and of course that means that the number one thing on everyone’s mind is Gay Marriage. The Republican’s dug up this issue in 2004 and were very successful in using it to get out the vote. See it seems the GOP’s leadership believes its members are all idiots who will rally around any cause no matter how unimportant or inconsequential. In fact they were able to drum up enough hype about this issue that congress took several days to debate a Constitutional Amendment, the President gave several speeches on the matter and CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CSpan could not possibly give it enough coverage.
Now for those of you not well versed in the workings of our fine government, passing a constitutional amendment is the most permanent and lasting action that any congress can take. It inserts a new law into the Constitution of the United States-the ultimate law that governs our nation. Over the past 200 plus years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution (the first ten comprise the Bill of Rights that were ratified with the original constitution). Of these 27 amendments only two have been written to explicitly outlaw a given behavior or action: the 13th Amendment that prohibited slavery, and the 18th Amendment that prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol. As we all know the 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. My point here is that passing a Constitutional Amendment to make something illegal is a wholly new proposition in the history of our country. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights (along with several of the later Amendments) was written expressly to protect the rights of the citizenry, not to limit them.
Now as a social liberal I cannot understand the need to ban gays from marrying. There are several arguments brought forward by the right wing conservative movement. Perhaps the most prominent argument is that the Bible defines marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Fortunately for all of us our forefathers had the insight to form our government separate of any particular religious group. Therefore, we are not bound by Biblical law (if you would like to see the results of countries that are bound by religious law then take a trip to the Arabian Peninsula). Secondly, many argue that allowing gays to marry would be an assault on traditional marriage in this country. Well as someone who is married myself, I cannot possibly see how having gays marry will assault my marriage. Will they come in my home and beat me up? Will having married gays plunge us into war, create more terrorist attacks, raise gas prices to ridiculous levels, or precipitate the explosion of the national deficit? No, no, no, all of those conditions have been caused by a Republican Administration and Aided by a Republican Congress. Perhaps if they had spent more time focusing on these real important issues than our country would be in a better place now. So I have give you two good reasons why this Amendment was a bad idea, so here is the third and most important: It had absolutely no chance of passing. That’s right, congress just sat and had debates and the President gave speeches, and all about an issue that the majority of Americans either don’t support, or don’t care about, and the majority of Senators were not going to vote for anyway.
The bottom line here is that I don’t care what someone does in the bedroom. I do not care whom they choose to love or live with, and I don’t want the government telling me whom I can spend my life with. Not so long ago there were laws against interracial marriage; one would think that our country had evolved. Banning gay marriage leads us down a slippery slope. It says that government can regulate whom we associate with, and whom we choose to partner with. What’s next banning marriage between social classes, between different races, different religions? I can respect the views of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on their religion. However, they have no more right to impose their religion on me, than the radical Islamic terrorist have to impose their religion on America.
Aside:
The sponsor of this amendment was Colorado’s own Wayne Allard. Yes this is the same Wayne Allard who was recently chronicled in TIME Magazine as one of the five worst Senators in the United States (April 24, 2006 p.28 The Invisible Man). The article discusses Allard’s total lack of action in his 10 years in the Senate. Well at least Allard who’s claim to fame during his tenure in the Senate has been his post as overseer of the Capital Hill Visitor Center has now added some real substance to his resume. Please feel free to contact Senator Allard and let him know your thoughts on the issue.
Senator Wayne Allard’s Offices:
Washington, D.C. Office521 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Phone: (202) 224-5941Fax: (202) 224-6471
Colorado Springs Office111 S. Tejon, Suite 300Colorado Springs, CO 80903Phone: (719) 634-6071Fax: (719) 636-2590
Denver Office7340 E. Caley, Suite 215Englewood, CO 80111Phone: (303) 220-7414Fax: (303) 220-8126
Grand Junction Office215 Federal Bldg.,400 Rood Ave.Grand Junction, CO 81501Phone: (970) 245-9553Fax: (970) 245-9523
Loveland Office5401 Stone Creek Circle,Suite 203Loveland, CO 80538Phone: (970) 461-3530Fax: (970) 461-3658
Pueblo Office411 Thatcher Bldg.,5th & Main Sts.Pueblo, CO 81003Phone: (719) 545-9751Fax: (719) 545-3832
Durango Office954 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 107Durango, CO 81301Phone: (970) 375-6311Fax: (970) 375-1321
Yes this issue is so big, so important that it trumps many of the smaller, pettier issues of the day. In perspective, the looming nuclear crisis in Iran looks petty. The escalating violence in Iraq that continues to take American lives seems unimportant. Even the ongoing investigation into congressman William Jefferson falls down the priority list.
For those of you who aren’t with me yet, I’m talking about banning gay marriage. Oh wait. Did I catch you off guard with that one? Yes it is an even numbered year, that means that at some point this fall we will be voting, and of course that means that the number one thing on everyone’s mind is Gay Marriage. The Republican’s dug up this issue in 2004 and were very successful in using it to get out the vote. See it seems the GOP’s leadership believes its members are all idiots who will rally around any cause no matter how unimportant or inconsequential. In fact they were able to drum up enough hype about this issue that congress took several days to debate a Constitutional Amendment, the President gave several speeches on the matter and CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CSpan could not possibly give it enough coverage.
Now for those of you not well versed in the workings of our fine government, passing a constitutional amendment is the most permanent and lasting action that any congress can take. It inserts a new law into the Constitution of the United States-the ultimate law that governs our nation. Over the past 200 plus years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution (the first ten comprise the Bill of Rights that were ratified with the original constitution). Of these 27 amendments only two have been written to explicitly outlaw a given behavior or action: the 13th Amendment that prohibited slavery, and the 18th Amendment that prohibited the production and consumption of alcohol. As we all know the 18th Amendment was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. My point here is that passing a Constitutional Amendment to make something illegal is a wholly new proposition in the history of our country. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights (along with several of the later Amendments) was written expressly to protect the rights of the citizenry, not to limit them.
Now as a social liberal I cannot understand the need to ban gays from marrying. There are several arguments brought forward by the right wing conservative movement. Perhaps the most prominent argument is that the Bible defines marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Fortunately for all of us our forefathers had the insight to form our government separate of any particular religious group. Therefore, we are not bound by Biblical law (if you would like to see the results of countries that are bound by religious law then take a trip to the Arabian Peninsula). Secondly, many argue that allowing gays to marry would be an assault on traditional marriage in this country. Well as someone who is married myself, I cannot possibly see how having gays marry will assault my marriage. Will they come in my home and beat me up? Will having married gays plunge us into war, create more terrorist attacks, raise gas prices to ridiculous levels, or precipitate the explosion of the national deficit? No, no, no, all of those conditions have been caused by a Republican Administration and Aided by a Republican Congress. Perhaps if they had spent more time focusing on these real important issues than our country would be in a better place now. So I have give you two good reasons why this Amendment was a bad idea, so here is the third and most important: It had absolutely no chance of passing. That’s right, congress just sat and had debates and the President gave speeches, and all about an issue that the majority of Americans either don’t support, or don’t care about, and the majority of Senators were not going to vote for anyway.
The bottom line here is that I don’t care what someone does in the bedroom. I do not care whom they choose to love or live with, and I don’t want the government telling me whom I can spend my life with. Not so long ago there were laws against interracial marriage; one would think that our country had evolved. Banning gay marriage leads us down a slippery slope. It says that government can regulate whom we associate with, and whom we choose to partner with. What’s next banning marriage between social classes, between different races, different religions? I can respect the views of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on their religion. However, they have no more right to impose their religion on me, than the radical Islamic terrorist have to impose their religion on America.
Aside:
The sponsor of this amendment was Colorado’s own Wayne Allard. Yes this is the same Wayne Allard who was recently chronicled in TIME Magazine as one of the five worst Senators in the United States (April 24, 2006 p.28 The Invisible Man). The article discusses Allard’s total lack of action in his 10 years in the Senate. Well at least Allard who’s claim to fame during his tenure in the Senate has been his post as overseer of the Capital Hill Visitor Center has now added some real substance to his resume. Please feel free to contact Senator Allard and let him know your thoughts on the issue.
Senator Wayne Allard’s Offices:
Washington, D.C. Office521 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510Phone: (202) 224-5941Fax: (202) 224-6471
Colorado Springs Office111 S. Tejon, Suite 300Colorado Springs, CO 80903Phone: (719) 634-6071Fax: (719) 636-2590
Denver Office7340 E. Caley, Suite 215Englewood, CO 80111Phone: (303) 220-7414Fax: (303) 220-8126
Grand Junction Office215 Federal Bldg.,400 Rood Ave.Grand Junction, CO 81501Phone: (970) 245-9553Fax: (970) 245-9523
Loveland Office5401 Stone Creek Circle,Suite 203Loveland, CO 80538Phone: (970) 461-3530Fax: (970) 461-3658
Pueblo Office411 Thatcher Bldg.,5th & Main Sts.Pueblo, CO 81003Phone: (719) 545-9751Fax: (719) 545-3832
Durango Office954 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 107Durango, CO 81301Phone: (970) 375-6311Fax: (970) 375-1321
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
