To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
salon.com > Letters Jan. 5, 2000 URL: http://www.salon.com/letters/2000/01/05/mumia Letters to the editor I knew Mumia when he was Wesley Cook. Plus: The L.A. Times' "blow job"; don't ask, don't tell about Stuart Little. - - - - - - - - - - - - I have never been to a Free Mumia rally or signed a petition. I am not a MOVE sympathizer. I have police officers in my family, and I think the death of Daniel Faulkner was tragic. But I also went to elementary school with the Cook boys, Wesley and William. I knew them only as kids in the neighborhood. The Cook boys were respected by adults and kids alike in our neighborhood for the way they carried themselves. Wesley was a good student and a super-responsible big brother who kept Billy in line. I also understand the terror that went with being a young black person in Philadelphia in the 1960s and '70s. I understand why Wesley and many of our peers felt the need to become Mumia and join the Panthers. Keep in mind that he was 15. Between the gangs and the police, the rule of law was scarcely in evidence. The police routinely harassed the Panthers and other dissidents, without regard to due process. Those who report on Mumia's case seem to forget that. One of the searing moments in my memory is a 1971(?) front page photo from the Philadelphia Bulletin. The members of the local BPP chapter were standing barefoot and naked in the street, having been rousted in the middle of the night and stripped by Philadelphia's finest. The mayor, former police commissioner Frank Rizzo, guffawed, "The big Black Panthers with their pants down!" When he became a journalist, Mumia was one of the few who had the courage and independence to report on cases of police brutality and corruption. In the early 1990s, hundreds of convictions were reversed because of improper police procedure. Perhaps if there had been more journalistic investigation of police practices in the preceding years, those improper practices might have been revealed sooner. I understand the ambivalence Debra Dickerson describes on the part of many African-Americans. I do not know what happened on December 9, 1981. But I believe that in light of the treatment of dissidents in that period, and the ambiguities in the case, Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves a new trial. -- Kim Pearson I recently attended the post-WTO police rally in Seattle. Organized by the police, it was intended to show that the people of Seattle really did approve of the police beating and gassing of peaceful protesters. It was also a chance for WTO protesters who were abused to speak directly to citizens who knew nothing more than what they saw on the evening news. A 6-foot-long banner for Mumia spoiled any real chance to get the protesters' message across to the public. Though Mumia had no part in the WTO protest, supporters of a new trial carried his message into this forum. This gave the police an excellent chance to dismiss the protesters, and to cast doubt on their version of the WTO protest. Over the voices of the protesters, the police proclaimed, "There is one difference between you and the people over there. You are here to support your police. They are here to support a cop killer." I was there to protest the violence of the police during the WTO, but the Mumia supporters gave the police a new diversion from the truth. -- Chris Knight Wow. I hadn't realized that my complacency made such an impact. I was born in the '60s and my parents were active in the civil rights movement. My father, Washington Butler Jr., was the third black elected official in the state of Tennessee and the first black to run for governor. Our pastor, the Rev. Billy Kyles, was personal friends with Dr. Martin Luther King. Having been born into such a progressive environment, I at one time thought that racism had been overcome and that we were all better off as a result. Ha! Wouldn't that be nice. I can't speak for anyone but myself. I support Mumia but haven't become too involved with his struggle. My personal philosophy is to spend my time and energy making a positive impact in the lives of those with whom I come in contact every day rather than trying to change the world as a whole. Maybe that's a cop-out but it's the best that I can do. To Mumia I'd like to say, don't cut your dreads, man. That's a sign of a depth of commitment which most will never know. Somewhere, that counts for something. Keep fighting. -- Landry Butler To assume that black people should be interested in the Mumia case because it involves a black man is racist in itself. It is essential to acknowledge how the intersection of race and class affects who among us supports Mumia and who does not. People who are struggling to make a decent living for themselves and their families do not have the time or mental energy to worry about folks who go out and court trouble. The majority of black people in the United States fit into this category -- working-class or even poor people who simply want to keep their families safe and well-fed. Those of us fortunate enough to be middle-class African-Americans expend a great deal of energy working to retain our position in society and ensure our families' happiness. Most of us share a belief system that stresses family, religion and trying to "live right." People like Mumia Abu-Jamal and his supporters would be hard pressed to convince us to spend our precious time and hard-earned financial resources on the likes of him. -- Renee McKinney Debra Dickerson's article on the Mumia Abu-Jamal case outlines the two most prevalent theories surrounding the case: that Jamal is innocent but has been railroaded, and that Jamal is guilty and is cynically manipulating the radical left. A careful study of the facts of the case, however, brings up a third possibility: that Jamal is probably guilty but has been railroaded nevertheless, is certainly due a new trial, and probably does not deserve the death penalty. I'm not sure whether Jamal is guilty or innocent, but I believe the evidence is overwhelming that he did not receive anything even remotely resembling a fair trial. In an excellent article on the case, Stuart Taylor Jr. (hardly a leftist) of the American Lawyer writes, "Jamal is probably an unrepentant killer," but also says that the facts of this case are "complicated enough" that he is "joining the 'Save Mumia' movement, here and now." He puts forward a vast array of evidence, ranging from direct testimony of witnesses that they were coerced by the police to strong evidence that there was "rampant police perjury." Furthermore, there were most likely mitigating circumstances: Faulkner probably shot Jamal before Jamal shot the officer. -- Mitsuharu Hadeishi Did Mumia Abu-Jamal kill a police officer in cold blood? The overwhelming circumstantial evidence -- plus his refusal to give a plausible alternative explanation that would exonerate him -- indicates that he did, and for that he must suffer the consequences. Dickerson (whom I presume is white) spends much time and space arguing that blacks do not support Mumia, citing their disdain for his radical politics and fear of his angry demeanor. But it never really required the views of blacks to look at the case objectively and come to the inevitable conclusion that Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered a police officer in cold blood, and since that time has taken white liberal activists for a ride. -- Michael Lee
Out
of Time No one has plausible deniability in the Staples fiasco. Anyone looking at the special Staples Complex magazine [that the L.A. Times published] could reasonably be expected to know that it went beyond puff piece all the way to blow job. The reader might wonder why the L.A.Times left off the words "advertisement supplement," but its commercial nature was clear. The leadership troika at the Times has not gotten its story synchronized yet. They seem to at once not know that there was anything wrong, deny that it was wrong and apologize sincerely for doing something so terribly wrong. Huh? The issue of conflict of interest in the media is far bigger than the Times. It is the smallest canary in the mine shaft. As media consolidate and Murdoch gobbles up papers, TV networks and sports teams, what are the ethical implications? How do reviewers on Disney-owned ABC review Disney movies, or talk about the (mis)management of the Angels or Ducks? Once upon a time, we only had to worry if the restaurant critic was getting special service (the answer was yes, of course). Now the conflicted relationships are so byzantine that we do not even discuss the full ramifications of media consolidation. -- Jonathan Dobrer
I'm afraid [L.A. Times media critic] David Shaw's piece was itself weak-kneed. While I agree with Sean Elder that Michael Parks should go, it won't make the Times a better newspaper. It has always been made up of display ads making room for a little news-gathering and today, more than ever, it is a third-rate paper. -- Robert Solo
Amazon to world: We control how many times you must
click! I'm not going to comment on whether Amazon.com's patent for one-click is "obvious" or not. Obviousness is a term of art among patent lawyers, a group of which I confess to being a member. One thing is obvious to me, though. The Internet has created a time-distortion field that affects all too many people in our present-day society. Around 1994, just six years ago, Netscape was coming out with its first browser. Windows 95 had not yet been released. Events moved at an exponentially exploding rate after that. We had browser wars, portal wars and now we have e-cash register wars. In hindsight, all of these things appear obvious under the time-distorting lens of the Internet. I'm wondering how many readers out there know what the "obvious" next great thing is, and why they are not rushing to get a patent on it, or better yet, donating it to society on a gratis basis? Could it be that the next great thing (i.e., e-sliced bread) is not at the moment really obvious? -- Gideon Gimlan Scott Rosenberg's declaration that "every win for Amazon is a loss for the Web as a whole" is not only unnecessarily inflammatory, it is also glaringly inaccurate. I can't have any sympathy for Barnesandnoble.com given that they have essentially tried to copy Amazon.com's entire business model! Amazon proved that a Web-based business could appeal to consumers, and then someone at B&N saw the light and figured they could grab market share. I don't blame Amazon for trying to profit from the technology they implemented to make shopping at their site easier -- they're under incredible pressure to differentiate themselves in the fast-growing dot-com playing field. Maybe, in the interests of a "free and open" Web, technology innovations shouldn't be patented -- or maybe companies that come up with innovative business methods should be "allowed" to profit by them. But to portray Amazon.com as some behemoth trying to stamp out its "poorer" competitors like B&N is absurd. -- Anne Lear
The love that dare not squeak its name David Rakoff's article on Stuart Little is yet another example of the compulsion to claim a literary heritage (while not bad in its own right) for gays through ridiculous misinterpretations of highly innocuous literature. When will we stop hearing that Winnie the Pooh, or Stuart Little, or even Bert and Ernie are homosexuals? This distortion only serves to alienate heterosexuals from homosexual culture and further delays the acceptance that some homosexuals desire. -- Angela James
John Irving blasts Tom Wolfe, Wolfe blasts back John Irving's statement that Tom Wolfe is writing entertainment and not literature is snobby and very telling of his academic, achingly boring writing style. If you set out to write "literature" you will fail miserably. Those we regard as authors of "great literature," such as Shakespeare, Twain and Hemingway, were all working writers who wrote for people's enjoyment. They wanted to entertain! Shocking, isn't it?! But why else would someone pick up a book and read it if not to be entertained? The works of these great writers are "literature" only in retrospect. Tom Wolfe spins a good tale, and that puts him, in my opinion, in good historical company. Irving puts me to sleep, and is good company for insomniacs. -- John Grgurich I have been waiting to get even with Wolfe since "The Bonfire of the Vanities," which I read and despised. I will never look at another fiction book he writes. "Bonfire" was stinko. Irving's first assertions that Wolfe can't create a character or a situation that doesn't reek with journalistic simplicity -- all right, I added the last part -- is just exactly right. Wolfe can knock the worn goods of Mailer and Updike, who weren't much good, but Irving is the best sort of writer around today. I loved Wolfe's journalism and have read a lot of it. But his novels are a fraud and he must be exposed and pilloried. -- Mike Rice Brilliant Careers: Gary Larson If any cartoonist has become an American icon, it is Gary Larson. He has brought smiles, chuckles and gusty laughs to us for years. I consider him as American as Norman Rockwell because he satirized America as prolifically as Rockwell painted it. I also mourned when he decided to retire "The Far Side." A part of my day was gone, but I understood. His "Far Side" calendars, however, are worth any price he wants to charge. I'm grateful I finally have an opportunity to tell Gary Larson how much his sardonic and offbeat humor has brightened my life. Thank you, Gary. I will always be a devoted fan. -- Gordon Martin |
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.