Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday in Newark, NJ
On Saturday I was driving to work in Newark, NJ at about 12:30pm. The sidewalks were filled with people, as they usually are on pleasant weekend afternoons. While stopped at a traffic light I saw a group of elderly men gathered on a corner. In fact, there was a short line of down-and-out black men queued up in front of a 80 year old white man who had pulled over his dented 1970s American station wagon. The white man chatted happily with each of the black men in turn, then ostentatiously gave him two bills (I couldn't see whether they were singles or fives), at which point there was some shared laughter, and then the next man would take his place in line. Then my light changed, and I had to continue on to work.
Little Elephant
Little Elephant can't find anyone to tell him what Crocodile eats for breakfast (all they do is spank him for interrupting) until he asks Bird who says: "I don't know, why don't you go ask him?" So that's exactly what Little Elephant did, only when he asks, Crocodile reaches up and bites Little Elephant's nose! Croc can't eat him alive, but tries to pull him into the water and drown him.
Little Elephant, in his struggling to avoid being drowned, pulls back, elongating his nose into a long trunk! But he is losing the fight when along comes Snake. Snake remembers that Little Elephant had, some time earlier, treated him with kindness and respect, even though at the time there hadn't seemed any good reason to do so. Snake, seeing his friend in trouble, bites Crocodile and forces him to let go of Little Elephant, whose nose, even after he's calmed down and - of course - politely thanked Snake for saving his life, remains elongated.
When Little Elephant comes back to the village all the adult elephants want to know what has happened to his nose, but Little Elephant just spanks them all, thanks to his new, elongated nose. He then goes to Bird and thanks him for the idea of going and asking when you want to find something out.
Little Elephant, in his struggling to avoid being drowned, pulls back, elongating his nose into a long trunk! But he is losing the fight when along comes Snake. Snake remembers that Little Elephant had, some time earlier, treated him with kindness and respect, even though at the time there hadn't seemed any good reason to do so. Snake, seeing his friend in trouble, bites Crocodile and forces him to let go of Little Elephant, whose nose, even after he's calmed down and - of course - politely thanked Snake for saving his life, remains elongated.
When Little Elephant comes back to the village all the adult elephants want to know what has happened to his nose, but Little Elephant just spanks them all, thanks to his new, elongated nose. He then goes to Bird and thanks him for the idea of going and asking when you want to find something out.
A cold place on a hot night
I was driving home from work the other night at 11:45pm along a side street in Newark, NJ. I had the windows rolled down because it was 94 degrees but I'm afraid to use the A/C in my car. I stopped at a red light in a quiet part of town, and saw two women leaning against the trunk of a car on the opposite corner. I thought to myself, "Those two are out here to escape the heat - two friends." Then the light changed, and as I accelerated through the intersection one of the women looked up at me through my open car window, and stared into my eyes, asking. It dawned on me that they weren't escaping the heat, but they were in a place as cold as it gets.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Camden 28
Originally posted on facebook on March 23, 2010:
I just watched a documentary on Netflix called "The Camden 28." It tells the story of a group of anti-Vietnam War opponents - including four Roman Catholic priests and a Protestant minister - who broke into the Camden draft board offices in November 1971 in order to destroy draft records. In addition to the five clergymen were 23 other people, mainly but not exclusively drawn from the Catholic leftists that were active at that time in southern New Jersey.
The group was infiltrated by an FBI informant/provocateur who befriended and assisted them in planning and conducting the break-in. The FBI wished to make an example of the Camden group: they believed that the people organizing of the Camden action were also involved in a break-in at the FBI's Media, PA offices, that had exposed and thereby compromised the tactics being employed against anti-war protesters (and had personally embarrassed and pissed-off J. Edgar Hoover). Though the informant had been told by the FBI that the Bureau wanted to head-off the planned break-in, they secretly planned instead to allow it to go forward, ensuring that the protesters would be charged and tried on federal charges. Arrested in the midst of the break-in, each of the co-conspirators faced 47 years in jail.
The ensuing trial was complicated for the before it started by he fact that the main government witness - the informant - had turned against the prosecution, claiming that the FBI had promised him that no one involved would face jail time. Though he personally opposed breaking the law, he felt betrayed by the FBI and submitted an affidavit saying that the prosecution of these people was vindictive and politically-motivated.
During the trial the defendants were permitted to mount a "nullification" defense of sorts, and in addition to the now-defense-oriented informant, one of the witnesses was historian Howard Zinn, who testified that the Pentagon Papers proved the immoral underpinnings of the war. Another witness was the mother of the defendant Robert Good. The judge allowed Mrs. Good, whose elder son had been killed in Vietnam six years earlier, to talk about how her older son's life had been wasted in an unholy cause, and that her younger son only wished to redeem his brother's sacrifice.
It is a remarkable story, made even more remarkable for me personally by the fact that I've lived in New Jersey for 43 years and spent many of those years as a devoted anti-war person, yet I'd never heard of this case before. It was inspiring, and I recommend it to all (I think it may also be available through PBS).
Danny
I just watched a documentary on Netflix called "The Camden 28." It tells the story of a group of anti-Vietnam War opponents - including four Roman Catholic priests and a Protestant minister - who broke into the Camden draft board offices in November 1971 in order to destroy draft records. In addition to the five clergymen were 23 other people, mainly but not exclusively drawn from the Catholic leftists that were active at that time in southern New Jersey.
The group was infiltrated by an FBI informant/provocateur who befriended and assisted them in planning and conducting the break-in. The FBI wished to make an example of the Camden group: they believed that the people organizing of the Camden action were also involved in a break-in at the FBI's Media, PA offices, that had exposed and thereby compromised the tactics being employed against anti-war protesters (and had personally embarrassed and pissed-off J. Edgar Hoover). Though the informant had been told by the FBI that the Bureau wanted to head-off the planned break-in, they secretly planned instead to allow it to go forward, ensuring that the protesters would be charged and tried on federal charges. Arrested in the midst of the break-in, each of the co-conspirators faced 47 years in jail.
The ensuing trial was complicated for the before it started by he fact that the main government witness - the informant - had turned against the prosecution, claiming that the FBI had promised him that no one involved would face jail time. Though he personally opposed breaking the law, he felt betrayed by the FBI and submitted an affidavit saying that the prosecution of these people was vindictive and politically-motivated.
During the trial the defendants were permitted to mount a "nullification" defense of sorts, and in addition to the now-defense-oriented informant, one of the witnesses was historian Howard Zinn, who testified that the Pentagon Papers proved the immoral underpinnings of the war. Another witness was the mother of the defendant Robert Good. The judge allowed Mrs. Good, whose elder son had been killed in Vietnam six years earlier, to talk about how her older son's life had been wasted in an unholy cause, and that her younger son only wished to redeem his brother's sacrifice.
It is a remarkable story, made even more remarkable for me personally by the fact that I've lived in New Jersey for 43 years and spent many of those years as a devoted anti-war person, yet I'd never heard of this case before. It was inspiring, and I recommend it to all (I think it may also be available through PBS).
Danny
Beware of New Constituional Experts Who've Uncovered Diabolical Subversions!
Originally posted on facebook on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
I've noticed a recent spate of newly-minted Constitutional scholars who purport to have uncovered some great subversion of the Constitution that NO ONE ever discovered before. I have a word of advice: you can't simply go to the copy of the US Constitution in the back of your kid's civics text book and become an instant authority on constitutional law. In nearly every case there's a body of legislative and/or case law that surrounds, supports, clarifies, and delimits the basic principles outlined in the text itself.
For example, a person on facebook recently cited Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution to criticize the US Census, saying, “the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My ‘name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure’ have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.” This is simply not true, since in addition to directing that the Census be conducted every ten years, Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 adds that it be done, “in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct.” Congress has subsequently directed that the Census gather additional limited information, and as the power to do so is directly enumerated in the Constitution and given to Congress, it is well within the power of Congress to so direct.
Similarly, a good friend recently posted a video made by a gentleman who claims that there is no legal basis for a federal income tax. This video maker asserts that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution – which he erroneously maintains is the legal basis the government uses to justify the federal income tax – was never legally approved by three-fourths of the states. Of course, it WAS approved by nearly ALL the states, but EVEN if it hadn’t been, the Sixteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the federal income tax; it specifically involves the assessment of federal taxes on corporations.
Even the citation of the Sixteenth Amendment in this issue is historically inaccurate: the first federal individual income tax was assessed in 1862, and the Sixteenth Amendment was enacted FIFTY years later, in 1913.
In fact, however, the power to levy a federal income tax is based on the specific language of Article I, Section 8, [Powers of Congress] which states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence (sic) and general welfare of the United States…” Furthermore, Article I, section 8, clause 18 – known as the “Necessary and Proper Clause” – clearly states that, “The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” And, finally, several Supreme Court rulings have buttressed the power of Congress to levy taxes when and as it sees fit (United States v. Butler, 1936, is only one example).
So, regarding these new Constitutional experts, who are propelled – no doubt – by voices on the right who are willing and able to use any tactic and spread any untruth or misrepresentation to further their goals and ends: I’d counsel a very wary approach.
I've noticed a recent spate of newly-minted Constitutional scholars who purport to have uncovered some great subversion of the Constitution that NO ONE ever discovered before. I have a word of advice: you can't simply go to the copy of the US Constitution in the back of your kid's civics text book and become an instant authority on constitutional law. In nearly every case there's a body of legislative and/or case law that surrounds, supports, clarifies, and delimits the basic principles outlined in the text itself.
For example, a person on facebook recently cited Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution to criticize the US Census, saying, “the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My ‘name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure’ have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.” This is simply not true, since in addition to directing that the Census be conducted every ten years, Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 adds that it be done, “in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct.” Congress has subsequently directed that the Census gather additional limited information, and as the power to do so is directly enumerated in the Constitution and given to Congress, it is well within the power of Congress to so direct.
Similarly, a good friend recently posted a video made by a gentleman who claims that there is no legal basis for a federal income tax. This video maker asserts that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution – which he erroneously maintains is the legal basis the government uses to justify the federal income tax – was never legally approved by three-fourths of the states. Of course, it WAS approved by nearly ALL the states, but EVEN if it hadn’t been, the Sixteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the federal income tax; it specifically involves the assessment of federal taxes on corporations.
Even the citation of the Sixteenth Amendment in this issue is historically inaccurate: the first federal individual income tax was assessed in 1862, and the Sixteenth Amendment was enacted FIFTY years later, in 1913.
In fact, however, the power to levy a federal income tax is based on the specific language of Article I, Section 8, [Powers of Congress] which states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence (sic) and general welfare of the United States…” Furthermore, Article I, section 8, clause 18 – known as the “Necessary and Proper Clause” – clearly states that, “The Congress shall have Power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” And, finally, several Supreme Court rulings have buttressed the power of Congress to levy taxes when and as it sees fit (United States v. Butler, 1936, is only one example).
So, regarding these new Constitutional experts, who are propelled – no doubt – by voices on the right who are willing and able to use any tactic and spread any untruth or misrepresentation to further their goals and ends: I’d counsel a very wary approach.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Subjectivity is underrated
Though we live in a corporeal world that begs us to measure it, it seems that so many of life's most important dimensions are not measurable, such as love, pain, happiness, and fear...just to name a few. We can never objectively quantify any of these things - they only have subjective substance. Should this truth not be central to how we live our lives?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Medea
Last night I dreamed of you mother
There under the trees, loving another.
You couldn’t see me, but I saw
I woke and see you above me
I asked if you still loved me; but
You were as silent as moonlight
Will you still sing me songs of delight,
If I awaken from sleep sad and alone?
And make the light shine into my bed?
My father? Ah he’s your concern, not mine
He is like the sound of the weather
This is my time to be loved and misled
I forget the sorrow that rises from
The silence of stinging regret
And the deceptions of love unrequited.
Or unfulfilled.
There under the trees, loving another.
You couldn’t see me, but I saw
I woke and see you above me
I asked if you still loved me; but
You were as silent as moonlight
Will you still sing me songs of delight,
If I awaken from sleep sad and alone?
And make the light shine into my bed?
My father? Ah he’s your concern, not mine
He is like the sound of the weather
This is my time to be loved and misled
I forget the sorrow that rises from
The silence of stinging regret
And the deceptions of love unrequited.
Or unfulfilled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
