A Moment of Silence

Dear Ozer:

The janitor has stepped out for a while. (You see, he needed to get replenishment for his supplies. He ran out, because he has been using them indiscriminately for purposes they were not intended for (primarily for throwing them at perceived opponents of the moment, left, right, up, down, and all over – the tale consists of broken bones and damaged egos of the small and the big alike – leaving a trail of terrible devastation)). I am taking advantage of this break to sneak in a few words from the “Benevolent” part!

It is obvious that we (the Janitor and I) have been harsher than necessary with your work, primarily at the behest of the janitor. At this point, I would like to focus more on your work –your poem and its style than your perceived (intrinsic or projected) external characteristics – strictly from a reader’s point of view

(1) The lines of your poem are extremely unbalanced. You seem to have put them down exactly as they came to your head, and done very little or no work at massaging/streamlining them and at trying to make them more balanced and LOOKING better. (If you were a woman (or perhaps among a SMALL minority of men), you will realize the importance of the latter.) As a reader, I like to see lines that do not end at points too far from each other – the reason is strictly related to better ergonomics – the economy of neck movement.

(2) The italicized fluff up front is too long and drawn out. Most readers would, like I did, simply skip over it.

(3) The poem needs to have less circuitous references, and a better choice of words to make it flow better. For example, right in the beginning, you stumble with “clogged with wax”. Since the reader at this point (in view of (2)) has NO idea of what you are going to be talking about, it immediately conjures up an image of your ears clogged with wax and even YOU would agree that it’s not a pleasant introduction to the poet or poem.

(4) Like some others have pointed out, long winding descriptions of a large number of “atrocity” cases from around the world tend to distract from the message that you may be attempting to communicate. If I were in your shoes (not that I’d want to be – being in the line of fire is not a very pleasant prospect, even for the thick-skinned individuals like me), I’d have chosen no more than three illustrations – perhaps Africa being one. If the objective is to reach out to the reader, you should stay away from controversial topics, especially contemporary ones. Your purpose should be to maximize the impact of what you are trying to communicate, pick only certain aspects of each scene, and make the scene “hit” the reader by using the fewest of words. (Repeat after me – too much detail is a bad thing! It assumes that the reader has NO imagination.)

(5) In general, you seem to not have put in enough time just reading and revising your own poem. Like all things in life, success involves 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. Your “inspiration” part may be sort of okay, but the other part seems to be sorely lacking!

(6) I earlier commented (in a different tone) about not putting enough “heart” into it and about physical paradoxes (e.g., frozen refrigerators).

I hope the above helps. I wish you good luck. Assuming you are indeed the individual who wrote the earlier article under the same author name, I think this one is an improvement in the sense that it’s less inward-looking! Most readers like that.

I am closing now, since I hear the janitor coming back.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

#62 Ozer

Dear Ozer:

(The janitor isn’t back yet.)

I am amused to read your latest outburst – in the form of a half-hearted attempt at another poem – given up half way as you switched to prose, in #62. I think you are doing a disservice to your cause (if any) of your 9/11 poem by distracting attention from it – incidentally, which is exactly what you admonished others for doing.

1) Everybody knows that when one celebrates the independence day of a country, one celebrates a people, their history, and heritage – independent of any specific current administration policies of any one particular president, or another. The Independence Day of ANY country is sacred to its citizens who owe their allegiance to it. Therefore, making fun of a country on such an auspicious day can be considered a highly foolish act.

2) From the tone of your post, your hidden (repressed?) bias (jealousy?) toward U.S. is amply evident. If you let your passions rule you, your ability to create – whether as an artist, a photographer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a dancer, a whatever (perhaps even an event organizer), will suffer tremendously! The audience/readership will lose its respect for your objectivity on issues.

3) The current attempt suffers from all the deficiencies of the original, which should have been expected in view of its rushed nature. Therefore, another piece of advice for you is – always TAKE YOUR TIME!

I am sorry that you feel in bad mood because of the U.S. Independence Day. I forgot that the independence was wrested from the British, which might make this occasion less than pleasant for the British – although I have never heard of any such thing happening – from all accounts, the British are supposedly highly reserved with their emotions.

I hope that you feel better soon.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Re: # 65

Dear Beejay,

With every interact of yours, my respect for you augments. We may have started on the wrong footing. Yet it is becoming apprent that you are now making a paradigm-shift, and giving me your objective views about the ``poem`` rather than the ``poet``. This is a gladdening change in focus. And temperament.

Welcoming as fresh roses are the comments you make about the ``style and content`` of my poem. Admittedly my ``genre`` of poetry is imbued with thorns. I see no point in exposing the ``petals``. For my poetry is gut-wrenched from the heart. Suffice that I know it.

Every rose has its thorn. Beejay Do not thorns give the roses more character ?

Even though we both embrace completely different political maxims, I respect your take as an axiomatic diversity for it

Breadeth life into intellectual stimuli.

You see my cynical lens, and your ``microscopic mop`` must surely be able and agile to question the quavery voice and double-speak with which a morally hobbled superpower polices the world and governs its own polity.

The Aristotelian claim that ``man by nature is a political animal`` reasonates with truism even today and ``benign janitors`` must surely not overlook the steamy trysts in any foreign policy where human lives are

disposable toys to be jerked around with.

Many human rights activists are labouring under the faux-delusion that the current UN auspices, Bretton Woods structures and international socio-economic legal infrastructure have any semblance of equality. This is naivete and a false assumption to start with.

Just for how long can a superpower leave a

Trail of broken souls,

Streams of gushing blood

Torn legal treaties and

Grope about in a nebulous fog blaming it on the

War on terror.

Surely Nobody with a clear conscience can swallow that ?

#64 hamidm

Well said!

For those of you who are Americans, please let me break in and wish you a happy Fourth of July!

Now, get off this web site and go party somewhere! And go somewhere tonight and watch those fireworks (real ones, I mean, not the kind they have around here day in and day out)!! :)

BeeJay.
(An Extremely Benign Janitor on This Day)

``The Loss of a Judicial Mind``

By Ozer Khalid

An addendum to SR`s interact #60

SR

You reflectively accentuate the weighty flaws of the Patriot Act. Whereas you highlight the obliteration this causes ``domestically`` I will, merely to complement your previous interact, illustrate how Uncle Sam thrashes treaties ``internationally``. This was a piece I had written published in a legal journal a while back.

Harking back to the infamous “torture memos” the US president had the “inherent constitutional authority” to approve any interrogation techniques required to protect the nation`s ``self-interest``— Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib testify to the ugly verity that the US circumvents and circumcizes the very foreskin of the 1949 UN Convention Against Torture, ratified by America itself in 1994. Human Rights Watch, a neutral non-partisan monitoring group, claims that America`s abuse of detainees makes a ``mockery out of the 1949 Convention``.

In virtually every jurisdiction, governed by civil or common law, an international treaty on becomes ``supra-national`` and once ratified, overrides national law. Not so in the ``land of the eagle of freedom, the stars and the stripes`` where it simply becomes a corpus of domestic law. As such, it is given the cold shoulder whenever

It tickles the political fancy.

To nail the point with a hammer: after the World Court rendered a verdict against the United States in 1986 for mining Nicaragua`s harbours, Cowboy Ronald Reagan counselled his advisers to tear up the relevant treaty giving the court jurisdiction as if it were some movie script of his. When informed that this necessitated a two years` notice, he compelled them to tear it up even quicker. From the frying pan to the flames.

The very non-binding nature of most public-international law makes it little more than “soft” satire for armchair-activists to dwell upon. The ICC is America`s favourite ``bête noire``. Just adding that tad bit of salt to the wound, America has entered into bilateral agreements with 100+ countries granting its citizens umbrella immunity from ICC prosecution. Under what mandate ? Your guess remains as good as mine !!!!

Yet America grinningly supports other international tribunals such as those set up to deal with genocide and other atrocities in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. Pelting stones at glass houses !!

Something even Dante`s inferno, in its sheer ``Divine Comedy`` could not have foreseen. Republicans have been further inflamed by the momentous frequency of Supreme Court references to foreign ``doctrines of precedence``. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, recently lambasted Justice Anthony Kennedy for his “incredibly outrageous” citation of international views in the court`s ruling outlawing the death penalty for juvenile killers.

Republicans have now choked a resolution down Congress`throat banning inappropriate vomit of foreign judgments in interpreting the constitution. Baron Montesqieu`s ``separation of power`` has jilted up in flames.

Yet moderates such as Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day O`Connor, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg do warm the seats of the US Supreme Court, arguing with legal sagesse, that when confronted by a particularly intractable point of law, it simply makes sense to examine experiences and rulings outside America.

Laws are organic, and they benefit from cross-pollination.

This is judicial suicide and anathema for uptight stiff-upper-lipped SC conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The court should not impose “foreign moods, fads or fashions” on Americans, argues Justice Scalia. To him, the practices of the “world community” are irrelevant: Scalia obviously belongs to a different century and needs to be tele-ported back.

Beam him backward Scottie. Beam him front-ward. Beam him anywhere. But not here.

Yet Americans are happy to impose their own “fads and fashions” on others. A London court once ruled that Ian Norris, the former head of Morgan Crucible, a British engineering firm, could be extradited to the United States because of price-fixing by two of the firm`s US affiliates. The ``alleged`` offences were in 2000, when cartel activity was not deemed a criminal activity in Britain. Mr Norris`s lawyers said the case, the first involving extradition for an alleged antitrust offence, meant that no English executive with American subsidiaries or stripes could be sheltered in safe haven.

Under extradition rules America no longer bears the brunt of supporting any substantive evidence against someone it wants to extradite. It simply has to prove that an “extraditable” offence occured. But lo and behold if Britain wants to extradite an American suspect, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him/her.

Foreign companies are feeling the rash. Their allergy- Uncle Sam`s use of America`s Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789 !!!! which grants jurisdiction to American federal courts over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”.

This feverishly augments American whims to sue global companies for ``alleged`` wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against a US company.

Often disputes sprawl over several domains. An instructive case in point was when the Supreme Court rejected, in a 5-4 ruling, a death-sentence appeal by a Mexican citizen in Texas who had claimed that he and 50 other fellow Mexicans on death row in the US were black-listed from any help from the Mexican Consulate.

The World Court upheld the Mexicans` claim. By cutting the oxygen valve of consular assistance, America unjustifiably violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by the United States in 1969. Mr Bush, the then governor of Texas, signed with profound ink many of the men`s death warrants, roaringly boasting America`s withdrawal from the protocol giving the court jurisdiction over such disputes.

But for how long will the roar last ?

Epilogue:

America`s Alien Tort Claims Act 1789, the 1949 UN Convention Against Torture, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the ICC protocol, inter alia, all teeter into misuse. Your honour we have before us the

Loss of A Judicial Mind

Today

Tomorrow

And for all times to Come

#67 Ozer

Dear Ozer,

The janitor was in such a happy mood after watching all the glorious July Four fireworks that I was able to convince him to take the next day off! Therefore, no fear of any immediate interruptions, for now anyway!

To answer the enquiries you raise, there are two points that I must elaborate.

The point number one is as follows.

I am glad that you admitted your poetry is imbued with “thorns”. However, I must try to make you understand that the need to expose the “petals” is critical!

You say – “… my poetry is gut-wrenched from the heart. Suffice that I know it. Every rose has its thorn. Do not thorns give the roses more character?”

Such statements may indeed be true. It’s extremely NECESSARY that good poetry come from heart (gut-wrenched or otherwise), and sure it assumes the character of its source!

But it will never suffice for good poetry that only YOU “know” it! You see, Ozer, good poetry is about more than just you. It also includes your partner – the reader.

Think for a moment like that late great ascetic Morarji Desai would have a difficult time thinking – think of this interaction between the creator of the poem and its intended reader as an intermingling of souls – as of sexual interaction in its most abstract form – subtle in its delight as a breath of fresh air – as one partner, the creator, opens up the innermost and the most closely guarded recesses of his heart to the other partner, the reader. The reader, the other partner, is open to this interaction, at the moment anyway!

And they connect! Except there is just one problem! Your literary prowess assumes the vigor of a tiger on the prowl, moving “fast and furious”, while the innate need of the partner sings “I need somebody with a slow… hand”. Unfortunately, you the writer is absolutely oblivious of what your partner craves for – while fully and only cognizant of your own immediate need of the moment!

Therefore you see dearest Ozer, as those fireworks of your very own July Four rise higher and higher, and burn brighter and brighter, and release heat which relegates Mount Etna to a humiliating second, and as you climax in a paroxysm of delight that feels like your soul has touched the heavens, your partner is the one that’s left holding the bag – left absolutely high and dry! Feeling more clueless than Inspector Clouseau, and worse used than a discarded douche! Not to mention that perhaps in all likelihood, also feeling VERY dour!

To borrow what the janitor earlier attempted to impress upon you – “the pleasure is strictly one-sided”. It just does not a successful mating make!

Therefore, sweet Ozer, before you let go of that pearl that you put so much of YOUR heart into, hold it back for a moment and make sure that your partner is ready – fully ready, to receive it. And temper your urge to splurge with the partner’s innate need, not speed!

Now let me turn to the point number two.

Ozer, you ask “Just for how long can a superpower leave a Trail of broken souls, Streams of gushing blood, Torn legal treaties, and Grope about in a nebulous fog blaming it on the War on terror. Surely Nobody with a clear conscience can swallow that?”

My dear Ozer, your literary style tends to ensure that an idea being presented shall never suffer for lack of words. In doing so, your words at times become the thorns whose overabundance kills the very flower of the idea it’s supposed to protect (or, as the janitor would say – “you need to cut through the crap”). You describe a scenario that your prejudiced lens (you call it “cynical” lens) has conjured up for you – and your strong passion is the prism! You see things, but this lens makes you SEE things! Things that do not exist and assumptions that make an ass out of you! Without realizing it, you summarize the end result in “This is naivete and a false assumption to start with.”

Let me gently try to lift your veil of ignorance, so that you can look your master of knowledge fully in the face, without blushing to the deepest levels of your core.

My country U.S., certainly a superpower, is not a morally-hobbled power. In individual capacities, Americans are among the most giving – both in terms of resources as well as time. At the same time, we are strong believers that all charity must come from our hearts’ dictates and not from those of any government, including our own!

I see no quivering voices here, nor doublespeak. We harbor no need to police the world and we certainly do not govern our polity THAT way. Our role in Iraq, is strictly motivated by our national interest! There is no steamy tryst, only foreign policy to benefit our national interests! And a country whose very declaration of independence states – in no uncertain terms – that “All men are created equal”, leaves no room for human lives to become “disposable toys to be jerked around with”.

Ozer, we love the sanctity of life. Always did. Always will!

Ozer, our country has had the MOST consistent foreign policy since the beginning of our nation. As our first President said in the farewell address (Sept. 17, 1796) – we have no permanent enemies, nor any permanent friends. Let me quote at length his words, which explain it a LOT better than I ever can:

“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?”

“In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.”

That’s what we believe, that’s what we have always done, and that’s what we will continue to follow. Our enemy of the moment is such for – only the moment! Our national needs are – perpetually paramount!

And therefore, you see dear Ozer, we immensely prefer to be the lone ranger than a member of the herd – ANY herd – including the U.N.! And there are certain values (freedom being one such value) that we WILL defend, even if it requires sending our most cherished lives into the harm’s way!

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

beejay,

........... you are a very patient person, but trying to explain things to people like ozer is like pissing in the wind ...........

............. how do you expect people who neatly divide the world into two houses - the good house of islam, and the evil dwelling of the infidels - to understand ``that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded``......... it is an alien concept that has to be beaten into the the dunderheads after removing their protective turbans ............

Re: # 71 {``..............you find all sorts of libertarian fools on the ``right`` who make clinton look like atilla the hun ...........``}

You must be a neo-con to make an irresponsible statement like this. Libertarians` are perhaps the most sensible ideas on the American political spectrum today. Its the Democraps and the Rip-pubicans that are eroding the foundations of Liberty on which this great Republic was founded and managed quite well until the STATISTS started meddling more and more with civil society. With their dreaded agendas of Welfare State and Warfare State, respectively, they are killing the enterprising spirit that once made America great. Perversely, today Russia and China are more enterprise friendly than America. By enterprise I mean individual enterprise, not mega corporate oligopolistic practices. Try starting a small business in America these days. You`ll know what I mean when you get the hungry hounds come at you from the multiple-level state entities.

As for Clinton, he was a criminal in that he did more to strengthen the state apparatus than anyone else in recent history. I would have been clamoring for his impeachment had it not been for a mere blow job. Now THAT was one brave thing the dude did. My hats off to him. Though he should be rendered blind for showing such bad taste. Fat ass Monia... come on... there is bad taste and there is sad taste... and then there is Monica.

...SR

Re: # 66

SR,

..... i understand with your ``slippery slope`` concerns, but let`s not forget that there is a presidential election every four years and there are all sorts of checks and balances that make it impossible for the us to regress - unlike its adversary, there is no desire or rationale to revert back to the seventh century .............. look, even laura bush opposes repealing roe vs. wade and she sleeps with the president ..............you find all sorts of libertarian fools on the ``right`` who make clinton look like atilla the hun ...........

.......... in my opinion, the pendulum had swung too far to the left under the skirt-chasing president and his cabal of bleeding heart liberals led by the likes of doddering drunkards like kennedy .......... this is a minor correction and i am sure the pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years - it always does ............ let`s not forget that mcarthyism, as bad as it was, was followed by the equally disgraceful anti-vietnam war movement .............

So you want a moment of silence?
But for how long?
Till we are left speechless
Till our tongues are snatched from our mouths
Should we remain silent forever?
Or just long enough to hunger
Ourselves to death
//
Silence prevails spectation
Where time shall come
when eyes speak, hands speak with lips sealed
.....
A Moment of silence for deaths in London Tube explosions.