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] |
