W.E. A.L.L. B.E.

Monday, May 31, 2010

W.E. A.L.L. B.E. TV: The Arthur 'Soldier Boy Grip' Taylor Chronicles: Baseball & The Law

The Arthur 'Soldier Boy Grip' Taylor Chronicles: Baseball & The Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrJSCxfaxs

The following is my response to U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander’s refusal to sign the anti-lynching resolution and his reasons…Please feel free to read his statement by clicking on the following link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300492.html

I agree with Lamar to a degree, but isn't he one of the people that helped start the movement of the privatization of the prison industry in the United States and guess who makes up more than a adequate percentage of the prison population...If he and others really want to help Black folks then there a few significant things that can be done...First of all they need to change these lopsided drug and gun possession laws that got so many of our men and women in jail...This isn't just a Republican thing either...

For example because of the crack/coke policy that he wholeheartedly supported the Black President Bill Clinton is responsible for having more Black people behind bars during his tenure as Pres. than any other president in history.

Many people do not know that in post-Civil War America many Black men were framed for crimes to help build this country's railroad system (think John Henry who was a actual Black man from New Jersey), that Black dock workers used to be given cocaine for free and legally by White business interests that controlled the country's seaports and waterdocks so that they could work longer and faster without taking any breaks...This was common practice less than 100 years ago.

Finally reparations (including financial) is needed for Black Americans… It is sad to me that people, including Black folks laugh at this but we actually did the job that nobody, including Mexicans wanted to do which is our ancestors built this mighty Superpower we call the U.S. for "free"...The Jews and Japanese got their money for crimes committed against them during WW2, and it was common practice for the U.S. government to pay foreign countries such as Italy, Mexico and China financial compensation for immigrants lynched in the U.S…

Many people do not understand the psychological, economical and sociological damages done by lynching...Many Blacks were not lynched for 'raping' white women, but for owning successful businesses, many acres of fertile and valuable land, or exercising their rights as U.S. citizens...In other words they were killed because they dared to be successful, prosperous and treated like citizens in a republic that they helped build from the ground up.

In reality it is sad that the two Mississippi Senators would not let their voices be heard...After all Mississippi led the nation in lynching from the late 1870s well into the 20th Century...Many people do not know that Mississippi has the largest number of Black elected political officials in the nation yet 75% of the state's prison population is Black...Who said lynching is dead??? My thoughts.

R2C2H2

p.s.

If you want to learn about true anti-lynching heroes please read something by or about the great Ida B. Wells-Barnett, the late legendary Walter White or the former late U.S. Rep.George White...You should also read Soledad Brother and Blood In My Eye by the late great George Jackson which deals with the lynching of Black souls in the prison industry and what can be done to combat the process...One more book is Carnival of Fury by the late William Ivy Hair which deals with the New Orleans Race Riot of 1900 and the real-life folk hero Robert Charles…If you need to find your respective senators’ contact info please visit http://www.senate.gov/ …The following are the 20 U.S. Senators who did not sign the anti-lynching resolution the first time around:

19 Republicans and 1 Democrat

1.) Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

2.) Robert Bennett (R-UT)

3.) Christopher Bond (R-MO)

4.)Jim Bunning (R-KY)

5.)Conrad Burns (R-MT)

6.)Saxby Chambliss (R-GA

7.)Thad Cochran (R-MS)

8.)Kent Conrad (D-ND)

9.)John Cornyn (R-TX)

10.)Michael Crapo (R-ID)

11.)Michael Enzi (R-WY)

12.)Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

13.)Judd Gregg (R-NH)

14.)Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

15.)Trent Lott (R-MS)

16.)Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

17.)Richard Shelby (R-AL)

18.)John Sununu (R-NH)

19.)Craig Thomas (R-WY)

20.)George Voinovich (R-OH)

For More Please Visit The Official Website:

http://www.soldierboygrip.blogspot.com

W.E. A.L.L. B.E. TV : The Arthur 'Soldier Boy Grip' Taylor Chronicles: ON MEETING GEN. DAVIS

The Arthur 'Soldier Boy Grip' Taylor Chronicles: On Meeting Gen. Benjamin Davis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TVuV9Glta8

MY GRANDFATHER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS RECALLED TO ME THE STORY OF HOW HE GOT TO MEET GEN. BENJAMIN DAVIS, SR., THE FIRST BLACK GENERAL IN U.S. MILITARY HISTORY…IN 1940, HE WAS APPOINTED BRIGADIER GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY BY U.S. PRES. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT…

THE APPOINTMENT WAS CONSIDERED AN UNPOPULAR MOVE BY MANY IN THE U.S. AND CREATED A LOT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROTEST AND CONTROVERSY FOR MANY WHITE AMERICANS…

HOWEVER TO MANY BLACK AMERICANS LIKE MY U.S. SOUTHERN BORNED AND RAISED GRANDFATHER , THEY SAW GEN. DAVIS AS A SOURCE OF PRIDE AND INSPIRATION AND A MIRACLE WHO WAS A BEAUTIFULLY FORMED ROSE THAT GREW OUT OF THE SEEMINGLY IMPENETRABLE CONCRETE OF UNITED STATES A.K.A. JIM CROW RACISM , INEQUALITY AND SEGREGATION…GEN. DAVIS WAS COLIN POWELL BEFORE THERE WAS A GEN. POWELL!!!

BEFORE GEN. DAVIS WAS MADE A GENERAL HE OVERSAW THE NEW YORK 15TH NATIONAL GUARD UNIT IN HARLEM DURING THE 1930S…THE NEW YORK 15TH NATIONAL GUARD UNIT BY THAT TIME WAS KNOWN BY ITS LEGENDARY NICKNAME ‘THE HARLEM HELLFIGHTERS’, A NAME GIVEN TO THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE UNIT BY THE FRENCH BECAUSE THEY SERVED BRAVELY, PROUDLY AND FOUGHT FEROCIOUSLY IN WORLD WAR ONE , NEVER LOSING AN INCH OF GROUND OR FELLOW SOLDIER TO ENEMY CAPTURE…

A NATIVE OF WASHINGTON. D.C. , GEN. DAVIS WAS A CAREER SOLDIER’S SOLDIER SERVING HIS COUNTRY HONORABLY AND WITH DISTINCTION FOR SEVERAL DECADES AT HOME AND ABROAD…

GEN. DAVIS HAD A SON NAMED BENJAMIN DAVIS, JR. AND LIKE HIS NAMESAKE HE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AS WELL…BENJAMIN DAVIS, JR. WAS JUST THE FOURTH BLACK GRADUATE OF WEST POINT AND THE FIRST BLACK GRADUATE OF THE 20TH CENTURY…HE WENT ON TO COMMAND THE ELITE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN, A LEGENDARY ALL BLACK AIRPLANE FIGHTER/ ESCORT SQUADRON WHICH NEVER LOST A BOMBER PLANE TO ENEMY FIRE DURING WORLD WAR TWO…

FOLLOWING IN HIS FATHER’S ENORMOUS FOOTSTEPS, DAVIS, JR. BECAME GENERAL DAVIS,JR., THE SECOND BLACK GENERAL IN U.S. MILITARY HISTORY AND THE FIRST BLACK GENERAL IN U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY HISTORY…I GUESS GREATNESS MUST HAVE BEEN IN THE GENES!!!

ONE DAY, GEN. DAVIS, SR. CAME TO A BASE MY GRANDFATHER WAS STATIONED AT TO REVIEW THE TROOPS…MY GRANDFATHER AND OTHERS LIKE HIM MUST HAVE GOTTEN A THRILL OUTTA OF SEEING WHITE FOLKS, ESPECIALLY RACIST ONES, SALUTE A COLORED OR BLACK MAN BECAUSE HE WAS CONSIDERED THEIR SUPERIOR AND THEREFORE THEY WERE REQUIRED BY MILITARY LAW TO TREAT HIM AS SUCH AND EVEN CALL HIM ‘SIR’…YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS WAS AMAZING CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT WAS NORMAL AND ACCEPTED FOR A BLACK MAN TO BE CALLED ‘A BOY’ IN AMERICAN SOCIETY AT THAT TIME REGARDLESS OF HIS AGE OR ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!

WHEN HE MADE HIS WAY TO THE BLACK TROOPS HE TOLD THEM WITHOUT HESITATION THAT HE WASN’T COLORED LIKE THEM AND THAT HE WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF COLORED…NO ONE SAID A WORD WHEN HE WAS INSPECTING THEM, BUT WHEN HE LEFT MANY OF THE BLACK SOLDIERS THAT WERE PRESENT DURING HIS TALK WERE VISIBLY UPSET AND ANGRY THAT HE WOULD SAY WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE A VERY DETRIMENTAL AND HURTFUL REMARK…A FEW WERE EVEN CALLING GEN. DAVIS A SELL-OUT AND A UNCLE TOM…

HOWEVER, SOME OF THE SOLDIERS WHO WERE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER ON THEIR FEET IN TERMS OF WIT REASONED WITH THE OTHERS THAT MAYBE WHAT THE GENERAL MEANT WAS THAT HE WAS THE ONLY COLORED OR BLACK GENERAL IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES WHICH IN TURN MADE HIM A DIFFERENT TYPE OF COLORED MAN, MEANING ONE WHO HAD GREATER MILITARY RANK AND AUTHORITY…MANY, NOT ALL, BLACK SOLDIERS ACCEPTED THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMENT AND ONCE AGAIN PUT GEN. DAVIS BACK ON HIS HERO WORSHIP PEDAL…

LESSON: LOOK BEYOND THE WORDS, TRY TO READ WHAT WASN’T SAID INSTEAD OF WHAT WAS SAID!!!

For More The Arthur Soldier Boy Grip Taylor Chronicles Please Visit The Official Website:

http://www.soldierboygrip.blogspot.com

Financial Reform Devil In The Details

Financial Reform Devil In The Details

Late last week, the United States Senate passed a financial reform bill by a vote of 59-39. Two Democrats crossed party lines, as did four Republicans to come up with the result. Now, the House, which has already passed financial reform legislation, and the Senate, will have to reconcile their versions of the bill.

Now is the time for consumer advocates and others to counter the aggressive lobbying that will be done by banks and the auto industry to minimize the effects of legislation. This may also be an opportunity for the Congressional Black Caucus to raise its voice on the side of the many consumers who have been damaged by this financial crisis. While legislation is not meant to look backwards, but instead forward to prevent future crises, the CBC are among those who advocate for the least and the left out. Their perspective on financial regulation is badly needed.

The House would create a consumer protection agency that is freestanding; the Senate would house the agency inside the Federal Reserve Bank. In some ways having the Fed run consumer protection is like having the fox patrol the chicken coop. Isn’t this the same Fed that was part and parcel of the 2008 financial meltdown, the same Fed (then led by Alan Greenspan) that turned a blind eye to predatory and sub-prime lending and the market distortions that emerged from the packaging of substandard loan paper?

The Federal Reserve theoretically already deals with regulation around credit cards and mortgages and to date they’ve not done a good job. What will change when they now have a consumer protection agency? Hearings, anyone?

The House would exempt auto dealers from regulation, but the Senate would not. Why should auto dealers get a special break? Some say that we need people to buy autos to stimulate economic recovery. Shouldn’t they buy autos on fair terms? The lobbyists are lining up to make the case for auto dealers, but who is lining up for consumers?

This financial regulation reform makes it clear that the people have little power to affect legislation when lobbyists are involved. Too many are so happy that this financial reform legislation has been passed in both houses that they won’t look closely at the details or at reconciliation.

If we looked closely enough we might find that payday lenders, you know those folks who charge interest rates that veer into the triple digits, were able to stop a proposed provision of financial reform that would limit the number of payday loans (so called because you are borrowing against your paycheck) one individual could get.

The payday loan industry ran an astroturf campaign to stop a provision North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan introduced to limit payday loans to six (!) at a time. Consumers are worse off because the Hagan provisions were not included in the legislation.

Indeed, the final version of this legislation may be ready by the end of June. The House and the Senate aren’t too far apart on their provisions, which makes reconciliation easy. But neither the House nor the Senate has gone far enough in regulating derivatives, though both require derivatives to be traded publicly, and to be collateralized. This will stop the speculative nature of derivatives, except for the fact that the House provides lots of exemptions to derivative clearinghouse rules. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell (D) opposed Senate legislation because she said it had too many loopholes for derivative trading.

Banks got off easy in this legislation. They are still allowed to do proprietary trading, or to speculate with their own money. But their money is really shareholder money, so who protects the shareholder? Indeed, banking lobbies are likely to tweak the compromise legislation so that financial reform regulations are less onerous to banks. Yet less onerous regulation is what caused the financial services industry to seek a $700 billion bailout from the federal government.

Congress will be rushing to get back to their districts this summer, what with contentious mid-term elections to deal with in November. We can’t let their haste weaken legislation that is already far from ideal. Most Republicans have opposed financial reform regulations on the grounds that this legislation simply expands the role of government and increases the size of the bureaucracy. The Obama Administration will have to take a forceful role in ensuring that the haste to pass financial reform regulations does not gloss over important details.

And, most importantly, consumer protection must be a cornerstone of this legislation. Both the House and Senate bills are a step in the right direction. Still, the devil is really in the details on financial reform legislation, and negotiations that take place in this next month will be critical to the success of meaningful financial reform.

(Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women. She can be reached at presbennett@bennett.edu.)

To Catch Predators – And Keep Them Forever

To Catch Predators – And Keep Them Forever

Anyone who has followed this column for the last several years knows how passionately I feel about victim’s rights and recovery for those who have suffered sexual violence or assault. When one in five women in America and one in six African-American men or women are reportedly victims of sexual violence in this country we cannot sit by and let others suffer in silence because of our old-fashioned puritanical views of sexual propriety.

I am in favor of tough sentences for sexual predators, and I cheer every time “To Catch a Predator” host Chris Hanson shocks some pervert sitting in his underwear in a suburban kitchen. Despite all that, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that sexual predators can be held indefinitely is something that any American – even an advocate for sexual violence – has to stand against.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on the case of U.S. vs. Comstock. The case revolved around actions taken by former President Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzalez in 2006 after the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, specified that the federal government could indefinitely hold convicted or ‘potential’ sex offenders if they were deemed as likely to commit crimes in the future. Gonzalez used this act to continue the sentences of several men who had already served jail time for obtaining child pornography. The men sued, and the case made it’s way to the highest court in the land. The dissenting ruling from Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas stated unequivocally that continuing to hold someone in jail even after they have served their sentence is a grotesque violation of the Constitution.

I believe the sky is falling, pigs are flying and dogs and cats are living together in peace, because I have found myself agreeing with something that Scalia and his law clerk, Clarence Thomas, have written. I am as in favor of locking away pedophiles and throwing away the key as the next person, but this law is not going to accomplish anything but taking the nation down a slippery slope towards martial law. If someone has committed a crime and then gone to trial and been sentenced they should serve that sentence fully and completely. However, when the sentence is over they are free to go and should be able to go back and try to make their way into society. Retroactively passing a law that allows the federal government to extend your sentence indefinitely makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.

Further, the ruling essentially falls on the side of saying that jail is for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Prison can serve two purposes. Some guys just need to go to jail as punishment because they knocked over a liquor store. But for other criminals, rehabilitation is not a bad idea. Prison can give some wayward men and women job training, get them off drugs and help them make something of themselves after years of crime. But we cannot change our sentencing structure because of this logic. If a stint in jail doesn’t rehabilitate someone it doesn’t mean we can just make them stay longer. If some psycho doesn’t think jail is a punishment but is in fact a way to gain street cred, we can’t then decide to change sentences around to fit his crazy psychology.

The horrible extension of this ruling is apparent to anyone who’s read “1984” or seen any other dystopian future. If the court can now legally and retroactively extend sentences for sexual offenders, what’s to stop them from doing the same thing against people accused of other crimes? If a court appointed counselor determines that I’m not penitent enough about stealing a car, can they keep me around longer until I seem sorry? What about embezzlers, con artists or even accused terrorists? Most of these folks are going to commit crimes again. Should they just go to jail forever? In an attempt to solve one problem the court has caused potentially dozens of others.

I favor just about any punishment you can think of for men and women who commit acts of sexual violence against others. Jail, chemical castration, and in some cases I don’t know that those who commit these crimes can be rehabilitated. However, I do know this: throwing out our Constitution to capture potential repeat offenders is not going to make anyone safer. If anything, it leads us ever closer to giving up our rights for safety that can’t be achieved.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Dr. Ron Walters: Blame Obama All The Time

Blame Obama All The Time

I couldn’t believe the headlines in a recent issue of the Los Angeles Times, which asked whether President Obama had responsibility for the oil spill on the Louisiana/Mississippi coastline.

Of course, as president, he has a responsibility to see that it is cleaned up, first by the resources of BP, the company that made the mess, but ultimately by the U.S. Government.

But at this stage of the crisis, the article felt decidedly like there was some culpability of Obama for not having had his Minerals Management Service regulate oil drilling more vigorously. This doesn’t wash, because it’s like blaming the Obama administration for not being able to see into the future, but it is consistent with the way in which he has been viewed increasingly.

The Obama administration has increasingly found it difficult to claim that it inherited a mammoth set of problems that the administration has tried to fix by applying federal resources to them. That is the issue about oil drilling. Remember the Republican mantra, “drill baby drill” and oil executives being secretly shifted into the White House to help then vice president Dick Chaney set energy policy?

This was especially evident in the attempt to characterize the recent elections as a referendum on the Obama administration. It was thwarted, however, because the Republicans failed to nationalize the election sufficiently and so that it turned out to be a referendum on the Tea Party instead.

Nevertheless, Obama was referred to nearly as a pariah, someone whom candidates should have been reluctant to campaign with because of the faulty view that the Health Care act was unpopular with the American people. Strikingly, in this way, they made an incorrect parallel to similar feelings many Republican candidates had toward George Bush in the last year of his administration.

But, it was not realistic for Democrats to respond to the pariah painting of Obama when he has passed historic legislation with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress that will benefit millions of people. What happened is that the media overplayed the Tea Party phenomenon, blowing up the anti-Obama sentiments of a relatively small segment of the electorate and proposing that Obama’s association with Democratic candidates would have a negative effect. In a May 23rd article, the dean of political journalists, David Broder of The Washington Post, characterized the Obama administration this way: “…the fundamental tension in the political system is becoming clear. A liberal government is struggling to impose its agenda on an electorate increasingly responsive to an activist conservative movement operating inside the Republican party.”

He should know better. Maybe he does.

The problem with being President of the United States is that ultimately the big problems will land in your lap. And so, whether or not Obama inherited a horrendous set of problems, they eventually will become his the longer they go unresolved. The difficulty here is trying to determine whether this happens naturally. Or whether people are placing things in his lap in a blame circus designed to complicate his governance and eventually bring him down. The degree of the Obama blame game is indeed withering. Almost everything is found to have been related to some fault of the manner in which it was handled by his administration.

One of the most amazing things is the references – by people who should know better – to Obama as almost a singular decision maker who is inexperienced and mistake prone, ignoring the fact that he deliberately brought into his own close company in the White House and into Cabinet agencies experienced people who have a major role in running the government.

What the Obama administration must now know as a result of the fight over health care is that it is not enough to do something good for the American people and have it speak for itself. Why the Republican minority has been able, time and again, to define the actions of the administration is not a puzzle. The Obama administration – and the Democratic Party in general – is horrible at message discipline. Republicans all sing from the same hymnal. Democrats are all over the map and even supporters are often left confused about what the various spokespersons are attempting to communicate and how what they say attacks their opponents successfully.

Democrats have to get better at message competition because I don’t expect the blame game to let up any time soon.

Dr. Ron Walters is a Political Analyst and Professor Emeritus of the University of Maryland College Park. His latest book is “The Price of Racial Reconciliation”(University of Michigan Press).

Hear Dr. Ronald Walters On W.E. A.L.L. B.E. Radio:

Topic: 2010 State Of The Black Union

“It Ain’t About Tavis, It’s About Us, & It's About Time!”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/02/25/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio

More Barack Obama On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:
http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=barack+obama

Maybe Kagan Has A Little Thurgood Marshall In Her

Maybe Kagan Has A Little Thurgood Marshall In Her

Solicitor General of the United States Elena Kagan has been, thanks to her recent nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, thrust into the spotlight. The media wants to learn more about her while Congress is unearthing her background to see if she’s fit to serve on the nation’s highest court. While Kagan waits – and politics – to see if she’ll secure the spot, many are left wondering if her time serving as a clerk to former Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall has in any way shaped her legal and world views. To conservatives, any influence Marshall may have had would be a bad thing. Champions of justice, however, hope Kagan has retained some of Marshall’s perspectives.

Critics are quick to point out that Kagan, who clerked for the justice in 1988, is no Thurgood Marshall. No one expects her to be. Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and former chief counsel of the NAACP, won an impressive 29 Supreme Court victories as a litigator, including Brown vs. Board of Education, the landmark case that found separate and unequal schools unconstitutional.

Justice Marshall’s political and legal views were far from secret while Kagan’s are, admittedly, not so widely known. More than likely, this is intentional. By all accounts, Kagan had her mind set on the Supreme Court from an early age; making sure her political leanings didn’t take center stage – and derail appointments like the one she’s facing – may have been part of her strategy.

While we know very little about Kagan beyond her widely reported stance on the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – she’s against it – we do know that, for a time, she researched and drafted legal briefs for Marshall, one of the most brilliant and just legal minds in this nation’s history. Whether or not critics believe it, or Kagan publicly admits it, her role as his clerk provided her with a deep insight into how he interpreted the law and the Constitution.

In no way is Kagan the second coming of Thurgood Marshall. But, if she absorbed and retained any of Marshall’s viewpoints, then she learned how to interpret the law in a manner that is fair and just. And that is exactly the quality we want in a Supreme Court Justice.

(Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.)

Mumia Speaks: The Fall Of The House Of Labour

The Fall Of The House Of Labour

[col. writ. 5/12/10] (c) '10 Mumia Abu-Jamal

When Gordon Brown surrendered the post of Prime Minister to his Conservative opponent, David Cameron, he signaled the collapse of the Labour Party from its heady days of the '90's, at the end of the Thatcher era.

In 1997, when Tony Blair took power, he gave an extraordinary speech to the Labour Party Conference, which looks all the more remarkable in hindsight. Blair announced to the assembled throngs:

Since this is a day for honesty, I'll tell you my heroes aren't just

Ernie Bevin, Bye Bevan and Attlee. They are also Keynes,

Beveridge, Lloyd George. Divisions among radicals almost

one hundred years ago resulted in a 20th century dominated by

Conservatives. I want the 21st century to be the century of the

radicals [Labour & Trade Union Review, No 197 (May '09) .p3]

Blair became the youngest Prime Minister since 1935, and an heir to a party that held power only 25 years in the preceding century. He held power for a decade before turning it over in 2007 to Gordon Brown, the former Chancellor of the exchequer, the British equivalent to Finance Minister.

The Iraq war and its discontents soured huge swathes of the population on Labour, and small parties of left, right and center began to nibble off of the behemoth's carcass.

George Galloway, of the anti-war party, Respect, spoke to Parliament in June, 2009:

When, in 2005, I was elected as the first left-of Labour member of parliament in England for 60 years, I was elected because of Iraq. The Labour Party's membership has halved because of Iraq. Millions of Labour voters have left them and new parties - some of the left and some of the right - are proliferating and strengthening, in substantial part, because of Iraq. That has happened not directly, but indirectly because of the poison that the Iraq question has caused to pulse around the British body politic. The lack of credibility of the British political class has also been the result of Iraq. [Labour & Trade Union Review, No. 199 (July/Aug. '09) p.11]

Blair and his supporters turned the government into an instrument of corporate power, and an extension of U.S. Imperial power, and thereby betrayed not just their party but their class, and their nation. For in fashioning 'New Labour', he sold the machinery of the state to the marketplace, and turned his back on his constituents. In truth, workers had a party in name only.

Their slavish bowing and scraping to Bush, Wall St;, and the banks and financial houses of London led to the fall of Labour and the emergence of Conservative power in Parliament.

As for his 'heroes', they'd hardly applaud the mess Blair and NL made of the party. For Ernest Bevin (1881-1951) was quoted as saying: "There never has been a war yet which, if the facts had been put calmly before the ordinary folk, could not have been prevented... The common man, I think, is the great protection against war." Aneurin Bevan (1897 -1960) once said, of his loathing for the Tories 'New Labour'--indeed.

--(c) '10 maj

================

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

URGENT Need for Petition Signatures at: http://www.iacenter.org/mumiapetition/

Audio of most of Mumia's essays are at: http://www.prisonradio.org

http://mumiapodcast.libsyn.com/

Mumia's got a podcast! Mumia Abu-Jamal's Radio Essays - Subscribe at the website or on iTunes and get Mumia's radio commentaries online.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's new book -- JAILHOUSE LAWYERS: PRISONERS DEFENDING PRISONERS V. THE USA, featuring an introduction by Angela Y. Davis -- has been released! It is available from City Lights Books: http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100448090

If you are planning to organize an event or would like to order in bulk, you can also receive a 45% discount on any bulk orders of 20 copies or more. The book retails for $16.95, for orders of 20 copies or more the discounted price would be $9.32 per book, plus shipping and handling. Prepayment would be required and books are nonreturnable. If you or your organization would like to place a bulk order, please contact Stacey Lewis at 415.362.1901 or stacey@citylights.com

Let's use the opportunity of the publication of this brilliant, moving, vintage Mumia book to build the momentum for his case, to raise the money we desperately need in these challenging economic times, to get the word out – to produce literature, flyers, posters, videos, DVD's; to send organizers out to help build new chapters and strengthen old ones, TO GET THE PEOPLE OUT IN THE STREETS … all the work that we must do in order to FREE MUMIA as he faces LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE OR EXECUTION!

Please make a contribution to help free Mumia. Donations to the grassroots work will go to both INTERNATIONAL CONCERNED FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL and the FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL COALITION (NYC).

http://www.freemumia.com/

Please mail donations/ checks to:

FREE MUMIA ABU JAMAL COALITION

PO BOX 16, NEW YORK,

NY 10030

(CHECKS FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS PAYABLE TO: FMAJC/IFCO)

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

215 476-8812

212-330-8029

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!!

Subscribe: mumiacolumns-subscribe@topica.com

Read: http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns/read

Subscribe ICFFMAJ email updates list by e-mailing

icffmaj@aol.com!

CHALLENGES – ‘Real Life’ For The Young Single Mother

CHALLENGES – ‘Real Life’ For The Young Single Mother

I teach at a two-year career college in Memphis, and I love what I do. I’ve been an educator for the past 20 years or so, and I have come to understand many of the dynamics of the students who return to school after really screwing up in junior and senior high school. It is, all at once encouraging to see people still trying to improve their lives, yet shameful that adults in America would be so uninformed and “behind the curve” that leads them to possible economic and career success.

The population of students at most career colleges in the U.S. is predominately female. This is true for Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU’s) as well. This is also true at top-rated business schools, major universities, and in virtually all post secondary institutions. Girls are more likely to conform to academic standards, and to “qualify” for admission. Whatever the reason, most of my 100 or so students in four different classes are female. Women of various ages, having arrived at a decision to re-enroll into school for personal and career advancement, come back with very weak academic habits.

The decision to “go back to school” is undertaken, most often, against a backdrop of near chaos in their personal lives. A cursory examination of their demographic reveals financial hardships, toxic relationships, academic mediocrity and inconsistent family support. Add to these general challenges, issues of child care, transportation difficulties, negativity from equally unsuccessful friends, and the inherent stress of modern American life, and it becomes all the more amazing that these women would have even found their way to a college. My classroom discussions of “current events” is most revealing in that my adult students are not very knowledgeable about what’s going on in their city, in their state, in their country, or in the world. There is enough blame to go around for this intellectual shortcoming, most of which falls on the women themselves.

A serious look beyond the surface, however, reveals early challenges for most urban girls. A shaky educational start, sexual abuse by relatives and neighbors, abusive situations as teenagers, and virtually no motivation or guidance from women in the community, are all mitigating factors in the early dysfunction and poor decision-making by young women and girls. If they make the unfortunate decision to have a baby by a total loser, then their chances for early career success are all but extinguished. Some young women recover from this ominous start, and establish reasonably successful lives, but in most cases, and after a second child by this same loser (or worse yet, by some other delinquent), young ladies face a set of circumstances that overwhelm them. The result is most often a break in their educational pursuits, and early economic hardships. None of this should be a surprise to any of us… or to them.

Our “village,” especially faith-based institutions and major sororities, must take the lead in bringing relief to women and girls. Most of the single women that I know, even women that I’ve dated, all seem to have a common set of modern difficulties that keep them stressed out, all the time. There is always a financial issue looming, large or small. There is a car repair that’s needed immediately. There may be an issue with their ex-husband, involving child support or some type of irritating request, just to keep the woman off balance. If young, single mothers have pre-teen or teenaged boys, there’s another layer of worry for them to contend with, as they simply try to keep the light bill paid. Many of us grew up in single-parent homes, but the modern circumstances faced by young women are more critical and pressing, and the bills never stop coming.

We can do better, in terms of early preparation and overall stability for the young women in our imaginary “village.” The REAL men must begin to protect these women and girls, rather than exploit them. Join “Men Against Domestic Abuse” (MADA), and learn more about what we can do now, to save another generation of children from the madness that exists all around them.

The challenges faced by young, single mothers are never-ending and very stressful, and there are few avenues for relief any time soon. Their future and our fate are inextricably interwoven because the dysfunctional boys they are raising will only add to the pool of illiterate – and all too often violent – children we have created by doing nothing for the last two decades.

(Anthony Nichelson is program director for the Citadel Radio Group and founder of the 110 Institute.

the110institute.com

anthony.nichelson@citcomm.com
110tasks@americamail.com)

More Anthony Nichelson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=anthony+nichelson

***W.E. A.L.L. B.E. Radio Special***
Beyond The Mask: Uncovering The Truth About Domestic Violence

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/03/11/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio

Mid-South Men's Forum Preview Show:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/01/07/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio

Differences Aside, New ‘Men’s Forum’ Ready To Tackle Solutions:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/2010/01/differences-aside-new-mens-forum-ready.html

April 13, 2008~The State Of Black America Part One*

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/13/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

April 20, 2008~The State Of Black America Part Two

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/20/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

April 27, 2008~The State Of Black America Part Three

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/27/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

W.E. A.L.L. B.E. News & Radio Special: Yes He Did...So Now What??? Defining The Obama Presidency...
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/11/16/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

N-Word MADNESS!!!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/07/28/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-A-LL-BE-News-Radio

Saving Black Boys...Raising Black Men
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/08/10/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

Deacons Largely Uncredited For Defense Of Civil Rights

Deacons Largely Uncredited For Defense Of Civil Rights

When James Meredith began a 220-mile March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson, Miss., in June 1966 to promote black voter registration, he was shot and wounded by a sniper. With Meredith hospitalized, other civil rights leaders decided to continue the march, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Stokley Carmichael (later Kwame Ture).

The Deacons for Defense and Justice were among those providing protection as the march resumed. The Deacons of Defense, to use the common name, was an armed group of black men that believed in fighting back rather than nonviolent acceptance in the face of racist attacks.

Carmichael suggested the Deacons be used for security because local and state law officers could not be trusted. (Ku Klux Klansmen, White Citizens’ Council members and law enforcement officers were often one and the same.) King had reservations about what he called the Deacons’ “aggressive violence,” and Roy Wilkins of the NAACP also expressed concern. But a compromise was reached for the sake of unity in the march and the movement and the Deacons were able to serve.

One of the most prominent members of the Deacons for Defense, Robert Hicks, died last month in his hometown of Bogalusa, La., at age 81. He was one of the group’s last survivors. Hicks and two friends organized the Deacons’ Bogalusa chapter in 1965, less than a year after Earnest Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kilpatrick founded the group in Jonesboro, La.

Hicks became actively involved in self-defense after he was tipped off that a band of Klansmen was planning to bomb his house because he had provided lodging for two white civil rights workers. Hicks, an employee of a local paper mill, sent his children to stay with neighbors, called friends and asked them to bring their weapons. Heavily armed, the men waited. Word apparently filtered out and the Klan did not show up. Hicks and his friends continued as gun-carrying activists. He filed suits against Jim Crow laws and fought racist hiring practices at the mill where he worked. The Deacons eventually formed more than 60 chapters, even one in Boston.

The March Against Fear and the ascendancy of the Deacons for Defense is seen by some observers as one of the signal events that helped redefine the character of the civil rights movement to the extent that nonviolent protestors and gun-carrying defenders were able to create an uneasy alliance.

Carmichael said of the Deacons, “Here is a group which realized that the ‘law’ and law enforcement agencies would not protect people, so they had to do it themselves…. The Deacons and all other blacks who resort to self-defense represent a simple answer to a simple question: What man would not defend his family and home from attack?”

As gains were made and nonviolence became the accepted strategy, the Deacons became marginalized, but continued as a group until 1968. Some of their exploits are told in “Deacons for Defense,” a 2003 TV movie, starring Forest Whitaker and Ossie Davis.

Although the civil rights movement is generally thought of as fundamentally nonviolent, there are many whose pugnacious presence looms large on the scene. Among them were Fannie Lou Hamer and Robert Williams. Hamer, one of the leaders of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, was not reluctant to disclose that she kept several loaded guns in her bedroom. Williams operated an armed unit within the Monroe (N.C.) NAACP Branch he headed (to the dismay of the national office) until he was hounded by the FBI and moved first to Cuba and then to China. He later said, “To us there was no such thing as the Constitution, no such thing as moral persuasion. The only thing left was the bullet.”

(George E. Hardin worked as a photographer, reporter and editor, and in public relations during a long career before he retired. His column appears every other week.)

More George E. Hardin On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=george+e.+hardin

More Civil Rights Movement On W.E. A.L.L. B.E. :

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=civil+rights+movement

Mumia Speaks: STATE AGAINST PEOPLE

STATE AGAINST PEOPLE

[col. writ. 5/16/10] (c) '10 Mumia Abu-Jamal

There is, at the heart of American society, a profound disquiet about the overwhelming powers of government, one which waxes and wanes according to the felt needs of the time.

That's partly because, while we say the government was formed to support freedom, we know that this wasn't true. We know that the government was an instrument of despotic and tyrannical power - especially when it comes to Black people.

This government began in slavery, not in freedom - unless one argues it was begun to protect freedom of some to enslave others.

Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes On the State of Virginia, describing slavery, called it a system of "unremitting despotism."

That he was, at once, an alleged freedom fighter and, an owner of several hundred slaves gives us some sense of the contradiction at the core of the United States.

Government then, and now, supports the efforts of the wealthy, at the expense of the many. It is an instrument of wealth and corporate power - period.

Those who saw the quicksilver response to Wall Street's problems, and the half-hearted responses to the unemployed, the foreclosed, the hungry and the homeless should take that lesson to heart.

How else could any government support efforts like NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement), which destabilized millions of middle class workers (not to mention poor folks in Mexico), and please financial speculators and investors on Wall St.?

Former President Bill Clinton sold NAFTA like a carnival barker, and promised good jobs for all.

It didn't exactly work out that way, did it?

The neo liberal project of globalization was never intended to provide good jobs - for anybody, but elites. It was designed to maximize corporate profits, unhindered by any government restraints.

The bubbling light crude poisoning the waters of the Gulf of Mexico - right now - is the direct result of neo liberal deregulation - which frees business to profit - but also to create multinational disasters. It's government in hock to capital, and capitalism run wild.

And while the media hypes about environmental damage to Louisiana, Texas or even Florida, have you noticed no one has even mentioned Mexico's east coast, or Cuba's west coast?

Globalization is here - and it ain't pretty.

Only great and sustained struggle and resistance can change that tune.