Sat, 29 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Tue, 25 November 2008 Blames the Takers Not the Makers Comments[0] |
Tue, 25 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 23 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Mon, 17 November 2008 Mumia Interview with JR Block Report Radio re: Election/Obama www.blockreportradio.com Comments[1] |
Sat, 15 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 12 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 12 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 5 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 5 November 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 25 October 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 25 October 2008 Socialism for Some Comments[0] |
Wed, 22 October 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 22 October 2008 Comments[0] |
Mon, 20 October 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 8 October 2008 For millions of people, the economic crash and crisis seems almost mystical. What happened? Why did it happen? How did it happen? It seems more complex than it really is. That's because the corporate media is, more often than not, a contributor to confusion, rather than a source of clarity. The media thrives on conflict, chaos and controversy. That's why I found in the {British} left press what I've never seen in the corporate media: the text of a 2002 open letter from U.S. financier, Warren Buffett to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. Buffett, one of the richest people in the U.S., warned his shareholders to avoid 'derivatives'. which he described as "time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them, and the economic system." Buffett explained that derivatives are financial agreements for the exchange of money at some future date, which can be 20 years or more. What makes them dangerous is they're collateralized, or guaranteed, based on often faulty reference points. For example, derivatives may be traded saying in 10 years, GM stocks will double its 2004 value, and if it does in 2014, the instrument buyer will receive say, $10 million. In many cases, before the contract is ripe, not a penny has changed hands, yet some companies assigned these instruments a value, recorded them on their books as assets, when in fact, they had no real value. Remember Enron? On paper, they were rolling in dough. In fact, however, they were rolling in paper -- for, at any time, if they hit a snag, they had no real cash to cover corporate debts -- it was on the books, but not in the banks. Again, Buffett explained six years ago why these instruments should be avoided, writing to his shareholders: The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Knowledge of how dangerous they are has already permeated the electricity and gas businesses, in which the eruption of major troubles caused the use of derivatives to diminish dramatically. Elsewhere, however, the derivatives business continues to expand unchecked. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts.* In closing, Buffett warned, "derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that......are potentially lethal." (c) 10/8/08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Source: Labour & Trade Union Review (No. 191: Oct. 2008), pp.16-18 Comments[0] |
Wed, 8 October 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 8 October 2008 Ona Move! I greet you all who've gathered here today, at the 10th anniversary of the Founding of Jericho-the Movement to free all political prisoners -- and also to remember the life and work of an extraordinary sista -- the late, great, Safiya Bukhari. When she was here, all we could see was her in motion, working, leafleting, explaining, organizing -- all of these things -- ceaselessly! She was a quiet, intense, ubiquitous presence who seemed like a force of nature -- a cloud, a ray of summer sun, a force that would be there -- for quite a while, if not forever. But, in a blink, she was gone -- and only then did we recognize her strength, her iron will -- for with her gone, we felt a great void. And all of our movements suffered from her loss. But her passing shouldn't immobilize us; it should inspire us! For, though many of us thought of her as a Superwoman, she was, to quote Nietzsche, "Human, All Too Human." She laughed, she cried; she got angry, she was joyous; she got tired, she was energetic -- she was brilliant, and she made mistakes. But what made her remarkable was her commitment to all Political Prisoners (PP) and Prisoners of War (POW). On this, the 10th anniversary of its founding, let us all, in the spirit of Safiya, work to rebuild Jericho into a true social force. We owe it not just to Safiya Bukhari, but to ourselves. We owe it to our brothers and sisters in Bablyon's dungeons, like the MOVE 9, Jalil Muntaquin, Ruchell Magee, Russell 'Maroon' Shoatz, Hugo 'Yogi' Pinnell, Jamal Hart, and many other brothers and sistas, from various movements -like Leonard Peltier, the still -caged Puerto Rican independentistas -- and beyond. We must salute and join the efforts of Ashanti Alston and Kazi Toure, to help Jericho grow into a true liberation movement. Ona Move! Mumia Abu-Jamal (c) 10/7/08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Mon, 6 October 2008 With the passage of the Wall St. bailout bill, a major line has been crossed in U.S. economic and political history. The rulers can do anything, as long as they leaven it with fear. Just like the Iraq War authorization, with enough fear Congress will roll over, and say, "Uncle." And there was an avalanche of fear. The corporate media sold oceans of fear and dread, just as it sold facile patriotism, the Iraq War and the so-called "War on Terror." Using individual tales of fallen 401(k)s, or of a few firings, they successfully insinuated that unless the bailout passed, you might loseyour job, or your 401(k) might turn to dust. They ran the banner headlines of the drop of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and scared legislators into flipping their prior no votes into yea votes. Here's the deal. What we've seen from both major political parties is the greatest transfer of public wealth into private hands in history. Indeed, it is privatization run amok. It is a bailout, pure and simple, that the media and its masters want you to call a 'rescue', but who is rescued? You? C'mon. Does a government that facilitated the loss of millions of jobs; that scuttled public education; that gave away the public treasury to Wall St. bankers; that sold a long war based on lies; that allowed millions of homeowners to fall into foreclosures, give a damn about you? A government that cared about its people wouldn't have led them to this disaster. Think of it this way: the same government that fought for months to privatize social security, or in other words, to invest peoples' retirement funds into stocks, came up with this bailout plan. If the government was successful, some 40 million people (those 65 and over) would've been flat broke. What they couldn't do one way, they did another, for the economic hole that another trillion dollars will blow into the deficit spells danger to this project. If you elect a government based on its rhetoric of anti-government, of deregulation, of the 'blind hand of the market', you get economic carnage, crony capitalism, and misery for millions. Moreover, what you have is the privatization of the State, by its rental by private capital. For, in both houses of Congress, in both major parties, we find pols who have received tens of thousands of dollars from Wall St. Can anyone deny that this money donated to Congress was wasted? (By 'wasted', I mean to those who made those donations -- not to average Americans). As the saying goes, 'you get what you pay for.' It might also be said that you get what you vote for. (c) 10/4/08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Note: Check out www.opensecrets.org for data on Congress for sale. Comments[0] |
Wed, 1 October 2008 By the time you read this the $700 billion bailout will have been old news, one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. But it will not heal that which ails the nation as it trips and stumbles like a drunken sailor on shore leave. The reasons are simple. For the problems are systemic, built into the rapacious nature of the machinery humming all around us. The Rube Goldberg-like contraption of democratic forms at the service of the financial services industry is a bottomless maw, a gaping mouth that is never sated. Why was there no alarm when millions of people lost their homes to foreclosures made inevitable by variable mortgage rates? When millions lost manufacturing jobs to low paying service gigs? When living standards crumbled, and when take home pay fell to 1973 levels? Where was the alarm? There was no alarm -- for this was the 'blind hand of the market' at work, the leveling way of globalism, the new world order moving through, preparing the way for the triumph of capitalism uber alles. Few were the politicians who gave voice to this immense social suffering. Fewer still used their power to try to assuage their pain, for they too were drunk on the wine of globalism. But when the ripples spread upwards, from the foreclosed homes to the foreclosing banks -and from the banks to investment houses, Congress stirred from their drunken stupor, and rang alarm bells loudest. "It's an economic 9/11!", some bellowed; "It's a financial tsunami!", yelled others. When Americans were hoodwinked into ruinous sub-prime loans, and millions were faced with foreclosures, where was the alarm? More importantly, where was the help for those who were endangered? Nowhere. Nowhere. If they helped them the present economic crisis would've been mitigated. Instead, we're in a situation where a scam artist sets up shop in a street-corner, playing a fraudulent 3-card monty hustle, and along comes a cop. The cop, instead of rousting the scam artist, rifles the pockets of every passerby, and delivers the stolen loot to the scammer. The scam artist, of course, is the financial investment houses; the cop, of course, is Congress -- and you are the passerby, hustled and robbed by both of them. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote, 160 years ago, that the State was but the executive for capitalist. After what we are all seeing, who can doubt it? The Empire is crumbling. 10/1/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Wed, 1 October 2008 It's been over a year since two members of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU), Local 10, were harassed, beaten and busted while trying to call their union rep on a cell phone. The men, Aaron Harrison and Jason Ruffin, were beaten by maritime security and West Sacramento cops, for the fake offense of parking -- while Black. They are days away from trial in Yolo County, California on bogus "resisting arrest" charges, really cover charges--to cover up the fact that they were racially profiled for the high crimes and misdemeanor of being two young Black men, sitting in a car, on the docks. It would've been wrong, and just as vile, if it were 2 young guys who were unaffiliated or even unemployed. But the fact is, they are affiliated with a union with a long and proud history of resistance on behalf, not just of ILWU members, but to the working class, and social justice movements worldwide. And if the ILWU will fight for others, they certainly will fight for themselves! And they are rightfully demanding that all charges be dropped against their ILWU brothers Ruffin and Harrison --not some--all! They will come out in the hundreds for them -- because they understand the old saying, "An injury to one, is an injury to all!" For that -- for their fighting spirit -- for making unity a real part of the union -- they are to be commended. With unity like that unions can expand, and begin to transform this country from the casino and political whorehouse for Wall St. that it has become. Free Bros. Ruffin & Harrison! An Injury to One Is An Injury to All! 10/1/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Sat, 27 September 2008 If Congress has shown us anything, it is that when they are scared, they'll do anything. Seven years ago, in the twilight after 9/11 and in the wake of the anthrax attacks, Congress passed sweeping authorizations to the White House for war on a whim, and signed the so-called Patriot Act in record time. Some members admitted that they didn't even read the bill before voting "aye." One man, a prominent and even legendary congressman admitted, "We were afraid; they told us we had to pass the Patriot Act -- so we did it." Fear. That same dank, semi-sweet smell is radiating through the halls of Congress, thicker than the clouds of cigar smoke. This time it's financial fear. Politicians are once again dancing to the tune of others, to the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street, who need another bailout, bringing it to nearly a trillion bucks ($1,000,000,000,000!) in less than a month! And just like last time, Congress is being suckered into coughing up the public's money--quickly--or else! The Iraq War was a shell game that exploded into a debacle. Remember how the media initially tried to link anthrax attacks to Al Qaeda? When the source is nailed to an apparently mad American scientist (question: was he really mad, or a scientist following government orders?), it's too late. The damage is done. The bills are passed. Powers are transferred. Hundreds of billions are spent and wasted? Right? Congress has defied the common knowledge that we learn from our mistakes; because here we go again. The administration yells, "Boo!", and Congress answers, "How much do you want?" This is not to suggest (to paraphrase former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt) that the only thing to be feared is fear. There really is a disaster looming in the financial world. And Congress knew about it years ago (or certainly should have). Why else would they've passed the amended Bankruptcy Act several years ago? Why would they pass a bill making it harder to file bankruptcies--unless they saw a tidal wave of it coming down the river? They knew it was coming, as certainly as autumn follows summer. Congress is poised to, once again, transfer public wealth to private businesses, in a mad dash to re- wrap bad loans as new instruments, so that these securities could be peddled to new buyers. Who'll buy? Will Wall Street? Don't bet on it. Will you? Probably not. Perhaps China will buy up these new instruments --but don't hold your breath! 9/23/08 (c) Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Sat, 27 September 2008 In a matter of months, a new man will take the oath of office for the presidency. Whether he is the oldest in history, or the first Black one, of one thing we may be certain. He will be hobbled by a sea of red ink, and therefore bereft of most of the resources to bring his campaign promises to reality. For as the fires continue to rage throughout the financial markets, they will turn tax returns into smoke. Don't expect any of them to tell you this, but you can rest assured that all of them know it. And if the office of the Imperial presidency will be strapped for resources, what of average folks? As an old saying (sorta) goes, 'stuff rolls downhill.' As businesses tighten up, credit tightens up, and spending tightens up. This economy (as even the Mad Prince Bush has urged) relies on consumption, or shopping, to function. Anything that weakens this process has a whiplash effect throughout the economy. Earlier this year, American financier George Soros announced, shortly after the failure of the economic talks at Davos, Switzerland, that the U.S. economy has reached a new stage marking an end of the era. "The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom", Soros explained, adding, "It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency." Soros made these observations in January of 2008. Things have obviously gotten considerably worse since then. The economy is increasingly coming under state control, and social wealth is being aggregated to protect private capital. What created this crisis was rampant crony capitalism, and unless that is addressed by deep structural transformation, these problems will only worsen. That is virtually inevitable. Just as the White House saddled the next administration with disasters in foreign policy, they have effectively stolen the public purse. So, ultimately, it won't matter who gets elected, because he'll be too broke to do anything. 9/24/08 (c) Mumia Abu-Jamal [Source: Landler, Mark, "U.S. Policies Evoke Scorn at Davos: Fed Caved In to the Markets (Or Maybe it Dawdled), Critics Say, " New York Times, Thurs., Jan. 24, 2008, p.C9] Comments[0] |
Sat, 27 September 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 24 September 2008 Comments[0] |
Tue, 16 September 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 11 September 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 6 September 2008 For those who read court opinions, few can ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 Batson v. Kentucky decision. Essentially, it prohibited the State from removing Black jurors for racial reasons. It re-wrote the rules from the Swain v. Alabama ( 1965) case, where the court required systematic discrimination over a number of cases, over a period of years. Needless to say, such a challenge was clearly beyond the resources of most people, and relatively few were made, and even fewer successful. It is hard to resist the suspicion that this was merely judicial lip service to a principle that was easily ignored, in the breach. For, it took over a generation, over 20 years, for Swain to be overruled by Batson, and now, Batson is beginning to bear an eerie resemblance to its unworkable parentage, because courts have been loathe to grant relief, and have either created new rules, or simply ignored its dictates. We see this at work recently in a number of cases, among them Com. v. (Robert) Cook, WL 284060 (July 24, 2008). In this case, the DA used 74% of his strikes to remove 14 Black jurors. Incredibly, the Phila. Court of Common Pleas initially found that even this didn't constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. Later, it found a prima facie case, but ruled that the DA put forth sufficient race-neutral reasons for exclusion, and therefore not a violation of Batson. Recently, the PA Supreme Court agreed, even though the DA couldn't recall why he removed 2 Black jurors -- or, in other words, couldn't articulate a justification. Now remember -- Batson states that the improper removal of one juror violates the constitution. One -- not 14. But here's the kicker. The DA in Mr. Cook's case made a video training tape, where he taught his fellow prosecutors how to violateBatson - and how to lie about it to judges. but perhaps the then prosecutor, Jack McMahon, didn't need to work that hard, for courts would take up the slack. For where the DA can't remember a reason, the court will invent one. This is especially egregious in this case, for the man who wrote the opinion was the DA when McMahon made the tapes, but now sits as Chief Justice of the court. Can you spell 'conflict of interest?' Did he recuse himself? (What do you think?) For over a decade, Pennsylvania courts have painted McMahon as the bad guy, a kind of rogue prosecutor, and most of his convictions have been reversed (except Cook's), but McMahon wasn't, and never should've been, the issue. For he was simply describing the pattern and practice of the office, and training his colleagues in techniques used over years of trials. Mr. McMahon was putting into words what DAs did to get convictions. Does that mean his office sought a fair and impartial jury? In McMahon's words, " Well, that's ridiculous. You're not trying to get that." In fact, McMahon explained, their jobs were to get the most "unfair" jury possible. And, in many cases, that meant getting as few Blacks to serve on the jury as possible. Batson is as empty as Swain was, for if they don't want to give it up, any reason will do. They proclaim ideals of fairness that bear no relationship to the real process happening daily in courtrooms all across America. That would be, to quote McMahon, "ridiculous." -- (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Thu, 4 September 2008 As the national political conventions fade into the fog of our short-term memory, few items seem to have penetrated the made-for-TV presentations. We remember a few snippets (if we're lucky), a few disparate images, an emotional impression, perhaps. I'm willing to bet that few of us remember any meaningful discussion of the real economic problems faced by the U.S. That's because none of the major presidential candidates have even the remotest solutions to the economic problems plaguing the country, for both are ardent advocates of globalization -- and globalization ain't the solution -- it's the problem. For globalization emerged as a tool of U.S. economic power to dominate the world in the post-Cold War era. It was designed to open up foreign markets to U.S. and Western businesses, using the illusion of "free trade" to crowbar into local and national economies. Chalmers Johnson, in his 2000 book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of Empire (N.Y.: Owl Books) puts forth precisely this thesis with clarity and conviction. He illustrates how much of this could be traced to former president Richard Nixon's abolition of the post-World War Bretton Woods agreements, which pegged world currencies to the dollar, and the dollar to U.S. gold reserves. From that day on, economies became free floating, and whole new industry was born -- finance capital, or the business of speculating in, and profiting from, the moneys of others. Such a system, especially when wedded with the protectionism that prevailed in East Asia for some 50 years, created havoc around the world, where foreign wealth destabilizes local markets, for the quick buck. A byproduct of this new globalized economy was the hollowing out of American industries, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the failure of America's domestic economy. Johnson cites the work of City College of New York historian, Judith Stein, for examples of how U.S. industrial policy became a wrecking ball to Black communities both in the South and North, industries abroad was a keystone of U.S. strategic policy, and encouraging steel imports became a tool for maintaining vital alliances. The nation's leaders by and large ignored the resulting conflict between Cold War and domestic goals" { p.195}. While presidential candidates argue over taxes on capital gains, millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet. Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes, due to lost jobs or foreclosures. It is a globalized economy for capital, high finance, and speculation, but it can hardly be considered one for working people. For them, a hundred barriers bloom, making it harder than ever to chase jobs. Both major candidates are deaf to their plight, and thus are ill-disposed to address it, much less solve it. --(c) '08 maj [Source: Johnson's Blowback.; Goodman, Peter S., "U.S. and Global Economies Slipping in Unison," New York Times (Sunday), 8/24/08, pp.1, 12.] Comments[0] |
Wed, 3 September 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 31 August 2008 If you ever needed proof that politics is a kind of war, the next-day's selection of Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, to join the presidential campaign ticket of Sen. John McCain should erase all doubts. Putting aside the political positions of Palin, her choice was a transparent attempt to exploit disaffected women voters, who felt burned by the decision of the Democratic nominee to choose someone other than Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) for the number two spot. But transparent doesn't necessarily mean ineffective. For is Sen. Barack Obama's (D. -IL) campaign breaks new historic ground, Sen. McCain is trying to do so as well, by nominating the first GOP woman for the second chair in the nation's history. Notice I said 'first GOP woman' for the post, for Democrats will never forget how former Vice President Walter Mondale in June of 1984 named Geraldine Ferraro as his Vice Presidential pick. In November of that year, Ronald Reagan swept 49 states in a landslide. Now, McCain is no Reagan, and 2008 isn't 1984, but in the 24 years since then women have emerged as pivotal players in the elections. Will Palin prove helpful to McCain's chances? Time will tell. But, where Sen. Obama opted for a safe bet, Sen McCain opted for boldness. Is it bold enough - or too bold? Again, time will tell. Not since (the first) George Bush chose an obscure Senator, Dan Quayle, as his running mate has there been a greater stretch of years between the two sides of the ticket. Bush was 23 years older than Quayle; McCain is some 28 years older than Palin. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but McCain, at 72, ain't no spring chicken. Palin, at 44, could well become the next president of the United States, in the blink of an eye. (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Thu, 28 August 2008 From the maelstrom of ambition, politics and power, something new in symbol emerged from the Mile High City; Denver. In a national political convention that was, until then, undistinguished, few saw the political sleight-of-hand that led Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's bitterest rival, New York's Democratic Sen. Hillary R, Clinton to seize the moment to move the convention to suspend the rules, and vote by acclamation that Obama be named the Party's nominee for President. It was a political master-stroke, that left some, Black and white, Latino and Asian, male and female, in tears. In that one, deft move, history turned on a dime, and a new card entered the shifting deck of politics. As a youth, I recalled the thrill when the names of Channing Phillips, and Julian Bond, were entered into nomination, but these were symbolic acts, meant to garner less than a dozen votes (if that), with no possibility of more. This is a different thing altogether, and speaks to a singular moment in American politics. To be sure, a nomination is not an election, and the months to come promise to be hard fought and bitter indeed. But it is a nomination, and marks a moment that this country has never seen before. That is the essence of history. --(c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Thu, 28 August 2008 Although little discussed by major political figures, there is an acidic undertow in the eternal sea of politics. This subterranean issue is immigration, especially from Mexico, and the Latin South. Such voices suffuse the airwaves and the blogosphere, and can reach a fever pitch. At their core is a profound fear, of a dark, brown flood, washing away all that went before of America. As long as there has been a United States (and, in fact, a good while longer), such a fear has found expression in the American psyche. The first Congress rushed to pass a Naturalization Act that limited citizenship to white people. Law books are thick with precedents deciding who is (or isn't), white, and by such a judgment, millions of people were turned away from the U.S. because they hailed from India, China, Syria, Palestine, or even Turkey. Many such cases shifted like tectonic plates, using various definitions of whiteness, to accept, or reject, a given applicant. The point is, people that were determined nonwhite one year, could be found white a few years later, either by the shift of a vote, or the change of a judge. And, despite the Sturm und Drang, despite the hyperventilation on the net, today's browns are tomorrow's whites, for how could it be otherwise when millions of Latin Americans hail from Spain, Portugal, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula of Southern Europe. Of course, there are millions of Latin Americans who are descendants of African and Native American tribes. In the early 20th century, Italian, Jewish and similar immigrants were derided as threatening, foreign sources of a kind of contagion. Their languages and customs stirred up fear and profound xenophobia among American nativists. Indeed, as the movie "Gangs of New York" revealed, U.S. born Irish fought tooth and nail against immigrant Irish, proof, if an is needed, of the illusions of nationality. That fear that throbs beneath the radar of race and politics is long standing and cyclical. Like that of yore, this too will pass. (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Tue, 26 August 2008 The choice of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the Vice Presidential pick of Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL) and his presidential campaign challenges the central theme of the run, and suggests that the constant critique of inexperience is finding its target. For, no other analysis makes sense. Biden is a likable guy, but his past presidential runs have had all the oomph of a ham sandwich. He has been a Washington insider for several generations! He hails from the tiny state of Delaware -- with perhaps 3 electoral votes. As a state that has been safely in the Democratic column since 1992, it brings Obama no more that he needs to corral the electoral votes required to prevail. Also, Biden, for all of his vaunted foreign policy experience, voted for the Iraq War, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If Obama's star has risen because of his anti-Iraq War rhetoric, how does it help to choose a neo liberal hawk as his number two? More to the point, Biden doesn't close Obama's perilous Hillary-gap, that of white women amped about the opportunity to make history. That's why I wrongly suspected he'd select Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, to give added oomph to the campaign of change. But, in opting for Biden, Obama chooses not too much change (or more change than many Americans are able to tolerate). For Biden is as much a part of the Washington establishment as the Washington monument. Biden is a central character in the so-called Washington consensus, the brain trust that found Iraq war acceptable, that supported globalization, that lives off of the cream of corporate largess, while the average person lives a life of quiet desperation, in the hung for rent, for food, gas, for a better education. Change has never seemed so much the same. --(c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Thu, 21 August 2008 Ona Move! Thank you, Re-Create '68, for inviting me to join your efforts in Denver, to practice real democracy in the shadows of the Empire. When I think of the DNC, I'm reminded of the words of the great French writer, Voltaire, who, when speaking of the Holy Roman Empire, quipped it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee. If it were democratic why would it reject the voices of the people, who protest against its rule? If it were national, it wouldn't be driven by imperialist and globalist corporate interests. (Let us not forget William J. Clinton - perhaps the best known globalist (NAFTA?) in the country). And if it were truly a committee then anybody could join it - not just the political puppets of corporate power. In 1968, a Democratic mayor named Daley unleashed brutal and vicious cops on people who dared protest against the Democratic Party's support for the atrocities in Vietnam. Those young people were allegedly protected under the free speech 'guarantees' of the Constitution. Instead, they got the crap beat out them. It was imperial war then - and it's imperial war now, and only the names and faces have changed (some names - there's still a Mayor Daley in Chicago). In fact, things are more repressive today than they were in '68, for then, anti-war activists and students could at least march through the streets. They got their asses whipped, but at least they marched. Today, city governments have built cages for protest. So much for respect for the constitution! Now, as in LA 2000, you can get your ass whipped -- in a cage! That is what American democracy looks like in 2008. For another idea, look at what Pakistan did a few days ago. When the head-of-state violated the constitution, the people took to the streets. When he brought out the troops, they continued to protest. And they demanded impeachment! There, democracy forced a dictator to resign! There, democracy marches - ona move! Here, democracy is in cages, hidden in the boondocks, while alleged representatives sell their souls to the highest corporate bidder, to further the interests of imperial war. Here, politicians take the label of 'democrat', hire the cops to beat you, hire the media to slander you, so that they can send your children to war for oil pipelines, or to protect foreign despots and princes. Here, democracy is on life-support, while paid-for politicians give mouth to mouth to imperialism, rampant globalization and the ravaging of the poor. Our revered ancestor Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Your protests are in that great spirit of resistance. We only need more! Ona Move! Long Live John Africa! I thank you all! Mumia Abu-Jamal (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Mon, 18 August 2008 With news of the abrupt resignation of Pakistani general-cum-president, Pervez Musharraf, comes the stark realization that, in Islamabad, democracy means the power of the people over that of a dictator. It also means that Pakistanis so believe in their Constitution that they were willing to confront a military dictator who violated it. Musharraf, buffeted by the bellows of opposition, chose to switch, rather than fight. He knew that parliamentary opposition parties were intent on impeaching him for violation of the national constitution. They protested in the streets from the elites to the poor, and Musharraf threw them into jails. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated under suspicious circumstances. Some 7,000 miles away, another president violates the constitution at will, and breaks both statutory and international laws on torture, secret prisons, renditions, illegal detentions, wiretaps -- and on and on. But,of course, in this other democracy, the constitution is an historical artifact, held under special glass in a vacuum of a special gas, something to be worshipped from a distance, while violated daily. And the national legislature? They favor false stability over all things -- and when the party in opposition recently gained the majority, they immediately announced impeachment was "off the table." In a nation based on precedent, this means every president -- from now on- can feel free to violate the constitution at will. He - or she - can go to war on a whim - or lies. She may order her subordinates to torture, to kidnap, to break any law with impunity, and be sure that she is protected by precedent. The political classes have decided that the only avenue left for the people is every four years or so, during an election where millionaires are the candidates. In the meantime, anything goes. Right? In the US, democracy is a word that we throw out to justify armed invasions and illegal violations of international law -- it has no intrinsic meaning. In Pakistan, democracy is thriving and alive. It marched in the streets, it spoke in the courts, and it ran in the actions of Parliament, demanding impeachment. In democracy, it seems, Americans have a great deal to learn. --(c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Mon, 18 August 2008 The Foreign Policy of Fools It is impossible to look at recent US diplomacy without discovering that it is one based more on whim and fancy, than reason. That's because much of what passes for diplomacy and foreign policy is driven by the market, which is ultimately, the only true bipartisan feature of the nation's politics. The market buys politicians by the bushel, and when they are slick enough to gain office, they serve corporate interests first, second, and always. When you think about it, isn't this a perversity of democracy? In Raj Patel's brilliant new book, Stuffed & Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publ., 2008) we find a telling quotation from Robert Strauss, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, describing his relationship with the agricultural business giant, Archer Daniels Midland. Speaking of the company's former chairman, Strauss said, "Dwayne Andreas just owns me. But I mean that in a nice way" (pp.112-13). If you visited the nation's capital, you'd doubtless find hundreds of men and women who could quite effortlessly replace ADM with Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton ad infinitum. And it is precisely on behalf of such interests that foreign policy is made. It's not, and has never been, democracy. It's not freedom. It's none of these things. It's what's good for business. This may seem a hard truth, but it is the truth. The Iraq war was a pipe dream of the energy corporations, and opposed by more Americans than almost any war in generations. Who did the politicians listen to -- the people? -- or the corporations? The impact on US foreign policy and democracy couldn't be more pronounced, as shown by incumbent President Bush's recent visit to the Middle East. America's closest allies essentially gave him the brush-off, and one US-supported leader, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fuad Saniora, actually told Bush that he didn't have time to rap -- he had another, more important meeting -- with Hezbollah. Indeed, several weeks later Lebanon's Parliament voted to give more power to Hezbollah. That's one side-effect of US foreign policy; here's another. Virtually every elected forum in Pakistan has voted for the impeachment of Pakistan's so-called President (and US ally) Pervez Musharraf, the de facto dictator who locked up his opponents, tossed lawyers in jail, and removed Supreme Court judges who didn't vote his way. Who has America supported - the dictator? -- or the People? How's this supporting democracy? Over the border in Afghanistan, the US supports what may be called a narcocracy -- or a narco-state. The preferred US ally is a military junta (or dictatorship) which oppressed its people with violence and terror. We have nearly a century of examples to prove this all throughout Latin America. What kind of foreign policy is this but an imperial one? One designed to make millions of enemies, instead of a few isolated 'friends?' Mumia Abu-Jamal (c) 8/16/08 ========= Source: "Hezbollah Gains Power in Lebanon," USA Today, 8/13/08, 5A; Mr. Patel's book, Stuffed & Starved, is available at:www.mhpbooks.com Comments[0] |
Wed, 13 August 2008 The conflict between Russia and Georgia gives us some idea of things to come. It shows, more than conflicts in Eastern Europe, the extra costs of the Iraqi Imperial adventure. For America, though it would dearly love to intervene, hasn't the troops nor the material to engage the Russians on Georgia's behalf. Instead, it is relegated to the sidelines while French President Nicolas Sarkozy mediates a cease fire between the two sides, while the US issues press releases. The US media has, once again, echoed the administration line, which points Russians as the side which provoked the conflict. But most media can only do so if it ignores news reports from early August, which stated that Georgian troops attacked rebel fighters in South Ossetia, an impoverished mountainous region which won independence from Georgia after a bloody war in the early '90's. The Russian incursion also shows that the country, now flush with cash, is a far cry from the debtor nation of a decade ago. This was a demonstration as much to Georgia as it was to the world, of a new Russia, aggressive, armed and willing to enter its former territories of the Soviet era. Russian aggressiveness was made possible in part by its recent oil wealth. As a major oil power, it has profited from the rise in prices since the Iraq invasion, which sent prices soaring worldwide. The actions of one state influences the fate and actions of other states. And where was US outrage at military attacks on neighbors when Israel bombed Lebanon from coast to coast? When the Arab League begged the US to mediate peace between the two warring sides, America's Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, said what people in Lebanon were seeing weren't bombs, death and destruction, but "the birth pangs of democracy." But that was then -- this is now. Russia saw an opportunity, provided a justification; and seized it. Sound familiar? [Source: Schwirtz, Michael, "6 Die as Georgia Battles Rebel Group," Sun. New York Times, 8/3/08, p.12.] (c) 8/13/08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Sun, 10 August 2008 |
Sat, 9 August 2008 As we are on the eve of what may be the most powerful Black achievement in U.S. history, it would be well to examine the history of Black political leadership in this country. Most historical researchers look to the 1967 election of Carl Stokes, (1927-1996), as Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio as the emergence of black political power in major American cities. Many Blacks saw this as the beginning of an age of freedom for our people. From the 1960's to now, we most certainly have been disabused of that notion. For while black political leadership has surely been a source of pride, they have not been a source of black political power. That's because as agents of the States, they must defend the interests of the State, even when this conflicts with the interests of their people. For example, let's look at the experience of Mayor Stokes. Shortly after taking office, Stokes appointed former U.S. Army Lt.-General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. as his public safety director (a kind of super police chief). Gen. Davis, fresh from the rigors of Vietnam, ordered 30,000 rounds of hollow point (or dum-dum) bullets, items in violation of the laws of war. The object of his ire? The Cleveland branch of the Black Panther Party, and a local office of the National Committee to Combat Fascism, a Panther support group. In Aug. 1970, Gen. Davis resigned from the post, and criticized Mayor Stokes for not giving him sufficient support in his battle against radicals (like the Panthers). Stokes, the more politically adroit of the two, made Davis look bad for ordering ammo which violated the Geneva Conventions, but Stokes' personal papers revealed meetings between the two men, and their agreement on dum-dums as appropriate arms to be used against Panthers. Just because he was a Black mayor, didn't mean he wasn't dedicated to destroying a Black organization. Indeed, in times of Black uprising and mass discontent, Black mayors seem the perfect instrument of repression, for they dispel charges of racism. If Barack Obama wins the White House, it will be a considerable political achievement. It will be made possible only by the votes of millions of whites, most especially younger voters. This does not diminish such an achievement, it just sharpens the nature of it. But Black faces in high places does not freedom make. Power is far more than presence. It is the ability to meet people's political objectives of freedom, independence and material well-being. We are as far from those objectives as we were in 1967. 8/6/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal [Source: Nissim-Sabat, Ryan, "Panthers Set Up Shop in Cleveland," p.111; from Judson L. Jeffries, ed., COMRADES: Local History of the Black Panther Party (Blomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 89-144.] Comments[0] |
Sat, 9 August 2008 Several days ago, a majority of the US House of Representatives approved a resolution apologizing for slavery. The Senate has not yet moved on such a measure, and probably has no intention to do so. That it comes today, some 143 years after slavery was prohibited in the Constitution (notice I said 'prohibited', and not stopped, for historians and scholars have uncovered that the trade continued long thereafter, as an underground one, kind of like drugs today), gives us some idea of how deeply slavery still resides in American consciousness, and how empty such an apology is in light of all that has intervened in the century and a half since the cessation of the Civil War. It's like robbing someone, growing fat and rich on stolen wealth, and then passing that person on the street, who is now homeless, destitute and starving -- and tossing him a nickel. (Except, of course, in the case of the US House resolution, there isn't even a nickel!). As the great Black historian, J. A. Rogers taught us (especially in his Africa's Gift to America {1961} ) the wealth of America was founded on African slavery. One need look no further than the brilliant young W.E.B. DuBois, who published his doctoral thesis, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America: 1638-1870 (1896). For, citing contemporary sources, DuBois quoted the following: "The number of persons engaged in the slave - trade, and the amount of capital embarked on it, exceed our powers of calculation. The city of New York has been until of late {1862} the principal port of the world for this infamous trade..." [p. 179]. Centuries of slavery, the intentional destruction of families, tribes, and nations; ripping people asunder from their religions, their clans, their spouses, children, lands and all that they knew and loved -- for centuries -- to build and enrich a nation of strangers -- who enforced the practices of slavery for a hundred years after it's supposed abolition; only to consign the grandchildren of these people to the bitter half-lives of sub-par education, poor housing, second rate health care, under/employment, the cruelties of mass incarceration and a cynical judicial and political system that endlessly engages in white supremacy (without the labels).... Yeah, a political apology should just about cover that. 8/9/08 (c) Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Fri, 8 August 2008 The recent world tour of freshman Sen. Barack Obama, was, by any measure, a blockbuster. The senator's trek to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France, and England was a hit, from the word go. What was more impressive, however, were the graphics. The crowds (especially in Germany) were nothing if not spectacular. In political terms, the senator's campaign could hardly have asked for more. If it wouldn't seem to smarmy, perhaps they ought to give thanks to the Republican candidate, John McCain, who harped on Obama's lack of travel to Iraq for weeks. What happens? Obama goes to Iraq, and the U.S. supported Iraqi puppet, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, essentially endorses Obama's timetable to remove the bulk of US troops. McCain sought airtime in ethnic eateries, or geriatric golf greens. His comments attacking Obama seemed, by contrast, petulant and small. It was, quite frankly, stunning to see world leaders fall under his sway, as if the election were a mere formality. When he met Germany's Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, one could only flashback to lame duck President Bush's impolitic grasp of her shoulders, which forced her to grimace and gasp at the invasion of her personal and political space. Right wingers have, predictably, attacked his tour on numerous counts. "He thinks he's already president", some said. "He's arrogant", said others. Still others opined that he was 'inexperienced.' If his global tour had one flaw, it was that it was too successful, for it cast an unflattering light on the incumbent Bush Administration, which is, to put it lightly, far from popular in the world today. This, of course, also impacts McCain's campaign. Whether he helped his domestic campaign is questionable. What is not is the palpable hunger of many countries for a change from what has been. 7/27/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Tue, 5 August 2008 Comments[0] |
Tue, 5 August 2008 For most people, August 8th is merely a reference to the upcoming Beijing Olympics. Because of the sheer passage of time, most people have forgotten August 8th, 1978, when police in Philadelphia unleashed a blitzkrieg against members of the MOVE Organization. There, police fired hundreds of rounds into the house, fired tons of water, and after people were flushed from their house, several were beaten on the street. The cops who beat one man, Delbert Africa, for example, were ordered acquitted by a local judge, despite videotape! When MOVE members went to trial, 9 men and women were railroaded on dubious charges for killing a cop who almost certainly was the subject of so-called friendly fire. The city of Philadelphia made sure that this question couldn't be resolved by literally tearing down MOVE's house -- allegedly an active crime scene -- by nightfall. But none of this mattered, for there was a railroad in process, and 9 MOVE people were sent to state gulags for 30 to 100 years! Behind the attack on MOVE was certainly their radical lifestyle and opposition to state power, but there was also the dynamic of powerful real estate interests which wanted to expand their holdings to create a greater University City. For MOVE, August 8th isn't 30 years ago; it's yesterday. It's that close. They need your support to end this injustice! 8/4/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Tue, 5 August 2008 For Haitians, this coming August is a reminder of the kidnapping and disappearance of their brother, Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine, who was taken after a meeting with a US-Canadian human rights delegation visiting Haiti in mid-August, 2007. Pierre-Antoine was a co-founder of the Fondayson Trant Septenm, (Kreyol for September 30th Foundation), a group which assisted and supported the people who during (and especially after) the 1991 and 2004 coups against the democratically-elected president, Bertrand Aristide. Members of the Fondayson have been targeted for years. Around the world, activists have been organizing in Lovinsky's support, calling on various governments, from Haiti's President Rene Preval, Brazil (which forms the bulk of the United Nations forces in the country), Canada, the US and France, which organized the latest coup against Haitian democracy. When Pierre-Antoine was abducted, it forced other democracy and human rights activists in Haiti to go into hiding to avoid waves of state repression. Haiti has a proud and illustrious career on the world's stage, becoming the first free Black republic in the West after its 1804 revolution against France, which abolished slavery almost 70 years before the US Civil War spelled the end to human bondage in the US. Their freedom spread the bright lights of liberty and independence throughout the Caribbean, and when South America rose against Spain, it was to Haiti that their Liberator Simon Bolivar turned for support, arms, and a place to rest. For their bold struggle to bring Black freedom to the West, the US and Europe have unleashed an unholy war. France forced reparations (!) on Haiti -- an act unprecedented in history, forcing the victor in war to pay away it's wealth for almost a century. The US repeatedly invaded the country, brutalized its people, and imposed an assortment of puppet dictators to exploit the country for foreign benefit, and national impoverishment, for generations! Because Haiti's popularly elected Bertrand Aristide dared to oppose Haiti's rich elite, and tried to make things nominally better for its peasantry, US Marines forced him into exile. Because Lovinsky comes from the popular mass movements, he was snatched off the streets of Haiti a year ago, and the movement is building to bring him back home to his family, his community, and the popular movements of which he was a part. Haiti must never be forgotten, and neither must we forget Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine. [For petitions to circulate and sign, contact: womenstrike8m@servor101.com; or call: (215) 848-1120. www.globalwomenstrike.net] Or sign online:www.petitiononline.com/lovinsky/petition.html 7/30/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Wed, 23 July 2008 If TV channels are any measure, the US presidential elections,
now less than 4 months away, are the permanent stuff of headlines. If candidate A sneezes, it's breaking news; if candidate B hiccups, it's film at eleven. It's hardly worthy of headlines, but the beast [the media] must be fed. For far too many people this news overdose on the elections has bred a kind of passivity among millions, as they wait in front of TV screens and computers, like deer caught in headlights. What happened to anti-war protests? What happened to housing rights protestors? What happened to anti-FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) activists? People are dulled by the almost sure expectation that the Democrats will prevail in the next election due to the low ratings of the Republican Party, and its lame duck President George W. Bush. And those dull expectations are based upon the totally unfounded faith that a Democratic win of the White House really means an end to the war. (We might ask, which war?) Millions have apparently forgotten the bitter lessons from the 2006 mid term election, when Democrats prevailed in congressional elections, formed a slight majority in both houses, and proceeded to do -- nothing. Peace in Iraq? Off the table. Instead, like lemmings leaping off a cliff they voted for more and more billions for war. And what of the recently renewed FISA bill, which legalized the law-breaking of the Bush Administration -- and gave retroactive protection to phone an communications companies which violated prior law? FISA -- signed, sealed and delivered: and even the Democratic candidate (Sen. Barack Obama, D.IL), who blasted the measure, put his John Hancock on it, voting 'yes.' The great abolitionist (and women's right supporter), Frederick Douglass, supported Abraham Lincoln, yet that didn't stop him from protesting against him, when he moved too slowly, or not at all. Reading his criticisms are still biting, even though over a century has passed. And yet, his teaching remains just as relevant, for Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand." If people demand nothing, that is precisely what they will get. These lessons from history must teach us today, that protesters must PROTEST. Elections aren't endings -- they are beginnings -- and movements mustn't stop moving; they should protest more! 7/23/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Sun, 20 July 2008 Business Sense [col. writ. 7/20/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal If there is an overarching ideology at work in America today, it's the ubiquity of the market. On TV, stars shred every last fig-leaf of privacy to sell alleged 'reality.' Everyday folks join the shows in a realm of entertainment that might best be called "Indignity for Dollars." Politicians and press people are virtually for hire to the biggest corporate bidder. Thus politics and media news outlets become multi-billion dollar industries. Moreover, they become industries that feed on each other, as politicians buy millions of dollars worth of commercials, and of course, TV and cable outlets make big bucks by selling ads. Meanwhile, the everyday economy -- of food, fuel, housing and education -- goes from bad to worse. To the average network anchor who pulls in millions per year in fees, this is decidedly under the radar. His (or her) job is to protect the status quo. From this convergence we get the present political structure, where accepted political debate is that which doesn't ruffle the feathers of Wall Street or the corporate elite. When's the last time you've seen or read (in the corporate media) about the sub-prime lending debacle as a crime -- as truly the most premeditated of crimes designed to steal the wealth of millions? Not lately, I'd bet. It's a straight news story, no 'B' roll (or background video). It's usually an anchor reading a script, dry as day-old bread. Because it happens primarily to people who are Black and Latino, it's not a news leader nor headliner, even though it represents the biggest loss of Black wealth in history. According to the group United for a Fair Economy, such people lost between $164 and $213 billion dollars. If it weren't so tragic, it would remind one of the silly character popularized by comedian Mike Myers in his Austin Powers movies -- the nefarious Dr. Evil. (y'know -'$213 billion dollars!') But this is no joke. It is the root of the current foreclosure crisis, which in turn has sent the Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation),the federally insured mortgage assistance agencies to the brink of bankruptcy. How does the government respond to this crisis? It has thrown a life preserver to the agencies (and through them the banks and traders who hustled the sub-primes), and turned its back on the people who got swindled. Typical. What we are seeing is the perverse logic of the market, or in a tighter phrase, 'business sense.' Anything goes to get money, and if you fail, don't worry, for the fake free traders in government will bail you out, but only if you're big enough. --(c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Wed, 16 July 2008 [col. writ. 7/12/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal It should surprise no one that the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL), has evoked such fascination; not least because of his presumed outsider status as a man of (at least partial) African descent. It is this racial inheritance that accounts, to a considerable degree, for the fascination among both Blacks and whites posed by his candidacy. But, as ever in America, race often hides as much as it reveals. For, if Barack is an outsider to the American body politic because of his blackness, he is too an outsider to much of Black America precisely because of his direct East African heritage, one unleavened and unmitigated by the 500 years of Black bondage, resistance, repression and rebellion that is at the very heart of African-American experience and identity. Indeed, it is this very outsider stance that allows so many of us, Black and white, to project upon him so much of what has been encapsulated in his ubiquitous campaign of 'hope' and 'change.' In this sense, Obama is a double-talker, and as such he has had to work out his own way into what being Black in America really means. His somewhat unique outsider status reminds us of the uniqueness of another great outsider who became the consummate insider -- Napoleon Bonaparte. Consider this; imagine a man born on the Italian-speaking island of Corsica in 1789; by the time he was 30 he was named First Consul (or dictator) of France. In 5 years he was emperor of a vast French empire. My point isn't to malign Obama as a dictator- in-waiting. It's to show an example of how an outsider (with incredible ambition) becomes the ultimate insider. When Napoleon was a boy in military school in France, his fellow students ridiculed him and made fun of him - not because of height (as might be expected) -- but because of his Corsican accent, which marked him as an outsider. Napoleon eventually became more French than the French, and today, by virtue of his brilliance, his French nationalism and military exploits in the field during the erection of the empire, he is regarded as one of the greatest Frenchmen who've ever lived. Obama as a boy in Indonesia was made fun of because of his kinky hair (not to mention his slightly darker complexion) which marked him as an outsider. What does that mean in his formation of a sense of self? We don't really know, but as Sigmund Freud reminds us, 'the child is father to the man.' When Obama speaks (especially in his post-primary incarnation) one hears a profound nationalism. He has spoken in the past of an American history that many of us know has never actually existed. It has forced him to denounce a man he once knew, admired and respected (here I speak, of course, of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright) for making whites uncomfortable by speaking ugly truths about American history, at home and abroad. Is this but the necessary shifts occasioned by the nasty game of politics? Or is it the road occasioned by one being an outsider, making that transition to the consummate insider? Time will tell. --(c) '8 maj Comments[0] |
Wed, 9 July 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 3 July 2008 They called him "Bushead", and he is no longer on death row. That's only because "Bushead" is no more. He died on Sunday, June 29, 2008, in the early evening, after a long and valiant struggle against the ravages of Hepatitis C, which had wreaked havoc on his liver. For those who have known him, they are undoubtedly sad at his passing, but as they remember him, perhaps they can't help but snicker, for "Bushead" was a man gifted with a priceless sense of humor. His jests and jokes were so keen, so sharp, that men often laughed until they cried, their sides gripped in delicious pain. On the prison rosters he was recorded as Billy Brooks, but he was born Larry Shavers on April 1, 1958. On the mean streets of Philadelphia, and throughout the meaner halls of state and county prisons, he was known simply as Bushead. Relatively short in height, of once stocky build, Bushead was, simply put, a hell raiser. He took no stuff from anyone, and would fight at the drop of a hat. His fiery temper would send him to Death Row in the '80's when he got into a conflict with a prisoner in Philadelphia county prison over a bathrobe. When they fought over possession of knife, he gained control, and he stabbed the other young man, which would've normally resulted in a voluntary manslaughter, or third degree homicide conviction, except the deceased was the son of a prominent state prison warden. The notoriety meant the State would seek and receive the death sentence against him. Stories about him abound from all who knew him. One fellow on Death Row recalled: "Once, me and Bushead was in the yard, and I was braiding his hair. A guard came out and said I had to stop doing this because it violated the rules. Bushead told the guard,'If you don't stop that dumb stuff, I'm gonna ball your old ass up!' Later, when we was at work, Bushead found a rule book, strolled into the office, and said, 'Find that rule in the rule book!' The Sgt. had to admit there wasn't such a rule -- and Bushead hollered, 'I told ya'll! I told ya'll!" That was Bushead; outspoken, loud, earthy, and wildly funny. When he was housed at the state prison in Pittsburgh, he participated in the Scared Straight program, and spoke to young people coming into the prison, deeply impressing upon them the emptiness and loss of imprisonment. He did all he could to convince them to avoid this fate. Bushead was 50 years old. He lived from the streets to the prison, a high octane, high energy, high volume life. His illness, which led to his long and tortuous suffering, was utterly debilitating. Hi memory among many prisoners, will evoke smiles, and hearty laughter, despite the manner of his passing. (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Wed, 2 July 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 26 June 2008 Throughout the presidential primaries, while politicians amassed millions from both corporate and private sources, how many times did you hear the sub-prime lending disaster discussed? Over a million homeowners, most of them Black or brown, faced foreclosures and the loss of their most valuable financial asset, and most politicians passed over it in relative silence, while they begged or lied for votes. How can this be, unless they, like most pols, were the paid for property of corporations? When the sub-prime mess hit, in a matter of hours, the Federal Reserve Board's head, Ben Bernanke, slipped $200 billion in government guarantees to keep the mortgage loan industry afloat. Thus, the U.S. government used its power to back the banks' hustling of what were essentially junk bonds. A fifth of a trillion bucks to back those who ripped off a million people with loans designed to fail; and for those who got ripped off, nothing. Indeed, the only politician who was attacking this practice was New York's former Attorney General (and later Governor), Eliot Spitzer. But once caught in the web of a hooker's scandal, this threat melted away into mist. These sub-prime loans, saddled with balloon-like expanded repayment rates, were designed to fail (at least for the borrowers), and these legalized hustles were steered at an astonishing rate, at 73% of high-income African-Americans and Hispanic families. Among white high-income homeowners, only 17% were recipients of sub-primes. Should we chalk this up to coincidence? This Greed Riot has sent shivers throughout the economy, not just in America, but overseas as well, because foreign companies and governments invested in these junk mortgage bonds. The foreclosure crisis has slowed housing construction; loans are almost impossible to get, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates banks and investors will lose $1 trillion. But for nearly a million families their losses will be infinitely greater. They lose their dreams, their homes, and perhaps their very families. How many divorces have been spawned by these foreclosures? How many families have been split asunder? How many suicides? These things do not fall on the cold pages of a business ledger. These non economic losses can be traced to pure, unmitigated greed of bankers, investment houses, and the willing blindness of a government addicted to deregulation. (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Sun, 22 June 2008 There is an adage in Anglo-American law that says, "The King can do no wrong," a reflection of the power of kings stemming from the conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066. It remains in American law under the doctrine called sovereign immunity, which protects the government from suit by its citizens. But beyond the law there is the practice of politicians of bowing to the power of the president, no matter what he (or someday, she) does. There is no question that Richard Nixon broke laws during the Watergate scandal. Nor is there serious question that Ronald Reagan violated the Boland Amendment, which outlawed aid to the contras in Nicaragua. When the present Bush administration wiretapped the phone calls of Americans it violated the F.I.S.A. (or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law, which required secret court orders to proceed. Yet, in none of these cases were presidents charged for violating the laws. Indeed, when Nixon was threatened with impeachment, his handpicked successor, Gerald Ford, issued a pardon before any charges were even made! There's an important lesson here, in that the presidents known as the toughest on crime, didn't want that toughness when it came to their crimes. Historians have demonstrated that high ranking congressmen worked out a nice, neat deal with Nixon, sparing him the embarrassment of impeachment if he resigned. Centuries after a revolution, in the name of democracy , and it's still 'the king can do no wrong.' Or as Richard Nixon put it, "When the President does it, that makes it legal." Clearly, if George W. Bush has studied anything, it's Nixon. From secret prisons to legalized torture; from renditions abroad to wiretaps at home; from illegal wars to ruinous occupations, crimes - as in violations of both U.S. and International laws - have become presidential prerogatives. And Congress has become legislative enablers, by not only taking impeachment off the table, but by rewriting laws to make crimes legal, and also granting retroactive immunity to those corporate criminals which aided and abetted the White House in its crime sprees. When the White House urged companies to quietly violate FISA by spying on Americans' communications, both sides knew the law was being violated. If this involved poor folks, conspiracy charges would've been leveled, and the conspirators would've been cast into prison. But in the recent FISA amendments, a majority of the members of the House voted to grant immunity to phone companies. How would you like that kind of juice? Well, you can't have it. You'd have to be a multi-million (or billion) dollar corporation...or a president. 6/21/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Thu, 19 June 2008 As millions ready themselves for the general elections in November, it takes some effort to summon up the elections of 2 years ago. In 2006, mid-term elections brought dramatic change to the Congress, and seemed to presage a change in the nation's direction as well. Those mid-terms centered around the public's demand and hunger for an end to the Iraq war and illegal occupation, and was an electoral expression of that deep national discontent. Well, it's been two years now, and the Congress has just voted another $165 billion (that's right, with a b) to fund the Iraq war. It's been two years - and the Iraq mess is still a scar on the national psyche. It's now become the property of both major political parties -Democrats and Republicans. It's the very nature of politics that politicians regularly betray the interests of those who have voted for them. They'll take the votes, yes: but they don't answer to the people. As the saying goes, 'They answer to a higher power' - the military industrial complex. If we think back to the primaries, candidates of both parties who ran on genuine anti-war platforms had to contend with waves of media ridicule. Think about how the corporate media treated either Dennis Kucinich (D. OH), or Ron Paul (R. TX), or former congressman, Mike Gravel. All were depicted as little better than boobs, objects of an occasional sidebar, but never seriously presented as candidates of 'presidential timber.' And, as Marshall McLuhan (1991-1980) said, 'the medium is the message.' The media, hired guns for their corporate bosses, served their interest by coverage which slanted the perceptions of millions, that only those they thought electable were 'serious' candidates. 'Only so-and-so can raise enough money', most reporters opined, selling candidates as surely as they sold soap. These processes have produced the very hour we now live in; a time of peril and disaster. What kind of democracy can such a process engender? And now, 1/2 year from another election, we will hear a plethora of promises, spun with the best commercials that money can buy. We will march into the booth, our eyes shiny with anticipation. In a matter of months, or years, we will look back at the ashes of promises aborted, and wonder how we keep doing it again, and again, and again. 6/19/08 (c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Fri, 13 June 2008 For more information on POCC: Block Report Radio you could log on to www.blockreportradio.com Comments[0] |
Fri, 13 June 2008 As the price of gasoline soars, Americans are forced to think in ways that they haven't in generations: to drive, or not to drive? Do they park the car and opt for public transportation? Or do they try to sell the ole gas guzzler (better known as SUVs) for a tiny foreign import? For most of the latter 20th century, a car was seen as an American right, more sacred than freedom of the press, for while many may've felt that the functions of a free press was problematic, the freedom to drive (with relatively cheap gas) was part of the national psyche. For 50 years suburbs sprang up in the hinterlands of major American cities -- white rings around blacker and bleaker urban centers. Those mass migrations were made possible by the car, and affordable gas. Those days are fast receding into yesteryear as gas prices break records almost daily. And despite the sound and fury echoing from the nation's Capitol, or various presidential campaigns, the simple truth is that U.S. politicians have little impact on this phenomenon. That's because oil is an international resource, affected by global economic and political forces beyond American control. It's also true that the toxic tensions released by the Iraq war have destabilized the region so much that a mere rumor can send prices spiking, feeding speculation, which profits from his cycle. In 2003, before bombing even began over Baghdad, oil was selling at nearly $30 a barrel. It's now over $135 a barrel. More than a natural resource, oil has become a financial asset in itself, like stocks, bonds, real estate or gold. And like many assets, as long as it appreciates in value it will attract speculators who trade in oil futures, and in the absence of any real regulation, will push the price as far as the market will bear (and, after all, isn't that what a 'free market' means?). One industry observer, Daniel Yergin, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted, "People are hedging against a falling dollar by buying oil and that hits the price. The most important thing that could be done would be for the dollar to rebound. And that is nothing you can legislate. " * Moreover, some industry experts have written that speculation hikes prices from 20 to 40%! That means that the price of a barrel of oil is really closer to $54 than $135, and thus that the price per gallon should be closer to $2.70! So, the next time you coast into a gas station, and your jaw tightens as you notice the latest gas prices, remember why. That price was spiked by the twin forces of the Iraq war, and the government policy of deregulation. Those who expect politicians to ease this problem are dreaming, as shown by the rejection of a recent bill seeking a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the Senate. Exxon, for example, made more money in the last several quarters than any corporation in the history of business. Will the politicians who accepted millions from the likes of them choke this golden goose? I think not. So, get angry at the goof who just cut you off, or stole your parking space. Get angry at the car full of boys who are banging the bass so loudly the highway is bouncing. Get angry at everybody, except the system that made this situation inevitable. --(c) '08 maj [*Source: Mouawad, Jad, "Oil Prices Are Up and Politicians Are Angry, Yawn.," New York Times, May 11, 2008, Sun., p.2 (Week in Review section). ] Comments[0] |
Tue, 10 June 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 7 June 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 5 June 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 1 June 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 28 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 24 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 22 May 2008 Comments[1] |
Sat, 17 May 2008 [col. writ. 5/17/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal As the presidential race inches toward November, it brings with it all kinds of detritus, flushed from the hidden psyche of millions. Politicians are used to representing the hopes of others: they're just as used to dashing those hopes against the hard walls of reality. For millions of women, the first real chance of a female president has excited their hopes, some pending for generations. For millions of Black men and women, the first real chance of a Black president had excited their hopes, some deeply held for nearly a century. For most people, however, politics is the art of unrequited hope, for politicians promise the moon, and deliver star dust. There is, after all, a reason why millions of Americans are so cynical about politics, for they've learned that cynicism from the bitter well of experience. But consider these voices drawn from those we call the white working class; middle-aged Al and Evelyn Landsberg; he, a lifelong Republican who recently switched political parties, and was quoted as telling a Washington Post reporter recently that Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would get his vote, although she wasn't great. Clinton was, however, a good deal better than her opponent, "you know, uh Embowa. He'd take this country right down the tubes." His wife, Evelyn, cited data she gleaned from emails, saying, "From what I can tell, if he (Embowa?} becomes president he will refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and we will leave Iraq unprepared." She added, "I'm not going to sit at home and let that happen."* It's amazing to think that, several generations ago, millions of Blacks were denied the right to vote through bogus literacy tests, while millions of ignorant whites voted unhindered, by virtue of birthright. Politics is often seen and interpreted as, well, 'the will of the people.' It is often described in lofty judicial decisions and thick political science texts as democracy in action--the People choosing their Government, and ultimately, the American 'way of life.' Yet, how much is simply unbridled ignorance? How much is simply blind racial hatred? How much is just plain silliness? And how much has this been force fed by the corporate media, which can almost beat a dead horse back to life? If the role of the media is merely to reinforce and buttress our collective ignorance, what can democracy mean? When ratings become the end-all, be-all of the corporate media, how can it be anything but a mad dash to a mass echo chamber, where ignorance is multiplied into mega ignorance, and wars become inevitable through rumor? --(c) '08 maj [*Source: Saslow, Eli, "Not Just Talking About Change: The Democrats have registered more than a million new voters in the last seven primary states, "Wash. Post, May 5-11, 2008 [Nat'l Wkly. Ed.], p.16] Comments[0] |
Thu, 15 May 2008 [col. writ. 5/15/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal As America limps toward the November elections, fatigued by the exertions of war, numb to the lofty promises of politicians, in dread of the economic dragons growling on the horizon, the role of Congress could not be more irrelevant. That's one of the reasons that GOP presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R. Ariz.) has called for a change in congressional tradition, to one which allows the President to answer questions before the body. It reminded me of the March 25, 2008 vote in the British House of Commons, where members of Parliament debated whether to open an official inquiry into the reasons for starting the war. Not surprisingly, the vote lost, largely along Party lines, as the ruling Labour members voted to protect their party, which sponsored and spearheaded the Iraq War, and avoided a formal inquiry. Most, but not all. A dozen Labour backbenchers bolted party ranks to express their support for an inquiry, in terms rarely heard on this side of the Atlantic. And even though the inquiry vote failed by some 50 votes, it marked a period of questioning of the sort that should actually precede wars, not follow them. Robert Marshall-Andrews, a Labour member of parliament (MP) from Medway, brought up the infamous Downing Street memo, which told uncomfortable truths about the then coming war. Marshall-Andrews announced: "The first is what was revealed in the Downing street memo of July 2002, reported by The Sunday (London) Times in an unusual contribution to the debate. It was recorded that at that meeting in Downing street in July 2002 Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of secret intelligence or 'C', as he was known, had reported from America to the War Cabinet,....that: 'There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'" According to the then Foreign Secretary, "Bush has made up his mind to take military action.... But the case was thin." Ultimately, of course, it didn't matter. Who needs evidence, when you can make it up? M. P. Marshall-Andrews then spoke words that will never be heard in the U.S. Congress: "The real point of the debate, and of any inquiry that may be held, is not to learn lessons so that we do not make mistakes again. That is one reason, but I want an inquiry to be held into the Iraq war because I want those responsible to be brought to the book and to justice. If necessary, they should be brought to international justice, but I want us to be the ones who bring them to it." At this point, Conservative Party member, Humphrey Malins, of Woking, joined in: "I support the honorable and learned gentleman's argument with all the strength that I can muster, but may I remind him gently that some Opposition Members at the time took the view that he is expressing? I was one of those who resigned as a shadow Minister because of the illegal war. Does he agree that, when we look back at our parliamentary lives, we may well regard the decision to go to war with Iraq as the worst and most horrible decision that this Parliament has made?" Labourite Marshall-Andrews would heartily agree, and he would add: "Indeed, beside that decision, all our other achievements and deficiencies -- and there have been many of both--pale into insignificance. The circumstances and repercussions of what we did then have swept well past Iraq. As Tacitus noted, one victory can create a thousand enemies, and that is precisely what happened." These are some of just a few voices in the Parliament of the junior partner in the Iraq debacle. When should we expect such voices in the U.S. Congress? 2025? --(c) '08 maj {Source: Labour & Trade Union Review, (No. 187: May 2008), pp.4-5. [www.ltireview.com].] Comments[0] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 9 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Mon, 5 May 2008 The Politics of Denunciation Comments[0] |
Sat, 3 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 3 May 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 1 May 2008 Who's Uncle is Really Crazy? "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens have come home to roost... Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant... An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised..." Rev. Wright's words on how America has treated her darker citizens were also termed "controversial." These are some of them: "And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. when it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, and put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America-that's in the Bible - for killing innocent people." On the role of the U.S. government overseas, Wright preached the following: "Governments lie. The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment... The government lied about bombing Cambodia...The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North... The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9-11-01 and operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie." I don't know about you, but I've not heard one statement that isn't categorically, historically, and absolutely true. As my good country buddy, Bro. Willie might ask, "What the problem is?" Obama's response, served up to placate the fascistic right, sounded like an apology: "I reject outright statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue." The problem isn't that Rev. Wright was crazy, but that he spoke the cold, sober truth. That's the problem. The US nationalists demand that anyone who states such truths be 'denounced.' When will a candidate emerge who will denounce imperialism, and the endless ruinous wars against much of the Third World, for the profit of corporations here? If this election is any measure, no time soon. Who's uncle is really crazy? Uncle Jeremiah or Uncle Sam? --(c) '08 maj Comments[0] |
Thu, 1 May 2008 ILWU Strikes for Peace Comments[0] |
Sat, 26 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Mon, 21 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 17 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 17 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 13 April 2008 [col. writ 4/12/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Our national politics is largely the stuff of illusion. It is the stuff of spin. It is the manipulation of images to pluck the heartstrings, or to stoke the furnaces of emotion. Any emotion will do: love, hate, fear, all are but instruments upon which politicians will play to move people to the polls, to get them either to vote for them, or against their opponents. What all of this really means in the day-to-day lives of many of the voters, is actually quite minimal, for politicians don't really care about what voters want; they care about those who can afford them -- those who pay them well for their services. In essence, politics is a business, and voters are merely bare necessities. We see this in the vast, obscene amounts of money raised for virtually all political offices. At bottom, politics is the elevation of symbol over substance, for it seeks to create the illusion of change, while leaving unchanged the essential power relations at the lower levels of society. Politics is great for changing forms, but it stumbles at changing essentials. We've seen that in South Africa, where the faces of those in political power have changed dramatically -- in its starkest sense, from palest white to darkest black -- and yet those who hold financial power, immense wealth, and thus, those who control politicians, remain predominantly white -- and remain in ultimate control. Conversely, for the Black urban and rural poor, their lives are almost as hopeless as before, for what has changed is that a Black middle class has arisen into their political ascendency. Here in the U.S., we often boast about Blacks having more and more political offices in local, state and federal government posts. Yet, if this is so (and it is) why are our lives so miserable, so threatened, so endangered? Why are our communities so dysfunctional? Why are Black urban schools so under-performing? Why are Black and Latino homeowners the bulk of folks losing their homes to foreclosures? Why are so many of our lives nightmares of survival in the midst of plenty? How is it that more Black politicians ultimately means less Black political power? It's because black-faced politicians can best advance the aims of white economic supremacy. For they are but employees of white wealth, who do the duty of those who can afford them. That great French observer of American politics, Alexis de Tocqueville, aptly noted, "Than politics the American citizen knows no higher profession -- for it is the most lucrative." Black politicians confuse us with their presence -- not their power. For power is the ability to make change in the conditions of people's lives (for the better), to represent their interests, and to gain resources for the betterment of Black people and their communities. Presence is merely being there, being there in the place of a white politician, doing essentially nothing differently. --(c) '08 maj The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia! PLEASE CONTACT: International Concerned Family & Friends of MAJ P.O. Box 19709 Philadelphia, PA 19143 Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180 E-mail - icffmaj@aol.com AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES! Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at: Mumia Abu-Jamal AM 8335 SCI-Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370 WE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM CAN *NOT* REST!! Submitted by: Sis. Marpessa Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing icffmaj@aol.com! [Check out Mumia's latest: *WE WANT FREEDOM: A Life in the Black Panther Party*, from South End Press (http://www.southendpress.org); Ph. #1-800-533-8478.] "When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die. And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about justice." - Mumia Abu-Jamal For additional information and to order Mumia's new book We Want Freedom, visit: southendpress.org Check out Mumia's NEW book:"Faith of Our Fathers: An Examination of the Spiritual Life of African and African-American People" at www.africanworld.com Comments[0] |
Sat, 5 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 5 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 5 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 3 April 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 28 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 27 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 27 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 22 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 21 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 20 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 The recent quasi-controversy over the comments made by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of the United Church of Christ, to which Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL), both belongs and attends, has shown us how limited, and how narrow, is this new politics peddled by the freshman Senator from Chicago. Although first popularized via the web, the Reverend's comments caused Sen. Obama to say he was "appalled" by them, and he has repudiated such remarks as "offensive." Just what were these comments? As far as I've heard, they were that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D.NY) has had a political advantage because she's white; that she was raised in a family of means (especially when contrasted with Obama's upbringing); and she was never called a nigger. Sounds objectively true to me. Rev. Wright's other remarks were that the country was built on racism, is run by rich white people, and that the events of 9/11 was a direct reaction to US foreign policy. Again -- true enough. And while we can see how such truths might cause discomfort to American nationalists, can we not also agree that they are truths? Consider, would Sen. Clinton be where she is if she were born in a Black female body? Or if she were born to a single mother in the projects? As for the nation, it may be too simplistic to say it was built on racism, but was surely built on racial slavery, from which its wealth was built. And who runs America, if not the super rich white elites? Who doesn't know that politicians are puppets of corporate and inherited wealth? And while Blacks of wealth and means certainly are able to exercise unprecedented influence, we would be insane to believe that they 'run' this country. Oprah, Bob Johnson and Bill Cosby are indeed wealthy; but they have influence, not power. The limits of Cosby's power was shown when he tried to purchase the TV network, NBC, years ago. His offer received a corporate smirk. And Oprah's wealth, while remarkable, pales in comparison to the holdings of men like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet. Would George W. Bush be president today if he were named Jorje Guillermo Arbusto, and Mexican-American? (Not unless Jorje, Sr. was a multimillionaire!) In his ambition to become America's first Black president, Obama is in a race to prove how Black he isn't; even to denouncing a man he has considered his mentor. As one who has experienced the Black church from the inside, politics and social commentary are rarely far from the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Martin L. King spoke of politics, war, racism, economics, and social justice all across America. His fair-weather friends betrayed him, and the press condemned his remarks as "inappropriate", "unpatriotic", and "controversial." Rev. Dr. King said the US was "the greatest purveyor of violence" on earth, and that the Vietnam War was illegitimate and unjust. Would Sen. Obama be denouncing these words, as the white press, and many civil rights figures did, in 1967? Are they "inflammatory?" Only to politics based on white, corporate comfort uber alles (above all)" only to a politics that ignores Black pain, and distorts Black history; only to a politics pitched more to the status quo, than to real change. Politics is ultimately about more than winning elections; it's about principles; it's about being true to one's self, and honoring one's ancestors; it's about speaking truth to power. It can't just be about change, because every change ain't for the better! - maj 3/15/08 (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal Comments[0] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 8 March 2008  Comments[0] |
Wed, 5 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 2 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 1 March 2008 Comments[0] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 Comments[1] |
Sat, 23 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 22 February 2008  Comments[0] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 16 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 9 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 8 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 6 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 6 February 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 27 January 2008 Comments[1] |
Fri, 25 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 24 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 20 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 18 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 17 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 13 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Fri, 11 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Thu, 10 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Sun, 6 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Wed, 2 January 2008 Comments[0] |
Sat, 29 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Fri, 28 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Sat, 22 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Thu, 20 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Thu, 20 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Sat, 15 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Thu, 13 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Sun, 9 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Sat, 8 December 2007 Mumia's columns need to be published as broadly as possible to inspire progressive movement and help call attention to his case. The campaign to kill Mumia is in full swing and we need you to please contact as many publications and information outlets as you possibly can to run Mumia's commentaries (on-line and especially off-line)!! The only requirements are that you run them unedited, with every word including copyright information intact, and send a copy of the publication to Mumia and/or ICFFMAJ. THANK YOU!!! Keep updated by reading Action Alerts at http://www.mumia.org, http://www.onamove.com and their links. Comments[0] |
Sat, 8 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Tue, 4 December 2007 Comments[0] |
Sun, 2 December 2007 Comments[0] |
