HAMAS - Liberators or Terrorists? (originally posted 5/4/09)

"Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force..."



Dear friends,

Particularly mainstream media in the US lump both HAMAS and Al Qaeda together in the same category as “terrorists”. The idea is: terrorism is a great act of “evil”.

However, if we use history as a guide, terrorist actions are often not just carried out by mean-spirited people for the sake of “evil”, as it were. Rather, they are used mostly, in fact, as part of a larger plan that lesser military powers carry out against their more potent and larger foes for the former’s intent to gain autonomy. A case in point that occurred right here in the United States happened during the 19th Century, when Confederate forces openly robbed and burned stores of armaments from both warehouses and ships belonging to the Union, until President Lincoln was finally forced to declare war. And descendants of many of the Confederates and their ilk, by the way, continue to proliferate in this country, at all levels of power.

Nevertheless, the role of HAMAS is not simply terrorism. After all, their main duties appear to be administrative ones where they are responsible for providing social services to the citizens of Gaza, from food and health care to education. This aspect of their work is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the mainstream media of the West.

At any rate, in the informative discussion/interview, below, with noted Jewish scholar Neil Zagorin, he and I shared ideas about the role of HAMAS in the Israel/Occupied Palestine mess.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
*******************************

Djata: Hey Neil, talking about HAMAS in the US in anything other than a negative light seems to bring uneasiness among a certain part of the population.

Neil: HAMAS is treated like such a bogeyman that it's hard to say anything positive about it without making it seem naive and easily dismissible.

Djata: Neil, personally, I see HAMAS as a grass roots, freedom-fighting group. How do you see them?

Neil: Virtually every organized Palestinian group in the past century has striven for Palestinian freedom in one way or another, as far as I can tell. If you’re asking whether I see HAMAS as primarily motivated or inspired by the struggle for freedom, I’d say that’s a main factor.

Djata: In the context of their religious/political direction, do you consider HAMAS part of the body of Islamic fundamentalists who seem to be controlling an increasingly larger portion of the Middle East?

Neil: They are an Islamist group that seeks a Muslim renewal of some sort. Of course, the perceived need for that should be seen in the context of the dispossession and lack of freedom Palestinians have endured in the past century. It’s been fashionable, at least in the US, to view Islamism negatively, but I don’t think we should resort to stereotypes. If Al Qaeda is towards the far end of an Islamist spectrum, the ruling party of Turkey, with whom the West seems able to live respectfully, is at a different part of that spectrum. I would be cautious about concluding that HAMAS is like Al Qaeda.

Djata: But if HAMAS is simply another “terrorist” group, then why do they have so much support from everyday Palestinians?

Neil: Hamas would not be where it is without tremendous grass-roots support among Palestinians. As I understand it, HAMAS has earned a reputation for being more honest and competent in discharging administrative duties than the Palestinian Authority. They have earned respect for being confrontational with Israel in a context where 15 years of negotiations have not produced a 2-state solution, but have produced significant Israeli settlement in the West Bank that threatens to make a 2-state solution impossible.

HAMAS will use brute force to achieve political goals within Palestinian society, but brute force is a common tool in that region. The reasons for that are many and complex, and HAMAS is not the roughest group in that part of the world. In the end, for a combination of reasons, HAMAS commands grass-roots support, even among Palestinians who are not Islamist, or even Muslim.

Djata: Do you agree with the US government not wanting to include HAMAS in the dialogue?

Neil: The governments of both the US and Israel have dealt with and do deal with HAMAS. They both tolerated, if not enabled, HAMAS to get started a generation ago, seeing it as something that could counterweight the Palestinian secular radicalism of the PLO and similar groups. Now that HAMAS is a genuine national force, they still deal with them. There’s been quiet cooperation, at times, between Israeli government officials and Palestinian officials who are Hamas members on administrative matters pertaining to daily life. Israel negotiated one truce arrangement with HAMAS last summer, that is, in 2008, that was relatively successful in keeping armed conflict damped down for the duration of its limited scope, even if it was unsuccessful in other ways, particularly in having border crossings into Gaza opened as HAMAS wanted.

Israel and the US deal also with HAMAS by publicly rejecting a direct relationship, and treating it confrontationally. That is also a way for one political actor to deal with another political actor.

Djata: Yes, I understand your point; however, the Obama administration seems to be following the same path as the Bushies did, by not acknowledging HAMAS as a crucial group in the process regarding dialogue that will lead to solving some of the problems that both Israel and Palestine face.

Neil: If you’re asking me whether I think it would be better for the US government to deal openly and directly with the HAMAS-led government in Gaza, I think that it would. The objection at this point is usually that HAMAS is a terrorist organization, or is a bunch of Muslim fanatics, or is rejecting of Israel’s right to exist.

Djata: One of the points that are made against HAMAS is their use of Palestinian civilians as “targets:, during their confrontations with Israel. Is that your position?

Neil: Yes, HAMAS has been willing to harm civilians, and to create fear among civilians, as tools to achieve political aims, which is a definition I would use for terrorism. Yes, HAMAS is an Islamist political entity that has striven for Muslim rule over all of historic Palestine, though some segments of Hamas say they would be willing to settle for a 2-state solution. Substitute “Israel” for “HAMAS” and “Zionist” for “Islamist” and “Muslim” in the preceding sentences, and see how they read.

Yes, HAMAS says it can’t recognize Israel. This is for theological reasons, as I understand it: all lands that were historically under Muslim control should remain under Muslim control. Some people in HAMAS speak of long-term truce that could be extended indefinitely as a method of co-existence with Israel. They may be sincere, or not. In honesty, this is an alien type of political view to me, a Westerner. Look at the Israeli body politic; at this point, though, there’s reason to doubt that it has the intention and will to negotiate a settlement with Palestinians in which Palestinians actually achieve some real independence.

The point of this is that if the US wants to only deal with groups that are politically high-minded and dedicated to non-violence, it may as well pack up and go home. If the US wants to be involved to foster a resolution that will bring some kind of justice and normal life to the region, it should deal with major players. Hamas has a real presence in Palestinian society, it represents a genuine spectrum of Palestinian opinion, it may well be a reality-based player that would adapt to being included in the mainstream by behaving as a mainstream player. Will it become “moderate” in its view of Israel? Doubtful, but let’s be honest, there’s little real moderation in that part of the world. In any case, it would take a long time after some kind of resolution of the conflict is put in place and works out well for most Palestinians to feel okay about the situation.

Djata: President Obama appears to be maintaining a hands-off position with HAMAS. If his administration maintains that stance, how will this help HAMAS become engaged in the dialogue?

Neil: The US has taken a stance of rejectionism vis-a-vis HAMAS for years, while the situation has gone from bad to worse. Congressmen and Senators have visited Gaza recently. It's hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is a form of dealing with HAMAS directly, if not openly. If so, maybe it portends something beneficial. Read full post

Noam Chomsky on the USA and Israel - partners in crime

"It's something that you'll never see on PBS or even Democracy Bow."

Dear friends,

I was personally introduced to the great scholar Noam Chomsky back in the early Eighties, at Temple University. We shared a mutual friend who insisted upon us meeting. Nevertheless, I found Noam to be a very straightforward guy. Yet, he has an extremely mellow personality.

Nevertheless, the disgraceful move by the Democrats last week, during their convention, to name the occupied territory of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has inspired me to revisit the link below. It is a 36 minutes-long video of Dr. Chomsky at a college lecture/panel that happened not long ago. He really gives a great synopsis of the relationship between the USA and Israel. It's something that you'll never see on either PBS or even Democracy Now.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30X2tYUGK_8 Read full post

Why is the C.I.A. so much in fashion these days?

"I find it amazing that, even in a time of WikiLeaks exposing covert US government misconduct, that the same C.I.A. who, historically, murdered the likes of Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevara, and Salvador Allende are now blatantly perpetrating revolts around the Middle East and North Africa."

Dear friends,

I find it amazing that, even in a time of WikiLeaks exposing covert US government misconduct, that the same C.I.A. who, historically, murdered the likes of Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevera, and Salvador Allende are now blatantly perpetrating revolts around the Middle East and North Africa. Worse yet, television programs sporting C.I.A. operatives, like NCIS w/LL Cool J and CHAOS, are now in fashion. Moreover, is all of this about "transparency", arrogance, or getting citizens to accept this ruthless group that is worst than any of its organized crime counterparts?

Nevertheless, after recently seeing a New York Times piece about the role of the C.I.A. ‘s current involvement in Libya, I decided to do a piece about this shameful US foreign policy body. During my research, I came across an article that really pointed out the exact history of this agency that engages in never-ending, unconscionable acts against humanity, that seemingly happens totally outside of this government. The article appears on the link below.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_terr.html Read full post

Piling Up On POTUS - a poem

“Piling on POTUS” – a poem 
by G. Djata Bumpus   

They said that 
he’d never get the job done. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 It started 
with an election run. 
Piling on POTUS.  

To think that 
a Black man finally won. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Disheartened 
racists, far more than one. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Now claim that 
his being there isn’t fun. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Hmmm… Read full post

South African Youth Getting High on HIV Drugs

Dear friends,

It has recently been brought to my attention that a former "problem"  in South Africa has now reached an almost epidemic level. It is: Young people are trading sexual favors and robbing people for HIV drugs, in order to smoke them and get some kind of alleged euphoric nightmares. The problem seems to be limited to South Africa right now. No other African nations have complained about it yet. However, it just goes to show what people will do to escape the reality of oppression, while, simultaneously, being content with said oppression.

On the link below is a BBC piece that was written about the earlier stage of the problem, several years ago. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7768059.stm Read full post

Obama's Re-election Temporarily Beats Racism

“About two decades ago, while venting to a very wise man from India about racism (the euphemism for White Supremacy), he offered, ‘Yes, Djata, but everyone likes to inherit property – not guilt.’ “  

Dear friends, About two decades ago, while venting to a very wise man from India about racism (the euphemism for White Supremacy), he offered, “Yes, Djata, but everyone likes to inherit property – not guilt.” 

Back then I immediately countered, “That’s for sure…However, racism is an active agent that is enmeshed in the total social fabric of American culture…It is not a thing of the past.” And while, as I had predicted both on Facebook and in public, for the past week, that President Obama would win re-election by a landslide, he has yet to address the fundamental issue of racism in this culture. 

More importantly, that also means that he has not helped to create social conditions in America that will provide a chance for another qualified person of African, Latino, or Asian descent to have a chance of repeating such an astounding victory. 

That is not only inappropriate for him to be behaving in that manner, but, as well, at least to me, it gives off the stench of opportunism. For African Americans, from Daddy Grace to Reverend Ike to Al Sharpton, we’ve already experienced too much of that, as a people. Moreover, racism didn’t only get an undeserving liar like Mitt Romney millions of votes. Even worse, every single day, it (racism) affects our ability to acquire fair and reasonable housing, jobs, and health care, to name a few things. And every adult African American, Latino, and Asian knows exactly about what I am talking. 

 Finally, the biggest victory in President Obama securing his re-election over the unashamed racist Republican Party is: Education won’t be slashed, and access to health care will continue to grow in its availability. But President Obama should consider developing programs for the youth that focus on having them accept value judgments that reject people using each others as means to ends. After all, 25 years from now, most middle-aged Americans will be dead. Yet, those aforementioned young people will be here to keep the society going. Otherwise, except for benefiting a few – that is, the organized minority of each country, what’s the point of defending human civilization anymore? Cheers! 

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Barack Obama sings to Dionne Warwick

The brother can pipe too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo8nLMCLT60

Read full post

The first "Black" president?

"let us stop trivializing our presence by using the phrase 'first Black president', when talking about Barack Obama, as if we have finally contributed and accomplished something here in the USA."

Dear friends,

African Americans have fought in every conflict in the history of this country. There is no single group here who can say that, especially since the descendants of the original rulers of this country have rarely fought; instead, they have only enjoyed the fruits of the labor of others. Besides, the original British only came here to share their spoils with the British crown, They did not come here to start a new country.

During the French and Indian wars, we fought side by side (troops weren't segregated yet) in securing the provinces. During the War of Independence, we fought on both sides of the conflict (and the American troops were always led by "Black" fiddlers), We also fought on both sides of all of the other wars in this country, leading up to World War 1. After that, we only fought on one side.

Crispus Attucks, like Obama was of African and European descent. He was the first person shot on the Boston Commons during the Boston Massacre that started the War of Independence. Many Black men accompanied Paul Revere, when he and they road their horses through the streets of Boston and vicinity yelling, "The British are coming!". See Lorenzo Johnston Greene's "The Negro in Colonial New England", where he wrote, “When Paul Revere and William Dawes aroused the Massachusetts countryside on that memorable night of April 18 - they called Negro as well as white Minutemen to the defense of American liberties.” The aforementioned "Negroes" had names like Peter Salem of Framingham, Job Potomea and Isaiah Barjonah of Stoneham, and Cuff Whitemore of Cambridge, to name a few.

We did not just pick cotton and tobacco. We built ships - and homes. Many of the early doctors of Colonial New England were Black barbers who used leaches to "bleed" patients. That is from where the red and white striped poles outside of barber shops originated. It meant that the barber "bled" people, because there were few actual doctors and few citizens could afford them anyway. "Bleeding", almost always done by Black barbers in both Colonial and post-Colonial times, was thought to help heal diseases. This practice lasted through much of the 18th & 19th Centuries.

Finally, our contributions like hygiene, politeness, American table manners, and secular music, are of no small order either, and are enmeshed in the total social fabric of American society. So please, let us stop trivializing our presence by using the phrase 'first Black president', when talking about Barack Obama, as if we have finally contributed and accomplished something here in the USA. As the great anthropologist Melville Herskovits put it almost three generations ago, in his classic book, The New World Negro, "The difference between the English man and the American is the Negro laugh". Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Black athletes going broke, as usual

"No one can say with any degree of either logic or sanity, "I am going to deal drugs for a few years to earn money for college and then, after college, get a good job and raise a family." Even the strippers - who, often, claim to be putting themselves through college, by dancing up and down a pole - make more sense than that."

Dear friends,

Historically, African Americans have a poor sense of how to spend our money. Only the wealthy in this country are taught about wealth. The rest of the citizens (many European Americans included) have little or no idea of even what wealth is let alone how to either acquire or keep it. Unfortunately, with this, African Americans have been the worst. And even worse than that is the fact that just as we are beginning to gain some sense of the possibilities of saving, investing, acquiring property, and so forth, the train has just about left the station.

It used to be that if a person invested in an IRA from the time they were 19 until they were 25, they could see that grow into enough to retire on even if they never invested another cent. Now, with interest rates so low in banks and investments so "iffy", you have to keep investing, certainly, much longer, to make it worthwhile.

Additionally, the question then arises, how do African Americans tend to spend money anyway, when they are 19-25 years old much less younger than that? It is then, perhaps, more meaningful to develop as a standard that all youth are expected to have a college fund started by the time they enter Middle School. It may start out small, but it is the continual growth that makes a difference.

Imagine for example in 6 years, from 7th-12th grade, a students saves $5 per week-the first year, $10 /wk-the second year, $15/wk-the third year, and so forth. Even without interest, that student will have a substantial chunk of money with which to enter college.

The real benefit is developing a mentality that puts planning for the future and the assumption that We are all college bound, in the forefront. People who realize that they have a future may be less likely to squander it with petty and larcenous thinking like drug-dealing.

While we are on the subject, the worst thing about the drug-dealing mentality is that drug-dealing has no future and people who are involved in it have no vision of the future. No one can say with any degree of either logic or sanity, "I am going to deal drugs for a few years to earn money for college and then, after college, get a good job and raise a family." Even the strippers - who, often, claim to be putting themselves through college, by dancing up and down a pole - make more sense than that. (That is, at least, their profession is legal and has a fair amount of history to it.)

Now, what happens to the money, if the student does not go to college? Let it be available to the student when he or she is ready. It may go towards tuition in a trade school. It may be usable as downpayment on property. It should not be available as cash or to buy a car or pay rent. The point is that it is about moving the person forward. 

G. Djata Bumpus

http://newsone.com/2054369/athletes-broke-2012/

Read full post

Ahmadinejad is NOT "all lies", as Romney and Obama woukl have us think

Dera friends,

The constant reference to Iran, by American politicians and Zionists alike, about the Islamic Republic's intentions to start a nuclear arms and/or war race ignores the role of the US and Israel in the old game of "the pot calling the kettle black". Please check out the link below.

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169514.html Read full post

Education and disturbing Job ads (originally posted 5/10/10)

“The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for ‘education reform’ and ‘employment opportunities’. “

Dear friends,

The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for “education reform” and “employment opportunities”.

The article was about employment ads that, basically, state: unemployed applicants will not be considered.

In other words, many employers are telling people who are out of work, for whatever reasons, that folks who are unemployed need not bother applying for the aforementioned employers’ jobs.

Now, actually, it had always been my experience that employers normally hire those who already have a job anyway. Therefore, I didn't understand why folks, including the author of the article, were so shocked about a practice that has always existed.

At any rate, apparently, in these Tea Party days, employers have "come out of the closet", as it were, and are stating publicly, “Get lost!” to millions of people.

Nevertheless, with all of the phony talk and legislation about
“No child left behind", isn't it funny that, for example, young people who have diligently gone and gotten their education, in hopes of contributing to the commonweal and being compensated for it, so that they can continue to share their skills with the rest of society, are locked out from the git-go? In other words, what’s the point of pretentious laws and statutes like the under-funded "No child left behind", if eager job applicants are discriminated against when they try to get opportunities to reveal the inner, personal powers that they enhanced through their education?

Yet, interestingly enough, the same politicians who say that they want "education reform" are happy to see these spurned job-seekers just mentioned go to war and defend the property rights of these pols’ sponsors (multi-national corporations and other big businesses). Also, you can bet on it that those same discriminating employers second the motion by politicians that young people be fodder for both the politicians' and corporations' benefit. Go figure.

Please check out the article on the link below.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=997897,b=facebook Read full post

Libya's and the West's crooked governments alike released prisoners (originally posted March 23, 2011)

“BP faced a new outcry Thursday about whether the Scottish and British governments sought to smooth BP's oil exploration contract talks with Libya by releasing prisoners, including the man convicted of bombing the Pan Am plane that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans..” - Steven Mufson, Washington Post, July 16, 2010

Dear friends,

The chaos that is going on right now in Libya is directly tied to the greed of the major Western governments, including the US and Israel (for whom the US continues to fight as a proxy), and their multinational corporate sponsors, along with the Khadafy regime. Exacerbating the whole mess is the release of prisoners, often murderers and drug thugs, by the Libyan government to undermine any genuine protest that may be occuring there.

To be sure, that practice of using criminals as cannon fodder is hardly either new or unfamiliar to Western powers especially. For example, about British settlements like the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Charlotte M. Waters wrote, "The colonies were used too as dumping ground for prisoners and undesirables generally, in spite of protests from the colonists. Criminals, prisoners of war, and inconvenient Irish were thus got rid of. Royalist prisoners after Worcester shared the fate with 2,000 Irish girls and boys deported by order of the Government. Kidnapping was not uncommon. Such emigrants were sold by auction..." (Waters, An Economic History of England).

Only a couple of years ago, British Petroleum (BP...remember them?)needed to cut a deal with the Libya government, regarding oil exploration opportunities. Part of the bargain was for the oil giant to obtain the release of one of Libya’s heroes, a man who had been convicted and was serving a life sentence for the air plane bombing over Lockerbee Scotland that killed almost 300 people, mostly Americans. Forget about the “War on Terror”. Business is business. Right? Right.

But where were all of the loudmouth right-wingers who love to boast about their unmatchable “patriotism” all of the time? Apparently, they all caught laryngitis together. In the Washington Post just last year (7/16/10), in an article called “Libyan controversy adds to BP's woes”, staff writer Steven Mufson reported: BP faced a new outcry Thursday about whether the Scottish and British governments sought to smooth BP's oil exploration contract talks with Libya by releasing prisoners, including the man convicted of bombing the Pan Am plane that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Additionally, quoting a confidential source, Mufson went on to say how the Obama administration fit in with all of this: The Libya deal was done with the full blessing of the U.S. government, said the source, who sought anonymity to preserve his business relationships. There was always a policy of no surprises with the U.S. government.

The released murderers and drug thugs who were mentioned earlier have no plans for doing anything but what they have been known to do. They wouldn’t be interested in creating a civil society, even if they knew how to. Anarchy – not the Khadafy regime or the Western governments and their corporate sponsors - rules in Libya right now. That makes perfect sense. After all, this is about greed. And as I’ve said so many times before, greed is always bad, because greed is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP, the nuclear power plant owners, and so many other “free market” and “free enterprise” hooligans. As our dear brother Macolm X insisted: The guys runnin’ this place ain’t nothin’ but Jesse James, Frank James, and the Whatchumacallit brothers.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXSCLIlh17o
Read full post

Five Questions that President Obama and Mitt Romney will not be asked

Five Questions that President Obama and Mitt Romney will not be asked

1) If there are only a finite number of citizens and, therefore, consumers in America, will there come a time when some American companies will reach their “saturation points” as it is called in “Economics”; that is, will they be unable to do business here?

2) Should the government “bailout” such companies, including banks, when they reach their aforementioned “saturation points”, since their profits will decline?

3) Do companies have a responsibility to produce results in order to keep themselves in business?

4) Does it seem reasonable for UAW and Teamsters members to take over the Big Three, since they are already building and distributing the cars, while being supported by government funds as opposed to helping the same corporate managers who caused the failure from the outset?

5) The United States is, after many years, still one of the only advanced nations that has yet to sign the International E.R.A. (Equal Rights Amendment) Treaty, will your administration sign that document soon?

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Tired of folks complaining about Obama? (originally posted August 30, 2010)

Dr. Cornel West - in video, and premier journalist Annette John-Hall - in print, share two different, but very Black, views about President Obama's performance thus far.



http://www.businessian.com/cornel-west-obama-is-for-big-business-not-the-jobless-42667.html



http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/20100813_Annette_John-Hall__Tired_of_all_the_bickering_over_Obama_s_policies.html Read full post

A Hilarious Video about Marriage/Divorce

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

Dear friends,

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

A lot of that has to do with the silly and childish notion of "falling" in love. Such a feeling is merely a mood. Of course, moods change. Consequently, at least to me, when two people meet and decide to commit themselves to "standing" in love together, as opposed to "falling" in love, ultimately, they have a chance of growing together as life partners. That notion excludes the traditional idea of "marriage".

At any rate, on the link below, you will find a witty, well-produced video about the oldest of social reationships, that straight-jacket relationship which is the basic unit of bureacracy - marriage G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjpAYwbFQE Read full post

The 2nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?

The 2^nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?

Dear friends,

I was hoping last night that President Obama was going to engage Mitt Romney on two points about which the latter pol continues to brag, regarding his qualifications to replace the incumbent. They are: 1) That Romney has a history in running successful businesses. and 2) That the former governor of Massachusetts has a knack for “reaching across the aisle”, as it were, in getting legislation passed.

To be sure, the idea of running our government as if  it is a business disregards its role as a body that represents the commonweal. After all, at least in this country, many businesses, if not most, are more concerned with collecting profits, than they are with “creating customers”. Hence, there is the, usually, short life of businesses, as either mergers or bankruptcies mark their endings.

On the other hand, governments operate, not on profits, but public funds through taxation and other forms of extortion where budgets are allotted annually to keep its various agencies running.

Therefore, as opposed to a board room, decisions are made, for government, by “elected” politicians who are sponsored by corporations, banks, and other such big businesses.

Nevertheless, talk of businesses, invariably, involves jobs being created for production of goods and services, along with the marketing, distribution, and consumption of same. It is here where the blue collar worker of previous times confronts the knowledge worker of today – called countercultures.

In the US, beginning after World War 2, when US military and economic might roared after dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the blue collar worker acquired both status and a standard of living that was equal to the affluent classes of many other countries. The blue collar worker was a force with whom to be reckoned.

But by the 1980s, the knowledge worker became the more prominent force. From various kinds of teachers to physicians, engineers, and attorneys to professional sales people, the more educated began to dominate the workplace.

Manufacturing jobs were outsourced to “lesser developed” lands, as a larger portion of higher-paid, blue collar labor in the US was no longer needed.

Meanwhile, another sector of knowledge workers through “non-profit” groups arose that were/are largely involved in social services. The concern for “dignity”, instead of profits has become the mantra for this body of people.

My point for saying all of this is: Romney’s insistence upon “creating jobs” as an ends is dishonest! Let’s face it. If jobs were an ends, then why would people ever change them? No. A job is simply a “means” for a person to meet whatever ends – including their needs and desires.

Additionally, Romney’s claim of “reaching across the aisle” cannot be substantiated by his record. As Kimberly Adkins of the Boston Herald shared in an article that was posted just yesterday (10/15/12), “Lawmakers often voiced frustration over a lack of engagement with the governor’s office, a stark change from previous GOP administrations...Lawmakers even at times publicly blasted Romney for taking credit where it wasn’t due — such as on anti-gang violence legislation that Romney touted as his own brainchild in a press release. The bill’s Democratic co-sponsor, former state Rep. Stephen Canessa, among others, told me at the time: ‘We never worked with him.’ ”

The worse part of all of this whole “debate” series/sham lies in the fact that the super-racist mainstream media, both print and electronic, are owned by only a handful of companies who control the opinions that are read and/or heard in our society (which is why the powers-that-be hate the Internet).

I mean, as dishonest and thoughtless as Romney is, if President Obama was European American would Romney receive such generous commentary from the “pundits”? Just sayin’…

G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

The Origin of Blues and Jazz - and the USA

"This is That"

by G. Djata Bumpus

Where does

this music

come from?

Not seeking truth

sure seems wrong.

Where did

this music start at?

Not with some crazy,

stiff cat.

Did it start

with the sax,

or

some other ax?

Or,

was it cow bells

and

sea shells.?

Where did this music come from?

Dear friends,

The history of Black music in America is the history of the first secular songs played here. For example, during the War of Independence, basically, all fiddlers who led the troops were Black men...

Lorenzo Johnston Greene further confirmed this assertion in his timeless book, The Negro In Colonial New England, "Zelah, a Negro of Groton, Massachusetts, who later fought in the American Revolution, became famous in his neighborhood as a musician." Greene also refers to Newport Gardner, "...the slave of Caleb Gardner of Newport, Rhode Island, was given music lessons. He soon excelled his teacher and later opened a music school of his own on Pope Street where he taught both Negroes and white persons."

The contributions of people of African descent in this country are far greater than having merely produced a POTUS. And the gifts that we brought here are part of the very soul of this nation.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Ronald Reagan's administration "conveniently" re-definded Raciam

"If racism is only a xenophobia, then why was it so important for Reagan and his bosses to end any hopes for maintaining peace around the world, by forcing the UN to dissolve?"

Dear friends,

Until the Eighties, the word racism was used almost exclusively by Black intellectual and social activists. The more moderate members of society, including most African Americans, still used the term "racial prejudice".

In fact, the term racism was offensive to the overwhelming majority of European Americans, as it was synonymous with White Supremacy. Now, along with groups like the accommodating NAACP, the government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media have re-defined racism as a xenophobia or disease, making it very convenient to have fingers pointed at those of us who are the historic victims of racism. Neat trick. Eh?

Finally, at the outset, I mentioned the Eighties, because that period coincides with super-racist Ronald Reagan coming into office. This is the same Ronald Reagan who held back US dues owed to the United Nations, almost crippling that body, until they withdrew the proclamation that "Zionism is Racism" (that had been declared during the Jimmy Carter presidency.) Once again, as is he case with Iran, the murderous Israeli government and its American sponsors prevailed. If racism is only a xenophobia, then why was it so important for Reagan and his bosses to end any hopes for maintaining peace around the world, by forcing the UN to dissolve? In any case, after the UN retracted its position about Zionism, the US government and its sponsor corporations then re-defined racism..WE must not let our enemies define our conditions. If we do, then we'll never free ourselves from the endless oppression.

"Dare to struggle - Dare to win" - Frederick Douglass
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Mitt Romney: The "Great White Hope"‏

• Dear friends,

  
  
  The brilliant piece below is a private email that I received from a longtime friend who prefers to remain anonymous. Enjoy!
  
  
  G. Djata Bumpus
  ********************************************
  
  

  The Great White Hope
  
  I watched the Republican convention last night and was appalled by the Clint Eastwood monologue in which he pretended to mock and berate an imaginary Barack Obama.
  
  First of all, it was cowardly.  The audience applauded Eastwood as he stridently confronted an empty chair.  The skit also implied that the imaginary Obama was tied to the chair like a prisoner against his will.  How else would he be compelled to sit onstage at the RNC and be ridiculed on national television?
  
  This shallow comedy routine was nonetheless deemed so important to Romney that he used it in the prime time slot that should have been reserved for his biographical film, the traditional opener to a presidential nominee's convention speech. 
  
  Why was this skit used to introduce Mitt Romney to a nationwide audience?
  
  Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the iconic American "tough guy" was clearly enlisted to redeem the manhood of conservative white male voters who feel emasculated by the presidency of the self-described "skinny kid with a funny name."
  
  And it just so happens that the "funny name" is Barack Hussein Obama.
  
  This foolish impulse to belittle President Obama will ultimately prove to be the downfall of Mitt Romney's second White House bid.
  
  First of all, it smacks of racism, implying that the president of the United States would speak in stereotypically profane language in response to Eastwood, instead of doing what has always done superbly: respond with eloquent rhetoric and brilliant reasoning.
  
  Second, the extensive focus on personally attacking President Obama means that the Republicans are not truly concerned with the current challenges facing the American people; they are only seeking a rematch against the reigning black heavyweight champion of American politics.  Mitt Romney is thus their newly-anointed "Great White Hope."
  
  The historic irony here is that Barack Obama was elected the first black president in 2008, exactly 100 years after Jack Johnson became the first black heavyweight boxing champion in 1908.  Two years later in 1910, white heavyweight contender James Jeffries was defeated by Johnson in what was billed "The Fight of the Century".  Jeffries was nicknamed "The Great White Hope" prior to the title bout and his defeat by Johnson triggered riots across the country. 
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29
  
  The Republicans are simply devoid of a real vision or plan for the country.  They have thus decided to take the racial low road and unite their base against the black man living in the White House whom they won't respect as the nation's chief executive and whom they don't even consider to be a true American.  Mitt Romney's line about Neil Armstrong planting the American flag on the moon led right into his charge that it was time for an "American" to lead the nation once again:
  
  Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon, and I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us, that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.  
  
  And last week, Romney made remarks alluding to the ongoing right-wing "birther" challenges to Obama's citizenship:
  
  "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."
  
  In other words "I'm white! Of course I'm an American!"
  
  The hypocrisy therein lies in the fact that Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama is also the son of an immigrant father.  Mitt's father George Romney was born in Mexico and made his own bid for the White House in 1968 amid questions about his citizenship.  And true to his own words, Mitt Romney has not ever been asked to show his birth certificate to anyone.
  
  Such are the benefits of white privilege.
  
  I had always hoped that the Republicans would not play on white racial resentment in this election. In spite of all of his flaws as a leader, it must be noted that the last Republican president never used race to get elected, except for enlisting the support of high-profile black Republicans like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  This time I was glad that Powell skipped the convention but I was otherwise disappointed that Condoleezza Rice instead delivered a prime-time convention address on behalf of Romney's candidacy.
  
  Obama's campaign slogan for 2012 is "Forward."  It epitomizes the vision of a truly forward-looking leader with an agenda that is focused on the future and not settling old racial scores.  It is a winning vision and I am looking forward to an historic re-election victory by the President in November.

Read full post

Romney's claim of a "free market" and running a "successful" business is is a LIE!

Dear friends,

The lie that Romney and his ilk make about believing in the so-called "free market" is totally exposed in his and others' practices. Please tell me. Where is the free market, when it comes to food being grown and distributed? Or housing to be built, then sold or rented? Or opinions to be made, or goods and services to be sold though the enticing ads of both the print and electronic media? Are there the same opportunities for everyone to develop and grow? 

The big banks decided back in the late 19th Century to allow businesses to depend on them for capital (called finance capital), rather than the latter getting their own capital (called industrial capital) by earning it. Actually, only the largest companies of certain industries were given the privilege of getting finance capital. It was a "neat trick", because it meant that no one smaller could compete with them, since they (big companies) did not have to worry about waiting for revenues to keep daily operations, buying new equipment, setting up subsidiaries, or providing paychecks for their workers. As a result, monopolies were formed that made sure that there was no "free market".

Yet, under the current capitalist model, the performance of the big companies, from time-to-time meet a dead end, because, at some point, the continuous seeking of profit in and of itself, with no concern for how the success of the business relates to progress of people in communities - aside from the latter’s consumption - and how people live, will, invariably, lead to the dilemma where the “market” must necessarily reach a “saturation point”, as it were, where there are either less or no customers (i.e., consumers), since there will come a time when people will not buy, if for no other reason than the fact that everyone has all of that particular items that they want. Hence, the constant wars in which, especially, the US, Britain, France, and Germany engage, so that they can establish new markets (i.e., new consumers).

In other words, you cannot have an infinite growth of the market, because there are only so many consumers who will want a product. Then what do you do? You have to change the values of society, so that the market reflects those values, instead of vice versa (which is where the US ad other big capitalist nations now stand). But that means giving up either power or wealth to maintain legitimacy. To be sure, the Romney family, and others like them. shun that idea.

G. Djata Bumpus




Read full post

The 1st Presidential Debate - Poor Polemics

"Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest."

Dear friends,

To me, the first of the 2012 presidential debates shows how anti-intellectual most Americans - especially the opinion-making, mainstream media journalists - are. Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves, as it has always, that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest.

I mean, the event had been billed as a debate. Yet, the discipline of polemics was not a part of the agenda. Huh? For example, when Romney mentioned that he would clip the wings of  Sesame Street's Big Bird, President Obama should have asked him what was it that the former governor didn't like about the famous yellow children's icon. It's a simple question! Moreover, such inquiry would have led the thoughtless Romney to babble, bumble, and stumble all over both the stage and the airwaves. Did someone say "polemics"?

The commentator was more than generous about letting each candidate get his points across. Consequently, a competent polemicist would have used that opportunity to make Romney show us who he really is and that in which he really believes. Obama's far superior intellect would have shined. Instead, The president allowed a complete intellectually-challenged lightweight make it seem as if he deserved to be part of the discourse.

When one is in a fight, whether verbally or physically, s/he must have techniques in his or her arsenal, at hand, that will allow him or her to maintain confidence. Losing confidence during a fight can lead to one's defeat. As my old boxing trainer, Val Colbert, taught me, and I still teach, "If you're gonna win a fight, you have to have a cup of confidence to let the other guy know that you gonna win the fight."

In boxing, we have a punch that is called a "jab-to-the-belly". The jab-to-the-belly is what I call the only free pinch in boxing. In other words, all head punches that a fighter throws have a cost, in terms of consequence, be they straight punches like either jabs or "crosses", or round punches like uppercuts and hooks. So I call the jab-to-the-belly, the only "free" punch in boxing, because even if it doesn't land, when thrown properly, there will be no consequence. Therefore, one can maintain his or her confidence by throwing a punch/attacking, without having to worry about being attacked back.

Finally, in the next debate, President Obama should use genuine tactics of polemics, as well as fighting. and go back and keep focus on Romney's Big Bird insult. Again, the whole thing is a personality contest. I hope that next time, the president has a jab-to-the-belly in his arsenal. Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Revisiting the New Yorker's "Satirical" Cover of the Obamas

Dear friends, 

Originally posted on 7/15/08, on the link below is, a fine analysis - albeit brief, by Jen Armstrong of the Philadelphia Daily News about the 2008 New Yorker magazine's controversial cover that shows Barack and Michelle Obama....

G. Djata Bumpus http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/20080715_Jenice_Armstrong__Covering_the_Obamas.html?adString=pdn.entertainment/features;!category=features;&randomOrd=071508100445 Read full post

Iran continues to "modernize"

Dear friends,

It is amazing to me that everytime one of the presidential candidates is asked about Iran, he never talks about the way that Iran is entering the modern era like a freight train travelling non-stop, across miles of  tracks. This place is not Iraq - which is caught up in a prior period when "religious governance" was the founding principle, similar to that of Europe during the "Middle Ages".

Iran has a space program. The Iranian government is now boasting about having test-fired missiles that can reach both Israel and southern Europe. As well, on the link below, you will fins a very short notice regarding Iran's new telecommunications tower that is one of the tallest in the world.

Finally, the economic boycott against Iran that has been enticed by Israel and led by the United States is inanity. What the latter have done is isolated themselves - not Iran. Besides, the boycott may be the bane of finance capitalism, and will only make Iran more self-sufficient and safe from the vagaries of a world economic system. That aforementioned system only has allegiance to any particular country when the profits of big corporations and banks are favorable. And why did Israel ignore UN sanctions against apartheid South Africa, as the United States illegally supplied the racist South African regime with technology and other assets, through Israel?

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.worldsmegastructures.com/?p=521

Read full post

Recent Murder of African American woman by LA police

Dear friends,

On the link below is a heartbreaking story of an African American woman who is a single mother having been murdered by Los Angeles police recently. Written by legendary columnist Sandy Banks of the Los Angeles Times, at least to me, it begs for the question, "Why has President Barack Obama done absolutely NOTHING to stem the behavior of so many of these hooligans who wear blue uniforms?" And, from LA to Philly, what do our clown Black politicians ever do about these types of incidents? We must build genuine communities. After all, what difference does it make if you have a job, when a police officers can kill you with impunity, at any time. Wake up!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-lapd-20120908,0,7124908.column Read full post

Politics, Religion, and Convention speeches

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx

 Dear friends,

 It's interesting that ALL of the speakers at both of the political conventions end their addresses with religious salutes...And so, while such gestures may bring warm feelings, temporarily, to many, at what point will humankind take responsibility for realizing our true essence and seeking to relate to each other and what we do, in a way that will bring genuine peace and happiness, without us havi ng to engage in the drama of politics?

In his often, deliberately, misquoted work called, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right - Introduction, the great Karl Marx offers, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

Finally, we cannot appreciate our true essence as a species, much less ever find real peace and happiness, as long as we obscure its existence through religious claims that do not reflect our behavior as species beings. Cheers!

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Short Video feature with Glen Loury on Obama (originally posted 11/21/08)

That term, "underclass", I contended was an impossible description of people who lived in a class society. In other words, to be "under" a class, as it were, is to suggest that one is living in a society that has no classes. Moreover, the term contradicts itself, since, in our society, everyone belongs to some economic class. Eventually, after a brief debate, Glen agreed with me

************************************
Dear friends,

Back in 1995, while writing a book review for the now-defunct, but highly worthy magazine, African Commentary, I interviewed Glen Loury. At the time, after an unfortunate occurrence in his personal life, Professor Loury stopped teaching at Harvard University and went across the Charles River to Boston University, another great school. (He has since moved to Brown University in Rhode Island.)

In any case, during the interview, we segued from the topic of the book that I was reviewing, for a moment, because I wanted to discuss a term that he had popularized during the Reagan Era which was commonly bandied about by journalists and other such pundits. That term, "underclass", I contended was an impossible description of people who lived in a class society. In other words, to be "under" a class, as it were, is to suggest that one is living in a society that has no classes. Moreover, the term contradicts itself, since, in our society, everyone belongs to some economic class. Eventually, after brief discourse, Glen agreed with me.

I found that more than noble of him. After all, the level of plagiarism and other kinds of dishonesty has become such a part of American academia, even among African American scholars now, that I was pleasantly astonished. It is for that reason that when I saw the brief video on the link below, from the New York Times, I had to share it. Enjoy!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/11/14/opinion/1194832958030/bloggingheads-is-real-change-here.html Read full post

Cornel West on presidential candidate Barack Obama and "white supremacy" (originally posted 3/28/09)

Cornel talked about Barack Obama's precarious position of "showing love" to African Americans while courting many people who embrace "white supremacy".

Dear friends,

The very short video piece on the link below is from a conference that was convened by radio and television personality Tavis Smiley, during the recent presidential campaign (2008). The segment airs comments by noted African American scholar/activist Cornel West, a man who I have known personally for many years. Cornel talks about Barack Obama's precarious position of "showing love" to African Americans while courting many people who embrace "white supremacy". Of course, at least to me, the broader question is: How can a nation that embraces "white supremacy" also claim to embrace "democracy"? Moreover, why is it that President Obama has to represent ALL Americans, when not a single one of his predecessors has ever had that standard, from the slave owner George Washington to Bill Clinton who was the president when the Million Man March went down?

At any rate, Professor West (Princeton University) is always straight to the point, yet highly philosophical - and, at least to me, mostly quite correct. Enjoy!

G. Djata Bumpus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXj3_pjTTwg Read full post

I have removed my Mother's letter about Condaleeza Rice

"only women are accused of giving sexual favors when they achieve - never men" - Dr. Namandje Bumpus

Dear friends, I just got a call from my oldest daughter, Dr. Namandje Bumpus of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She was livid about the letter that I posted on Facebook and on my blog, regarding her grandmother classifying Condaleeza Rice as having gotten into her positions of authority, because she had sex with certain men. She then told me that that had happened to her before, and that women who are high achievers are always subjected to that kind of vicious sexism. 

 Finally, while she doesn't like Rice or what she is about, Namandje insists that only women are accused of giving sexual favors when they achieve - never men. Hence, in spite of the fact that I feel that my Mom had more to say than that, as my daughter put it, her grandmother has never accomplished the level of notoriety as she and Rice have, so I have removed the post. I apologize to any women who were offended. Cheers! 

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Meeting George Bush when I was a Black Panther (originally posted 10/19/08)

When I originally sent the piece below, it was the next morning after a debate between then Senator Obama and John McCain...I had saved the info, not even using it when Hillary Clinton brought up Obama's relation with a former Weatherman during the Democratic primary, for when I felt that it really would count...A dear friend of mine from the New York Daily News sent it to his Washington bureau...but heard nothing back..I sent a copy to all of the major newspapers in all of the big US cities...I heard nothing back...However, the biggest thing was: After I distributed this letter, to this day, no one has ever mentioned Obama's relationship with that Weatherman guy...Cheers!

*******************************************
Dear Friends,

Sarah Palin has begun making more silly remarks. The latest one involves Senator Obama's alleged "association" with a "terrorist". To be sure, the idea that one is responsible for what another person either does or has done, because s/he has interacted with that person at some point, moves Sarah Palin up a notch, that is even higher than her current, well-earned position as "Ms. Universal Dunce".

In the late summer of 1970, about two weeks after the founder of the Black Panther Party, Huey P. Newton, was released from 33 months in jail for something that he did not do, a number of Panthers were sent to New Haven, Connecticut, from around the country, in order to help reorganize our chapter there, after most of the members there were jailed on charges of having murdered a man named Alex Rackley. Because of his role as the chief officer of the Party, at the time of the alleged crime, Bobby Seale, along with the head of the Connecticut state chapter, Ericka Huggins, was charged with Rackley's murder as well, since prosecutors asserted that the aforementioned duo had "ordered" the murder.

At any rate, literally, upon entering the door of the New Haven chapter, when I first arrived from Boston, I was immediately assigned to set up what we called a "community education program". We had them all over the country, in each branch and chapter. They consisted of weekly meetings, that were actually classes, where folks from the community would come and, in this case, I would both preside over and lead the class, discussing a variety of topics that dealt with social issues that were pertinent to African Americans at the time.

Sometimes, we would talk about stories from the nationally-distributed Black Panther Party newspaper. Other times, I would bring mimeographed copies (there was no such thing as a Xerox machine yet) of published articles from various authors, or ones that I had written myself. For the nine or so months that I was stationed in New Haven, I continued those classes, which were always well-attended, with, usually, about a dozen people each class (which I always held on Wednesday nights at 6pm). Initially, I held classes in the Panther office (which was actually an entire house) on Sylvan Avenue. Later, I moved the class to a building where we would soon open up our People's Free Health Center, on Dixwell Avenue.

Also, during that Fall of 1970, now once again led by Huey P. Newton, the Black Panther Party convened the Revolutionary People's Constitutional Convention. The plenary session was held in Philadelphia (around September, as I remember). The actual convention itself was held around two months later, in Washington, DC. Apart from my other duties, I was now assigned as the food coordinator for the entire East Coast, for that convention. While some people traveled there from the West and Midwest, most of the folks were Panthers and other progressives from the East Coast. Consequently, I was more like the "national" food coordinator. In any case, when the time came, with the help of, particularly "sisters” in the Party, I sent a Mack truck full of food to DC.

By the way, during the time that I was soliciting grocery stores, vegetable wholesalers, and even Dunkin' Donuts, receiving large donations for a "day care" center (which was a new concept at the time), the aforementioned donors had no idea that they were feeding the 2, 000-plus people who would be attending the Black Panther Party's upcoming convention. Most of all, community generosity, both business and personal, was abound.

Nonetheless, one Friday night, after having spent the day collecting food for the Revolutionary People's Constitutional Convention, before going back to Panther headquarters, as I sometimes did, I decided to stop by the "Black House" on Yale campus. (The Black House at Yale was the name that brothers at Yale chose for their ”separate” dormitory.) After hanging out with the brothers for what was, probably a couple of hours, I imagine, I headed back to the office. As I was walking off of Yale campus, I was passing by a building, when suddenly a couple of European American or "white" guys yelled out from a second or third floor window, inviting me up for a drink.

Now, I must add that, for some reason, I keep remembering that there may have been somebody else with me, that is a "community worker" (which was the name that was given to people who were not actually "Panthers", per se, but who helped in doing a lot of duties like selling our newspapers and serving at our nationwide Free Breakfast Programs for children, and so forth). Nevertheless, I accepted the offer of the, seemingly, slightly intoxicated guys and went into the building, up the stairs, and into a room that was filled with about 25 college students who were all dressed formally. I introduced myself and all of them took turns shaking hands with me. Soon, we began what would become a roughly two hours or more journey of debating political issues, while, simultaneously, one of the main hosts, a guy named George, constantly kept my glass full of wine.

Early on, by the way, I identified myself as a Black Panther, although my outfit made it unnecessary for me to do so (black leather jacket with "Off the pig!" and other type buttons on the lapel, a black cap, black pants, and black combat boots). Nevertheless, they told me that they were a campus group called "The Party of the Right". Initially, I thought it interesting that they would want me to stay and "party" with them, considering the name of their group and the reputation of mine. You must recall that that was 1970, the same year that, only abou a year earlier, the legendary F.B.I. chief, J. Edgar Hoover, proclaimed that "The Black Panther Party is the number one threat to internal security in America".

Initially, there seemed to be a lot of debate, with me representing the "revolutionary" side, and a couple of other guys (who were standing next to George) defending the "reactionary" aka "conservative" point of view. After about a half of an hour or so, suddenly, some blond guy who was wearing glasses, and standing next to me, started agreeing with me. Before long, others chimed in with him. I stopped my dialogue with my initial verbal combatants and said, "I thought that all of you people were conservatives?" Then the blond guy in the glasses said, "No. We are all mixed up politically. We just use this name, because the administration leaves us alone, thinking that we're different than all of the radical groups on campus. That way we get to drink on weekends with no trouble".

We all just fell into a kind of friendlier "vibe", at that point. George kept feeding me drinks. He was a very gracious host. I have always remembered him fondly. After I left them that night, on, at least, a couple of occasions, I ran into George either on or near Yale campus. We would always stop and rap for a minute or two.

It was only many years later that I realized, from research, that when I knew him, he had already graduated from Yale. Apparently, he was just hanging around campus, when I knew him. I was surprised to find that out (i.e., that he had already graduated), because he looked fairly young for his age, at the time. I tried to contact "The Party of the Right" about him, several years ago, but got no response.

Back then, I had mentioned to my Panther comrades, and over the following years, to some of my brothers and friends, about that night, because it was so humorous, but intriguing, to me. It would be many years before I ever saw George again. My memory of him became clearer, after he became president, and I began to see his face more.

At one point, for about two weeks, I kept waking up in dripping sweat, thinking about that Fall night on Yale campus - some three decades earlier - at that party in 1970. George's face was plastered into my mind. Then, like people who recall being sexually molested, decades after the incident occurred, for the first time, I understood what had happened to them. I now, tangibly, understand how a person can not be thinking about something, then remember it thirty or, in some cases, forty years later.

Finally, George Bush's hanging out with me that night and occasionally bumping into me had nothing to do with either how he or I turned out or what we did. Therefore, Palin's inane suggestion that Senator Obama is not to be trusted, because of someone he knows is worse than inane actually. McCain, I hope, would not say something so dumb. Additionally, if you recall, during her debate with Joe Biden, Palin twice made the stupid claim that John McCain knows how to "win wars". McCain would have never said something so outrageous, At least, I hope not. After all, Senator McCain's fighter plane got shot down over Vietnam and he stayed captured while the US lost the war - partially due to the "unsuccessful" McCain-types who were in the US military, along with lousy decisions by generals who were all led by an incompetent Republican commander-in-chief (sound familiar?). Moreover, what a pathetic pick for his vice presidency. Many people in Alaska did not vote for Sarah Palin to be their governor, and many of those who did are now being quite vocal about their regret over the bad choice that they made.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

El Presidente and Afghanistan

"More troops on Afghanistan mean more lives lost. As the African proverb goes: Never surround your enemy on all four sides..."

Dear friends,

In the midst of deciding whether to add more US troops to the alleged "war on terror" that is presently focused on Afghanistan, with what in that country should El Presidente be more concerned? After all, as is proven by the story on the link below, females of the population are not even considered to be, much less treated like - human beings.

Perhaps, instead of a "war on terror", El Presidente should think about ending the war on terror and begin a battle for upliftment of the human species. He can get things started by promoting already proven programs like, for example, "forest gardening", where new eco-systems can be used to fight hunger and provide people around the world access to healthy bodies which will allow them to build. Forget about space programs. Use the money to help people around the world be able to make themselves more self-sufficient. Besides, we have already flown to the moon, made machines to travel on the ground, sea, and space, and developed many more types of technological Utopias like telephones and televisions. As has been pointed out by others before me, it is time that we start making human Utopias. We can end hunger and homelessness immediately, if we end greed. There is enough work and play for everyone, if we develop value judgments in human societies, so that people do not feel that they must hoard everything for themselves, because they feel so unworthy otherwise.

Relating back to the "war", let us not forget: When the greedy and imbecilic pair that is made up of Bush and Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq, one of the first things that they did when our troops got in was to disband the Iraqi Army. That, of course, forced the now unemployed soldiers to join the "insurgency". The outcome of that is now quite obvious, as the US military has been forced to get out of Iraq. To be sure, Halliburton and others made out like bandits, but thousands of Americans died, and exponentially more of our soldiers were left without limbs. And for what? They did not even get the oil.

More troops in Afghanistan mean more lives lost. As the African proverb goes: Never surround your enemy on all four sides. What that warns is: If you don't provide room for escape, then there will be no later opportunity to reconcile. That means that your enemy must then fight to the death - NOW. This happened in both Vietnam and Iraq. It will happen in Afghanistan too, if our President plays the fool and continues to do the bidding for the military/industrial complex. And the "Conservatives" and their scummy Congressional ilk will laugh their way to the banks, not really caring who wins in 201o - or 2012, for that matter (especially since they can always manipulate the government-- and corpoorate-controlled mass communications media).

Nevertheless, as I mentioned up top, on the link below, please check out a piece that I have saved since early this year, knowing what was likely to happen.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/22/acid.attacks/index.html Read full post

Some Science Tid-bits, a slide show (first posted 10/27/09)

"Spider Glue. A sticky substance in spider webs may lead to the development of a new generation of biobased adhesives and glues that could replace some petroleum-based products, scientists report..."
Dear friends,

I caught an interesting slide show while perusing the New York Time's online edition. I thought I would share it. It appears on the link below.

Cheers!

C. Djata Bumpus
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/23/science/102209_Sciencepix_index.html Read full post

A real Presidential Campaign theme song

"Obama's campaign theme song "Yes we can" should have been this..."

Dear friends, 

 With all due respect to our great brother Stevie Wonder, Obama's campaign theme "Yes we can" by the Pointer Sisters, on the link below,should have been the song. Let's face it. For example, Mr. Obama kowtowed to the slimy Republicans - during the health care debate, then after "giving away the store", not a single pol just mentioned voted in favor of the watered down bill. That means that Obama could have gotten universal health care legislation passed for all Americans without them. Go figure. I wonder what his theme song will be this time? 

 "Dare to struggle - dare ti win" Frederick Douglass 

 G. Djata Bumpus 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwbZS6AsQLs Read full post