George Washington’s Blog
May 21, 2008
Over the last 24 hours, news about U.S. torture has been leaking out:
• A former prisoner testified to Congress that he was beaten, hung by his arms for five days, subjected to electrical shocks and, "They stuck my head into a bucket of water and punched me in the stomach," he said. "I inhaled the water. … It was a strong punch."
• The FBI was so disturbed at what they saw at Guantanamo that FBI staff created a "war crimes file" to document accusations against American military personnel at Guantanamo. For example, the head of the FBI’s national security law unit wrote in July 2003: "Beyond any doubt, what they are doing (and I don’t know the extent of it) would be unlawful were these enemy prisoners of war"
• The U.S. military not only tortured prisoners for themselves, but also did the "dirty work" of "softening up" prisoners for Chinese interrogators
The U.S. has also tortured prisoners to death in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
Not bad enough for you?
Well, the U.S. has imprisoned 2,500 children since 9/11 as "enemy combatants", in violation of the Geneva Convention against classifying children as POWs.
Still not disgusted?
Okay . . . Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. Government has videotapes of boys being raped at Abu Ghraib prison (see also this and this).
This doesn’t come as a complete surprise, given that assistant deputy Attorney General John Yoo has publicly argued that the president can order the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
Congratulations, America. This is being done in your name.
If you’re not sick to your stomach by learning that your government has been killing and torturing people - including children - then you are a psychopath or a pervert.
Don’t try to tell me that torture is a necessary evil. It is well-known by professional interrogators that torture doesn’t work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
'Moneychangers in the Temple'
[col. writ. 3/7/09]
(c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
For readers of the Bible's New Testament, few stories illustrate the anger of Jesus of Nazareth better than that of his expulsion of the moneychangers from the Temple, for they had, in his words, turned it into a "den of thieves." *
This event is memorable for it shows him not speaking in anger, but acting. Some artists have depicted him actually whipping moneychangers out of the Temple as they flee amidst chaos.
That imagery was borrowed several millennia later when American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his famous "Fear Itself" inaugural address. As the country fell under the deep freeze of depression, Roosevelt spoke words that were recognized by many of that age when he said, "....[T]he rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous moneychangers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men."
Roosevelt continued: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
Those words were spoken on Jan. 20, 1933.
That was 76 years ago, and once again, the 'rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods' have failed, and the nation is ripped by the icy chains of depression. Yeah -- I said depression, for just six months ago the president assured the country that the state of the economy was 'sound', even as the nation was locked in a recession for the better part of the year.
If it ain't a depression, it's a dime's distance away from it.
But this ain't '33.
The money changers who steered the economy onto the rocks haven't admitted defeat. They are making more money -- indeed, they are given taxpayer's money -- as they burn through more.
The more they lose, the more they want.
These moneychangers aren't being whipped out of the temple -- they're given bigger tables!
Look at AIG, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup --not just mo' money, but mo', mo' and even mo' money!
Because, in the eyes of Washington and the Federal Reserve, they're 'too big to fail.'
Under that illogic, they will swallow the moon -- and get bigger, while the nation's economy worsens by the hour.
This ain't a 'den of thieves', it's a Temple of thieves, where the banks have stolen the wealth of millions on the front end, only to loot the treasury on the back end. They are getting paid for sacking the economy -- and the only thing these politicians can say is, "want more?"
--(c) '09 maj
[Sources: *Bible, New Testament chapters: St. Matt. 21:12-13; St. Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46 {KJV) ].
(c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
For readers of the Bible's New Testament, few stories illustrate the anger of Jesus of Nazareth better than that of his expulsion of the moneychangers from the Temple, for they had, in his words, turned it into a "den of thieves." *
This event is memorable for it shows him not speaking in anger, but acting. Some artists have depicted him actually whipping moneychangers out of the Temple as they flee amidst chaos.
That imagery was borrowed several millennia later when American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his famous "Fear Itself" inaugural address. As the country fell under the deep freeze of depression, Roosevelt spoke words that were recognized by many of that age when he said, "....[T]he rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous moneychangers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men."
Roosevelt continued: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
Those words were spoken on Jan. 20, 1933.
That was 76 years ago, and once again, the 'rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods' have failed, and the nation is ripped by the icy chains of depression. Yeah -- I said depression, for just six months ago the president assured the country that the state of the economy was 'sound', even as the nation was locked in a recession for the better part of the year.
If it ain't a depression, it's a dime's distance away from it.
But this ain't '33.
The money changers who steered the economy onto the rocks haven't admitted defeat. They are making more money -- indeed, they are given taxpayer's money -- as they burn through more.
The more they lose, the more they want.
These moneychangers aren't being whipped out of the temple -- they're given bigger tables!
Look at AIG, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup --not just mo' money, but mo', mo' and even mo' money!
Because, in the eyes of Washington and the Federal Reserve, they're 'too big to fail.'
Under that illogic, they will swallow the moon -- and get bigger, while the nation's economy worsens by the hour.
This ain't a 'den of thieves', it's a Temple of thieves, where the banks have stolen the wealth of millions on the front end, only to loot the treasury on the back end. They are getting paid for sacking the economy -- and the only thing these politicians can say is, "want more?"
--(c) '09 maj
[Sources: *Bible, New Testament chapters: St. Matt. 21:12-13; St. Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46 {KJV) ].
NAACP Legal Defense Fund Files Brief in Supreme Court in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case
March 5, 2009
(New York, NY)- Today the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) filed a friend of the court brief in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal's claim of racial discrimination in the selection of the jury for his 1981 death penalty trial. LDF's brief supports Mr. Abu-Jamal's request for United States Supreme Court review of his appeal urging enforcement of the laws that require courts to promptly investigate evidence of discrimination against African American prospective jurors.
Specifically, LDF objects to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's use of a restrictive interpretation of Batson v. Kentucky, a Supreme Court decision prohibiting prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race, to conclude that Mr. Abu-Jamal failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim of racial discrimination in jury selection. LDF's brief explains that the Third Circuit's conclusion that the only way to prove that racial discrimination infected the jury selection process is to document the race of all members from the panel of prospective jurors and the race of all stricken jurors ignores other significant indicators of discrimination in jury selection and contradicts the Supreme Court's command that courts examine a wide array of evidence to properly ferret out discrimination in jury selection.
As applied to Mr. Abu-Jamal's case, the Third Circuit decision means that the trial prosecutor's pattern of strikes against African-American prospective jurors, a culture of discrimination in the prosecutor's office (including a videotaped training advocating the exclusion of prospective jurors of color), a comprehensive statistical study documenting a pattern of exclusion of prospective jurors of color by the prosecutor's office and other such evidence is insufficient to suggest discrimination. LDF's brief explains that turning a blind eye to such credible evidence of discrimination not only conflicts with the law but also undermines public confidence in integrity of the courts.
"We believe that the Third Circuit's interpretation of the law will have the effect of shielding discrimination and undermining the rights of criminal and capital defendants to a fair trial. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will accept and review Mr. Abu-Jamal's case to make sure that courts respond promptly and appropriately when confronted with real questions about the existence of racial discrimination in jury selection," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.
# # #
ABOUT LDFThe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
(New York, NY)- Today the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) filed a friend of the court brief in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal's claim of racial discrimination in the selection of the jury for his 1981 death penalty trial. LDF's brief supports Mr. Abu-Jamal's request for United States Supreme Court review of his appeal urging enforcement of the laws that require courts to promptly investigate evidence of discrimination against African American prospective jurors.
Specifically, LDF objects to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's use of a restrictive interpretation of Batson v. Kentucky, a Supreme Court decision prohibiting prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race, to conclude that Mr. Abu-Jamal failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim of racial discrimination in jury selection. LDF's brief explains that the Third Circuit's conclusion that the only way to prove that racial discrimination infected the jury selection process is to document the race of all members from the panel of prospective jurors and the race of all stricken jurors ignores other significant indicators of discrimination in jury selection and contradicts the Supreme Court's command that courts examine a wide array of evidence to properly ferret out discrimination in jury selection.
As applied to Mr. Abu-Jamal's case, the Third Circuit decision means that the trial prosecutor's pattern of strikes against African-American prospective jurors, a culture of discrimination in the prosecutor's office (including a videotaped training advocating the exclusion of prospective jurors of color), a comprehensive statistical study documenting a pattern of exclusion of prospective jurors of color by the prosecutor's office and other such evidence is insufficient to suggest discrimination. LDF's brief explains that turning a blind eye to such credible evidence of discrimination not only conflicts with the law but also undermines public confidence in integrity of the courts.
"We believe that the Third Circuit's interpretation of the law will have the effect of shielding discrimination and undermining the rights of criminal and capital defendants to a fair trial. It is our hope that the Supreme Court will accept and review Mr. Abu-Jamal's case to make sure that courts respond promptly and appropriately when confronted with real questions about the existence of racial discrimination in jury selection," said John Payton, LDF President and Director-Counsel.
# # #
ABOUT LDFThe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.
MORE LESSONS FROM LUZERN COUNTY (PA)
[col. writ. 3/2/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Recently, a piece was produced on the scandal in Pennsylvania's Luzerne County, where 2 judges pleaded guilty for playing their parts in a kickback scheme that netted them over 2 and 1/2 million bucks.
The beneficiaries of their hustle were private juvenile prison builders, owners and investors (oh -- and themselves, of course).
The losers were hundreds of Luzerne County's children, kids who were treated like cattle, as they were shuffled through so-called 'courts' -- without counsel --, where so-called 'judges' sent them away from their parents, their siblings, and their fellow students, for acts as benign as passing notes, or sending fresh emails -- to private prisons for profit!
While the judges pleaded guilty to relatively minor charges, some other officials at the court, from county clerk to deputy court administrator have followed the judges in plea agreements.
What is utterly remarkable is how easily and effortlessly these judges did their thing, in stark violation of the state's Juvenile Act, * with virtual impunity, for almost a decade!
One must wonder, where were the lawyers looking out for the interests of these kids? Or were they so cowed, so shocked, so shaken by a 'long train of abuses' that they were silenced by the ugliness of corruption, and the aura of fear?
Pennsylvania law allegedly provides protections for children, including the right to counsel (even if they couldn't afford it), and a legal presumption that all kids should remain with their families. As a general rule, a child shouldn't have been detained unless she posed a danger to others, their property, or herself. There are exceptions to this rule, and they were whether the child was charged with committing major felonies, like robbery, rape or murder.
There was apparently another exception -- whether or not President Judge Mark Ciavarella or Senior Judge Michael Conahan wanted to make some quick bucks.
They were subject to a higher law -- get money!
What the Luzerne County scandal has shown us is that what happens in many courts is both a business and a mystery. For millions of Americans, the law is a puzzle written in Latin, one unable to decode.
It also shows us that sometimes the criminal is sitting on the bench, wearing a black robe.
--(c) '09 maj
[* See various PA statutes, like Tit. 42 Pa. C. S. 6301 et seq. (Re: Purposes of "Juvenile Act": To preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.) ; Tit. 42 Pa. C. S 6337: (Re: 'Right to Counsel': (....{A} party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this chapter and if he is without financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, to have the court provide counsel for him. If a party appears without counsel the court shall ascertain whether he knows of his right thereto and be provided with counsel by the court if applicable. Counsel must be provided for a child unless his parent, guardian, or custodian is present in court and affirmatively waive it....)]
Recently, a piece was produced on the scandal in Pennsylvania's Luzerne County, where 2 judges pleaded guilty for playing their parts in a kickback scheme that netted them over 2 and 1/2 million bucks.
The beneficiaries of their hustle were private juvenile prison builders, owners and investors (oh -- and themselves, of course).
The losers were hundreds of Luzerne County's children, kids who were treated like cattle, as they were shuffled through so-called 'courts' -- without counsel --, where so-called 'judges' sent them away from their parents, their siblings, and their fellow students, for acts as benign as passing notes, or sending fresh emails -- to private prisons for profit!
While the judges pleaded guilty to relatively minor charges, some other officials at the court, from county clerk to deputy court administrator have followed the judges in plea agreements.
What is utterly remarkable is how easily and effortlessly these judges did their thing, in stark violation of the state's Juvenile Act, * with virtual impunity, for almost a decade!
One must wonder, where were the lawyers looking out for the interests of these kids? Or were they so cowed, so shocked, so shaken by a 'long train of abuses' that they were silenced by the ugliness of corruption, and the aura of fear?
Pennsylvania law allegedly provides protections for children, including the right to counsel (even if they couldn't afford it), and a legal presumption that all kids should remain with their families. As a general rule, a child shouldn't have been detained unless she posed a danger to others, their property, or herself. There are exceptions to this rule, and they were whether the child was charged with committing major felonies, like robbery, rape or murder.
There was apparently another exception -- whether or not President Judge Mark Ciavarella or Senior Judge Michael Conahan wanted to make some quick bucks.
They were subject to a higher law -- get money!
What the Luzerne County scandal has shown us is that what happens in many courts is both a business and a mystery. For millions of Americans, the law is a puzzle written in Latin, one unable to decode.
It also shows us that sometimes the criminal is sitting on the bench, wearing a black robe.
--(c) '09 maj
[* See various PA statutes, like Tit. 42 Pa. C. S. 6301 et seq. (Re: Purposes of "Juvenile Act": To preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.) ; Tit. 42 Pa. C. S 6337: (Re: 'Right to Counsel': (....{A} party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this chapter and if he is without financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, to have the court provide counsel for him. If a party appears without counsel the court shall ascertain whether he knows of his right thereto and be provided with counsel by the court if applicable. Counsel must be provided for a child unless his parent, guardian, or custodian is present in court and affirmatively waive it....)]
The Passing of the Papers
[col. writ. 3/1/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
For American newspapers, some that have been giants for generations, this is the age of Ragnarok. In Norse mythology, Ragnarok marked the destruction of the universe, when even the gods fell from their heaven. (Asgard).
For ages, newspapers have been the seedbeds of the information garden. Although seemingly threatened by the new technologies of radio and TV, this proved more appearance than actuality, for both mediums relied on the data uncovered by intrepid, although little-know newspaper reporters.
But we are now in the age of the Internet, a medium that only one newspaper (the Wall St. Journal) has successfully exploited.
That, added to lower circulation, and the flight of advertisers to the 'net, has spelled doom for newspapers.
In recent days, both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Philadelphia Inquirer have been forced to face the dilemma of bankruptcy.
Just a week ago, the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, Colorado closed its doors after a century and 1/2 of operation. As of Sept. 2006, the Rocky Mountain News had a reported circulation of over 250,000. But the key isn't circulation, it's advertising -- and advertising is fleeing.
Indeed, about 2 years ago, a media research firm executive said some papers didn't want bigger circulation -- they wanted a smaller, but more wealthy circulation base.
Colby Atwood, head of Borrell Associates, told a New York Times reporter that a "quality circulation" is more preferable "than quantity", and it was a "rational business decision" to "shed" the subscribers who cost more and generate less revenue." *
When newspapers intentionally "shed" some subscribers they are cutting their own throats in pursuit of fool's gold.
And although most articles don't mention it, I remain convinced that newspapers are dying for quite another reason. In a time of war, when readers needed their services most, many papers simply took a dive, and served the interests of power, rather than the needs of the people. Most papers sold the president's line because they feared that they would be seen as disloyal in wartime, and lose subscribers.
Instead, they lost readers anyway, because people couldn't believe what they read in black and white.
In fact, even before the Iraq war some news execs sent memos to their staffs warning them NOT to show wire photos of civilian casualties in the Afghanistan war. One memo told reporters to "play down" such stories.*
Is there any wonder that such a product is in decline?
--(c) '09 maj
[Sources: *Perez-Pena, Richard, "Why Big Newspapers Applaud Some Declines in Circulation," New York Times, Mon., Oct. 1, 2007, p. c1.:
*Johnson, Chalmers, NEMESIS: The Last Days of the American Empire (Metropolitan Books: New York, 2006), p.30.]
For American newspapers, some that have been giants for generations, this is the age of Ragnarok. In Norse mythology, Ragnarok marked the destruction of the universe, when even the gods fell from their heaven. (Asgard).
For ages, newspapers have been the seedbeds of the information garden. Although seemingly threatened by the new technologies of radio and TV, this proved more appearance than actuality, for both mediums relied on the data uncovered by intrepid, although little-know newspaper reporters.
But we are now in the age of the Internet, a medium that only one newspaper (the Wall St. Journal) has successfully exploited.
That, added to lower circulation, and the flight of advertisers to the 'net, has spelled doom for newspapers.
In recent days, both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Philadelphia Inquirer have been forced to face the dilemma of bankruptcy.
Just a week ago, the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, Colorado closed its doors after a century and 1/2 of operation. As of Sept. 2006, the Rocky Mountain News had a reported circulation of over 250,000. But the key isn't circulation, it's advertising -- and advertising is fleeing.
Indeed, about 2 years ago, a media research firm executive said some papers didn't want bigger circulation -- they wanted a smaller, but more wealthy circulation base.
Colby Atwood, head of Borrell Associates, told a New York Times reporter that a "quality circulation" is more preferable "than quantity", and it was a "rational business decision" to "shed" the subscribers who cost more and generate less revenue." *
When newspapers intentionally "shed" some subscribers they are cutting their own throats in pursuit of fool's gold.
And although most articles don't mention it, I remain convinced that newspapers are dying for quite another reason. In a time of war, when readers needed their services most, many papers simply took a dive, and served the interests of power, rather than the needs of the people. Most papers sold the president's line because they feared that they would be seen as disloyal in wartime, and lose subscribers.
Instead, they lost readers anyway, because people couldn't believe what they read in black and white.
In fact, even before the Iraq war some news execs sent memos to their staffs warning them NOT to show wire photos of civilian casualties in the Afghanistan war. One memo told reporters to "play down" such stories.*
Is there any wonder that such a product is in decline?
--(c) '09 maj
[Sources: *Perez-Pena, Richard, "Why Big Newspapers Applaud Some Declines in Circulation," New York Times, Mon., Oct. 1, 2007, p. c1.:
*Johnson, Chalmers, NEMESIS: The Last Days of the American Empire (Metropolitan Books: New York, 2006), p.30.]
Friday, March 13, 2009
America faces new Depression misery as financial crisis worsens
Mike Harvey in Sacramento
By the wide stretch of the American River in Sacramento, history is repeating itself. Here, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, men and women who had lost everything and despaired of finding work built rough shelters and huddled around fires.
Now the spiral of job losses and house repossessions has left another wave of Americans homeless, and a new tent city is growing rapidly on lumpy, derelict land between the river and the railway tracks here in the capital of California.
There are more than 300 people living in scattered encampments stretching a couple of miles along the river bank. As many as 50 more arrive each week. Unemployment in Sacramento reached 10.4 per cent in January and California is suffering some of the worst repossession rates in the country, with as many as 500 people losing their homes every day last year.
Charity workers in the city can no longer cope with the number of people coming to them for help. The shelters are full, with one home that caters for women and children turning away 200 people a night.
Joan Burke, director of advocacy for the homeless charity Loaves and Fishes, said: “The folks we deal with typically are the working poor. But right now the economy is in such turmoil that it is affecting a new layer of middle-class earners - construction workers, farm labourers, retail workers, restaurant staff.
“People who have earned good money but have not got any savings are finding out about the reality of being just one or two pay cheques away from becoming homeless.”
Jim Gibson, 50, arrived at the tent city four months ago. A construction worker, he had been employed in the Bay Area around San Francisco for 32 years without ever giving any thought to finding the next job.
Most recently he had a job on a site in Sacramento and found a rented apartment to live in. When he lost the job six months ago he quickly went through the little savings that he had. He moved into a motel room, but with no jobs to be found he was forced to begin selling his possessions - including his tools.
In the end he spent his last $30 on a one-man tent and headed for the burgeoning tent city. “Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would end up here,” he said.
Inside his tent is a neatly folded set of spare clothes, a sleeping bag and blankets. He has nothing else: all his family photos, the possessions of a lifetime, have gone. “I sold them or gave them away. Where could I keep them?”
A widower, Jim has five adult children living locally - but he will not tell them where he is. “They don't know, and I am not going to burden them. In part it is my pride, but they are also just one pay cheque from joining me here.”
Yesterday Jim joined his new friends, Genaddiy Tomashov, 57, and Anthony, 32 in a makeshift communal tent. They sat on plastic chairs around a fire, with a cooking pot suspended above it. In a corner of the structure, which lost its roof in high winds and torrential rain last week, were piles of tin cans and bottles of water donated by the local food bank. They keep each other company and, when they have money for a bus pass, they go off in search of work. From time to time a local business pays $35 for a five-hour stint holding a sign on the street.
They see four or five new tents springing up each day. Yesterday Ronn Harrison, 46, turned up with a sleeping bag, and $8 in his pocket. A carpenter who had come out of a state alcohol rehabilitation programme last year, he had moved in with his father in Fresno, but could not stay there. He has worked two days since last August. “I have had to downsize my way, all the way out here. There was nothing left for me to do,” he said.
There is no sanitation and no running water in the tent city and, while Jim's area is as neat as possible, elsewhere among the blue Tarpaulins there are growing piles of rubbish and rotting food. Although Sacramento has a Mediterranean climate, days of heavy rain recently turned much of the site into a quagmire.
On the other side of the railway tracks, towards the city centre, Loaves and Fishes provides showers and a midday meal for 650 homeless people a day. The charity is campaigning for the city to provide a “safe haven” for the homeless, with proper facilities and garbage disposal.
Sister Libby Fernandez, executive director of Loaves & Fishes, has seen the tent city grow from a few individuals a year ago into a big problem for city officials. The dome of the State Capitol, where the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger conducts his daily business, is visible from the levee by the river where she parks her golf cart whenever she visits.
Sister Libby estimates that out of a population of 500,000 in Sacramento, there are 2,000 homeless in shelters across the city and another 2,000 living on the streets or in tent cities, either hidden or out in the open. “Camping outside is illegal but the authorities cannot move on so many people. In any case, they have nowhere else to go.”
Jim said that, while he was confident he would get out of the tent city, he was not sure when. “California has been living in the fast lane all these years. I took my job for granted and all of the sudden the recession hit. I never thought building would stop, but it has. People weren't ready for it.
“This is the bottom of the barrel.”
Depression déjà-vu
— The Great Depression was triggered by the New York stock market crash of 1929. It was the longest and harshest depression yet experienced by the industrialised Western world
— By late 1932 US stock values had dropped to 20 per cent of their previous worth. By 1933 11,000 of the US's 25,000 banks had failed and unemployment was at 25 per cent. Industrial production declined by 47 per cent and GDP by 30 per cent. The effects were felt around the world
— The recovery began with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programme in 1933, which ushered in a government-regulated economy, as well as reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labour and housing
— The British decline stopped soon after the gold standard was abandoned in 1931, but recovery did not begin until the end of 1932
Source: www.britannica.com
By the wide stretch of the American River in Sacramento, history is repeating itself. Here, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, men and women who had lost everything and despaired of finding work built rough shelters and huddled around fires.
Now the spiral of job losses and house repossessions has left another wave of Americans homeless, and a new tent city is growing rapidly on lumpy, derelict land between the river and the railway tracks here in the capital of California.
There are more than 300 people living in scattered encampments stretching a couple of miles along the river bank. As many as 50 more arrive each week. Unemployment in Sacramento reached 10.4 per cent in January and California is suffering some of the worst repossession rates in the country, with as many as 500 people losing their homes every day last year.
Charity workers in the city can no longer cope with the number of people coming to them for help. The shelters are full, with one home that caters for women and children turning away 200 people a night.
Joan Burke, director of advocacy for the homeless charity Loaves and Fishes, said: “The folks we deal with typically are the working poor. But right now the economy is in such turmoil that it is affecting a new layer of middle-class earners - construction workers, farm labourers, retail workers, restaurant staff.
“People who have earned good money but have not got any savings are finding out about the reality of being just one or two pay cheques away from becoming homeless.”
Jim Gibson, 50, arrived at the tent city four months ago. A construction worker, he had been employed in the Bay Area around San Francisco for 32 years without ever giving any thought to finding the next job.
Most recently he had a job on a site in Sacramento and found a rented apartment to live in. When he lost the job six months ago he quickly went through the little savings that he had. He moved into a motel room, but with no jobs to be found he was forced to begin selling his possessions - including his tools.
In the end he spent his last $30 on a one-man tent and headed for the burgeoning tent city. “Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would end up here,” he said.
Inside his tent is a neatly folded set of spare clothes, a sleeping bag and blankets. He has nothing else: all his family photos, the possessions of a lifetime, have gone. “I sold them or gave them away. Where could I keep them?”
A widower, Jim has five adult children living locally - but he will not tell them where he is. “They don't know, and I am not going to burden them. In part it is my pride, but they are also just one pay cheque from joining me here.”
Yesterday Jim joined his new friends, Genaddiy Tomashov, 57, and Anthony, 32 in a makeshift communal tent. They sat on plastic chairs around a fire, with a cooking pot suspended above it. In a corner of the structure, which lost its roof in high winds and torrential rain last week, were piles of tin cans and bottles of water donated by the local food bank. They keep each other company and, when they have money for a bus pass, they go off in search of work. From time to time a local business pays $35 for a five-hour stint holding a sign on the street.
They see four or five new tents springing up each day. Yesterday Ronn Harrison, 46, turned up with a sleeping bag, and $8 in his pocket. A carpenter who had come out of a state alcohol rehabilitation programme last year, he had moved in with his father in Fresno, but could not stay there. He has worked two days since last August. “I have had to downsize my way, all the way out here. There was nothing left for me to do,” he said.
There is no sanitation and no running water in the tent city and, while Jim's area is as neat as possible, elsewhere among the blue Tarpaulins there are growing piles of rubbish and rotting food. Although Sacramento has a Mediterranean climate, days of heavy rain recently turned much of the site into a quagmire.
On the other side of the railway tracks, towards the city centre, Loaves and Fishes provides showers and a midday meal for 650 homeless people a day. The charity is campaigning for the city to provide a “safe haven” for the homeless, with proper facilities and garbage disposal.
Sister Libby Fernandez, executive director of Loaves & Fishes, has seen the tent city grow from a few individuals a year ago into a big problem for city officials. The dome of the State Capitol, where the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger conducts his daily business, is visible from the levee by the river where she parks her golf cart whenever she visits.
Sister Libby estimates that out of a population of 500,000 in Sacramento, there are 2,000 homeless in shelters across the city and another 2,000 living on the streets or in tent cities, either hidden or out in the open. “Camping outside is illegal but the authorities cannot move on so many people. In any case, they have nowhere else to go.”
Jim said that, while he was confident he would get out of the tent city, he was not sure when. “California has been living in the fast lane all these years. I took my job for granted and all of the sudden the recession hit. I never thought building would stop, but it has. People weren't ready for it.
“This is the bottom of the barrel.”
Depression déjà-vu
— The Great Depression was triggered by the New York stock market crash of 1929. It was the longest and harshest depression yet experienced by the industrialised Western world
— By late 1932 US stock values had dropped to 20 per cent of their previous worth. By 1933 11,000 of the US's 25,000 banks had failed and unemployment was at 25 per cent. Industrial production declined by 47 per cent and GDP by 30 per cent. The effects were felt around the world
— The recovery began with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programme in 1933, which ushered in a government-regulated economy, as well as reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labour and housing
— The British decline stopped soon after the gold standard was abandoned in 1931, but recovery did not begin until the end of 1932
Source: www.britannica.com
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Running Backwards
[col. writ. 2/26/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Few sciences are more complex than economics, for despite the plethora of formulas claiming to define its workings, economics remains a bedeviling mystery that confuses and confounds the best minds time and time again.
That's often because our economic ideas are formed not only by our experiences but by our beliefs, and as such, we defend our ideas based not on evidence, but on our theoretical constructs -- again, what we believe.
We are free marketeers, or Keynesians; we follow the theories of Adam Smith, Henry George, David Ricardo or Karl Marx the way we follow our favorite basketball team, win or lose.
Sometimes those theories blind us to the bigger game of life outside our doors.
Much of the current economic crisis is the direct result of the economic theory of deregulation, made, not under George Bush alone, but in the waning days of the Clinton administration. For it was in 1999 that Clinton's treasury secretaries, first Robert Rubin, and later Larry Summers, advocated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a 1933 law which prohibited commercial banks and investment banks from functioning in the same house.
The reason? None other than ole FDR. President Franklin D. Roosevelt explained as much in his famous "Fear Itself" inaugural speech of 1933, when the nation was reeling in the grips of the Great Depression. Roosevelt said,"...there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money..."*
In November 1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, essentially repealing Glass-Steagall, by tearing down the brick wall between commercial and investment banks. The securities industries went on a tear, making millions, billions and then tens of billions on speculation with other people's money-- until the house of cards came crumbling down in November 2008.
The speculation business didn't just become toxic. It was poison in the 1930's, and came back to life in the late '90's more poisonous than ever.
By then, both political parties were parties of deregulation, for both were instruments of corporate power, and both were the authors of today's Great Recession, if not the Depression to come.
--(c) '09 maj
[*Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1st Inaugural Address, 1933 ("The Only Thing to Fear Is Fear Itself" speech), repr. in Labour & Trade Union Review (No. 194: Feb. '04), p.6]
Few sciences are more complex than economics, for despite the plethora of formulas claiming to define its workings, economics remains a bedeviling mystery that confuses and confounds the best minds time and time again.
That's often because our economic ideas are formed not only by our experiences but by our beliefs, and as such, we defend our ideas based not on evidence, but on our theoretical constructs -- again, what we believe.
We are free marketeers, or Keynesians; we follow the theories of Adam Smith, Henry George, David Ricardo or Karl Marx the way we follow our favorite basketball team, win or lose.
Sometimes those theories blind us to the bigger game of life outside our doors.
Much of the current economic crisis is the direct result of the economic theory of deregulation, made, not under George Bush alone, but in the waning days of the Clinton administration. For it was in 1999 that Clinton's treasury secretaries, first Robert Rubin, and later Larry Summers, advocated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a 1933 law which prohibited commercial banks and investment banks from functioning in the same house.
The reason? None other than ole FDR. President Franklin D. Roosevelt explained as much in his famous "Fear Itself" inaugural speech of 1933, when the nation was reeling in the grips of the Great Depression. Roosevelt said,"...there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money..."*
In November 1999 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, essentially repealing Glass-Steagall, by tearing down the brick wall between commercial and investment banks. The securities industries went on a tear, making millions, billions and then tens of billions on speculation with other people's money-- until the house of cards came crumbling down in November 2008.
The speculation business didn't just become toxic. It was poison in the 1930's, and came back to life in the late '90's more poisonous than ever.
By then, both political parties were parties of deregulation, for both were instruments of corporate power, and both were the authors of today's Great Recession, if not the Depression to come.
--(c) '09 maj
[*Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1st Inaugural Address, 1933 ("The Only Thing to Fear Is Fear Itself" speech), repr. in Labour & Trade Union Review (No. 194: Feb. '04), p.6]
Wildin' On Wall Street
[col. writ. 2/23/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
For years now, banks, investment houses and brokerage firms have engaged in a feverish dance of hustling from home-owners, using devices like ARM's (adjustable rate mortgages), offering loans at low or no interest which balloon into traps, forcing foreclosures that insured new properties could be sold, with the hustle being hustled anew.
You know what these hustlers think of the economy that they've brought to the brink of disaster? You needn't look far, for cable systems were ablast with the video of a 'reporter' on the trading floor of the stock exchange going full tilt over the alleged misdirection of monies going to homeowners struggling to make their mortgages.
It looked like a pig fighting for more slop in his trough -- upset that he couldn't get it all. They were angry that the other pigs of Wall Street couldn't get more, while standing amidst the economic wreckage.
The nation's economy is falling not only because of the epic greed on Wall Street -- the long Iraq debacle, with its 'lost' billions certainly didn't help -- but these princes of capital certainly played a pivotal role.
And the irony isn't that they want more; it's that these pigs will probably get it!
For if capital is anything, it is hopelessly amoral.
Its only interest is gain.
If any people in America know this, it's African Americans, whose grandparents were capitalist - owned chattel like horses or swine.
Except for a tiny band of radicals called abolitionists, many of whom were driven by deep religious fervor, few in American life considered slavery wrong, for many considered it as natural as grass growing on the lawn in spring.
The reason the economy is still stuck in idle isn't because of a lack of stimulus; it's the tremendous distrust on both sides.
Bankers are afraid to lend lest they won't be repaid; lenders are afraid they'll be trapped and tricked by slick language hidden in loan agreements.
Meanwhile, the House of Capital crumbles from within and without.
--(c) '09 maj
For years now, banks, investment houses and brokerage firms have engaged in a feverish dance of hustling from home-owners, using devices like ARM's (adjustable rate mortgages), offering loans at low or no interest which balloon into traps, forcing foreclosures that insured new properties could be sold, with the hustle being hustled anew.
You know what these hustlers think of the economy that they've brought to the brink of disaster? You needn't look far, for cable systems were ablast with the video of a 'reporter' on the trading floor of the stock exchange going full tilt over the alleged misdirection of monies going to homeowners struggling to make their mortgages.
It looked like a pig fighting for more slop in his trough -- upset that he couldn't get it all. They were angry that the other pigs of Wall Street couldn't get more, while standing amidst the economic wreckage.
The nation's economy is falling not only because of the epic greed on Wall Street -- the long Iraq debacle, with its 'lost' billions certainly didn't help -- but these princes of capital certainly played a pivotal role.
And the irony isn't that they want more; it's that these pigs will probably get it!
For if capital is anything, it is hopelessly amoral.
Its only interest is gain.
If any people in America know this, it's African Americans, whose grandparents were capitalist - owned chattel like horses or swine.
Except for a tiny band of radicals called abolitionists, many of whom were driven by deep religious fervor, few in American life considered slavery wrong, for many considered it as natural as grass growing on the lawn in spring.
The reason the economy is still stuck in idle isn't because of a lack of stimulus; it's the tremendous distrust on both sides.
Bankers are afraid to lend lest they won't be repaid; lenders are afraid they'll be trapped and tricked by slick language hidden in loan agreements.
Meanwhile, the House of Capital crumbles from within and without.
--(c) '09 maj
Inheriting an Empire
[col. writ. 2/21/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Of all the myriad things to inherit, perhaps the worst is an empire, for such a transmission brings with it the duty of defense, which, in time, invariably becomes defending the indefensible.
For empires are constructed of crimes, and similarly so maintained.
They are birthed in invasion, nursed on occupation and raised on the cruel gruel of repression, torture and brutality.
That is their intrinsic nature as shown by the abundant examples of history. This was shown best by Rome, which ravaged the then-known world to enrich the 'eternal city'. Nations were invaded, their nobles either slain or enslaved, puppets were installed, and the natural resources extracted to feed the ever-hungry maw of Rome.
For millions of Blacks, the Obama election has sparked a new way of thinking and speaking of an America that has, heretofore, been a subject of considerable ambivalence. For perhaps the first time in U.S. history (certainly since Reconstruction), millions speak of the U.S. as "we", instead of "they."
This may well be a turning point in American history.
But is the American Empire "ours" simply because a Black man is the nation's chief executive?
Did we vote it into being, or did we merely inherit it?
Most who voted for Obama certainly didn't vote for the Iraq War, one of the most overt imperial projects in modern U.S. history. They supported a quick and decisive end of the war - not its continuation nor its expansion.
Indeed, of all Americans, Blacks opposed the war the most vehemently, according to national polls.
Perhaps it was the deep memory of national oppression that made it so unseemly to support such an oppressive occupation against the Iraqi people; perhaps it was the clumsiness of the government's lies used to 'sell' the invasion.
But empires begotten by violence and exploitation are poisonous things that damage both sides of this deadly duo.
The British Empire toiled for generations to conquer and exploit over 1/2 of Africa, most of Asia and two-thirds of the Americas. But all of that crumbled when the nation was almost broken under the weight of the Germans, and she was too weak to hold her colonies. Indeed America, as the strongest to emerge from the war, inherited much of Britain's loss, as well as other European powers.
It inherited the Vietnam War when the French could no longer sustain it, and paid a heavy price of death and defeat.
Empires shouldn't be inherited lightly, like knick-knacks from an elderly grandma.
This is especially so in democracies, where the people allegedly determine public policy, for what public policy could be more dire than imperial war?
--(c) '09 maj
Of all the myriad things to inherit, perhaps the worst is an empire, for such a transmission brings with it the duty of defense, which, in time, invariably becomes defending the indefensible.
For empires are constructed of crimes, and similarly so maintained.
They are birthed in invasion, nursed on occupation and raised on the cruel gruel of repression, torture and brutality.
That is their intrinsic nature as shown by the abundant examples of history. This was shown best by Rome, which ravaged the then-known world to enrich the 'eternal city'. Nations were invaded, their nobles either slain or enslaved, puppets were installed, and the natural resources extracted to feed the ever-hungry maw of Rome.
For millions of Blacks, the Obama election has sparked a new way of thinking and speaking of an America that has, heretofore, been a subject of considerable ambivalence. For perhaps the first time in U.S. history (certainly since Reconstruction), millions speak of the U.S. as "we", instead of "they."
This may well be a turning point in American history.
But is the American Empire "ours" simply because a Black man is the nation's chief executive?
Did we vote it into being, or did we merely inherit it?
Most who voted for Obama certainly didn't vote for the Iraq War, one of the most overt imperial projects in modern U.S. history. They supported a quick and decisive end of the war - not its continuation nor its expansion.
Indeed, of all Americans, Blacks opposed the war the most vehemently, according to national polls.
Perhaps it was the deep memory of national oppression that made it so unseemly to support such an oppressive occupation against the Iraqi people; perhaps it was the clumsiness of the government's lies used to 'sell' the invasion.
But empires begotten by violence and exploitation are poisonous things that damage both sides of this deadly duo.
The British Empire toiled for generations to conquer and exploit over 1/2 of Africa, most of Asia and two-thirds of the Americas. But all of that crumbled when the nation was almost broken under the weight of the Germans, and she was too weak to hold her colonies. Indeed America, as the strongest to emerge from the war, inherited much of Britain's loss, as well as other European powers.
It inherited the Vietnam War when the French could no longer sustain it, and paid a heavy price of death and defeat.
Empires shouldn't be inherited lightly, like knick-knacks from an elderly grandma.
This is especially so in democracies, where the people allegedly determine public policy, for what public policy could be more dire than imperial war?
--(c) '09 maj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)