Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Malcolm X and the Music




Malcolm X and The Music
Norman (Otis) Richmond aka Jalali
Published May 18, 2011

Editor's Note: The below article by Norman Richmond (aka Jalali) is good work for us, the Black Liberation Movement. Unfortunately, the Manning Marable book (appropriately titled: "Reinvention" of Malcolm X) is good work for them, the white ruling class. Marable's book is supposedly a critique of Malcolm's life and work. Too bad that Manning isn't here to defend himself. The millions of Africans, however, are here to defend Malcolm's legacy and his Black Revolution.



El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) was assassinated 46 years ago on February 21, 1965, because of his attempt to internationalize the struggle of African people inside the United States.

Malcolm was born 86 years ago on May 19, 1925. While U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama has acknowledged Kwanzaa, I doubt very serious if he will show Malcolm the same love.

Manning Marabe's new volume, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention has sparked a renewed interest and debate about Malcolm. Previous works like Karl Evanzz's, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X, Zak Kondo’s, Conspiracy’s: Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X, and Bill Sales,’ From Civil Rights To Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro-American Unity are all being reopened.

Contrary to popular belief, it was Malcolm, not Martin Luther King, who first opposed the war in Vietnam. Malcolm was the first American-born African leader of national prominence in the 1960s to condemn the war.

He was later joined by organizations like the Revolutionary Action Movement, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the Black Panther Party and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers.

This was in the tradition of David Walker, Henry Highland Garnet, Martin R. Delaney, Bishop Henry McNeil Turner, W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Ella Baker and Paul Robeson. Malcolm continued to link the struggles of African people worldwide.

King came out against the Vietnam War after his famous April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York City. Malcolm spoke against this war from the get-go.

Musicians did their part to keep Malcolm's name alive. Long before Spike Lee's 1992 bio-pic, “X,” hip-hop, house, reggae and R'n'B artists created music for Malcolm, high-life and great Black music (so-called jazz) artists first wrote and sang about Malcolm.

The dance of Malcolm's time was the "lindy-hop" and he was a master of it. The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which Malcolm wrote with the assistance of Alex Haley, gives a vivid description of his love of dancing.

Years later, on a visit to the West African nation of Ghana, Malcolm spoke of seeing Ghanaians dancing the high-life.

He wrote: "The Ghanaians performed the high-life as if possessed. One pretty African girl sang ‘Blue Moon’ like Sarah Vaughan. Sometimes the band sounded like Charlie Parker."

Malcolm's impact on Ghana was so great that one folk singer created a song in his honor called "Malcolm Man."

Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man
You speak your tale of woe
The red in your face like our
Blood on the land
You speak your tale of woe
Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man
The anger that you feel
Will one day unite our people
And make us all so real
Malcolm Man, Malcolm Man.

After Malcolm's death, many jazz artists recorded music in his memory.

Among them, Leon Thomas recorded the song, "Malcolm's Gone" on his Spirits Known and Unknown album; saxophonist-poet-playwright Archie Shepp recorded the poem, "Malcolm, Malcolm Semper Malcolm" on his Fire Music album. Shepp drew parallels between Malcolm's spoken words and John Coltrane's music.

Said Shepp: "I equate Coltrane's music very strongly with Malcolm's language, because they were just about contemporaries, to tell you the truth. And I believe essentially what Malcolm said is what John played. If Trane had been a speaker, he might have spoken somewhat like Malcolm. If Malcolm had been a saxophone player, he might have played somewhat like Trane."

Shortly before Malcolm's death, he visited Toronto and appeared on CBC television with Pierre Berton. During the visit, Malcolm spent time with award-winning author Austin Clarke talking about politics and music.

Time was too short to organize a community meeting, but a few lucky people gathered at Clarke's home on Asquith Street. Clarke had interviewed Malcolm previously, in 1963 in Harlem, when he was working for the CBC.

Clarke recalled they "talked shop," but also discussed the lighter things in life, like the fact that both their wives were named Betty.

It is not surprising that Malcolm made his way to Canada. His mother and father, Earl Little, met and married in Montréal at a Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) convention.

Both were followers of Marcus Garvey. His mother, Louise Langdon Norton, was born in Grenada but immigrated first to Halifax, Nova Scotia and later to Montreal in 1917.

Jan Carew's book, Ghosts in Our Blood: With Malcolm X in Africa, England, and the Caribbean, documents this aspect of the life of the Pan-Africanist.

While on a visit to Nigeria Malcolm was given the name Omowale, which means in the Yoruba language, “the son who has come home.”

It was this period of his life that he visited Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Guinea and Tanzania.

It was during that period that he met with Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Julius K Nyerere, Nnamoi Azikiwe, Sekou Toure, Jomo Kenyatta, Dr. Milton Obote, Abdul Rahman Muhammad Babu and others. During this visit he also met Ras Makonnen, a legendary Pan-Africanist from Guyana, Richard Wright’s daughter Julie Wright, Maya Angelou, Shirley Graham Du Bois, the wife of W.E.B. Du Bois, and the Chinese Ambassador Huang Ha.

It must be mentioned that Paul Robeson, W.E.B Du Bois, his wife Shirley Graham Du Bois and Robert F. Williams all supported the 1949 Chinese revolution.

Malcolm also was a huge supporter of the People's Republic of China. He was delighted when China tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964.

Babu talked about the significance of this event at the Malcolm X: Radical Tradition and a Legacy of Struggle Conference in New York City in 1990.

Says Babu, "When Malcolm X came to Tanzania, I took him to meet President (Julius) Nyerere, on another historic date.

Because that very day, China exploded her first nuclear bomb. And as we went to see Nyerere, Nyerere said, "Malcolm , for the first time today in recorded history, a former country has been able to develop weapons at par with any colonial power. This is the end of colonialism through and through."

Malcolm was the chief organizer of the Nation of Islam and the founder of the group’s newspaper Muhammad Speaks. He split with the Nation and its leader Elijah Muhammad in 1963.

At the time of his death he headed two organizations. The secular group the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) was his political arm.

He also organized the religious group, Muslim Mosque Inc (MMI), which practiced Sunni Islam. Today, Islam is the second largest religion in the United States and Canada.

Many credit Malcolm with helping spread Sunni Islam as well as revolutionary Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism among African people in the Western Hemisphere.

Like Augusto Cesar Sandino of Nicaragua or Sun Yat-sen of China, Malcolm was embraced by all sectors of the Black Nationalist and Pan-Africanist movements. All Nationalists and Pan-Africanists claimed to follow his example.

Revolutionary Nationalist groups like the Black Panther Party, and the League of Revolutionary Black Workers emerged in the late 1960s, after Malcolm’s death.

Even after the BPP and the League embraced Marxism, Malcolm was still their man.The cultural Nationalists who maintained that the Cultural Revolution must precede the political one also embraced Malcolm.

He was a controversial figure. Actor Ossie Davis eulogized him as our “Black Shining Prince,” while the director of the U.S. information agency Carl T. Rowan referred to him as “an ex-convict, ex-dope peddler who became a racial fanatic.”

He was loved by the oppressed and hated by the oppressors. Malcolm spoke about the MMI and the OAAU in these terms: “Its aim is to create an atmosphere and facilities in which people who are interested in Islam can get a better understanding of Islam. The aim of the OAAU is to use whatever means necessary to bring about a society in which the twenty-two million Afro-Americans are recognized and respected as human beings.”

The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley and other books by and about Malcolm continue to sell worldwide. Some of his books have recently been published in Cuba.

Malcolm was one of the few Black Nationalist leaders that welcomed Cuban leader Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1960. Many Nationalists didn’t want to be identified with communism.

Carlos Cooks, the leader of the African Nationalist Pioneer Movement absolutely refused to have anything to do with Castro.

But African people in the West could easily identify with the slogan, “When Africa called Cuba Answered.” Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) was fond of reminding us that the only place in the United States that Fidel felt safe was in Harlem.

Toronto-based journalist and radio producer Norman (Otis) Richmond can be heard on Diasporic Music, Thursdays, last week of every month 8-10pm, Uhuru Radio every other Sunday from 2pm to 4pm, Saturday Morning Live, Saturdays, 10 a.m.-1 p.m.

He can be reached by e-mail at norman.o.richmond@gmail.com


Marvin X Comment: My revolutionary comrade Norman O. Richmond was a fellow traveler in exile during the 1967 in Toronto, Canada. We arrived there after refusing to fight in Vietnam. Our associates in Toronto included Austin C. Clarke, Jan Carew and Salome Bey. I returned underground to America after six months, Norman has remained til this day. We send him revolutionary greetings. Happy birthday, Malcolm!

Marvin X's Fictional Interview With President Obama



















Marvin X Interviews President Obama




















Marvin X, Thank you Mr. President for agreeing to meet with me.



Prez, The pleasure is all mine. I've been reading your blogs and find them quite interesting.



MX, I hope you don't say what Minister Farrakhan said about my comments on him.



Prez, What did he say?



MX, He said I raked him over the coals.



Prez, I agree with Minister Farrakhan. You can be quite hard hitting.



MX, They call me the sledgehammer.

Prez, Indeed you are.



MX, Call it tough love.



Prez, OK.



MX, Furthermore, I supported you wholeheartedly from the beginning. You obviously haven't seen my book Pull Yo Pants Up fada Black Prez and Yoself.



Prez, No I haven't.



MX, But I must agree with our mutual friend Dr. Cornell West. I'm sure you are aware that he said we must protect you, respect you, but check you.



Prez, Yes, I heard his remarks. And you know what I said, "You brothers need to cut me some slack."



MX, Prez, you don't need slack. You need us riding your back like Roy Rogers on Trigger.



Prez, Don't you think I have enough pressure on me?



MX, Well, I once forced the resignation of the president of Fresno State University. Well, actually he said he was pressured from above (Gov. Ronald Reagan) and below (student protests after the college refused to hire me). So we see you are the type of guy who must be pressured from above and below, from the right and the left.



Prez, How much pressure you think a person in my position can take?



MX, You got Mechelle to chill you out!

Prez, You're right about that.



MX, But I wrote about her putting a foot in your ass when you get weak.



Prez, I don't think that's necessary



MX, Well, you seem to capitulate at every turn. You call it the nature of politics, of course.



Prez, Well, I certainly don't call it capitulation. That's a bit harsh. I try to negotiate and compromise with my opposition.

MX, Prez, It seems to me you give in too quickly, sometimes when it ain't even necessary.



Prez, Marvin, it's the nature of the beast I'm dealing with.



MX, Ever heard of playing hardball? I mean I was happy you got the health insurance plan through but at what price, selling out to the insurance lobby?



Prez, I don't call it selling out, it was compromise, the best we could do under the circumstances.



MX, Prez, why have you not created a jobs program? You bailed out the banks and corporations but not the people, why?



Prez, Marv, you know I have a most difficult job and we tried a stimulus package, and it worked to some extent.



MX, But, Prez, there are still millions of unemployed. Yet at the same time you are promising terrorist jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan if they lay down their arms. Should the American unemployed take up arms to get your attention?



Prez, Marv, please, what are you suggesting, revolution?



MX, If that's what it takes to get you to consider the consent of the governed. Is not the first priority of this nation the people, not corporations and banks?



Prez, Well, corporations are people now.



MX, Prez, you know what I mean.



Prez, Of course.



MX, How can you provide funds for educating, housing and employing terrorists abroad but not at home? It just doesn't make sense, Mr. Prez.



Prez, You're right, Marv.



MX, Now you're getting ready to raise one billion dollars to keep your job, but you can't find a few billion for the millions of unemployed



Prez, You're right, Marv. I can do better. Let me regroup with my advisers and think about it.



MX, Yeah, Prez, I want to support you reelection but I find it most difficult. And the brothers on the street as well. They were happy when you won, they said it was great to know they could look up to someone besides a rapper. But lately they are saying fuck you, Mr. Prez.



Prez, I'm sorry to hear that.



MX, You should know this is what they're saying, Fuck you!



Prez, I often wonder about the mood in the hood.



MX, You should wonder before something terrible happens to your country because of your neglect and misplaced priorities. Can I ask you something personal?



Prez, Go for it!

MX, Do you feel like a white man or black man?



Prez, Well, when I'm with Mechelle, I feel black. When I'm with my Secretary of State, Hilliary, I feel white.



MX, I thought Hillary was black, along with her husband, Dirty Bill.



Prez, Marv, let's not name call, please.



MX, OK. On a more serious matter, how long did you know Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan?



Prez, We had him under surveillance for some time.



MX, Years, months?




Prez, a long time.



MX, Should I congratulate you for slaying the dragon?



Prez, That's up to you.



MX, Well, you probably deserve a feather in your cap. A couple of Brownie points.



Prez, Marv, thanks.



MX, But, Prez, where's the body?



Prez, We threw it in the ocean.

MX, C'mon, Prez, do I look like Willie Foofoo?



Prez, Marv, we did, trust me.



MX, Prez, I'm an ex-dope fiend. I know how people lie.




Prez, Marv, are you calling me a liar?



MX, I didn't say that, Prez, but my elder, Dr. Nathan Hare, taught the fictive theory. Everything the white man (and black man or white/black man) says is fiction until proven to be a fact. Where are the facts, Prez?



Prez, Marv, trust me. We thought it best to dispose of the body in the ocean.



MX, But who's going for this, Prez, it sounds shaky.




Prez, We concluded that was the best way to end the matter of a man who murdered three thousand Americans.



MX, Prez, how many Muslims have you murdered since you became President?




Prez, I can't answer that.

MX, Between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, how many, especially with the collateral damage?



Prez, Can't answer that. It was all in defense of America.



MX, Is a few ignorant men living in mountain caves really a threat to America?



Prez, They can be.



MX, C'mon, Prez. Let's change the channel. What happened with the closing of Gitmo?




Prez, We tried but couldn't pull it off.



MX, What about the secret prisons in America?

Prez, I'm not aware of them.



MX, Maybe you should check with homeland security?



Prez, Our priority is the safety of Americans.



MX, Does this include murdering American citizens rather than bringing them to trial?



Prez, Not necessarily.



MX, What about the man in Yemen you are trying to kill who is an American citizen?



Prez, He's a special case.



MX, But he's an American.



Prez, Marv, don't press the issue.



MX, That's exactly what I'm doing.



Prez, Don't press it, Marv.



MX, Let's discuss the Middle East for a moment. I've written about your speech in Cairo and Indonesia. I've imagined what you will say about Muslims tomorrow, May 19. You know as long as you occupy one inch of Muslim land there shall be Muslims who view you as a Crusader and they will vow to fight you to the death.



Prez, Marv, I'm aware how Muslims feel about us occupying their lands. And we plan to vacate all Muslim lands at the earliest possible date.

MX, Does this include having your friends in Israel do the same?



Prez, Well, that's a matter for the Israelis, not us.



MX, But you are their very best friend. You support them right or wrong, true?



Prez, I wouldn't say that. But we have an enduring relationship.



MX, Don't you see the day is rapidly arriving when they cannot claim to be the only democracy in the area, that they will bow down to the God of Justice, not peace but justice?



Prez, Events are rapidly changing in North Africa and the Middle East. Therefore we must all make a paradigm shift in our thinking and behavior, including Israel.



MX, What about your friends in Saudi Arabia?



Prez, They will need to make substantial changes as well.

MX, And Bahrain?

Prez, It's a special case. We have strategic interests there.



MX, You seem to be saying America practices selective suffering. You now support the Egyptian revolution, the Tunisian, Yemen, but not in Saudi Arabia or Israel, Jordan, Bahrain.



Prez, Marv, we have our interests that must be secured first.



MX, What if and when these nations explode in your face, overnight, as is happening as we speak. Seems like you'll be running after the football or playing catchup?



Prez, We'll do what we must when we must.



MX, Thank you, Mr. Prez.

--Marvin X



5/18/11



Black Bird Press News and Review





Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslims

As-Salaam-Alaikum
I, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, come before you tonight in the name of Almighty God Allah. We, the America people, are pleased to see the people of North Africa and the Middle East rising up against our long time friends in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere.


Of course we instituted a no fly zone over Libya but it is most difficult to do the same in Gaza. The recent unity of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is nice but simply not in the interests of our dear friends in Israel, nor is it in the long term strategic interests of America and her friends throughout the region, especially our brothers in the House of Saud.


While we endorse the cries for freedom in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, we cannot support the people in Bahrain. We suspect they are simply agents for Iran and therefore we cannot support their cries for freedom. We have no plans of moving our Fifth Fleet from Bahrain, especially since it is a counterweight to Iranian provocations. We therefore endorse the sending of Saudi troops to crush the Shia uprisings in Bahrain.


As per Saudi Arabia, we love democracy but it is simply not in our interests to have the Saudi regime destabilized because of a few unhappy citizens, again, many of them are agents of Iran, especially those Saudi women who want to drive cars.


As per Iran, we call for democracy in that nation, even though we accept full responsibility for overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mossedeq, and installing the Shah who oppressed his people for many years.


We know you share our joy with the elimination of the hated terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Even though we created him and supported him, the time came for his removal, even though we were aware he was living in a mansion with his three wives in Pakistan. He served us well, but the time came for his disposal. You know how we handle those who outlive our usefulness, e.g., Saddam Hussein.


We promised a total troop removal from Iraq, but circumstances may prevent this unless it is expedient for my upcoming election. We hope the people of Iraq understand, especially that guy Sadr and his army of the poor in Sadr City who fought with us to no avail.


Our regional partners, namely the Sunni neighbors of Iraq, have warned us not to leave Iraq under a Shia regime, again this will only benefit Iran, the enemy of world peace. Not Israel and certainly not America who is the champion of world peace as you all know throughout the Muslim world, not matter that we are now occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and making inroads into Libya. You may be surprised to learn that it is not the oil we want in Libya but the water. Yes, water will be a precious commodity in the coming days. We pray to Allah you can understand why we do what we do.


As per Afghanistan, we have promised the Taliban if they lay down their arms, we will give them schooling, housing and employment. We wish we could offer the same to our boys and girls in the hoods of America who are terrorizing their communities with drugs and guns, but our budget crisis will not allow education, housing and jobs for the boys and girls in the hood, although we can do this for the Taliban. As you know we did this in Iraq and this was the real cause of the decrease in violence, not the socalled surge of Baghdad under General Betrayus.


As you know, General Betrayus will be taking over the Central Intelligence Agency. We appreciate his role in prolonging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We feel he has been successful in routing the 100 to 500 Al Quida in Afghanistan, especially after we sent him thirty thousand additional troops.


Finally, our friends in Pakistan may have some misgivings about the unilateral move we made to eliminate Osama bin Laden, but we want them to get over it and not make any silly moves like seeking revenge with their nuclear option.


I close in the name of peace, As-Salaam-Alaikum.
President Barack Hussein Obama



















































Lou Rawls "Tobacco Road"

John Coltrane :: Alabama :: Jazz Casual

Nina Simone - *Mississippi Goddam*




Mississippi Goddamn!

Woe to America, the Great Beast, the Whore, the Serpent that deceived the world. Woe to America for every hurtful thing she has done to her slaves and their descendants, to the Native Americans, the Latinos, Asians and poor whites referred to as trailer house trash. Woe to America, the blood sucker of the poor, the raper of minds and bodies of the innocent, who keeps the poor and ignut trapped in the world of make believe perpetuated by the Monkey Mind Media. Woe to America, for every piece of Strange Fruit she hanged on trees, threw in rivers, swamps and creeks. Woe to America, for every hateful, unclean bird that has gathered to devour the soul of the righteous.

Woe to America, who even at this hour has no desire, no will, no intention to deliver justice to the three million slaves held in her dungeons, jails and hell holes throughout this wicked land.
Woe to America, who will bomb the poor, the righteous and the innocent before she will share the wealth, redistribute the wealth stolen from this land and around the world in the name of free market slavery. It is beyond her mental capacity to conjure the words "Fair Market, Just Market."

Woe to America, may her rivers wash away the guilty, the hate mongers, the hard hearted and niggardly. Too bad the innocent must be consumed because they find themselves living among the guilty, but when the wrath of God comes there are no innocent except those who flee to higher ground, who find solace in the Upper Room of our Father's House.
--Marvin X
5/18/11

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslims



































Marvin X Writes Obama's Speech to Muslim World



As-Salaam-Alaikum


I, Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, come before you tonight in the name of Almighty God Allah. We, the America people, are pleased to see the people of North Africa and the Middle East rising up against our long time friends in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere.


Of course we instituted a no fly zone over Libya but it is most difficult to do the same in Gaza. The recent unity of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is nice but simply not in the interests of our dear friends in Israel, nor is it in the long term strategic interests of America and her friends throughout the region, especially our brothers in the House of Saud.

While we endorse the cries for freedom in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, we cannot support the people in Bahrain. We suspect they are simply agents for Iran and therefore we cannot support their cries for freedom. We have no plans of moving our Fifth Fleet from Bahrain, especially since it is a counterweight to Iranian provocations. We therefore endorse the sending of Saudi troops to crush the Shia uprisings in Bahrain.


As per Saudi Arabia, we love democracy but it is simply not in our interests to have the Saudi regime destabilized because of a few unhappy citizens, again, many of them are agents of Iran, especially those Saudi women who want to drive cars.


As per Iran, we call for democracy in that nation, even though we accept full responsibility for overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mossedeq, and installing the Shah who oppressed his people for many years.


We know you share our joy with the elimination of the hated terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Even though we created him and supported him, the time came for his removal, even though we were aware he was living in a mansion with his three wives in Pakistan. He served us well, but the time came for his disposal. You know how we handle those who outlive our usefulness, e.g., Saddam Hussein,

We promised a total troop removal from Iraq, but circumstances may prevent this unless it is expedient for my upcoming election. We hope the people of Iraq understand, especially that guy Sadr and his army of the poor in Sadr City who fought with us to no avail.


Our regional partners, namely the Sunni neighbors of Iraq, have warned us not to leave Iraq under a Shia regime, again this will only benefit Iran, the enemy of world peace. Not Israel and certainly not America who is the champion of world peace as you all know throughout the Muslim world, not matter that we are now occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and making inroads into Libya. You may be surprised to learn that it is not the oil we want in Libya but the water. Yes, water will be a precious commodity in the coming days. We pray to Allah you can understand why we do what we do.


As per Afghanistan, we have promised the Taliban if they lay down their arms, we will give them schooling, housing and employment. We wish we could offer the same to our boys and girls in the hoods of America who are terrorizing their communities with drugs and guns, but our budget crisis will not allow education, housing and jobs for the boys and girls in the hood, although we can do this for the Taliban. As you know we did this in Iraq and this was the real cause of the decrease in violence, not the socalled surge of Baghdad under General Betrayus.


As you know, General Betrayus will be taking over the Central Intelligence Agency. We appreciate his role in prolonging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We feel he has been successful in routing the 100 to 500 Al Quida in Afghanistan, especially after we sent him thirty thousand additional troops.


Finally, our friends in Pakistan may have some misgivings about the unilateral move we made to eliminate Osama bin Laden, but we want them to get over it and not make any silly moves like seeking revenge with their nuclear option.


I close in the name of peace, As-Salaam-Alaikum.


President Barack Hussein Obama

Palestine




Palestine






PALESTINE

by Marvin X

(El Muhajir)


I am not an Arab, I am not a Jew

Abraham is not my father,

Palestine is not my home

But I would fight any man

Who kicked me out of my house

To dwell in a tent

I would fight

To the ends of the earth

Someone who said to me

I want your house

Because my father lived here

Two thousand years ago

I want your land

Because my father lived here

Two thousand years ago.

Jets would not stop me

From returning to my home

Uncle toms would not stop me

Cluster bombs would not stop me

Bullets I would defy.

No man can take the house of another

And expect to live in peace

There is no peace for thieves

There is no peace for those who murder

For myths and ancient rituals

Wail at the wall

Settle in "Judea" and "Samaria"

But fate awaits you

You will never sleep with peace

You will never walk without listening.

I shall cross the River Jordan

With Justice in my hand

I shall return to Jerusalem

And establish my house of peace,

Thus said the Lord.

This poem first appeared in Black Scholar Magazine, circa 1975.

© 1975 by Marvin X (El Muhajir)

The author, Marvin X, is an Oakland (CA) based African-American poet/playwright/activist, one of the founders of the Black Arts Movemen and the father of Muslim American literature, according to scholar Dr. Mohja Kahf. Bob Holman calls him the USA’s Rumi. Marvin X works as a lecturer, teacher and producer. He has taught at San Francisco State University, University of California -Berkeley and San Diego, Fresno State University, University of Nevada, Reno; Laney, Merritt and Mills College in Oakland. He has received writing fellowships from Columbia University and the National Endowment forthe Arts and planning grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The 1% Club or the Blood Suckers of the Poor

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%


Marvin, the problem I have with the rhetoric of Tavis, Cornell, and their sidekick Michael Dyson is that they would not be public intellectuals without the plutocrats and oligarchs they criticize and condemn. I suppose this is what irritates Obama. They are all rather Janus figures. As far as wealth (of which they are not transparent) they too may be part of that 1 % Stiglitz criticizes.


--Rudolph Lewis, Editor, Chickenbones.com



Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

By Joseph E. Stiglitz•
Illustration by Stephen Doyle
May 2011
Vanity Fair

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably.

Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

The Wizard of Lies, Why Cornell Went Ballistic


Published on Monday, May 16, 2011
by TruthDig.com
The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic
by Chris Hedges


President Obama shakes hands with Princeton University professor Cornel West, center, and poet Sonia Sachez, after delivering remarks at the National Urban League 100th Anniversary Convention in Washington. (AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The moral philosopher Cornel West, if Barack Obama’s ascent to power was a morality play, would be the voice of conscience. Rahm Emanuel, a cynical product of the Chicago political machine, would be Satan. Emanuel in the first scene of the play would dangle power, privilege, fame and money before Obama. West would warn Obama that the quality of a life is defined by its moral commitment, that his legacy will be determined by his willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.

Perhaps there was never much of a struggle in Obama’s heart. Perhaps West only provided a moral veneer. Perhaps the dark heart of Emanuel was always the dark heart of Obama. Only Obama knows. But we know how the play ends. West is banished like honest Kent in “King Lear.” Emanuel and immoral mediocrities from Lawrence Summers to Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates—think of Goneril and Regan in the Shakespearean tragedy—take power. We lose. And Obama becomes an obedient servant of the corporate elite in exchange for the hollow trappings of authority.

No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”

“When you look at a society you look at it through the lens of the least of these, the weak and the vulnerable; you are committed to loving them first, not exclusively, but first, and therefore giving them priority,” says West, the Class of 1943 University Professor of African American Studies and Religion at Princeton University. “And even at this moment, when the empire is in deep decline, the culture is in deep decay, the political system is broken, where nearly everyone is up for sale, you say all I have is the subversive memory of those who came before, personal integrity, trying to live a decent life, and a willingness to live and die for the love of folk who are catching hell. This means civil disobedience, going to jail, supporting progressive forums of social unrest if they in fact awaken the conscience, whatever conscience is left, of the nation. And that’s where I find myself now.”

“I have to take some responsibility,” he admits of his support for Obama as we sit in his book-lined office. “I could have been reading into it more than was there."

"I was thinking maybe he has at least some progressive populist instincts that could become more manifest after the cautious policies of being a senator and working with [Sen. Joe] Lieberman as his mentor,” he says. “But it became very clear when I looked at the neoliberal economic team. The first announcement of Summers and Geithner I went ballistic. I said, ‘Oh, my God, I have really been misled at a very deep level.’ And the same is true for Dennis Ross and the other neo-imperial elites. I said, ‘I have been thoroughly misled, all this populist language is just a facade. I was under the impression that he might bring in the voices of brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman. I figured, OK, given the structure of constraints of the capitalist democratic procedure that’s probably the best he could do. But at least he would have some voices concerned about working people, dealing with issues of jobs and downsizing and banks, some semblance of democratic accountability for Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats who are just running amuck. I was completely wrong.”

West says the betrayal occurred on two levels.

“There is the personal level,” he says. “I used to call my dear brother [Obama] every two weeks. I said a prayer on the phone for him, especially before a debate. And I never got a call back. And when I ran into him in the state Capitol in South Carolina when I was down there campaigning for him he was very kind. The first thing he told me was, ‘Brother West, I feel so bad. I haven’t called you back. You been calling me so much. You been giving me so much love, so much support and what have you.’ And I said, ‘I know you’re busy.’ But then a month and half later I would run into other people on the campaign and he’s calling them all the time. I said, wow, this is kind of strange.

He doesn’t have time, even two seconds, to say thank you or I’m glad you’re pulling for me and praying for me, but he’s calling these other people. I said, this is very interesting. And then as it turns out with the inauguration I couldn’t get a ticket with my mother and my brother. I said this is very strange. We drive into the hotel and the guy who picks up my bags from the hotel has a ticket to the inauguration. My mom says, ‘That’s something that this dear brother can get a ticket and you can’t get one, honey, all the work you did for him from Iowa.’ Beginning in Iowa to Ohio. We had to watch the thing in the hotel.”

“What it said to me on a personal level,” he goes on, “was that brother Barack Obama had no sense of gratitude, no sense of loyalty, no sense of even courtesy, [no] sense of decency, just to say thank you. Is this the kind of manipulative, Machiavellian orientation we ought to get used to? That was on a personal level.”

But there was also the betrayal on the political and ideological level.

“It became very clear to me as the announcements were being made,” he says, “that this was going to be a newcomer, in many ways like Bill Clinton, who wanted to reassure the Establishment by bringing in persons they felt comfortable with and that we were really going to get someone who was using intermittent progressive populist language in order to justify a centrist, neoliberalist policy that we see in the opportunism of Bill Clinton. It was very much going to be a kind of black face of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council].”

Obama and West’s last personal contact took place a year ago at a gathering of the Urban League when, he says, Obama “cussed me out.” Obama, after his address, which promoted his administration’s championing of charter schools, approached West, who was seated in the front row.

"He makes a bee line to me right after the talk, in front of everybody,” West says. “He just lets me have it. He says, ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself, saying I’m not a progressive. Is that the best you can do? Who do you think you are?’ I smiled. I shook his hand. And a sister hollered in the back, ‘You can’t talk to professor West. That’s Dr. Cornel West. Who do you think you are?’ You can go to jail talking to the president like that. You got to watch yourself. I wanted to slap him on the side of his head.”

“It was so disrespectful,” he went on, “that’s what I didn’t like. I’d already been called, along with all [other] leftists, a “F’ing retard” by Rahm Emanuel because we had critiques of the president.”

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, has, West said, phoned him to complain about his critiques of Obama. Jarrett was especially perturbed, West says, when he said in an interview last year that he saw a lot of Malcolm X and Ella Baker in Michelle Obama. Jarrett told him his comments were not complimentary to the first lady.

“I said in the world that I live in, in that which authorizes my reality, Ella Baker is a towering figure,” he says, munching Fritos and sipping apple juice at his desk. “If I say there is a lot of Ella Baker in Michelle Obama that’s a compliment. She can take it any way she wants. I can tell her I’m sorry it offended you, but I’m going to speak the truth. She is a Harvard Law graduate, a Princeton graduate, and she deals with child obesity and military families. Why doesn’t she visit a prison? Why not spend some time in the hood? That is where she is, but she can’t do it.”

“I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men,” West says. “It’s understandable. As a young brother who grows up in a white context, brilliant African father, he’s always had to fear being a white man with black skin. All he has known culturally is white. He is just as human as I am, but that is his cultural formation. When he meets an independent black brother it is frightening. And that’s true for a white brother. When you get a white brother who meets a free, independent black man they got to be mature to really embrace fully what the brother is saying to them. It’s a tension, given the history. It can be overcome. Obama, coming out of Kansas influence, white, loving grandparents, coming out of Hawaii and Indonesia, when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a deracination. It is understandable.”

“He feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want,” he says. “He’s got two homes. He has got his family and whatever challenges go on there, and this other home. Larry Summers blows his mind because he’s so smart. He’s got Establishment connections. He’s embracing me. It is this smartness, this truncated brilliance, that titillates and stimulates brother Barack and makes him feel at home. That is very sad for me.”

“This was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment,” West laments. “We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful. It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.”

“Can you imagine if Barack Obama had taken office and deliberately educated and taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe and what greed was really taking place?” West asks. “If he had told us what kind of mechanisms of accountability needed to be in place, if he had focused on homeowners rather than investment banks for bailouts and engaged in massive job creation he could have nipped in the bud the right-wing populism of the tea party folk. The tea party folk are right when they say the government is corrupt. It is corrupt. Big business and banks have taken over government and corrupted it in deep ways.

“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties. Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.”

© 2011 TruthDig.com
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Maid


Don't Fuck the Maid! Men just don't get it. OJ, Kobe, Frenchman, Arnold! Will they get it before the sky falls. Look up, bro, the sky is falling!


LOS ANGELES — Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff, a revelation that apparently prompted wife Maria Shriver to leave the couple's home before they announced their separation last week.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver jointly announced May 9 that they were splitting up after 25 years of marriage. Yet, Shriver moved out of the family's Brentwood mansion earlier in the year after Schwarzenegger acknowledged the child is his, The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.

"After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago," Schwarzenegger told the Times in a statement that also was sent to The Associated Press early Tuesday. "I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.



"I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time," the statement concluded. "While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not."
Schwarzenegger's representatives did not comment further. A spokesman for the former first lady told the Times she had no comment.

The Times did not publish the former staffer's name nor that of her child but said the woman worked for the family for 20 years and retired in January.

In an interview Monday before Schwarzenegger issued his statement, the former staffer said another man – her husband at the time – was the child's father. When the Times later informed the woman of the governor's statement, she declined to comment further.

The child was born before Schwarzenegger began his seven-year stint in public office.

Shriver stood by her husband during his 2003 gubernatorial campaign after the Los Angeles Times reported accusations that he had a history of groping women. Schwarzenegger later said he "behaved badly sometimes."

In his first public comments since the couple announced their breakup, Schwarzenegger said last week that he and Shriver "both love each other very much."

Post Publisher Suspected Police Role in Murder of Chauncey Bailey

Oakland Post Publisher
Paul Cobb and Marvin X.
They were childhood friends
in West Oakland.
photo Walter Riley, Esq.








Slain Oakland Post Editor
Chauncey Bailey











Chauncey Bailey Murder Trial Nears End,


Oakland Police Drama Begins


As the Chauncey Bailey Murder trial wraps up, the long suspected Oakland police role in the murder investigation is being uncovered. Oakland Post Newspaper Publisher Paul Cobb and the Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X have long called for an investigation of the OPD's role in the assassination of Oakland Post Editor Chauncey Bailey.

The "white" Chauncey Bailey Project has resisted investigating the alleged police role in the assassination of Chauncey Bailey, focusing singularly on the indictment of the Black Muslim Bakery Brothers as the sole culprits, even though at the outset of the editor's assassination in broad daylight, Post Publisher Paul Cobb told the OPD that Chauncey was not only investigating the activities of YBMB, but more importantly, the alleged activities of corruption by African American members of the OPD.


He informed the DA Tom Orloff of his feelings. Not only did Orloff reject Cobb's assertion, but he resigned shortly after the killing. Police Chief Tucker resigned or retired as well.

Before he resigned, Chief Tucker suggested if Cobb wanted the OPD to pursue police involvement in the assassination of Chauncey, Cobb should get himself a bullet proof vest.


When Paul Cobb suggested the "White" Chauncey Bailey Project should also pursue police involvement, embedded OPD crime writer Harry Harris suggested Cobb was out of his mind. Cobb suggests Harris has been hanging around in the OPD locker room too long.


It is clear that Harry Harris has been embedded with the OPD far beyond any objective usefulness. The same may be true for Oakland Tribune Editor Martin Reynalds who related to Black Chauncey Bailey Project organizer Marvin X that the OPD had fine officers, especially Lt. Longmire, chief investigator of the Bailey killing as well as mentor of the murder suspects who was temporarily relieved of his duties due to conflict of interest. He was in charge of the crime scene and led the raid of the bakery, securing the murder weapon and a confession in less than 24 hours after the murder of Chauncey.


When Marvin X published the conversation he had with Oakland Tribune Editor Reynolds during a lunch meeting, Reynolds threatened to throw a Molotov Cocktail at Marvin X, one of the most prolific writers in America and the world. Marvin wrote eight books last year and is considered the USA's Rumi (Bob Holman), Plato teaching on the streets of Oakland (Ishmael Reed), the father of Muslim American literature (Dr. Mohja Kahf), one of the founders and innovators of the revolutionary school of African writing (Amiri Baraka).

As the murder trial concludes, it appears the OPD drama is just beginning. KTVU television reported last night that a long suspected cover up in the Bailey murder investigation has been uncovered.


Because of his association with those indicted for the murder of Chauncey, there are persons who think Marvin X's assertions are tainted. Marvin X rejects this. After all, Chauncey was his friend as well. One of his last stories was a review of Marvin's book How to Recover from the Addiction to White Supremacy.

--Marvin X

the Black Chauncey Bailey Project

http://www.theblackchaunceybaileyproject.blogspot.com

5/19/11




OPD Cover-Up Emerges


In Bailey Murder Investigation

Posted: 9:10 pm PDT May 18, 2011
Updated: 9:43 am PDT May 19, 2011

OAKLAND, Calif. -- As the eight-week trial of the alleged mastermind of the Chauncey Bailey murder heads to the jury this week, KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained hundreds of pages of legal documents never seen publicly that explain for the first time the inside story of the controversial homicide investigation.

It's a story that KTVU has largely been prevented from telling because of a gag order imposed by the command staff of the Oakland Police Department.

The documents paint a troubling picture of former top commanders at Oakland police misleading the public about several key aspects of the Bailey case.

On December 15, 2008, then-Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker called a highly unusual press conference to respond to a story revealing what may have been the single biggest turn in the assassination of Bay Area journalist Chauncey Bailey.

That was the discovery that Tucker had delayed for two days a massive police raid scheduled for August 1st, 2007 on the violent "Your Black Muslim Bakery" so a member of the chief's command staff could extend a camping trip.

But the next day, August 2nd, a self-described "soldier" from the bakery gunned down Bailey in cold blood on a downtown Oakland street. The delayed raid then took place on August 3rd, the day after the murder.

The documents contain charges that Tucker and his command staff held a private meeting just before the press conference, where they agreed to cover-up that decision when they met the news media.

In the sworn statement KTVU has obtained, an Oakland police captain testified he was in that meeting and spoke to the chief about what he regarded as a lie:

Captain Ersie Joyner: "Chief Tucker was adamant that we had only one date set and there was never two dates."

Attorney: "And to your knowledge, did Chief Tucker know that there were two dates, August 1st and then August 3rd?"

Joyner: "Yes."

Attorney: "Was there anyone else in that meeting with Chief Tucker and Chief Jordan and others who believed that the department had knowledge of the two dates, August 1st and August 3rd?"

Joyner: "Yes."

Attorney: "After that press conference, did you talk to Chief Tucker about what you perceived to be a dishonest statement?"

Joyner. "Yes."

San Francisco attorney John Scott, who is bringing a lawsuit against the city of Oakland on behalf of the lead investigator of the Bailey murder, says Tucker’s action goes to the heart of a story never heard before -- until now.

"The department, I believe, had its own sense of guilt or believed it had its own sense of guilt or responsibility for the murder because the department was supposed to execute a warrant on the Black Muslim Bakery on August 1st, the day before the murder." Scott said. "Now, no one is suggesting or implying the department intended to kill Chauncey Bailey."

Scott is representing Oakland police Sgt. Derwin Longmire, who has been under a gag order by the chief's office since the fall of 2007.

Longmire has never spoken to the news media about the Chauncey Bailey case. He also declined to speak to KTVU for this story.

But KTVU Channel 2 News has obtained sworn statements by Longmire and other Oakland police officials, some testifying that Sgt. Longmire has been unjustly painted as the scapegoat for the Bailey homicide investigation.

Tucker's assistant chief, Howard Jordan, launched internal investigations against Longmire because he believed the homicide investigator had become far too close to the Black Muslim Bakery and didn't tell his boss or colleagues what he was doing.

Recorded phone conversations between Longmire and Yusef Bey IV shortly after Bailey's murder indicate they had a close relationship:

"Nobody has the right to say we can't be friends because you know what I mean," Bey can be heard saying in one recorded call.

To which Longmire replied: "You know what, I totally agree. I totally agree. I feel that way wholeheartedly."

The documents KTVU obtained, however, have sworn testimony from Longmire's immediate supervisor saying he had ordered Longmire to take those actions and that the district attorney also knew -- and approved -- of them.

Longmire's lawsuit charges the Oakland police brass with discriminating against him and it uses sworn statements such as this one by Assistant Chief Howard Jordan to attempt to prove he made biased assumptions:

Attorney: "Did you believe that Sgt. Longmire had compromised the investigation because of that relationship with either the Black Muslims or the bakery?"

Jordan: "Yes."

Attorney: "At the time of the Chauncey Bailey murder, did you believe that Sergeant Longmire was associated with the Black Muslim Bakery?"

Jordan: "Yes."

However, the documents also include evidence that Longmire was not protecting the Black Muslims, showing that as early as five years before Bailey was shot Sgt. Longmire warned the police command staff that the bakery was a criminal enterprise and needed to be cleaned up.

No serious, sustained action was taken on those repeated warnings until it was too late.

The department moved to fire Longmire in May 2009.

After a series of internal investigations, Longmire was ultimately exonerated.

But even then, the Oakland command staff offered Longmire his job back only if he promised not to sue. He refused, and filed his lawsuit in April 2010.

Although Longmire is still prohibited from discussing the Bailey case, he did talk to KTVU when he filed his lawsuit against the department.

"There was so much media attention that when questions came up they couldn't answer about mistakes early on, for them there was no other way but to let it fall on someone and that someone was me," said Longmire.

Assistant Chief Howard Jordan declined to comment on this story through a letter from an attorney representing the city of Oakland.

A phone call to former chief Wayne Tucker, now a civilian, asking for his perspective on the allegations in these new documents brought this brief response:

"I have nothing to say to your s***** station,” Tucker declared. “Why don't you publish that? You should publish that."

The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in February 2012.




Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. All rights reserved.

Monday, May 16, 2011

WGBH American Experience . Freedom Riders . Watch | PBS

WGBH American Experience . Freedom Riders . Watch PBS

The Frenchman and the Maid


Of the Frenchman and the maid

If it is true that the Frenchman who is charged with raping the maid in his $3,000.00 per night hotel suite, it is past time to discuss the mythology of pussy.

There is no time to cherry pick and nik pick words about a disgusting act of pathological sexual behavior. If the allegations are proven true, we suspect the gentleman who was in charge of the IMF and in line to be the next president of France, surely suffered a break with reality and retreated to a form of infantile behavior or shall we call it animalistic, certainly we would not suspect such behavior from a man in charge of bailing out Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland--and maybe the great USA soon.

Yet, we have written about broken systems/broken minds. This gentleman fits the description if the allegations are proven true. Rape is an act of violence, pure and simple. And men with power often become totally delusional, thinking they own the world and all the women therein. Male rape is pandemic as well!

Why would a man of this stature not call a dating service, if he had sexual needs, surely he had the means, thus we think there is a question of his sanity, unless we must put him among those ignut men who still don't get it, that they don't have a pussy, no, not even the lowly maid's pussy belongs to them, tip notwithstandin.

During my exile in Mexico City, we had a live in maid, but my adviser told me not to have sex with the maid, don't even think about it. Number one, she will not want to clean shit after becoming emotionally involved.

Those persons in theatre and entertainment are surely aware of the danger of having sex with actors, especially before a production: it can ruin the entire production if either of the persons develop emotional problems, especially with the director and/or producer, but between actors as well.

And yet men (and women) often don't get it, even after being warned. Poor Kobe Bryant surely paid a high price for fucking his maid, including a six million dollar ring to sooth relations with his wife.

After persons read my most controversial piece of writing Mythology of Pussy (renamed Mythology of Love), men and women appear to get it. The men learn they don't own the woman and most especially her pussy. And nor does she own their dick. I am intentionally speaking as raw as I can because this subject is a pandemic, worldwide, men are performing acts of violence upon women and we wonder when will it end?

We see the necessity of a complete revamping of the male/female mythological order. The very idea of manhood and womanhood must be radically changed, especially from the religious foundation and other cultural and psychosocial rites and values, whether in simple male/female relations or ultimately in marriage.

The mythology and rituals perpetuate violence with the concept of ownership, yes, chattel property. Ironically, the church discovered long ago that the priesthood must be celibate in order to preserve property rights, yet it continued to enforce marriage rites that were de facto chattel slavery or personal property slavery. We will not discuss the result of sexual depravity as a result of celibacy.

And so once married, the mates accept that they own each other, that they are willing to kill over said ownership that include exclusive sexual rights/rites. The result is worldwide oppression of women and sometimes men. Even children and youth in their partner relations have been socialized to believe they own each other. Of course this is done in the name of Love, though we wonder what does ownership have to do with love, especially love that results in the often oppressive and violent treatment that puts mates in the hospital and/or grave.
--Marvin X

Global capitalism and 21st century fascism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Global capitalism and 21st century fascism - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Marvin X as Psychic


Marvin X as Psychic

Marvin X has long felt the psychic powers in himself. Most often he would linger in self denial. Two years ago he gave up using his cell phone or any phone and urged his friends and family to ESP him when they wanted to talk.

Recenly he was planning an east coast book tour and wanted to talk with a friend in Washington DC, but didn't have his number. One Sunday Marvin was riding his bike to the Berkeley Flea Market. He thought about going to the Flea Market by biking down Dwight Way to Martin Luther King, Jr., but his mind told him to go Dwight Way to Sacramento to Ashby. As he turned the corner on Ashby heading to the Flea Market a car passed with his DC friend on the passenger side. The car stopped and he talked with his friend who had just arrived in town for his mother's funeral. Marvin told his friend he was trying to get in touch with him. The friend said he had just asked about him at the Flea Market. The friend told him there was no problem when he gets on the east coast, especially since he had an enjoyable time the last time the poet stayed with him. The friend was especially happy to see Marvin bike riding since it was his suggestion that Marvin get a bike. He had let Marvin used one of his bike while in DC.

More recently, something told Marvin to post the poem If We Must Die on his blog. He had no idea why he needed to post this classic anti-racist poem from the Harlem Renaissance by Claude McKay that was used by Winston Churchill during WWII, and later during the 60s Black Arts/Liberation Movement.

He posted the poem as his mind told him. A few hours later he was talking with his grandson who was on the phone talking with his grandmother, Marvin's former wife. The grandson left his house still talking with his grandmother, then the three year old returned to tell his grandfather his grandmother said tell your grandpa Osama bin Laden was just killed. Marvin was absolutely certain his posting of the poem had to do with the death of Osama bin Laden.

Just before the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Marvin wrote a love poem with reference to the ocean and beach. Only after events in Japan did the poem make sense to him. It was clear the poem transcended romance and was a poetic precurser to events in Japan, It was written two days before.

In the poem, Marvin X suggests the beloved come to him as a wind, that his arms open wide as the earth opened when she quaked. He pleads with his beloved to do as she will but don't destroy him. We see the earth opened but was not gentle to the people, consuming all things in her path, just as the beloved rejected the poet's love call.

The poem ends with the poet suggesting the lovers walk upon the shore as the tide comes upon them. The people of Japan, and even those on the beach in California, were swept into the waves of the tsunami.

The Funny Thing is That I Already Knew

...when I see you coming toward me
a wind surrounds you
swirling swirling
a dance of the dervish accompany your stride
the wind blows you to me
my arms open wide to enfold the greatness of your spirit
I am here at your pleasure
do with me as you wish
no abuse please.
Yet I have no fear
I know you already know this.

Ah, the air is so fresh
we must go to the ocean soon
I want to walk on the shore
barefoot in the sand as the tide comes upon us
holding hands in the wind
as the dervish dance and swirl.
--Marvin X
4/9/11

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Sexual Abuse in the House of God

Clergy Sexual Abuse of Women Is a Violent Abuse of Power"Cléo Fatoorehchi interviews DR. VALLI BATCHELOR of the World Student Christian Federation Book Project

Valli Batchelor

Credit:Courtesy of Valli Batchelor


NEW YORK, May 15, 2011 (IPS) - Ninety to 95 percent of victims of clergy sexual exploitation are women, according to recent estimates by the Columbia Theological Seminary's Rev. Pamela Cooper White, and yet very few studies have been conducted on this issue.

Now, the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF), founded in 1985 and which represents more than a hundred social justice-oriented student movements from around the world, is breaking the silence with the publication of a book entitled "When Pastors and Priests Prey - Identifying, Preventing and Overcoming Clergy Sexual Abuse of Women".

The book will be launched at the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC), held in Kingston, Jamaica May 17 to 25. The IEPC is a gathering of church leaders who will assess the outcome of the Decade to Overcome Violence, an initiative created in 2001.

The book's coordinator, Dr. Valli Batchelor, came to collaborate with the WSCF after the 2008 Commission on the Status of Women, where she was participating as an Islamic finance expert for the World Council of Churches, which sponsored the book.

She also runs the Journey Towards Hope Dance Project, which helps to educate and engage the public and prevent violence within communities.

Q: Why do you call clergy sexual abuse against women a "silent killer" within families and communities around the globe?

A: Clergy sexual abuse of women is a violent abuse of power rather than "an affair". Most people may recognise that it is an unacceptable abuse of power for a therapist or doctor to have sex with a patient. Yet many fail to recognise that when a clergy – who commits to spiritually nurture and guide a member of the church - takes advantage of his power and authority to have a sexual relationship with her, he is committing sexual abuse and not having an affair.

Clinical research from the Faith Trust Institute indicates that women victims are likely to remain silent, suffering severe consequences from depression to suicide.

Q: What can a woman do to protect herself?

A: Women can protect themselves from sexual abuse by understanding that people with power and authority in our society can abuse that power for their own ends. Stopping abuse before it begins is the best method for self-protection. If abuse has occurred, reporting the abuse is empowering because it breaks the silence surrounding the offender who is violating the trust placed in him.

Realisation of the betrayal of trust by clergy – who is believed to be the spiritual representation of God - is devastating and survivors need support to cope. Clergy offenders often use their spiritual authority to violate women, pleading or threatening the victims that they must forgive the offender's "sins" or risk being rejected by God for unforgiveness. This is spiritual blackmail and can trap victims into silence and suffering for years or decades.

Survivors recover best when they find someone who believes them and helps the survivor to bring the offender to justice and thus reduce the risk of the offender abusing other victims.

Q: How can people fight against such abuse?

A: First, the issue needs to be faced honestly: that sexual abuse is a violent abuse of power, not a matter of "an affair" between a clergyman and a female parishioner. Second, church congregations and church organisations need to recognise that clergy are capable of sexual abuse so that the churches can devise safe practices for clergy.

The WSCF and the WCC have jointly played a role of historic significance by pooling together the knowledge, experiences and voices of survivors, advocates, theologians and others to create this book, which will hopefully begin a cultural transformation within the worldwide church.

Q: Where does the law stand on this issue?

A: Criminal sexual offences committed by clergy can be prosecuted by the courts. Survivors who take on a criminal prosecution must give a police statement and be prepared to be cross-examined at a trial - and face brutal questioning from defence lawyers. The prosecutor must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

Police are often unwilling to charge an offender unless they are confident of securing a conviction. Survivors of sexual offences by clergy are often embarrassed, trapped in confusion, guilt, shame and self-blame that most victims never make an official complaint to police. Worldwide conviction rates for all sexual assault cases are still very low.

Q: Should the church create some kind of tribunal?

A: Church organisations over hundreds of years have internal processes which are not transparent. Offending clergy have been protected by their church organisations for decades which intimidate victims into silence and cover up disclosures of abuse.

Prosecutions by civil authorities are more likely to be transparent and offer a better option than church tribunals.

(END)