For those of us who love real hip hop and not todays watered downed, dumbed downed, commercialized madness being passed off as hip hop, then take a look below. Peep the video Weapon X from their Return From Mecca album which doppred last year. I've been an X Clan fan since the early 1990s. What happened to that Pro Black militant and radical hip hop. Back in the day, they played Paris, X Clan, Public Enemy, Ice-T, Poor Righteous Teachers, and KRS-ONE on the radio. After listening to all that commercial rap garbage currently being played on the radio today, it's almost hard to believe that their music use to get played on the radio.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Khmer Rouge torture chief weeps at "Killing Fields"
By Ek Madra
Tue Feb 26, 1:25 PM ET
The chief torturer under the Khmer Rouge "Killing Fields" regime wept and prayed on Tuesday as he led the judges who will try him for crimes against humanity around the mass graves for some of its victims.
Duch, also known as Kaing Guek Eav, accompanied 80 judges, lawyers and other officials of a U.N.-backed tribunal to the 129 graves, uncovered after a Vietnamese invasion sent the Khmer Rouge back to the jungles in 1979.
"I saw Duch kneel in front of the trees where Khmer Rouge soldiers smashed children to death," a policeman told reporters after the four-hour tour.
"He cried and apologized to the victims" in the former rice fields outside Phnom Penh, he said.
Stacks of excavated skulls mark the area.
Some of the victims were from the regime's S-21 prison at the former Tuol Sleng high school in Phnom Penh run by Duch, now 66.
About 14,000 people -- including a few foreigners accused of being CIA spies -- went into the jail to be tortured into confessing to working against a regime deemed responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million people.
Only a handful emerged alive.
"Duch expressed his sadness and shed tears two to three times," tribunal spokesman Reach Sambath said. "He held his palms together to pay respect to the victims in front of the shrine of skulls."
Duch, the first senior Khmer Rouge official to be detained, was to lead court officials on a tour of Tuol Sleng on Wednesday.
"This is just one more piece in building a case file. It can be very useful in court to have a visual representation of the site in question," Australian court official Helen Jarvis said.
Tuol Sleng is now a shrine to those killed by the Khmer Rouge, who also eradicated potential opponents of their back to "Year Zero" revolution to produce an agrarian utopia through overwork, starvation and disease.
Detained in 1999 and now a Christian, Duch is expected to be a key witness in the trials of "Brother Number Two" Nuon Chea, Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot's right hand man, Khieu Samphan, president under the regime, Ieng Sary, its foreign minister, and his wife.
"He could not have committed those crimes alone," Duch lawyer Kar Savuth said. "He took orders from the top leaders."
Many Cambodians want to hear what Duch will have to say in trials expected to start in July. The defendants face a maximum of life in prison.
"I still do not understand why Duch jailed me, killed my wife and our baby," said Chum Manh, 78, one of the few survivors of Tuol Sleng.
Nuon Chea is accused of playing a central role in atrocities by the Khmer Rouge during their 1975-1979 rule, which they began by driving everyone out of the cities with whatever they could carry.
He was arrested last year along with Ieng Sary and his wife, lifelong friends of Pol Pot.
Pol Pot died in 1998 in the final Khmer Rouge redoubt of Anlong Veng.
(Editing by Michael Battye and Sonya Hepinstall)
Note: Maybe one day we'll be seeing officials in the Bush idiocracy brought before a tribunal and tried for war crimes. This government is no different than that of Pinochet's or the Khmer Rouge or Nazi Germany. History is repeating itself and now that cycle is taking place in America.
Tue Feb 26, 1:25 PM ET
The chief torturer under the Khmer Rouge "Killing Fields" regime wept and prayed on Tuesday as he led the judges who will try him for crimes against humanity around the mass graves for some of its victims.
Duch, also known as Kaing Guek Eav, accompanied 80 judges, lawyers and other officials of a U.N.-backed tribunal to the 129 graves, uncovered after a Vietnamese invasion sent the Khmer Rouge back to the jungles in 1979.
"I saw Duch kneel in front of the trees where Khmer Rouge soldiers smashed children to death," a policeman told reporters after the four-hour tour.
"He cried and apologized to the victims" in the former rice fields outside Phnom Penh, he said.
Stacks of excavated skulls mark the area.
Some of the victims were from the regime's S-21 prison at the former Tuol Sleng high school in Phnom Penh run by Duch, now 66.
About 14,000 people -- including a few foreigners accused of being CIA spies -- went into the jail to be tortured into confessing to working against a regime deemed responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million people.
Only a handful emerged alive.
"Duch expressed his sadness and shed tears two to three times," tribunal spokesman Reach Sambath said. "He held his palms together to pay respect to the victims in front of the shrine of skulls."
Duch, the first senior Khmer Rouge official to be detained, was to lead court officials on a tour of Tuol Sleng on Wednesday.
"This is just one more piece in building a case file. It can be very useful in court to have a visual representation of the site in question," Australian court official Helen Jarvis said.
Tuol Sleng is now a shrine to those killed by the Khmer Rouge, who also eradicated potential opponents of their back to "Year Zero" revolution to produce an agrarian utopia through overwork, starvation and disease.
Detained in 1999 and now a Christian, Duch is expected to be a key witness in the trials of "Brother Number Two" Nuon Chea, Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot's right hand man, Khieu Samphan, president under the regime, Ieng Sary, its foreign minister, and his wife.
"He could not have committed those crimes alone," Duch lawyer Kar Savuth said. "He took orders from the top leaders."
Many Cambodians want to hear what Duch will have to say in trials expected to start in July. The defendants face a maximum of life in prison.
"I still do not understand why Duch jailed me, killed my wife and our baby," said Chum Manh, 78, one of the few survivors of Tuol Sleng.
Nuon Chea is accused of playing a central role in atrocities by the Khmer Rouge during their 1975-1979 rule, which they began by driving everyone out of the cities with whatever they could carry.
He was arrested last year along with Ieng Sary and his wife, lifelong friends of Pol Pot.
Pol Pot died in 1998 in the final Khmer Rouge redoubt of Anlong Veng.
(Editing by Michael Battye and Sonya Hepinstall)
Note: Maybe one day we'll be seeing officials in the Bush idiocracy brought before a tribunal and tried for war crimes. This government is no different than that of Pinochet's or the Khmer Rouge or Nazi Germany. History is repeating itself and now that cycle is taking place in America.
African Glory Video Clip
For those of us interested in the struggle and liberation of Black people, please go to www.africanglory.com to buy books and videos. It's well worth it.
The Tragedy of Iraq, Afghanistan
To be honest, none of the presidential candidates are going to do anything to change Iraq and withdraw troops. We all know that John McCain will keep American troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years. Of course, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton offered plans of withdrawing troops from Iraq soon after taking office, but they're very vague about the details.
This war, started on the basis of lies, has cost the lives of more than one million Iraqi citizens, the deposing and murder of its president in a fixed trial (controlled by the U.S. government), and the deaths of well over 4,000 U.S. troops. Journalists have been killed, Bush even made sure the al Jazeera building was bombed. Violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions have been and still is committed by U.S. forces and personnel with impunity.
I hope the people of the world are learning what real American morals, values and principles really are. War, torture, dehumanization, debauchery, rape, policies that crush and grind the poor peoples of the world is true American values. It's all about corporate capital and damn the expense in human lives. Damn the men, women and children who are killed by paramilitary death squads, trained and equipped by the United States.
In addition, we don't hear a whisper about Afghanistan at all. We hear no more reports about U.S. troops being killed and every now and then, we may hear about Iraqis and Afghans being killed by a car bomb or deadly shootout. In other rare instances, we may hear a report of U.S. planes "accidentally" bombing Iraqi and Afghan citizens.
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad warned us many years ago that the white man is the devil by nature. Democracy, is simply the rule of the devil. The United States government tells the American people that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because he was a bad guy, after that lie about weapons of mass destruction did not pan out. Going into war, the Bush Idiocracy knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction there in the first place. These people came up with the al Qaida/Saddam connection to September 11, which the corporate media fed to the American public. We know that al Qaida is not even a real organization that is controlled by Osama bin Laden, it was made up by the Bush and his neocon war hawks.
The events of 9/11 was an inside job. No other nations took part or had their hand in it. This is all about wars for empire. You cannot fathom the depth of Satan. These people are wicked. You think they won't knock down their own buildings, with people inside them and place blame on a foreign country in justify attacking them? These are the same people that fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin lie as a means to bomb North Vietnam. Even before the Iraq invasion, which was an act of aggression, Bush and his cabal wanted to paint a U.S. spy plane in United Nations colors in an effort to provoke Saddam Hussein to fire upon it. Thereby, the U.S. would have their excuse for war via "material breach" by Saddam.
This is the same moron of a president who says that God tells him what nations to attack and he does it. Like that idiot really worships and pray. Please!
So two nations have been devastated by war and bloodshed and death on the basis of lies. This time, the wars are being brought to them by the good ol' U.S. of A. The white man has no regard for the rule of law nor do they respect the sovereignty of other nations where the people want to control their own resources and destiny. If these governments don't cater to America's corporate interests, their leaders are murdered or removed from power via coup d' etats. It happened in Chile, Guatamala, El Salvador, Iran, Peru, Paraguay, Haiti and even Jamaica.
The war on terror is bogus. And if there needs to be a war on terror, then the U.S. needs to start war with herself. It's no secret that the United States has a history of training, funding and equipping terrorists. Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines was bad, Suharto of Indonesia, Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti, and Castillo Armas of Guatamala were all cool with the U.S. Pervez Musharaff of Pakistan is another. The so-called beacon of democracy will remove a democratically elected leader and put in his/her place a brutal dictator.
Human rights violations from torture to imprisonment was all supported by the U.S. The current military junta in Burma is alright with the U.S. As long as corporations have access to the natural resources of other lands, it don't matter who the leader of any country is and how brutal they are towards their own populations. This is reality. America has a history of doing this and you can look to Afghanistan and Iraq as a reference.
Bush said in his state of the union address, back in 2006 I believe, that "freedom is on the march. . ." It's fascism that is on the march. What we're seeing is the Third Reich all over again. This time the imperial power is the United States. Hitler would be very proud.
Until next time, this is Aquil Aziz.
This war, started on the basis of lies, has cost the lives of more than one million Iraqi citizens, the deposing and murder of its president in a fixed trial (controlled by the U.S. government), and the deaths of well over 4,000 U.S. troops. Journalists have been killed, Bush even made sure the al Jazeera building was bombed. Violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions have been and still is committed by U.S. forces and personnel with impunity.
I hope the people of the world are learning what real American morals, values and principles really are. War, torture, dehumanization, debauchery, rape, policies that crush and grind the poor peoples of the world is true American values. It's all about corporate capital and damn the expense in human lives. Damn the men, women and children who are killed by paramilitary death squads, trained and equipped by the United States.
In addition, we don't hear a whisper about Afghanistan at all. We hear no more reports about U.S. troops being killed and every now and then, we may hear about Iraqis and Afghans being killed by a car bomb or deadly shootout. In other rare instances, we may hear a report of U.S. planes "accidentally" bombing Iraqi and Afghan citizens.
The Honorable Elijah Muhammad warned us many years ago that the white man is the devil by nature. Democracy, is simply the rule of the devil. The United States government tells the American people that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because he was a bad guy, after that lie about weapons of mass destruction did not pan out. Going into war, the Bush Idiocracy knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction there in the first place. These people came up with the al Qaida/Saddam connection to September 11, which the corporate media fed to the American public. We know that al Qaida is not even a real organization that is controlled by Osama bin Laden, it was made up by the Bush and his neocon war hawks.
The events of 9/11 was an inside job. No other nations took part or had their hand in it. This is all about wars for empire. You cannot fathom the depth of Satan. These people are wicked. You think they won't knock down their own buildings, with people inside them and place blame on a foreign country in justify attacking them? These are the same people that fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin lie as a means to bomb North Vietnam. Even before the Iraq invasion, which was an act of aggression, Bush and his cabal wanted to paint a U.S. spy plane in United Nations colors in an effort to provoke Saddam Hussein to fire upon it. Thereby, the U.S. would have their excuse for war via "material breach" by Saddam.
This is the same moron of a president who says that God tells him what nations to attack and he does it. Like that idiot really worships and pray. Please!
So two nations have been devastated by war and bloodshed and death on the basis of lies. This time, the wars are being brought to them by the good ol' U.S. of A. The white man has no regard for the rule of law nor do they respect the sovereignty of other nations where the people want to control their own resources and destiny. If these governments don't cater to America's corporate interests, their leaders are murdered or removed from power via coup d' etats. It happened in Chile, Guatamala, El Salvador, Iran, Peru, Paraguay, Haiti and even Jamaica.
The war on terror is bogus. And if there needs to be a war on terror, then the U.S. needs to start war with herself. It's no secret that the United States has a history of training, funding and equipping terrorists. Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines was bad, Suharto of Indonesia, Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti, and Castillo Armas of Guatamala were all cool with the U.S. Pervez Musharaff of Pakistan is another. The so-called beacon of democracy will remove a democratically elected leader and put in his/her place a brutal dictator.
Human rights violations from torture to imprisonment was all supported by the U.S. The current military junta in Burma is alright with the U.S. As long as corporations have access to the natural resources of other lands, it don't matter who the leader of any country is and how brutal they are towards their own populations. This is reality. America has a history of doing this and you can look to Afghanistan and Iraq as a reference.
Bush said in his state of the union address, back in 2006 I believe, that "freedom is on the march. . ." It's fascism that is on the march. What we're seeing is the Third Reich all over again. This time the imperial power is the United States. Hitler would be very proud.
Until next time, this is Aquil Aziz.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Man Face Life Sentence for Stealing $0.50 Pack of Donuts
The man in the video clip below faces a possible life sentence in prison for stealing a $0.50 pack of donuts, which he thought were paid for. Sometimes I wonder, would the group, F.A.C.T.S. help if the accused were a Black man? As many of us know, California has that controversial Three Strikes Law, which many thought would only be applied towards violent felonies. California, the prison capital of the world has a budget gap of over $46 billion to fill. Now it costs over $90,000 per year to maintain one prisoner in the prison system, but costs less than $2,000 per year to educate one person and less than $1,300 per year per person for crime prevention programs. What makes more sense? You do the math.
Electronic Elections: Vote Fraud for the 21st Century
Think there will be free and fair elections for the 2008 Presidential campaign? You better think again. Click play and see for yourself. Democracy is finished!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
This Day in History
Today is the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X. He was murdered, not by members of the Nation of Islam, but by the FBI with the help of the NYPD. I've always thrown this question to those who are naive enough to believe that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad ordered the killing of Malcolm X: If he did orchestrate the murder of Malcolm X, why didn't the authorities charge the Honorable Elijah Muhammad with conspiracy? When a crime like this is committed, don't the authorities charge the conspirator, the mastermind of the crime?
However, two innocent men were charged and spent over two decades in prison for Malcolm's murder. Were there members of the Nation of Islam that wanted Malcolm dead? Sure there were, but the Honorable Elijah Muhammad told all members to leave Malcolm alone. When Malcolm was poisoned in Cairo, Egypt and he had to get his stomach pumped, he knew that it was not members of the Nation of Islam out to get him.
Review of the the COINTELPRO documents show that the Gay Edgar Hoover had FBI agents infiltrate every black organization to disrupt, discredit and prevent the rise of a Black messiah. The FBI had resorted to techniques like character assassination, frame-ups, planting agents/provocateurs in various groups to spread rumors that would cause divisions among members in the ranks. This tactic of COINTELPRO not only destroyed groups and organizations, but families and bonds of friendship as well. This was a very calculated program.
With this history well known to us today, why in hell would we want to demand justice from the same people who not only created this system, but continues the status quo to this very day? Let's remember Malcolm X for his greatness and fiery leadership? Malcolm X was a true fighter in the struggle of Black America.
It is imperative that we study the history of how this Caucasian devil created an atmosphere of anger and bitterness, which lead to the assassination of Malcolm X. Although disagreements came in between Malcolm X and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, that atmosphere of tension was exploited by the government and that unfortunately, lead to the enemy murdering Malcolm. How many times have the FBI sent in agents/provocateurs to join an organization set up crimes to be committed under the banner of the that organization and frame innocent people in the process? That is nothing new. To this very day, we have political prisoners sitting in prisons throughout the hells of North America because of FBI frame-ups or calumnies committed by the state.
Another thing that we must understand is that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad instructed all members of the Nation of Islam not carry weapons or keep them in our homes. Think back to what happened to the Black Panthers and the night murder raids the police would commit in the name of weapons being on the premises. Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were murdered in Chicago. Similar attacks were done by police in Seattle and Oakland. Of course, in the case of Fred Hampton, he was drugged by an FBI/police informant. The Messenger has always told members of the Nation of Islam not to carry any weapons and that Allah will protect us.
I stongly disagree with those who say Malcolm X was murdered by the Nation of Islam. He was murdered by FBI agent/provocateurs who joined the ranks of the Nation so that the crime could be pinned on the Muslims. Instead of the fingerpointing and bickering, we need to take this as a history lesson and stop the goddamn killing that is plaguing the Black community today.
Black America has an even bigger problem and whitey has the machinery of death and genocide in place for our people. It's time for unity amongst ourselves and building a viable future for generations to come. The white man is evil and that is a reality that the rest of you have to deal with. They are the devil by nature. More on this coming soon.
Until next time, this is Aquil Aziz.
However, two innocent men were charged and spent over two decades in prison for Malcolm's murder. Were there members of the Nation of Islam that wanted Malcolm dead? Sure there were, but the Honorable Elijah Muhammad told all members to leave Malcolm alone. When Malcolm was poisoned in Cairo, Egypt and he had to get his stomach pumped, he knew that it was not members of the Nation of Islam out to get him.
Review of the the COINTELPRO documents show that the Gay Edgar Hoover had FBI agents infiltrate every black organization to disrupt, discredit and prevent the rise of a Black messiah. The FBI had resorted to techniques like character assassination, frame-ups, planting agents/provocateurs in various groups to spread rumors that would cause divisions among members in the ranks. This tactic of COINTELPRO not only destroyed groups and organizations, but families and bonds of friendship as well. This was a very calculated program.
With this history well known to us today, why in hell would we want to demand justice from the same people who not only created this system, but continues the status quo to this very day? Let's remember Malcolm X for his greatness and fiery leadership? Malcolm X was a true fighter in the struggle of Black America.
It is imperative that we study the history of how this Caucasian devil created an atmosphere of anger and bitterness, which lead to the assassination of Malcolm X. Although disagreements came in between Malcolm X and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, that atmosphere of tension was exploited by the government and that unfortunately, lead to the enemy murdering Malcolm. How many times have the FBI sent in agents/provocateurs to join an organization set up crimes to be committed under the banner of the that organization and frame innocent people in the process? That is nothing new. To this very day, we have political prisoners sitting in prisons throughout the hells of North America because of FBI frame-ups or calumnies committed by the state.
Another thing that we must understand is that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad instructed all members of the Nation of Islam not carry weapons or keep them in our homes. Think back to what happened to the Black Panthers and the night murder raids the police would commit in the name of weapons being on the premises. Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were murdered in Chicago. Similar attacks were done by police in Seattle and Oakland. Of course, in the case of Fred Hampton, he was drugged by an FBI/police informant. The Messenger has always told members of the Nation of Islam not to carry any weapons and that Allah will protect us.
I stongly disagree with those who say Malcolm X was murdered by the Nation of Islam. He was murdered by FBI agent/provocateurs who joined the ranks of the Nation so that the crime could be pinned on the Muslims. Instead of the fingerpointing and bickering, we need to take this as a history lesson and stop the goddamn killing that is plaguing the Black community today.
Black America has an even bigger problem and whitey has the machinery of death and genocide in place for our people. It's time for unity amongst ourselves and building a viable future for generations to come. The white man is evil and that is a reality that the rest of you have to deal with. They are the devil by nature. More on this coming soon.
Until next time, this is Aquil Aziz.
Gitmo Trials Rigged from the Start
By Ross Tuttle, The Nation
Posted on February 21, 2008, Printed on February 21, 2008http://www.alternet.org/story/77360/
Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by waterboarding. Indefinite detention. The litany of complaints about the legal treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is long, disturbing and by now familiar. Nonetheless, a new wave of shock and criticism greeted the Pentagon's announcement on February 11 that it was charging six Guantánamo detainees, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, with war crimes -- and seeking the death penalty for all of them.
As the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.
Colonel Davis's criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned this past October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior defense officials to pursue cases deemed "sexy" and of "high-interest" (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis, once a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons in a December 10, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed. "I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system," he wrote. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively."
Then, in an interview with The Nation in February after the six Guantánamo detainees were charged, Davis offered the most damning evidence of the military commissions' bias -- a revelation that speaks to fundamental flaws in the Bush Administration's conduct of statecraft: its contempt for the rule of law and its pursuit of political objectives above all else.
When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes -- the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department. "[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time," recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, something that had lent great credibility to the proceedings.
"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"
Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions' chain of command. "Everyone has opinions," Davis says. "But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders."
(Reached for comment, Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith said, "The Department of Defense disputes the assertions made by Colonel Davis in this statement regarding acquittals.")
"That he said there can be no acquittals will stain the entire [tribunal] process," says Scott Horton, who teaches law at Columbia University Law School and who has written extensively about Haynes's conflicts with the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) corps, the judicial arm of the Armed Forces, which is charged with implementing the military commissions. According to Horton, Haynes tried to cut the JAG corps out of internal debates over the detention and prosecution of detainees, knowing it was critical of the Administration's views. In private memos and in public Senate testimony, high-ranking officers of the corps have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Administration's advocacy of "extreme interrogation techniques."
"The JAG corps consists of a group of rigorous professionals, but Haynes never trusted them to do their job," says Horton. "His clashes have always had the same subtext -- they want to be independent, he wants them to do political dirty-work."
Haynes, a political appointee and chief legal adviser to Defense secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, was nominated in 2006 by the Bush Administration for a lifetime seat as a judge in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. But his nomination never got out of committee, primarily because of the opposition of Republican Senator (and former military lawyer) Lindsey Graham and other members alarmed over Haynes's role in writing or supervising the writing of Pentagon memos advocating the use of harsh interrogation techniques the Geneva Conventions classify as torture.
Currently, in his capacity as Pentagon general counsel, Haynes oversees both the prosecution and the defense for the commissions. "You would think a person in that position wouldn't be favoring one side," says Colonel Davis.
Told of Davis's story about Haynes, Clive Stafford Smith, a defense attorney who has represented more than seventy Guantánamo clients, said, "Hearing it makes me think I'm back in Mississippi representing a black man in front of an all-white jury."
He adds, "It confirms what people close to the system have always said," noting that when three prosecutors -- Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr and Capt. Carrie Wolf -- requested to be transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions in 2004, they claimed they'd been told the process was rigged. In an e-mail to his supervisors, Preston had said that there was thin evidence against the accused. "But they were told by the chief prosecutor at the time that they didn't need evidence to get convictions," says Stafford Smith.
At the time, the military wrote it off as "miscommunication" and "personality conflicts." And then there were changes in personnel. "They told us that the system had been cleaned up … but I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same," says Stafford Smith.
The terrible irony is that even if acquittals were possible, the government has declared that it can continue to detain anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" for the duration of hostilities--no matter the outcome of a trial. And most of the 275 men held at Guantánamo are classified as "enemy combatants" while the hostilities in the "war on terror" could be never-ending.
Says ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, "The trial doesn't make a difference. They can hold you there forever until they decide to let you out." The one person to be released from Guantánamo through the judicial process, Australian David Hicks, pleaded guilty. As Wizner wrote in the Los Angeles Times in April 2007, "In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be acquitted to be released. In Guantánamo, the accused must plead guilty to be released."
Still, the trials serve a purpose for the government, in providing the semblance of a legitimate judicial process. According to defense attorneys involved -- and many of the former prosecutors, like Davis -- the process is political, not legal.
"If someone was acquitted, then it would suggest we did the wrong thing in the first place. That can't happen," says Horton sardonically. "When the government decides to clear someone, it calls the person 'no-longer an enemy combatant' instead of just saying they made a mistake."
He adds, "For people like Haynes, justice is meant to serve the party."
Ross Tuttle is a documentary filmmaker and freelance journalist based in Los Angeles.
© 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/77360/
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Another Excellent YouTube Video Clip
They call this brother a racist, but whitey has a history of enslaving, raping and murdering Black men, women and children here in the U.S. and in Africa. Other cultures have met that same fate. It did not matter: Black, Brown, Red and Yellow have died and died and died. And when you make mention of killing a white person, the whole world stops and crackers get angry. White people are absolutely, positively 100 percent disagreeable to live with. It's time for complete separation from our open enemy; the white man.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Please Help Support the Move 9 -- Write Letters in Support for Their Parole
Onamove family!
This is URGENT FOR THE MOVE 9!
PLEASE RESPOND! FROM DAVE:
*********************************
Dear Fatirah,Phil Africa says that the MOVE 9 can really use letters and calls to the PA Parole Board this month and next [February & March]. Letters supporting their release can make a big difference. The Board will be having a hearing in April.
After THIRTY years, our brothers and sisters are finally up for parole. If not given probation this year, they may all be forced to serve another SEVENTY. They have almost completed their minimum sentence [of the 30-100 year sentence].
Let's bring them home where they belong in August 2008!
This April parole hearing is SO important. Letters and calls to the Parole Board now can really help. Phil is asking that folks send copies of their letters to him. He wants to take a pile of copies of our letters to the hearing as a show of public support.
It is probably a good idea for folks to send letters to each of the nine Board members. The chairperson was appointed by Ed "1985 Bomber" Rendell so don't count on her getting your message to the whole Board. Their individual names are on this web page: http://www.pbpp.state.pa.us/pbppinfo/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=154178&pbppNav=
Letters can all be sent to this address:
[name of Board member]
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
Tel: (717) 787-5699
Please send copies of the letters to Phil at:
William Phillips Africa #AM-4984SCI-Dallas1000 Follies Rd.Dallas, PA 18612For supporters to brush up on the history of MOVE and the "MOVE 9," this recent 45-minute talk by Ramona is great: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/08/27830.php
Letters and phone calls to the Board are needed NOW. Let's bring 'em HOME. 30 years is too much already, 70 more is unthinkable.Peace All!
Ona MOVE!!!
Dave
This is URGENT FOR THE MOVE 9!
PLEASE RESPOND! FROM DAVE:
*********************************
Dear Fatirah,Phil Africa says that the MOVE 9 can really use letters and calls to the PA Parole Board this month and next [February & March]. Letters supporting their release can make a big difference. The Board will be having a hearing in April.
After THIRTY years, our brothers and sisters are finally up for parole. If not given probation this year, they may all be forced to serve another SEVENTY. They have almost completed their minimum sentence [of the 30-100 year sentence].
Let's bring them home where they belong in August 2008!
This April parole hearing is SO important. Letters and calls to the Parole Board now can really help. Phil is asking that folks send copies of their letters to him. He wants to take a pile of copies of our letters to the hearing as a show of public support.
It is probably a good idea for folks to send letters to each of the nine Board members. The chairperson was appointed by Ed "1985 Bomber" Rendell so don't count on her getting your message to the whole Board. Their individual names are on this web page: http://www.pbpp.state.pa.us/pbppinfo/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=154178&pbppNav=
Letters can all be sent to this address:
[name of Board member]
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
1101 South Front Street, Suite #5100
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2517
Tel: (717) 787-5699
Please send copies of the letters to Phil at:
William Phillips Africa #AM-4984SCI-Dallas1000 Follies Rd.Dallas, PA 18612For supporters to brush up on the history of MOVE and the "MOVE 9," this recent 45-minute talk by Ramona is great: http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2007/08/27830.php
Letters and phone calls to the Board are needed NOW. Let's bring 'em HOME. 30 years is too much already, 70 more is unthinkable.Peace All!
Ona MOVE!!!
Dave
'Massacre?' -- 'What Massacre?' -- Haditha
* 'Massacre?' -- 'What Massacre?' -- Haditha *
* [col. writ. 9/6/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
The calendar has shed weeks and many months since the name, Haditha, stirred so many people in Iraq, the US, and around the world.
Within days of its announcement came the horror of recognition; it reminded us all of the carnage of Vietnam's My Lai massacre, where women, babies, dogs and chickens shared the sleep of death in a tropical ditch.
It differed from Vietnam only in its scope, and number, but, in every sense of which the word 'massacre' may be used, this was it.
For here, in the Iraqi city of Haditha, women, children, old men and young, were swept away from life, by the automatic weapons fire of American guns, held in American hands; an apparent retaliation for an IED blast which killed an American soldier several hours earlier.
Here, US soldiers entered Iraqi homes on free fire, unloading on anything moving, or not moving quickly enough. Well, the US military justice system has finished its work, and -- voila! -- except for a few letters of censure (the military form of reprimand) no one has been punished for the Haditha Massacre.
Indeed, one might ask, albeit facetiously, 'What massacre?' For it seems that no US military rules of engagement were violated, and if US military judges are to be believed, no war crimes occurred.
Of the dead Iraqi women and children? They were not victims of American killers in uniform; they were victims of the nebulous 'fog of war.'
In war, stuff happens.
Let's move on.
One military prosecutor said he declined to punish the soldiers further because to do so would "harm unit morale."
That's US justice, for all the world to see - the 'law' of the Occupier.
If ever we engaged in the illusion that the puppets in government in Iraq were little more than U.S. stringed mannequins, their silence on Haditha is evidence enough.
Dozens of Iraqi civilians were slain in their homes, under their beds, while holding their babies, unarmed, and the US Imperial Government issues its final ruling.
'No harm, no foul.'
We are looking at something that will mark the world for a generation; it is the poisoning of Imperialism, which warps the mind and stains the soul with the semblance of superiority.
'Massacre?' 'What massacre?'
Only some Arabs were killed.
To the Empire, they don't count.
--(c) '07 maj
* [col. writ. 9/6/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
The calendar has shed weeks and many months since the name, Haditha, stirred so many people in Iraq, the US, and around the world.
Within days of its announcement came the horror of recognition; it reminded us all of the carnage of Vietnam's My Lai massacre, where women, babies, dogs and chickens shared the sleep of death in a tropical ditch.
It differed from Vietnam only in its scope, and number, but, in every sense of which the word 'massacre' may be used, this was it.
For here, in the Iraqi city of Haditha, women, children, old men and young, were swept away from life, by the automatic weapons fire of American guns, held in American hands; an apparent retaliation for an IED blast which killed an American soldier several hours earlier.
Here, US soldiers entered Iraqi homes on free fire, unloading on anything moving, or not moving quickly enough. Well, the US military justice system has finished its work, and -- voila! -- except for a few letters of censure (the military form of reprimand) no one has been punished for the Haditha Massacre.
Indeed, one might ask, albeit facetiously, 'What massacre?' For it seems that no US military rules of engagement were violated, and if US military judges are to be believed, no war crimes occurred.
Of the dead Iraqi women and children? They were not victims of American killers in uniform; they were victims of the nebulous 'fog of war.'
In war, stuff happens.
Let's move on.
One military prosecutor said he declined to punish the soldiers further because to do so would "harm unit morale."
That's US justice, for all the world to see - the 'law' of the Occupier.
If ever we engaged in the illusion that the puppets in government in Iraq were little more than U.S. stringed mannequins, their silence on Haditha is evidence enough.
Dozens of Iraqi civilians were slain in their homes, under their beds, while holding their babies, unarmed, and the US Imperial Government issues its final ruling.
'No harm, no foul.'
We are looking at something that will mark the world for a generation; it is the poisoning of Imperialism, which warps the mind and stains the soul with the semblance of superiority.
'Massacre?' 'What massacre?'
Only some Arabs were killed.
To the Empire, they don't count.
--(c) '07 maj
The 9/11 Moment by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* The 9-11 Moment *
* [col. writ. 9/9/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
It is true that 9-11 changed everything, but not quite the way that the Bush Regime intended.
It changed how many in the world perceived the U.S., for sure, but the U.S. response to 9-11 has done more to change such perceptions.
As the ashes began to cool from the embers of what was once the World Trade Center, allies and enemies alike expressed solidarity with the U.S., and shed tears of sympathy.
What a difference six years makes.
What was once solidarity has cooled to bitter toleration, and barely disguised anger.
Remember the so-called "Coalition of the Willing?"
It has dwindled in number and fervor.
Politicians know enough to talk the talk, but precious few are willing to walk that walk.
Even America's staunchest ally - England - has marched its troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, under cover of darkness.
In many of the countries where leaders signed up to join the U.S. crusade, their people have voted them out of office, and sent some leaders into political retirement.
Such are the wages of democracy.
At home, the war has deepened divisions not seen since the ravages of the Vietnam War.
And the President? Not only are his numbers in the basement, but he's pulling his party into the cellar with him.
His latest ploy, to buy time by pointing to the Gen. (David) Petraeus report, neatly juxtaposes the power relations between civilians and military. Civilian leaders, in a democracy, aren't supposed to do what military leaders says; the military is supposed to obey their civilian political leaders.
But, since 9-11, the nation has fled so far, so fast, from any real semblance of democracy, that listening to the most profoundly undemocratic institution in the American republic seems almost normal.
If the Bush regime has changed anything, it has changed this.
A war begun in bad faith, cannot end well.
From the day George W. Bush announced his "shock and awe" bombing runs over Baghdad, we have seen nothing but a long train of disasters.
The Gen. Petraeus report may do quite a few things, but it won't change that.
--(c) '07 maj
* [col. writ. 9/9/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
It is true that 9-11 changed everything, but not quite the way that the Bush Regime intended.
It changed how many in the world perceived the U.S., for sure, but the U.S. response to 9-11 has done more to change such perceptions.
As the ashes began to cool from the embers of what was once the World Trade Center, allies and enemies alike expressed solidarity with the U.S., and shed tears of sympathy.
What a difference six years makes.
What was once solidarity has cooled to bitter toleration, and barely disguised anger.
Remember the so-called "Coalition of the Willing?"
It has dwindled in number and fervor.
Politicians know enough to talk the talk, but precious few are willing to walk that walk.
Even America's staunchest ally - England - has marched its troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, under cover of darkness.
In many of the countries where leaders signed up to join the U.S. crusade, their people have voted them out of office, and sent some leaders into political retirement.
Such are the wages of democracy.
At home, the war has deepened divisions not seen since the ravages of the Vietnam War.
And the President? Not only are his numbers in the basement, but he's pulling his party into the cellar with him.
His latest ploy, to buy time by pointing to the Gen. (David) Petraeus report, neatly juxtaposes the power relations between civilians and military. Civilian leaders, in a democracy, aren't supposed to do what military leaders says; the military is supposed to obey their civilian political leaders.
But, since 9-11, the nation has fled so far, so fast, from any real semblance of democracy, that listening to the most profoundly undemocratic institution in the American republic seems almost normal.
If the Bush regime has changed anything, it has changed this.
A war begun in bad faith, cannot end well.
From the day George W. Bush announced his "shock and awe" bombing runs over Baghdad, we have seen nothing but a long train of disasters.
The Gen. Petraeus report may do quite a few things, but it won't change that.
--(c) '07 maj
The Latest Battle in the War Against the Poor
*The Latest Battle in the War Against the Poor*
* [col.writ. 9/19/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
For a growing number of people all across the country, homes are becoming an endangered species.
In many cities, the forces of gentrification are weighing not only on home-buyers, but on renters, for as the price of housing properties increase, so does the price of rental properties in a market that is bursting through the roof.
But, for many, the bubble has burst.
Just as Congress made bankruptcy more difficult to obtain, the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), industry has garnered billions from young folks eager and willing to join the ranks of property owners.
But, like the spring-loaded top of a mousetrap, the ARMs snapped shut, and as sub prime lenders now depart the market, its effects are rippling throughout the economy.
In a sense, there is a perverse logic to this gambit, for it comes just as the national economy began to adjust to the de-industrialization of big cities, which spelled the end of good paying jobs for a generation.
For a brief moment, there seemed to be a window of hope offering affordable homes for many folks who thought it was beyond their reach.
As soon as they reached for the brass ring, however, the booby-trap popped up: foreclosure.
In Buffalo, the city plans to raze over 5,000 abandoned houses, relics from a time when the city was a magnet for manufacturing.
In Philadelphia, North, South, and West Philadelphia renters are being squeezed to make room for yuppies, and homes, when they are built, are for buyers, not renters.
In New York City, homeowners are spending between 30-- to -- 50% of their income to pay for the mortgage. The prices, even of rents, drives people from Manhattan, from Brooklyn and from Queens, into the Bronx.
In San Francisco, homes for the poor are becoming rarer and rarer.
In cities across the country, working-class Blacks are being forced, by the inability to make ends meet, to leave the cities of their birth and familial memory.
In South Philadelphia, renter Victoria Fernandez, told a reporter for the Philadelphia Tribune that poor Black folks were on their own. "The government don't care about us," she exclaimed. "We vote, but do we have a say? No." { Philadelphia Tribune , Fri., Sept. 14, 2007, p.8A} Her family has lived in that city's Black community for generations, but the city looks to young, white entrepreneurial types, or students, to buoy the city's taxes and fortunes.
Victoria Fernandez explains, "It ain't never been fair for poor people. We're drowning."
In New York, the nation's financial capital (or capital of capital) foreclosures are becoming almost routine. Ismena Speliotis, executive director of New York Acorn Housing described the conditions facing low-and moderate income folks in the city, and of homeowners, "We've seen a huge increase in defaults and foreclosures in Brooklyn, in East New York, {and} East Flatbush," she said.
This is the latest front in the continuing war against the poor. That it comes at a time when the nations's political leaders have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that was as unnecessary as it was stupid, is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
For what does it matter if the Dow Jones Average or the NASDAQ is breaking new records, if homeowners are facing imminent foreclosure, renters are fleeing cities, and both are facing the invisibility of homelessness? For whom is the economy working?
For the poor, it's just another kind of war.
--(c) '07 maj
[Sources : Mayes, Eric, " 'Gentrification' -- There Go the Neighborhoods", Phila. Tribune , Fri., Sept. 14, 2007, pp.1A, 8A; Fernandez, Manny, "Housing Takes Bigger Bite of New Yorkers' Incomes, Census Data Shows", New York Times , Thurs., Sept. 13, 2007, pp.B1,B4.'
Belson, Ken, "Vacant Houses, Scourge of a Beaten-Down Buffalo," New York Times, Thurs;, Sept. 13, 2007, pp. B1,B6.}
* [col.writ. 9/19/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
For a growing number of people all across the country, homes are becoming an endangered species.
In many cities, the forces of gentrification are weighing not only on home-buyers, but on renters, for as the price of housing properties increase, so does the price of rental properties in a market that is bursting through the roof.
But, for many, the bubble has burst.
Just as Congress made bankruptcy more difficult to obtain, the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), industry has garnered billions from young folks eager and willing to join the ranks of property owners.
But, like the spring-loaded top of a mousetrap, the ARMs snapped shut, and as sub prime lenders now depart the market, its effects are rippling throughout the economy.
In a sense, there is a perverse logic to this gambit, for it comes just as the national economy began to adjust to the de-industrialization of big cities, which spelled the end of good paying jobs for a generation.
For a brief moment, there seemed to be a window of hope offering affordable homes for many folks who thought it was beyond their reach.
As soon as they reached for the brass ring, however, the booby-trap popped up: foreclosure.
In Buffalo, the city plans to raze over 5,000 abandoned houses, relics from a time when the city was a magnet for manufacturing.
In Philadelphia, North, South, and West Philadelphia renters are being squeezed to make room for yuppies, and homes, when they are built, are for buyers, not renters.
In New York City, homeowners are spending between 30-- to -- 50% of their income to pay for the mortgage. The prices, even of rents, drives people from Manhattan, from Brooklyn and from Queens, into the Bronx.
In San Francisco, homes for the poor are becoming rarer and rarer.
In cities across the country, working-class Blacks are being forced, by the inability to make ends meet, to leave the cities of their birth and familial memory.
In South Philadelphia, renter Victoria Fernandez, told a reporter for the Philadelphia Tribune that poor Black folks were on their own. "The government don't care about us," she exclaimed. "We vote, but do we have a say? No." { Philadelphia Tribune , Fri., Sept. 14, 2007, p.8A} Her family has lived in that city's Black community for generations, but the city looks to young, white entrepreneurial types, or students, to buoy the city's taxes and fortunes.
Victoria Fernandez explains, "It ain't never been fair for poor people. We're drowning."
In New York, the nation's financial capital (or capital of capital) foreclosures are becoming almost routine. Ismena Speliotis, executive director of New York Acorn Housing described the conditions facing low-and moderate income folks in the city, and of homeowners, "We've seen a huge increase in defaults and foreclosures in Brooklyn, in East New York, {and} East Flatbush," she said.
This is the latest front in the continuing war against the poor. That it comes at a time when the nations's political leaders have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that was as unnecessary as it was stupid, is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
For what does it matter if the Dow Jones Average or the NASDAQ is breaking new records, if homeowners are facing imminent foreclosure, renters are fleeing cities, and both are facing the invisibility of homelessness? For whom is the economy working?
For the poor, it's just another kind of war.
--(c) '07 maj
[Sources : Mayes, Eric, " 'Gentrification' -- There Go the Neighborhoods", Phila. Tribune , Fri., Sept. 14, 2007, pp.1A, 8A; Fernandez, Manny, "Housing Takes Bigger Bite of New Yorkers' Incomes, Census Data Shows", New York Times , Thurs., Sept. 13, 2007, pp.B1,B4.'
Belson, Ken, "Vacant Houses, Scourge of a Beaten-Down Buffalo," New York Times, Thurs;, Sept. 13, 2007, pp. B1,B6.}
The Death of the Pursuit of the Dream
*The Death of the Pursuit of the Dream*
*[col. writ. 9/18/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
The letter came from someone who I didn't know.
It was short, to-the-point, and shocking.
A young wife and mother was at her wit's end, because she was about to lose her family's beloved home.
It surprised me, and stunned me.
I've been reading about the problem in several papers, but here it was.
The prospect filled this young woman with dread and terror.
I wondered how many others were joining her in this journey into possible homelessness, and my research uncovered a rising number, all across the nation.
From San Francisco, to Brooklyn: from Philadelphia, to Buffalo; in cities on both coasts and in places in between, we are seeing the loss of homes by working families, many of whom have been duped into acquiring, not homes, but the sub prime loans that made home-buying possible.
Many of these loans were made with hat's called adjustable rate mortgages (or ARM's).
ARM's suckered poor folks to buy into them, with 'teaser' rates meant to attract them, but as the antonym suggests, the rates get adjusted, and almost always upwards. Before long, people began paying 50% more than they paid six months earlier, only to be out-priced, and then, -- boom! -- a few missed mortgage payments, and foreclosure is sure to follow.
With this financial slight-of-hand, people are tossed out of their homes, and the properties?
They're just flipped again, again -- and again.
For bankers, builders and speculators, it was the next best thing to free money.
It was great!
Well, it was great for everybody except working folks, ho often lost homes that they've dreamed of owning.
If the corporate media is to be believed, average people were simply too stupid to know that they couldn't afford to buy a house.
But that was the very foundation of the sub prime lending industry.
Several years ago, I remember ads in the Black press, advising folks of the ease with which to buy a house these days.
Few people took into account how ARMs actually worked.
In the last 6 months, over 50 sub prime lending companies have gone out of business.
One of the biggest, New Century Financial, filed for bankruptcy protection in April, 2007.
But, having made their mint, their bankruptcies ain't like yours (If you can get 'em, after the U.S. Congress made it harder, that is).
New Century sold their stock before the shortfall, netting over $40 million in profits.
So, owners have one fate; working folks, with few assets, have another.
Once again, a capitalist bubble has burst, with one bunch taking the goodies, and the other taking the proverbial hole in the center of the doughnut -- (nothing).
I thought of that woman's pain; her feelings of loss, dread, and horror.
Magnified over tens of thousands, and then millions of people, we begin to see the scope of this problem that threatens to scuttle the hopes and dreams of (at least) a generation.
--(c) '07 maj
*[col. writ. 9/18/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
The letter came from someone who I didn't know.
It was short, to-the-point, and shocking.
A young wife and mother was at her wit's end, because she was about to lose her family's beloved home.
It surprised me, and stunned me.
I've been reading about the problem in several papers, but here it was.
The prospect filled this young woman with dread and terror.
I wondered how many others were joining her in this journey into possible homelessness, and my research uncovered a rising number, all across the nation.
From San Francisco, to Brooklyn: from Philadelphia, to Buffalo; in cities on both coasts and in places in between, we are seeing the loss of homes by working families, many of whom have been duped into acquiring, not homes, but the sub prime loans that made home-buying possible.
Many of these loans were made with hat's called adjustable rate mortgages (or ARM's).
ARM's suckered poor folks to buy into them, with 'teaser' rates meant to attract them, but as the antonym suggests, the rates get adjusted, and almost always upwards. Before long, people began paying 50% more than they paid six months earlier, only to be out-priced, and then, -- boom! -- a few missed mortgage payments, and foreclosure is sure to follow.
With this financial slight-of-hand, people are tossed out of their homes, and the properties?
They're just flipped again, again -- and again.
For bankers, builders and speculators, it was the next best thing to free money.
It was great!
Well, it was great for everybody except working folks, ho often lost homes that they've dreamed of owning.
If the corporate media is to be believed, average people were simply too stupid to know that they couldn't afford to buy a house.
But that was the very foundation of the sub prime lending industry.
Several years ago, I remember ads in the Black press, advising folks of the ease with which to buy a house these days.
Few people took into account how ARMs actually worked.
In the last 6 months, over 50 sub prime lending companies have gone out of business.
One of the biggest, New Century Financial, filed for bankruptcy protection in April, 2007.
But, having made their mint, their bankruptcies ain't like yours (If you can get 'em, after the U.S. Congress made it harder, that is).
New Century sold their stock before the shortfall, netting over $40 million in profits.
So, owners have one fate; working folks, with few assets, have another.
Once again, a capitalist bubble has burst, with one bunch taking the goodies, and the other taking the proverbial hole in the center of the doughnut -- (nothing).
I thought of that woman's pain; her feelings of loss, dread, and horror.
Magnified over tens of thousands, and then millions of people, we begin to see the scope of this problem that threatens to scuttle the hopes and dreams of (at least) a generation.
--(c) '07 maj
PAKISTAN: The 'democracy' of boots, bullets and brutality
*PAKISTAN: The 'democracy' of boots, bullets and brutality*
* {col. writ. 9/15/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
America's 'allies' in the so-called 'war on terror', are often at war with their own societies -- and more often than not, they are at war with democracy.
It is an odd thing to hear the Bush regime and its media puppets echo the claim that the wars in the Middle East are to 'spread democracy', when the very countries that have signed up for this dubious project are -- well, let's not beat around the bush -- dictatorships.
In Pakistan, a country carved out of the northwest of India, as the British Imperial Raj was on the wane, is a huge country of roughly 150 million people, and roughly twice the size of California (or, from another perspective, 1/2 the size of Alaska).
It may be an ally, but it's hardly a democracy.
Pakistan has been ruled, since a 1999 coup, by a military dictatorship, headed by Gen. PervezMusharraf. Musharraf came to power after a row between the military and the elected leadership over Pakistan's intentions on Kashmir ( a majority Muslim region that is part of India).
When the former Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, tried to discipline the army by firing Gen. Musharraf from his post, the military struck back.
From then till now, Pakistan has been under the thumb of its military.
The military runs vast swathes of Pakistan's economy, from construction companies to bottled water industries.
It runs the nations's media, and sits at the highest levels of the nation's universities.
As the demonstrations that erupted hen Gen. Musharraf attempted to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice has shown, there is considerable social discontent with the heavy had of the military over almost all sectors of Pakistani life.
When Nawaz Sharif boarded a plane in London several days ago, to try to return to his homeland, he described his efforts as "a final battle" between "dictatorship and democracy." The former prime minister said his return signified it was "time that we put an end to this menace of dictatorship." *
But if this was a battle between dictatorship and democracy, dictatorship won. For police and military officials cordoned off the airport, and stopped traffic to it for miles around.
Sharif was arrested shortly after his arrival, and hundreds of his supporters were beaten in Rawalpindi.
According to an account in the New York Times (9/11/07) almost the "entire leadership" of Sharif's opposition party were arrested.
A Pakistani Supreme Court ruling recently held that Sharif was free to return to Pakistan, and to run for office.
According to Sharif, "Mr. Musharraf does not believe in the rule of law." Before 4 hours had passed, Sharif was back on a plane, but bound, once again, for Saudi Arabia, exiled by his military opponents.
Sharif questioned how an American president could support Musharraf.
"President Bush is somehow supporting an individual who today has become a symbol of hatred in Pakistan, a man whom everybody in Pakistan ants to get rid of."*
How does one 'spread democracy' by supporting military juntas?
For generations, we heard the same claims used to support death squads which ravaged Latin America. Men trained at the place called Las escuelas de golpas , (or coup school) led to brutal wars against workers, trade unionists, nuns, priests, and indigenous people, all in the name of 'protecting democracy,' (Those schools are here in the US!)
And what is an ally, which must be threatened with extermination, in order to secure it's alliance?
Published reports have already assured us that high level US officials, in the aftermath of 9-11, threatened to 'nuke Pakistan' unless it joined this so-called 'war on terror.'
Why not the use of terror in this so-called 'war on terror?'
Why not the use of military dictatorships in this claimed war 'to spread democracy?'
-- (c) '07 maj
{* Source : Gall, Carlotta, "Pakistan Edgy As Ex-Premier Is Exiled Again, " New York Times , Tues., Sept. 11, 2007, pp.A1 - A8.}
* {col. writ. 9/15/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
America's 'allies' in the so-called 'war on terror', are often at war with their own societies -- and more often than not, they are at war with democracy.
It is an odd thing to hear the Bush regime and its media puppets echo the claim that the wars in the Middle East are to 'spread democracy', when the very countries that have signed up for this dubious project are -- well, let's not beat around the bush -- dictatorships.
In Pakistan, a country carved out of the northwest of India, as the British Imperial Raj was on the wane, is a huge country of roughly 150 million people, and roughly twice the size of California (or, from another perspective, 1/2 the size of Alaska).
It may be an ally, but it's hardly a democracy.
Pakistan has been ruled, since a 1999 coup, by a military dictatorship, headed by Gen. PervezMusharraf. Musharraf came to power after a row between the military and the elected leadership over Pakistan's intentions on Kashmir ( a majority Muslim region that is part of India).
When the former Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, tried to discipline the army by firing Gen. Musharraf from his post, the military struck back.
From then till now, Pakistan has been under the thumb of its military.
The military runs vast swathes of Pakistan's economy, from construction companies to bottled water industries.
It runs the nations's media, and sits at the highest levels of the nation's universities.
As the demonstrations that erupted hen Gen. Musharraf attempted to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice has shown, there is considerable social discontent with the heavy had of the military over almost all sectors of Pakistani life.
When Nawaz Sharif boarded a plane in London several days ago, to try to return to his homeland, he described his efforts as "a final battle" between "dictatorship and democracy." The former prime minister said his return signified it was "time that we put an end to this menace of dictatorship." *
But if this was a battle between dictatorship and democracy, dictatorship won. For police and military officials cordoned off the airport, and stopped traffic to it for miles around.
Sharif was arrested shortly after his arrival, and hundreds of his supporters were beaten in Rawalpindi.
According to an account in the New York Times (9/11/07) almost the "entire leadership" of Sharif's opposition party were arrested.
A Pakistani Supreme Court ruling recently held that Sharif was free to return to Pakistan, and to run for office.
According to Sharif, "Mr. Musharraf does not believe in the rule of law." Before 4 hours had passed, Sharif was back on a plane, but bound, once again, for Saudi Arabia, exiled by his military opponents.
Sharif questioned how an American president could support Musharraf.
"President Bush is somehow supporting an individual who today has become a symbol of hatred in Pakistan, a man whom everybody in Pakistan ants to get rid of."*
How does one 'spread democracy' by supporting military juntas?
For generations, we heard the same claims used to support death squads which ravaged Latin America. Men trained at the place called Las escuelas de golpas , (or coup school) led to brutal wars against workers, trade unionists, nuns, priests, and indigenous people, all in the name of 'protecting democracy,' (Those schools are here in the US!)
And what is an ally, which must be threatened with extermination, in order to secure it's alliance?
Published reports have already assured us that high level US officials, in the aftermath of 9-11, threatened to 'nuke Pakistan' unless it joined this so-called 'war on terror.'
Why not the use of terror in this so-called 'war on terror?'
Why not the use of military dictatorships in this claimed war 'to spread democracy?'
-- (c) '07 maj
{* Source : Gall, Carlotta, "Pakistan Edgy As Ex-Premier Is Exiled Again, " New York Times , Tues., Sept. 11, 2007, pp.A1 - A8.}
The World of Blackwater: Private Wars for Public Money
* The World of Blackwater: Private Wars for Public Money*
* {col. writ. 9/20/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
The news running off the wire was unexpected in its rarity: the Iraqi 'government' announced that the U.S. private security company, Blackwater, would no longer be able to function in the country, following the killing of over 20 Iraqis by Blackwater personnel.
According to published reports, the U.S. State dept. will essentially ignore the Iraqi order, announcing that Blackwater would continue to work in the country. Blackwater provides security for many Americans working in Iraq, as well as some of its chosen puppets.
(So much for 'a sovereign nation.')
The recent Blackwater shootout wasn't the first, and unless I miss my guess, it won't be the last.
For folks who've been following the American security company (and others like them), it should surprise no one that this company was involved in the shooting of civilians.
According to some researchers and reporters, Blackwater was getting down similarly -- in the U.S.!
Think back to 2005, when the winds, rains, and gushing waters from Lake Pontchartrain swept through New Orleans, another force beset the already besieged town.
Blackwater was one of the number of such companies, armed with automatic weapons and contracts from the Dept. of Homeland Security. They were allowed to play cowboy when people were suffering from this natural disaster.
Several years ago, writer and "Democracy Now!" correspondent, Jeremy Scahill reported a conversation he had with a man from one of those private security companies during the height of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Scahill described his conversation with a man named Michael Montgomery, who worked with an Alabama-based company known as Bodyguard and Tactical Security (BATS). This guy told Scahill that he was in New Orleans on the second night of the catastrophe. As Scahill explained:
They got stopped in the ninth ward. He said they came under fire from a group of people on an overpass that he described as black gang bangers. He said, "At the time I was on the phone with my business partner." I said, "What did you do then?" He said, "I dropped the phone and opened fire." I said, "With what kind of weapons?" --"AR-15 assault rifles and Glock 9's." Fired up at the people he described as black gang bangers on this bridge. I said, "Then what happened?
Did you kill them?" He said, "Well, let's just put it this way, I heard a lot of moaning and screaming, and the shooting stopped. Enough said. "
Scahill was making his remarks on the Friday, Sept. 23 rd, 2005 edition of the nationally broadcast program, "Democracy Now!"
According to Scahill, these and other such groups were functioning in Louisiana, without licenses to operate in the state. What they had were contracts from the Homeland Security Dept., and a letter from the Governor of Louisiana!
Thus, armed with automatic weapons, they patrolled the property of the rich, while they waged war against the poor.
Scahill explained that after the shooting, army officers and Louisiana State Troopers came on the scene - but neither agency filed a report.
Scahill continued: So this is the climate of impunity.....[H] ow do we know that he was fired upon? How do we know what that incident was? Why wouldn't law enforcement file any kind of report on a shootout in which this guy is openly bragging to having shot up a bunch of people he described as black gang bangers on an overpass? [p.4 of downloaded text]
There are almost as many contractors working in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers -- but the Blackwater people make a whole lot more money, and are better equipped.
That's because they aren't fighting for 'democracy', they're fighting for good old American money. They are fighting for those who can afford them.
What do they care about Iraqis?
What did they care about 'Americans' in the midst of the whirlwind and the storm?
--(c) '07maj
* {col. writ. 9/20/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
The news running off the wire was unexpected in its rarity: the Iraqi 'government' announced that the U.S. private security company, Blackwater, would no longer be able to function in the country, following the killing of over 20 Iraqis by Blackwater personnel.
According to published reports, the U.S. State dept. will essentially ignore the Iraqi order, announcing that Blackwater would continue to work in the country. Blackwater provides security for many Americans working in Iraq, as well as some of its chosen puppets.
(So much for 'a sovereign nation.')
The recent Blackwater shootout wasn't the first, and unless I miss my guess, it won't be the last.
For folks who've been following the American security company (and others like them), it should surprise no one that this company was involved in the shooting of civilians.
According to some researchers and reporters, Blackwater was getting down similarly -- in the U.S.!
Think back to 2005, when the winds, rains, and gushing waters from Lake Pontchartrain swept through New Orleans, another force beset the already besieged town.
Blackwater was one of the number of such companies, armed with automatic weapons and contracts from the Dept. of Homeland Security. They were allowed to play cowboy when people were suffering from this natural disaster.
Several years ago, writer and "Democracy Now!" correspondent, Jeremy Scahill reported a conversation he had with a man from one of those private security companies during the height of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
Scahill described his conversation with a man named Michael Montgomery, who worked with an Alabama-based company known as Bodyguard and Tactical Security (BATS). This guy told Scahill that he was in New Orleans on the second night of the catastrophe. As Scahill explained:
They got stopped in the ninth ward. He said they came under fire from a group of people on an overpass that he described as black gang bangers. He said, "At the time I was on the phone with my business partner." I said, "What did you do then?" He said, "I dropped the phone and opened fire." I said, "With what kind of weapons?" --"AR-15 assault rifles and Glock 9's." Fired up at the people he described as black gang bangers on this bridge. I said, "Then what happened?
Did you kill them?" He said, "Well, let's just put it this way, I heard a lot of moaning and screaming, and the shooting stopped. Enough said. "
Scahill was making his remarks on the Friday, Sept. 23 rd, 2005 edition of the nationally broadcast program, "Democracy Now!"
According to Scahill, these and other such groups were functioning in Louisiana, without licenses to operate in the state. What they had were contracts from the Homeland Security Dept., and a letter from the Governor of Louisiana!
Thus, armed with automatic weapons, they patrolled the property of the rich, while they waged war against the poor.
Scahill explained that after the shooting, army officers and Louisiana State Troopers came on the scene - but neither agency filed a report.
Scahill continued: So this is the climate of impunity.....[H] ow do we know that he was fired upon? How do we know what that incident was? Why wouldn't law enforcement file any kind of report on a shootout in which this guy is openly bragging to having shot up a bunch of people he described as black gang bangers on an overpass? [p.4 of downloaded text]
There are almost as many contractors working in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers -- but the Blackwater people make a whole lot more money, and are better equipped.
That's because they aren't fighting for 'democracy', they're fighting for good old American money. They are fighting for those who can afford them.
What do they care about Iraqis?
What did they care about 'Americans' in the midst of the whirlwind and the storm?
--(c) '07maj
The Diplomacy of Children
* The Diplomacy of Children*
* {col. writ. 9/23/07} © ’07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
With the news of the wish of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the site of the World Trade Center, and the refusal by local government, on the basis that it is a “sacred” site, too holy to be visited by the likes of one such as he, is the latest expression of silliness masquerading as politics.
It is the politics of emotion and imagery posing as reason.
First of all, since when does the NYPD engage in international diplomacy?
Secondly, what will Ahmadinejad’s mere presence do to the Manhattan site? Desecrate it?
Lastly, the Trade Center is a national site: it is an historic site – but how can it be a religious site?People (and not just Americans!) from a wealth of faiths and beliefs died at that site on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had nothing to do with Sept. 11^th – and neither did Ahmadinejad.
Some have said that his anti-Israeli comments should've disqualified him from the visit, but he’s not trying to visit Yad Vashem (the holocaust memorial in Israel ).
This is the politics of pettiness; the politics of illusion, certainly; but it’s also more – for powerful forces in the U.S. government want to push the nation into a new war –one with Iran.
To be sure, Ahmadinejad’s raps haven't helped, but it’s dangerous and misleading to assume that a foreign president, under a different system, has the powers and prerogatives of an American president.
Under the Iranian system, Ahmadinejad represents the executive, but he is not Commander-in-Chief.
Since the time of the Islamic Revolution, real power is held by a religious figure, known as the Supreme Leader, or collectively, the Majles-e-Khabrgran Rahbari, or the Assembly of Experts for the Leadership.
Ahmadinajad couldn't declare war on the U.S. if he wanted to; and he doesn't want to.
Iran is in a power position today not because of anything it’s done – but because of everything the U.S. has done to destabilize and wreck Iraq.
Iraq and Iran fought a vicious, bloody war, called ‘The War of the Cities’, which cost nearly a million lives on both sides. When the U.S. crushed their hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, Iranians, albeit briefly, danced in the streets.
If the Iraq War has taught us anything, it’s that diplomacy is preferable to war; for what is diplomacy, but talking?
Those who want Ahmadinejad barred from the Trade Center are most likely those who cheered when the U.S. began its long night of occupation over Iraq.
They prefer war against symbols, rather than war against real people, who think, who hear, and who speak.
--© ’07 maj
* {col. writ. 9/23/07} © ’07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
With the news of the wish of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the site of the World Trade Center, and the refusal by local government, on the basis that it is a “sacred” site, too holy to be visited by the likes of one such as he, is the latest expression of silliness masquerading as politics.
It is the politics of emotion and imagery posing as reason.
First of all, since when does the NYPD engage in international diplomacy?
Secondly, what will Ahmadinejad’s mere presence do to the Manhattan site? Desecrate it?
Lastly, the Trade Center is a national site: it is an historic site – but how can it be a religious site?People (and not just Americans!) from a wealth of faiths and beliefs died at that site on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had nothing to do with Sept. 11^th – and neither did Ahmadinejad.
Some have said that his anti-Israeli comments should've disqualified him from the visit, but he’s not trying to visit Yad Vashem (the holocaust memorial in Israel ).
This is the politics of pettiness; the politics of illusion, certainly; but it’s also more – for powerful forces in the U.S. government want to push the nation into a new war –one with Iran.
To be sure, Ahmadinejad’s raps haven't helped, but it’s dangerous and misleading to assume that a foreign president, under a different system, has the powers and prerogatives of an American president.
Under the Iranian system, Ahmadinejad represents the executive, but he is not Commander-in-Chief.
Since the time of the Islamic Revolution, real power is held by a religious figure, known as the Supreme Leader, or collectively, the Majles-e-Khabrgran Rahbari, or the Assembly of Experts for the Leadership.
Ahmadinajad couldn't declare war on the U.S. if he wanted to; and he doesn't want to.
Iran is in a power position today not because of anything it’s done – but because of everything the U.S. has done to destabilize and wreck Iraq.
Iraq and Iran fought a vicious, bloody war, called ‘The War of the Cities’, which cost nearly a million lives on both sides. When the U.S. crushed their hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, Iranians, albeit briefly, danced in the streets.
If the Iraq War has taught us anything, it’s that diplomacy is preferable to war; for what is diplomacy, but talking?
Those who want Ahmadinejad barred from the Trade Center are most likely those who cheered when the U.S. began its long night of occupation over Iraq.
They prefer war against symbols, rather than war against real people, who think, who hear, and who speak.
--© ’07 maj
Congress: Government of Which People?
*Congress: Government of Which People?*
*[col. writ. 9/23/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
Several months ago, members of the Democratic majority in Congress ( especially those on the Judiciary committees), argued loudly against the White House’s actions in illegally wiretapping the phones and computers of Americans.
What made this illegal was the actions were taken without the oversight of the FISA court, a secret court (which, until quite recently, had its offices at the Justice Dept.), that functioned like little more than a judicial rubber stamp for the executive branch.
Under the F.I.S.A. (or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the government had to seek a court order for most taps involving foreign contacts. If there was a serious threat to national security, such court orders could be issued retroactively – meaning the taps could take place, and then the court would issue a writ – after the fact.
For the Bushies, even this was too much, and now thanks to the Congress, even this isn't required.
That this happens now, under an allegedly Democratic majority Congress, proves the illusion of this faux democracy.
The FISA Act became law after the government was caught spying on, and interfering with, the legal, constitutional activities of Americans during the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Government didn't come forward and confess their violations. A group of anonymous activists raided the FBI headquarters in media, PA, and uncovered hundreds of files of activists and radicals all across the nation – and revealed these to the press.
The resultant scandal led to hearings in Congress (known as the Church Committee hearings), which uncovered government crimes against Americans.
In an infamous bipartisan compromise, congressional leaders agreed to the FISA provision, setting up secret courts to allow spying on Americans.
Now, with their latest laws, the Congress has made that which was illegal, legal – simply by passing a law.
They did it, not because they felt this was the right thing to do, but for the worst reasons – to not seem weak, and not open themselves to unflattering ads come reelection time.
Secret courts ? Secret wiretapping of Americans? What next – congressional approval for secret prisons? Secret torture?
Some may see this as hyperbole, but the political process is so twisted that there really isn't much that these politicians won't do to secure political advantage, or to protect one’s political flanks.
This is not a government ‘of the people, by the people, or for the people. ’
This is a quasi-democracy run on fear, privilege, and political advantage.
The Constitution is a minor obstruction that can be ignored in times of danger – like election time.
We shouldn't be surprised that so many feel that elections are a waste of time.
--© ’07 maj
*[col. writ. 9/23/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
Several months ago, members of the Democratic majority in Congress ( especially those on the Judiciary committees), argued loudly against the White House’s actions in illegally wiretapping the phones and computers of Americans.
What made this illegal was the actions were taken without the oversight of the FISA court, a secret court (which, until quite recently, had its offices at the Justice Dept.), that functioned like little more than a judicial rubber stamp for the executive branch.
Under the F.I.S.A. (or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the government had to seek a court order for most taps involving foreign contacts. If there was a serious threat to national security, such court orders could be issued retroactively – meaning the taps could take place, and then the court would issue a writ – after the fact.
For the Bushies, even this was too much, and now thanks to the Congress, even this isn't required.
That this happens now, under an allegedly Democratic majority Congress, proves the illusion of this faux democracy.
The FISA Act became law after the government was caught spying on, and interfering with, the legal, constitutional activities of Americans during the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Government didn't come forward and confess their violations. A group of anonymous activists raided the FBI headquarters in media, PA, and uncovered hundreds of files of activists and radicals all across the nation – and revealed these to the press.
The resultant scandal led to hearings in Congress (known as the Church Committee hearings), which uncovered government crimes against Americans.
In an infamous bipartisan compromise, congressional leaders agreed to the FISA provision, setting up secret courts to allow spying on Americans.
Now, with their latest laws, the Congress has made that which was illegal, legal – simply by passing a law.
They did it, not because they felt this was the right thing to do, but for the worst reasons – to not seem weak, and not open themselves to unflattering ads come reelection time.
Secret courts ? Secret wiretapping of Americans? What next – congressional approval for secret prisons? Secret torture?
Some may see this as hyperbole, but the political process is so twisted that there really isn't much that these politicians won't do to secure political advantage, or to protect one’s political flanks.
This is not a government ‘of the people, by the people, or for the people. ’
This is a quasi-democracy run on fear, privilege, and political advantage.
The Constitution is a minor obstruction that can be ignored in times of danger – like election time.
We shouldn't be surprised that so many feel that elections are a waste of time.
--© ’07 maj
Before and Beyond Jena by Mumia Abu-Jamal
*Before and Beyond Jena*
*[col. writ. 9/29/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
Until several weeks ago, the name 'Jena' was doubtless unfamiliar to millions of people in the U.S., until the demonstrations around the case of the Jena 6 brought attention to the small Louisiana town.
But, before the case occurred, the name became known to hundreds (if not thousands) of young Blacks, who came to know, quite intimately, that Jena was just another word for racism, rape, violence, and humiliation.
After the ravages of Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and its surrounding areas, hundreds of imprisoned people were transported to the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, in Jena, Louisiana, a place that became their nightmare. The place was so medieval and tortuous in its treatment of young people, that it was severely criticized by a federal judge as a place where people were "treated as if they walked on all fours," before it was closed.
According to published reports put out by the groups Human Rights Watch and the NAACP-Legal Defense Fund, people arriving at JJJC were beaten, brutalized, harassed, and subjected to racist taunts by staff members there. This was after it was reopened in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
They were denied things allegedly required by the Constitution, like grievance forms, calls to family, or pen and paper.
They were treated like they were al-Qaeda, and this was Guantanamo -- this, in the country, and in many cases, the state of their births.
The Human Rights Watch and NAACP-LDF have tried to interest state officials in a meaningful investigation, but this has led to little more than lip service.
Although federal officials have reportedly announced their intention to investigate, it is equally doubtful that any real, serious investigation will emerge.
As for the media (except for some segments of the Black press), Jena was little more than a 1 day, or at best, a 3-day story.
Their coverage, such as it was, was little more than a platform to allow local Jenites to exclaim how they weren't racists, and that nooses are just 'pranks' used by youngins' to have a little fun.
As ever, there has been little attempt to look backwards into recent history, and now that the last Jena 6 accused is out on bail, little looking to the future as well.
How is it possible in the U.S. today, for people wearing KKK robes to always intone, "I'm not a racist?"
When viewing or listening to locals there, it was almost impossible to not hear the echoes of 50 years ago, when civil rights actions began to stir the South, that 'the problem' was, once again, "outside agitators", like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. /They/ were the problem, not 'our darkeys.'
Only with the not-too-subtle death threats from Klan-related groups have we seen that the nooses from the so-called 'white tree', which sparked much of the Jena phenomenon, was far more than boys being boys.
The Jena case didn't start with 6 young schoolboys.
It won't end with them.
The case stems from something deep and abiding in the American heart and soul.
And it lives in every state of the union -not just in Louisiana.
This shouldn't be the end of the movement; but the spark for more.
--(c) '07 maj
{ Source : "First youth, then hurricane evacuees were tortured by Jena prison guards," San Francisco Bay View , Sept. 19, 2007, pp. 1,5,7,9.: For more info : <naacpldf.org>:or:<hrw.org>}
*[col. writ. 9/29/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
Until several weeks ago, the name 'Jena' was doubtless unfamiliar to millions of people in the U.S., until the demonstrations around the case of the Jena 6 brought attention to the small Louisiana town.
But, before the case occurred, the name became known to hundreds (if not thousands) of young Blacks, who came to know, quite intimately, that Jena was just another word for racism, rape, violence, and humiliation.
After the ravages of Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and its surrounding areas, hundreds of imprisoned people were transported to the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, in Jena, Louisiana, a place that became their nightmare. The place was so medieval and tortuous in its treatment of young people, that it was severely criticized by a federal judge as a place where people were "treated as if they walked on all fours," before it was closed.
According to published reports put out by the groups Human Rights Watch and the NAACP-Legal Defense Fund, people arriving at JJJC were beaten, brutalized, harassed, and subjected to racist taunts by staff members there. This was after it was reopened in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
They were denied things allegedly required by the Constitution, like grievance forms, calls to family, or pen and paper.
They were treated like they were al-Qaeda, and this was Guantanamo -- this, in the country, and in many cases, the state of their births.
The Human Rights Watch and NAACP-LDF have tried to interest state officials in a meaningful investigation, but this has led to little more than lip service.
Although federal officials have reportedly announced their intention to investigate, it is equally doubtful that any real, serious investigation will emerge.
As for the media (except for some segments of the Black press), Jena was little more than a 1 day, or at best, a 3-day story.
Their coverage, such as it was, was little more than a platform to allow local Jenites to exclaim how they weren't racists, and that nooses are just 'pranks' used by youngins' to have a little fun.
As ever, there has been little attempt to look backwards into recent history, and now that the last Jena 6 accused is out on bail, little looking to the future as well.
How is it possible in the U.S. today, for people wearing KKK robes to always intone, "I'm not a racist?"
When viewing or listening to locals there, it was almost impossible to not hear the echoes of 50 years ago, when civil rights actions began to stir the South, that 'the problem' was, once again, "outside agitators", like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. /They/ were the problem, not 'our darkeys.'
Only with the not-too-subtle death threats from Klan-related groups have we seen that the nooses from the so-called 'white tree', which sparked much of the Jena phenomenon, was far more than boys being boys.
The Jena case didn't start with 6 young schoolboys.
It won't end with them.
The case stems from something deep and abiding in the American heart and soul.
And it lives in every state of the union -not just in Louisiana.
This shouldn't be the end of the movement; but the spark for more.
--(c) '07 maj
{ Source : "First youth, then hurricane evacuees were tortured by Jena prison guards," San Francisco Bay View , Sept. 19, 2007, pp. 1,5,7,9.: For more info : <naacpldf.org>:or:<hrw.org>}
Fear & Hatred In The Apple by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Fear & Hatred In The Apple *
* [col. writ. 9/8/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
In New York City will soon open the Kahlil Gibran International Academy, a center for the study of Arabic language and culture.
Or maybe not.
That's because the school, named for a brilliant Lebanese-American writer, has become the focus of a right-wing campaign against its staff, and its very existence.
Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have so demonized the school, that its respected educator and the school's principal, Debbie Al-Montaser, felt compelled to resign.
Of all things, Al-Montaser has been forced to leave because of a media-sparked uproar over a T-shirt, which bore the words, "Intifada NYC."
The T-shirt is the production of the group, Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media (AWAM), a group with no ties to the Kahlil Gibran Academy.
Leave it to the notorious New York Post to use the t-shirt to depict Al-Montaser as "The Intifada Principal" (in a headline), who apparently is calling for "a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."
It is beyond irony that a school named for one of the most revered Arab writers, who, with several of his countrymen spent long years in the U.S., should become the focus of so much fear and hatred.
Gibran is perhaps best-known for his classic 1923 work, The Prophet , a book of glorious prose, and sensitive spiritual themes. To add to the irony Gibran was a Christian.
A school named in honor of an Arab Christian will hardly bloom into the site described by the New York Sun as a place to "groom future radicals."
But in a nation where Arab is merely a synonym for 'terrorist', and it is assumed that all Arabs are Muslims it is hardly surprising that some right-wing media will exploit that ignorance, and feed it.
In his youth, Gibran and a coterie of other Arab writers came to America to live and to write, and most of them remained here for many years. One, Lebanese writer, Mikhail Naimy, left shortly after his arrival, and returned home to pen The Book of Mirdad , a mystical work on the coming of a stranger to an abbey, who finds and exposes greed and corruption within. Gibran would be shocked by the campaign of hatred and fear generated around a school named after him. He would, perhaps, if he could, turn his thin finger to a browned page of his work, to speak with his own voice to those who now heap hatred and calumny upon his name. Before he published The Prophet, he penned a work aptly named, The Forerunner , a short story of a man who lived in a village, but whom few truly knew. He arose, deep into the night, to bare his heart to the sleeping city below him, as he took to the rooftop. This is part of his plea to the sleeping throng: "My friends and my neighbours and you who daily pass my gate. I would speak to you in your sleep, and in the valley of your dreams I would walk naked and unrestrained: for heedless are your waking hours and deaf are your sound-burdened ears. "Long did I love you and overmuch. "I love the one among you as though you were all, and all as if you were one. And in the spring of my heart I sang in your gardens, and in the summer of my heart I watched at your threshing-floors.
"Yes, I loved you all, the giant and the pygmy, the leper and the anointed, and him who gropes in the dark even as him who dances his days upon the mountains. "You, the strong have I loved, though the marks of your iron hoofs are yet upon my flesh; and you the weak, though you have drained my faith and wasted my patience.
"You the rich have I loved, while bitter was your honey to my mouth: and you the poor, though you know my empty-handed shame....."You the priest have I loved, who sit in the silences of yesterday questioning the fate of my tomorrow; and you the worshippers of gods the images of your desires....."Yes, I have loved you all, the young and the old, the trembling reed and the oak..." {From: Gibran, K., The Forerunner: His Parables and Poems . (Dover Publ., 1920), pp.51-53.}
Like the subject of his sweet prose, the man who loves is not loved by his city, as the school in his name is not loved in the city of its founding. Instead of love answering to love, the love of learning and culture, it comes in the name of stranger, and is clad in a brown face, and is met with fear and hatred.
Gibran would smile, while tears flowed from his eyes.
---(c) '07 maj
* [col. writ. 9/8/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
In New York City will soon open the Kahlil Gibran International Academy, a center for the study of Arabic language and culture.
Or maybe not.
That's because the school, named for a brilliant Lebanese-American writer, has become the focus of a right-wing campaign against its staff, and its very existence.
Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have so demonized the school, that its respected educator and the school's principal, Debbie Al-Montaser, felt compelled to resign.
Of all things, Al-Montaser has been forced to leave because of a media-sparked uproar over a T-shirt, which bore the words, "Intifada NYC."
The T-shirt is the production of the group, Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media (AWAM), a group with no ties to the Kahlil Gibran Academy.
Leave it to the notorious New York Post to use the t-shirt to depict Al-Montaser as "The Intifada Principal" (in a headline), who apparently is calling for "a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."
It is beyond irony that a school named for one of the most revered Arab writers, who, with several of his countrymen spent long years in the U.S., should become the focus of so much fear and hatred.
Gibran is perhaps best-known for his classic 1923 work, The Prophet , a book of glorious prose, and sensitive spiritual themes. To add to the irony Gibran was a Christian.
A school named in honor of an Arab Christian will hardly bloom into the site described by the New York Sun as a place to "groom future radicals."
But in a nation where Arab is merely a synonym for 'terrorist', and it is assumed that all Arabs are Muslims it is hardly surprising that some right-wing media will exploit that ignorance, and feed it.
In his youth, Gibran and a coterie of other Arab writers came to America to live and to write, and most of them remained here for many years. One, Lebanese writer, Mikhail Naimy, left shortly after his arrival, and returned home to pen The Book of Mirdad , a mystical work on the coming of a stranger to an abbey, who finds and exposes greed and corruption within. Gibran would be shocked by the campaign of hatred and fear generated around a school named after him. He would, perhaps, if he could, turn his thin finger to a browned page of his work, to speak with his own voice to those who now heap hatred and calumny upon his name. Before he published The Prophet, he penned a work aptly named, The Forerunner , a short story of a man who lived in a village, but whom few truly knew. He arose, deep into the night, to bare his heart to the sleeping city below him, as he took to the rooftop. This is part of his plea to the sleeping throng: "My friends and my neighbours and you who daily pass my gate. I would speak to you in your sleep, and in the valley of your dreams I would walk naked and unrestrained: for heedless are your waking hours and deaf are your sound-burdened ears. "Long did I love you and overmuch. "I love the one among you as though you were all, and all as if you were one. And in the spring of my heart I sang in your gardens, and in the summer of my heart I watched at your threshing-floors.
"Yes, I loved you all, the giant and the pygmy, the leper and the anointed, and him who gropes in the dark even as him who dances his days upon the mountains. "You, the strong have I loved, though the marks of your iron hoofs are yet upon my flesh; and you the weak, though you have drained my faith and wasted my patience.
"You the rich have I loved, while bitter was your honey to my mouth: and you the poor, though you know my empty-handed shame....."You the priest have I loved, who sit in the silences of yesterday questioning the fate of my tomorrow; and you the worshippers of gods the images of your desires....."Yes, I have loved you all, the young and the old, the trembling reed and the oak..." {From: Gibran, K., The Forerunner: His Parables and Poems . (Dover Publ., 1920), pp.51-53.}
Like the subject of his sweet prose, the man who loves is not loved by his city, as the school in his name is not loved in the city of its founding. Instead of love answering to love, the love of learning and culture, it comes in the name of stranger, and is clad in a brown face, and is met with fear and hatred.
Gibran would smile, while tears flowed from his eyes.
---(c) '07 maj
*Iran -- Rumors of War?*
* Iran -- Rumors of War? *
* {col. writ. 10/7/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
There are forces in this country and in this world that are expending energy to ensure war with Iran.
That's right -- Iran.
Many of those forces were the same ones that suckered the nation into Iraq, with media - megaphoned fear- mongering.
Iran has become the feared bogeyman of the hour; the latest in the simplistic media projection of 'bad guy.'
And, just as in Iraq, the media's demonization of the leader becomes reason to destroy, attack, bomb, and occupy a nation.
"He's a bad guy!" "He's a ruthless dictator!"
Doesn't this sound familiar?
Famed scholar and linguist, Noam Chomsky, interviewed recently by radio host David Barsamian, gives a powerful example of the impact of media upon us. Chomps explained: "Take a classic example, Germany. Under the Weimar Republic, Germany was the most civilized country in the world, the leader in the sciences and the arts. Within two or three years it had been turned into a country of raving maniacs by extensive propaganda--which, incidentally, was explicitly borrowed from Anglo-American commercial propaganda. And it worked. It frightened Germans. They thought they were defending themselves against the Jews, against the Bolsheviks. And you know what happened next." *{Fr.: Barsamian, David, Targeting Iran (San Francisco, Ca.: Open Media/City Lights, 2007),p.47}*
And speaking of brutal, ruthless dictators, the U.S. backed Shah of Iran used his secret police, Savak, to drench the earth with blood and terror. But, to the U.S., /he/ was cool.
Has the nation learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
The U.S. Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution supporting the partition of Iraq.
It makes a certain diabolical sense; the U.S. bombed it, invaded it, overthrew its government, and replaced it with puppets of their liking -- all this, not now being successful, why not shatter it into threes?
This argument is now being made, not by rabid neo cons, but by so-called 'liberal' Democrats.
Why? Because imperialism is a truly bipartisan American project.
The newest target may well be Iran, despite the fact that if Iran is indeed more influential today, it's because of the U.S. invasion, occupation, and near destruction of Iraq.
In sum, Iran was strengthened by Iraq's fall.
The U.S. has a Middle East policy driven by fear and ignorance.
It is reactive, emotional, and driven by faith --not reason.
Those are dangerous forces to justify war, and unworthy of a nation that considers itself a superpower.
Super in power, but petty in reasoning.
--(c) '07 maj
* {col. writ. 10/7/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
There are forces in this country and in this world that are expending energy to ensure war with Iran.
That's right -- Iran.
Many of those forces were the same ones that suckered the nation into Iraq, with media - megaphoned fear- mongering.
Iran has become the feared bogeyman of the hour; the latest in the simplistic media projection of 'bad guy.'
And, just as in Iraq, the media's demonization of the leader becomes reason to destroy, attack, bomb, and occupy a nation.
"He's a bad guy!" "He's a ruthless dictator!"
Doesn't this sound familiar?
Famed scholar and linguist, Noam Chomsky, interviewed recently by radio host David Barsamian, gives a powerful example of the impact of media upon us. Chomps explained: "Take a classic example, Germany. Under the Weimar Republic, Germany was the most civilized country in the world, the leader in the sciences and the arts. Within two or three years it had been turned into a country of raving maniacs by extensive propaganda--which, incidentally, was explicitly borrowed from Anglo-American commercial propaganda. And it worked. It frightened Germans. They thought they were defending themselves against the Jews, against the Bolsheviks. And you know what happened next." *{Fr.: Barsamian, David, Targeting Iran (San Francisco, Ca.: Open Media/City Lights, 2007),p.47}*
And speaking of brutal, ruthless dictators, the U.S. backed Shah of Iran used his secret police, Savak, to drench the earth with blood and terror. But, to the U.S., /he/ was cool.
Has the nation learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
The U.S. Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution supporting the partition of Iraq.
It makes a certain diabolical sense; the U.S. bombed it, invaded it, overthrew its government, and replaced it with puppets of their liking -- all this, not now being successful, why not shatter it into threes?
This argument is now being made, not by rabid neo cons, but by so-called 'liberal' Democrats.
Why? Because imperialism is a truly bipartisan American project.
The newest target may well be Iran, despite the fact that if Iran is indeed more influential today, it's because of the U.S. invasion, occupation, and near destruction of Iraq.
In sum, Iran was strengthened by Iraq's fall.
The U.S. has a Middle East policy driven by fear and ignorance.
It is reactive, emotional, and driven by faith --not reason.
Those are dangerous forces to justify war, and unworthy of a nation that considers itself a superpower.
Super in power, but petty in reasoning.
--(c) '07 maj
When the Union Becomes Management
*When the Union Becomes Management *
* {col. writ. 10/3/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
The recent contract approval by the executive committee of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and General Motors (GM) marks a turning point in relations between labor and management. It may also mark the transition between unions as a representative of workers, and management as a representative for the owners.
That's because, if the UAW members agree, the union will (at least partially ) administer almost $30 billion bucks in pension funds.
If the general membership signs on, it lifts a $50 billion burden from the backs of GM managers, and places the lion's share of it on the back of the union.
In one fell swoop, the union performs the function of GM management!
For GM, this is a masterstroke; for the UAW, it may prove a trap, or the first step of the end of unions, or at least pensions as we know it.
The trade union movement came of age by becoming the laborer's institution, and the de facto representative of its workers. In the earlier half of the 20th century, it was clear that labor and capital were antagonists, not allies, for each represented differing and conflicting interests.
In other words, the union didn't do managements job, nor did the business manage the union. In his masterwork, Capital , Marx noted how workers are divided into functions and hierarchies that serve capitals interests.
Marx wrote: *Manufacture...develops a hierarchy of labour powers, to which there corresponds a scale of wages. If, on the one hand, the individual labourers are appropriated and annexed for life by a limited function; on the other hand, the various operations of the hierarchy are parceled out among the labourers according to both their natural and their acquired capabilities. (Moscow, 1958, p.349)*
Now, labor performs a manufacturing function -- the partial administration of pension funds.
What happens when too many hands dip into the till?
What happens when GM models don't sell as expected?
What happens when the union becomes just another institution of management?
--(c) '07 maj
* {col. writ. 10/3/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
The recent contract approval by the executive committee of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and General Motors (GM) marks a turning point in relations between labor and management. It may also mark the transition between unions as a representative of workers, and management as a representative for the owners.
That's because, if the UAW members agree, the union will (at least partially ) administer almost $30 billion bucks in pension funds.
If the general membership signs on, it lifts a $50 billion burden from the backs of GM managers, and places the lion's share of it on the back of the union.
In one fell swoop, the union performs the function of GM management!
For GM, this is a masterstroke; for the UAW, it may prove a trap, or the first step of the end of unions, or at least pensions as we know it.
The trade union movement came of age by becoming the laborer's institution, and the de facto representative of its workers. In the earlier half of the 20th century, it was clear that labor and capital were antagonists, not allies, for each represented differing and conflicting interests.
In other words, the union didn't do managements job, nor did the business manage the union. In his masterwork, Capital , Marx noted how workers are divided into functions and hierarchies that serve capitals interests.
Marx wrote: *Manufacture...develops a hierarchy of labour powers, to which there corresponds a scale of wages. If, on the one hand, the individual labourers are appropriated and annexed for life by a limited function; on the other hand, the various operations of the hierarchy are parceled out among the labourers according to both their natural and their acquired capabilities. (Moscow, 1958, p.349)*
Now, labor performs a manufacturing function -- the partial administration of pension funds.
What happens when too many hands dip into the till?
What happens when GM models don't sell as expected?
What happens when the union becomes just another institution of management?
--(c) '07 maj
Planning to Fail
*Planning to Fail*
*[col. writ. 10/18/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
It's hard to look at American society today, and not see how everything seems to be a plan for failure.
One would be hard-pressed to find a society which seems to see education as little more than a business, which only the well-to-do can begin to afford.
There are a plethora of loans, even some provided by the feds, but fewer and fewer grants. When students are lucky enough to find loans, they are saddled with red oceans of debt, some to the tune of over $100,000; the costs, not just of admissions, tuition, books and fees; but of housing, clothing, transport, food, and entertainment for 4 years --more, if one seeks a professional, or graduate degree!
How is it that education is fast becoming a pipe dream for millions of young people in the U.S., and is free just 90 miles away from American soil?
In Cuba, education is free from kindergarten to college. Indeed, just recently a score of Americans (and hundreds of other nationalities) graduated from Medical School there, with full doctoral degrees.
Unlike their fellow students to the North, these men and women earned their degrees with no crippling debts!
Their whole education -- 6 years of med school -- was/ free/, courtesy of Cuban generosity. How can a tiny, relatively poor island nation do so well, with such meager resources, and the richest nation on Earth -- the wealthiest empire since Rome -- can't manage to do as well?
It isn't that the U.S. /can't/ do so; it's that it doesn't want to -- or feel the need to.
If there's a shortage of doctors (or any other professionals here), they'll just outsource the gigs to another country, or revise immigration rules to import talent.
That Cuba does this, in the face of its own dire economic straits, imposed by the U.S. through the Embargo, for generations -- borders on the miraculous.
And that's the kicker; one sees students as a cash cow to fuel the banking and education industries; the other sees human knowledge as the property of all humanity, and not a gain to the storehouse of human resources.
When students emerged from Cuba's med schools, their medical degrees in hand, they were only given one small kind of debt -- to use their skills to help the poor amongst us.
Boy -- what an idea!
--(c) '07 maj
*[col. writ. 10/18/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal*
* *
* *
It's hard to look at American society today, and not see how everything seems to be a plan for failure.
One would be hard-pressed to find a society which seems to see education as little more than a business, which only the well-to-do can begin to afford.
There are a plethora of loans, even some provided by the feds, but fewer and fewer grants. When students are lucky enough to find loans, they are saddled with red oceans of debt, some to the tune of over $100,000; the costs, not just of admissions, tuition, books and fees; but of housing, clothing, transport, food, and entertainment for 4 years --more, if one seeks a professional, or graduate degree!
How is it that education is fast becoming a pipe dream for millions of young people in the U.S., and is free just 90 miles away from American soil?
In Cuba, education is free from kindergarten to college. Indeed, just recently a score of Americans (and hundreds of other nationalities) graduated from Medical School there, with full doctoral degrees.
Unlike their fellow students to the North, these men and women earned their degrees with no crippling debts!
Their whole education -- 6 years of med school -- was/ free/, courtesy of Cuban generosity. How can a tiny, relatively poor island nation do so well, with such meager resources, and the richest nation on Earth -- the wealthiest empire since Rome -- can't manage to do as well?
It isn't that the U.S. /can't/ do so; it's that it doesn't want to -- or feel the need to.
If there's a shortage of doctors (or any other professionals here), they'll just outsource the gigs to another country, or revise immigration rules to import talent.
That Cuba does this, in the face of its own dire economic straits, imposed by the U.S. through the Embargo, for generations -- borders on the miraculous.
And that's the kicker; one sees students as a cash cow to fuel the banking and education industries; the other sees human knowledge as the property of all humanity, and not a gain to the storehouse of human resources.
When students emerged from Cuba's med schools, their medical degrees in hand, they were only given one small kind of debt -- to use their skills to help the poor amongst us.
Boy -- what an idea!
--(c) '07 maj
The Law That Promotes Punishment (Instead of Education)
* The Law That Promotes Punishment (Instead of Education) *
* [col. writ. 10/21/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
It's been 5 years since the No Child Left Behind law was put into place, and around the nation, it has left wreckage in its wake.
That's because, like many such laws pushed by the paranoid right wind, what a law is called has little (or nothing) to do with what a law /does./
Calling it No Child Left Behind gave it the benign imagery of caring for children and their futures. It's like the so-called Patriot Act -- an act, to be sure, but one so patently unconstitutional in its evisceration of the 4th Amendment (and other constitutional provisions) that no true patriot could ever support it.
While the imagery of a catchy title might've helped in it's selling, the lesser known side of the law is now about to kick in -- and it threatens to transform public schools into private businesses, transfer them into charter schools, allow state takeovers -- or close them.
This law is of a piece from the right's central array of evils -- an attack on the very idea of public education, and a fixation with privatizing everything.
Who will suffer more from these transformations? School staffs, or children?
For No Child Left Behind was but another example of business uber alles, and the poor be damned.
Can the same states that made boot camps into squalid hellholes of torture for children, somehow make schools pristine halls of learning? Indeed, in many states, the 'business' of boot camping children has been tried, and while it has made money, it has been the epicenter of abuse, mistreatment, and actually, state-subsidized child abuse.
So much for the business model.
The law was both a punishment for the poor, and a cold, calculating recognition that some children have no real place in the post-industrial society being built, and thus, were to be /left behind/.
Uneducated, left to the tender mercies of the streets, to stew in a hopeless funk, or to feed the cavernous maw of prison...how left behind can you get?
According to a recent report in the New York Times , Florida faces the closing of 441 schools; Baltimore has 9 schools on the failure list; in New York State, 77 schools face so-called restructuring; and in California, over 1,000 schools have been designated chronic failures.*
By the year 2014, /all/ of the schools located in California's poorest districts, some 6,063 schools, are expected to be on that list!
No Child Left Behind was designed to fail, to deliver the coup de-grace to public education, and also to disable or destroy the hated teacher's unions.
It was a law designed to fail, not to solve a pressing social problem.
The question shouldn't be whether this new (and supposedly 'improved') Congress should tinker with the law.
Congress should repeal it.
--(c) '07 maj
{* Source : Schemo, Diana Jean, "Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standard," New York Times , Tues., Oct. 16, 2007, pp A1, A21.}
* [col. writ. 10/21/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
It's been 5 years since the No Child Left Behind law was put into place, and around the nation, it has left wreckage in its wake.
That's because, like many such laws pushed by the paranoid right wind, what a law is called has little (or nothing) to do with what a law /does./
Calling it No Child Left Behind gave it the benign imagery of caring for children and their futures. It's like the so-called Patriot Act -- an act, to be sure, but one so patently unconstitutional in its evisceration of the 4th Amendment (and other constitutional provisions) that no true patriot could ever support it.
While the imagery of a catchy title might've helped in it's selling, the lesser known side of the law is now about to kick in -- and it threatens to transform public schools into private businesses, transfer them into charter schools, allow state takeovers -- or close them.
This law is of a piece from the right's central array of evils -- an attack on the very idea of public education, and a fixation with privatizing everything.
Who will suffer more from these transformations? School staffs, or children?
For No Child Left Behind was but another example of business uber alles, and the poor be damned.
Can the same states that made boot camps into squalid hellholes of torture for children, somehow make schools pristine halls of learning? Indeed, in many states, the 'business' of boot camping children has been tried, and while it has made money, it has been the epicenter of abuse, mistreatment, and actually, state-subsidized child abuse.
So much for the business model.
The law was both a punishment for the poor, and a cold, calculating recognition that some children have no real place in the post-industrial society being built, and thus, were to be /left behind/.
Uneducated, left to the tender mercies of the streets, to stew in a hopeless funk, or to feed the cavernous maw of prison...how left behind can you get?
According to a recent report in the New York Times , Florida faces the closing of 441 schools; Baltimore has 9 schools on the failure list; in New York State, 77 schools face so-called restructuring; and in California, over 1,000 schools have been designated chronic failures.*
By the year 2014, /all/ of the schools located in California's poorest districts, some 6,063 schools, are expected to be on that list!
No Child Left Behind was designed to fail, to deliver the coup de-grace to public education, and also to disable or destroy the hated teacher's unions.
It was a law designed to fail, not to solve a pressing social problem.
The question shouldn't be whether this new (and supposedly 'improved') Congress should tinker with the law.
Congress should repeal it.
--(c) '07 maj
{* Source : Schemo, Diana Jean, "Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standard," New York Times , Tues., Oct. 16, 2007, pp A1, A21.}
The Magic Money Machine by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* The Magic Money Machine *
* [col. writ. 11/10/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
TV has become, increasingly, a magic money machine.
Virtually every billable hour is dedicated to commercial tripe, skewed towards the lowest common denominator, designed to shock or titillate - and rarely to inform.
Ostensibly, the airwaves belong to the people, but in fact, the machinery used to bring us programming brings us a world where money rules all. From children's programming to the evening news, the cling-clang of cash rattles -- (or is it the swish of credit card swipes?) - whatever metaphor we choose, the TV is a money-meter for the owners -- and a dumbing down machine for viewers.
Serious TV is almost an oxymoron; it's a /non sequitur/ - for 'it does not follow!'
Cable TV, launched over a generation ago with the promise of commercial free programming, has become commercial - /fat /programming. It is the land of 1/2 hour or hour long infomercials -- all night long.
If product sales aren't taking place, then religious programming illustrates well why Jesus threw money lenders out of the temple! Cable TV is the temple of the religion industry.
Commercial radio, too, hasn't escaped this racket. Under the old FCC rules, every station had to air both news and public affairs programming; but under the guise of deregulation many of those rules were abolished - and today, news is a rarity.
Is there any wonder why so many know so little, in a time of war and peril?
News, however, is just another commodity - a product for sale to the highest bidder.
Several years ago, the Orlando Sentinel's media critic, Hal Boedeker asked readers to let him know what they thought of their local TV news. He was flooded by over a thousand letters, which excoriated the business.
Boedeker summarized their reactions, writing: "People are really angry about local TV news. They're tired of being teased. They feel their time is being wasted. They're tired of anchors being cute. They're tired of repetition." *
Other sources showed the same symptom. The broadcast industry's research firm, Insite Media Research (http://www.tvsurveys.com) found 1 in four adults no longer tunes to the local news. The nonprofit group, NewsLab came up with similar results, finding people deeply annoyed (Borjesson 249).
Folks are tuning out from local, and also national news. Let's not get into young viewers!
Black radio is today becoming a vanishing breed; those that still remain have no news.
Think of this -- what audience in America needs /less/ information?
BET, under its sale to Viacom, jettisoned almost all of its news programming, except for occasional 2 minute 'updates' that are almost indistinguishable from ads for either upcoming rap albums or station programming.
In a time of a war built on lies, what demographic needs less news,/ less/ relevant information about the world on fire?
--(c) '07 maj
{*Source: Idsvoog, Karl, "Let's Blow Up Our Brand: The Dangerous Course of Today's Broadcast Newsrooms." fr. Borjesson, Kristina , ed., Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Bks., 2002), p. 249}
* [col. writ. 11/10/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
TV has become, increasingly, a magic money machine.
Virtually every billable hour is dedicated to commercial tripe, skewed towards the lowest common denominator, designed to shock or titillate - and rarely to inform.
Ostensibly, the airwaves belong to the people, but in fact, the machinery used to bring us programming brings us a world where money rules all. From children's programming to the evening news, the cling-clang of cash rattles -- (or is it the swish of credit card swipes?) - whatever metaphor we choose, the TV is a money-meter for the owners -- and a dumbing down machine for viewers.
Serious TV is almost an oxymoron; it's a /non sequitur/ - for 'it does not follow!'
Cable TV, launched over a generation ago with the promise of commercial free programming, has become commercial - /fat /programming. It is the land of 1/2 hour or hour long infomercials -- all night long.
If product sales aren't taking place, then religious programming illustrates well why Jesus threw money lenders out of the temple! Cable TV is the temple of the religion industry.
Commercial radio, too, hasn't escaped this racket. Under the old FCC rules, every station had to air both news and public affairs programming; but under the guise of deregulation many of those rules were abolished - and today, news is a rarity.
Is there any wonder why so many know so little, in a time of war and peril?
News, however, is just another commodity - a product for sale to the highest bidder.
Several years ago, the Orlando Sentinel's media critic, Hal Boedeker asked readers to let him know what they thought of their local TV news. He was flooded by over a thousand letters, which excoriated the business.
Boedeker summarized their reactions, writing: "People are really angry about local TV news. They're tired of being teased. They feel their time is being wasted. They're tired of anchors being cute. They're tired of repetition." *
Other sources showed the same symptom. The broadcast industry's research firm, Insite Media Research (http://www.tvsurveys.com) found 1 in four adults no longer tunes to the local news. The nonprofit group, NewsLab came up with similar results, finding people deeply annoyed (Borjesson 249).
Folks are tuning out from local, and also national news. Let's not get into young viewers!
Black radio is today becoming a vanishing breed; those that still remain have no news.
Think of this -- what audience in America needs /less/ information?
BET, under its sale to Viacom, jettisoned almost all of its news programming, except for occasional 2 minute 'updates' that are almost indistinguishable from ads for either upcoming rap albums or station programming.
In a time of a war built on lies, what demographic needs less news,/ less/ relevant information about the world on fire?
--(c) '07 maj
{*Source: Idsvoog, Karl, "Let's Blow Up Our Brand: The Dangerous Course of Today's Broadcast Newsrooms." fr. Borjesson, Kristina , ed., Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Bks., 2002), p. 249}
'Soft' Dictatorships & the Misrule of Law
* 'Soft' Dictatorships & the Misrule of Law *
* [col. writ. 11/8/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
It has been over a week since the eruption of the so called State of Emergency in Pakistan, and already, despite occasional rhetorical terms of excitement, there has been a tacit acceptance by the U.S. government of what should have been unacceptable.
In Pakistan, the unelected military leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has already gotten the nod to continue the repression of the nation's judiciary, lawyers and civil society activists for the next 3 months (until Feb. 2008)
Despite initial rumblings of State Dept. protests, now even the threat of withholding military funding for the Pakistani dictatorship is (to borrow a phrase from U.S. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.) "off the table."
So, despite any words, in deed, the U.S. has thrown Pakistan a timeline of acceptability for a campaign of repression against any prominent figures who have spoken out against the nation's military rule.
Notice, if you will, how Americans have given the OK to February elections, but have fallen silent about the government's blatant reshaping of the Supreme Court.
Indeed, in addition to publicly beating lawyers, the Pakistan government has been adept in pulling the plug to television, cable, and internet media, only allowing state channels to air.
One wonders, why is the U.S., Pakistan's chief funder, so silent in the face of such actions by the deeply unpopular dictator, Musharraf?
Because the U.S. knows that anybody else in the country, from any other sector of society, would find more popular support if they opposed U.S. actions - not followed them.
In other words, the U.S. wants a deeply repressive satrap, or puppet - for anything approximating popular support will, by necessity, follow different paths than those the U.S. prescribes for them!
In a real sense, we are seeing the same thing we saw during the so called 'Cold War', where the U.S. supported brutal, undemocratic dictators the world over, for strategic reasons, against the wishes of their own people.
Musharraf is riding the tiger, and in many ways, he can't let go.
That tiger isn't the new bogeyman, terrorism - it's the U.S., which has managed to push its massive thumb into the eye of millions of Muslims around the world.
How can it now, realistically, openly oppose a dictator, who has been doing openly, what the Bush regime has been doing by subterfuge.
The U.S. used lies and pretexts to invade, destabilize, and virtually destroy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and has followed that grand spectacle with secret prisons (so called 'black sites') overseas, mass wiretaps of mega millions of American communications, violation of the FISA act, torture - the shredding of the Constitution.
How can the U.S. honestly criticize Pakistan for shredding its constitution, when the U.S. Constitution lies in tatters?
According to some reports, Pakistan's military has become an economic powerhouse, owning almost everything worthy of being owned. They therefore have more than military power - they have financial power to influence Pakistani society.
How can the U.S. criticize kleptocracy in the face of Halliburton, Blackwater, the bursting coffers of Exxon, or other corporate citizens that have swelled at the public trough?
It is true, the Bush regime hasn't removed Supreme Court justices, or beaten lawyers in the street. /Yet./
Then again, there aren't thousands of lawyers on the march, protesting the daily assaults on their Constitution, or for judicial independence. While they may tear out their hair in quiet isolation and frustration, they haven't felt the need to emulate their Pakistani counterparts.
There are many roads to dictatorship, and some (as in German history, for example) do not evoke widespread opposition.
The day may come when we begin to envy the Pakistanis for fighting for their rights.
But that day has not yet dawned.
--(c) '07 maj
* [col. writ. 11/8/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
It has been over a week since the eruption of the so called State of Emergency in Pakistan, and already, despite occasional rhetorical terms of excitement, there has been a tacit acceptance by the U.S. government of what should have been unacceptable.
In Pakistan, the unelected military leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has already gotten the nod to continue the repression of the nation's judiciary, lawyers and civil society activists for the next 3 months (until Feb. 2008)
Despite initial rumblings of State Dept. protests, now even the threat of withholding military funding for the Pakistani dictatorship is (to borrow a phrase from U.S. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.) "off the table."
So, despite any words, in deed, the U.S. has thrown Pakistan a timeline of acceptability for a campaign of repression against any prominent figures who have spoken out against the nation's military rule.
Notice, if you will, how Americans have given the OK to February elections, but have fallen silent about the government's blatant reshaping of the Supreme Court.
Indeed, in addition to publicly beating lawyers, the Pakistan government has been adept in pulling the plug to television, cable, and internet media, only allowing state channels to air.
One wonders, why is the U.S., Pakistan's chief funder, so silent in the face of such actions by the deeply unpopular dictator, Musharraf?
Because the U.S. knows that anybody else in the country, from any other sector of society, would find more popular support if they opposed U.S. actions - not followed them.
In other words, the U.S. wants a deeply repressive satrap, or puppet - for anything approximating popular support will, by necessity, follow different paths than those the U.S. prescribes for them!
In a real sense, we are seeing the same thing we saw during the so called 'Cold War', where the U.S. supported brutal, undemocratic dictators the world over, for strategic reasons, against the wishes of their own people.
Musharraf is riding the tiger, and in many ways, he can't let go.
That tiger isn't the new bogeyman, terrorism - it's the U.S., which has managed to push its massive thumb into the eye of millions of Muslims around the world.
How can it now, realistically, openly oppose a dictator, who has been doing openly, what the Bush regime has been doing by subterfuge.
The U.S. used lies and pretexts to invade, destabilize, and virtually destroy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and has followed that grand spectacle with secret prisons (so called 'black sites') overseas, mass wiretaps of mega millions of American communications, violation of the FISA act, torture - the shredding of the Constitution.
How can the U.S. honestly criticize Pakistan for shredding its constitution, when the U.S. Constitution lies in tatters?
According to some reports, Pakistan's military has become an economic powerhouse, owning almost everything worthy of being owned. They therefore have more than military power - they have financial power to influence Pakistani society.
How can the U.S. criticize kleptocracy in the face of Halliburton, Blackwater, the bursting coffers of Exxon, or other corporate citizens that have swelled at the public trough?
It is true, the Bush regime hasn't removed Supreme Court justices, or beaten lawyers in the street. /Yet./
Then again, there aren't thousands of lawyers on the march, protesting the daily assaults on their Constitution, or for judicial independence. While they may tear out their hair in quiet isolation and frustration, they haven't felt the need to emulate their Pakistani counterparts.
There are many roads to dictatorship, and some (as in German history, for example) do not evoke widespread opposition.
The day may come when we begin to envy the Pakistanis for fighting for their rights.
But that day has not yet dawned.
--(c) '07 maj
The Dictatorship of "Freedom"
* The Dictatorship of "Freedom" *
* [col. writ. 11/4/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
With shining boots, cadenced marches and loaded arms, the Pakistan Army entered the country's Supreme Court and announced martial law.
America's biggest ally in the so-called 'War on Terror' has launched another war: one on democracy and the very notion of an independent judiciary.
The problem, it seems, is that the Pakistani judiciary was growing a tad too independent for President-General Pervez Musharraf.
The fig leaf of this pretend democracy has been discarded; it is a military dictatorship plain and simple.
So much for the American rhetorical exercise of bringing democracy to the benighted Islamic world.
Nor should we be surprised!
A month ago, when Pakistani opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif tried to return home, he was met by a wall of military resistance that wouldn't allow him to enter the country that he once led as prime minister.
While en route to Pakistan, in London's Heathrow Airport, Sharif described his imminent return thus: "It's a final battle now between dictatorship and democracy." Sharif added, "Civil society is there now struggling for the restoration of the rule of law. The judiciary is today independent. I think it is about time that we put an end to this menace of dictatorship because it has inflicted so much damage to my country." ( New York Times , 9/11/07, p.A8.)
Denied his court ordered right of return, Sharif told reporters at the Pakistan airport, "Mr. Musharraf does not believe in the rule of law. He tries to bulldoze everything that comes in his way." ( NYT , 9/11/07)
Sound familiar?
And what's the White House response? The Bush Regime has announced it still supports the military junta that suspended the constitution, removed objectionable judges from the Supreme Court -- and placed the whole capital on lockdown.
Observers say Musharraf's moves comes just as the court was about to rule on his right to stand in a recent election.
As Nawaz Sharif noted a month ago, "President Bush is somehow supporting an individual who today has become a symbol of hatred in Pakistan, a man whom everybody in Pakistan wants to get rid of." Added Sharif, " I don't know why Mr. Bush is still supporting this man. He must not equate Pakistan with Mr. Musharraf. He should have this friendship with the people of Pakistan, not with an individual who is becoming more and more unpopular in the country."
As democracy dies in Pakistan, it casts a pall on the biggest supporter of this dictatorship -- the United States of America.
--(c) '07 maj
{Source: Gall, Carlotta, "Pakistan Edgy As Ex Premier Is Exiled Again," New York Times, Tues., Sept. 11, 2007, pp.A1-A8.}
* [col. writ. 11/4/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
With shining boots, cadenced marches and loaded arms, the Pakistan Army entered the country's Supreme Court and announced martial law.
America's biggest ally in the so-called 'War on Terror' has launched another war: one on democracy and the very notion of an independent judiciary.
The problem, it seems, is that the Pakistani judiciary was growing a tad too independent for President-General Pervez Musharraf.
The fig leaf of this pretend democracy has been discarded; it is a military dictatorship plain and simple.
So much for the American rhetorical exercise of bringing democracy to the benighted Islamic world.
Nor should we be surprised!
A month ago, when Pakistani opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif tried to return home, he was met by a wall of military resistance that wouldn't allow him to enter the country that he once led as prime minister.
While en route to Pakistan, in London's Heathrow Airport, Sharif described his imminent return thus: "It's a final battle now between dictatorship and democracy." Sharif added, "Civil society is there now struggling for the restoration of the rule of law. The judiciary is today independent. I think it is about time that we put an end to this menace of dictatorship because it has inflicted so much damage to my country." ( New York Times , 9/11/07, p.A8.)
Denied his court ordered right of return, Sharif told reporters at the Pakistan airport, "Mr. Musharraf does not believe in the rule of law. He tries to bulldoze everything that comes in his way." ( NYT , 9/11/07)
Sound familiar?
And what's the White House response? The Bush Regime has announced it still supports the military junta that suspended the constitution, removed objectionable judges from the Supreme Court -- and placed the whole capital on lockdown.
Observers say Musharraf's moves comes just as the court was about to rule on his right to stand in a recent election.
As Nawaz Sharif noted a month ago, "President Bush is somehow supporting an individual who today has become a symbol of hatred in Pakistan, a man whom everybody in Pakistan wants to get rid of." Added Sharif, " I don't know why Mr. Bush is still supporting this man. He must not equate Pakistan with Mr. Musharraf. He should have this friendship with the people of Pakistan, not with an individual who is becoming more and more unpopular in the country."
As democracy dies in Pakistan, it casts a pall on the biggest supporter of this dictatorship -- the United States of America.
--(c) '07 maj
{Source: Gall, Carlotta, "Pakistan Edgy As Ex Premier Is Exiled Again," New York Times, Tues., Sept. 11, 2007, pp.A1-A8.}
Echoes of a Freedom Struggle (A Book Review) by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Echoes of a Freedom Struggle (A Book Review) *
* [rev.writ. 11/22/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
There has been, in the last 30 years, a kind of cottage industry of civil rights histories, works written by folks recounting the heroic, and ostensibly successful black freedom movement, most centered around the life, and martyrdom of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The arc of those tales told is that there was once a vast evil called "segregation" which was overcome by the goodness, light, and sacrifice of people like Rev. Dr. King.
Such a tale is comforting, and also popular, for it reaffirms a safe legend about America, and as such, as it is self-congratulatory, it sells.
Yet, as always, this was not the whole story, as shown by a growing number of works on the Black Liberation Movement (BLM).
Lifetime liberationist, and later scholar Muhammad Ahmad ( f/k/a Max Stanford, Jr.) has given us all a unique and revealing look at this movement, often told from the inside. In his new book, *We Will Return in the * *Whirlwind: Black Radical Organizations - 1960 1975* , (Chi., IL: Kerr Publ., 2007) Ahmad tells us of the formative years, apex of development, and the fall of several radical and revolutionary groups: the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) , the Black Panther Party (BPP), and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW). As he was involved in the formation of several of these groups, his accounts are rich in historical detail. For today's young activists, and especially for those who aspire to learn about the accomplishments , and failures of the Black liberation movement, this work is invaluable.
Not surprisingly, many of the movements he examines (with the notable exception of the LRBW) had their origins in the Black student movement (either high school or college). Early in his work he cites the singular insight of revolutionary activist and organizer, Grace Boggs for an idea that would echo through almost all those movements - the failure to reach young people:
The main weakness of the Black left has been its inability to focus on the youth, who are burdened by a very high unemployment rate and are targeted by the drug culture. Until the divorcement of the Black left from the youths is addressed there is likely to be no real advance in Black radicalism. {p.22}
I learned a great deal from Dr. Ahmad's work, not just on RAM, and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, but also of the role of key, 'organic' intellectuals and organizers, like Queen Mother Audley Moore (1898-1997), who played a central role in educating Ahmad when he was a young RAM activist. His recollection of his initial fear of Moore rings clear and true, when we recall how popular culture taught us about the world around us:
Wanda Marshall [another RAM activist} and I had been afraid of Queen Mother, because of anti-communism red-baiting among progressive people. Though I read some Marx, Lenin, and a little of Trotsky, I still had the sting of anti-communism in me. Wanda would say, "you know communists can brainwash you." When the RAM cadre along with others would go over to Queen Mother's house, attending "Free Mae Mallory" meetings, we would be in the hall talking before breaking up. Queen Mother would interrupt the discussion, point at me, and would say, "you, darling, you're the one I want." This would scare the "living daylights" out of me, and I would promptly leave. Queen Mother would say to me before I left, "If you ever want to come by, the front window of my study is open: just raise it and come on in." {p.113}
One day, while traveling from North to West Philly, he did just that, and discovered a gold mine of articles, rare books, and other information that blew his mind. When Queen Mother found him several hours later, he was full of questions, which she patiently answered and explained. It turned out that she was a key activist in half a dozen social movements, going back decades, and she knew a great deal from both her life, and her studies.
She taught him about Black nationalism, socialism, history, and a wealth of other subjects. Because she was deeply knowledgeable and dedicated to the Black freedom struggle, she became an adviser to RAM.
Ahmad's work is a valuable addition to the growing literature on a radical movement that rarely gets play, especially positive play, in the corporate media. Published by Chicago's famed Kerr Publishing (the home of Marxist, Wobbly, and surrealist literature), Ahmad adds to our understanding of movements that made a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of African Americans during the 1960s, and '70s.
It is a treasure trove that should open the eyes of many young people, who want to learn how it was to fight the world's mightiest empire, from within.
--(c) '07 maj
* [rev.writ. 11/22/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
There has been, in the last 30 years, a kind of cottage industry of civil rights histories, works written by folks recounting the heroic, and ostensibly successful black freedom movement, most centered around the life, and martyrdom of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The arc of those tales told is that there was once a vast evil called "segregation" which was overcome by the goodness, light, and sacrifice of people like Rev. Dr. King.
Such a tale is comforting, and also popular, for it reaffirms a safe legend about America, and as such, as it is self-congratulatory, it sells.
Yet, as always, this was not the whole story, as shown by a growing number of works on the Black Liberation Movement (BLM).
Lifetime liberationist, and later scholar Muhammad Ahmad ( f/k/a Max Stanford, Jr.) has given us all a unique and revealing look at this movement, often told from the inside. In his new book, *We Will Return in the * *Whirlwind: Black Radical Organizations - 1960 1975* , (Chi., IL: Kerr Publ., 2007) Ahmad tells us of the formative years, apex of development, and the fall of several radical and revolutionary groups: the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) , the Black Panther Party (BPP), and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW). As he was involved in the formation of several of these groups, his accounts are rich in historical detail. For today's young activists, and especially for those who aspire to learn about the accomplishments , and failures of the Black liberation movement, this work is invaluable.
Not surprisingly, many of the movements he examines (with the notable exception of the LRBW) had their origins in the Black student movement (either high school or college). Early in his work he cites the singular insight of revolutionary activist and organizer, Grace Boggs for an idea that would echo through almost all those movements - the failure to reach young people:
The main weakness of the Black left has been its inability to focus on the youth, who are burdened by a very high unemployment rate and are targeted by the drug culture. Until the divorcement of the Black left from the youths is addressed there is likely to be no real advance in Black radicalism. {p.22}
I learned a great deal from Dr. Ahmad's work, not just on RAM, and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, but also of the role of key, 'organic' intellectuals and organizers, like Queen Mother Audley Moore (1898-1997), who played a central role in educating Ahmad when he was a young RAM activist. His recollection of his initial fear of Moore rings clear and true, when we recall how popular culture taught us about the world around us:
Wanda Marshall [another RAM activist} and I had been afraid of Queen Mother, because of anti-communism red-baiting among progressive people. Though I read some Marx, Lenin, and a little of Trotsky, I still had the sting of anti-communism in me. Wanda would say, "you know communists can brainwash you." When the RAM cadre along with others would go over to Queen Mother's house, attending "Free Mae Mallory" meetings, we would be in the hall talking before breaking up. Queen Mother would interrupt the discussion, point at me, and would say, "you, darling, you're the one I want." This would scare the "living daylights" out of me, and I would promptly leave. Queen Mother would say to me before I left, "If you ever want to come by, the front window of my study is open: just raise it and come on in." {p.113}
One day, while traveling from North to West Philly, he did just that, and discovered a gold mine of articles, rare books, and other information that blew his mind. When Queen Mother found him several hours later, he was full of questions, which she patiently answered and explained. It turned out that she was a key activist in half a dozen social movements, going back decades, and she knew a great deal from both her life, and her studies.
She taught him about Black nationalism, socialism, history, and a wealth of other subjects. Because she was deeply knowledgeable and dedicated to the Black freedom struggle, she became an adviser to RAM.
Ahmad's work is a valuable addition to the growing literature on a radical movement that rarely gets play, especially positive play, in the corporate media. Published by Chicago's famed Kerr Publishing (the home of Marxist, Wobbly, and surrealist literature), Ahmad adds to our understanding of movements that made a difference in the lives of tens of thousands of African Americans during the 1960s, and '70s.
It is a treasure trove that should open the eyes of many young people, who want to learn how it was to fight the world's mightiest empire, from within.
--(c) '07 maj
White Victims of Police Brutality
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Face of Police Brutality Is Getting Lighter and Lighter
Category: News and Politics
I've noticed that the face of police brutality is getting lighter and lighter. I am seeing more and more video footage of white people being beaten, tasered and roughed up by the police. Whitey would downplay our cries against police brutality and was often shocked by police evil caught on video and played on the local and national news. Now the chicken are home and roosting like crazy. In this case, the cops turned off the camera before beating the white woman. However, I am surprised that white America's outrage is barely audible. I guess until we see the cops gunning down a white grandmother or white teenager before the lens of a camera, the outrage may then come. This is not surprising and eventually, it is going to happen. You can see the video clip at www.abcnews.com. The picture of her face says it all!
Shreveport Woman: Cops Beat Me When Camera Off
DAVID MUIR, KIRAN KHALID AND IMAEYEN IBANGAABC NewsFebruary 19, 2008
A Louisiana police officer was fired after a woman, who was pulled over on the suspicion of a DWI, ended up with two black eyes and bruises to her face while in police custody in November.
What makes Angela Garbarino's injuries and situation more curious is the fact that Shreveport police Officer Wiley Willis turned off the interrogation-room camera after he and Garbarino exchanged words.
The video shows Garbarino requesting a phone call.
"You're not going to let me call anybody?" she asks on the video. "I have a right to call somebody right now and I know that. Is this on the record?"
The footage documents Wiley attempting to read Garbarino her rights, but he runs out of patience and things get tense. He seems to forcefully put her in a chair.
"Don't touch me again. Get away from me," Garbarino says after a scream.
Then, Wiley walks over to the police camera recording the booking and turns it off. What happens next is a mystery, but when the video resumes the handcuffed Garbarino is sprawled on the floor and silently lying in a pool of her blood.
The Face of Police Brutality Is Getting Lighter and Lighter
Category: News and Politics
I've noticed that the face of police brutality is getting lighter and lighter. I am seeing more and more video footage of white people being beaten, tasered and roughed up by the police. Whitey would downplay our cries against police brutality and was often shocked by police evil caught on video and played on the local and national news. Now the chicken are home and roosting like crazy. In this case, the cops turned off the camera before beating the white woman. However, I am surprised that white America's outrage is barely audible. I guess until we see the cops gunning down a white grandmother or white teenager before the lens of a camera, the outrage may then come. This is not surprising and eventually, it is going to happen. You can see the video clip at www.abcnews.com. The picture of her face says it all!
Shreveport Woman: Cops Beat Me When Camera Off
DAVID MUIR, KIRAN KHALID AND IMAEYEN IBANGAABC NewsFebruary 19, 2008
A Louisiana police officer was fired after a woman, who was pulled over on the suspicion of a DWI, ended up with two black eyes and bruises to her face while in police custody in November.
What makes Angela Garbarino's injuries and situation more curious is the fact that Shreveport police Officer Wiley Willis turned off the interrogation-room camera after he and Garbarino exchanged words.
The video shows Garbarino requesting a phone call.
"You're not going to let me call anybody?" she asks on the video. "I have a right to call somebody right now and I know that. Is this on the record?"
The footage documents Wiley attempting to read Garbarino her rights, but he runs out of patience and things get tense. He seems to forcefully put her in a chair.
"Don't touch me again. Get away from me," Garbarino says after a scream.
Then, Wiley walks over to the police camera recording the booking and turns it off. What happens next is a mystery, but when the video resumes the handcuffed Garbarino is sprawled on the floor and silently lying in a pool of her blood.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Injustice of Aaron Patterson
I pulled this from Aaron Patterson's Myspace page. Go and check him out at www.myspace.com/freeaaronpatterson. We as a people will never be free until we unite. Our unity is the only strategy that we have not tried yet. Do you really believe things are going to get better for Black people if there is a President Obama? We cannot look to the people, the rich, the established, the agents of state power to protect our rights and our lives.
The case of Aaron Patterson was initially to be utilized as a venue to not only expose the blatant frame-up of Aaron Patterson, but also that of the collaboration between the federal government and the powerful Chicago “Gangster” Daley Machine. This collaboration, which has been repeated, historically provided such results as the bloody Massacre on Monroe in which 21 year old Deputy Chairman Fred Hampton Sr. and 22-year-old Defense Captain Mark Clark were left dead. In the same federal court building where then presiding Judge Julius J. Hoffman sanctioned that Chairman Bobby Seale be literally chained and gagged during court proceedings, some thirty-eight years later, this time under the tenure of Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, after being handcuffed and stomped by U.S. Marshals inside courtroom 2119, Aaron Patterson has been denied all access to the same court proceedings that are to supposedly determine his fate. When Aaron Patterson was falsely accused the first time and subsequently served 17 years on death row, immediately upon release he went to work-taking care of the business of and seeing ‘bout the people. Patterson, working in coalition with other groups impacted on every issue affecting the lives of Black and other oppressed people. Once again, falsely accused, Patterson needs the same people to come see ‘bout him . . .
Who I'd like to meet:Unanswered questions from the People about the Aaron Patterson Trial . . . -Why? has the powerful Daley administration targeted Aaron Patterson? -Why? was Aaron Patterson arrested by a collaboration of law enforcement agencies in August 2004; on the same exact day that Chicago’s infamous Lt. Jon “The Torturer” Burge was returned to Chicago to answer a court deposition in reference to his torturing of Aaron Patterson and other Black men?
-Why? would the federal government have jurisdiction in what would under any other circumstances be considered a state case? -Why? were Michael P. Cronin, Joe Gorman Jr., and other special law enforcement officials who are heavily connected to Mayor Richard M. “Gangster” Daley, conducting surveillance, and subsequently arrested Aaron Patterson? -Why? hasn’t the federal government charged “Gangster” Daley, Cook County States Attorney Dick Devine, and former police Lt. Jon “The Torturer” Burge for their roles in the torture, framing and subsequent sentencing of Aaron Patterson, Anthony Porter, Jackie and Andrew Wilson, David Bates, Stanley Howard, The Death Row 10, Madison Hobley, and countless of other African and Latino men? -Why? would Dick Devine, the current Cook County States Attorney, along with Robert Shapiro, employed by the State’s Attorney’s office when Daley was States Attorney, be present at the press conference that announced the federal charges against Aaron Patterson? -Why? shortly after Aaron Patterson ran for State Representative against Daley appointee Patricia Bailey who used a ghost address; shortly after disrupting a February 2004 press conference convened by Mayor Richard M. Daley and attended by U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald, and Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Kline: did Patterson receive threatening phone calls stating that he was a marked man? -Why? would the government allege that Mr.Patterson who 1). put up $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) of the money he was to receive from the state for restitution for his 17 years of false incarceration to bond out another death row prisoner; 2) previously turned down several attempts by the city to settle for several million dollars: Why would Mr. Patterson have any interest or need to sell drugs? -Why? would the government go inside the state jail, get a known gang leader and admitted drug dealer Mario “Fox” Maldrona, place a wire on him, pay him $6, 500 (six thousand five hundred dollars) of your hard-earned tax dollars, and tell him to set up Aaron Patterson. -Why? is it that in the same exact Federal Court Building, 219 S. Dearborn in Chicago, Illinois, where Black Panther Party Chairman Bobby Seale was literally chained and gagged under the watch of Federal Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Aaron Patterson was beat, handcuffed, and kicked by U.S. Marshals. -Why? has Aaron Patterson been denied bond? -Why? would Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ban Aaron Patterson from his own court proceeding? In his absence, without his permission or knowledge, Pallmeyer dismissed his previous attorney and designated a former FBI agent, and a member of the “Gangster” Daley created Hispanic Democratic Organization, to be Patterson’s legal counsel? -Where? are all the videotape footage and documents that were seized from Aaron Patterson’s home in proof of the counter surveillance that he was engaging in to show how he was being targeted by the powerful “Gangster” Daley machine via the Federal Government? -
Why? would the court appointed defense attorney for Aaron Patterson enter a motion that Patterson’s visitation and phone calls be terminated? -Why? were there no African American males allowed on Mr. Patterson’s jury; in a court that is supposed to provide you with a jury of your own peers? -Why? have the courts allowed there to be dogs, extra ID scans, humiliating searches, and other forms of harassment to deter people from coming to see what is occurring at 219 S. Dearborn, Room 2119? -Why? hasn’t the Chicago press reported the continuous arbitrary beatings and banning from court of the supporters of Aaron Patterson? -Why? have the court designated defense attorneys, turned down evidence in favor of Patterson, and have not even interviewed the countless number of people who want to attest to how Aaron Patterson positively impacted their lives and how Patterson is a true asset to the community? -Why? when in open court, in plain view of court jurors, after a physical altercation between Aaron Patterson and Rebecca Pallmeyer’s personally appointed defense attorneys Tommy Brewer and Paul Camerena then—who are supposed to represent Aaron Patterson—could these court designated attorneys and the court in general proceed with this legal lynching of Aaron Patterson? -Why? have many of Chicago’s Black Ministers as well as a number of progressive white ones, stated in private that although they know Mr. Patterson is being targeted and framed, they fear reprisals if they speak publicly on this blatant miscarriage of justice? -Why? has not one elected official come to 219 S. Dearborn to see what is occurring in courtroom 2119? -Why? did Chicago Sun Times federal court reporter Natasha Korecki ask a U.S. Marshall “How should we report this?” after witnessing the marshals beat Aaron Patterson and a 58 year old African American woman in court? -How? has Judge Pallmeyer deemed Mr. Patterson sane enough to stand trial; but not sane enough to defend himself? -Why? have both Aaron Patterson and former Governor George Ryan who granted the pardon for Patterson and implemented the moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois, be designated to have their cases heard by the same Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer? -Why? did a combination of armed federal agents and U.S. Marshalls, with dogs and bullet-proof vests at 7:00 a.m. surround the home of the widow of slain Black Panther leader Chairman Fred Hampton, and question the family as to why they come to court for Aaron Patterson? -Since being detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Why? is Aaron Patterson being isolated and his support mail derailed? However, Patterson continuously receives hate mail similar to that sent to different organizations in the 1960s (see U.S. COINTELPRO program) in order to create dissent and break morale. In addition, Patterson’s co-defendant has received hate mail urging him to turn state against Patterson. -Why? has there been minimal if any press coverage of the attacks that Mr. Patterson has been subjected to, and the recent death of one of his two co-defendants? -Why? on July 27th did Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer designate that only prosecutors and their team, her personally appointed “defense attorneys” Tommy Brewer and Paul Camerena, the press, the U.S. Marshals, and the F.B.I. are the only one allowed in the court? No Aaron Patterson and no Aaron Patterson supporters are allowed. -Why? on Friday, July 29, 2005 was Aaron Patterson given a GUILTY verdict and set to be sentenced on December 4th, the same exact day – 36 years later – of the brutal assassination of Illinois Chapter Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton Sr. and Defense Captain Mark Clark? DON’T WAIT THIRTY YEARS TO ASK THESE QUESTION, FOR THEN IT MAY BE TOO LATE! DEMAND ANSWERS! CALL, WRITE, FAX: Mayor Richard M. Daley City Hall 121 N. LaSalle Room 507 Chicago, IL. 60602 FX: (312) 744-8045 U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald 219 S. Dearborn 5th Floor Chicago, IL. 60604 FX: (312) 353-2067 Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer 219 S. Dearborn Court Room #2119 Chicago, IL. 60604 STOP THE LEGAL LYNCHING! FREE AARON PATTERSON! Free Aaron Patterson/Chicago 3 Defense Committee P.O. Box 368255 Chicago, IL. 60636 Voice Mail (773) 250-7229 WANT TO DO MORE? Donations needed? Placards, banners “Free Aaron Patterson” flyer and poster printing’ cost for Aaron to file legal motions, etc. and commissary . . . Write: Aaron Patterson #21664424 USP Big Sandy P.O. Box 2068 Inez, KY 41224
I edited my profile at Freeweblayouts.net, check out these Myspace Layouts!
The case of Aaron Patterson was initially to be utilized as a venue to not only expose the blatant frame-up of Aaron Patterson, but also that of the collaboration between the federal government and the powerful Chicago “Gangster” Daley Machine. This collaboration, which has been repeated, historically provided such results as the bloody Massacre on Monroe in which 21 year old Deputy Chairman Fred Hampton Sr. and 22-year-old Defense Captain Mark Clark were left dead. In the same federal court building where then presiding Judge Julius J. Hoffman sanctioned that Chairman Bobby Seale be literally chained and gagged during court proceedings, some thirty-eight years later, this time under the tenure of Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, after being handcuffed and stomped by U.S. Marshals inside courtroom 2119, Aaron Patterson has been denied all access to the same court proceedings that are to supposedly determine his fate. When Aaron Patterson was falsely accused the first time and subsequently served 17 years on death row, immediately upon release he went to work-taking care of the business of and seeing ‘bout the people. Patterson, working in coalition with other groups impacted on every issue affecting the lives of Black and other oppressed people. Once again, falsely accused, Patterson needs the same people to come see ‘bout him . . .
Who I'd like to meet:Unanswered questions from the People about the Aaron Patterson Trial . . . -Why? has the powerful Daley administration targeted Aaron Patterson? -Why? was Aaron Patterson arrested by a collaboration of law enforcement agencies in August 2004; on the same exact day that Chicago’s infamous Lt. Jon “The Torturer” Burge was returned to Chicago to answer a court deposition in reference to his torturing of Aaron Patterson and other Black men?
-Why? would the federal government have jurisdiction in what would under any other circumstances be considered a state case? -Why? were Michael P. Cronin, Joe Gorman Jr., and other special law enforcement officials who are heavily connected to Mayor Richard M. “Gangster” Daley, conducting surveillance, and subsequently arrested Aaron Patterson? -Why? hasn’t the federal government charged “Gangster” Daley, Cook County States Attorney Dick Devine, and former police Lt. Jon “The Torturer” Burge for their roles in the torture, framing and subsequent sentencing of Aaron Patterson, Anthony Porter, Jackie and Andrew Wilson, David Bates, Stanley Howard, The Death Row 10, Madison Hobley, and countless of other African and Latino men? -Why? would Dick Devine, the current Cook County States Attorney, along with Robert Shapiro, employed by the State’s Attorney’s office when Daley was States Attorney, be present at the press conference that announced the federal charges against Aaron Patterson? -Why? shortly after Aaron Patterson ran for State Representative against Daley appointee Patricia Bailey who used a ghost address; shortly after disrupting a February 2004 press conference convened by Mayor Richard M. Daley and attended by U.S. Attorney Peter Fitzgerald, and Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Kline: did Patterson receive threatening phone calls stating that he was a marked man? -Why? would the government allege that Mr.Patterson who 1). put up $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) of the money he was to receive from the state for restitution for his 17 years of false incarceration to bond out another death row prisoner; 2) previously turned down several attempts by the city to settle for several million dollars: Why would Mr. Patterson have any interest or need to sell drugs? -Why? would the government go inside the state jail, get a known gang leader and admitted drug dealer Mario “Fox” Maldrona, place a wire on him, pay him $6, 500 (six thousand five hundred dollars) of your hard-earned tax dollars, and tell him to set up Aaron Patterson. -Why? is it that in the same exact Federal Court Building, 219 S. Dearborn in Chicago, Illinois, where Black Panther Party Chairman Bobby Seale was literally chained and gagged under the watch of Federal Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Aaron Patterson was beat, handcuffed, and kicked by U.S. Marshals. -Why? has Aaron Patterson been denied bond? -Why? would Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ban Aaron Patterson from his own court proceeding? In his absence, without his permission or knowledge, Pallmeyer dismissed his previous attorney and designated a former FBI agent, and a member of the “Gangster” Daley created Hispanic Democratic Organization, to be Patterson’s legal counsel? -Where? are all the videotape footage and documents that were seized from Aaron Patterson’s home in proof of the counter surveillance that he was engaging in to show how he was being targeted by the powerful “Gangster” Daley machine via the Federal Government? -
Why? would the court appointed defense attorney for Aaron Patterson enter a motion that Patterson’s visitation and phone calls be terminated? -Why? were there no African American males allowed on Mr. Patterson’s jury; in a court that is supposed to provide you with a jury of your own peers? -Why? have the courts allowed there to be dogs, extra ID scans, humiliating searches, and other forms of harassment to deter people from coming to see what is occurring at 219 S. Dearborn, Room 2119? -Why? hasn’t the Chicago press reported the continuous arbitrary beatings and banning from court of the supporters of Aaron Patterson? -Why? have the court designated defense attorneys, turned down evidence in favor of Patterson, and have not even interviewed the countless number of people who want to attest to how Aaron Patterson positively impacted their lives and how Patterson is a true asset to the community? -Why? when in open court, in plain view of court jurors, after a physical altercation between Aaron Patterson and Rebecca Pallmeyer’s personally appointed defense attorneys Tommy Brewer and Paul Camerena then—who are supposed to represent Aaron Patterson—could these court designated attorneys and the court in general proceed with this legal lynching of Aaron Patterson? -Why? have many of Chicago’s Black Ministers as well as a number of progressive white ones, stated in private that although they know Mr. Patterson is being targeted and framed, they fear reprisals if they speak publicly on this blatant miscarriage of justice? -Why? has not one elected official come to 219 S. Dearborn to see what is occurring in courtroom 2119? -Why? did Chicago Sun Times federal court reporter Natasha Korecki ask a U.S. Marshall “How should we report this?” after witnessing the marshals beat Aaron Patterson and a 58 year old African American woman in court? -How? has Judge Pallmeyer deemed Mr. Patterson sane enough to stand trial; but not sane enough to defend himself? -Why? have both Aaron Patterson and former Governor George Ryan who granted the pardon for Patterson and implemented the moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois, be designated to have their cases heard by the same Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer? -Why? did a combination of armed federal agents and U.S. Marshalls, with dogs and bullet-proof vests at 7:00 a.m. surround the home of the widow of slain Black Panther leader Chairman Fred Hampton, and question the family as to why they come to court for Aaron Patterson? -Since being detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Why? is Aaron Patterson being isolated and his support mail derailed? However, Patterson continuously receives hate mail similar to that sent to different organizations in the 1960s (see U.S. COINTELPRO program) in order to create dissent and break morale. In addition, Patterson’s co-defendant has received hate mail urging him to turn state against Patterson. -Why? has there been minimal if any press coverage of the attacks that Mr. Patterson has been subjected to, and the recent death of one of his two co-defendants? -Why? on July 27th did Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer designate that only prosecutors and their team, her personally appointed “defense attorneys” Tommy Brewer and Paul Camerena, the press, the U.S. Marshals, and the F.B.I. are the only one allowed in the court? No Aaron Patterson and no Aaron Patterson supporters are allowed. -Why? on Friday, July 29, 2005 was Aaron Patterson given a GUILTY verdict and set to be sentenced on December 4th, the same exact day – 36 years later – of the brutal assassination of Illinois Chapter Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton Sr. and Defense Captain Mark Clark? DON’T WAIT THIRTY YEARS TO ASK THESE QUESTION, FOR THEN IT MAY BE TOO LATE! DEMAND ANSWERS! CALL, WRITE, FAX: Mayor Richard M. Daley City Hall 121 N. LaSalle Room 507 Chicago, IL. 60602 FX: (312) 744-8045 U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald 219 S. Dearborn 5th Floor Chicago, IL. 60604 FX: (312) 353-2067 Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer 219 S. Dearborn Court Room #2119 Chicago, IL. 60604 STOP THE LEGAL LYNCHING! FREE AARON PATTERSON! Free Aaron Patterson/Chicago 3 Defense Committee P.O. Box 368255 Chicago, IL. 60636 Voice Mail (773) 250-7229 WANT TO DO MORE? Donations needed? Placards, banners “Free Aaron Patterson” flyer and poster printing’ cost for Aaron to file legal motions, etc. and commissary . . . Write: Aaron Patterson #21664424 USP Big Sandy P.O. Box 2068 Inez, KY 41224
I edited my profile at Freeweblayouts.net, check out these Myspace Layouts!
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Beat Camp by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Beat Camp *
* [col. writ. 10/12/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
* *
A 14- year old boy is assaulted, restrained, his breathing restricted, and ammonia capsules are plunged into his nostrils, as he struggles for breath.
Within moments, he falls limp, comatose.
Soon, Martin Lee Anderson is dead.
Martin met his death at a Florida boot camp, where a phalanx of so-called drill instructors beat the youth, held their hands over his mouth, and forced ammonia caps up his nose.
A predominantly white jury quickly acquitted all 8 staff members (including a nurse) from the boot-camp of all charges.
The state workers would've faced more punishment if they killed a dog.
Instead, he was a black boy. The jury barely had enough time for a good lunch.
Across the country, families are learning that boot camps, and other juvenile facilities, are little more than hell-holes for children.
Kids are beaten, brutalized, starved and caged by the state; paid by the state to administer legalized child abuse.
Just days ago, seven workers at a West Texas lockup (including so-called 'quality assurance monitors') were fired by the Texas Youth Commission.
The facility, known as the Coke County Juvenile Center, was the site of what state officials called "deplorable conditions", such as dirty sheets, feces-smeared cells, and cases of juveniles being placed in solitary confinement for five weeks (see New York Times , "National Briefing" (10/5/07), p.A19).
It's clear from the Martin Lee Anderson case, and from voluminous reports of violence and torture at boot camps nationwide, that America is at war with its youth.
Schools are but training camps for prisons.
Schools, especially in Black and Latina neighborhoods, are increasingly training grounds for failure.
Also, with the popular pollution of culture, there is the spread of the worst, most anti-life, and misogynist ideas imaginable; usually through music.
Cut off from the academic life of the nation, this cultural pollution seeks to justify various forms of street-hustling as the only way of survival.
Again, we see evidence of the war against youth. It's almost as if the generation of elders are envious of the very quality of youth, and are utilizing state power to destroy them.
De industrialization, state militarization, the failure of education, and cultural pollution are stages in this pervasive war.
The re incarceration of Mychal Bell, the recently released member of the Jena 6, is a part of this ongoing war.
Children aren't children; they are merely young combatants, who should be terrorized, /just like their elders./
Unfortunately, I predicted the outcome in Florida to other guys here on Death Row.
I'm sorry that I was right.
--(c) '07 maj
* [col. writ. 10/12/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
* *
A 14- year old boy is assaulted, restrained, his breathing restricted, and ammonia capsules are plunged into his nostrils, as he struggles for breath.
Within moments, he falls limp, comatose.
Soon, Martin Lee Anderson is dead.
Martin met his death at a Florida boot camp, where a phalanx of so-called drill instructors beat the youth, held their hands over his mouth, and forced ammonia caps up his nose.
A predominantly white jury quickly acquitted all 8 staff members (including a nurse) from the boot-camp of all charges.
The state workers would've faced more punishment if they killed a dog.
Instead, he was a black boy. The jury barely had enough time for a good lunch.
Across the country, families are learning that boot camps, and other juvenile facilities, are little more than hell-holes for children.
Kids are beaten, brutalized, starved and caged by the state; paid by the state to administer legalized child abuse.
Just days ago, seven workers at a West Texas lockup (including so-called 'quality assurance monitors') were fired by the Texas Youth Commission.
The facility, known as the Coke County Juvenile Center, was the site of what state officials called "deplorable conditions", such as dirty sheets, feces-smeared cells, and cases of juveniles being placed in solitary confinement for five weeks (see New York Times , "National Briefing" (10/5/07), p.A19).
It's clear from the Martin Lee Anderson case, and from voluminous reports of violence and torture at boot camps nationwide, that America is at war with its youth.
Schools are but training camps for prisons.
Schools, especially in Black and Latina neighborhoods, are increasingly training grounds for failure.
Also, with the popular pollution of culture, there is the spread of the worst, most anti-life, and misogynist ideas imaginable; usually through music.
Cut off from the academic life of the nation, this cultural pollution seeks to justify various forms of street-hustling as the only way of survival.
Again, we see evidence of the war against youth. It's almost as if the generation of elders are envious of the very quality of youth, and are utilizing state power to destroy them.
De industrialization, state militarization, the failure of education, and cultural pollution are stages in this pervasive war.
The re incarceration of Mychal Bell, the recently released member of the Jena 6, is a part of this ongoing war.
Children aren't children; they are merely young combatants, who should be terrorized, /just like their elders./
Unfortunately, I predicted the outcome in Florida to other guys here on Death Row.
I'm sorry that I was right.
--(c) '07 maj
Wars Without End -- Again! by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* !Wars Without End -- Again! *
* {speech writ. 10/14/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
Ona Move! LLJA!
Thanx for your invitation for me to speak to you today!
For millions of people (I among them) the Nov. 2006 elections marked a major turning point in U.S. politics -- or so we thought.
The elections had one, single motivation: to end the Iraq war.
Well, the elections changed majorities in Congress. But did it change U.S. policy?
Nope.
Before the numbers of votes could all be counted, you heard the backtracking: "we must be cautious"; "if we leave now, there'd be chaos", etc., etc.
Now, Democrats say openly that no significant troop withdrawal can come before 2012- /5 more years!/
And then, don't you think you'll hear an additional 5 or 10 years?
War isn't a Democratic or Republican project - it is a /corporate/ one, where both corporate parties play the game laid down by their sponsors and contributors.
Here we see the convergence between neo liberals and neo conservatives, who join in their service to corporate power. Their 'fight' (if it can be called that) is over who can represent their bosses best (and, by this, I /don't /mean voters!)
But, people, working through popular movements,/ can/ change how politicians think, speak, and even act.
If you put your trust in the same politicians, you'll achieve the same result - disappointment, frustration and yes -- betrayal.
What kind of democracy is it if you vote for peace, only to get more war?
But the answer isn't less protests -- it's /more /protests
To finally bring peace, the People must bring it!
Thank you!
Ona Move!
* {speech writ. 10/14/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
* *
* *
Ona Move! LLJA!
Thanx for your invitation for me to speak to you today!
For millions of people (I among them) the Nov. 2006 elections marked a major turning point in U.S. politics -- or so we thought.
The elections had one, single motivation: to end the Iraq war.
Well, the elections changed majorities in Congress. But did it change U.S. policy?
Nope.
Before the numbers of votes could all be counted, you heard the backtracking: "we must be cautious"; "if we leave now, there'd be chaos", etc., etc.
Now, Democrats say openly that no significant troop withdrawal can come before 2012- /5 more years!/
And then, don't you think you'll hear an additional 5 or 10 years?
War isn't a Democratic or Republican project - it is a /corporate/ one, where both corporate parties play the game laid down by their sponsors and contributors.
Here we see the convergence between neo liberals and neo conservatives, who join in their service to corporate power. Their 'fight' (if it can be called that) is over who can represent their bosses best (and, by this, I /don't /mean voters!)
But, people, working through popular movements,/ can/ change how politicians think, speak, and even act.
If you put your trust in the same politicians, you'll achieve the same result - disappointment, frustration and yes -- betrayal.
What kind of democracy is it if you vote for peace, only to get more war?
But the answer isn't less protests -- it's /more /protests
To finally bring peace, the People must bring it!
Thank you!
Ona Move!
Teaching False History (And Its Consequences) by Mumia Abu-Jamal
* Teaching False History (And Its Consequences) *
* {col. writ. 12/8/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
Ask any school kid in the U.S. to name the first English settlement in what we now call America, and he (or she) will probably announce, "Jamestown!". Some will add, "Virginia!". And the truly nerdy would answer, "in 1607!"
Such children of the "No Child Left Behind" generation will beam in their beautiful, childlike brilliance, for no doubt they would recall that just such answers as these earned passing grades on their history tests.
And we know that tests are right, /right?/
Wrong.
The first English settlement was established over a generation before Jamestown --in a place called Roanoke Island, in 1584, and 1587, off the coast of what is today called North Carolina.
Why are school kids taught about Jamestown, but rarely Roanoke Island?
Because Jamestown survived, and Roanoke vanished.
Dozens of novels and at least a 1/2 dozen movies have been made of Roanoke Island, but the people were lost to witchcraft, to native spirits, or, in the best telling of the tale, they 'went Native' and joined local tribes.
The real reason is a bit more grisly.
History lecturer and writer, William Loren Katz, in his remarkable book, Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage (New York: Simon Pulse, 2005), [orig. 1986] tells us that an eerily American ailment afflicted them. Katz writes:
What the pioneers did was self-destruct over their own love of possession. When a silver cup allegedly disappeared, the Roanoke men roared out of their tiny enclave, muskets and torches in hand, to destroy their Indian neighbors' village and crops. This blazing display of European possession -mania cut the colony off from the one local source of help. When the Spanish Armada severed the settlements' connection to British ports, it withered and died. [p.21]
In essence, telling kids the truth about Roanoke might destroy their sense of nascent nationalism, and perhaps scare them. Instead, it's Jamestown - or perhaps Plymouth Rock, the site of the beginning of that glorious theocracy of 1620.
If Roanoke's story were better known, perhaps lessons would be learned that stealing from others, and raiding others isn't a good, nor glorious thing; perhaps it would be an historical lesson about the perils of greed, or in Katz's words, "possession-mania."
of all ages, know little about the real contours of the making of America, which owed more to sheer genocide than anything else.
In this same book, Katz details how England and Spain wreaked havoc upon the indigenous people of the Americas:
In the century following Columbus' landing, millions of Native Americans died from a combination of European diseases, harsh treatment, and murder. Africans took their places in the mines and fields of the New World. The 80 million Native Americans alive in 1492 became only 10 million left alive a century later. But the 10,000 Africans working in the Americas in 1527 had by the end of the century become 90,000 people. These figures are even more striking within local areas. In 1519 when the Spaniards arrived, Mexico had a population of 25 million Indians. By the end of the century only a million were still alive. The invader calculated that more profit would be made if laborers were worked to death and replaced. In their plans pain and suffering did not count, and no cruelty was considered excessive. [p.23]
Perhaps if kids were taught this version of history, the mad dash of imperialism that marked much of the 20th century would not have occurred.
--(c) '07 maj
* {col. writ. 12/8/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal *
Ask any school kid in the U.S. to name the first English settlement in what we now call America, and he (or she) will probably announce, "Jamestown!". Some will add, "Virginia!". And the truly nerdy would answer, "in 1607!"
Such children of the "No Child Left Behind" generation will beam in their beautiful, childlike brilliance, for no doubt they would recall that just such answers as these earned passing grades on their history tests.
And we know that tests are right, /right?/
Wrong.
The first English settlement was established over a generation before Jamestown --in a place called Roanoke Island, in 1584, and 1587, off the coast of what is today called North Carolina.
Why are school kids taught about Jamestown, but rarely Roanoke Island?
Because Jamestown survived, and Roanoke vanished.
Dozens of novels and at least a 1/2 dozen movies have been made of Roanoke Island, but the people were lost to witchcraft, to native spirits, or, in the best telling of the tale, they 'went Native' and joined local tribes.
The real reason is a bit more grisly.
History lecturer and writer, William Loren Katz, in his remarkable book, Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage (New York: Simon Pulse, 2005), [orig. 1986] tells us that an eerily American ailment afflicted them. Katz writes:
What the pioneers did was self-destruct over their own love of possession. When a silver cup allegedly disappeared, the Roanoke men roared out of their tiny enclave, muskets and torches in hand, to destroy their Indian neighbors' village and crops. This blazing display of European possession -mania cut the colony off from the one local source of help. When the Spanish Armada severed the settlements' connection to British ports, it withered and died. [p.21]
In essence, telling kids the truth about Roanoke might destroy their sense of nascent nationalism, and perhaps scare them. Instead, it's Jamestown - or perhaps Plymouth Rock, the site of the beginning of that glorious theocracy of 1620.
If Roanoke's story were better known, perhaps lessons would be learned that stealing from others, and raiding others isn't a good, nor glorious thing; perhaps it would be an historical lesson about the perils of greed, or in Katz's words, "possession-mania."
of all ages, know little about the real contours of the making of America, which owed more to sheer genocide than anything else.
In this same book, Katz details how England and Spain wreaked havoc upon the indigenous people of the Americas:
In the century following Columbus' landing, millions of Native Americans died from a combination of European diseases, harsh treatment, and murder. Africans took their places in the mines and fields of the New World. The 80 million Native Americans alive in 1492 became only 10 million left alive a century later. But the 10,000 Africans working in the Americas in 1527 had by the end of the century become 90,000 people. These figures are even more striking within local areas. In 1519 when the Spaniards arrived, Mexico had a population of 25 million Indians. By the end of the century only a million were still alive. The invader calculated that more profit would be made if laborers were worked to death and replaced. In their plans pain and suffering did not count, and no cruelty was considered excessive. [p.23]
Perhaps if kids were taught this version of history, the mad dash of imperialism that marked much of the 20th century would not have occurred.
--(c) '07 maj
The CIA Destroys Tapes...(What's New?)
Just this past weekend (Sunday Feb 3), I saw a scrolling headline on ESPN that U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter wants to meet with NFL Commissioner Roger Gooddell about the destruction of the "Spygate" tapes, in which the New England Patriots were caught cheating by video taping the signals of the New York Jets. I find this quite disturbing when the CIA, in it's commission of war crimes, destroyed evidence of torturing "alleged terror detainees." Al Qaida does not exist, it's an organization that was made up by the Bush Idiocracy after September 11, 2001. Until the torture victims faces turn white, there will be no outrage by the American people. But it's just a matter of time before that starts happening.
* The CIA Destroys Tapes...(What's New?) *
* {col. writ. 12/9/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal **
As news agencies and politicians express shock and awe over the destruction by the CIA of videotapes recording the interrogations of suspected numbers of Al Qaeda, I can't help but be surprised - by the surprise.
We like to think (or pretend to think) that the CIA is merely an intelligence (or information gathering ) agency, which dutifully reports back to the government on events transpiring around the globe.
Instead, they are more like the Praetorian Guard of Rome, who did anything and everything they were told to do.
And I /do/ mean everything.
As noted by investigative journalist John Kelly, in his article, "Crimes and Silence: The CIA's Criminal Acts and the Media's Silence" [published in Kristina Borjesson's (ed.) Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of the Free Press. {Amherst, N. Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002} pp.311-322] the agency doesn't engage in occasional lapses of judgment, but commits thousands of crimes a year all over the earth. Kelly cited as his source the CIA itself, as it reported to the House Intelligence Committee.
A committee staff study on the CIA report found, " The CS (Clandestine Service of the CIA), is the only part of the IC (Intelligence Community), indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world. "
The staff study went on to estimate that these actions occur "several hundred times every day," or several hundred thousand times a year (p.311)
What was the government's legislative response when such news saw the light in House Intelligence Committee documents?
The Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a mass immunization bill for CIA employees, that would make the commission of crime legal. Kelly wrote, "This is the Nazi rationale, plain and simple." On Dec. 27, 2000, then president Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, as the Intelligence Authorization Act.
Under the law, the CIA could violate international law and treaties, as long as they were following orders.
In the past, according to intrepid journalists, researchers and former CIA officials themselves, the agency has toppled governments, staged assassinations, supported terrorists who unleashed waves of violence against their people (they called them 'contras'), bombed people, undermined national economies and democracies, and a host of other crimes - because they were told to do so.
In this context, compare that they destroyed tapes - even tapes of torture! Why is this objectionable, yet all else that they do isn't even worthy of reporting?
That's because the major corporate media doesn't seriously question what the government does. We saw this when the government sold the People a bill of goods to start the Iraq war. At a time when the American people really needed their press, they were compliant, quiescent, and servile.
The US media hasn't yet come to terms with what the CIA either does, or actually is. They are Praetorian Guards, obeying the Emperor, whose word is law.
Why should we be surprised?
Weren't they 'chust followink Orders?'
--(c) '07 maj
* The CIA Destroys Tapes...(What's New?) *
* {col. writ. 12/9/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal **
As news agencies and politicians express shock and awe over the destruction by the CIA of videotapes recording the interrogations of suspected numbers of Al Qaeda, I can't help but be surprised - by the surprise.
We like to think (or pretend to think) that the CIA is merely an intelligence (or information gathering ) agency, which dutifully reports back to the government on events transpiring around the globe.
Instead, they are more like the Praetorian Guard of Rome, who did anything and everything they were told to do.
And I /do/ mean everything.
As noted by investigative journalist John Kelly, in his article, "Crimes and Silence: The CIA's Criminal Acts and the Media's Silence" [published in Kristina Borjesson's (ed.) Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of the Free Press. {Amherst, N. Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002} pp.311-322] the agency doesn't engage in occasional lapses of judgment, but commits thousands of crimes a year all over the earth. Kelly cited as his source the CIA itself, as it reported to the House Intelligence Committee.
A committee staff study on the CIA report found, " The CS (Clandestine Service of the CIA), is the only part of the IC (Intelligence Community), indeed of the government, where hundreds of employees on a daily basis are directed to break extremely serious laws in countries around the world. "
The staff study went on to estimate that these actions occur "several hundred times every day," or several hundred thousand times a year (p.311)
What was the government's legislative response when such news saw the light in House Intelligence Committee documents?
The Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a mass immunization bill for CIA employees, that would make the commission of crime legal. Kelly wrote, "This is the Nazi rationale, plain and simple." On Dec. 27, 2000, then president Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, as the Intelligence Authorization Act.
Under the law, the CIA could violate international law and treaties, as long as they were following orders.
In the past, according to intrepid journalists, researchers and former CIA officials themselves, the agency has toppled governments, staged assassinations, supported terrorists who unleashed waves of violence against their people (they called them 'contras'), bombed people, undermined national economies and democracies, and a host of other crimes - because they were told to do so.
In this context, compare that they destroyed tapes - even tapes of torture! Why is this objectionable, yet all else that they do isn't even worthy of reporting?
That's because the major corporate media doesn't seriously question what the government does. We saw this when the government sold the People a bill of goods to start the Iraq war. At a time when the American people really needed their press, they were compliant, quiescent, and servile.
The US media hasn't yet come to terms with what the CIA either does, or actually is. They are Praetorian Guards, obeying the Emperor, whose word is law.
Why should we be surprised?
Weren't they 'chust followink Orders?'
--(c) '07 maj
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
South Carolina & "Project Niggerization"
South Carolina & "Project Niggerization"
[col. writ. 1/27/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
The polls have closed and cooled off in South Caroline, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama has won the laurels of victory, sending his two primary challengers into a bitter defeat.
But, time may teach us the lesson that this is a Pyrrhic victory, one which costs more than what was won.
That's because the Clintons cleverly utilized and unleashed a series of attacks meant to make him stumble, and worse, to inject into his campaign something that he has been trying to studiously avoid since Day 1 of his campaign.
That issue, of course, is Race.
For by using these tactics, Clinton essentially ceded the state of South Carolina, trying to make this 'one Black candidate', rather than the Democratic candidate.
As in chess, it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a pawn if it enables one to win the game.
And Bill Clinton is, above all, a master politician. He has beaten odds many times in his presidential career, and if he can successfully besmirch Obama, then he closes the door to him elsewhere.
That's why the ex president made remarks about Obama's candidacy as little more than " a fairy tale", why Sen. Hillary Clinton (De,/ N. Y.) launched into the 'slumlord" reference, and why Clintonite (and New York Attorney-General) Andrew Cuomo disparagingly spoke of Obama as "shucking and jiving", code words all designed to ghettoize and indeed, niggerize Obama.
Again, time will tell how successful this tactic has been, but that it was launched by Clinton, a man called (in jest) 'America's first Black president,' is a measure of how far things have fallen.
Modern day China's founding father, Mao Tse-Tung once observed, "Politics is war without bloodshed."
Politics, in other words, is a dirty business. It brings out the worst in us, for often it is fueled by naked ambition, and the lust to win the 'game.'
The South Carolina primary contest has brought out, not just the rhetoric of war, but the tactics as well. And, as the saying goes, 'all's fair in love and war.'
Politics is war, in a sense, for resources, for influence, and more importantly, for power.
That said, (or, as the Clintons might put it, it ain't over, 'til it's over.
If the Clintons tactics prevail in the 'long game' (that is, in Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), and primaries later down the line), then South Carolina will become a distant, unpleasant memory. It will become the stuff of political legend, similar in tone and tenor to when the first Bush campaign unleashed their Willie Horton ads (which might be subtitled: 'fear of the black rapist') which subliminally savaged his 'liberal' opponent, played on white fears, and led to victory. This tactic did not work in South Carolina, but what about other states?
"Slumlord", "fairy tale", "shuckin' & jivin'"... Boy, talk about the politics of personal destruction!
--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 1/27/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
The polls have closed and cooled off in South Caroline, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama has won the laurels of victory, sending his two primary challengers into a bitter defeat.
But, time may teach us the lesson that this is a Pyrrhic victory, one which costs more than what was won.
That's because the Clintons cleverly utilized and unleashed a series of attacks meant to make him stumble, and worse, to inject into his campaign something that he has been trying to studiously avoid since Day 1 of his campaign.
That issue, of course, is Race.
For by using these tactics, Clinton essentially ceded the state of South Carolina, trying to make this 'one Black candidate', rather than the Democratic candidate.
As in chess, it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a pawn if it enables one to win the game.
And Bill Clinton is, above all, a master politician. He has beaten odds many times in his presidential career, and if he can successfully besmirch Obama, then he closes the door to him elsewhere.
That's why the ex president made remarks about Obama's candidacy as little more than " a fairy tale", why Sen. Hillary Clinton (De,/ N. Y.) launched into the 'slumlord" reference, and why Clintonite (and New York Attorney-General) Andrew Cuomo disparagingly spoke of Obama as "shucking and jiving", code words all designed to ghettoize and indeed, niggerize Obama.
Again, time will tell how successful this tactic has been, but that it was launched by Clinton, a man called (in jest) 'America's first Black president,' is a measure of how far things have fallen.
Modern day China's founding father, Mao Tse-Tung once observed, "Politics is war without bloodshed."
Politics, in other words, is a dirty business. It brings out the worst in us, for often it is fueled by naked ambition, and the lust to win the 'game.'
The South Carolina primary contest has brought out, not just the rhetoric of war, but the tactics as well. And, as the saying goes, 'all's fair in love and war.'
Politics is war, in a sense, for resources, for influence, and more importantly, for power.
That said, (or, as the Clintons might put it, it ain't over, 'til it's over.
If the Clintons tactics prevail in the 'long game' (that is, in Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), and primaries later down the line), then South Carolina will become a distant, unpleasant memory. It will become the stuff of political legend, similar in tone and tenor to when the first Bush campaign unleashed their Willie Horton ads (which might be subtitled: 'fear of the black rapist') which subliminally savaged his 'liberal' opponent, played on white fears, and led to victory. This tactic did not work in South Carolina, but what about other states?
"Slumlord", "fairy tale", "shuckin' & jivin'"... Boy, talk about the politics of personal destruction!
--(c) '08 maj
The Radical Alternative
The Radical Alternative
[col. writ. 1/28/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
In this age of political discontent, it seems clear that many Americans who plan to vote are voting for "change".
Just what kind of change is an open question. Will that change bring the first woman to the Oval Office? Or will it bring a Black man (or ,to some, a 1/2 Black man?)
Whatever, it is interesting that the nation's punditocracy, the talking heads who act like verbal sheepdogs of the American fleece, have almost totally ignored one candidate who can, in her single self, embody, not just the illusion, but the reality of "change", experience, a demonstrated stand against the Iraq War, and a life of living female.
I speak, of course, of Cynthia McKinney, the bold, outspoken former congresswoman from Georgia, who spoke out against the Iraq War when it wasn't popular.
She is running on the Green Party, according to published reports, but the media has virtually ignored this fact.
Her record of speaking out against the U.S. war machine, the military-industrial complex, and other issues of concern is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates running for office, on either party.
But, without the paid imprimatur of the corporate powers that be, it can be little more than an insurgent campaign, one kept safely to the margins of American politics, off the stage, and off the screen.
This is our loss, for the major candidates (or those supported by the corporate status quo) are, by their very nature, designed to split the votes of two significant blocs in the Democratic Party, which can only leave the loser feeling embittered.
Why not a real Black woman as a candidate?
Wouldn't that be a change?
And although all politics is symbolic, McKinney really is a woman of substance.
She has been politically courageous in many of her stands, which has made her persona non grata among both Republicans and Democrats.
That's because she's not a corporate candidate. She's proven in her career as a member of Congress that she won't be bought off. Of who else running today can the same be said?
People say they want 'change', but do they really?
Many people are terrified of change. They want the safety of the routine, the comfort of predictability.
That's because many people fear losing their already tenuous grip on their lifestyle.
But with millions of people facing foreclosure, and with the rest of the economy on the brink of free-fall, how much safety is apparent?
That's only an economic concern, what about foreign policy?
Foreign policy, for at least the last decade, has been handled (or should I say, mishandled?) by an array of incompetents who have succeeded only in making bad situations far worse.
Do people want change, or are they merely claiming that they do?
Cynthia McKinney would certainly represent that, in a way far more substantial and meaningful than anybody else out there.
Politicians should be far more than paid agents of the wealthy. They should be far more than millionaires working on behalf of other millionaires
Why are we not surprised that the U.S. Senate is a millionaires club?
How could such people have an appreciation of working people? What do they really know about the poor?
Wouldn't Cynthia McKinney be a significant change?
--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 1/28/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
In this age of political discontent, it seems clear that many Americans who plan to vote are voting for "change".
Just what kind of change is an open question. Will that change bring the first woman to the Oval Office? Or will it bring a Black man (or ,to some, a 1/2 Black man?)
Whatever, it is interesting that the nation's punditocracy, the talking heads who act like verbal sheepdogs of the American fleece, have almost totally ignored one candidate who can, in her single self, embody, not just the illusion, but the reality of "change", experience, a demonstrated stand against the Iraq War, and a life of living female.
I speak, of course, of Cynthia McKinney, the bold, outspoken former congresswoman from Georgia, who spoke out against the Iraq War when it wasn't popular.
She is running on the Green Party, according to published reports, but the media has virtually ignored this fact.
Her record of speaking out against the U.S. war machine, the military-industrial complex, and other issues of concern is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates running for office, on either party.
But, without the paid imprimatur of the corporate powers that be, it can be little more than an insurgent campaign, one kept safely to the margins of American politics, off the stage, and off the screen.
This is our loss, for the major candidates (or those supported by the corporate status quo) are, by their very nature, designed to split the votes of two significant blocs in the Democratic Party, which can only leave the loser feeling embittered.
Why not a real Black woman as a candidate?
Wouldn't that be a change?
And although all politics is symbolic, McKinney really is a woman of substance.
She has been politically courageous in many of her stands, which has made her persona non grata among both Republicans and Democrats.
That's because she's not a corporate candidate. She's proven in her career as a member of Congress that she won't be bought off. Of who else running today can the same be said?
People say they want 'change', but do they really?
Many people are terrified of change. They want the safety of the routine, the comfort of predictability.
That's because many people fear losing their already tenuous grip on their lifestyle.
But with millions of people facing foreclosure, and with the rest of the economy on the brink of free-fall, how much safety is apparent?
That's only an economic concern, what about foreign policy?
Foreign policy, for at least the last decade, has been handled (or should I say, mishandled?) by an array of incompetents who have succeeded only in making bad situations far worse.
Do people want change, or are they merely claiming that they do?
Cynthia McKinney would certainly represent that, in a way far more substantial and meaningful than anybody else out there.
Politicians should be far more than paid agents of the wealthy. They should be far more than millionaires working on behalf of other millionaires
Why are we not surprised that the U.S. Senate is a millionaires club?
How could such people have an appreciation of working people? What do they really know about the poor?
Wouldn't Cynthia McKinney be a significant change?
--(c) '08 maj
Sis. Kiilu Nyasha adds on to Mumia's essay: "With a 'Brutha' Like This":
Sis. Kiilu Nyasha adds on to Mumia's essay: "With a 'Brutha' Like This":
1/31/08 My 2 cents, KN
Bearing in mind that Black folks have always suffered the worst of America's ills, let’s not forget that in 1991, Billary was campaigning on promises of health care reform and welfare reform.
As Karim Hirji noted in his paper, Confused Consent , “The promise to reform the delivery of health care in the United States was a key factor which clinched Mr. Clinton’s victory in 1992...[W]hat Clinton could not do by legislation or fiat, major corporations achieved through financial power. Many nonprofit institutions were acquired by for-profit firms. Mega-mergers in the industry led to more hospitals and physicians coming under the control of fewer corporations.” The “stridently pro-corporate posture of the Clinton administration...led to direct to consumer (DTC) advertisement of prescription drugs, a practice in which the U.S. stood alone....by 1998, that expenditure rose to more than a billion dollars...That was in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising in medical journals, and a veritable horde of sales representatives, one per 15 doctors, that went directly after the physicians.” The end result was a dramatic increase in health care premiums and uninsured Americans, rising from 38 million to the current 47 million with no health coverage. HMOs are making profits in the billions while denying life-saving treatments to their clients. Patients are being deprived of adequate care due to policies that value profits over the good health of their "customers," who are being released from hospitals quicker and sicker every year. Some are just dumped into the streets. I know this from experience as well as observation.
"The 1st Black President" turned a blind eye to the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans during the Hutu/Tutsi genocide. Then had the audacity to go to Rwanda and say he was "sorry." He's sorry all right.
Clinton also gave us the the Crime Bill of 1994 and the ‘96 Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act that raised the bar for death penalty appeals, added some 60 crimes to be punishable by execution, allowed immigrants to be jailed and deported for reasons of "national security" on the basis of secret evidence (paving the way for the Patriot Act); unleashed 100,000 new policemen on urban streets while gutting habeas corpus, provided for “three strikes and you’re out” laws and sentencing provisions requiring prisoners to serve 85% of their terms; awarded grants to states for new prison construction providing up to 75% of total construction costs.
As a result, 3,300 new prisons were built in the 1990s at a cost of $27 billion, with another 268 in the pipeline. The annual cost of running America's prisons now tops $60 billion from just $9 billion in 1980.
A report released in 2002 by the Justice Policy Institute titled "Cellblocks or Classrooms" found that in the past two decades the population of black male inmates grew three times as fast as the number of black men enrolled in higher education. One study reported that one in eight young Black men are imprisoned compared to one in 63 whites. The newest statistics note that Blacks are arrested at more than six times the rate for whites. For drug offenses, Blacks are arrested at 10 times that of whites, while drug usage among both groups is equal.
In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was ended. The top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would suffer deepening poverty. And there would be no safety net to cushion the fall. Needless to say there’s been a dramatic rise in the poverty rate and homelessness, not to mention workers with three jobs.
The systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters in Florida 2000 and elsewhere across the country further validates the following statement:
"...the two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a 'gentlemen's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote...May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either Republican or the Democratic parties." ( W.E.B. DuBois)
1/31/08 My 2 cents, KN
Bearing in mind that Black folks have always suffered the worst of America's ills, let’s not forget that in 1991, Billary was campaigning on promises of health care reform and welfare reform.
As Karim Hirji noted in his paper, Confused Consent , “The promise to reform the delivery of health care in the United States was a key factor which clinched Mr. Clinton’s victory in 1992...[W]hat Clinton could not do by legislation or fiat, major corporations achieved through financial power. Many nonprofit institutions were acquired by for-profit firms. Mega-mergers in the industry led to more hospitals and physicians coming under the control of fewer corporations.” The “stridently pro-corporate posture of the Clinton administration...led to direct to consumer (DTC) advertisement of prescription drugs, a practice in which the U.S. stood alone....by 1998, that expenditure rose to more than a billion dollars...That was in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising in medical journals, and a veritable horde of sales representatives, one per 15 doctors, that went directly after the physicians.” The end result was a dramatic increase in health care premiums and uninsured Americans, rising from 38 million to the current 47 million with no health coverage. HMOs are making profits in the billions while denying life-saving treatments to their clients. Patients are being deprived of adequate care due to policies that value profits over the good health of their "customers," who are being released from hospitals quicker and sicker every year. Some are just dumped into the streets. I know this from experience as well as observation.
"The 1st Black President" turned a blind eye to the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans during the Hutu/Tutsi genocide. Then had the audacity to go to Rwanda and say he was "sorry." He's sorry all right.
Clinton also gave us the the Crime Bill of 1994 and the ‘96 Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act that raised the bar for death penalty appeals, added some 60 crimes to be punishable by execution, allowed immigrants to be jailed and deported for reasons of "national security" on the basis of secret evidence (paving the way for the Patriot Act); unleashed 100,000 new policemen on urban streets while gutting habeas corpus, provided for “three strikes and you’re out” laws and sentencing provisions requiring prisoners to serve 85% of their terms; awarded grants to states for new prison construction providing up to 75% of total construction costs.
As a result, 3,300 new prisons were built in the 1990s at a cost of $27 billion, with another 268 in the pipeline. The annual cost of running America's prisons now tops $60 billion from just $9 billion in 1980.
A report released in 2002 by the Justice Policy Institute titled "Cellblocks or Classrooms" found that in the past two decades the population of black male inmates grew three times as fast as the number of black men enrolled in higher education. One study reported that one in eight young Black men are imprisoned compared to one in 63 whites. The newest statistics note that Blacks are arrested at more than six times the rate for whites. For drug offenses, Blacks are arrested at 10 times that of whites, while drug usage among both groups is equal.
In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was ended. The top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would suffer deepening poverty. And there would be no safety net to cushion the fall. Needless to say there’s been a dramatic rise in the poverty rate and homelessness, not to mention workers with three jobs.
The systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters in Florida 2000 and elsewhere across the country further validates the following statement:
"...the two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a 'gentlemen's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote...May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either Republican or the Democratic parties." ( W.E.B. DuBois)
Prayin' With the Devil
Prayin' With the Devil
[col. writ. 1/18/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
In Houston, Texas, those who were the staunchest supporters of the now embattled D.A. there, Harris County's Chuck Rosenthal, are now calling for his resignation.
Among his best, most passionate supporters were Black ministers, many of whom even considered him to be a close friend.
What changed?
The release of hundreds of e-mails from the D.A. for starters; for they reveal a man who loved a racist joke, especially those aimed at Blacks. The e-mails also uncovered sexual improprieties with his co-workers.
It should be more than enough that Rosenthal, and his District Attorney's Office, led the nation in death sentences and executions. But, this being Texas, this didn't get the Black preachers sufficiently riled up.
What stung them were the racist images circulated on his e-mail, like the photo of a prone Black man, sprawled on the sidewalk, near large pieces of watermelon, a cup of soda, and an empty bucket of chicken. The photo is titled: "Fatal Overdose."
Robert Jefferson, pastor of the Cullin Missionary Baptist Church (and member of Houston Ministers Against Crime), responded to news of the e-mails by observing, "We prayed with him; we have been working with him - I feel jilted." The pastor added, "He was smiling with us in one place and stabbing us in our backs in another."
(Well --welcome to politics, Pastor!)
At a recent news conference, the pastor was joined by a number of other Black ministers who expressed their view that Rosenthal should step down - an unlikely outcome, given the relative impunity of the prosecutorial system down there (and elsewhere).
Pastor Jefferson said, "It disturbed me so much, I didn't know what to do." He added, "How deep does this racism go? How many black kids have been locked up while they laugh at us?"
But the truth of the matter is, this isn't a Harris County problem, nor purely a problem of Texas. It's an American problem that is as deep south of the Mason-Dixon Line, as it is north of it. Indeed, there are few big-city D.A.'s who have either come to power, or held on to it, without the eager support of Black ministers -- and their congregations. Is there any wonder why prosecutors bum-rush the pulpit every election season?
D.A.'s hungry for Black notches on their belts; power -drunk judges blind to the racism of the systems they oversee -- that ain't a Texas thing.
They just might be a little more juiced about it, is all.
But, as Black activist (then known as) Rap Brown might have said, "It's as American as cherry pie."
--(c) '08 maj
{ Source : Casimir, Leslie, "Black leaders urge Rosenthal to step down," Houston Chronicle , Jan. 12, 2008, pp.A1 - A14.}
[col. writ. 1/18/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
In Houston, Texas, those who were the staunchest supporters of the now embattled D.A. there, Harris County's Chuck Rosenthal, are now calling for his resignation.
Among his best, most passionate supporters were Black ministers, many of whom even considered him to be a close friend.
What changed?
The release of hundreds of e-mails from the D.A. for starters; for they reveal a man who loved a racist joke, especially those aimed at Blacks. The e-mails also uncovered sexual improprieties with his co-workers.
It should be more than enough that Rosenthal, and his District Attorney's Office, led the nation in death sentences and executions. But, this being Texas, this didn't get the Black preachers sufficiently riled up.
What stung them were the racist images circulated on his e-mail, like the photo of a prone Black man, sprawled on the sidewalk, near large pieces of watermelon, a cup of soda, and an empty bucket of chicken. The photo is titled: "Fatal Overdose."
Robert Jefferson, pastor of the Cullin Missionary Baptist Church (and member of Houston Ministers Against Crime), responded to news of the e-mails by observing, "We prayed with him; we have been working with him - I feel jilted." The pastor added, "He was smiling with us in one place and stabbing us in our backs in another."
(Well --welcome to politics, Pastor!)
At a recent news conference, the pastor was joined by a number of other Black ministers who expressed their view that Rosenthal should step down - an unlikely outcome, given the relative impunity of the prosecutorial system down there (and elsewhere).
Pastor Jefferson said, "It disturbed me so much, I didn't know what to do." He added, "How deep does this racism go? How many black kids have been locked up while they laugh at us?"
But the truth of the matter is, this isn't a Harris County problem, nor purely a problem of Texas. It's an American problem that is as deep south of the Mason-Dixon Line, as it is north of it. Indeed, there are few big-city D.A.'s who have either come to power, or held on to it, without the eager support of Black ministers -- and their congregations. Is there any wonder why prosecutors bum-rush the pulpit every election season?
D.A.'s hungry for Black notches on their belts; power -drunk judges blind to the racism of the systems they oversee -- that ain't a Texas thing.
They just might be a little more juiced about it, is all.
But, as Black activist (then known as) Rap Brown might have said, "It's as American as cherry pie."
--(c) '08 maj
{ Source : Casimir, Leslie, "Black leaders urge Rosenthal to step down," Houston Chronicle , Jan. 12, 2008, pp.A1 - A14.}
The Corporate Elections
The Corporate Elections
[col. writ. 1/22/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Do you ever wonder why certain candidates get mega-coverage and others get none?
That's because the corporate media concentrate more on a candidate's finances, than their positions. And they concentrate on the money race precisely because that money, for the most part, lands in the hands of the media industry.
Because media companies profit so handsomely from such donations, they can hardly be considered fair, detached and objective arbiters of either debates or other campaign coverage.
The money race begets the horse race; the horse race influences the media, and the media influences millions of voters; which starts the cycle anew.
I need not go into the phenomenon of 'pack journalism', for you've all seen it recently, where every media outlet gets it wrong in their collective predictions of how voters will vote.
And because of media power, those candidates who can't garner tens of millions of dollars before elections, are either ignored, or treated as colorful figures of occasional sidebar interest, the subject of smiles and faint shame.
Thus, neither Rep, Dennis Kucinich (D.- Oh.), Dr. Ron Paul (R. - Tex.), nor Mike Gravel can be taken seriously, even though all have been repeatedly elected to Congress, by healthy margins.
Because many of their messages conflicted with the market dictated "conventional wisdom" they have been virtually ignored, and most have been barred from televised political debates. In a nation of 300 million, any candidacy which doesn't get coverage over the airwaves isn't really a candidacy.
We've been told they're not serious contenders, because they've not raised serious money. Even though Dr. Paul beat Rudolph Giuliani handily in several states (coming in second in Nevada!), he's not serious, yet Giuliani is.
Money rules the roost!
It's been said that money is the mother's milk of politics.
It keeps the status quo static, for it winnows out those with views that do not cut the corporate mustard.
Why would a corporation donate (or bundle) tens of thousands of dollars -- or even millions -- with no hope of a return, such as favorable legislation or federal contracts?
No matter what any candidate may say before the elections, the odds are damned good that they won't change the rules afterwards. For to do so makes it easier for others to challenge them, and weakens their chances for reelection.
It ain't gonna happen.
In a nation where money rules almost everything, why would it no longer rule the political process?
--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 1/22/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Do you ever wonder why certain candidates get mega-coverage and others get none?
That's because the corporate media concentrate more on a candidate's finances, than their positions. And they concentrate on the money race precisely because that money, for the most part, lands in the hands of the media industry.
Because media companies profit so handsomely from such donations, they can hardly be considered fair, detached and objective arbiters of either debates or other campaign coverage.
The money race begets the horse race; the horse race influences the media, and the media influences millions of voters; which starts the cycle anew.
I need not go into the phenomenon of 'pack journalism', for you've all seen it recently, where every media outlet gets it wrong in their collective predictions of how voters will vote.
And because of media power, those candidates who can't garner tens of millions of dollars before elections, are either ignored, or treated as colorful figures of occasional sidebar interest, the subject of smiles and faint shame.
Thus, neither Rep, Dennis Kucinich (D.- Oh.), Dr. Ron Paul (R. - Tex.), nor Mike Gravel can be taken seriously, even though all have been repeatedly elected to Congress, by healthy margins.
Because many of their messages conflicted with the market dictated "conventional wisdom" they have been virtually ignored, and most have been barred from televised political debates. In a nation of 300 million, any candidacy which doesn't get coverage over the airwaves isn't really a candidacy.
We've been told they're not serious contenders, because they've not raised serious money. Even though Dr. Paul beat Rudolph Giuliani handily in several states (coming in second in Nevada!), he's not serious, yet Giuliani is.
Money rules the roost!
It's been said that money is the mother's milk of politics.
It keeps the status quo static, for it winnows out those with views that do not cut the corporate mustard.
Why would a corporation donate (or bundle) tens of thousands of dollars -- or even millions -- with no hope of a return, such as favorable legislation or federal contracts?
No matter what any candidate may say before the elections, the odds are damned good that they won't change the rules afterwards. For to do so makes it easier for others to challenge them, and weakens their chances for reelection.
It ain't gonna happen.
In a nation where money rules almost everything, why would it no longer rule the political process?
--(c) '08 maj
With A 'Brutha' Like This.... by Mumia Abu-Jamal
With A 'Brutha' Like This....
[col. writ. 1/24/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Whenever I've heard the phrase 'first Black president' with regards to former U.S. President William J. Clinton, it's always disturbed me.
It's reminded me of many things, but among them is the aphorism launched by Black comedian, Paul Mooney, who quips: "Everybody wanna be a ni----, but don't nobody wanna be a ni----."
What is disturbing is how nonchalant some Black folks are about the honorific, as if it is truly something intrinsically 'Black' about the behavior of Clinton. When the brilliant novelist, Toni Morrison, was credited with making the claim, it was clear that this celebrated fiction writer was utilizing metaphor to speak about how Blackness is perceived in the American mind, but not to ceremoniously award Mr. Clinton de facto admission into the tribe of the Sons of Africa.
This sense of nonchalance seems to suggest that being 'black' is synonymous with dillydallying with women (not one's wife), or playing a musical instrument that has been closely identified with Black music (jazz).
If one examines this claim a little further, it is far less promising than at first glance.
For, while Black elites have rushed to embrace him as 'one of their own', this embrace has been decidedly one-sided.
His lifetime may have coincided with the rise and emergence of the Civil Rights Movement, but his own rise has been, not as a part of that movement, but indeed, as an exploiter of it.
He has never missed an opportunity to use his public power to discipline a Black person, or, as they used to say in the deep South, 'put them in their place.'
His well reported conflicts with leading figures of that movement, like Rev. Jesse Jackson, for example, has been to cut him down to size. Like most politicians, he speaks loftily of the late Rev. Martin L. King, but if King were alive, ha would be finding ways to ignore his counsel at every turn.
For King would've been among his most severe critics, not a yes-man.
In his presidency, he consistently sacrificed Black supporters and interests, whenever they didn't seem subservient enough. He jettisoned law professor, Lani Guinier, when she was in consideration of the #2 spot at the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division. When his former Surgeon General, Dr. Jocelyn Elders, was criticized by conservatives, he unceremoniously dumped her. He has betrayed virtually every constituency that supported him to bring into being his brand of neo liberalism, a kind of conservatism with a smile.
He interrupted his first presidential campaign to return to Little Rock to execute a brain damaged Black man on the Arkansas Death Row.
His vow to 'end welfare as we know it' was a sop to whites, who saw poor Blacks as getting something undeserved, and his own Cabinet secretary, Richard Rubin, has said as much! That he would countenance so much human suffering of the poor, so that the worst feelings of whites could be sated, is proof that the claim of being the 'first black president' was little more than a cruel, ironic joke.
With 'bruthas' like these, who needs enemies?
--(c) -08 maj
[col. writ. 1/24/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Whenever I've heard the phrase 'first Black president' with regards to former U.S. President William J. Clinton, it's always disturbed me.
It's reminded me of many things, but among them is the aphorism launched by Black comedian, Paul Mooney, who quips: "Everybody wanna be a ni----, but don't nobody wanna be a ni----."
What is disturbing is how nonchalant some Black folks are about the honorific, as if it is truly something intrinsically 'Black' about the behavior of Clinton. When the brilliant novelist, Toni Morrison, was credited with making the claim, it was clear that this celebrated fiction writer was utilizing metaphor to speak about how Blackness is perceived in the American mind, but not to ceremoniously award Mr. Clinton de facto admission into the tribe of the Sons of Africa.
This sense of nonchalance seems to suggest that being 'black' is synonymous with dillydallying with women (not one's wife), or playing a musical instrument that has been closely identified with Black music (jazz).
If one examines this claim a little further, it is far less promising than at first glance.
For, while Black elites have rushed to embrace him as 'one of their own', this embrace has been decidedly one-sided.
His lifetime may have coincided with the rise and emergence of the Civil Rights Movement, but his own rise has been, not as a part of that movement, but indeed, as an exploiter of it.
He has never missed an opportunity to use his public power to discipline a Black person, or, as they used to say in the deep South, 'put them in their place.'
His well reported conflicts with leading figures of that movement, like Rev. Jesse Jackson, for example, has been to cut him down to size. Like most politicians, he speaks loftily of the late Rev. Martin L. King, but if King were alive, ha would be finding ways to ignore his counsel at every turn.
For King would've been among his most severe critics, not a yes-man.
In his presidency, he consistently sacrificed Black supporters and interests, whenever they didn't seem subservient enough. He jettisoned law professor, Lani Guinier, when she was in consideration of the #2 spot at the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division. When his former Surgeon General, Dr. Jocelyn Elders, was criticized by conservatives, he unceremoniously dumped her. He has betrayed virtually every constituency that supported him to bring into being his brand of neo liberalism, a kind of conservatism with a smile.
He interrupted his first presidential campaign to return to Little Rock to execute a brain damaged Black man on the Arkansas Death Row.
His vow to 'end welfare as we know it' was a sop to whites, who saw poor Blacks as getting something undeserved, and his own Cabinet secretary, Richard Rubin, has said as much! That he would countenance so much human suffering of the poor, so that the worst feelings of whites could be sated, is proof that the claim of being the 'first black president' was little more than a cruel, ironic joke.
With 'bruthas' like these, who needs enemies?
--(c) -08 maj
It Ain't The Voting That Counts--It's the Counting!
It Ain't The Voting That Counts--It's the Counting!
[col. writ. 1/17/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
As the 'election' of the ruling party of Kenya fades into history's rear-view mirror, the state unleashes its own brand of legalized violence against opponents of the regime, by shooting protesters, not just with the occasional tear gas canister, but with live bullets. Making protest against a deeply flawed, rigged presidential election, a capital crime.
So much for democracy.
For generations now, the elites of the West, that is, those alleged human rights and democracy proponents from Europe, the UN, and the US, have given their blessings to the barest caricatures of democracy, by applauding the outward forms, such as multi party elections, voting, and all the processes of external observance.
Yet, because they and their constituencies have traditionally benefited from the savage inequalities of these post colonial arrangements, they have not cared to look too closely, for they cared little to see what lay beneath.
These quasi-democracies are often jury-rigged set pieces, the height of scene-setting, to allow the monied elites among various societies to shake hands, smile for an occasional photo op, and go their merry ways, while the looting, exploitation, and rape of the poor continues unabated.
Thus, we see Kenya, lauded as the jewel of East Africa, as long as its rich agricultural and mineral wealth flows out of Kenya to its traditional consumers.
As in the United States, democracy has become a cheapened coin in the realm of politics.
In Pakistan, Kenya, and in other parts of the world that we used to denote as the 'Third World', democracy is seen as something to fight for. It is so serious that people take to the streets to be beaten, shot and killed by the uniformed defenders of dictatorial 'order'.
Here in the States, stolen elections are papered over, sent to robed sycophants who proclaim that 'the king can do no wrong', while democracy dies in self-imposed silence.
Should it surprise us that, among the first countries to offer congratulations for a successfully rigged election in Kenya was the U.S.? After all, it takes one to know one.
While that initial kudo was later withdrawn, it signaled to the ruling elites that the Americans wouldn't be much of a problem with a stolen election (as long as it's our guys who do the stealing!).
Meanwhile, if present counts are to be trusted, at least 1,000 Kenyans have perished in this latest convulsion of conflict, with at least 100 shot to death by police.
Here, as in Rawalpindi, as in Karachi, as in Birmingham, people are literally bleeding for democracy -- an on which side does the U.S. stand -- the people, or the dictators? The people, or the election-stealers?
Democracy is more, much more, than a phrase to be thrown out to justify a war for profit, or an imperial project. It is far more than the presence of a ballot box. It is either democracy, or it ain't.
In this historical hour, we see time's echo of the now - past Cold War, where the U.S. invariably chose the most blood-drenched dictators it could find, to support in struggles against their own people.
Generations have passed in that interim, and only the labels have changed.
Generals, strongmen, princes and bullies remain America's best 'allies', no matter what they do to their own people.
--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 1/17/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
As the 'election' of the ruling party of Kenya fades into history's rear-view mirror, the state unleashes its own brand of legalized violence against opponents of the regime, by shooting protesters, not just with the occasional tear gas canister, but with live bullets. Making protest against a deeply flawed, rigged presidential election, a capital crime.
So much for democracy.
For generations now, the elites of the West, that is, those alleged human rights and democracy proponents from Europe, the UN, and the US, have given their blessings to the barest caricatures of democracy, by applauding the outward forms, such as multi party elections, voting, and all the processes of external observance.
Yet, because they and their constituencies have traditionally benefited from the savage inequalities of these post colonial arrangements, they have not cared to look too closely, for they cared little to see what lay beneath.
These quasi-democracies are often jury-rigged set pieces, the height of scene-setting, to allow the monied elites among various societies to shake hands, smile for an occasional photo op, and go their merry ways, while the looting, exploitation, and rape of the poor continues unabated.
Thus, we see Kenya, lauded as the jewel of East Africa, as long as its rich agricultural and mineral wealth flows out of Kenya to its traditional consumers.
As in the United States, democracy has become a cheapened coin in the realm of politics.
In Pakistan, Kenya, and in other parts of the world that we used to denote as the 'Third World', democracy is seen as something to fight for. It is so serious that people take to the streets to be beaten, shot and killed by the uniformed defenders of dictatorial 'order'.
Here in the States, stolen elections are papered over, sent to robed sycophants who proclaim that 'the king can do no wrong', while democracy dies in self-imposed silence.
Should it surprise us that, among the first countries to offer congratulations for a successfully rigged election in Kenya was the U.S.? After all, it takes one to know one.
While that initial kudo was later withdrawn, it signaled to the ruling elites that the Americans wouldn't be much of a problem with a stolen election (as long as it's our guys who do the stealing!).
Meanwhile, if present counts are to be trusted, at least 1,000 Kenyans have perished in this latest convulsion of conflict, with at least 100 shot to death by police.
Here, as in Rawalpindi, as in Karachi, as in Birmingham, people are literally bleeding for democracy -- an on which side does the U.S. stand -- the people, or the dictators? The people, or the election-stealers?
Democracy is more, much more, than a phrase to be thrown out to justify a war for profit, or an imperial project. It is far more than the presence of a ballot box. It is either democracy, or it ain't.
In this historical hour, we see time's echo of the now - past Cold War, where the U.S. invariably chose the most blood-drenched dictators it could find, to support in struggles against their own people.
Generations have passed in that interim, and only the labels have changed.
Generals, strongmen, princes and bullies remain America's best 'allies', no matter what they do to their own people.
--(c) '08 maj
Check It Out -- New Mumia Abu-Jamal Film
In Prison My Whole Life is a look at the life of imprisoned political journalist and former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Click on the link below to view the one minute or two minute trailer. Please add your supportive comments to the blog. And circulate this email as widely as possible.
About the film: Mumia Abu-Jamal was arrested the day William Francome was born. William is now 25 years old. Mumia is still on death row. William Francome goes on a journey to find out about the man who has been in prison William’s whole life. The film is showing at the Sundance Film Festival.
Mumia’s case is currently before the US Court of Appeals and a decision on whether or not he will receive a new and fair trial is due any day.
http://www.myspace.com/inprisonmywholelife
For info about journalists in support of Mumia and an excellent article that was featured in the British Guardian, please go to www.globalwomenstrike.net Global Women's Strike philly@crossroadswomen.net 215-848-1120
========================
These are two new articles about IN PRISON MY WHOLE LIFE, which is featured at this week's Sundance Film Festival
Another take on Mumia
Sundance screens a film by one obsessed with Abu-Jamal.
By Sam Adams
For The Inquirer
PARK CITY, Utah - When the lights come up after a film's premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the stage usually fills with directors and producers, actors and crew, all basking in the audience's applause. But after Sunday's screening of In Prison My Whole Life, director Marc Evans apologized for the absence of the movie's "star": Mumia Abu-Jamal, on Pennsylvania's death row for the 1981 killing of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal is unquestionably the subject of the documentary, but as far as on-screen time goes, he plays a supporting role to 26-year-old William Francome, the "my" of the movie's title.
Francome said he was born on Dec. 9, 1981, the day that Abu-Jamal was arrested for Faulkner's murder. In Prison uses that coincidence to underscore the length of time Abu-Jamal has spent behind bars, most of it on death row - a circumstance the movie condemns as inhumane and unjust.
Francome appears as a cross between a crusading journalist, tracking down evidence to contradict the prosecution's case, and a wide-eyed student avidly pursuing the history of American racism.
The result is largely a recap of arguments for Abu-Jamal's retrial or exoneration and a broad overview of the history of American dissent.
Held together by Francome's narration, the movie oscillates between arguing the injustice of Jamal's case and charting Francome's education in the ugly side of American history.
Through interviews with the likes of Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky, In Prison attempts to place Abu-Jamal's case within a larger social context. The 1985 MOVE bombing and the 1987 videotape in which a Philadelphia prosecutor instructs young colleagues on how to keep African Americans off juries are part of the film's background. So are the FBI's Cointelpro program and Hurricane Katrina.
"I think it's part of a narrative," Francome says. "We could have made a film that was just purely about the case and looked into every single detail, but we've got 90 minutes to tell a story, and at the same time we're trying to make an entertaining film. I think we're making valid connections between certain issues."
Although the Sundance screening was not met with the rapturous whoops and standing ovations that greet the festival's instant hits, it was clear that at least some in the audience had no difficulty connecting Jamal's case and larger issues of racism, the death penalty and government corruption.
Sundance's audiences are well-known for their liberal bent, and its documentary programming tends to favor issue-oriented films. During the post-screening Q and A, one questioner asked if Abu-Jamal's bid for a new trial, currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, would be rejected because "the consequences might be too huge to allow that to happen."
The British-born Francome, son of a British father and an American mother, describes his mother as a product of the '60s counterculture, and says she reminded him that each birthday he celebrated meant Abu-Jamal had spent another year in jail. But it wasn't until he was a teenager and heard Rage Against the Machine take up Abu-Jamal's cause that Francome connected the dots. "It was like, 'Hey, that's that Mumia guy mum's always talking about,' " he recalls in the film.
In his 20s, Francome began writing treatments for a film about the case. Through his girlfriend's godmother, he met Livia Firth, wife of actor Colin Firth, and Colin offered to produce the film and introduced him to Evans, an established feature and documentary director.
Firth also got in touch with Amnesty International's Piers Bannister, who had written a 35-page report condemning Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial as failing to meet "minimum international standards." Bannister, who appeared at the Sundance screening, shared his research with the filmmakers, and Amnesty vetted the film after it was completed.
"When we finished, we came back and said, 'This is the film. Tell us if we did a good job,' " Firth says. "They tore the film to pieces. They analyzed every single word." In addition to fact-checking the film, Amnesty suggested changes in the wording of Francome's narration to better represent its stance on the case and related issues such as the death penalty. The result, Firth proudly says, is the first film endorsed by Amnesty's secretariat. In Prison opens with Amnesty's logo, which is followed immediately by the logo for Myspace, which helped finance the film. "Those two badges kind of reflect who the film is for," Evans says.
The question of the film's potential audience, Evans says, greatly influenced its form. Rather than evaluate every claim pro and con, In Prison is pitched at an introductory level.
"The bit of filmmaking I dislike the most is you have to say, 'Here's the film, now who's the audience?' " Evans says. "Is it for a very well-versed insider? Perhaps this isn't the film for them at the end of the day. I don't think the audience the film really appeals to are people who are necessarily politically clued in and have read a lot about their civil rights history. It's a series of inquiries and conversations by a 25-year-old, starting with a teenage obsession."
Crisscrossing the country, Francome pounds the streets looking for the truth of what happened on the night he was born. He talks to the authors of several books critical of Abu-Jamal's trial. He meets with photographer Pedro Polakoff, whose photos of the crime scene seem to show a police officer handling Faulkner's and Abu-Jamal's guns with his bare hands. And he interviews William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother, who says that Faulkner addressed him with a racial slur and began beating him, unprovoked, in the moments before the shooting. Cook does not, however, discuss what happened next, and says he will do so only in a court of law.
Conspicuous by their absence are Faulkner's supporters, or any evidence that might weaken the movie's claims, like the fact that Cook was convicted of assaulting Faulkner. The sole argument in favor of Abu-Jamal's conviction is made by prosecutor Joseph McGill, who appears in excerpts from the 1996 documentary Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt? (When citing the film, In Prison omits the question mark.) Francome says attempts were made to contact McGill, representatives from the Fraternal Order of Police, and, through the FOP, Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and no responses were received. But Evans also says that they pursued advocates for Abu-Jamal's incarceration and execution only "up to a point."
"We're making a film that starts from a particular point of view, with a particular interest," Evans says. "To me, the proper way to proceed is to invite people to the table, and respond when people come to the table. Not to go, 'The film I'm making is so responsible for the truth.' It's not a journalistic film in that sense."
The film contains a handful of factual errors which, while evidently below the radar of Amnesty's fact-checkers, could damage its credibility with Philadelphia audiences. City Council president Anna Verna is referred to as "Ann," and the neighborhood of Powelton Village is referred to as "a suburb of Philadelphia."
Evans knows that Abu-Jamal's case raises heated emotions in the city, and that the battle between "Free Mumia" and "Fry Mumia" factions leads many to tune out the case altogether. That, he says, only heightened his curiosity.
"For us, coming in from the outside, the fact that people are so fed up with hearing about it, the fact that it gets people so riled up, that in itself is interesting. The fact that this guy can raise so much hatred or so much empathy . . . I find that absolutely fascinating."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/livia-giuggioli/obama-in-context_b_83275.htmlObama in Context, Huffington Post
by Livia Giuggioli
My husband Colin and I have ongoing discussions on who we would support for this presidential campaign. Obama, Clinton, Edwards -- I tend to go for Obama but yesterday, while having lunch with friends here in Sundance, an African American studio executive said that should Obama be elected, he fears there would be several attempts to assassinate him simply because he is black. This sent an icy shock through me.
Walking through the crisp white snow at the Sundance Film Festival to a screening of our documentary In Prison My Whole Life, I started to wonder whether the optimism that we had felt in making the film had been misplaced. The movie centers around the case of Mumia Abu Jamal, a vociferous and radical black journalist who, after 25 years in prison, has become America's most famous Death Row inmate. Despite the injustices surrounding Mumia's case and some of the dark historical events that the film portrays, it is doggedly optimistic in approach. Mumia's continued articulate commentary as a radio journalist, broadcasting from his cell by means of typewriter and telephone, had inspired us. His voice is heroic and connects to a tradition of dissenting black voices which have always found a place in America. With our films' Sundance screening coinciding with Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this surviving continuity seemed even more poignantly alive.
Producing In Prison my Whole life is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. People have asked me many times what shocked me most while making the film and my answer is always the same: how much I fell in love with America all over again. There is a general perception in Europe that "America" is "Bush". So when we left for the States to film and found ourselves listening to people like Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Russell Simmons, Howard Zinn, Snoop Dogg, Mos Def (I could go on for hours, we met the most amazing people!) it reminded me what a wonderful country America is and what a powerful counter culture still exists.
This is the country which fought many of the biggest civil rights battles, and our film endeavors to ask what is the nature of dissent in America today.
I recently read an interview with the fantastic writer David Grossman who said, "One of the great questions that people living in this age must relentlessly ask themselves is: in what state, at which moment, do I become part of the faceless crowd, "the masses"?"
If you think about it -- this question IS the most fundamental one and I guess this is why I/we found ourselves doing this movie. Among the questions "In Prison My Whole Life" raises are: Is racism in America still endemic? What did we learn from Katrina? What is the state of the American judicial system? Was it unbiased in Philadelphia in 1982 when Mumia was on trial? Was it unbiased in the election of 2000? We must never stop asking questions. Documentary filmmakers have the opportunity to engage in the great debate, to resurrect -- if one can use that word - the urge to dissent, to ask questions again, to fight for change and to fight the blindness and ignorance of racism and injustice that still exists not only in this country but all over the world.
Click on the link below to view the one minute or two minute trailer. Please add your supportive comments to the blog. And circulate this email as widely as possible.
About the film: Mumia Abu-Jamal was arrested the day William Francome was born. William is now 25 years old. Mumia is still on death row. William Francome goes on a journey to find out about the man who has been in prison William’s whole life. The film is showing at the Sundance Film Festival.
Mumia’s case is currently before the US Court of Appeals and a decision on whether or not he will receive a new and fair trial is due any day.
http://www.myspace.com/inprisonmywholelife
For info about journalists in support of Mumia and an excellent article that was featured in the British Guardian, please go to www.globalwomenstrike.net Global Women's Strike philly@crossroadswomen.net 215-848-1120
========================
These are two new articles about IN PRISON MY WHOLE LIFE, which is featured at this week's Sundance Film Festival
Another take on Mumia
Sundance screens a film by one obsessed with Abu-Jamal.
By Sam Adams
For The Inquirer
PARK CITY, Utah - When the lights come up after a film's premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the stage usually fills with directors and producers, actors and crew, all basking in the audience's applause. But after Sunday's screening of In Prison My Whole Life, director Marc Evans apologized for the absence of the movie's "star": Mumia Abu-Jamal, on Pennsylvania's death row for the 1981 killing of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal is unquestionably the subject of the documentary, but as far as on-screen time goes, he plays a supporting role to 26-year-old William Francome, the "my" of the movie's title.
Francome said he was born on Dec. 9, 1981, the day that Abu-Jamal was arrested for Faulkner's murder. In Prison uses that coincidence to underscore the length of time Abu-Jamal has spent behind bars, most of it on death row - a circumstance the movie condemns as inhumane and unjust.
Francome appears as a cross between a crusading journalist, tracking down evidence to contradict the prosecution's case, and a wide-eyed student avidly pursuing the history of American racism.
The result is largely a recap of arguments for Abu-Jamal's retrial or exoneration and a broad overview of the history of American dissent.
Held together by Francome's narration, the movie oscillates between arguing the injustice of Jamal's case and charting Francome's education in the ugly side of American history.
Through interviews with the likes of Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky, In Prison attempts to place Abu-Jamal's case within a larger social context. The 1985 MOVE bombing and the 1987 videotape in which a Philadelphia prosecutor instructs young colleagues on how to keep African Americans off juries are part of the film's background. So are the FBI's Cointelpro program and Hurricane Katrina.
"I think it's part of a narrative," Francome says. "We could have made a film that was just purely about the case and looked into every single detail, but we've got 90 minutes to tell a story, and at the same time we're trying to make an entertaining film. I think we're making valid connections between certain issues."
Although the Sundance screening was not met with the rapturous whoops and standing ovations that greet the festival's instant hits, it was clear that at least some in the audience had no difficulty connecting Jamal's case and larger issues of racism, the death penalty and government corruption.
Sundance's audiences are well-known for their liberal bent, and its documentary programming tends to favor issue-oriented films. During the post-screening Q and A, one questioner asked if Abu-Jamal's bid for a new trial, currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, would be rejected because "the consequences might be too huge to allow that to happen."
The British-born Francome, son of a British father and an American mother, describes his mother as a product of the '60s counterculture, and says she reminded him that each birthday he celebrated meant Abu-Jamal had spent another year in jail. But it wasn't until he was a teenager and heard Rage Against the Machine take up Abu-Jamal's cause that Francome connected the dots. "It was like, 'Hey, that's that Mumia guy mum's always talking about,' " he recalls in the film.
In his 20s, Francome began writing treatments for a film about the case. Through his girlfriend's godmother, he met Livia Firth, wife of actor Colin Firth, and Colin offered to produce the film and introduced him to Evans, an established feature and documentary director.
Firth also got in touch with Amnesty International's Piers Bannister, who had written a 35-page report condemning Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial as failing to meet "minimum international standards." Bannister, who appeared at the Sundance screening, shared his research with the filmmakers, and Amnesty vetted the film after it was completed.
"When we finished, we came back and said, 'This is the film. Tell us if we did a good job,' " Firth says. "They tore the film to pieces. They analyzed every single word." In addition to fact-checking the film, Amnesty suggested changes in the wording of Francome's narration to better represent its stance on the case and related issues such as the death penalty. The result, Firth proudly says, is the first film endorsed by Amnesty's secretariat. In Prison opens with Amnesty's logo, which is followed immediately by the logo for Myspace, which helped finance the film. "Those two badges kind of reflect who the film is for," Evans says.
The question of the film's potential audience, Evans says, greatly influenced its form. Rather than evaluate every claim pro and con, In Prison is pitched at an introductory level.
"The bit of filmmaking I dislike the most is you have to say, 'Here's the film, now who's the audience?' " Evans says. "Is it for a very well-versed insider? Perhaps this isn't the film for them at the end of the day. I don't think the audience the film really appeals to are people who are necessarily politically clued in and have read a lot about their civil rights history. It's a series of inquiries and conversations by a 25-year-old, starting with a teenage obsession."
Crisscrossing the country, Francome pounds the streets looking for the truth of what happened on the night he was born. He talks to the authors of several books critical of Abu-Jamal's trial. He meets with photographer Pedro Polakoff, whose photos of the crime scene seem to show a police officer handling Faulkner's and Abu-Jamal's guns with his bare hands. And he interviews William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother, who says that Faulkner addressed him with a racial slur and began beating him, unprovoked, in the moments before the shooting. Cook does not, however, discuss what happened next, and says he will do so only in a court of law.
Conspicuous by their absence are Faulkner's supporters, or any evidence that might weaken the movie's claims, like the fact that Cook was convicted of assaulting Faulkner. The sole argument in favor of Abu-Jamal's conviction is made by prosecutor Joseph McGill, who appears in excerpts from the 1996 documentary Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt? (When citing the film, In Prison omits the question mark.) Francome says attempts were made to contact McGill, representatives from the Fraternal Order of Police, and, through the FOP, Faulkner's widow, Maureen, and no responses were received. But Evans also says that they pursued advocates for Abu-Jamal's incarceration and execution only "up to a point."
"We're making a film that starts from a particular point of view, with a particular interest," Evans says. "To me, the proper way to proceed is to invite people to the table, and respond when people come to the table. Not to go, 'The film I'm making is so responsible for the truth.' It's not a journalistic film in that sense."
The film contains a handful of factual errors which, while evidently below the radar of Amnesty's fact-checkers, could damage its credibility with Philadelphia audiences. City Council president Anna Verna is referred to as "Ann," and the neighborhood of Powelton Village is referred to as "a suburb of Philadelphia."
Evans knows that Abu-Jamal's case raises heated emotions in the city, and that the battle between "Free Mumia" and "Fry Mumia" factions leads many to tune out the case altogether. That, he says, only heightened his curiosity.
"For us, coming in from the outside, the fact that people are so fed up with hearing about it, the fact that it gets people so riled up, that in itself is interesting. The fact that this guy can raise so much hatred or so much empathy . . . I find that absolutely fascinating."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/livia-giuggioli/obama-in-context_b_83275.htmlObama in Context, Huffington Post
by Livia Giuggioli
My husband Colin and I have ongoing discussions on who we would support for this presidential campaign. Obama, Clinton, Edwards -- I tend to go for Obama but yesterday, while having lunch with friends here in Sundance, an African American studio executive said that should Obama be elected, he fears there would be several attempts to assassinate him simply because he is black. This sent an icy shock through me.
Walking through the crisp white snow at the Sundance Film Festival to a screening of our documentary In Prison My Whole Life, I started to wonder whether the optimism that we had felt in making the film had been misplaced. The movie centers around the case of Mumia Abu Jamal, a vociferous and radical black journalist who, after 25 years in prison, has become America's most famous Death Row inmate. Despite the injustices surrounding Mumia's case and some of the dark historical events that the film portrays, it is doggedly optimistic in approach. Mumia's continued articulate commentary as a radio journalist, broadcasting from his cell by means of typewriter and telephone, had inspired us. His voice is heroic and connects to a tradition of dissenting black voices which have always found a place in America. With our films' Sundance screening coinciding with Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this surviving continuity seemed even more poignantly alive.
Producing In Prison my Whole life is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. People have asked me many times what shocked me most while making the film and my answer is always the same: how much I fell in love with America all over again. There is a general perception in Europe that "America" is "Bush". So when we left for the States to film and found ourselves listening to people like Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Russell Simmons, Howard Zinn, Snoop Dogg, Mos Def (I could go on for hours, we met the most amazing people!) it reminded me what a wonderful country America is and what a powerful counter culture still exists.
This is the country which fought many of the biggest civil rights battles, and our film endeavors to ask what is the nature of dissent in America today.
I recently read an interview with the fantastic writer David Grossman who said, "One of the great questions that people living in this age must relentlessly ask themselves is: in what state, at which moment, do I become part of the faceless crowd, "the masses"?"
If you think about it -- this question IS the most fundamental one and I guess this is why I/we found ourselves doing this movie. Among the questions "In Prison My Whole Life" raises are: Is racism in America still endemic? What did we learn from Katrina? What is the state of the American judicial system? Was it unbiased in Philadelphia in 1982 when Mumia was on trial? Was it unbiased in the election of 2000? We must never stop asking questions. Documentary filmmakers have the opportunity to engage in the great debate, to resurrect -- if one can use that word - the urge to dissent, to ask questions again, to fight for change and to fight the blindness and ignorance of racism and injustice that still exists not only in this country but all over the world.
Economic Gangsters by Mumia Abu-Jamal
Economic Gangsters
[col. writ. 1/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
As Americans begin to taste the bitter dregs of recession; the economy spirals to the top of primary election rhetoric. Briefly displacing the issue of Iraq.
Both Republicans and Democrats join in rare bipartisan agreement on an economic stimulus package -- a government dole out of roughly $800 per taxpayer -- which, when received, will be spent, and this spending will stimulate, or boost, the lagging economy.
I don't want to be a downer, but I feel compelled to say, if the economy can be sparked by so modest a boost, are the problems really that serious, or are they far more serious than politicians are letting on?
It seems to me that politicians are skirting the obvious: U.S. economic problems aren't displacing problems in Iraq: in fact, Iraq -- its costs in blood and treasure -- are driving this period of economic instability, recession and job losses.
How? Well, while the defense industries, and related businesses of oil and mercenary-type outfits (like Blackwater) are making big bucks, this wealth is narrowly distributed. In past wars, workers were driven into factories to build the weapons of World Wars I and II, and so money was widely circulated, particularly among Blacks, newly arrived from the segregated South, or among women, who entered factories to work machines vacated by millions of white men who were Drafted to man the war front (remember Rosie the Riveter?)
This new so-called volunteer army is largely the product of an economic draft, of poor and working class youth hoping to get a leg up in the rat race of attending increasingly unaffordable colleges.
While this hope and dream is often unrequited, what are the economic prospects of tens of thousands of men and women who return legless, armless-- or mindless -- after repeated tours in Iraq?
And the Iraq war, which will cost perhaps upwards of trillions of dollars before all is said and done, is really designed to economically benefit few -- again, oil companies and their subsidiaries. And, of course, petroleum-based fossil fuels have their own ecological, and social costs - that we've not even begun to tally.
While Bush and the Saudi princes do their sword-dance (ironic given the $20 billion Saudi-U..S. weapons deal Bush brings), the economy - and the ecology -burns.
Housing foreclosures are spiking; manufacturing flees to China; gas prices rise; neighborhoods decline into hellholes for survival; and schools resemble training camps for prison.
And prison? Perhaps they are America's lone growth industry.
Wars are poor replacements for ailing economies. For they produce nothing, but pain, loss and ultimately -- more war.
This war, started by neo con nitwits and the Texas/Bush Mafia, has produced pain, loss and death on an epic scale.
No politician now running has the barest notion of how to end the cycle -- for they too are trapped in an imperial web, spun by big business.
They promise no solution, just an extension of the same, elsewhere.
--(c) '08 maj
[col. writ. 1/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
As Americans begin to taste the bitter dregs of recession; the economy spirals to the top of primary election rhetoric. Briefly displacing the issue of Iraq.
Both Republicans and Democrats join in rare bipartisan agreement on an economic stimulus package -- a government dole out of roughly $800 per taxpayer -- which, when received, will be spent, and this spending will stimulate, or boost, the lagging economy.
I don't want to be a downer, but I feel compelled to say, if the economy can be sparked by so modest a boost, are the problems really that serious, or are they far more serious than politicians are letting on?
It seems to me that politicians are skirting the obvious: U.S. economic problems aren't displacing problems in Iraq: in fact, Iraq -- its costs in blood and treasure -- are driving this period of economic instability, recession and job losses.
How? Well, while the defense industries, and related businesses of oil and mercenary-type outfits (like Blackwater) are making big bucks, this wealth is narrowly distributed. In past wars, workers were driven into factories to build the weapons of World Wars I and II, and so money was widely circulated, particularly among Blacks, newly arrived from the segregated South, or among women, who entered factories to work machines vacated by millions of white men who were Drafted to man the war front (remember Rosie the Riveter?)
This new so-called volunteer army is largely the product of an economic draft, of poor and working class youth hoping to get a leg up in the rat race of attending increasingly unaffordable colleges.
While this hope and dream is often unrequited, what are the economic prospects of tens of thousands of men and women who return legless, armless-- or mindless -- after repeated tours in Iraq?
And the Iraq war, which will cost perhaps upwards of trillions of dollars before all is said and done, is really designed to economically benefit few -- again, oil companies and their subsidiaries. And, of course, petroleum-based fossil fuels have their own ecological, and social costs - that we've not even begun to tally.
While Bush and the Saudi princes do their sword-dance (ironic given the $20 billion Saudi-U..S. weapons deal Bush brings), the economy - and the ecology -burns.
Housing foreclosures are spiking; manufacturing flees to China; gas prices rise; neighborhoods decline into hellholes for survival; and schools resemble training camps for prison.
And prison? Perhaps they are America's lone growth industry.
Wars are poor replacements for ailing economies. For they produce nothing, but pain, loss and ultimately -- more war.
This war, started by neo con nitwits and the Texas/Bush Mafia, has produced pain, loss and death on an epic scale.
No politician now running has the barest notion of how to end the cycle -- for they too are trapped in an imperial web, spun by big business.
They promise no solution, just an extension of the same, elsewhere.
--(c) '08 maj
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People Part 2
Here is part two of the article. The article comes from www.guerrillafunk.com and was originally done by Morpheus of www.playahata.com.
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People, Part 2
By Morpheus, www.playahata.com
"Bling!Bling!" Baby says, his "medallion iced up" and his "Rolex bezelled up!" Jay-Z says she's his baby, drives him crazy and is a girl's best friend. We talkin' diamonds ya'll. Helen, a 20-year-old mother raped and held captive by armed men knows about diamonds. Adamsay, 15, who uses her severed limbs to manipulate a cup knows about them too. They live in Sierra Leone, where real thugs keep the block locked down -- all in the name of ICE.
Sierra Leone went from slave port to a haven for Britain's newly emancipated. A colony until 1961, it looked forward to prosperity in those early years of independence. But as with too much of post-colonial Africa, those dreams were short lived.
Government mismanagement led to rebellion in 1991 by a group calling themselves the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), led by a former official named Foday Sankoh. Attempts to quell the rebellion caused numerous coups and shifts in government. With the war still raging in 1996, the people finally called for democratic elections. Lawyer Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was declared victor and a peace accord with the rebels was signed.
But the peace deal unraveled. And when disgruntled government soldiers staged a coup, the RUF eagerly supported them to topple Kabbah and form a rogue government the international community refused to recognize.
Visiting Nigeria, RUF leader Foday Sankoh was placed under arrest. And Nigeria, backed by the UN and ECOMOG, fought a punishing war to return Kabbah to power in 1998. Sankoh was given the death penalty, but the RUF carried on nevertheless.
If the RUF were fighting on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone, they certainly neglected to demonstrate it. As if mimicking Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge or the brutally oppressive Belgian Congo, the RUF waged a bloody campaign of terror. They raped, maimed and killed civilians, including children and the elderly, in the tens of thousands.
When the RUF attacked the capitol of Freetown in January of 1999, they initiated "Operation No Living Thing" - raping young girls and women, burning homes and villages, and viciously hacking off the hands of children. At least 10,000 people died in this rebel terror campaign. As one UN official put it, "The RUF have turned Sierra Leone into the worst country in the world to live in?.
So who are these RUF? An extremist faction like the Peruvian Shining Path, with some profound political agenda? Something akin to the fratricidal, Hutu Interahamwe of Rwanda bent on revenge upon ethnic rivals? Or like the Hezballah, do they wage a struggle based on fanatic religious ideologies? No.
The 45,000 member RUF are simply disillusioned young men, some no older than 10, spurred on by older leaders and drug-induced acts of bravado. They come from diverse ethnic groups, practice no particular religion, and espouse no set political agenda or platform.
All that can be said is that their goals are rooted in greed. For it is diamonds that have caused and fed this war of atrocity. The eastern part of Sierra Leone, a RUF stronghold, produces some of the finest gems in the world. Reports say the RUF sells the diamonds through Liberia, who's president Charles Taylor supports them for his own corrupt ends, and receives arms in return. The evidence of this illegal trade is in the numbers: Liberia's own average annual mining capacity is 150,000 carats. But between 1994 and 1998, Liberia exported more than 31 million carats, an average of six million per year.
The RUF was eventually routed by Nigerian troops into the countryside. But pressure from the US and other governments forced President Kabbah to sign a treaty with the RUF. Jesse Jackson himself helped broker the much applauded peace deal which not only gave the RUF blanket amnesty, but ensured their leaders high-ranking government posts. Foday Sankoh went from death row, to the Vice-Presidency.
However, it soon became apparent that this deal was a sham. Only about 4,000 of the RUF disarmed while at least 13,000 government troops did so. UN observers noted that the RUF continued murder, rape and mutilation in Sierra Leone as if the peace deal never happened. In fact only days following Nigeria's withdrawal, the RUF ambushed and took 500 UN peacekeepers hostage. Terrified of the rebels, who's infamous reputation preceded them, the UN force surrendered their weapons, armored personnel carriers and even their uniforms without so much as a fight.
Sierra Leone citizens in Freetown, finally taking matters into their own hands, marched on the home of Sankoh to demand he end hostilities. They were greeted with bodyguards who fired machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades into the crowd, killing scores. Weeks of humiliation later, the UN hostages were finally released. So what went wrong?
Jesse, the US and foreign nations underestimated the RUF and miserably failed to understand the conflict in Sierra Leone. The RUF may be experts in tactics of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, but they amount in the end to little more than mafia-like thugs. Giving Sankoh and his rebels places in the new government would be akin to the NAACP giving gang members a place on their board. The people of Sierra Leone were betrayed by an international community looking to make deals with the devil. As one Sierra Leonean dryly observed, "they didn't make deals with Milosovic in Bosnia---why here?"
But perhaps there is hope in Sierra Leone's future. The UN, following Nigeria's lead, has taken a tough stance on the RUF. And the peacekeeping mission sent there has restored some semblance of order to the nation. Foday Sankoh was captured and marched through the streets of Freetown to the jubilant cheers of its citizens. A tribunal has been set up to prosecute both Sankoh and the RUF for their reign of terror. And a government diamond certificate is now being put into to place to keep rebel gems from financing this brutal war. And word is the RUF rebels have begun to disarm en masse.
As Nigerian author Chinua Achebe might say, in Sierra Leone things "fell" apart. It will take untold generations to heal the wounds the civil war has caused. The very existence of the RUF illustrates some of Africa's most pressing post-colonial problems: corrupt leaders, the powerful exploiting the powerless, the break-down of traditional African societal values and mores, and a lack of basic order on many fronts. What should be a diamond-rich and prosperous country, is today on the verge of chaos. Modern Sierra Leone is part of the African legacy of colonialism and the seeming inability of western styles of government and post-independence leaders to speak to the needs of their respective countries. The implosion of Sierra Leone is what happens when all of these factors go untreated for too long. It will take a world community and, most of all, the commitment of the people of Sierra Leone to fix it once again.
As I listened to yet another ghetto lyrical fantasy of ICE play out on my radio, I could not help wonder if some artists are dumber than a box of rocks? When a recent high profile rapper was asked about what he thought of Sierra Leone as he bragged about his shiny wrist pieces, he answered dumbfounded -- "Sierra who?" It seems while the rest of the REAL world was concerned with world affairs, these thugz, ballaz and ThOw'd YuNg PlAyAz could have cared less. Yet now I watch em' tripping over each other to get some American patriotic media glory after September 11th. These simps (yeah, I called em' simps) should all be loaded up in a plane and dropped ground zero into Sierra Leone, with all their flashy ICE wrapped around them. Let's see how long they make it.
Courtesy of Morpheus at www.playahata.com.
Dig the video "The Diamond Life" here.
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People, Part 2
By Morpheus, www.playahata.com
"Bling!Bling!" Baby says, his "medallion iced up" and his "Rolex bezelled up!" Jay-Z says she's his baby, drives him crazy and is a girl's best friend. We talkin' diamonds ya'll. Helen, a 20-year-old mother raped and held captive by armed men knows about diamonds. Adamsay, 15, who uses her severed limbs to manipulate a cup knows about them too. They live in Sierra Leone, where real thugs keep the block locked down -- all in the name of ICE.
Sierra Leone went from slave port to a haven for Britain's newly emancipated. A colony until 1961, it looked forward to prosperity in those early years of independence. But as with too much of post-colonial Africa, those dreams were short lived.
Government mismanagement led to rebellion in 1991 by a group calling themselves the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), led by a former official named Foday Sankoh. Attempts to quell the rebellion caused numerous coups and shifts in government. With the war still raging in 1996, the people finally called for democratic elections. Lawyer Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was declared victor and a peace accord with the rebels was signed.
But the peace deal unraveled. And when disgruntled government soldiers staged a coup, the RUF eagerly supported them to topple Kabbah and form a rogue government the international community refused to recognize.
Visiting Nigeria, RUF leader Foday Sankoh was placed under arrest. And Nigeria, backed by the UN and ECOMOG, fought a punishing war to return Kabbah to power in 1998. Sankoh was given the death penalty, but the RUF carried on nevertheless.
If the RUF were fighting on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone, they certainly neglected to demonstrate it. As if mimicking Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge or the brutally oppressive Belgian Congo, the RUF waged a bloody campaign of terror. They raped, maimed and killed civilians, including children and the elderly, in the tens of thousands.
When the RUF attacked the capitol of Freetown in January of 1999, they initiated "Operation No Living Thing" - raping young girls and women, burning homes and villages, and viciously hacking off the hands of children. At least 10,000 people died in this rebel terror campaign. As one UN official put it, "The RUF have turned Sierra Leone into the worst country in the world to live in?.
So who are these RUF? An extremist faction like the Peruvian Shining Path, with some profound political agenda? Something akin to the fratricidal, Hutu Interahamwe of Rwanda bent on revenge upon ethnic rivals? Or like the Hezballah, do they wage a struggle based on fanatic religious ideologies? No.
The 45,000 member RUF are simply disillusioned young men, some no older than 10, spurred on by older leaders and drug-induced acts of bravado. They come from diverse ethnic groups, practice no particular religion, and espouse no set political agenda or platform.
All that can be said is that their goals are rooted in greed. For it is diamonds that have caused and fed this war of atrocity. The eastern part of Sierra Leone, a RUF stronghold, produces some of the finest gems in the world. Reports say the RUF sells the diamonds through Liberia, who's president Charles Taylor supports them for his own corrupt ends, and receives arms in return. The evidence of this illegal trade is in the numbers: Liberia's own average annual mining capacity is 150,000 carats. But between 1994 and 1998, Liberia exported more than 31 million carats, an average of six million per year.
The RUF was eventually routed by Nigerian troops into the countryside. But pressure from the US and other governments forced President Kabbah to sign a treaty with the RUF. Jesse Jackson himself helped broker the much applauded peace deal which not only gave the RUF blanket amnesty, but ensured their leaders high-ranking government posts. Foday Sankoh went from death row, to the Vice-Presidency.
However, it soon became apparent that this deal was a sham. Only about 4,000 of the RUF disarmed while at least 13,000 government troops did so. UN observers noted that the RUF continued murder, rape and mutilation in Sierra Leone as if the peace deal never happened. In fact only days following Nigeria's withdrawal, the RUF ambushed and took 500 UN peacekeepers hostage. Terrified of the rebels, who's infamous reputation preceded them, the UN force surrendered their weapons, armored personnel carriers and even their uniforms without so much as a fight.
Sierra Leone citizens in Freetown, finally taking matters into their own hands, marched on the home of Sankoh to demand he end hostilities. They were greeted with bodyguards who fired machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades into the crowd, killing scores. Weeks of humiliation later, the UN hostages were finally released. So what went wrong?
Jesse, the US and foreign nations underestimated the RUF and miserably failed to understand the conflict in Sierra Leone. The RUF may be experts in tactics of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, but they amount in the end to little more than mafia-like thugs. Giving Sankoh and his rebels places in the new government would be akin to the NAACP giving gang members a place on their board. The people of Sierra Leone were betrayed by an international community looking to make deals with the devil. As one Sierra Leonean dryly observed, "they didn't make deals with Milosovic in Bosnia---why here?"
But perhaps there is hope in Sierra Leone's future. The UN, following Nigeria's lead, has taken a tough stance on the RUF. And the peacekeeping mission sent there has restored some semblance of order to the nation. Foday Sankoh was captured and marched through the streets of Freetown to the jubilant cheers of its citizens. A tribunal has been set up to prosecute both Sankoh and the RUF for their reign of terror. And a government diamond certificate is now being put into to place to keep rebel gems from financing this brutal war. And word is the RUF rebels have begun to disarm en masse.
As Nigerian author Chinua Achebe might say, in Sierra Leone things "fell" apart. It will take untold generations to heal the wounds the civil war has caused. The very existence of the RUF illustrates some of Africa's most pressing post-colonial problems: corrupt leaders, the powerful exploiting the powerless, the break-down of traditional African societal values and mores, and a lack of basic order on many fronts. What should be a diamond-rich and prosperous country, is today on the verge of chaos. Modern Sierra Leone is part of the African legacy of colonialism and the seeming inability of western styles of government and post-independence leaders to speak to the needs of their respective countries. The implosion of Sierra Leone is what happens when all of these factors go untreated for too long. It will take a world community and, most of all, the commitment of the people of Sierra Leone to fix it once again.
As I listened to yet another ghetto lyrical fantasy of ICE play out on my radio, I could not help wonder if some artists are dumber than a box of rocks? When a recent high profile rapper was asked about what he thought of Sierra Leone as he bragged about his shiny wrist pieces, he answered dumbfounded -- "Sierra who?" It seems while the rest of the REAL world was concerned with world affairs, these thugz, ballaz and ThOw'd YuNg PlAyAz could have cared less. Yet now I watch em' tripping over each other to get some American patriotic media glory after September 11th. These simps (yeah, I called em' simps) should all be loaded up in a plane and dropped ground zero into Sierra Leone, with all their flashy ICE wrapped around them. Let's see how long they make it.
Courtesy of Morpheus at www.playahata.com.
Dig the video "The Diamond Life" here.
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People Part 1
I've read this on www.guerrillafunk.com and it's a great article. We need to know more about the bling many of us love to flash in other people's faces at the expense of the poor and suffering that these diamonds are mined from. This is part one of the article. I'll be posting part two soon.
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People, Part 1
By Eyecalone, www.playahata.com
I've seen some pretty ignorant and bizarre things in music over the last few years, but of all the things I've witnessed today's "Bling-Bling" syndrome has to be the worst. Sometimes I wonder where the hell this absurd obsession with diamond jewelry came from. I mean flossin' and frontin' have always played a part in rap but this shit is ridiculous! You can't even blame a region because the obsession is everywhere, East, West, South, Midwest, and everywhere between. You've all heard it; the jewelry praises roll off forked tongues from Roc-A-Fella to the Hot-Boyz. Nowadays rappers make songs in tribute to Diamonds ("Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend" - Jay-Z), spend better than 50 thousand dollars on a single piece of jewelry, and then insult their fans (the people who paid for that jewelry) about being broke. Ain't that about a bitch!? The more I think about the more I think that these rappers just must not know any better.
"You know the wrist frost bit, minus two degrees/about as blue as the sea"
I can't help but wonder, what if Jay-Z knew that for more than a century the men controlling the diamond industry have been hardcore racists, some of whom were the founding fathers of Apartheid, and ruthlessly exploited black Africans as well as others. The Dutch, Germans, British, as well as other tribes of Europeans had come to Africa to pull, what today we would call a jack move. Many Europeans had convinced themselves that Africans and other non-whites were inferior people and many of the rest would do so later to justify their immoral actions. From this situation the racial segregation system of Apartheid was born, in South Africa, as well as similar social orders in other parts of Africa.
Cecil Rhodes, for whom Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) was named essentially started the diamond industry back in the 1880's diamond rush when he "purchased" the farm of Dutch Boer farmers Deiderick Arnoldus & Johannes DeBeers. This farm would eventually turn into one of the largest mines in Africa at the time (DeBeers currently has a mine 3 times the size of New Jersey called the "Forbidden Zone"). Rhodes then went on to "buy" several other mines until he controlled 90% of the world's gemstones. Shortly after that Ernest Oppenheimer made a large discovery of diamonds in "German Southwest Africa", that rivaled the Rhodes mines. Oppenheimer threatened to flood the market with diamonds and drive the price down if Rhodes did not make him chairman of DeBeers (which was Rhodes' Company at the time). Oppenheimer's company had financial investment from British investors and J.P. Morgan so it was called Anglo-American. Today, diamonds are a multi-billion dollar industry and most of them come from Southern African countries, yet black Africans from these countries remain some of the poorest people in the world.
"Every time I come around your city "Bling Bling" - Pinky ring worth about 50 "Bling Bling"
What if the Hot Boyz knew that from those early days up until now, the profits from the diamond industry were and continue to be one of the most important factors in upholding the region's racist policies and white minority rule? The best example is in South Africa. Once diamonds were discovered, the South African government instituted policies designed to force black Africans off their land and into the diamond mines to work in conditions similar to slavery. This was accomplished by the government creating new taxes on virtually everything from land to pets. In order to get money to pay the taxes black Africans had no choice but to work in the mines. For all their moral talk foreign investors, mainly in America and Europe, played a key role in upholding the South African government and economy, and similar ones throughout southern Africa.
During the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre, where South African police murdered 67 black anti-apartheid demonstrators in the township of Sharpeville, many foreign companies and investors pulled out their investments (not for moral reasons but out of fear of South African instability) and sold their shares of stock. Anglo-American bought up these shares to uphold the apartheid economy. Another example of foreign support occured in the Congo (formerly Zaire) in the 1950s. In 1959 Patrice Lumumba was elected as Prime Minister of the newly "independent" Congo, a country extremely rich in diamonds as well as other natural resources. Lumumba was very critical of the racist and unequal power and social relations in the Congo as well as the diamond industry's theft of African resources. The Belgian mining company, the American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), and the Belgian government conspired to have him overthrown and murdered. He was then replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko, a figurehead dictator that these foreign powers found more acceptable. Dictator Mobutu was finally overthrown in 1997 and he died of natural causes later that year. Mobutu ruled the Congo for 32 years and it is estimated that through his theft he amassed a personal fortune estimated at 5 to 8 billion dollars (yes that is a supposed to be a 'B' and yes that is 5-8,000,000,000) in addition to the countless billions he misdirected or gave to his cronies.
"I don't like it if it don't gleam-gleam/ and the hell with the price tag cause money ain't a thing"
What if Jermaine Dupri knew about the conditions that miners past and present endured? Even today most people believe that since apartheid technically ended that somehow it's "all good". Nothing could be further from the truth. Black Africans continue to work and live in conditions, that make Chicago's Cabrini Green Projects look like Disney World. For example, in DeBeers' Kimberly mines division in South Africa there are between 1,200 and 1,400 workers. About 1,100 of them are black and live in squatter's camps - tin shacks with no electricity or proper plumbing. Many of these black workers are paid as little as 28 American dollars a month. But white miners and managers live in comfortable homes - oftentimes with black servants! In addition, only white and part white employees with families are provided with family housing. Married black miners are forced to stay in separate facilities from their spouses. If a black, female worker gets pregnant she is required to leave her job for 3 months and return without her child if she wishes to keep her job. White workers are never subject to these policies. If a white miner has a family, they are immediately given family housing.
Just slightly higher up the food chain, in West India (not the West Indies), hundreds of thousands of diamond cutters, many of them children under 13, cut low quality diamonds for inexpensive catalogue jewelry. At times they are required to place more than 50 cuts, the size of pencil tip, on a diamond. They are paid 4 cents per stone and work 12 hour days, 6 days a week. I doubt that comes with any health benefits.
"I Rock Ice (lil daddy) every time I step/ I rock Ice (lil mamma) cause I love to rep"
What if Baby knew that diamonds are not naturally rare? Diamonds are made from carbon under high pressure, and on Earth we live in a carbon based environment. Most of the major diamond producing countries are in Southern Africa, but diamonds are also produced in Sierra Leone, Russia, Australia, and Canada. The diamond industry is more about controlling and restricting what comes out of the ground than the actual mining of diamonds. DeBeers controls approximately 75% of the world's rough (uncut) diamonds through its marketing arm, the Central Selling Organization (CSO). It mines 50% of the world's diamonds in South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana. The rest are vacuumed up through contracts made with other diamond producers, and by sending their buyers to clean up diamonds that leak onto the market from places like Congo and Angola. Since DeBeers is a foreign based company they are not subject to American monopoly laws, so they artificially keep the price of diamonds high by monopolizing supply. Trying to keep control of the diamond supply has forced DeBeers into business dealings with borderline terrorist organizations and other shady characters, though they deny having dealings with most of these groups.
The lie that diamonds are extremely rare and valuable has been built up since the 1930s. During the 1930s and 1940s DeBeers paid to have diamonds placed favorably in movies. In 1947 DeBeers invented their famous slogan "A Diamond is Forever" which sells 2 dreams: (1) that diamonds bring eternal love and romance, and (2) that diamonds never lose their value. DeBeers spends no less than 200 million a year on marketing diamonds in 34 countries. Today the United States accounts for more than 33% of the worlds diamond jewelry sales. It sells the dream to every new generation of gullible young men and women. They sponsor women's magazines, host celebrity auctions and design competitions, and work to have diamonds placed on TV shows and in movies. As if the 1st gaffle wasn't enough they reinvent the dream for those who have already bought it once. Now they have the "Eternity Ring" - a band of diamonds bought to celebrate the tenth wedding anniversary - being sold using the slogan "Show her you would marry her all over again".
These fantasies are aggressively sold oversees as well. In the 1960's, before DeBeers muscled in, barely 1 in 20 Japanese brides wore a diamond engagement ring. Today, diamond engagement rings are sported by 70% of Japanese brides.
The fact that America's love affair with diamonds is the result of a marketing campaign is pretty bizarre, but even more amazing is that diamonds can be made synthetically. Their manufacture requires some expensive equipment, but if a company has the resources, it can manufacture flawless diamonds in most sizes and colors, even the more expensive pink or yellow shades. In the 1980's General Electric was making these synthetic flawless diamonds though they weren't selling them commercially. When former, GE executive Edward Russell suggested that GE begin selling these diamonds to the public he was promptly fired. Apparently GE's higher ups and the DeBeers thugs had an understanding at the time, although GE claims Mr. Russell was fired due to job performance. I try not to wonder these things when I'm watching music videos or listening to songs on the radio, but I just can't thinking about it. WHAT IF THEY KNEW?! Sadly enough though, I don't think they would even care. And that is the truly scary part!
Courtesy of Eyecalone at www.playahata.com.
Dig the video "The Diamond Life" here.
"Bling, Bling" - The Murder Of Our People, Part 1
By Eyecalone, www.playahata.com
I've seen some pretty ignorant and bizarre things in music over the last few years, but of all the things I've witnessed today's "Bling-Bling" syndrome has to be the worst. Sometimes I wonder where the hell this absurd obsession with diamond jewelry came from. I mean flossin' and frontin' have always played a part in rap but this shit is ridiculous! You can't even blame a region because the obsession is everywhere, East, West, South, Midwest, and everywhere between. You've all heard it; the jewelry praises roll off forked tongues from Roc-A-Fella to the Hot-Boyz. Nowadays rappers make songs in tribute to Diamonds ("Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend" - Jay-Z), spend better than 50 thousand dollars on a single piece of jewelry, and then insult their fans (the people who paid for that jewelry) about being broke. Ain't that about a bitch!? The more I think about the more I think that these rappers just must not know any better.
"You know the wrist frost bit, minus two degrees/about as blue as the sea"
I can't help but wonder, what if Jay-Z knew that for more than a century the men controlling the diamond industry have been hardcore racists, some of whom were the founding fathers of Apartheid, and ruthlessly exploited black Africans as well as others. The Dutch, Germans, British, as well as other tribes of Europeans had come to Africa to pull, what today we would call a jack move. Many Europeans had convinced themselves that Africans and other non-whites were inferior people and many of the rest would do so later to justify their immoral actions. From this situation the racial segregation system of Apartheid was born, in South Africa, as well as similar social orders in other parts of Africa.
Cecil Rhodes, for whom Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) was named essentially started the diamond industry back in the 1880's diamond rush when he "purchased" the farm of Dutch Boer farmers Deiderick Arnoldus & Johannes DeBeers. This farm would eventually turn into one of the largest mines in Africa at the time (DeBeers currently has a mine 3 times the size of New Jersey called the "Forbidden Zone"). Rhodes then went on to "buy" several other mines until he controlled 90% of the world's gemstones. Shortly after that Ernest Oppenheimer made a large discovery of diamonds in "German Southwest Africa", that rivaled the Rhodes mines. Oppenheimer threatened to flood the market with diamonds and drive the price down if Rhodes did not make him chairman of DeBeers (which was Rhodes' Company at the time). Oppenheimer's company had financial investment from British investors and J.P. Morgan so it was called Anglo-American. Today, diamonds are a multi-billion dollar industry and most of them come from Southern African countries, yet black Africans from these countries remain some of the poorest people in the world.
"Every time I come around your city "Bling Bling" - Pinky ring worth about 50 "Bling Bling"
What if the Hot Boyz knew that from those early days up until now, the profits from the diamond industry were and continue to be one of the most important factors in upholding the region's racist policies and white minority rule? The best example is in South Africa. Once diamonds were discovered, the South African government instituted policies designed to force black Africans off their land and into the diamond mines to work in conditions similar to slavery. This was accomplished by the government creating new taxes on virtually everything from land to pets. In order to get money to pay the taxes black Africans had no choice but to work in the mines. For all their moral talk foreign investors, mainly in America and Europe, played a key role in upholding the South African government and economy, and similar ones throughout southern Africa.
During the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre, where South African police murdered 67 black anti-apartheid demonstrators in the township of Sharpeville, many foreign companies and investors pulled out their investments (not for moral reasons but out of fear of South African instability) and sold their shares of stock. Anglo-American bought up these shares to uphold the apartheid economy. Another example of foreign support occured in the Congo (formerly Zaire) in the 1950s. In 1959 Patrice Lumumba was elected as Prime Minister of the newly "independent" Congo, a country extremely rich in diamonds as well as other natural resources. Lumumba was very critical of the racist and unequal power and social relations in the Congo as well as the diamond industry's theft of African resources. The Belgian mining company, the American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), and the Belgian government conspired to have him overthrown and murdered. He was then replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko, a figurehead dictator that these foreign powers found more acceptable. Dictator Mobutu was finally overthrown in 1997 and he died of natural causes later that year. Mobutu ruled the Congo for 32 years and it is estimated that through his theft he amassed a personal fortune estimated at 5 to 8 billion dollars (yes that is a supposed to be a 'B' and yes that is 5-8,000,000,000) in addition to the countless billions he misdirected or gave to his cronies.
"I don't like it if it don't gleam-gleam/ and the hell with the price tag cause money ain't a thing"
What if Jermaine Dupri knew about the conditions that miners past and present endured? Even today most people believe that since apartheid technically ended that somehow it's "all good". Nothing could be further from the truth. Black Africans continue to work and live in conditions, that make Chicago's Cabrini Green Projects look like Disney World. For example, in DeBeers' Kimberly mines division in South Africa there are between 1,200 and 1,400 workers. About 1,100 of them are black and live in squatter's camps - tin shacks with no electricity or proper plumbing. Many of these black workers are paid as little as 28 American dollars a month. But white miners and managers live in comfortable homes - oftentimes with black servants! In addition, only white and part white employees with families are provided with family housing. Married black miners are forced to stay in separate facilities from their spouses. If a black, female worker gets pregnant she is required to leave her job for 3 months and return without her child if she wishes to keep her job. White workers are never subject to these policies. If a white miner has a family, they are immediately given family housing.
Just slightly higher up the food chain, in West India (not the West Indies), hundreds of thousands of diamond cutters, many of them children under 13, cut low quality diamonds for inexpensive catalogue jewelry. At times they are required to place more than 50 cuts, the size of pencil tip, on a diamond. They are paid 4 cents per stone and work 12 hour days, 6 days a week. I doubt that comes with any health benefits.
"I Rock Ice (lil daddy) every time I step/ I rock Ice (lil mamma) cause I love to rep"
What if Baby knew that diamonds are not naturally rare? Diamonds are made from carbon under high pressure, and on Earth we live in a carbon based environment. Most of the major diamond producing countries are in Southern Africa, but diamonds are also produced in Sierra Leone, Russia, Australia, and Canada. The diamond industry is more about controlling and restricting what comes out of the ground than the actual mining of diamonds. DeBeers controls approximately 75% of the world's rough (uncut) diamonds through its marketing arm, the Central Selling Organization (CSO). It mines 50% of the world's diamonds in South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana. The rest are vacuumed up through contracts made with other diamond producers, and by sending their buyers to clean up diamonds that leak onto the market from places like Congo and Angola. Since DeBeers is a foreign based company they are not subject to American monopoly laws, so they artificially keep the price of diamonds high by monopolizing supply. Trying to keep control of the diamond supply has forced DeBeers into business dealings with borderline terrorist organizations and other shady characters, though they deny having dealings with most of these groups.
The lie that diamonds are extremely rare and valuable has been built up since the 1930s. During the 1930s and 1940s DeBeers paid to have diamonds placed favorably in movies. In 1947 DeBeers invented their famous slogan "A Diamond is Forever" which sells 2 dreams: (1) that diamonds bring eternal love and romance, and (2) that diamonds never lose their value. DeBeers spends no less than 200 million a year on marketing diamonds in 34 countries. Today the United States accounts for more than 33% of the worlds diamond jewelry sales. It sells the dream to every new generation of gullible young men and women. They sponsor women's magazines, host celebrity auctions and design competitions, and work to have diamonds placed on TV shows and in movies. As if the 1st gaffle wasn't enough they reinvent the dream for those who have already bought it once. Now they have the "Eternity Ring" - a band of diamonds bought to celebrate the tenth wedding anniversary - being sold using the slogan "Show her you would marry her all over again".
These fantasies are aggressively sold oversees as well. In the 1960's, before DeBeers muscled in, barely 1 in 20 Japanese brides wore a diamond engagement ring. Today, diamond engagement rings are sported by 70% of Japanese brides.
The fact that America's love affair with diamonds is the result of a marketing campaign is pretty bizarre, but even more amazing is that diamonds can be made synthetically. Their manufacture requires some expensive equipment, but if a company has the resources, it can manufacture flawless diamonds in most sizes and colors, even the more expensive pink or yellow shades. In the 1980's General Electric was making these synthetic flawless diamonds though they weren't selling them commercially. When former, GE executive Edward Russell suggested that GE begin selling these diamonds to the public he was promptly fired. Apparently GE's higher ups and the DeBeers thugs had an understanding at the time, although GE claims Mr. Russell was fired due to job performance. I try not to wonder these things when I'm watching music videos or listening to songs on the radio, but I just can't thinking about it. WHAT IF THEY KNEW?! Sadly enough though, I don't think they would even care. And that is the truly scary part!
Courtesy of Eyecalone at www.playahata.com.
Dig the video "The Diamond Life" here.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Do It Yourself Porn - Article From ABC News
I've read about this last week and I went and checked out the web site. It's the Youtube version, but it's for adult video clips and pics. What I don't understand is how comfortable people are putting pictures and video of themselves having sex for the entire world to see. The name of the web site is XTube and it's mainly for amateur homemade videos. According to the article, people are making money posting their videos online, where people pay to watch them have sex. It's crazy, however, the downside about Xtube is they have gay and tranny porn mixed in with the straight porn and you can easily click on something that you don't want to see. This is not an endorsement of the web site, so don't even go there. Check out the news article that I've attached.
Do It Yourself! Amateur Porn Stars Make Bank
Web Site Offers Real People Chance to Make Real Money by Making Pornography
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Jan. 22, 2008—
Antoinette is 25 years old. She is an interior designer from Baltimore with a boyfriend and a degree. She describes herself as "a pretty normal woman."
But twice a month she sets up a camera, takes off her clothes and with her boyfriend makes amateur pornography movies under the name Sexy Secret. For what she describes as about 20 minutes worth of "work" she makes $500 to $600 a month.
"I'm not a porn star. I don't want to be a porn star," she said. "I'm a pretty normal woman. I don't wear makeup that often. I'm 5'6 and 140 pounds. I'd say I'm nice looking, sure, but otherwise I'm pretty average."
Despite not being a porn star, Antoinette's films are explicit displays of hardcore intercourse that if released in cinemas would earn a "XXX" billing.
While plenty of amateur pornographers or exhibitionists have posted their work online for free, some do-it-yourself pornographers are now posting videos to a new section of the video-sharing site XTube.com and making money on it.
With so much free media available on the Internet, sites have long struggled with how to get users to pay for content, whether it is Facebook, the Wall Street Journal or the band Radiohead.
As it has in the past, the porn industry is showing others how to make the Internet profitable.
XTube, which also offers thousands of free videos, thinks it has solved the problem of getting people to pay for porn by offering users something different.
"Everybody has got free porn," said Justin Arilan, XTube's sales and support manager. "How you keep users on your site and how you monetize the site is the real challenge. We think we've done that here."
Xtube's business model hopes to harness popular Web 2.0 innovations like wikis and social networking. People who typically view free porn will be more willing to pay, the company believes, if they can get to know the models, form relationships and play a role in directing the action filmmakers produce.
The audience pays 50 cents to $2.50 to view the short homemade porn flicks.
Those who post the videos receive 60 percent of the revenue after processing fees. Beginning next month, posters will receive 50 percent of revenues.
"I get lots of comments and compliments," said Antoinette who asked that we use her middle name for this article and who said she usually shields her face in her porn videos. "We get lots of suggestions from people for things they want to see, things they want me to do."
Arilan says the Web site earns $140,000 to $160,000 a month, most of which comes from sales of studio-produced video-on-demand movies. But about 40 percent comes from the amateur section. The site receives about 56 million page views a day, he said.
XTube is making lots of money, but most of the amateurs posting videos probably can't yet quit their day jobs, said Stephen Yagielowicz, senior editor of XBiz, an adult industry trade magazine.
"These people are not porn stars in the traditional sense. They're actual folks that are trying to make a supplemental income. They're just trying to earn a few hundred bucks a month. There are lots of voyeurs and lots of exhibitionists out there. People have been using the Internet to fill those needs since its beginning, now it is giving them a way to make money," Yagielowicz said.
That is true for Antoinette, who said that making the films fulfills a voyeuristic fantasy, but that the money doesn't hurt either.
"It started out as a voyeurism thing and that was the fun part. At first we were skeptical that it would really work out, but then we got our first check and realized this is real, we're really making money," she said.
Online porn is estimated to be as large as a $14 billion industry, and the studios that have long controlled content are already feeling the pinch of the homemade competition.
"There is no doubt that there is real money in user-generated and user-shared content," Yagielowicz said.
But the term "amateur" has long been co-opted by the studios. When the first true amateurs began posting images of themselves online in the early days of the Internet, porn companies found they could create similarly stripped down Web sites that looked like they had been created by the girl next door but that were really produced by the companies.
"Many so-called amateurs are not real amateurs. Most young voyeurs these days are posting their pictures on places like their blogs and MySpace. The studios have already figured out how to dress up real porn stars like the girl next door on single-model, subscription-based sites, so I would expect they'll do the same on user-generated, revenue-sharing sites," said Yagielowicz.
Joseph Jaffe, a media consultant and author of "Join the Conversation," a book about social media, said that porn companies have always been technology vanguards.
"From an innovation standpoint, porn, like gambling, has always been ahead of the curve. They're always forced to adopt new practices and ways of monetizing. Whatever the porn industry is doing today, that's where everyone else will be in five years," he said.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
Do It Yourself! Amateur Porn Stars Make Bank
Web Site Offers Real People Chance to Make Real Money by Making Pornography
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Jan. 22, 2008—
Antoinette is 25 years old. She is an interior designer from Baltimore with a boyfriend and a degree. She describes herself as "a pretty normal woman."
But twice a month she sets up a camera, takes off her clothes and with her boyfriend makes amateur pornography movies under the name Sexy Secret. For what she describes as about 20 minutes worth of "work" she makes $500 to $600 a month.
"I'm not a porn star. I don't want to be a porn star," she said. "I'm a pretty normal woman. I don't wear makeup that often. I'm 5'6 and 140 pounds. I'd say I'm nice looking, sure, but otherwise I'm pretty average."
Despite not being a porn star, Antoinette's films are explicit displays of hardcore intercourse that if released in cinemas would earn a "XXX" billing.
While plenty of amateur pornographers or exhibitionists have posted their work online for free, some do-it-yourself pornographers are now posting videos to a new section of the video-sharing site XTube.com and making money on it.
With so much free media available on the Internet, sites have long struggled with how to get users to pay for content, whether it is Facebook, the Wall Street Journal or the band Radiohead.
As it has in the past, the porn industry is showing others how to make the Internet profitable.
XTube, which also offers thousands of free videos, thinks it has solved the problem of getting people to pay for porn by offering users something different.
"Everybody has got free porn," said Justin Arilan, XTube's sales and support manager. "How you keep users on your site and how you monetize the site is the real challenge. We think we've done that here."
Xtube's business model hopes to harness popular Web 2.0 innovations like wikis and social networking. People who typically view free porn will be more willing to pay, the company believes, if they can get to know the models, form relationships and play a role in directing the action filmmakers produce.
The audience pays 50 cents to $2.50 to view the short homemade porn flicks.
Those who post the videos receive 60 percent of the revenue after processing fees. Beginning next month, posters will receive 50 percent of revenues.
"I get lots of comments and compliments," said Antoinette who asked that we use her middle name for this article and who said she usually shields her face in her porn videos. "We get lots of suggestions from people for things they want to see, things they want me to do."
Arilan says the Web site earns $140,000 to $160,000 a month, most of which comes from sales of studio-produced video-on-demand movies. But about 40 percent comes from the amateur section. The site receives about 56 million page views a day, he said.
XTube is making lots of money, but most of the amateurs posting videos probably can't yet quit their day jobs, said Stephen Yagielowicz, senior editor of XBiz, an adult industry trade magazine.
"These people are not porn stars in the traditional sense. They're actual folks that are trying to make a supplemental income. They're just trying to earn a few hundred bucks a month. There are lots of voyeurs and lots of exhibitionists out there. People have been using the Internet to fill those needs since its beginning, now it is giving them a way to make money," Yagielowicz said.
That is true for Antoinette, who said that making the films fulfills a voyeuristic fantasy, but that the money doesn't hurt either.
"It started out as a voyeurism thing and that was the fun part. At first we were skeptical that it would really work out, but then we got our first check and realized this is real, we're really making money," she said.
Online porn is estimated to be as large as a $14 billion industry, and the studios that have long controlled content are already feeling the pinch of the homemade competition.
"There is no doubt that there is real money in user-generated and user-shared content," Yagielowicz said.
But the term "amateur" has long been co-opted by the studios. When the first true amateurs began posting images of themselves online in the early days of the Internet, porn companies found they could create similarly stripped down Web sites that looked like they had been created by the girl next door but that were really produced by the companies.
"Many so-called amateurs are not real amateurs. Most young voyeurs these days are posting their pictures on places like their blogs and MySpace. The studios have already figured out how to dress up real porn stars like the girl next door on single-model, subscription-based sites, so I would expect they'll do the same on user-generated, revenue-sharing sites," said Yagielowicz.
Joseph Jaffe, a media consultant and author of "Join the Conversation," a book about social media, said that porn companies have always been technology vanguards.
"From an innovation standpoint, porn, like gambling, has always been ahead of the curve. They're always forced to adopt new practices and ways of monetizing. Whatever the porn industry is doing today, that's where everyone else will be in five years," he said.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)