Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Essays

To this day, I can hardly bear to think of that quintessentially American holiday -- Thanksgiving.

When I do, however, I do not dwell on pilgrims with wide black hats sitting to sup with red men, their long hair adorned with eagle feathers. I think not of turkeys, nor of cranberry, foods now traditional for the day of feast.

Unlike millions, I don't even think of the day's football game; and not thinking of it, I don't watch it.

I think of the people we have habitually called 'Indians'' the indigenous people of the Americas. Those millions who are no more.

I think of those precious few who remain, and wonder, what do they think of this day; this national myth of sweet brotherhood, that masks what can only be called genocide?

Several years ago, I read a thin text that was pregnant with poignancy. It was a collection of Native remarks from the first tribes who encountered whites in New England, and down through several hundred years. Throughout it all, the same vibration could be felt, no matter what the clan or tribe. A profound sense of betrayal and wrong; from people who were treated like brethren when they first arrived.

In New England, the name Powhatan (ca. 1547-1618) is still recalled (even if that wasn't his name, but what the English called him). Known as Wahunsonacock by his people, he headed a confederacy of 32 tribes, and governed an area of hundreds of miles. He was the father of Pocahontas, the young Indian maiden who saved the life of Capt. James Smith. A year after sparing Smith's life, the white captain threatened the great chief. This is some of his response given in 1609:

"...Why should you take by force that from us which you can have by love? Why should you destroy us, who have provided you with food? We can hide our provisions, and fly into the woods; and then you must consequently famish by wronging your friends. What is the cause of your jealousy? You see us unarmed, and willing to supply your wants, if you come in a friendly manner, and not with swords and guns, as to invade an enemy. I am not so simple, as not to know it is better to eat good meat, lie well, and sleep quietly with my women and children; to laugh and be merry with the English; and, being their friend, to have copper, hatchets, and whatever else I want, than to fly from all, to lie cold in the woods, feed upon acorns, roots, and such trash, and to be so hunted, that I cannot rest, eat, or sleep. In such circumstances, my men must watch, and if a twig should but break, all would cry out, "Here comes Capt. Smith"; and in this miserable manner, to end my miserable life; and, Capt. Smith, this might be soon your fate too, through your rashness and unadvisedness. I therefore, exhort you to peaceable councils; and, above all, I insist that the guns and swords, the cause of all our jealousy and uneasiness, be removed and sent away." [Blaisdell, Bob, ed., Great Speeches by Native Americans (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Press, 2000), p.4.]

That great chief's sentiments would be echoed for over hundreds of years, but injustice would just be piled on injustice. Genocide would be the white answer to red life.

Centuries later, what can Thanksgiving Day mean to Native peoples?

Thank you for stealing our land? Thank you for wiping out our people?

Thank you for placing a remnant of our once great numbers on rural ghettoes called 'reservations?'

Thank you for abolishing most of the ancient traditions?

Thank you for poisoning what little Indian lands remain with uranium?

Thank you for poisoning the lands now inhabited by the whites?

Thank you for letting Indians fight in American wars against other people?

Thanks.

The real tragedy is that millions of Americans don't know, and don't want to know about Indian history and traditions.

Today, the names of rivers, lakes, and landmarks bear indigenous markers of another age.

The people, except for an occasional movie, are mostly forgotten; out of mind. The easier to replace with false images of happy meals, and turkey dinners.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Since the recent Democratic wins in the U.S. House and Senate, there has been a concerted effort from the corporate media to evoke from them pre-installation promises of moderation, and a mass denial that there are any plans to impeach a widely unpopular President, George W. Bush.

There has been equally aggressive attention paid to House Speaker-elect, Nancy Pelosi (Dem. - Ca.), who makes history as the first American woman to reach what is essentially the third most powerful office in the nation.

With few exceptions, most outspoken legislators have pooh-poohed the idea of impeaching the President, even before there have been hearings into the events that led to the ruinous disaster in Iraq.

Columnists lecture, "It would be too divisive." Others decry such talks as 'radical.'

What is more radical than war?

Why are the same voices and institutions that led the cheerleading squad to war now setting the parameters of acceptable political debate and activity?

Perhaps the most influential newspaper in the U.S., the New York Times, used its front pages as a virtual billboard for the Bush administration, and high-ranking people like Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State (then National Security Advisor), Condoleeza Rice quoted the NYT incessantly in the run-up to the Iraq War. Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporter, Judith Miller essentially served as a scribe for the White House.

It was press scrutiny that led to the recent downfall of outspoken anti-war figure, Congressman John Murtha (Dem.-Pa.) in the race for House Majority Whip, using grainy tapes from almost 3 decades ago -- the FBI ABSCAM attempts to bust corrupt politicians. It certainly appears like the so-called 'Washington consensus' was unilaterally opposed to Murtha in the Whip post, for it would have provided the critic with a platform that could not be easily ignored. It was precisely this so-called 'consensus' that lined up to support the Iraq adventure, virtually without a whisper of dissent.

It very well may be the case that these same forces wanted to humble the House Speaker-elect. And yet it was this same alleged 'consensus' (driven, to be sure, by the mad neocons in the White House, the Defense Dept. and the corporate think tanks) that led to this mess.

Consensus, here in the U.S., is actually the agreement of a fairly narrow slice of the American (and sometimes foreign) elite. In the brief but brilliant book, Behind the Invasion of Iraq (N.Y.: Monthly Review Press, 2003) written by the Humbai, India-based Research Unit for Political Economy, this theme is argued quite strongly:

"Typically apart from legislators and the press, a proliferation of research institutes, semi-governmental bodies, and academic forums circulate proposals voicing the case of one or the other lobby (leaving the administration free to deny that they constitute official policy). These proposals elicit objections from other interests, through similar media; other powerful countries press their interests, directly or indirectly; and the entire discussion, in the light of the strength of the respective interests, helps shape the course of action finally adopted and helps coalesce the various ruling class sections around it. (This process, of course, has nothing to do with democratic debate, since the people are excluded as participants, and are included only as a factor to be taken into account)."

We shouldn't haggle with theory here. One need only recall the unprecedented mass pre-war protests, all around the nation, and abroad. The experts and think tank types decried the ignorance of the masses, but time has proven that the mass demonstrations were right. Now, the Democrats, being seduced by the lobbyists, the media, and the know-it-alls (who might best be called 'the know-nothings') are being persuaded to be bipartisan; to take impeachment off the table; to cool that rap about ending the war.

That, like before, is the recipe for disaster, for it ignores the people who turned out to vote, largely disgusted with Bush's war. People are sick to the soul about Iraq.

If they ignore the public mood, they will, once again, be digging their political graves. For this war, from beginning to now, has been an unholy disaster, causing the deaths of at least a 1/2 million people.

That ain't impeachable?

Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Several weeks ago, a long, dusty trail of thousands winded their way from the southern city of Oaxaca, to the capital of Mexico City, some 800 kilometers (or over 250 miles) to support democracy, and demand the removal of the governor, who got there through a stolen, and deeply corrupt election.

The marchers, a motley crew of teachers, students, farmers, vendors, and the like, made their tortuous way over mountain and valleys, through slashing rains, blistering heat, and numbing cold, marching for 19 days, to take their complaints to the seat of government.

The group, calling itself the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (or APPO, the Spanish acronym for Asemblea Popular del Pueblo de Oaxaca), has rocked Mexico with its strong, principled insistence that elections be truly fair and free of corruption, and that the will of the People be heard.

I've actually been reading about the events in Oaxaca for several weeks, and every time I read about them, I thought of Americans, who quietly accepted the corrupt elections of 2000, and of 2004, like lambs being led to shishkabobs.

For, the stolen elections of 2000 in Florida, and later 2004 in Ohio, have done unprecedented damage to the very notion of democracy, and shattered the faith of millions in the electoral process.

The people of Oaxaca, braving not just the natural elements, but the political ones as well, indeed, the terrorism of the 'instruments of the state' (police and military violence), have proven by their march and protests that true democracy is deeply important to the people.

The APPO, which has sparked resistance throughout Mexico City, and in other parts of the country, has created a political crisis in the nation, by its fervent demand for the removal of Oaxaca governor, Ulises Ruiz, and the restoration of democracy.

The crisis arises from the fact that many of the country's political parties are doing their damnedest to silence, derail, or intimidate the people; for if they are successful (they fear) there will be two, three, a dozen Oaxacas all across the country.

Oaxaca, although the poorest state in Mexico, and one with the largest indigenous population, is inspiring people far and beyond its southern Mexican borders.

The Oaxaca resistance was born in repression, when Governor Ruiz ordered the police assault on the striking Oaxaca teachers' union in June. The teachers fought back, and within days, over 300,000 people gathered in a mass march to support the union. Out of that massive outpouring of support came the APPO, the Popular Assembly. The continuing crisis in Mexico may push social forces to join the radicalizing efforts of the APPO, or may open the door to the threatened terror of the 'instruments of the state.' To be frank, what began in repression may indeed end in more repression; but that will not, nor could truly be the end.

That's because the forces that gave rise to APPO are still rumbling barely beneath the surface, ready to emerge in another state, where workers and the poor are struggling to resist the ravenous forces of globalism.

When the poor are treated poorly, when workers are poorly paid, the conditions for resistance are already present.

And while the temptation of the State to use its brutal 'instruments' may be strong, it's also very possible that it may spark more resistance, deeper and broader.

Oaxaca is spreading like the wind, and the examples of popular and indigenous resistance from Mexico, like the APPO, and the Zapatistas, and various struggles from throughout Latin America, are spreading also.

The people of Oaxaca should be supported, not just with words, but with similar organizing against flawed and corrupt elections, from folks all over the world.

It should begin with the people of the U.S.

Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

[NOTE: Many of Mr. Jamal's commentaries may be found in Spanish at: http://refugiodelriogrande.tripod.com]

Thomas Merton Award 2006 honors Angela Y. Davis! November 10, 6pm at Sheraton Station Square Student, teacher, writer, scholar, and activist/organizer, Davis is an advocate of prison abolition and has developed a powerful critique of racism in the criminal justice system. She has received the distinguished honor of an appointment to the University of California Presidential Chair in African American and Feminist Studies. In this podcast, Mumia introduces Angela Y. Davis at the Awards Dinner

With excitement and barely suppressed glee, the media announced the death sentence returned against Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein, for crimes against humanity during the 1982 Dujail massacre.

In the face of the deadly horror that is Iraq, Hussein has become little more than a bad, but distant memory.

Indeed, in both print and audio interviews I've read and heard in the last few weeks, Iraqis looked to life under the Hussein regime as the good old days. That is a measure, not of how 'good' the old days were, but of how anguished is the present.

While Shi'as groaned under the repression of the secret police, and the Kurds lived in terror of the central government, the day-to-day life of Iraqis was one that was among the most envied of the Arab world. Its populace was among the most educated, certainly one of the highest among women in that region.

With the very serious exception of the omnipresent threat of government security forces, Iraqis lived lives of relative safety and security.

Today, Iraq is bedlam; the police and army are little more than ethnic death squads.

The U.S.-backed puppet government in Baghdad is a 'government' in name only. Real power is in the militias and regional religious leaders, like Moqtada al-Sadr, a man who is both!

In light of Saddam's death sentence, you'll probably hear some pundits claim it's a 'turning point', or a 'benchmark', of the new Iraqi democracy. In truth, it's neither.

The forces unleashed by the invasion and occupation have become bigger than Saddam.

The irony is that Saddam Hussein, according to recently published reports, never believed that the U.S. would actually take Baghdad; not because he thought his Republican Guard was so fierce, but because he thought that Americans couldn't be so stupid.

Peter Galbraith in an Aug. 2006 article in the *New York Review of Books* criticized the military knowledge of both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Saddam Hussein, as leaders who routinely ignored advice from their generals.

In the article, "Mindless in Iraq," Galbraith noted:

"Men who had put their lives on the line in combat were mostly unwilling to put their careers on the line to speak out against a plan based on the numbers pulled out of the air by a cranky sixty-nine-year old [i.e., Rumsfeld].

"Fortunately for the US troops who had to invade Iraq, they were initially up against an adversary who was also convinced of his own military genius. Saddam Hussein knew it made no strategic sense for the US to invade Iraq and therefore he assumed it wouldn't happen. He had maintained ambiguity about whether he had WMDs not because he had something to hide but to intimidate the two enemies about whom he really was worried, the Iranians and Iraq's Shiite majority.

"Even before the invasion began ... Saddam could not quite believe the United States intended to go all the way to Baghdad .. Saddam could not imagine that the United States would see an advantage in replacing him with a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated regime." [Fr.: Galbraith, P., "Mindless in Iraq," NYROB (Aug. 10, 2006), p. 29.]

And so, Saddam will soon have a date with the hangman; but events and forces at work in Iraq will barely ripple from his passage. His death warrant, signed and sealed in Washington, D.C., will bring it no closer to US regional objectives.

Hasn't Iraq had enough death?

The hell of today is far worse than the hell of yesterday.
Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Mumia Abu-Jamal Interview with JR from POCC Radio

If the minions of the neocon right are to be believed, the struggle in Iraq, (and by extension, the Middle East) is essentially a war against what they call "extremism."

Even the verbally challenged President George W. Bush has argued, quite strenuously, against "Islamic extremists."

It seems like many in the right are trying out new terms every week, to stoke the fires of fear about new and foreboding threats to the besieged American republic: "extremists"; "Islamic extremists"; "Islamofascists"; "dead-enders", et al.

For politicians words are weapons, which are used to sell images, such like Madison Ave. sells soap. Every so often, even the best product must be made "new" or "improved!"

And why shouldn't they? Hasn't it worked before?

We now sneer at the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction', but several years ago it rang in the head like a klaxon.

Is it radical or extremist to fight against foreigners who invade your country, and try to impose strangers who function as puppets for these foreigners?

Why is the administration never seen as "extremist" for invading a foreign country based on false pretenses? Why isn't it viewed as "extreme" for its mad plan to 'remake the face of the Middle East?'

Why isn't its response for the desperate acts of 19 men, (9/11), of invading a nation that had nothing to do with that act, seen as "extreme?"

That it isn't is largely because of the obedient services of the corporate media, which sought obscene ratings by playing the fear card, and waving the flag.

They did so because their paychecks are signed by big business, and this administration has been good for big business.

They served their corporate masters, but betrayed their publics.

Yet this is hardly a new thing. Scholar and writer, Michael Parenti, in the 2004 book Super Patriotism (San Francisco: City Lights Books) looks beyond the present manic Bush Regime, to view a long history of US extremism all around the world:

"US LEADERS HAVE LONG PROFESSED A DEDICATION TO DEMOCRACY, yet over the last half century they have devoted themselves to overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Greece (twice), Argentina (twice), Haiti (twice), Bolivia, Jamaica, Yugoslavia, and other countries. These countries were all guilty of pursuing policies that occasionally favored the poorer elements and infringed upon the more affluent. In most instances, the US-sponsored coups were accompanied by widespread killings of democratic activists.

"US leaders have supported covert actions, sanctions, or proxy mercenary wars against revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Iraq (with the CIA ushering in Saddam Hussein's reign of repression), Portugal, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Timor, Western Sahara, and elsewhere.

"US interventions and destabilization campaigns have been directed against other populist nationalistic governments, including Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Syria, Zaire, Venezuela, the Fiji Islands, and Afghanistan (before the Soviets ever went into the country).

"And since World War II, direct US military invasions or aerial attacks or both have been perpetrated against Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Somalia, and Iraq (twice). There is no 'rogue state,' 'axis of evil,' or communist country that has a comparable record of such criminal aggression against other nations." (pp. 133-34]

In light of this kind of history, who are the "extremists?"

In light of this history, who are the "radicals?"

This isn't a 'war against extremism' -- it is a war waged by extremists.

It is a war waged by ideologues drunk on power, and willing to break a nation to prove their theories of the so-called 'free market.'

Iraq is essentially a broken state, awaiting its final crack.

Like hungry wolves, these dudes are looking for the next morsel to munch on.

Column Written 10/15/06. Copyright '06 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The numbers recently announced from a John Hopkins University study could not be more stunning: since the March 2003 start of the Iraq War, some 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died.

600,000!

The number, drawn from a random sampling of Iraqis, drew almost immediate condemnation from the military-news media establishment.

Even George Rex III, sniffed at a recent press conference, "That study is flawed." This from the guy who, when asked several months ago, how many Iraqi civilians died, blithely replied, "I dunno -- around 30,000."

The John Hopkins study, published in a recent edition of The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association, did not claim that 600,000 Iraqis were slain by so-called ''coalition forces." The number reflected deaths from all causes, including illnesses, and accidents.

But what Dr. Gilbert Burnham did say could hardly be called reassuring. Burnham, the study's lead author, and professor of international health at John Hopkins, said that the coalition directly caused the deaths of 31% of Iraqi civilians. Now, I ain't no math wiz, but according to my trusty calculator, that means the so-called 'coalition' is responsible for the deaths of a stunning 186,000 Iraqis!

186,000!

What the study tells us is that war brings both direct and indirect causes of death, for the destruction of resources and infrastructure leads, inexorably, to serious health problems that can lead to death.

As I thought of those numbers -- 186,000 -- 600,000 -- I thought of the talking heads from the White House and the think tanks, echoing "Iraq is better off," "Iraq is much better ..."

Madness.

The study, a joint undertaking of the Baltimore-based John Hopkins University and the Baghdad-based School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University, estimated that the country has suffered some 600 deaths a day since the U.S. invasion.

600 deaths -- a day.

Do Iraqis think that things are better now than they were under Saddam? Why not listen to the voices of some Iraqis, instead of paid shills for the administration?

The writer Anthony Arnove, in his recent book Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal (New York: The New Press, 2006) made the following observations:

"Three years into an occupation that its defenders boasted would rebuild Iraq, many Iraqis say conditions were better under sanctions and dictatorship. In much of the country, there is less electricity than before the invasion, with predictable consequences, including 'patients who die in emergency rooms when equipment stops running.' Even many Iraqis who had supported the U.S. invasion, in the hope that it would bring some improvement to their lives, now denounce the occupation. 'We loved the Americans when they came. I believed them when they said they came to help us,' said one Iraqi, Hossain Ibrahim, a former student. 'But now I hate them, they are worse then Saddam.'" [p. 14]

A mad war, driven by mad men, with their shiny eyes on oil, and the dream of 'remaking the Middle East', have dreamt a disaster, where over 1/2 a million people are now and forever gone.

There is something fundamentally insane about this.

There is the sub rosa, and quiet assurance that the lives of Arabs don't really count for much.

This is what you get for a billion bucks a week!

This is what occupation looks like.

Column Written 10/12/06. Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

ONA MOVE!

I greet you all, those gathered here in support of the work and liberty of Attorney Lynne Stewart, on the eve of her sentencing in federal court.

It is my pleasure to join y'all, if only in this limited way.

I also want to be clear that the sentiments expressed here are my own, and are not those of Lynne. I speak only to support her, and wish her a very favorable outcome in the days ahead.

Lynne Stewart is, simply speaking, a legend in the realm of law, for her defense of people engaged in struggles against the powerful. That said, I think it's safe to say that although she has defended Black nationalists, Lynne Stewart is not a Black nationalist. She has defended Puerto Rican nationalists, though I bet she isn't a Puerto Rican nationalist. And though she has defended Omar Abdel-Rahman (known as the blind Sheikh), who was convicted of involvement in the first terrorist strike at the World Trade Center, we can all agree she's no terrorist.

It is only in the maddening age, in the shadows of 9/11, that a prosecution like this could even be contemplated, and won! And that is a testament more to fear, than to reason.

Let's be honest -- She was convicted of essentially breaking a prison rule!

You know, if a prisoner violates a prison rule, he or she may get 30 or 60 days in the hole. Or, perhaps, a reprimand.

In the United States of America, Lynne Stewart faces 30 years!

That should make you wonder, not about Lynne Stewart, but about the country you're living in. About the nature of the thing we all call the 'law'.

Lynne Stewart, a 66-year old woman, is facing a life sentence for breaking a prison rule!

Of course, being the feds, prison rules have fancy titles, like the Special Administrative Measures (or SAMs), and yes, lawyers had to sign it to see their clients, but that's what it is, a prison rule.

Lynne's only 'crime' (if it can be called that), is thinking that the old rules sill applied after 9/11.

We -- all of us -- live in a world where Congress recently debated torture, and agreed to let George W. Bush decide! Where secret prisons now sit, administered by the CIA, in the former Soviet bloc countries! Where habeas corpus -- remember that so-called 'Great Writ?' -- will be denied to those who are tortured by U.S. military, government employees, (or private contractors) -- on King George's say so!

Lynne, like any thinking person, probably read the rules, saw that they were profoundly unconstitutional, and presumed that any judge who swore an oath to the Constitution, would say so too.

Maybe before 9/11. Not now.

This is our world. This is the madness that passes for sober thought in today's America.

But, the people -- each one of you -- aren't powerless. By being here tonight, you want to join your voice with Lynne's; to say, to show, that this woman isn't alone.

That is a good and powerful thing!

Yet, I must say one other thing (again, my opinion -- not Lynne's). Egypt is a terrorist state. It uses brutal and monstrous torture against its political opponents. Does that mean that one endorses terrorism against that, or any state? Of course not. But it means we cannot ignore state terrorism. Whether in Egypt -- or here in the U.S. of A.

Secret prisons. Torture chambers in Guantanamo, Cuba. Prisoners disappeared in Bagram, in Diego Garcia, and in places -- so-called 'black sites' with names unknown, where who-knows-what goes on.

It's time for people to join hands, join forces, and join movements, to change this sad state of affairs. Lynne Stewart's work, in support of human rights for all, and a zealous defense for all, is a damned good starting point!!

Speech Written 10/7/06] Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

FIRST ANNUAL
CENTRAL NEW YORK
LOCKS CONFERENCE

Saturday, October 21, 2006
Tompkins County Public Library
101 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York
11 AM - 4 PM
FREE

The First Annual Central New York Locks Conference will embrace the beauty of natural hair throughout the African diaspora, while also focusing on the history and contemporary impact of "dreadlocks" or locked hair.
The theme of the this year's conference is the effect of mass incarceration on communities given that certain appearances within communities of color are often negatively stereotyped and criminalized.

The First Annual Central New York Locks Conference will feature...
Mumia Abu-Jamal
special welcome address

Harold Wilson
122nd innocent person released from death row

Pam & Ramona Africa
MOVE Organization/Int'l Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal

New York Campaign for Telephone Justice
Coalition working across NYS to STOP THE CONTRACT between DOCS and Verizon/MCI

Ewuare Osayande
People Organized Working to Eradicate Racism (POWER)

Vanessa Johnson
presenting HAIR TALES...

films, exhibits, vendors, and much more....
(vendor inquiries welcome)


plus....
THE AFTER PARTY....
evening EDU-TAINMENT featuring
roots | culture | spoken word | rebel music


Saturday, October 21, 2006
Lost Dog Lounge
106-112 South Cayuga Street
Ithaca, New York
8 PM
$5


featuring...
Taina Asili
Vanessa Johnson
Ewuare Osayande
cypher:dissdent
BROADCAST LIVE

for more info...
607-277-2121 or info@stamp-cny.org

THE WAR THAT WON'T STOP
[Col. Writ. 9/29/06] Copyright '06 Mumia Abu-Jamal

There has been a blizzard of books released about the ill-fated Iraq War.

Some have been penned by Bush insiders; others by outsiders.

Such is the blizzard that the net result is often confusion, for each is written from the perspective of the writer, and to project or protect one side or the other.

Well, here's another one for ya. Now comes Greg Palast, the irascible author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2004), whose newest work is a broad, if irreverent, look at not just the Iraq disaster, but also the nation's economic debacle, and other perfidies of the governing classes. Palast's new book is: Armed Madhouse (New York: Dutton, 2006).

Palast is perhaps best known for his BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reports on the stolen elections in Florida, and the subsequent assaults on democracy in 2004, in Ohio, and beyond.

What hit me, however, was his analysis of the conflicting interests in the Bush administration on the Iraq invasion and occupation. One side, he argues, wanted to use the Iraq takeover as a massive tool to crack OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), and by so doing, kick the Saudis out of the driver's seat, and flood the market with cheap oil. The second option was a relatively modest invasion, the installation of a dutifully obedient puppet, but hands off oil, except to control its flow.

According to Palast, the objective was never to take the oil, but to control it, and thereby moderate its flow.

By so doing, this would keep the price at a high level, based on the principle that plenty would bring prices too low.

Palast writes:

"In the short term, Iraq's fields were trashed even before saboteurs torched them. The CIA and the Pentagon knew it no matter what (Paul) Wolfowitz said to bobble-headed Congressmen. In the long run, however, many years from now, Iraq, with 114 billion barrels of proven reserves, might be able to crank up above its OPEC quota.

"*But that won't happen*. The globe is littered with the economic skeletons of nations that fragrantly busted their OPEC quotas.. There's the skeleton of Venezuela. In 1973, Venezuela broke the first Arab oil boycott. But in 1997, when Venezuela again ramped up production, punishment was swift. Saudi Arabia, which can live without big oil revenues for up to a year, opened its spigots and drowned the market. The price of oil dropped to $8 a barrel and Venezuela went bankrupt. Its government fell. The current President of that nation, Hugo Chavez, is now a good member of OPEC, indeed its most fanatic adherent to the quota system." (pp. 86-87)

This was a war, Palast explains, not to get oil, so much as it was to keep goo-gobs of oil in the ground!
The rarer a commodity, the higher its price.

In fall, 2005, Exxon Oil raked in $9.9 billion, net. It made more profit during its third quarter than in the history of money! Now why would they want to threaten that?

The guy makes one hell of a point.

These were wars of capital, with the army, air force, and generals, but footmen for big businesses.

This was a 'war for oil', as millions of protesters screamed in spring, 2003. But not the way we thought it.
It was a war to make more profits, profits that have only grown since the war began -- till now.

Hey, Congress belongs to the corporations. Why shouldn't the army?
In a real sense, oil explains everything, in ways that other explanations do not.

It seamlessly slips throughout the political, theological, and military justifications for the carnage in Iraq, and emerges as the only consistent rationale for this continuing disaster, which seems to so easily elude logic.

Reading Palast's latest book, I thought of a quote from the book, The Lessons of History by Will & Ariel Durant: "...[T]he men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all." [p. 54]

This hot, deadly war is but a front in the invisible economic war.
Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The recent U.S. and New York performance of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has led to conniption fits by the chattering classes, sending some right-wing stations into overdrive.
I am always amused at times like these, for, because I have some limited knowledge of U.S.-Latin American history, I sense where Chavez is coming from, and can honestly say, if I were looking at the world from a Latin American perspective, I'd feel pretty damn strongly that norte americanos behaved toward their southern neighbors like devils.

Since at least 1823 (when U.S. president James Monroe announced his 'Monroe Doctrine'), Latin America has been little more than a colonial playground, or perhaps more fitting, basement for the United States.

The Monroe Doctrine essentially was a threat against Europe that any intervention in *any* country in the Americas, would be perceived as a threat to U.S. security.

Although pitched to the Europeans, it of course involved Central and Latin America, which was said to be the U.S.'s 'backyard.' In 1927, New York Times columnist Walter Lippman kicked it straightup when he wrote that the US had imperial claims over the Latin South:
"All the world thinks of the United States as an empire, except the people of the United States. ... We shrink from the word 'empire,' and insist that it should not be used to describe the dominion we exercise from Alaska to the Philippines, from Cuba to Panama, and beyond. ... [W]e control the foreign relations of all the Caribbean countries; not one of them could enter into serious relations abroad without our consent. We control their relations with each other. We exercise the power of life and death over their governments in that no government can survive if we refuse it recognition. We help in many of these countries to decide what they call their elections, and we do not hesitate, as we have done recently in Mexico, to tell them what kind of constitution we think they ought to have. Whatever we may choose to call it, this is what the world at large calls an empire, or at least an empire in the making."**
There it is.

And what of U.S. allies? We've just heard reports of how the U.S. acquired Pakistan as an 'ally' in the so-called 'War on Terror.' According to published reports, U.S. officials gripped up President-General Pervez Musharraf, and told him, "If you don't support us, we'll bomb Pakistan back into the stone age!"

Whoa! Now that's gangsta!

This is less a 'coalition of the willing', than a 'gang of the bullied.' The Mafia could learn from these dudes!

As Chavez might say, 'That sounds like the devil!'

Nor should we delude ourselves into thinking that this is a Bush thing, or a Republican thing.

No. It's an imperialist thing!

The late President Lyndon B. Johnson, during a political dispute with the Greek ambassador, told him, "F--- your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good ... If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament, or constitutions, he, his parliament and constitutions may not last very long."**
So this is not a new thing. It is an old thing, that people all around the world know about.

That old thing is imperialism. It is the U.S. exercising a choke-hold over much of the world for their resources.

It's this strong-arm, imperialist arrogance that resulted in U.S. President George W. Bush getting modest, polite applause, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez receiving prolonged applause, even a standing ovation by some delegates. They recognized that the Venezuelan leader was doing something that perhaps they wished they could do -- speak truth to power.

Empire always makes enemies, for oppression breeds resistance.

It has resulted in false allies, and real resistors.

The lessons of Rome are lost in this new age of arrogance.

**[Sources: Nieto, Clara. Masters of War: Latin America and U.S. Aggression (from the Cuban revolution Through the Clinton Years) (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003), p. 22.; Zepezauer, Mark. The CIA's Greatest Hits. (Tucson, AZ: Odinian Press, 1994), p. 33.]

Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

If we listen to the speech of Bush administration officials, or of vocal senators, it seems unavoidable that the Bush regime will unleash yet another military disaster against the Imamate in power in Tehran.

Readers of our work in the past certainly have read my earlier commentaries which suggested such an attack was all but imminent.

I am now of another opinion.

Iraq has so shattered the U.S. military capability, and so undermined its credibility in the Middle East, that it seems unlikely that the U.S. empire could muster up enough wherewithal to mount an effective campaign.

Also, any attack on Iran would only serve to further destabilize Iraq, where its 60% Shia majority would not sit idly by as their fellow Shias fall under the American gun.

The Iraqi armed resistance has been largely a Sunni affair, but surely an attack in Iran would bring armed Shias into the fray.

This, the U.S. neither wants nor needs.

There is another reason: good old American greed.

The big oil companies are licking their collective lips to try to get a taste of the black gold sitting there. Iran has the second highest proven oil reserves in the world, right after Saudi Arabia. Oil companies all around the world are slaking their thirst in the black lake, like ENI (Italy), Gasprom (Russia), Petronas (Malaysia), Shell (Dutch-UK), and Total (France).

Back when Dick Cheney still had his desk at Halliburton, he spoke out against US sanctions on Iran, calling them "unproductive." Similarly, when former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was going through his confirmation hearings, he noted: "differences with Iran need not preclude greater interaction, whether in commerce, or increased dialogue."

It is a rare day when Powell and Cheney agree on something, but this was just such a day.

And while Bush threw a monkey wrench into the corporate wrangling with his "axis of evil" rhetoric, Big Oil has its interests, which cannot be served if Iran turns into a bigger, bloodier Iraq. Business likes stability to extract its profits.

The latest grades on the Iraq adventure, coming from usually supportive sources like the Brookings Institution, are "F" for failure.
In the words of Philip H. Gordon, writing in a recent edition of *Foreign Affairs*:

"Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests."

While there is no love lost between the Iranians and the Americans, they each have their own interests, and neither is served by a military conflict at this time.

If Iraq were the bustling, bright, shiny Shangri-La that neocon warmongers promised, perhaps things would be different.

But it isn't.

By any sane measure, it is a disaster, getting worse, more deadly, more unstable by the day.

Even seemingly immortal empires reach their limits.

This is America's.

So, there will be harsh words.

There will be saber rattling.

But this is mere bombast.

After all is said and done, deals will be made, dollars will cross palms, baksheesh will open locked doors, and oil will flow.

It's nothing personal.

It's just business.

[Source,/i>: "U.S. Policy Towards Iran Takes a New Turn", Class Struggle (Aug-Sept. '06) [Iss. #52], pp. 18-24.]

Column Written. 9/14/06. Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The Power to the Peaceful Festival began humbly in 1999 as an international day of art and culture in support of political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. The name and date “911� were chosen to call attention to the emergency status of Mumia’s impending execution and drew roughly 6,000 people to the Mission’s Dolores Park. In 2000, PTTP expanded; showing support for all prisoners on death row, and speaking out against the exponential growth of the prison industrial complex. When the attacks of September 11th, 2001 occurred, the festival took on a new significance, serving both as a day of remembrance for the lives lost in the tragedy as well as a day in which Northern Californians called for and end to all bombing around the globe. The 2002 and 2003 events offered a space for healing and compassion for all the people killed or displaced by terrorism and the war on terrorism. By this time, the festival had outgrown Dolores Park, and was resituated in the lush mile acre of Speedway Meadows in Golden Gate Park, with over 20,000 people attending. In 2004 the festival was themed "Stand up and be Counted", encouraging people to get out and vote. Last year's festival, themed "Bring 'Em Home" emphasized that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home now and drew upwards of 50,000 attendees participating in a day of music, art and social justice.

Hasan Shakur: Presente September 7, 2006 On June 28, the state of Texas killed Hasan Shakur. Since executions resumed in the U.S. following a very brief hiatus in the 1970s, thousands of men and woman have been exiled to death row, hundreds executed, and the largest number killed in George Bush's home ground of Texas. Mumia speaks of Hasan, of his death, of his life, and reads Hasan's last poem.