PDA

View Full Version : Invesco Funding Genocide in Darfur...Pat?


footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm in the middle of research into US and international institutional investment firms that have financial holdings in companies that are participating in the horrific genocide currently going on in Darfur, Sudan. If you're unaware of this conflict...it's the single largest human rights aid operation in the world at the moment. Since 2003 when rebels based in the western Sudan region known as Darfur, attacked Sudanese army units, the government of the Sudan has been funding Arab mercenaries and participating themselves as well...in the wholesale slaughter of somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 Sudanese civilians. Another 2.5 million are homeless and endanger of starvation or attack. These are not mere casualties of war...unintended collaboral damage. It's defined by the UN and every human rights organization in the world as genocide, a systematic attempt to obliterate an entire group of people.

Some of this is almost unspeakable...we're talking about entire villages murdered by axe weiding lunatics...women routinely abducted and gang raped for months before having their skulls crushed with axes, girls as young as 8 being sold as sex slaves throughout the middle east...children and babies burned alive and even crucified. Husbands forced to watch their wives and daughters raped and tortured before their eyes. The conflict is religious and ethnic...Arab Islamic extremists murdering black Africans who are mostly Christian and Animist...and it's all funded by a sovereign state...not by roving bands of thugs. This part of the war in the Sudan is not warfare...it's wholesale, uninhibited slaughter.

The refuge camps in Darfur are home to some of the worst living conditions on earth, a place where UN Peacekeeping troops are unable to protect themselves, let along stop the violence against these helpless people. On December 31, 2007 President Bush signed into federal law the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act. It pulls US investment in the Sudan, authorizes states to divest assets associated with pensions plans, anuities, state run university and other pubic resources, and it affords legal protection for those states and institutions that choose to do so.

There is absolutely ZERO reason for any institutional investor in the US to hold stock in any company doing business in the Sudan outside of humanitarian aid, food or mecial assistance to the people. Most aid that goes to Sudan finds it's way into something else....the country contributes only 3% of it's total GDP to assisting their own people overcome their poverty. That's about 160% below what most 3rd world nations do. In a word...they don't care. The current "targeted divestment" strategy focuses only on those companies doing business in military, oil, mineral extraction and energy production...the main things keeping the Sudanese government able to equip it's military and conduct genocide.

An international divestment initiative has targeted the worst offending companies doing business with the Sudanese government. At the top of their hit list is Chinese Oil giant Petro China, which is not only complicit with the Sudanese regime, but arrogantly refuses to do anything to influence them to stop murdering innocents. Income from oil produces 70% of the funds for the Sudanese military, and is directly responsible for assisting them in the slaughter of civilians in Darfur. Below is a list of major finanical investors who have significant holdings in Petro China.

Major mutual fund companies:
- Barclays - iShares
- Capital Research - American funds
- Fidelity
- Franklin Templeton
- TIAA-CREF
- Vanguard

Other major financial institutions:
- Aberdeen Asset Management
- Credit Suisse
- HSBC
- Invesco
- JP Morgan Chase
- KBC Group
- Sumitomo
- UBS

As you can see...this list includes Invesco...the company that has the naming rights to the Broncos stadium...a stadium built with tax payer money by the people of Denver County. As of August 1, 2007 Invesco held over $185 million in Petro China stock. More current data is probably available but I've not searched for it yet.

I do not think the Broncos have any business continuing the current relationship with Invesco based on this information. Survey's of individual investors have shown that over 70% favor divesting their portfolios from comapnies holding assets that contribute to genocide even if it lowers their rate of return.

One final thing you should know...studies by the Calvert Foundation show that companies holding assets in the most serious offenders on the list of bad guys...financially underperform significantly against their competition...up to 23% over a single year...about 7% over 3 years. In other words...even if you didn't care about this issue...there are obvious BUSINESS advantages for divesting from those companies that are complicit in this horrendous tragedy.

Personally I think Pat Bowlen needs to hear from Bronco fans about this issue. I think he needs to dump the partnership with Invesco immediately. You can also email Invesco here and let them know what you think: http://investorsagainstgenocide.net/invesco

The next time you think about Cutler's INT percentage, our new coaching staff or the NFL draft...remember that something going on with the business side of this team is vastly more important.

Spider
01-31-2009, 03:01 PM
Is Genocide tax deductible ?

footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 03:04 PM
Is Genocide tax deductible ?
No but donating to an organization trying to stop it is.

Drek
01-31-2009, 03:30 PM
I'm pretty sure naming rights to a stadium are sold as a leased deal that Bowlen can't back out of without finding some lease violation, which I also doubt Invesco has done.

Not really anything he can do about it, short of using the "Invesco Field" monicker against them and publicly attacking the company's support of Petro China, but then that'd likely be a hell of a PR hit as well as souring relations with dozens of Bowlen's business partners, so if you want him to be able to financially afford the Broncos, thats a hell of a lot to ask.

A Darfur Awareness rally at Invesco though? That'd be a good idea and could probably be a way for the Broncos organization to lend a small hand (allowing the rally) without burning bridges that they need to keep the lights on and doors open.

footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 03:39 PM
I'm pretty sure naming rights to a stadium are sold as a leased deal that Bowlen can't back out of without finding some lease violation, which I also doubt Invesco has done.
I'm not an attorney, but I'll point out that the stadium was built with public tax money, and the federal law Bush signed in 2007 authorizes federal legal protection for companies divesting public assets. While the Broncos are not publically owned...is the stadium? If the stadium is owned by the city of Denver, I would bet that Bowlen could at least explore this option based on the protection afforded him. At an absolute minimum...he should take a strong stand that invesco dump their holdings in Petro China. Frankly I could care less if he has legal ground or not...at the end of the day even if he gets sued he ought to drop his association with these guys.
A Darfur Awareness rally at Invesco though? That'd be a good idea and could probably be a way for the Broncos organization to lend a small hand (allowing the rally) without burning bridges that they need to keep the lights on and doors open.
The same attitude kept the US from committing to the divestment action in South Africa for over a decade. The single most important factor in the end of apartheid was pressure on companies doing business there and the divestment of their assets.

Bronco fans should push this issue IMO.

Hercules Rockefeller
01-31-2009, 03:54 PM
The city owns the stadium and as an extension, the naming rights. Call Hick, Pat has nothing to do with this.

footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 03:59 PM
Here it is: http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/DenverBroncos/newindex.htm

"INVESCO Field at Mile High is owned by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District (MFSD). The MFSD is a corporate body and political subdivision of the State of Colorado established pursuant to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District Act, Article 15, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes..."

That's the key; the ownership group is a political subdivision of the state. That means they can legally divest in Invesco. The thornier question of naming rights...that's for lawyers to sort out.

Bowlen is the one who should make the decision...certainly the one who should push for this even if it's not his decision, especially if the Broncos are benefitting from Invesco payments in exchange for those naming rights.

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:24 PM
The same attitude kept the US from committing to the divestment action in South Africa for over a decade. The single most important factor in the end of apartheid was pressure on companies doing business there and the divestment of their assets.

.

And now look at the hell hole that SAfrica has become. They were in danger of potentially losing the 2010 world cup because of the lawlessness and crime ridden conditions coupled with infrastructure issues--I have met 5 Afrikaners in my profession(including one of my college prefessors) who have left SA because of the rise in 'reverse racism' including, but not limited to rape, murder and land grabbing. There is actually genocide against Afrikaners(whites) and East Indians (were sugar cane workers in the 19th century)going on in SAfrica, particularly the countryside, as we speak--but obviously not to the extent of the tragedy in Darfur.

I do appreciate your attention to the conflict in Darfur--I had no idea that Invesco was tied into the conflict. Your post was educational.

http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos45.asp


The crime rate in South Africa is 8 times higher per capita than the USA. South Africa is probably almost as dangerous as Iraq was


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3S71PbichSw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3S71PbichSw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

chaz
01-31-2009, 04:29 PM
how did bowlen make his money?

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:48 PM
Farm murders

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2E9oz4dfLs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2E9oz4dfLs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:51 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YT34ymDKMhQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YT34ymDKMhQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:55 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NKiePbTcAfY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NKiePbTcAfY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 04:57 PM
And now look at the hell hole that SAfrica has become. They were in danger of potentially losing the 2010 world cup because of the lawlessness and crime ridden conditions coupled with infrastructure issues--I have met 5 Afrikaners in my profession(including one of my college prefessors) who have left SA because of the rise in 'reverse racism' including, but not limited to rape, murder and land grabbing. There is actually genocide against Afrikaners(whites) and East Indians (were sugar cane workers in the 19th century)going on in SAfrica, particularly the countryside, as we speak--but obviously not to the extent of the tragedy in Darfur.

I do appreciate your attention to the conflict in Darfur--I had no idea that Invesco was tied into the conflict. Your post was educational.

http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos45.asp


The crime rate in South Africa is 8 times higher per capita than the USA. South Africa is probably almost as dangerous as Iraq was


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3S71PbichSw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3S71PbichSw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
So according to you, the legally sactioned, state sponsored system of apartheid that held blacks in bondage to the vicious regime that ruled previously was justified?

Whatever problems S. Africa has today...it's none-the-less no longer ruled like a modern day Nazi state.

You missed the point however. The point is...divestment works. It has been demonstrated to work in the Sudan already. Companies like Invesco need to be made to pay an economic price for complicity with the actions of the government of the Sudan.

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VUpQvzhubkk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VUpQvzhubkk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 04:58 PM
Another good video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbGGSkWLVBo

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 05:04 PM
So according to you, the legally sactioned, state sponsored system of apartheid that held blacks in bondage to the vicious regime that ruled previously was justified?

Whatever problems S. Africa has today...it's none-the-less no longer ruled like a modern day Nazi state.

You missed the point however. The point is...divestment works. It has been demonstrated to work in the Sudan already. Companies like Invesco need to be made to pay an economic price for complicity with the actions of the government of the Sudan.

If the goal is destabilizing a government, yes I agree-- It does work. I agree with you that there is no rational reason why any US company should have holdings that help support the maniacal/murderous regime in Sudan. However, as in the case of SA, sometimes actions undertaken for noble reasons can result in even more chaos---another example(although the goal was not noble) would be Iraq who was rather surprisingly able to pull off elections without incident today but who is rather lacking in other ways.

footstepsfrom#27
01-31-2009, 05:15 PM
If the goal is destabilizing a government, yes I agree-- It does work. I agree with you that there is no rational reason why any US company should have holdings that help support the maniacal/murderous regime in Sudan. However, as in the case of SA, sometimes actions undertaken for noble reasons can result in even more chaos---another example(although the goal was not noble) would be Iraq who was rather surprisingly able to pull off elections without incident today but who is rather lacking in other ways.
A 2010 referendum on Southern Sudan suceeding from the rest of the country is scheduled. 98% of Southern Sudanese polled favor it. This government NEEDS to be destabilized. The Kartoum government has violated every agreement signed so far...and their president was recently indicted for war crimes by the World Court. Not only are the Sudanese government rulers murdering innocents in their own nation, they are also formenting unrest in Chad and they are a hotbed of terroristic activity including a possible home for Al Qaeda agents. Outside of direct armed intervention...something the US has never undertaken on behalf of any black African nation...divestment is the sole available option.

Back to the point...the Invesco Field managerial board needs to immediately vote on changing the stadium's affiliation with this company if they do not cease business operations in the Sudan. Bronco fans could possibly play a role in making this happen if they would simply let the team know their thoughts on this issue.

Natedogg
01-31-2009, 05:17 PM
That makes me really mad. Very well researched and written post, Footsteps. I believe you are right... Divestment works and should be used in this instance.

I think Hickenloper/Ritter would also be good people to petition. A coordinated online push could work, imo.

broncofan7
01-31-2009, 05:20 PM
Back to the point...the Invesco Field managerial board needs to immediately vote on changing the stadium's affiliation with this company if they do not cease business operations in the Sudan. Bronco fans could possibly play a role in making this happen if they would simply let the team know their thoughts on this issue.


I agree 110%--perhaps you could email Klis or Razier. This was a great find on your behalf. Major props to you.:strong:

TheDave
01-31-2009, 07:38 PM
Don't blame pat... he's a gutless drunk. ;D

yavoon
01-31-2009, 08:13 PM
I'm not an attorney, but I'll point out that the stadium was built with public tax money, and the federal law Bush signed in 2007 authorizes federal legal protection for companies divesting public assets. While the Broncos are not publically owned...is the stadium? If the stadium is owned by the city of Denver, I would bet that Bowlen could at least explore this option based on the protection afforded him. At an absolute minimum...he should take a strong stand that invesco dump their holdings in Petro China. Frankly I could care less if he has legal ground or not...at the end of the day even if he gets sued he ought to drop his association with these guys.

The same attitude kept the US from committing to the divestment action in South Africa for over a decade. The single most important factor in the end of apartheid was pressure on companies doing business there and the divestment of their assets.

Bronco fans should push this issue IMO.

south africas rulers were white and considered themselves largely linked to the west. u could easily just run head into wall, why would saudi arabia or iran not just keep funding sudan? or china for that matter. as long as sudan doesn't care about its links to the west I doubt there is a lack of money to be found. and from what I can tell sudan pretty much thinks the west is satan.

this is funny tho
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3431281,00.html

so thats why its so bad, its the jews.

footstepsfrom#27
02-01-2009, 01:51 AM
south africas rulers were white and considered themselves largely linked to the west. u could easily just run head into wall, why would saudi arabia or iran not just keep funding sudan? or china for that matter. as long as sudan doesn't care about its links to the west I doubt there is a lack of money to be found. and from what I can tell sudan pretty much thinks the west is satan.
Sudan does care about its links to the west. Divestment by US and European firms in 2006 forced them to the negotiations for a truce with the Southern sector of the country. On top of this, it's mostly western nations that are funding them. They include Canada, the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and even Switzerland. Other big players are China, India and Malaysia. The entire Sudanese military budget is well under $1 billion annually and 70% of their revenue comes from oil. Hit their refinery capacity by forcing companies invested there to pay an economic price with sliding stock prices and you damage their ability to fund their military. Aid should also be looked at becuase most of it finds its way into the corrupt government's hands rather than the people it's designed for.

footstepsfrom#27
02-01-2009, 01:56 AM
That makes me really mad. Very well researched and written post, Footsteps. I believe you are right... Divestment works and should be used in this instance.

I think Hickenloper/Ritter would also be good people to petition. A coordinated online push could work, imo.
Divestment by universities is the first step. Over 60 have already signed on. It's astonishing how much money flows into pension plans and other public trust portfolios through universities. 24 of thd 50 states have signed on with the federal law and pressure on legislators is responsible for most of that.

footstepsfrom#27
02-01-2009, 03:10 AM
OK this is cool...the House Bill being described here was signed into law on April 19th, 2007. This BTW...was 8 months before Bush signed the federal legislation. So basically the legal protection for Bowlen and the city of Denver is obviously in place and fully functional since the state is covered by the federal act. Now all that remains is for people to apply pressure on the decision makers at Invesco. According to this: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2002/03/04/focus10.html
The Broncos getr $3 million a year and the city gets $3 million a year out of this deal, with 12 more years left on the contract.

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/1068/60/

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Colorado House approves Sudan - Darfur divestment </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%">http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/images/M_images/printButton.png (http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1068&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=60) </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%">http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=1068&itemid=60) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%" colSpan=2>Written by Staff </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>DENVER – The House today unanimously passed the nation’s toughest and most comprehensive legislation to help end the genocide in Sudan. House Bill 1184, sponsored by House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-Denver), State Representative Andy Kerr (D-Lakewood), and 74 other legislators in both chambers, passed unanimously on a final vote.


“This is the strongest action that any state has ever taken against the Sudanese government,” said Speaker Romanoff. “Other states, even the federal government, are following our lead to consider divestment legislation to end the unspeakable crimes against humanity in Sudan.”

The bill would require Colorado’s pension funds to maintain a list of those companies that either directly or indirectly help the Sudanese government commit genocide. After an expedited engagement period, the pension funds would be required to divest from those companies that do not change their business practices in Sudan and would be prohibited from future investment in offending companies until the atrocities cease.


The historic passage of this legislation took place less than four months after a group of students at the University of Colorado at Boulder visited Speaker Romanoff’s office to express concerns about the atrocities that were occurring in the African state. Since then, the bill has been endorsed by the Public Employees Retirement Association and other organizations statewide.


“This is the toughest stance that Colorado has ever taken against genocide,” said Romanoff. “We are sending the message that we will not give a dime to the murder, rape, and torture of innocent people.”

The bill now heads to the Senate for further consideration. Information on how individuals can divest from offending companies in Sudan can be obtained from the Sudan Divestment Task Force at www.sudandivestment.org.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

elsid13
02-01-2009, 07:32 AM
Don't blame pat... he's a gutless drunk. ;D

That and he is in hiding from the 15 inch aids plusing ding-dong

elsid13
02-01-2009, 07:36 AM
Now on serious note. It is fine line, that the investment companies are straddling. They are in the business to make thier clients monies, and not worry about about social or political ills. If Petro China ensure the biggest return for thier clients are they doing wrong not investing in it. I don't believe it clearly black or white as we want to make it at times.

Rock Chalk
02-01-2009, 07:57 AM
I'm in the middle of research into US and international institutional investment firms that have financial holdings in companies that are participating in the horrific genocide currently going on in Darfur, Sudan. If you're unaware of this conflict...it's the single largest human rights aid operation in the world at the moment. Since 2003 when rebels based in the western Sudan region known as Darfur, attacked Sudanese army units, the government of the Sudan has been funding Arab mercenaries and participating themselves as well...in the wholesale slaughter of somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 Sudanese civilians. Another 2.5 million are homeless and endanger of starvation or attack. These are not mere casualties of war...unintended collaboral damage. It's defined by the UN and every human rights organization in the world as genocide, a systematic attempt to obliterate an entire group of people.

Some of this is almost unspeakable...we're talking about entire villages murdered by axe weiding lunatics...women routinely abducted and gang raped for months before having their skulls crushed with axes, girls as young as 8 being sold as sex slaves throughout the middle east...children and babies burned alive and even crucified. Husbands forced to watch their wives and daughters raped and tortured before their eyes. The conflict is religious and ethnic...Arab Islamic extremists murdering black Africans who are mostly Christian and Animist...and it's all funded by a sovereign state...not by roving bands of thugs. This part of the war in the Sudan is not warfare...it's wholesale, uninhibited slaughter.

The refuge camps in Darfur are home to some of the worst living conditions on earth, a place where UN Peacekeeping troops are unable to protect themselves, let along stop the violence against these helpless people. On December 31, 2007 President Bush signed into federal law the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act. It pulls US investment in the Sudan, authorizes states to divest assets associated with pensions plans, anuities, state run university and other pubic resources, and it affords legal protection for those states and institutions that choose to do so.

There is absolutely ZERO reason for any institutional investor in the US to hold stock in any company doing business in the Sudan outside of humanitarian aid, food or mecial assistance to the people. Most aid that goes to Sudan finds it's way into something else....the country contributes only 3% of it's total GDP to assisting their own people overcome their poverty. That's about 160% below what most 3rd world nations do. In a word...they don't care. The current "targeted divestment" strategy focuses only on those companies doing business in military, oil, mineral extraction and energy production...the main things keeping the Sudanese government able to equip it's military and conduct genocide.

An international divestment initiative has targeted the worst offending companies doing business with the Sudanese government. At the top of their hit list is Chinese Oil giant Petro China, which is not only complicit with the Sudanese regime, but arrogantly refuses to do anything to influence them to stop murdering innocents. Income from oil produces 70% of the funds for the Sudanese military, and is directly responsible for assisting them in the slaughter of civilians in Darfur. Below is a list of major finanical investors who have significant holdings in Petro China.

Major mutual fund companies:
- Barclays - iShares
- Capital Research - American funds
- Fidelity
- Franklin Templeton
- TIAA-CREF
- Vanguard

Other major financial institutions:
- Aberdeen Asset Management
- Credit Suisse
- HSBC
- Invesco
- JP Morgan Chase
- KBC Group
- Sumitomo
- UBS

As you can see...this list includes Invesco...the company that has the naming rights to the Broncos stadium...a stadium built with tax payer money by the people of Denver County. As of August 1, 2007 Invesco held over $185 million in Petro China stock. More current data is probably available but I've not searched for it yet.

I do not think the Broncos have any business continuing the current relationship with Invesco based on this information. Survey's of individual investors have shown that over 70% favor divesting their portfolios from comapnies holding assets that contribute to genocide even if it lowers their rate of return.

One final thing you should know...studies by the Calvert Foundation show that companies holding assets in the most serious offenders on the list of bad guys...financially underperform significantly against their competition...up to 23% over a single year...about 7% over 3 years. In other words...even if you didn't care about this issue...there are obvious BUSINESS advantages for divesting from those companies that are complicit in this horrendous tragedy.

Personally I think Pat Bowlen needs to hear from Bronco fans about this issue. I think he needs to dump the partnership with Invesco immediately. You can also email Invesco here and let them know what you think: http://investorsagainstgenocide.net/invesco

The next time you think about Cutler's INT percentage, our new coaching staff or the NFL draft...remember that something going on with the business side of this team is vastly more important.

Dude, those companies have holdings in Petro China. Petro China is where you need to be directing your rage.

Stupid people, when are yo going to learn to start holding the people RESPONSIBLE for bad thigns accountable? Instead you want to focus on 3rd and 4th parties that have little to no influence on the matter whatsoever. Invesco is a company that focus' on investment and making a profit. They are not responsible for murdering people, for that matter neither is Petro China. The Sudanese government is responsible and if the UN had any sack whatsoever they would ante up and blow that **** down.

Focus on the companies? Get real, companies dont have influence in this sort of thing. Focus on France and Germany and CHina and Britain and even teh US for refusing the handle the situation. Focus on the African Union for being an impotent worthless mess. Focus on the Sudanese themselves for being genocidal maniacs.

The entire premise of this thread is stupid.

kappys
02-01-2009, 08:59 AM
Dude, those companies have holdings in Petro China. Petro China is where you need to be directing your rage.

Stupid people, when are yo going to learn to start holding the people RESPONSIBLE for bad thigns accountable? Instead you want to focus on 3rd and 4th parties that have little to no influence on the matter whatsoever. Invesco is a company that focus' on investment and making a profit. They are not responsible for murdering people, for that matter neither is Petro China. The Sudanese government is responsible and if the UN had any sack whatsoever they would ante up and blow that **** down.

Focus on the companies? Get real, companies dont have influence in this sort of thing. Focus on France and Germany and CHina and Britain and even teh US for refusing the handle the situation. Focus on the African Union for being an impotent worthless mess. Focus on the Sudanese themselves for being genocidal maniacs.

The entire premise of this thread is stupid.

I take it you are proposing an all out invasion then?

Economic leverage does work, and can work very effectively. I support the good work Footsteps is doing and it will have an impact.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Dude, those companies have holdings in Petro China. Petro China is where you need to be directing your rage.

Stupid people, when are yo going to learn to start holding the people RESPONSIBLE for bad thigns accountable? Instead you want to focus on 3rd and 4th parties that have little to no influence on the matter whatsoever.
Little or no influence? You're kidding right? The history of divestment in South Africa proves exactly how much influence large institutional investors do have. In the current scenario, one of the primary repercussions has to do with lines of credit offered to these companies that can be dried up with large scale divestment. Second, as I posted earlier, the state of Colorado has already passed one of the toughest divestment laws in the nation on divesment in the Sudan, and since the group that manages the stadium is considered a subdivision of the state of Colorado, they have a lawful duty to force Invesco to divest from Petro China. This law mirrors federal legislation passed in 2007 that forbids US investment in the Sudan, authorizes state and local governments to divest and offers legal protection for those that do. To say that the billions of foreign investment in this county has "little to no influence" on their behavior is woefully ignorant.
Invesco is a company that focus' on investment and making a profit. They are not responsible for murdering people, for that matter neither is Petro China. The Sudanese government is responsible and if the UN had any sack whatsoever they would ante up and blow that **** down.
Nobody said they were directly responsible for murder, but their financial support is assisting it. 70% of the Sudanese military funding comes from oil revenues, and Petro China is one of the biggest sources of that revenue. A study by the Calvert Foundation indicates that there are no good financial reasons for investing in companies that support genocide. These companies underperform by 23% against their competitors over a year and 7% over three years. It's BAD BUSINESS to be in these stocks, so your argument is null and void that they are in it for making money and so they should stay there.
Focus on the companies? Get real, companies dont have influence in this sort of thing. Focus on France and Germany and CHina and Britain and even teh US for refusing the handle the situation. Focus on the African Union for being an impotent worthless mess. Focus on the Sudanese themselves for being genocidal maniacs.

The entire premise of this thread is stupid.
You have little to no knowledge or understanding of this issue.

Natedogg
02-02-2009, 12:02 PM
You have little to no knowledge or understanding ov this issue.

Rep.

Pontius Pirate
02-02-2009, 02:46 PM
1) Darfur is bad. Very bad. With that said...

2) Your argument is not that strong. I.e. you claim that "there is no reason for any institutional investor in the U.S. to hold stock in any company doing business in Sudan." In other words, a company shouldn't do business with people who do business with bad people. That smacks of weak-sauce. China is not an embargoed country, last time I checked.

Take it a step further: what are you trying to accomplish? Put enough pressure on Sinopec so that they find working in Sudan undesirable (or unprofitable), thereby scaling back their investment there. Which then leads to a cash vacuum in an already impoversished state. Then you have a weakened govt. which then leads to more unrest whereby the oppressed take up arms and slaughter their oppressors (i.e. normal African daily life). If anything, the pressure will embolden China and they'll just increase their investment wherever the U.S. is telling them it's "morally repugnant" to invest (haha - the U.S. telling another country what is immoral...what a knee-slapper).

Our best path forward with Sudan is to keep them on the embargoed country list and let other countries (China) learn tough lessons without us imposing our political, economic, or military will on them to act as we see fit. Let the Chinese people rise up against Sinopec. The American people have enough things to rise up against right here at home.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 02:56 PM
Yawn.

lostknight
02-02-2009, 03:55 PM
First of all, I am glad you care about Darfur. It's a big deal. I have been watching it - on the periphery - for a while.

But your logic is needlessly inflammatory. We should be going after China and after Sudan. This isn't Africa, a nation so starved for real investment and growth that they had no other choice (and that's a insanely liberal reading of what happened there). This is China, which has a huge population and economy and uses it to bludgeon nations across the world. If you want a response, get a trade embargo against Chinese goods. That would have a effect.

I salute your concern, if not your methods here.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 04:13 PM
1) Darfur is bad. Very bad. With that said...

2) Your argument is not that strong. I.e. you claim that "there is no reason for any institutional investor in the U.S. to hold stock in any company doing business in Sudan." In other words, a company shouldn't do business with people who do business with bad people. That smacks of weak-sauce. China is not an embargoed country, last time I checked.
Your glib response indicates you're not really understanding the true magnitude of what is going on here. This isn't just "bad people", as you put it. The Sudan government is conducting wholesale genocide, the systematic extermination of an entire race of people. Americans have fought wars against other countries for doing less. Sudan's President has been indicted by the World Court as a war criminal. It's official US policy now that our government will not conduct business with the Sudan. That policy has been extended to state governments and half of them have now signed on as well. Colorado law now requires that state pension funds divest from companies doing business in the Sudan. Historical precedent exists for divestment in the worst human rights abusers. There is nothing weak about any of this. It is in fact...the only tool available short of military intervention.
Take it a step further: what are you trying to accomplish? Put enough pressure on Sinopec so that they find working in Sudan undesirable (or unprofitable), thereby scaling back their investment there. Which then leads to a cash vacuum in an already impoversished state.
Wrong. Oil revenue from Sinopec and Petro China provide Sudan with the funds for their military, and almost nothing else. Sudan spends only 3% of it's GDP on aleviating poverty. Those revenues do not reach the people in any way, but the do contribute mightily to funding the Sudan regime's murderous campaign agaisnst it's own people.
Then you have a weakened govt. which then leads to more unrest whereby the oppressed take up arms and slaughter their oppressors (i.e. normal African daily life). If anything, the pressure will embolden China and they'll just increase their investment wherever the U.S. is telling them it's "morally repugnant" to invest (haha - the U.S. telling another country what is immoral...what a knee-slapper).
This has nothing to do with starting a civil war. Sudan is currently ALREADY involved in a civil war with the official Kartoum government in the north fighting a provincal government in the south. Divestment in the Kartoum economy only pressures the leadership to cease the conflict in Darfur.
Our best path forward with Sudan is to keep them on the embargoed country list and let other countries (China) learn tough lessons without us imposing our political, economic, or military will on them to act as we see fit. Let the Chinese people rise up against Sinopec. The American people have enough things to rise up against right here at home.
This is a national and international movement, which means it's not just an American effort. Eliminating Sinopec and Petro China from your 401K is hardly what I'd call "rising up" as you put it. If you are really comfortable knowing that your retirement investment is going to propogate this horrendous tragedy, there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 04:21 PM
First of all, I am glad you care about Darfur. It's a big deal. I have been watching it - on the periphery - for a while.

But your logic is needlessly inflammatory. We should be going after China and after Sudan. This isn't Africa, a nation so starved for real investment and growth that they had no other choice (and that's a insanely liberal reading of what happened there). This is China, which has a huge population and economy and uses it to bludgeon nations across the world. If you want a response, get a trade embargo against Chinese goods. That would have a effect.

I salute your concern, if not your methods here.
I'm not sure how to read your post...some of it made no sense. What "liberal" has to do with this is a head scratcher. This is about a defenseless people being systematically exterminated...this is not political but moral in nature. Embargoing Chinese goods is both impractical as well as being over-kill, and since only those companies doing business in strategic sectors of the Sudan economy (military, energy production, oil and mineral extraction) are being selected as the focus for divestment, that strategy does not target Chinese companies that have nothing to do with this.

Divestment has proven to be a successful strategy in the past. It's hard to understand why anyone would have a problem with it when it's been proven to work.

Pontius Pirate
02-02-2009, 04:26 PM
First of all, I am glad you care about Darfur. It's a big deal. I have been watching it - on the periphery - for a while.

But your logic is needlessly inflammatory. We should be going after China and after Sudan. This isn't Africa, a nation so starved for real investment and growth that they had no other choice (and that's a insanely liberal reading of what happened there). This is China, which has a huge population and economy and uses it to bludgeon nations across the world. If you want a response, get a trade embargo against Chinese goods. That would have a effect.

I salute your concern, if not your methods here.


Agreed....sorta

1) Sudan = Africa
2) Instituting a wholesale trade embargo against China would be catastrophic to the world economy

Pontius Pirate
02-02-2009, 04:40 PM
Your glib response indicates you're not really understanding the true magnitude of what is going on here.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cc_wjp262RY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cc_wjp262RY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 04:53 PM
Footsteps would be lost without something to rant and rave about.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 06:10 PM
Footsteps would be lost without something to rant and rave about.
So what are you saying...that you don't really care about this issue?

Pontius Pirate
02-02-2009, 06:53 PM
So what are you saying...that you don't really care about this issue?

Just a guess, but I think you turn people off to this issue with your pompous, elitist, condescending approach. You think that just because people here aren't falling all over themselves to line up with your cause, that somehow they are uncaring jerks. Maybe it's your approach dude. Maybe you should put the banner down and let someone else rally the troops.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 06:54 PM
So what are you saying...that you don't really care about this issue?

Not too much.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 07:31 PM
Not too much.
I'm glad to hear you say so.

Most people would at least pretend that the state sponsored mass murder of innocents, thousands of women raped and mutilated, forced slavery, and people being tortured to death has at least some impact on them. It's rare to hear someone admit how cold hearted and unfeeling they really are.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 07:33 PM
I'm glad to hear you say so.

Most people would at least pretend that the state sponsored mass murder of innocents, thousands of women raped and mutilated, forced slavery, and people being tortured to death has at least some impact on them. It's rare to hear someone admit how cold hearted and unfeeling they really are.

I only have so much heart and feeling to go around. Sudan is S.O.L on this one.

Pontius Pirate
02-02-2009, 08:20 PM
I'm glad to hear you say so.

Most people would at least pretend that the state sponsored mass murder of innocents, thousands of women raped and mutilated, forced slavery, and people being tortured to death has at least some impact on them. It's rare to hear someone admit how cold hearted and unfeeling they really are.

In summary, invest in Sinopec stock now. In looking at their quarterly YoY revenue growth, and their 10 year return, they are outperforming the rest of the industry. Thank you for turning me on to them, mr. footsteps!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=SNP

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SNP&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

You make a weak moral argument, and an even weaker financial one! Go broncos!

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 08:24 PM
I only have so much heart and feeling to go around. Sudan is S.O.L on this one.
What a load of bull****.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 08:26 PM
What a load of bull****.

Feel free to appeal to my Department of Bleeding Hearts, but I'm pretty sure my Court of I don't Give a Damn will uphold my previous ruling.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 08:30 PM
In summary, invest in Sinopec stock now. In looking at their quarterly YoY revenue growth, and their 10 year return, they are outperforming the rest of the industry. Thank you for turning me on to them, mr. footsteps!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=SNP

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SNP&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

You make a weak moral argument, and an even weaker financial one! Go broncos!
That weak moral argument is responsible for toppling the insane Apartheid regime in S. Africa and sucking $70 billion out of the Iranian economy. I suppose you have an explanation as to why the murder of 400,000 people is something you consider a "weak moral argument"...can't wait to hear it.

You should know that the Sudan is also on the State Department's terrorism watch list, for sponsoring among others...Al Qaeda. That's right...they're interested in killing Americans with their oil revenues.

But don't let that bother you none.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 08:35 PM
Feel free to appeal to my Department of Bleeding Hearts, but I'm pretty sure my Court of I don't Give a Damn will uphold my previous ruling.
There are some people on this board I find annoying...others I find irritating or just stupid.

You I just find repugnant.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 08:44 PM
There are some people on this board I find annoying...others I find irritating or just stupid.

You I just find repugnant.

I'm sorry about that Footsteps. Would it make you feel better if I went on a passionate crusade of promoting this cause across internet forums that have nothing to do with the matter?

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm sorry about that Footsteps. Would it make you feel better if I went on a passionate crusade of promoting this cause across internet forums that have nothing to do with the matter?
No, I'll be satisfied to simply never meet you in person.

Florida_Bronco
02-02-2009, 09:30 PM
No, I'll be satisfied to simply never meet you in person.

Well that's good. I'd hate to think that I'd have to go on a crusade just to gain your approval, since God knows it would accomplish nothing else.

Rock Chalk
02-02-2009, 09:35 PM
Little or no influence? You're kidding right? The history of divestment in South Africa proves exactly how much influence large institutional investors do have. In the current scenario, one of the primary repercussions has to do with lines of credit offered to these companies that can be dried up with large scale divestment. Second, as I posted earlier, the state of Colorado has already passed one of the toughest divestment laws in the nation on divesment in the Sudan, and since the group that manages the stadium is considered a subdivision of the state of Colorado, they have a lawful duty to force Invesco to divest from Petro China. This law mirrors federal legislation passed in 2007 that forbids US investment in the Sudan, authorizes state and local governments to divest and offers legal protection for those that do. To say that the billions of foreign investment in this county has "little to no influence" on their behavior is woefully ignorant.

Nobody said they were directly responsible for murder, but their financial support is assisting it. 70% of the Sudanese military funding comes from oil revenues, and Petro China is one of the biggest sources of that revenue. A study by the Calvert Foundation indicates that there are no good financial reasons for investing in companies that support genocide. These companies underperform by 23% against their competitors over a year and 7% over three years. It's BAD BUSINESS to be in these stocks, so your argument is null and void that they are in it for making money and so they should stay there.

You have little to no knowledge or understanding of this issue.
I understand the issue quite well. What you dont understand is that it doesnt matter if American or European countries invest in Petro China. You know why? Because Petro China will be propped up by the Chinese government if they dont get outside investment. You dont understand China or Chinese business at all and your entire premise is flat and stupid.

Darfur is bad business. China is bad business (at least the government). American companies no matter who they are have NO impact in the situation in Darfur. If they aren't making money, that's American business for you. Especially Invesco which is ****ty all around. Boycott them for being ****ty, but they dont support Genocide you dumb ****. Petro China might, and Im pretty Certain China itself doesnt care as its just out to exert influence and bully others. They are trying to become a new US but in Africa, not the ME.

What influence do you think any American company is going to have schmuck? Huh? You are the one that has no ****ing clue as to whats going on.

Sudan's government has done horrible things. They are to blame. Petro China has supported them, they are to blame. If American companies do business and dont make money, well they are ****ing stupid but they are NOT in ANY ****ING way responsible for the actions of the god damN Sudanese Government you dumb son of a bitch.

Rock Chalk
02-02-2009, 09:37 PM
No, I'll be satisfied to simply never meet you in person.

Thats because you are a pussy. Scared to voice your opinion face to face.

footstepsfrom#27
02-02-2009, 10:54 PM
I understand the issue quite well. What you dont understand is that it doesnt matter if American or European countries invest in Petro China. You know why? Because Petro China will be propped up by the Chinese government if they dont get outside investment. You dont understand China or Chinese business at all and your entire premise is flat and stupid.
Tell that to Warren Buffet. On May 6, 2007 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders voted 53-1 against divesting from PetroChina. Buffet himself came out and stated his opposition to it despite the genocide in Darfur. Five months later...in October 2007, Buffet had divested his entire $3.3 billion in PetroChina stock due to pressure from human rights groups AND ordinary caring Americans who didn't think they should be funding murder and rape with their money...and PetroChina isn't "propped up" by the Chinese government...they are owned outright by them...nearly 90% anyway. But that is not the point. The point is this; divestment is proven to impact the actions of this regime as well as others. So no...you don't understand.
Darfur is bad business. China is bad business (at least the government). American companies no matter who they are have NO impact in the situation in Darfur.
American companies are prohibited by law from entering into business contracts with the government of Sudan. That law does not prohibit investment in companies that do business there. I just showed you an example of a major US corporation with sizeable holdings in oil. Oil funds 70% of the Sudanese military budget, so yes...they do have an impact. On top of that...there is another issue here; one that a large majority of American investors have already stated, that they are opposed to investing their money in countries that sponsor genocide or terrorism and when made aware of this most opt to change their investment holdings. These shareholders may individually be small, but collectively they represent the majority of stock holders in US companies.

Given that US Federal law prohibits government contracts with the Sudan, and given that Colorado law has already prohibited public pension funds from investing in the Sudan or companies that do business there, AND given that the stadium was built with largely public tax payers money...fans have every right to call for Invesco to divest their $185 million that is helping fund genocide in Sudan.
What influence do you think any American company is going to have schmuck? Huh? You are the one that has no ****ing clue as to whats going on.
A major one. US companies investment lines of credit to foreign corporations account for over $180 billion to nations that are on the State Departments terrorism watch list like N. Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria. In addition to that US charitable foundations funded with 95% tax free indemnity at US taxpayer expense set up through major US companies funnel billions more in aid to places like Sudan. US and international aid to the Sudan barely touches the lives of people there. Most of it's swallowed up by the corrupt regime in Kartoum which uses it to deflect responsibility for their own people. In the past three months I've met with two African ambassadors, one from Uganda and the other from Sierra Leon...and both take this exact position on aid. So basically it's you that has no clue. This is probably the first time you've ever even heard of this, let alone spent a single hour investigating it.
Sudan's government has done horrible things. They are to blame. Petro China has supported them, they are to blame. If American companies do business and dont make money, well they are ****ing stupid but they are NOT in ANY ****ING way responsible for the actions of the god damN Sudanese Government you dumb son of a b****.
Doing business with the devil makes one party to his deeds. Obviously you can't support a coherent argument so you feel it necessary to resort to childish name calling.

Los Broncos
02-02-2009, 11:00 PM
That story is horrific, unreal.

Gort
02-03-2009, 01:59 AM
Given that US Federal law prohibits government contracts with the Sudan, and given that Colorado law has already prohibited public pension funds from investing in the Sudan or companies that do business there, AND given that the stadium was built with largely public tax payers money...fans have every right to call for Invesco to divest their $185 million that is helping fund genocide in Sudan.

you do understand that Invesco doesn't OWN Invesco field, right? they PAID somebody (Bowlen? the state of Colorado?) to have naming rights. how do you divest that? are you proposing giving them their money back? that would surely punish them, huh? or do you want to keep their money and take their name off the stadium. i'm pretty sure that would bring a lawsuit that the stadium owners cannot win and would net considerable damages (more profit for Invesco!). i guess i don't understand the exact point of your outrage. if you don't want anyone to work for, invest in, or do business with Invesco, that's one thing. or are you so emboldened under the "new messiah's" administration that you are advocating somebody (federal government?) start punishing private companies that you don't like or agree with on some issue? like confiscating their property or arresting their officers. because if its the latter, the day that happens is the day we descend into civil war over the future of this country, respect for the constitution, and the proper role of government in our lives.

extralife
02-03-2009, 03:02 AM
Sudan's government has done horrible things. They are to blame. Petro China has supported them, they are to blame.

If Petro China is to blame through proxy of the Sudanese governement, then how, exactly, are US corporations not to blame through proxy of Petro China? Is this paper trail cut off at a certain arbitrary level? Is that level when you deem it convenient? Like, say, when it reaches something American that might possibly have influence on you?

cutthemdown
02-03-2009, 03:30 AM
Why would people say they don't care? Even if you know you are helpless to really do anything about, don't have time to worry about it, don't think about it etc you should at least be able to say man that sucks someone should help those people.

Make me a list of products to not buy, talk about it on TV, maybe some leaders in my country could let me know what they think we should do? It seems I don't hear much about Darfur from white or black leaders in this country. To reach people you have to talk about it a lot not just mention it's bad if a reporter asks you.

If I was president I would find out where the money goes. Find those people and bomb there homes. The UN if it had balls would slap an embargo on the oil sales so no money could be made. It just proves the UN helps no one because govts are evil, big ones like China, Russia, and even the USA just have other interests when money is involved.

How about Obama tells the country what he thinks should happen in Darfur. Bush didn't have the balls to do anything but send medicine, Clinton let a ton in Rwanda get slaughtered. Not because they probably wouldn't like to help, but because they were scared. I would be to. It's one thing to send troops to dodge roadside bombs in Iraq, Africa would be a whole new nightmare for our troops.

IMO though some things are worth it. Sure I know easy for me to say I'm not in the military. How about some people who are chiming in? How would they feel about a mission in Africa to stop genocide. Worth dying for or not?

cutthemdown
02-03-2009, 03:31 AM
Probably what happens is someone makes a really cool movie about it in a yr or so and we all watch and say wow someone should have helped those poor bastards.

cutthemdown
02-03-2009, 03:34 AM
If Petro China is to blame through proxy of the Sudanese governement, then how, exactly, are US corporations not to blame through proxy of Petro China? Is this paper trail cut off at a certain arbitrary level? Is that level when you deem it convenient? Like, say, when it reaches something American that might possibly have influence on you?

I'd say the further away you get the less culpability you have. Corporations aren't people and decisions made at different levels out of the hands of some executives. As consumers we are mostly ignorant on exactly who owns what when we buy things. It says made in China as an example but we don't know anything about the factory, the import company, the shipping company, the dude that recruits little kids and chains them to a machine all day etc.

It's up to our leaders and media to educate us.

Florida_Bronco
02-03-2009, 05:33 AM
Probably what happens is someone makes a really cool movie about it in a yr or so and we all watch and say wow someone should have helped those poor bastards.

Meh, it'll be like Blood Diamond. It'll come out and make a big splash and then in a few months no one will care about that cause anymore. In fact, I think Jennifer Connelly had a few lines talking about just that, but I was too focused on imagining her naked.

Pontius Pirate
02-03-2009, 07:09 AM
http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl0/0/0/02_2008/Picture%2050_2.larger.jpg

broncofan7
02-03-2009, 07:15 AM
so who is helping the white farmers in South Africa? ;)

Pontius Pirate
02-03-2009, 08:52 AM
Here are my prioritized list of concerns and how Darfur stacks up:

1) My family
2) The economy
3) My job
4) My health
5) My finances
6) My g/f
...
...
32) Defeating the Locust in Gears of War 2 (talk about some bad guys!)
...
...
75) My fantasy football team
...
...
107) The world's opinion of me
...
...
294) The world's opinion of America
...
...
723) My moustache
724) Darfur
725) My farts

So, you can't claim that I don't care: clearly Darfur is right up there with some of my other main concerns