Saturday, September 21, 2024

Charles Bukowski’s Ordinary Madness

 Facebook

Image by Brady Bellini.

I received a review of Charles Bukowski’s Hollywood for AMASS Magazine (formerly Enclitic) as we were finalizing the current issue. We wanted to include it, but it was riddled with problems. I tried to salvage it, extracting a few of its good points, but it was hopeless. And the author had no interest in being associated with it, so I polished it off with a new moniker. A year later I received a letter from a New York publisher asking for permission to reprint it in an anthology and for a substantial fee.

After a year or so I got a letter from Hank (the name Bukowski went by. His full name was Henry Charles Bukowski). He praised the review, claiming that I saw the world like he did, and asked if I could interview him. He also included a stack of poems with a self-addressed envelope, asking if we would be interested in publishing them, which we did in the next few issues. I was honored, of course, to be able to interview him, and we set up a tentative date to meet in San Pedro. Before we could make this happen, he passed. 

I had already begun to consume his works in preparation for the meeting, especially since I had never read Hollywood. After his passing, I scoured his works and eventually penned a few essays about them, mostly letting my memory of him fade until I bought a house in San Pedro in 2006, leaving Venice after many years, my choice greatly influenced by Hank’s fascination with this working-class city. Once here, I revived my interest and prepared to write a piece about Hank’s experience in San Pedro’s dive bars, titled “Joints.”

At that point I knew Hank almost exclusively through his novels—I had not read much of his poetry. As a result, my interview with him would have been limited. Since then I’ve read a few posthumously published collections, but it wasn’t until the publication of A Catalog of Ordinary Madness (Chatwin Books), by Abel Debritto, an 854 page bio-bibliography of his works, that I realized how much of his output I’ve missed. This masterful book documents, in chronological order, his complete works—primary publications, periodicals, plates, book contributions and anthologies, pirate publications, unfinished projects, and non-English appearances. One of the striking aspects of this section is the comments appended to many of the entries for the periodicals, special experiences or praises an editor had when dealing with Hank. This includes my experience with Hank, summarized above, when we published one batch of his poems. The last part of the book includes writing about his works in books and chapbooks, master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, and periodicals. This output was immense, almost 5,500 poems, over 500 short stories and columns, hundreds of letters, essays, journal entries, illustrations, and six novels.

Debritto’s research regimen is notable. He spent many years in libraries, poring over microfilm and seeking out obscure magazines and journals. He talked to and sometimes met many of the editors who published Hank’s work decades ago. This was a very rewarding experience for him: “Although they were no longer in their prime, they shared all kind of stories—some truly revealing—with the eagerness of a teenager who has just discovered the magic of literature. Opinionated for the most part, they all seemed to believe Bukowski had played a key role in the small press scene—and to think they were not in it for the money speaks volumes of their commitment to art for art’s sake. No wonder Bukowski never stopped submitting to them.”

The small press scene was a significant cultural event during the stretch of years that Hank made his reputation. His writings appeared in so many different and little-known venues, at least up until his identity was mainstreamed, especially after the appearance of the movie Barfly in the late 1980s. Like Blank Gun Silencer, Sixpack, Make Room for Dada, Laugh Literary and Man the Humping Guns, etc.

Debritto’s reconstruction of this small press world is laudable for reasons that go well beyond the documentation of Hank’s output. It dredges up an era, beginning with the Beats and maturing through the 1960s and beyond, where the alternative press truly thrived. The sheer diversity and volume of work produced outside the corporate model constituted the cultural revolution of this stretch of years, the explosion of rebellion and experimentation outside the status quo. His lifestyle and perspective on writing attest to the consequences of this heritage, but they also demonstrate his unique place in it. He wrote through these years with the love of his craft, beholden to no tradition or movement, molding his own style to dismantle it. In the words of S.A. Griffin, a major Southern California poet, he was a “one-man wrecking crew and revolution.”

John O’Kane teaches writing at Chapman University. His recent book is Toward Election 2020: Cancel Culture, Censorship and Class

Why are Police Entitled to Lie and Slander?


 Facebook

In a presidential race in which both major party candidates are kowtowing to law enforcement, don’t expect any candor about the perils that politicians have unleashed. To serve and protect, police are allowed to slander and destroy. Cops in many states and localities have acquired the right to lie about their shootings, searches, and practically anything else. Police have routinely planted drugs, guns, and other evidence to incriminate innocent people, while police labs have engaged in wholesale fraud blighting tens of thousands of lives.

Supreme Court rulings turned a trickle of police perjury into a torrent. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in the case of McCray v. Illinois, gave policemen the right to keep secret the name of their “reliable informant” they used to get search warrants or target people for arrest. Law professor Irving Younger observed at the time: “The McCray case almost guarantees wholesale police perjury. When his conduct is challenged as constituting an unreasonable search and seizure … every policeman will have a genie-like informer to legalize his master’s arrests.” The Supreme Court created a judicial playing field on which police were the only witnesses who can safely lie.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that government officials are immune from lawsuits even when their brazen lies in court testimony resulted in the conviction of innocent people. The court fretted that “the alternative of limiting the official’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.” Honest government was not one of the “broader public interests” the court recognized that day.

In 1992, Myron Orfield, a Minnesota state representative and University of Minnesota law professor, conducted a confidential survey of Chicago judges, prosecutors, narcotics agents, and public defenders on Fourth Amendment issues. One Chicago prosecuting attorney observed that “in fifty percent of small drug cases [police] don’t accurately state what happens.” Twenty-two percent of Chicago judges surveyed reported that they believed that police are lying in court more than half of the time they testify in relation to Fourth Amendment issues; 92 percent of the judges said they believed that police lie at least “some of the time.” Thirty-eight percent of the Chicago judges said they believed that police superiors encourage policemen to lie in court. One judge did not even know how perjury was defined under the Illinois Criminal Code. After Orfield read him the technical definition, the judge replied: “Then there is sure a hell of a lot of perjury going on in this courtroom.”

In 1994, the Mollen Commission reported that “the practice of [NYPD] police falsification in connection with such arrests is so common in certain precincts that it has spawned its own word: ‘testilying.’” Federal appeals court chief judge Alex Kozinski observed in 1995: “It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers.” Former San Jose, California, police chief Joseph McNamara observed that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.”

In Tulia, Texas, Tom Coleman, an undercover cop on the federally funded Panhandle Drug Task Force, carried out drug stings in 1999 that resulted in the arrests of 46 people — equal to 10 percent of the black population of the town. There were no independent witnesses to back up Coleman’s accusations of pervasive drug dealing in the low-rent farming community. As United Press International noted, Coleman “made no video or audio recordings during his 18-month investigation. No drugs were found during the drug sweep and later he said his only notes were scribbled on his leg.”

But his leg and his word sufficed for mass arrests, including 12 people sentenced to prison who had no prior criminal record. “Dozens of children became virtual orphans as their parents were hauled to jail. In the coming months, 19 people would be shipped to state prison, some with sentences of 20, 60, or even 99 years,” the Village Voicereported. The NAACP of Texas denounced the crackdown as “the ethnic cleansing of young male blacks of Tulia.” For his exploits, Coleman received the Texas Lawman of the Year award, presented by Texas Attorney General (and future U.S. senator) John Cornyn. Defense lawyers and civil-rights activists eventually exposed Coleman’s vast frauds. Gov. Rick Perry pardoned 35 convicts who had been wrongfully tarred by his accusations, but only after some of them had spent four years in prison. Coleman was later convicted of perjury but was sentenced only to probation.

Almost a thousand people have seen their convictions overturned in recent decades in cases that involved perjury or false reports by police or prosecutors. A 2018 New York Times investigation of police lying revealed “an entrenched perjury problem several decades in the making that shows little sign of fading.” More than 100 NYPD “employees accused of ‘lying on official reports, under oath, or during an internal affairs investigation’ were punished with as little as a few days of lost vacation,” the New York Civil Liberties Union reported in 2018.

It’s a small step from fabricating guilt on the witness stand to creating guilt by planting evidence. Many police shootings have been exonerated by “throwdown” guns carried for emergency frame-ups. In 2001, a federal investigation resulted in the arrest of 13 Miami police connected to fabricating evidence or planting guns at the scene of three people who the police unjustifiably killed. In 2018, eight members of the Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force were convicted for planting guns on police shooting victims and other abuses. Police carried toy guns in their glove compartments or kept BB guns in their trunks to place at the scene of police shootings that might otherwise look like murder. More than 800 court cases were dismissed or overturned because of the Gun Trace Task Force’s crime spree.

That scandal percolated for years because Maryland treats planting evidence as the equivalent of jaywalking. A Baltimore policeman was convicted in 2018 of “fabricating evidence in a case in which his own body camera footage showed him placing drugs in a vacant lot and then acting as if he had just discovered them.” A man was jailed for six months for those drugs before the charge was dropped. The policeman kept his job because, as the Baltimore Sunexplained: “Under Maryland law, officers are only removed automatically if convicted of a felony. Fabricating evidence and misconduct in office are both misdemeanors.” An ACLU lawyer groused that he “cannot imagine a more screwed-up, idiotic way of trying to manage a police department or any other public office” than continuing to employ a cop convicted for fabricating evidence.

Bogus drugs produce more scandals than police throwdown guns. In 2019, Jackson County, Florida, sheriff’s deputy Zach Wester was charged with 50 counts of racketeering, false imprisonment, fabricating evidence, and drug possession for framing more than a hundred motorists he stopped. Wester would pull cars over for crossing the center line and then plant baggies of narcotics in their vehicles. As Reason reported: “Wester kept unmarked bags of marijuana and methamphetamines in the trunk of his patrol car, manipulated his body cam footage, planted drugs in people’s cars, and falsified arrest reports to railroad innocent people under the color of law. His victims, many of whom had prior records or were working to stay sober, had their lives upended. One man lost custody of his daughter.” Wester’s perfidy exceeded his mastery of his body cam, and his videos undid him. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for planting drugs.

While planting drugs usually involves a smattering of victims, Massachusetts shattered all records. In 2012, Massachusetts State Police drug lab chemist Annie Dookhan was arrested for falsifying tens of thousands of drug tests, “always in favor of the prosecution,” as Rolling Stone reported. Dookhan would add narcotics to tests which came back negative or would boost the weight so that a person could be convicted of drug dealing instead of mere possession. Her zealotry knew no bounds, such as the day “she testified under oath that a chunk of cashew was crack cocaine.” Dookhan’s brazen lab frauds went unnoticed even though she routinely certified samples as illicit narcotics without ever testing them. Supervisors marveled at her productivity, and colleagues called her “Superwoman.”

Five months after the Dookhan scandal broke, another Massachusetts state lab chemist, Sonja Farak, was arrested at home and charged with tampering with evidence as well as heroin and cocaine possession. The state Attorney General’s office quickly announced that it “did not believe Farak’s alleged tampering would undermine any cases.” Governor Deval Patrick assured the media: “The most important take-home, I think, is that no individual’s due process rights were compromised” by Farak’s misconduct.

No such luck. Farak had personally abused narcotics from her first day on the job in 2004 — sometimes even cooking crack cocaine on a burner in the lab and snorting meth and cocaine in courthouse bathrooms when she was called to testify. She detailed her abuses in hundreds of pages of diaries. But the state attorney general’s office insisted that she had only started consuming narcotics on the job a few months before her arrest, and they blocked all efforts to expose the full extent of Farak’s abuses. Massachusetts government officials could not be bothered to rectify the unjust convictions. Slate reported in 2015 that “district attorneys take the position that … prosecutors have no special duty to notify defendants that their convictions might have been obtained with evidence that was falsified by government employees.” Most of the victims could not afford lawyers to challenge their convictions.

More than 50,000 convictions were overturned, and the ACLU hailed “the largest dismissal of criminal cases as a result of one case in the history of the United States of America.” Hundreds of convicts were released from prison. But as Anthony Benedetti of the Committee for Public Counsel Services observed, “the damage has been done. Jobs have been lost, people have been unable to get jobs, housing has been lost, some people have been deported.” More than 20 states have had crime lab scandals since the turn of the century.

Police unions have finagled legislation that routinely enables cops to trample the truth after  they shoot civilians. Maryland police were protected by a “Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights” that prohibited questioning a police officer for 10 days after any incident in which he used deadly force. In Prince George’s County, Maryland, “a lawyer or a police union official is always summoned to the scene of a shooting to make sure no one speaks to the officer who pulled the trigger,” the Washington Post reported. Union lawyers were kept busy because that police department had the highest rate of shooting civilians in the nation. A 2001 Washington Post investigation revealed: “Between 1990 and 2001 Prince George’s police shot 122 people…. Almost half of those shot were unarmed, and many had committed no crime.” All the shootings, including those that killed 47 people, were ruled “justified.” The Maryland legislature purportedly repealed the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights law in 2021, but the replacement law was quickly exploited to cover up police abuses. Yanet Amanuel of the ACLU of Maryland groused: “Every time there is an opportunity to give the community control of the police, Maryland Democrats at every level who say they support police accountability squander it by backing amendments pushed by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).”

Thirteen other states have similar “law enforcement bills of rights” that give sweeping privileges to police accused of crimes, including automatic delays before they have to answer any questions about their shootings. The Florida Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights entitles police to receive “all witness statements … and all other existing evidence … before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer.” In a 2019 George Washington Law Review article on delays in interviewing police who shoot citizens, one police chief commented that “showing evidence in advance allows [police] to tailor their lies to fit the evidence.” Another police chief observed that that process simply gives police suspects “time to fabricate a better lie.”

In July 2023, the NYPD Civilian Complaint Review Board agreed to permit police to “watch surveillance footage, bystander videos and other video recordings [including body cam] that investigators plan to ask them about before giving their versions of what happened,” Gothamist reported. Police received that special treatment even though they had made almost 150 false or misleading official statements to the review board since 2020.

Many of the procedures discussed in this article exemplify how truth doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell against police unions. Regardless of how many brazen coverups occur, politicians will continue providing favored treatment in return for the cash and votes that unions deliver. Regardless of how many thousands of innocent citizens are slandered or worse, any resulting testimony or accusations will continue to be “close enough for government work.”

This article was originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit DemocracyThe Bush Betrayal, and Terrorism and Tyranny. His latest book is Last Rights: the Death of American Liberty. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com

Amazon Death Rattle

The Amazon rainforest is in deep trouble. Labeling it a “crisis”, however, seems too hackneyed and not descriptive enough because the devastation is beyond description.

The magnificent rainforest is morphing into a tinder box that’s trapped in the worst drought of all time. According to MapBiomas, an all-time record amount of land is charred and smoldering as 180,000 fires this year, over 50,000 current, light up Brazil, potentially threatening major cities Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

An estimated 20% of the Brasilia National Forest burned just last week.” (ABC News, 9/10/2024)

What’s happening in the Amazon may strike people as routine fires that news outlets have been covering for years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Historically, there’s nothing routine about this. Today’s fires are an unnerving example of a trend that is unique to modern-day society. Historically, over millennia, the Amazon rainforest did not experience massive take-down wildfires that incinerated all life forms.

“The Amazon evolved for millions of years without fire… its plants and animals lack the necessary adaptation….” (Source: Amazon Rainforest Fires: Everything You Need to Know, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, September 23, 2019)

Making matters far-far worse than any previous fires and a chilling new development: “Almost half of the fires in the Amazon burned pristine forests, according to data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. That is far from typical. It means fighting deforestation in the Amazon is no longer enough to stop fires. This matters because it shows that the fire-control practices in some of the world’s most biodiverse places are not working. And that threatens myriad forms of life, including us.” (Source: “The Fires That Could Reshape the Amazon”, The New York Times, September 17, 2024)

From Canada to Siberia to Brazil the world is on fire. When forests burn, they emit CO2. Therefore, wildfires convert carbon-sequestering trees into CO2 belching monsters in competition with gas-powered automobiles. This is global warming feeding on itself.

As a result, forest fires are getting worse. Burned-out forests in 2023 topped all previous years by a record-smashing +24%. “The latest data on forest fires confirms what we’ve long feared: Forest fires are becoming more widespread, burning at least twice as much tree cover today as they did two decades ago.” (Source: The Latest Data Confirm Forests Fires Are Getting Worse, World Resources Institute, August 13, 2024)

Global warming has turned lethal. In Brazil, a drought that began last year has become the worst on record, according to national disaster monitoring agency Cemaden. “In general, the 2023-2024 drought is the most intense, long-lasting in some regions and extensive in recent history, at least in the data since 1950,” according to Ana Paula Cunha, a drought researcher with Cemaden. (Source: South America Surpasses Record for Fires, Reuters, September 13, 2024)

According to Rachael Garrett, Professor of Conservation/University of Cambridge: “Deforestation of the Amazon has led to a reduction in rainfall in Brazil, throwing the ecosystem off balance and causing a loop of drought and devastating wildfires now impacted by the worst drought in memory.” (Source: Brazil Experiencing Record-Breaking Wildfires as Persistent Drought Affects the Amazon Rainforest, ABC News, September 14, 2024)

Global warming has become more than the mighty Amazon can handle, turning charcoal black, smothering smoke. This one-and-only world gem directly influences global hydrology from the cornfields of Iowa to the crest of the Tibetan Plateau 15,000 km away; it is literally at the heartbeat of the planet and suffering, in early stages of a massive die-off. Loss of the rainforest will bring a different world, a foreign world that nobody wants to recognize.

“According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), there were over 65,000 fire hotspots by the end of August 2024—the highest number for this period since 2005.” (Source: 2024 Marks the Worst Year for Amazon Fires Since 2005, Rainforest Foundation, 2024) Worse yet, of the fire hotspots, over 38,000 were recorded in August alone, an increase of 120% compared to the same month last year with 17,373 fire hotspots.

Since time immemorial, healthy rainforests don’t burn. Fires in healthy forests do not turn catastrophic. They remain low intensity and stay close to the ground, removing debris, small trees, and woody shrubs in the understory. The Amazon rainforest, when healthy, is shrouded by misty fog in a warm climate with lots of rain, up to 260 inches per year. But global warming has taken that description away. Recurring droughts are killing the rainforest, setting the stage for massive wildfires. NASA claims droughts come so frequently that large regions of the rainforest no longer recover. This is not normal. In a word, it is frightening.

A high-end collaboration of 80 scientists claims trees in western and southern Amazon face serious risk of dying because of global warming-induced droughts. (Source: Amazon – How Will it Cope with Drought? University of Leeds, April 26, 2023)

“Wildfires in the Amazon are choking swaths of Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador with smoke leading to evacuations, school closures, canceled flights and a dire threat to plant and animal life in the region… An estimated 20% of the Brasilia National Forest burned just last week.” (Source: ‘Out of Control’ Fires Ravage the Amazon Region, ABC News, September 10, 2024) This is so far beyond normal that it doesn’t even compute.

“The fires in California or the fires in Europe, those aren’t the same as the fires in South America. There’s an enormous difference — the loss of biodiversity,’ says Guillermo Villalobos, a political scientist focusing on climate science at Bolivian nonprofit Fundación Solon. ‘Forests like the Amazon are historically tropical forests, meaning they’ve never burned, they’ve never coexisted with the fire. This is terribly tragic for the ecosystem and the world. The Amazon is in its worst state of the last 50 years.” (Ibid.)

The statement “tropical forests never burned” tells a horrific tale that is impossible to ignore. Human activity has lit a devasting scorching change to nature that’s sparked by the advent of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, which causes excessive global warming, which is crushing the Amazon rainforest with recurring droughts that NASA says repeat so often that the once-mighty forest no longer recovers, no longer regrows. If fossil fuel emissions continue at current rates, the rainforest is destined to die. And the world will change like the remaking of a Hollywood science fiction film.

Science fiction writers have written stories about dying planets, like Dune, where inhabitants of the planet Arrakis wear “stillsuits” that recycle body moisture. Interestingly, Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel was one of the first to take environmental concerns seriously and became a rallying point for the environmental movement of the late 1960s and 70s.

Now, fifty years later, fiction like Dune turns real right before our eyes. But where’s an environmental movement as strong, as effective, as pro-active as the 1960s and 70s on progressive legislation protecting the environment? It’s disappeared.

Alas, in the face of raging forests fires around the world, we’re going backwards on environmental protections, for example, the Supreme Court is stripping environmental legislation of the 1960s-70s: “The Supreme Court is effectively axing a major component of the Clean Water Act, rolling back 50 years of wetland protection in a declaration of war against nature by changing a word in the text of the Clean Water Act. Seldom, if ever, will repercussions of a Supreme Court decision be so far-reaching and detrimental to life for the planet. It’s a dagger strike deep into the heart of the world’s most significant life source. Justice Samuel Alito “changing the text of the Clean Water Act” is guaranteed to bring forth much, much worse flooding, especially along coastlines as sea levels rise from global warming; it’ll engender new sources of pollution of streams and lakes and bring on huge losses in biodiversity and crush the beauty of nature displaced by concrete, asphalt and development. Most importantly, aquifers depend upon wetlands for replenishment.” (Source: Supremes Declare War on Wetlands, May 29, 2023)

According to the Sierra Club: “The Supreme Court’s decision will open millions of acres of wetlands—all formerly protected by the Clean Water Act—to pollution and destruction.”

Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh took exception, “scolding” Samuel Alito for “taking liberties with congressional law.” (Ibid.)

Stop CO2 emissions. Stop deforestation.

We’re methodically killing the planet. The planet cannot count on life support coming to its rescue. Hmm, the planet is life support.

But life support is burning.Facebook

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.comRead other articles by Robert.



‘Where you been?’ Harris rips GOP ‘hypocrites’ in fiery speech


David Badash, 
The New Civil Rights Movement
September 21, 2024 

Kamala Harris live.staticflickr.com

Vice President Kamala Harris blasted GOP "hypocrites" who are banning abortion while they suddenly start claiming they want to protect women and children.

In a fiery speech focused on reproductive rights and abortion in Atlanta, the Democratic presidential nominee was met with cheers and applause as she tore into Republicans, asking them where have they been.

"One in three women in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban," Harris told the crowd. "This includes Georgia and every state in the south except Virginia," she added, to which the audience started to grumble.

"Think about that when you also combine that with what we know has been long standing neglect around an issue like maternal mortality," Harris continued, as the audience could be heard starting to agree and clap.

READ MORE: Vance Ducks Question on Trump-Endorsed ‘Black Nazi’ by ‘Throwing His Kid Under the Bus’

"Think about that when you compound that with what has been long standing neglect of women in communities with a lack of the adequate resources they need for health care: prenatal, during their pregnancy, postpartum."

"Think about that, and these hypocrites," Harris said loudly, "want to start talking about this is in the best interest of women and children?"

"Well, where you been? Where you been?" Harris demanded powerfully as the audience roared and clapped in support and agreement.

"When it comes to taking care of the women and children of America, where you been?" she continued to cheers.

"How dare they? How dare they?"

READ MORE: After Oprah, Harris Resolves Interview Issue by Answering ‘Most Searched Questions’

Harris also "invoked the name of a 28-year-old woman, Amber Nicole Thurman, who died of an infection after being unable to access abortion care at a Georgia hospital," The Washington Post reports.


“We understand the impact of these bans and the horrific reality that women and families, their husbands, their partners, their parents, their children are facing as a consequence, every single day since Roe was overturned,” Harris said. “We will speak her name: Amber Nicole Thurman.”

Harris went on to say, "this is a healthcare crisis, and Donald Trump is the architect of this crisis." She warned that if elected, Donald Trump will sign into law a national abortion ban.

Watch Harris below or at this link.