Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Essays

Nader: "He Can't be Too Black"

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:43:00 GMT

Saving Bankers While Home Owners Fail

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:46:00 GMT

The Crimes of Kings

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:38:00 GMT

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

A Hollow Victory

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:32:00 GMT
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

Block Report Radio: Boots interviews Mumia Abu-Jamal

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:07:00 GMT
For more information on POCC: Block Report Radio you could log on to www.blockreportradio.com

Real Road Rage

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:02:00 GMT
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). ]

Hillary's Homecoming

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:44:00 GMT

Is Obama's Victory Ours?

Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:47:00 GMT

M1 of POCC & Dead Prez Interviews Mumia Abu-Jamal

Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:44:00 GMT

When Votes Matter and When They Didn't

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 02:42:00 GMT

Blues for Bill Tilley

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:52:00 GMT

When the State Attacks

Sun, 25 May 2008 00:50:00 GMT

When Empire Fades

Thu, 22 May 2008 17:15:00 GMT

The Politics of Ignorance and Fear

Sat, 17 May 2008 17:00:00 GMT
[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]

A Congress That is More Than a Rubber Stamp

Thu, 15 May 2008 16:59:00 GMT
[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].]

Thoughts on Africa (for Elombe Brath)

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:38:00 GMT

Philadelphia: The City of Brotherly Thugs

Fri, 9 May 2008 18:37:00 GMT

The Politics of Denunciation

Mon, 5 May 2008 18:31:00 GMT

The Politics of Denunciation
Mumia Abu-Jamal
[col. writ. 4/30/08] (c) '08

When was the last time that you saw a politician asked to denounce a religious leader with whom he or she was associated?

For generations, we have seen a succession of presidents, from both political parties, under the wing of the Rev. Billy Graham.

Historians have recently reported that Graham and his Oval Office acolytes have spoken in racist and xenophobic terms about both Blacks and Jews.

The Rev. Graham recently was lionized as the personal spiritual advisor to presidents, in times of stress, pressure, war and peace.

Neither he, nor his presidential prayer pals have ever been damned or denounced for profoundly racist speech in the palaces of the powerful.

Now, as a Black man begins to climb the greased pole of American political power, he is asked to either defend or denounce a man whom he has known and admired for a generation.

Barack Obama opted for the latter.

He has all but jettisoned the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright from the close circle to the cold periphery of the political realm.

Whence comes this demand for denunciation?

If we are honest, it arises from the specter of white fear, that demand of Black people a higher standard than that of their own.

For what reason has Jeremiah Wright been jettisoned - if not for his proud, open Blackness?

Rev. Wright is an advocate of Black Liberation Theology - a school of Black religious thought that sees the hand of God in the liberation of Black people from bondage.

White Americans are so used to hearing Blacks speak with quiet and pacific tones, that when a man expresses himself fully, as did Rev. Wright, they are, quite frankly, frightened.

(What do they fear, that Blacks will dare remember?)

Through the corporate media talking heads, they demanded that Obama "distance himself" from that scary, Black (uppity?) preacher - and do it fast.

Yowza, boss.

The politics of denunciation is, ultimately, the politics of betrayal. It asks - no - it demands that the candidate denounce those whom the White Nation opposes.

If they don't, then they are presumed to be a supporter of that person, or ideology.

Meanwhile, white conservative preachers can say virtually anything, and calls for denunciation are swallowed into silence.

Former presidential candidate, and Republican supporter, Rev. Pat Robertson, called for the killing of a foreign head of state! (I speak here of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.)

Did the White House denounce this prominent religious supporter? Not to my knowledge (in fact, it would be rather difficult, given the current regime's failed coup d'etat against him).

But Barack, the son of a continental African, cannot be seen calling for Black Liberation; for he seeks not to become leader of the Black Nations, but the world's leading White Nation.

Once again, Blacks, and their deep indigenous concerns, are pushed to the periphery. Their free expression ain't free, for there is a cost.

When I saw his latest dis' of the Rev. Dr. Wright, I thought of a question posed in the Bible, in the words of Jesus of Nazareth speaking to his disciples (in Matthew 16:26): For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?...

What would you do to get a job?
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: Holy Bible, St. Matthew (King James Version.]

Globalization and its Discontents

Sat, 3 May 2008 18:22:00 GMT

The Black Panther Party: The Reign of Youth

Sat, 3 May 2008 18:21:00 GMT

Who's Uncle is Really Crazy?

Thu, 1 May 2008 18:24:00 GMT

Who's Uncle is Really Crazy?
Mumia Abu-Jamal
[col. writ. 5/1/08 (c) '08

When conservative hit-shows first began raising questions about Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the Democratic candidate essentially played down the relationship, suggesting that Wright was like the 'crazy uncle' common to many families.

Due to the pressure of the 24 hour news cycle, we have come a long way from there, to here.

While Sen. Obama no longer refers to him in this way, it's more than worthwhile to examine just what the Rev. Wright did say, which set off the belfry of mad bats who hold forth from the dark universe of right wing radio and TV commentators.

Among the Rev. Wright's "controversial" comments were these:

"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

ILWU Strikes for Peace West Coast Port Shutdown

Thu, 1 May 2008 18:15:00 GMT

ILWU Strikes for Peace
Mumia Abu-Jamal
[col./speech writ. 4/25/08] (c) '08

It should surprise no one that the mighty ILWU (International Longshoreman & Warehouse Union) is in the forefront of this 8-hour dock shutdown for peace.

The ILWU's proud and illustrious history is one of supporting peoples' movements, for life, freedom, workers solidarity and immigration rights, worldwide!

They remember the stirring words of Eugene V. Debs (socialist labor leader and 1900 presidential candidate), who said, almost a century ago "It is the master class that declares war. It is the subject class that fights the battles." For these words, and his antiwar sentiments, Debs was cast into prison.

That the ILWU is echoing his words today is proof of their power and truth - 100 years later!

It also proves how little we have moved from the dawn of the 20th century, to the dawn of the 21st; for war is still a tool of imperial power, to fuel corporate wealth and global domination.

Who can deny that this is a war for oil?

Who can deny that this is and illegal occupation (that is, in violation of international law), more concerned with what's under the earth, than for the millions living in dread upon it?

For Iraq may not've been a barrel of laughs before the US invasion and occupation, but it's surely hell now.

And Congress, like Nero amidst the fires of Rome, does little more than twiddle its thumbs.

It's labor power that makes the wheels go round - and this powerful demonstration of the denial of labor for May Day, for peace and an end to occupation in Iraq is workers' solidarity made real.

Kudos to the ILWU!

For Labor Power, Peace and anti-Imperialism!

Sean Bell's 2nd Slaying

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:45:00 GMT

Pennsylvania The Keystone State?

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:44:00 GMT

None Kissing Cousins

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:43:00 GMT

Food Wars

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:42:00 GMT

Symbols vs. Substance

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:01:00 GMT
[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

Changeless Change: The Law of Politics

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:20:00 GMT

When Courts Go Wrong

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:19:00 GMT

POCC Interview with Mumia About his Recent Ruling

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 16:17:00 GMT

What Post-Racial America?

Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:16:00 GMT

When International Law Ain't Law

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:39:00 GMT

Beyond Spitzer: The Abyss of Business

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:37:00 GMT

Of Crazy Uncles and Kings

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:36:00 GMT

Of Power and Empire

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:28:00 GMT

Five Years of Hell

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:24:00 GMT

Why the War Will Not Soon End

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:23:00 GMT

The Politician and the Preacher

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:21:00 GMT
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

Whore Nation

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:27:00 GMT

Law Maker = Law Breaker: The Spitzer Drama

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:26:00 GMT

Parole Time for the MOVE 9

Sun, 9 Mar 2008 02:20:00 GMT

NAFTA Democrats

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 02:48:00 GMT

Prisonhouse of Nations

Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:48:00 GMT

Reporters or Imperial Scribes

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:44:00 GMT

Cash Culture

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:45:00 GMT

'W' in Africa, Part II

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:00 GMT

Support Professor Griff

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:50:00 GMT

Fidel's Resignation

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:49:00 GMT

The Black Vote: Lessons from History

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:48:00 GMT

The Costs of Crime War Myths

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:47:00 GMT

If It's African It's Tribal

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:46:00 GMT

Media Trips

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:42:00 GMT

Frederick Douglass: The Freedom of Some or the Freedom of All

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:40:00 GMT

Between Rap and Reggae

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:39:00 GMT

The Politics to Come

Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:13:00 GMT

Brave New World

Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:35:00 GMT

The Radical Alternative

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:58:00 GMT

Project Niggerization

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:56:00 GMT

With a Brutha like This

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:55:00 GMT

The Corporate Elections

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:54:00 GMT

The Economics of Gangsters

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:53:00 GMT

Praying with the Devil

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:13:00 GMT

It Ain't the Voting That Counts, It's the Counting

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:06:00 GMT

The Madness Called Home, Kenya

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:28:00 GMT

America's Martin and Martin's America

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:27:00 GMT

The Oops Factor

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:25:00 GMT

Killing 'em Softly

Mon, 7 Jan 2008 03:24:00 GMT

Crimes of State

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 03:23:00 GMT

Pakistan After Bhutto

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:22:00 GMT

When News Ain't New

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:21:00 GMT

The Politics of Fear

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:51:00 GMT

The Power of Black Music

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:41:00 GMT

Families (Unknown Enemies)

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:40:00 GMT

The Idea of a Black President

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:02:00 GMT

Baseball Over Terrorism?

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:01:00 GMT

The CIA Destroys Tapes, What is New?

Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:28:00 GMT

Omaha Night

Sun, 9 Dec 2007 01:36:00 GMT
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.

Teaching False History and Its Consequences

Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:26:00 GMT

Iran: An Imminent Nuclear Threat?

Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:34:00 GMT

The War Against Ourselves

Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:00:00 GMT

The Obama Factor (and women's vote as a factor)

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:19:00 GMT

Echoes of a Freedom Struggle: A book Review of Muhammad Ahmad's "We Will Return in the Whirlwind Black Organizations 1960-1975"

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:16:00 GMT

Dictators in the Empire's Employ

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:20:00 GMT

Jane Jackson Presente

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:49:00 GMT

Guiness Records: Massacre or Suicide

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:02:00 GMT

The Magic Money Machine

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:59:00 GMT

Soft Dictatorships and the Misrule of Law

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:57:00 GMT

Dictatorship of "Freedom"

Sun, 4 Nov 2007 04:38:00 GMT

What I Meant to Say Was

Sun, 4 Nov 2007 01:53:00 GMT

Planning to Fail

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:58:00 GMT
Planning to Fail
col. writ. 10/18/07

It's hard to look at American society today, and not see how everything seems to be a plan for failure.

One would be hard-pressed to find a society which seems to see education as little more than a business, which only the well-to-do can begin to afford.

There are a plethora of loans, even some provided by the feds, but fewer and fewer grants.

When students are lucky enough to find loans, they are saddled with red oceans of debt, some to the tune of over $100,000; the costs, not just of admissions, tuition, books and fees; but of housing, clothing, transport, food, and entertainment for 4 years --more, if one seeks a professional, or graduate degree!

How is it that education is fast becoming a pipe dream for millions of young people in the U.S., and is free just 90 miles away from American soil?

In Cuba, education is free from kindergarten to college. Indeed, just recently a score of Americans (and hundreds of other nationalities) graduated from Medical School there, with full doctoral degrees.

Unlike their fellow students to the North, these men and women earned their degrees with no crippling debts!

Their whole education -- 6 years of med school -- was free, courtesy of Cuban generosity.

How can a tiny, relatively poor island nation do so well, with such meager resources, and the richest nation on Earth -- the wealthiest empire since Rome -- can't manage to do as well?

It isn't that the U.S. can't do so; it's that it doesn't want to -- or feel the need to.

If there's a shortage of doctors (or any other professionals here), they'll just outsource the gigs to another country, or revise immigration rules to import talent.

That Cuba does this, in the face of its own dire economic straits, imposed by the U.S. through the Embargo, for generations -- borders on the miraculous.

And that's the kicker; one sees students as a cash cow to fuel the banking and education industries; the other sees human knowledge as the property of all humanity, and not a gain to the storehouse of human resources.

When students emerged from Cuba's med schools, their medical degrees in hand, they were only given one small kind of debt -- to use their skills to help the poor amongst us.

Boy -- what an idea!

(c) '07 maj

Wars Without End -- Again

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:47:00 GMT
!Wars Without End -- Again!
{speech writ. 10/14/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Ona Move! LLJA!

Thanx for your invitation for me to speak to you today!

For millions of people (I among them) the Nov. 2006 elections marked a major turning point in U.S. politics -- or so we thought.

The elections had one, single motivation: to end the Iraq war.

Well, the elections changed majorities in Congress. But did it change U.S. policy?

Nope.

Before the numbers of votes could all be counted, you heard the backtracking: "we must be cautious"; "if we leave now, there'd be chaos", etc., etc.

Now, Democrats say openly that no significant troop withdrawal can come before 2012- 5 more years!

And then, don't you think you'll hear an additional 5 or 10 years?

War isn't a Democratic or Republican project - it is a corporate one, where both corporate parties play the game laid down by their sponsors and contributors.

Here we see the convergence between neo liberals and neo conservatives, who join in their service to corporate power. Their 'fight' (if it can be called that) is over who can represent their bosses best (and, by this, I don't mean voters!)

But, people, working through popular movements, can change how politicians think, speak, and even act.

If you put your trust in the same politicians, you'll achieve the same result - disappointment, frustration and yes -- betrayal.

What kind of democracy is it if you vote for peace, only to get more war?

But the answer isn't less protests -- it's more protests!

To finally bring peace, the People must bring it!

Thank you!
Ona Move!

The Law That Promotes Punishment

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:47:00 GMT
The Law That Promotes Punishment (Instead of Education)
[col. writ. 10/21/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

It's been 5 years since the No Child Left Behind law was put into place, and around the nation, it has left wreckage in its wake.

That's because, like many such laws pushed by the paranoid right wind, what a law is called has little (or nothing) to do with what a law does.

Calling it No Child Left Behind gave it the benign imagery of caring for children and their futures. It's like the so-called Patriot Act -- an act, to be sure, but one so patently unconstitutional in its evisceration of the 4th Amendment (and other constitutional provisions) that no true patriot could ever support it.

While the imagery of a catchy title might've helped in it's selling, the lesser known side of the law is now about to kick in -- and it threatens to transform public schools into private businesses, transfer them into charter schools, allow state takeovers -- or close them.

This law is of a piece from the right's central array of evils -- an attack on the very idea of public education, and a fixation with privatizing everything.

Who will suffer more from these transformations? School staffs, or children?

For No Child Left Behind was but another example of business uber alles, and the poor be damned.

Can the same states that made boot camps into squalid hellholes of torture for children, somehow make schools pristine halls of learning? Indeed, in many states, the 'business' of boot camping children has been tried, and while it has made money, it has been the epicenter of abuse, mistreatment, and actually, state-subsidized child abuse.

So much for the business model.

The law was both a punishment for the poor, and a cold, calculating recognition that some children have no real place in the post-industrial society being built, and thus, were to be left behind.

Uneducated, left to the tender mercies of the streets, to stew in a hopeless funk, or to feed the cavernous maw of prison...how left behind can you get?

According to a recent report in the New York Times, Florida faces the closing of 441 schools; Baltimore has 9 schools on the failure list; in New York State, 77 schools face so-called restructuring; and in California, over 1,000 schools have been designated chronic failures.*

By the year 2014, all of the schools located in California's poorest districts, some 6,063 schools, are expected to be on that list!

No Child Left Behind was designed to fail, to deliver the coup de-grace to public education, and also to disable or destroy the hated teacher's unions.

It was a law designed to fail, not to solve a pressing social problem.

The question shouldn't be whether this new (and supposedly 'improved') Congress should tinker with the law.

Congress should repeal it.

(c) '07 maj
{*Source: Schemo, Diana Jean, "Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standard," New York Times, Tues., Oct. 16, 2007, pp A1, A21.}

Beat Camp

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:30:00 GMT

The Aura of Inevitability

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:29:00 GMT

Beaten on the Docks

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:28:00 GMT

Iran -- Rumors of War?

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 02:18:00 GMT
{col. writ. 10/7/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

There are forces in this country and in this world that are expending energy to ensure war with Iran.

That's right -- Iran.

Many of those forces were the same ones that suckered the nation into Iraq, with media - megaphoned fear- mongering.

Iran has become the feared bogeyman of the hour; the latest in the simplistic media projection of 'bad guy.'

And, just as in Iraq, the media's demonization of the leader becomes reason to destroy, attack, bomb, and occupy a nation.

"He's a bad guy!" "He's a ruthless dictator!"

Doesn't this sound familiar?

Famed scholar and linguist, Noam Chomsky, interviewed recently by radio host David Barsamian, gives a powerful example of the impact of media upon us. Chomps explained:

Take a classic example, Germany. Under the Weimar Republic, Germany was the most civilized country in the world, the leader in the sciences and the arts. Within two or three years it had been turned into a country of raving maniacs by extensive propaganda--which, incidentally, was explicitly borrowed from Anglo-American commercial propaganda. And it worked. It frightened Germans. They thought they were defending themselves against the Jews, against the Bolsheviks. And you know what happened next. {Fr.: Barsamian, David, Targeting Iran (San Francisco, Ca.: Open Media/City Lights, 2007),p.47}

And speaking of brutal, ruthless dictators, the U.S. backed Shah of Iran used his secret police, Savak, to drench the earth with blood and terror. But, to the U.S., he was cool.

Has the nation learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?

The U.S. Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution supporting the partition of Iraq.

It makes a certain diabolical sense; the U.S. bombed it, invaded it, overthrew its government, and replaced it with puppets of their liking -- all this, not now being successful, why not shatter it into threes?

This argument is now being made, not by rabid neo cons, but by so-called 'liberal' Democrats.

Why? Because imperialism is a truly bipartisan American project.

The newest target may well be Iran, despite the fact that if Iran is indeed more influential today, it's because of the U.S. invasion, occupation, and near destruction of Iraq.

In sum, Iran was strengthened by Iraq's fall.

The U.S. has a Middle East policy driven by fear and ignorance.

It is reactive, emotional, and driven by faith --not reason.

Those are dangerous forces to justify war, and unworthy of a nation that considers itself a superpower.

Super in power, but petty in reasoning.

--(c) '07 maj

When the Union Becomes Management

Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:20:00 GMT
{col. writ. 10/3/07} (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The recent contract approval by the executive committee of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and General Motors (GM) marks a turning point in relations between labor and management.

It may also mark the transition between unions as a representative of workers, and management as a representative for the owners.

That's because, if the UAW members agree, the union will (at least partially ) administer almost $30 billion bucks in pension funds.

If the general membership signs on, it lifts a $50 billion burden from the backs of GM managers, and places the lion's share of it on the back of the union.

In one fell swoop, the union performs the function of GM management!

For GM, this is a masterstroke; for the UAW, it may prove a trap, or the first step of the end of unions, or at least pensions as we know it.

The trade union movement came of age by becoming the laborer's institution, and the de facto representative of its workers. In the earlier half of the 20th century, it was clear that labor and capital were antagonists, not allies, for each represented differing and conflicting interests.

In other words, the union didn't do managements job, nor did the business manage the union.

In his masterwork, Capital, Marx noted how workers are divided into functions and hierarchies that serve capitals interests.

Marx wrote:
Manufacture...develops a hierarchy of labour powers, to which there corresponds a scale of wages. If, on the one hand, the individual labourers are appropriated and annexed for life by a limited function; on the other hand, the various operations of the hierarchy are parceled out among the labourers according to both their natural and their acquired capabilities. (Moscow, 1958, p.349)

Now, labor performs a manufacturing function -- the partial administration of pension funds.

What happens when too many hands dip into the till?

What happens when GM models don't sell as expected?

What happens when the union becomes just another institution of management?

--(c) '07 maj

Before and Beyond Jena

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:07:00 GMT
[col. writ. 9/29/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Until several weeks ago, the name 'Jena' was doubtless unfamiliar to millions of people in the U.S., until the demonstrations around the case of the Jena 6 brought attention to the small Louisiana town.

But, before the case occurred, the name became known to hundreds (if not thousands) of young Blacks, who came to know, quite intimately, that Jena was just another word for racism, rape, violence, and humiliation.

After the ravages of Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and its surrounding areas, hundreds of imprisoned people were transported to the Jena Juvenile Justice Center, in Jena, Louisiana, a place that became their nightmare. The place was so medieval and tortuous in its treatment of young people, that it was severely criticized by a federal judge as a place where people were "treated as if they walked on all fours," before it was closed.

According to published reports put out by the groups Human Rights Watch and the NAACP-Legal Defense Fund, people arriving at JJJC were beaten, brutalized, harassed, and subjected to racist taunts by staff members there. This was after it was reopened in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

They were denied things allegedly required by the Constitution, like grievance forms, calls to family, or pen and paper.

They were treated like they were al-Qaeda, and this was Guantanamo -- this, in the country, and in many cases, the state of their births.

The Human Rights Watch and NAACP-LDF have tried to interest state officials in a meaningful investigation, but this has led to little more than lip service.

Although federal officials have reportedly announced their intention to investigate, it is equally doubtful that any real, serious investigation will emerge.

As for the media (except for some segments of the Black press), Jena was little more than a 1 day, or at best, a 3-day story.

Their coverage, such as it was, was little more than a platform to allow local Jenites to exclaim how they weren't racists, and that nooses are just 'pranks' used by youngins' to have a little fun.

As ever, there has been little attempt to look backwards into recent history, and now that the last Jena 6 accused is out on bail, little looking to the future as well.

How is it possible in the U.S. today, for people wearing KKK robes to always intone, "I'm not a racist?"

When viewing or listening to locals there, it was almost impossible to not hear the echoes of 50 years ago, when civil rights actions began to stir the South, that 'the problem' was, once again, "outside agitators", like the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They were the problem, not 'our darkeys.'

Only with the not-too-subtle death threats from Klan-related groups have we seen that the nooses from the so-called 'white tree', which sparked much of the Jena phenomenon, was far more than boys being boys.

The Jena case didn't start with 6 young schoolboys.

It won't end with them.

The case stems from something deep and abiding in the American heart and soul.

And it lives in every state of the union -not just in Louisiana.

This shouldn't be the end of the movement; but the spark for more.

--(c) '07 maj

{Source: "First youth, then hurricane evacuees were tortured by Jena prison guards," San Francisco Bay View, Sept. 19, 2007, pp. 1,5,7,9. For more info: naacpldf.org or hrw.org

Congress: Government of Which People?

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:00:00 GMT

The World of Blackwater: Private Wars for Public Monies

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:32:00 GMT

The Latest Battle in the War Against the Poor

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:31:00 GMT

The Death of the Pursuit of a Dream: A House

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:29:00 GMT

Pakistan: The Democracy of Boots, Bullets, and Brutality

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:28:00 GMT

The People Against Congress

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:26:00 GMT

The 911 Moment

Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:25:00 GMT
The 9-11 Moment
[col. writ. 9/9/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

It is true that 9-11 changed everything, but not quite the way that the Bush Regime intended.

It changed how many in the world perceived the U.S., for sure, but the U.S. response to 9-11 has done more to change such perceptions.

As the ashes began to cool from the embers of what was once the World Trade Center, allies and enemies alike expressed solidarity with the U.S., and shed tears of sympathy.

What a difference six years makes.

What was once solidarity has cooled to bitter toleration, and barely disguised anger.

Remember the so-called "Coalition of the Willing?"

It has dwindled in number and fervor.

Politicians know enough to talk the talk, but precious few are willing to walk that walk.

Even America's staunchest ally - England - has marched its troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, under cover of darkness.

In many of the countries where leaders signed up to join the U.S. crusade, their people have voted them out of office, and sent some leaders into political retirement.

Such are the wages of democracy.
At home, the war has deepened divisions not seen since the ravages of the Vietnam War.

And the President? Not only are his numbers in the basement, but he's pulling his party into the cellar with him.

His latest ploy, to buy time by pointing to the Gen. (David) Petraeus report, neatly juxtaposes the power relations between civilians and military. Civilian leaders, in a democracy, aren't supposed to do what military leaders says; the military is supposed to obey their civilian political leaders.

But, since 9-11, the nation has fled so far, so fast, from any real semblance of democracy, that listening to the most profoundly undemocratic institution in the American republic seems almost normal.

If the Bush regime has changed anything, it has changed this.

A war begun in bad faith, cannot end well.

From the day George W. Bush announced his "shock and awe" bombing runs over Baghdad, we have seen nothing but a long train of disasters.

The Gen. Petraeus report may do quite a few things, but it won't change that.

--(c) '07 maj

The Best? Federer

Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:23:00 GMT

The Best? Federer
[col. writ. 9/9/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Folks know that I'm a tennis fan, as evinced by my pieces on the magnificent Williams sisters, who have singularly transformed the game.

But, in men's tennis, there's one name that equates to the best in the game: Swiss player Roger Federer.

He played an outstanding game against 20-year old Serbian phenom, Novak Djokovic.

Djokovic stunned the tennis world recently when he beat three of the top players of the game; Andy Roddick, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer, just weeks before the U.S. Open.

Federer would best the young Serb in straight sets, and by so doing, set a standard not seen since Big Bill Tilden won consecutive titles in the U.S. championships, back in the 1920's.

In the first 2 sets, Federer actually came from behind to win. In the second set, Djokovic led him by 4 games to 1; only to see Federer utilize his serve to inch his way back by tying him and then dominating in the second tie break.

Truly, Roger Federer is a Master of this game.

With moves described as ballet-like, 11 aces, and a brutal return game, Federer outclassed a game young opponent by scores of 7-8, 7-6, and 6-4.

In the world of sport, this 12-time grand slam champion is in a class of one.

--(c) '07 maj

Fear and Hatred in the Apple

Sat, 8 Sep 2007 23:21:00 GMT

Massacre?' -- 'What Massacre?' -- Haditha
[col. writ. 9/6/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The calendar has shed weeks and many months since the name, Haditha, stirred so many people in Iraq, the US, and around the world.

Within days of its announcement came the horror of recognition; it reminded us all of the carnage of Vietnam's My Lai massacre, where women, babies, dogs and chickens shared the sleep of death in a tropical ditch.

It differed from Vietnam only in its scope, and number, but, in every sense of which the word 'massacre' may be used, this was it.

For here, in the Iraqi city of Haditha, women, children, old men and young, were swept away from life, by the automatic weapons fire of American guns, held in American hands; an apparent retaliation for an IED blast which killed an American soldier several hours earlier.

Here, US soldiers entered Iraqi homes on free fire, unloading on anything moving, or not moving quickly enough.

Well, the US military justice system has finished its work, and -- voila! -- except for a few letters of censure (the military form of reprimand) no one has been punished for the Haditha Massacre.

Indeed, one might ask, albeit facetiously, 'What massacre?' For it seems that no US military rules of engagement were violated, and if US military judges are to be believed, no war crimes occurred.

Of the dead Iraqi women and children? They were not victims of American killers in uniform; they were victims of the nebulous 'fog of war.'

In war, stuff happens.

Let's move on.

One military prosecutor said he declined to punish the soldiers further because to do so would "harm unit morale."

That's US justice, for all the world to see - the 'law' of the Occupier.

If ever we engaged in the illusion that the puppets in government in Iraq were little more than U.S. stringed mannequins, their silence on Haditha is evidence enough.

Dozens of Iraqi civilians were slain in their homes, under their beds, while holding their babies, unarmed, and the US Imperial Government issues its final ruling.

'No harm, no foul.'

We are looking at something that will mark the world for a generation; it is the poisoning of Imperialism, which warps the mind and stains the soul with the semblance of superiority.

'Massacre?' 'What massacre?'

Only some Arabs were killed.

To the Empire, they don't count.

(c) '07 maj

Massacre?' -- 'What Massacre?' -- Haditha

Sat, 8 Sep 2007 23:20:00 GMT

For Kenneth Foster? No More Death Row...

Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:17:00 GMT

For Kenneth Foster: No More Death Row
[col. writ. 9/1/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

To the state of Texas that sought to extinguish his life, his name is Kenneth Foster; to many of his friends and supporters, his name is Haramia KiNasser, an eloquent and outspoken activist.

By whatever name that he may be known, he is now a past denizen of Texas Death Row, for, by a governor's order of commutation, he is on Death Row no more.

That he was ever on Death Row at all is due more to a quirk of Texas law, than anything else.

For the judge, the defense and the DA agree that Foster hurt no one; he shot no one; he killed no one; nor did he rob anyone.

He was a driver in a car full of guys, just rolling around one night, when, all of a sudden, one of them (unbeknownst to Kenneth) steps out, robs a guy, shoots him and kills him.

In Texas, under what's called the Law of Parties, Foster's presence near a crime was enough; even though he didn't commit a crime, didn't participate in it, nor profited from it, he was convicted, and sent to Death Row.

If that were not enough, when he still had less than a month to live the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) banned the man from receiving or reading a book on sports!

The book, titled What's My Name Fool?: Sports and Resistance in the U.S., penned by sportswriter, Dave Zirin (pronounced like 'siren'), was banned from Texas Death Row because, in the words of the Aug. 9th, 2007 memo from the TDC publication review committee, "It contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes or riots."'

Wow.

I never thought sports was so powerful.

The author, sent the notice by Foster, was, understandably quite shocked.

He checked out the objectionable pages, and was even more amazed. The pages cited by the TDC dealt with baseball icon, Jackie Robinson, and heavyweight boxing champ, Jack Johnson.

Both dealt with their resistance to white repression; one, about 1/2 a century ago; the other, perhaps 80 years ago.

Yeah. That'll start riots in prisons all over the country!

For Kenneth Foster, at least, his Death Row days are behind him. Unfortunately, he's now doing a life bit in Texas gulags.

His dozen years on Death Row politicized him, and gave him an historical perspective that he did not possess when he first arrived there.

Thanks to supporters across the country, his last day of life wasn't August 30th, as the warrant decreed.

Now, the struggle for his freedom begins.

(c) '07 maj

*Source: Zirin, Dave, "In Texas, books are a danger to death row", Houston Chronicle, Sun., Aug. 28, 2007, p. E5.

Gonzo Justice: AG of Cronyism

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:00:00 GMT

Katrina Tribunal Solidarity Statements

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:01:00 GMT

A Lesson from Vietnam

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:03:00 GMT
A 'Lesson' From Vietnam
col. writ. 8/23/07 (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group recently, US President George W. Bush evoked the slaughter, concentration camps, and devastation following the US pullout from Vietnam, to warn against the costs of precipitous withdrawal from the Iraq debacle.

The argument boiled down to the recent conservative claim that if the US leaves Iraq now, it'll result in a societal bloodbath.

There is something quite unseemly about a man who, when he was of age, declined to go to Vietnam, now arguing for its lessons before men who did go, some of whom have lost limbs.

There is another odd, almost surreal quality to hearing the president who went to war on the most naked of lies, who authorized a bombing campaign called "shock and awe", who sent the entire region into a tizzy of maddening discontent, which led to the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqis, argue about the costs of withdrawal. His "stay the course" is as empty an echo as was that of one of his presidential predecessors, Lyndon B. Johnson when he called for troop increases in Vietnam.

What is missing from his convenient 'lesson' from Vietnam, is the reckoning of just how such pain, suffering and death was visited upon the Vietnamese by the American war. According to many sources, some 3 million Vietnamese were killed by US military forces (the number isn't clearer, simply because, as they were Asians, it wasn't deemed necessary for an accurate count).

What Bush conveniently forgot to mention was the continuing costs of war facing Vietnam, because of the US use of toxic chemicals, such as the defoliant, Agent Orange. The US dropped over 10 million gallons of that poison on Vietnam, and the country still suffers from this aerial assault.

According to Anthony Arnova's The Logic of Withdrawal (N. Y.: The New Press, 2006), some four million people suffered from this barrage, which has left an untold number with serious birth defects, and has caused an unprecedented environmental and ecological damage to the rural regions.

A recent civil lawsuit against Dow Chemical (which created the weapon) was dismissed by US courts.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from Vietnam after all, but not ones the Bush Regime may wish to address.

Recent Bush Administration criticisms of Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, that his government is 'ineffective', and doesn't listen enough to his American paymasters, sounds eerily similar to mumbled musings against South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem. The CIA 1st key military leaders know that the US was losing faith in their chosen puppet, and thus laid the groundwork for a military coup that not only toppled Diem's government, but led to his brutal assassination.

Are we witnessing the opening stages of this 'lesson', being replayed in Iraq?

Let us not think for a moment that the US doesn't prefer generals to presidents; or, as in Pakistan's Musharraf, both for the price of one. The history of 20th century Latin America has been one of an American love affair with generals, and -- yes, with death squads (many trained in the infamous School of the Americas --since renamed --at Fort Benning, Georgia).
"Dubya", who was apparently a poor student of history, is not much better as a teacher, for if this is the only lesson learned from Vietnam, then he needs to go back to summer school.

One lesson is that lies and scare tactics may lead people to war, but it won't keep them there once they learn the truth.

(c) '07 maj

The Vick Kick

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:02:00 GMT