Dear friends,
On the link below, is a thought-provoking message from the late, great comic George Carlin. However, please excuse the foul language in advance. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRxpjEZveQ Read full post
Thursday, May 24, 2012
9 minutes-long George Carlin video gives us some real Religion
Dear friends,
On the link below, is a thought-provoking message from the late, great comic George Carlin. However, please excuse the foul language in advance. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRxpjEZveQ Read full post
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Homelessness in Philadelphia and eslewhere in North America
"Philadelphians have a nerve. After all, during the last quarter of the 18th Century, at the founding of this nation, London was called 'a graveyard for the poor', and Philly 'a warehouse for the poor.' "
Dear friends,
When I either hear or read about "homelessness", I'm always confused about the language. After all, there are many more players/culprits who are never discussed in this issue of “homelessness”. They are: 1) A market economy that thrives on power and greed. 2) Greedy landlords. 3) Media outlets that serve as opinion-makers.
Moreover, “homelessness” is a condition – not an identity. The same logic that was used to get ordinary people to accept slavery as an identity has been transferred to those who were/are, for whatever reasons, in a condition of homelessness. In other words, people were called “slaves”, when, in fact, they were captive workers in a condition of slavery. Worse yet, ordinary citizens have the nerve to go along with the notion that so-called "homeless" people do not “deserve” the same rights as everyone else. Yet, between government bailouts and subsidies for an inflated housing market, it is the landlords and banks who are really "getting over"/subsidized.
Nevertheless, a more pernicious aspect of being in a condition of "homelessness" is: Many young children, not of their own choice, are thrown into a lifestyle that often makes poverty a vice, as being "rich" already does. Hence, just as the wealthy have others wash their houses and butts, many "poor" people become content with their oppression and seek no way out of the mess, instead, living not only accepting handouts, but expecting them. And their favorite mantra is: It's free!
However, if our social and community workers begin helping folks recognize their many inner powers like both creative and productive energy, discipline, concentration, and memory, to name a few, fewer people will allow themselves to remain in the state of "homelessness".
Finally, Hollywood tends to show scenery of days gone by, as if we are looking at Hallmark greeting cards. Yet, the real 18th Century was a time when animal feces were everywhere. There were no graveled streets or cement sidewalks. People "tipped through the tulips", so to speak, when walking down the street, just to avoid stepping in the aforementioned putrid matter. As well, today, Philadelphians have a nerve scoffing at people who are in a “homeless” condition. Yet, during the last quarter of the 18th Century, at the founding of this nation, London was called "a graveyard for the poor", and Philadelphia, our first capital, "a warehouse for the poor". That’s why the British sent so many people to Philly back then, in the first place. Please go to the literature! The “homeless” problem was far worse then.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Dear friends,
When I either hear or read about "homelessness", I'm always confused about the language. After all, there are many more players/culprits who are never discussed in this issue of “homelessness”. They are: 1) A market economy that thrives on power and greed. 2) Greedy landlords. 3) Media outlets that serve as opinion-makers.
Moreover, “homelessness” is a condition – not an identity. The same logic that was used to get ordinary people to accept slavery as an identity has been transferred to those who were/are, for whatever reasons, in a condition of homelessness. In other words, people were called “slaves”, when, in fact, they were captive workers in a condition of slavery. Worse yet, ordinary citizens have the nerve to go along with the notion that so-called "homeless" people do not “deserve” the same rights as everyone else. Yet, between government bailouts and subsidies for an inflated housing market, it is the landlords and banks who are really "getting over"/subsidized.
Nevertheless, a more pernicious aspect of being in a condition of "homelessness" is: Many young children, not of their own choice, are thrown into a lifestyle that often makes poverty a vice, as being "rich" already does. Hence, just as the wealthy have others wash their houses and butts, many "poor" people become content with their oppression and seek no way out of the mess, instead, living not only accepting handouts, but expecting them. And their favorite mantra is: It's free!
However, if our social and community workers begin helping folks recognize their many inner powers like both creative and productive energy, discipline, concentration, and memory, to name a few, fewer people will allow themselves to remain in the state of "homelessness".
Finally, Hollywood tends to show scenery of days gone by, as if we are looking at Hallmark greeting cards. Yet, the real 18th Century was a time when animal feces were everywhere. There were no graveled streets or cement sidewalks. People "tipped through the tulips", so to speak, when walking down the street, just to avoid stepping in the aforementioned putrid matter. As well, today, Philadelphians have a nerve scoffing at people who are in a “homeless” condition. Yet, during the last quarter of the 18th Century, at the founding of this nation, London was called "a graveyard for the poor", and Philadelphia, our first capital, "a warehouse for the poor". That’s why the British sent so many people to Philly back then, in the first place. Please go to the literature! The “homeless” problem was far worse then.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Why is AFRICOM so vital to US interests?
“…while the US military/industrial complex, along with Big Oil, benefits from using taxpayer dollars to fill their coffers, how does that justify cuts in education and social services, for instance?”
Dear friends,
In an article thta appeared in Foreign Policy magazine last year, author Robert Moeller insists: One of the most serious criticisms leveled at Africom is that the organization represents a U.S. military takeover of the foreign-policy process. Huh?
What about the longtime push by a number of African nations to unify and declare a United States of Africa? Does AFRICOM agree with that perspective, and will it not try to influence the possibility of a united Africa?
Initially alleging that the issue was about the “war on terror", it became clear that the interests of "Big Oil", not "national security" were behind the whole existence of AFRICOM. Started by George W. Bush, Robert Gates was put in charge of the AFRICOM operation. Then yet another convenience for Big Business, Barack Obama kept Gates at his post after he won the presidency.
Nevertheless, the author continues: Let there be no mistake. Africom’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests. That is what nations and militaries do. But we also have found that our own national interest in a stable and prosperous Africa is shared strongly by our African partners.
Of course, Moeller's assertion is contradicted in a recent article in The Nation, by Katrina vanden Heuvel called, "Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security". She writes, “The AFRICOM headquarters alone costs almost $300 million for operation and maintenance, with an additional $263 million for support and $200 million for the Camp Lemonier base with 1,800 US troops in Djibouti. Based on the FY 2010 budget requests, AFRICOM would receive approximately $1.4 billion...IPS took the lead in organizing the Africa Human Security Group, a coalition of faith-based and youth groups, African Diaspora groups, academics and Africa-based allies opposed to the development of the new US Africa Command. In general, African civil society is strongly opposed to AFRICOM and US military involvement on the continent. In large part due to widespread African criticisms, the US was unable to headquarter the command on the continent. It is located instead outside of Stuttgart, Germany.”
In any case, why is it so important to the “national interest” of this country to be concerned about what is going on in Africa, at the expense of the well-being of American citizens who need more funds directed towards moving millions of citizens forward?
After all, while the US military/industrial complex, along with Big Oil, benefits from using taxpayer dollars to fill their coffers, how does that justify cuts in education and social services, for instance?
Finally, Moeller’s mention of the USAID begs for the question, "What has been the real history of USAID in helping other countries?" For example, the African nation of Eritrea refuses aid from USAID or any other American group. Why is that? Because such "aid" alway comes with conditions.
On the link below, is the article by Robert Moeller that claims AFRICOM is good for Africa. What do you think?
"Liberation!" - Dr. Barbara Love
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/21/the_truth_about_africom Read full post
Dear friends,
In an article thta appeared in Foreign Policy magazine last year, author Robert Moeller insists: One of the most serious criticisms leveled at Africom is that the organization represents a U.S. military takeover of the foreign-policy process. Huh?
What about the longtime push by a number of African nations to unify and declare a United States of Africa? Does AFRICOM agree with that perspective, and will it not try to influence the possibility of a united Africa?
Initially alleging that the issue was about the “war on terror", it became clear that the interests of "Big Oil", not "national security" were behind the whole existence of AFRICOM. Started by George W. Bush, Robert Gates was put in charge of the AFRICOM operation. Then yet another convenience for Big Business, Barack Obama kept Gates at his post after he won the presidency.
Nevertheless, the author continues: Let there be no mistake. Africom’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests. That is what nations and militaries do. But we also have found that our own national interest in a stable and prosperous Africa is shared strongly by our African partners.
Of course, Moeller's assertion is contradicted in a recent article in The Nation, by Katrina vanden Heuvel called, "Around the Globe, US Military Bases Generate Resentment, Not Security". She writes, “The AFRICOM headquarters alone costs almost $300 million for operation and maintenance, with an additional $263 million for support and $200 million for the Camp Lemonier base with 1,800 US troops in Djibouti. Based on the FY 2010 budget requests, AFRICOM would receive approximately $1.4 billion...IPS took the lead in organizing the Africa Human Security Group, a coalition of faith-based and youth groups, African Diaspora groups, academics and Africa-based allies opposed to the development of the new US Africa Command. In general, African civil society is strongly opposed to AFRICOM and US military involvement on the continent. In large part due to widespread African criticisms, the US was unable to headquarter the command on the continent. It is located instead outside of Stuttgart, Germany.”
In any case, why is it so important to the “national interest” of this country to be concerned about what is going on in Africa, at the expense of the well-being of American citizens who need more funds directed towards moving millions of citizens forward?
After all, while the US military/industrial complex, along with Big Oil, benefits from using taxpayer dollars to fill their coffers, how does that justify cuts in education and social services, for instance?
Finally, Moeller’s mention of the USAID begs for the question, "What has been the real history of USAID in helping other countries?" For example, the African nation of Eritrea refuses aid from USAID or any other American group. Why is that? Because such "aid" alway comes with conditions.
On the link below, is the article by Robert Moeller that claims AFRICOM is good for Africa. What do you think?
"Liberation!" - Dr. Barbara Love
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/21/the_truth_about_africom Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
