Who Polices Prosecutors Who Abuse Their Authority? Usually Nobody
by Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica, and Sergio Hernandez, Special to ProPublica, April 3, 2013, 5:30 a.m.
The murder case against Tony Bennett seemed pretty straightforward.
Shortly before midnight on May 7, 1994, police found a 26-year-old man in the foyer of an apartment building near Flushing, Queens. Jake Powell was near death, blood pouring from a gunshot wound, but he managed to speak the name of the man who had shot him: "Tony Bennett."
Bennett, a two-time felon, was eventually captured, convicted of murder, and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
But Bennett never served anywhere near that sentence. He has, in fact, been free since 2008 because Claude Stuart, the former Queens assistant district attorney who handled his case, violated a basic rule of law by withholding critical evidence from Bennett's attorney. A state appeals court overturned Bennett's conviction and released him after 13 years in prison.
That early release has freed Bennett to describe his role in a crime he had insisted for two decades he did not commit.
"He was wrapped up in a shower curtain in the corner of the bathroom, shivering and shaking," Bennett recalled of Powell, who Bennett said had terrorized his family for years. "He was saying all this, 'Please, please, don't hurt me, don't shoot, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.' And I said, 'Yeah, I'm sorry, too.' And I did what I had to do."
Stuart's wrongdoing in the Bennett case wasn't his only act of misconduct. He manipulated evidence in another case, and that conviction wound up being reversed by the courts, too. But his bosses took no action after that misconduct became known. A state disciplinary committee reprimanded Stuart, but that fact remained secret from the public. Indeed, Stuart's superiors did not act until another conviction was overturned, and Stuart was found to have lied to a trial judge about the whereabouts of a key defense witness.
That, at last, cost Stuart his job.
Stuart's career, across many years and with repeated abuses, helps demonstrate a broader truth: New York's system of attorney oversight is ill-equipped or unwilling to identify, punish and deter prosecutors who abuse their authority.
A ProPublica analysis of more than a decade's worth of state and federal court rulings found more than two dozen instances in which judges explicitly concluded that city prosecutors had committed harmful misconduct. In each instance, these abuses were sufficient to prompt courts to throw out convictions.
Yet the same appellate courts did not routinely refer prosecutors for investigation by the state disciplinary committees charged with policing lawyers. Disciplinary committees, an arm of the appellate courts, almost never took serious action against prosecutors. None of the prosecutors who oversaw cases reversed based on misconduct were disbarred, suspended, or censured except for Stuart. (Stuart declined repeated requests for an interview for this story.)
Nor were any but Stuart punished by their superiors in the city's district attorney offices. In fact, personnel records obtained by ProPublica show, several received promotions and raises soon after courts cited them for abuses.
The damage from prosecutorial misconduct can be devastating, not only allowing guilty people like Bennett to go free, but also putting innocents behind bars. In 10 cases identified by ProPublica, defendants convicted at least in part because of a prosecutor's abuse were ultimately exonerated, often after years in prison.
Shih-Wei Su was incarcerated for 12 years on attempted murder charges before a federal appeals court cleared him, finding that a prosecutor had "knowingly elicited false testimony" in winning a conviction. The city eventually paid Su $3.5 million. The prosecutor received nothing more than a private reprimand.
Jabbar Collins served 15 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit before his conviction was thrown out in 2010; Michael Vecchione, a senior Brooklyn prosecutor, had withheld critical evidence during trial. Collins has filed a $150 million lawsuit against the city. No action has been taken against Vecchione.
Last July, two men filed lawsuits for a combined $240 million against the city for wrongful convictions that a state appeals court found were won in part because Manhattan prosecutors had withheld evidence. The men served 36 years in prison, collectively. The prosecutor, who long ago left the district attorney's office, has not been publicly disciplined.
"It's an insidious system," said Marvin Schechter, a defense attorney and chairman of the criminal justice section of the New York State Bar Association. "Prosecutors engage in misconduct because they know they can get away with it." (Schechter said he was expressing his own opinion, not that of his bar section.)
New York City's district attorneys say concerns about misconduct — heightened by several recent high-profile cases — are largely misplaced.
Allegations of such practices are substantiated in only a fraction of the roughly 285,000 cases they handle each year, they assert. Even in those, they add, what courts deem misconduct often amounts to inadvertent error.
Top prosecutors also say their offices have taken significant steps to limit and expose misconduct, in part by establishing internal units that examine claims of abuse.
"The egregious cases don't mirror the larger universe, but are rather somewhat isolated," said John O'Mara, head of the Brooklyn District Attorney's Conviction Integrity Unit.
Across those years, there has been at least one constant: the inability or unwillingness to meaningfully punish the offending prosecutors.
ProPublica, in the latest analysis, examined the years 2001 to 2011, chiefly scrutinizing instances in which state or federal courts identified misconduct serious enough to throw out a conviction. The analysis also incorporated civil cases during those years, virtually all of which resulted in financial awards being given to the victims of such misconduct.
The analysis found a total of 30 cases that met those criteria. Four of them involved civil cases addressing harmful misconduct that took place as far back as 1985. Again, in all those cases, no prosecutor other than Stuart was seriously disciplined for misconduct.
Calculating the full extent and impact of prosecutorial misconduct can be difficult. More than 90 percent of criminal cases never go to trial, so the public has no way of knowing how prosecutors conduct themselves in the tens of thousands of cases every year that, for instance, end in plea deals.
Moreover, state appellate courts — in theory the first check on misconduct allegations — often criticize prosecutorial tactics but let convictions stand if they conclude the conduct did not decide the outcome of the case.
ProPublica identified more than 50 instances in which appeals courts essentially gave prosecutors such no-harm, no-foul free passes. In a 2009 ruling, for example, a court found that a Manhattan prosecutor should have disclosed a co-conspirator's statement that the defendant wasn't actually involved in the shooting he was charged with, but concluded there was "no reasonable possibility that the failure to disclose … contributed to the verdict."
Academics and defense lawyers say such rulings allow prosecutors to engage in bad practices as long as they don't result in unjust convictions.
"If you're in the Olympics and you're in a race and you win and then it's found that you took steroids, they take your medal away," said Larry Goldman, a former Manhattan prosecutor who is now a defense attorney. "No one says, ‘Oh well, it doesn't matter if you took steroids, you would've won anyway.'"
When courts and grievance committees shrug off problematic conduct, Goldman and others said, they miss opportunities to deter more misconduct before it worsens, often disastrously.
When prosecutorial misconduct goes unchecked, said Hal Lieberman, a former chief counsel for a New York grievance committee, it "undermines the integrity of the entire system."
* * *
Stuart was assigned the Bennett case as he neared his 10-year anniversary with the Queens District Attorney's office, soon after being promoted to the Career Criminal Major Crimes Bureau.
Stuart had Powell's final words identifying his killer, and he notified Bennett's lawyer that those words would be the key to his prosecution.
But on the last day of the trial, Stuart produced a surprise witness: a man who testified that he, too, had heard Powell identify his killer.
The jury returned a guilty verdict.
Looking back, Bennett said, Stuart had "pulled a rabbit out of his hat."
A state appellate court took a dimmer view, finding that Stuart had "ambushed the defense by his deception."
The court overturned Bennett's conviction. Bennett, after pleading guilty to a lesser charge, was soon free.
Prosecutors' obligation to disclose potentially important evidence to defense lawyers is a bedrock principle of the justice system. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors must disclose any evidence that is material to either the guilt of the defendant or the severity of the alleged crime. Under New York state court ruling People v. Rosario, New York prosecutors must turn over statements by witnesses who will give testimony.
But ProPublica's analysis showed that violations of these obligations were the most common form of serious misconduct by city prosecutors, who failed to meet these standards in more than half of the 30 cases reversed by state or federal courts based on misconduct.
Prosecutors said Brady and Rosario violations are almost always accidental and sometimes involve complex judgment calls about what evidence needs to be turned over and when.
"The decision as to what constitutes material that must be disclosed under Brady is not always simple to make and often subject to debate," John Ryan, the chief assistant district attorney in Queens, said in a letter to ProPublica. The case law governing Brady is always changing, he added, and sometimes even appellate judges disagree on what is required.
Dozens of current and former prosecutors told ProPublica they received vigorous training on how to make decisions on Brady, worked closely during trials with supervisors, and were urged to err on the side of disclosure.
But Schechter, the head of the criminal section of the state bar, has said the culture and training in the offices of prosecutors may sometimes lead prosecutors to skirt the rules in their desire to win victories in court.
"Assistant district attorneys do not emerge from law school with a genetic disposition to hiding Brady material," he wrote in a July 2012 letter to the bar association published in the New York Criminal Law newsletter. "Instead this is something which is learned and taught."
The letter triggered an explosive reaction: Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson called Schechter's allegations "outrageous," and Schechter's own bar association section passed a resolution disowning his statements.
Yet a number of former prosecutors have made similar observations.
Mortimer Lawrence, Claude Stuart's former colleague at the Queens district attorney's office, testified at a disciplinary hearing for Stuart that supervisors bore some responsibility for Stuart's troubles.
"I know there to be an unspoken pressure on assistants to press the edges of discovery and evidence and just how far you go," Lawrence said in his testimony.
Stuart lost his job in 2002 and had his license to practice law suspended in 2005.
Ryan, the Queens chief assistant district attorney, stressed that once Stuart's supervisors knew of his misconduct, they moved swiftly to alert disciplinary authorities.
To critics, however, Stuart's pattern of abuses shows how much a prosecutor can bend the rules before suffering any consequences.
Over the course of his career, Stuart's tactics prompted appellate courts to toss two other convictions in addition to Bennett's and forced his superiors to abandon at least one other case, records show. He also had received a private letter of caution from a disciplinary committee related to one of the reversals, although his bosses say they were not aware of this.
Yet, until Stuart's forced resignation, there were no signs that Queens District Attorney Richard Brown saw him as a problem. Instead, Stuart had garnered a string of raises, promotions, and positive performance reviews, winning a reputation as an aggressive litigator, according to records and interviews.
"We have a broken system," said New York University legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers. "We disbar lawyers for taking two hundred dollars from a client's escrow account, even if they return it. But there are rarely consequences for someone who has stolen someone else's due-process rights and possibly put an innocent person in jail."
* * *
In the early 1990s, parts of Queens were plagued by Chinese gang violence. There were the White Tigers and the Green Dragons, grudges and guns.
In 1992 prosecutors charged Shih-Wei Su with ordering the attempted executions of two Green Dragons in a Bayside pool hall.
The star witness for the prosecution was man named Jeffrey Tom. Tom had agreed to testify that he heard Su order the shootings in exchange for prosecutors scaling back a criminal case against him.
But at trial, under questioning by Queens Assistant District Attorney Linda Rosero, Tom denied any deal with prosecutors existed. Rosero let the lie stand and then, in summation, lauded Tom's testimony as "truthful and honest."
Su, 19 at the time of his conviction, was sentenced to 16 to 50 years in prison.
It would take years, but the conviction did not survive. Su's lawyers successfully proved a deal had existed, and in 2003 a federal court overturned the outcome. The judges savaged Rosero, calling her conduct "repugnant to the Constitution."
Su filed a wrongful-conviction suit against the city, but he wanted Rosero punished, too. With the help of his attorney, Joel Rudin, he lodged a disciplinary complaint with the Second Department Grievance Committee. Rudin shared the correspondence with ProPublica.
To trigger investigations against prosecutors, grievance committees depend largely on reports from defense attorneys, who may be reluctant to come forward and antagonize a prosecutor with whom they must continue to work.
ProPublica interviewed eight current or former disciplinary committee officials, who said they recalled very few complaints filed about prosecutors.</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div>
Complaint Dismissed Attorney Privately Reprimanded Attorney Publicly Reprimanded
Average Outcomes of Attorney Complaints Filed in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, 2001 to 2009</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div>
Complaint Dismissed Attorney Privately Reprimanded Attorney Publicly Reprimanded Note: The department that adjudicates attorney complaints in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island also considers cases in seven additional counties north and east of the city.</div>
The committees operate almost entirely in secret, dispensing little public discipline—disbarments, censures, or suspensions. Between 2001 and 2009 (the latest year for which data are available), just 1 percent of the roughly 91,000 complaints received by the First and Second Department committees resulted in public sanctions. And just 5 percent of all the complaints resulted in even so much as private letters of caution or admonition, which remain confidential to all but complainants and the attorneys who receive them.
Though prosecutors are public employees, members of the public have virtually no way to find out if they have been sanctioned privately or why.
Ellen Yaroshefsky, a Cardozo Law School professor, has tried for years to obtain records of complaints and disciplinary actions against New York prosecutors. The disciplinary committees have refused to comply, citing confidentiality laws.
Richard D. Willstatter, former president of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, argues that prosecutorial oversight should be more transparent.
"We understand the need to protect attorneys from scurrilous complaints, of course, but we don't think these rules should apply to public officials like judges or prosecutors," Willstatter said. "If the information is brought to the attention of the public, then it is more likely that there will be pressure to make the system fairer."
To critics like Yaroshefsky and Willstatter, private discipline can be a grossly inadequate way to hold prosecutors accountable.
Certainly, Su's bid to have Rosero punished fizzled.
As part of the disciplinary process, Rosero claimed her supervisors pressured her into trying a case "thought to be a loser." Still, she insisted her handling of the witness testimony was an innocent mistake, not gamesmanship to score a win.
Rosero, who has left the Queens District Attorney's office, declined to comment about the Su case. In a letter to the grievance committee, her attorney, Jerome Karp, said that Rosero, who had been with the Queens District Attorney's office for five years when she tried Su, had been "naïve, inexperienced and, possibly, stupid."
In December 2004, the grievance committee decided to issue Rosero a confidential letter of admonition. Publicly, Rosero's record remained unsullied.
Su would not relent. While there is no formal appeals process for disciplinary decisions, nevertheless Su wrote back to beg the committee to reconsider: "How is it possible that an experienced prosecutor who knowingly broke every bar association code, every Constitutional law, and more, only gets an admonition?" he asked.
The committee was unmoved.
"The matter," it told Su in a letter, "is closed."
* * *
Queens Assistant District Attorney Elizabeth Loconsolo was a rising star when, in October 1989, she began work on what appeared to be a horrific case of child abuse. Amine Baba-Ali, a 33-year-old Algerian man, had been charged with raping his 4-year-old daughter in the midst of a nasty divorce with the girl's mother.
Loconsolo had recently won several high-profile rape cases, including one against a man known as the "duct tape rapist" for his use of the material in assaulting eight young girls.
Critical to the Baba-Ali case were medical evaluations done on the child. One examination, done less than a week after the alleged rape, showed no indication of physical harm. Another, done more than three months after the alleged assault, supposedly showed evidence of rape.
Loconsolo used the damning examination results at trial. But she didn't turn the potentially exonerating results over to Baba-Ali's lawyers until the eve of his trial. His lawyers never used the material in his defense.
Baba-Ali was convicted of rape and sodomy and sentenced to up to 25 years in a maximum-security prison.
Less than a month after the conviction, Loconsolo was given one of the biggest pay raises of her 10-year career and eventually rose to head the office's Major Offenses Bureau, the first woman to hold the post.
Two years later, Loconsolo's victory was thrown out by a state appellate court. The court ruled that Loconsolo's handling of the exculpatory medical records was "inexcusable" and a violation of a direct court order.
Baba-Ali was freed in January 1992. Loconsolo, despite the stinging rebuke, got another raise later that year.
Loconsolo's career underscores a question that has frustrated defense lawyers and legal experts for years: Why don't district attorneys reliably punish assistants under their command?
Senior prosecutors across the city insist they have reprimanded subordinates whose actions have resulted in wrongful convictions and have used such cases to guide how all staffers are trained.
But ProPublica's review of personnel records for assistant district attorneys involved in the 30 harmful misconduct cases showed that none of the prosecutors were dismissed, demoted, or sanctioned in any formal way except for Claude Stuart. (We have not received personnel records for prosecutors involved in three of the cases.)
The records were often incomplete, but at least seven of the prosecutors received raises or promotions after convictions were reversed.
Joel Rudin, the lawyer who handled Su's civil suit and who now represents Jabbar Collins, found a similar pattern in older personnel records obtained from Queens and the Bronx as part of litigation on behalf of defendants who were wrongfully convicted.
In a 2011 article for the Fordham Law Review, Rudin wrote that just one Bronx prosecutor found to have committed misconduct by appellate courts in 72 cases from 1975 through 1996 was even briefly disciplined by his superiors.
The same prosecutor was blasted in three more appellate opinions over the next three years for conduct described as "egregious," "outrageous and abusive," and "improper and tasteless," Rudin found.
None of the Queens prosecutors who handled 73 cases reversed by appellate courts between 1985 and 1998 based on misconduct even received a negative performance evaluation, Rudin found.
In most of the 30 reversals examined by ProPublica, where courts cited prosecutors for harmful abuses, city district attorneys maintain that no abuses occurred, only mistakes.
Of the 12 cases involving Queens prosecutors, Queens Chief Assistant District Attorney John Ryan said the only ones involving bona fide misconduct were those handled by Stuart. The others were either inadvertent errors, the fault of police, or "simple disagreements over the requirements of the law" between prosecutors and the court, he said.
In the eyes of Manhattan prosecutors, none of the six Manhattan reversals involved true misconduct, Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said.
"Some judges opined that a prosecutor had acted improperly, while others disagreed," Alonso said in an email to ProPublica. "This is the nature of criminal litigation, and it happens with respect to defense lawyers and judges as well as prosecutors, the overwhelming majority of whom are simply making judgment calls in good faith."
The judges in Baba-Ali's case could hardly have been more emphatic about Loconsolo's misconduct and its consequences. And it was not the only time she would have her work criticized. In October 1992, she had another child abuse conviction reversed by a federal judge, who found "troubling issues" with the prosecution.
As far as her personnel records show, however, Loconsolo was never formally reprimanded by her bosses. She stayed in the Queens office, got another raise, and was assigned to head what was known as the intake bureau, where she would oversee and train young front-line prosecutors making sensitive judgment calls on how to handle new arrests.
Baba-Ali, released from prison after two years, wanted compensation for the years he'd lost and the horrors he'd experienced in prison. He filed a complaint with the state court of claims, saying that when he was incarcerated, mostly at Sing-Sing correctional facility, he was beaten and had witnessed, among other things, a young inmate serially gang-raped as guards looked on. Perhaps most damaging, Baba-Ali claimed, the case had left him permanently estranged from his daughter.
State Court of Claims Judge Melvin Schweitzer didn't spare Loconsolo. He said what she did was "tantamount to fraud" and awarded Baba-Ali $2.1 million — an award the state is still contesting to this day. Last June the State Court of Appeals sent the case back to the court of claims for retrial.
In a letter to ProPublica, Ryan said Loconsolo "has maintained for the last twenty years that she disclosed the records in a timely manner" and there was no reason to take any action against her.
Loconsolo, who didn't respond to requests to be interviewed for this article, seems to have done just fine.
She's now general counsel for the Nassau County Sherriff's Department.
"You just can't expect the district attorneys to hold their own people accountable for wrongdoing," said Hugh Mo, a former New York Police Department deputy commissioner and Manhattan prosecutor who is now in private practice. "It's a serious conflict of interest."
* * *
Prosecutorial misconduct, and how to deal with it, is not a new legal topic. For years, defense attorneys and prosecutors have debated ways to keep prosecutors in line and discipline them when they err.
In the last few years, the New York State Bar Association has taken on the issue of how to define prosecutorial misconduct and what should be done about it as part of a larger initiative to address wrongful convictions.
In a 2009 report, the group made several recommendations aimed at stiffening oversight of prosecutors and stamping out problems with evidence disclosure.
New York lawmakers have introduced several bills incorporating the bar association's ideas. Some are pending this session, but none have gained much traction. The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York has opposed them, and city district attorneys have said they could adversely affect public safety and are unnecessary in light of their own efforts to improve training and oversight.
There is ample skepticism among defense lawyers and other legal experts that any reforms will prevail.
A former grievance committee member, who declined to be named because of his ongoing work with the courts, said the state's most senior judges could take the lead and make something happen.
"I think the presiding justices would have to recognize the seriousness of the situation and take the initiative and say, ‘Listen, from now on, when you identify an act of misconduct, you have to open up an investigation,'" he said.
Prosecutors in Manhattan and Brooklyn say they have moved voluntarily to accomplish some of what the proposed legislation would have mandated.
The offices have set up conviction integrity units to review cases in which there is compelling evidence of innocence. The Brooklyn unit has assessed 14 cases and exonerated three defendants since it was established two years ago. Manhattan would not provide details about its unit.
In October 2009, the Brooklyn office created an internal ethics panel to investigate allegations of misconduct made against its attorneys. Based on the panel's work, Brooklyn officials said, two attorneys have been asked to resign. Another resigned in May while the ethics panel was investigating her conduct in a rape case.
John O'Mara, who leads the Brooklyn Conviction Integrity Unit, said these steps make outside intervention unnecessary.
"We are comfortable with our current system," O'Mara said.
Outside observers are less certain.
"You can't have a system where everybody that has the ability to do something about a problem is saying ‘it's not my responsibility,'" said professor Steven Goldblatt, a former prosecutor who is now director of the Appellate Litigation Program at the Georgetown Law Center. "There is a public trust at stake here."
Aarti Shahani and Melanie Hicken contributed to this report.
Live chat: What is being done to improve oversight in these cases? Join reporter Joaquin Sapien and a team of legal experts this Thursday at noon ET to discuss our latest investigation into prosecutorial misconduct. You can also tweet questions with #PolicingProsecutors.
A note on the title of this post: and some amendments to Lenin:
I might as well have titled this post "Lenin and the Ontological Independence of Society". In good Hegelian fashion, which always brings in an amount of philosophical fudging, the two notions (ontological standing - dependence / independence) amount to two sides of the same coin.
I would like to amend this passage from Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism in a way more congenial to my philosophical thinking. Human societies obviously cannot exist without what we call human consciousness but they are independent of any single individual human consciousness. All talk of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" (in fact the whole of the subject'-object dichotomy) I believe only leads to confusion or worse a kind of dualism,. This is because even mind-dependent reality is in some sense "objective", i.e. a "material" reality. What is "in the mind" is somewhere a reality even if it is only a "part" of a nervous system. The fact is we as yet don't know what it means to say that something is "in consciousness" or that a thought is "in" the mind or the brain. Such words are merely metaphors or place-holders for what may possibly be discovered at a later date. Thus it is necessary to write about such topics constantly using "scare-quotes" as pointers to the words that are used metaphorically or concepts that are at bottom "black-boxes."
This is also true of what some philosophers still insist on calling "being". Being-itself, and the philosophical uses of it, I believe are simply rusty growths of our language and from this rust come all the permutations of ontological talk. I would simply prefer to talk about some form of reality or "material reality" or even the "processes" of mind-independent reality, as long as we realize that then we have the problem of the ontological-standing of "material reality" and "process" and that the notions of "matter" and "process" are themselves another way to fudge with metaphors. For instance, information is itself a material reality or material process in the world view of a good monist-materialist. The universe itself may, (as the physicist Wheeler once wrote) "at a very deep bottom" consist of nothing but bits of information. These bits of information are just the universe itself. The universe is not "mind-dependent", of course. The information that makes up the universe pre-exists consciousness which eventually arises through biological evolution.
This is not true of the societies of any species. So I would amend or perhaps only clarify Lenin in the following way: instead of saying "social being is independent of the social consciousness of men" I would say "social reality is independent of the social consciousness of each individual human." I would further add that each individual human is the "information" carrier of the always emergent material relations of social reality. The notion of "emergence" I would substitute for the metaphor of "chains" used by Lenin, when he writes of a "chain of events and "chain of development." The metaphor of a "chain" is too serial, in my view..
The simple point that Lenin is generally making below should be "common sense". The fact that it is not common sense, only says something about the clouds of unreality that constantly obscure our view, i.e. the ideology of our society, which in the epitome allows the irrational belief of a Margaret Thatcher who once famously said that there was no such thing as society.
Now to the quote:
"Every individual producer in the world economic system realizes that he is introducing a certain change into the technique of production; every owner realizes that he exchanges certain products for others; but these producers do not realize that in doing so they are thereby changing social being. The sum-total of these changes in all their ramifications in the capitalist world economy could not be grasped by seventy Marxes. The paramount thing is that the laws of these changes have been discovered, that the objective logic of these changes and their historical development have at bottom and in the main been disclosed -- objective, not in the sense that a society of conscious beings, men, could exist and develop independently of the existence of conscious beings ... but in the sense that social being is independent of the social consciousness of men. The fact that you live and conduct business, beget children, produce products and exchange them, gives rise to an objectively necessary chain of events, chain of development, which is independent of your social consciousness, and is never grasped by the latter completely. The highest task of humanity is to comprehend this objective logic of economic evolution (the evolution of social life) in general and fundamental features, so that it may be possible to adapt to it one's social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries in as definite, clear and critical a fashion as possible."
"Budapest and the western parts of the country are doing reasonably well, despite the general economic crisis, in the east, and especially in the northeast of the country, half a million Roma and at least he same number of non-Roma Hungarians live in extreme poverty. Many go hungry. What under Communist Janos Kadar had been a region of fairly successful collective farms and a wasteful, but labor intensive industry now consists of fallow lands and idle, rusty, factories. Among the previously fully employed Roma there is now up to 90 percent unemployment. Hungarians in the same region are no better off either. Whence the considerable hatred of the Roma who are said to prefer to live on welfare."
from "Hungary the Threat" by Istvan Deak The New York Review of Books, 28 April 2011, p. 37.
In fact throughout Eastern Europe the Roma fared better under the old Stalinist system of oppression than they do under the current system of capitalist oppression. This is because the distorted property forms of a deformed worker's state militated toward full employment and the full use and misuse of all labor resources no matter the backward political forms that destroyed any move toward proletarian democratic forms.
23 April 2011
http://www.southendpress.org/latest (via shareaholic)
Below the cut find the text of the speech.
( Collapse )
October 31, 1936
Madison Square Garden Speech
Senator Wagner, Governor Lehman, ladies and gentlemen:
On the eve of a national election, it is well for us to stop for a moment and analyze calmly and without prejudice the effect on our Nation of a victory by either of the major political parties.
The problem of the electorate is far deeper, far more vital than the continuance in the Presidency of any individual. For the greater issue goes beyond units of humanity‹it goes to humanity itself.
In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory. Again they are in a mood to win. Again they will win.
More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: "Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people."
The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march.
It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people.
What was our hope in 1932? Above all other things the American people wanted peace. They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear.
First, they sought escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. They wanted the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise.
Next, they wanted peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life: schools, playgrounds, parks, sanitation, highways‹those things which are expected of solvent local government. They sought escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs.
They also sought peace within the Nation: protection of their currency, fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation, the safety of their children from kidnappers.
And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations‹peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.
I submit to you a record of peace; and on that record a well-founded expectation for future peace‹peace for the individual, peace for the community, peace for the Nation, and peace with the world.
Tonight I call the roll‹the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.
Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance‹men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms.
Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o'-the-wisp.
Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.
Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, "This can be changed. We will change it."
We still lead that army in 1936. They stood with us then because in 1932 they believed. They stand with us today because in 1936 they know. And with them stand millions of new recruits who have come to know.
Their hopes have become our record.
We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.
For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace‹business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House‹by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.
Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.
Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.
Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse‹it is deceit.
They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.
They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.
They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars three for one. And that omission is deceit.
But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.
The fraudulent nature of this attempt is well shown by the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it. Where does this last-minute drive of the Republican leadership leave these Republican Representatives and Senators who helped enact this law?
I am sure the vast majority of law-abiding businessmen who are not parties to this propaganda fully appreciate the extent of the threat to honest business contained in this coercion.
I have expressed indignation at this form of campaigning and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of employers, workers and the general public share that indignation and will show it at the polls on Tuesday next.
Aside from this phase of it, I prefer to remember this campaign not as bitter but only as hard-fought. There should be no bitterness or hate where the sole thought is the welfare of the United States of America. No man can occupy the office of President without realizing that he is President of all the people.
It is because I have sought to think in terms of the whole Nation that I am confident that today, just as four years ago, the people want more than promises.
Our vision for the future contains more than promises.
This is our answer to those who, silent about their own plans, ask us to state our objectives.
Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America‹to reduce hours over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.
Of course we will continue to work for cheaper electricity in the homes and on the farms of America, for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, for the wiping out of slums. For all these we have only just begun to fight.
Of course we will continue our efforts in behalf of the farmers of America. With their continued cooperation we will do all in our power to end the piling up of huge surpluses which spelled ruinous prices for their crops. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities, for a definite reduction of farm tenancy, for encouragement of farmer cooperatives, for crop insurance and a stable food supply. For all these we have only just begun to fight.
Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.
Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless‹that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief‹to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.
You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.
Again‹what of our objectives?
Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant.
For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight.
All this‹all these objectives‹spell peace at home. All our actions, all our ideals, spell also peace with other nations.
Today there is war and rumor of war. We want none of it. But while we guard our shores against threats of war, we will continue to remove the causes of unrest and antagonism at home which might make our people easier victims to those for whom foreign war is profitable. You know well that those who stand to profit by war are not on our side in this campaign.
"Peace on earth, good will toward men"‹democracy must cling to that message. For it is my deep conviction that democracy cannot live without that true religion which gives a nation a sense of justice and of moral purpose. Above our political forums, above our market places stand the altars of our faith-altars on which burn the fires of devotion that maintain all that is best in us and all that is best in our Nation.
We have need of that devotion today. It is that which makes it possible for government to persuade those who are mentally prepared to fight each other to go on instead, to work for and to sacrifice for each other. That is why we need to say with the Prophet: "What doth the Lord require of thee‹but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God." That is why the recovery we seek, the recovery we are winning, is more than economic. In it are included justice and love and humility, not for ourselves as individuals alone, but for our Nation.
That is the road to peace. Text and mp3 from the Miller Center of Public Affairs Scripps Library Roosevelt Presidential Speeches
FDR and New Deal and Fireside Chats of Franklin Roosevelt Type your cut contents here.</div>
Dan Flory, Philosophy, Black Film, Film Noir, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008, 348pp., $65.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780271033440. Reviewed by Angela Curran, Carleton College
There is also a question as to whether this critical philosophical reflection is detachable from the viewer's experience of the film -- something she may or may not do -- or if Flory thinks that this reflection is part of every thoughtful viewer's experience of the film, properly understood. Is philosophical reflection something that the film or the viewer does, and is some special sort of philosophical background or knowledge of philosophical methods required for the viewer to philosophize? These are questions Flory briefly touches on, but does not examine in any detail.
Flory argues that black film noir philosophizes, "in just the ways that philosophers do" (175). There has been a great deal of fruitful debate recently on whether films can philosophize and if so, how. Flory, for the most part, seems to opt for the model of how films philosophize provided by Stanley Cavell and Stephen Mulhall. According to this view, films can philosophize because they can prompt viewers to "serious reflection" about fundamental questions of human existence, such as the nature of humanity. Other philosophers have argued that for film to philosophize, it must make use of some specific philosophical methods, such as counter-examples, thought-experiments or perhaps even arguments. Flory gives little attention to the specific philosophical methods that the films he discusses employ. Most often he just says that the film prompts "reflection" and a re-examination of beliefs (316) without considering the specific methods -- counter-examples, thought-experiments, and so on -- that each film uses. Some interesting differences might emerge between these films -- which all seem to become a bit alike in Flory's treatment of them -- if he had examined the different philosophical strategies that each film uses to imaginatively engage viewers in reflection on philosophical issues.
Flory's main argument -- that sympathizing or empathizing with marginalized black characters can prompt philosophizing on the nature of black humanity -- leads me to wonder about the role that emotional engagement with characters can play in prompting philosophical reflection. Flory argues that sympathy or empathy with characters in black film noir makes possible a kind of imaginative access to a new point of view outside the white viewer's experience. Is this method of prompting viewers to re-examine their everyday practices and the moral and epistemic norms that guide them comparable to the traditional methods contained in a philosophical work on race? Or is there something different about the way film prompts philosophizing precisely because it does this through emotional engagement rather than philosophical argumentation? These are interesting questions raised by Flory's treatment of black film<
Flory's book opens up many new lines of inquiry for philosophers interested in examining how films can philosophize and the role that the emotions play in prompting such reflection. Because of Flory's extensive knowledge of contemporary film aesthetics and critical race theory, there is much we can learn about these areas from reading his book. It is a work suitable for use in mid-level and advanced undergraduate classes as well as graduate classes on aesthetics, philosophy of film, and critical race theory.
The idea that film in general (or some films more than others) are inherently philosophical has always struck me as special pleading. At most films can be used for philosophical purposes, but beyond that they must be taken on their own aesthetic grounds. The same, of course, can be said for all artifacts of the human hand and imagination. So my question is "Why philosophy & film?" Why is there no movement for philosophy and poetry? There is plenty of writing about philosophy and poetry, but no special pleading and no academic movement?
Let's call those who encounter works of art through hearing, viewing, reading, etc. "auditors," avoiding, among other mistakes, the silly idea that movie watchers "read" the films they view.
Any strong work of art can prompt or spark "deep thought" and self-reflection in an auditor. But it is necessary for the auditor to be more than merely thoughtful. She also must be knowledgeable, both self-regarding and other regarding, and willing to work with herself in relation to the artifact she experiences. But more than the above the auditor must also be "open" -- receptive, playful, empathetic, wondering -- to the art-work she experiences.
All of the above are necessary. but not sufficient, conditions for a work of art to provoke philosophy. What further must be added to this mix is a desire to draw fundamental conclusions through reasoned thought and/or discussion, and to put the work of art to use as a means (or medium) of philosophical thought.
Is film special? Is film more effective than Greek or Elizabethan drama in provoking philosophical thought? True, for its own aesthetic reasons film is different than other media, but is it more particularly philosophical than say a Grecian urn or Keat's poem "Ode to a Grecian Urn". Didn't Keat's use the Grecian urn as a means of philosophical reflection in poetry? And is this any more unusual than using any other visual or popular art as a philosophical spark? Is it particularly easier or more inherent to the medium to use movies as a means or spark to philosophical work than "Anna Karenina" or "Bleak House" or "Lolita" or "Absalom, Absalom", to name four novels I believe give special access to philosophical wonderings and wanderings? One can argue whether Marcel Duchamp or Michaelangelo is better suited for philosophical prompting, but is sculpture less useful than painting, or painting less useful than moving pictures? I doubt it.
When such caveats and cut-outs begin to unravel these academic practices (because such "movements" as Philosophy & Film, Law & Literature, Art & Perception, etc., are practically exclusively practiced on university campuses) the whole project begins to seem constructed on the ground of academic politics or, perhaps, as a means of escape from the boredom of the major subject as constituted by the Department of Philosophy or the School of Law. There is nothing inherently dispositive in this but it causes me to wonder: If there were no academic departments would there be any need for these "movements," which are largely a rebellion against the artificial departmental separations of specialized philosophy, law, art, etc.?
And this brings me to other artificial separations that we assume before any of our inquiries begin. Take the separations of genre and the problems of authorship. For some reason, in the Philosophy & Film movement, genre films are more often used for philosophical reflection than other kinds of films. So the movement begins with work on Screwball comedies and film noir and on such auteur directors as Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock. Why is this? I think this is because there are rules and boundaries that can be derived from these movies and directors and such rules and boundaries establish a baseline around which trends and outliers can define the nuances of "philosophical argument." Also the establishment of a genre to investigate or a director to operate upon with one's philosophizing, allows the philosopher to both talk about and avoid the philosophical issues of "sets" of genre and construction of authorship (and the hidden issues of ones own academic life that such "sets" and "constructions" displace). But more than that, I am not sure on the face of it why Hitchcock is so often written about by movie philosophers but Bugs Bunny and Warner Brother's cartoons are largely ignored, except by post-modern types.
Or to bring it another step: Why is there no movement around "Philosophy and Rock & Roll" or "Law and Rock & Roll". Potentially, Elvis Costello's albums "Armed Forces" and "This Year's Model" or Radiohead's "O.K. Computer" are as ripe for philosophical and legal riffing as Preston Sturges' "The Lady Eve" or Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." Elvis Costello and Radiohead are left to those academics who "do" popular culture (and again are often labeled pomo) mostly because the stodgy Departments of Philosophy and Schools of Law can only take so much of this kind of unserious rambling from the main purpose of their disciplines. Unfortunately, the pomo types who work on popular culture are more likely to "do" Madonna than Elvis Costello. From this point of view the special pleading for movies behind the "Philosophy & Film" movement and for literature by the "Law & Literature" movement is exclusive of other art forms and genres not because film is especially philosophical or novels and plays are especially legal, but because exclusivity increases the chances of being taken seriously. Radiohead's song "Paranoid Android" is not less philosophical than any particular scene from Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys" and Elvis Costello's song "Oliver's Army" is not less legally profound than any particular passage from Bertolt Brecht's "The Threepenny Opera." But a philosopher or law professor is more likely to win the battle of academic recognition by conferring "high seriousness" upon "Twelve Monkeys" or "The Threepenny Opera" than on "O.K. Computer" or "Armed Forces". It is the battle over creditability that is foremost in the academic struggle and "seriousness" is necessary to insure survival in academic politics.
There is something amusing here. Why is there no Philosophy & Poetry movement? Because there is no need. Philosophy and poetry have been intertwined from the birth of philosophy as a separate social practice. This is partially because both poetry and philosophy find their roots in religion and myth. But no philosopher has to first argue that he is serious when he takes poetry seriously as a philosophical practice or a spark for philosophical reflection. The interpenetration of philosophy and poetry is either considered a blessing or a curse by philosophers, but no one has to start a movement to recognize that poetry can do philosophy and philosophers can reflect on poetry. It is only when confronting "modern" art genres, practices and media that a philosopher has to make special arguments over the seriousness of her philosophical reflections upon the resulting art works. Why is this? Because most of the modern art genres are either more popular or more democratic or both. And here is the one successful argument for the "Philosophy & Film" movement. Movies are a part of a broad shared culture and they provide a set of references easily recognizable by many. At the same time "film" as an art medium has been recognized by most intellectuals as a potentially serious endeavor.
What I would like the "Philosophy & Film" writers to do is recognize that there is nothing exclusive about their methods and that all art can be used as a spark for philosophy and all art media can be created for philosophical ends, especially if the philosopher-auditor has the wit and the wisdom. As for the rest, all the universe can be turned into poetry, if the poet has not only wit and but the wide writ of the imagination.
The deduction is too linear, however. Berlusconi has certainly never stinted appeals to Christianity and family values, or warnings of the persistent menace of Communism, and Forza Italia certainly inherited the bastions of DC clientelism in the South – most notoriously in Sicily. But the filigrane of Catholic continuity in his success is quite tenuous. It is not only that the DC zones of the North-East have gone to the League, but practising Catholics – the quarter of the population that attends mass with some regularity – have been the most volatile segment of the electorate, many in the early years of the Second Republic voting not only for the League but also the PDS. Nor is there a clear-cut connection between small businesses or the self-employed and political reaction. The red belt of Central Italy – Tuscany, Umbria, Emilia-Romagna and the Marche – where the PCI was always strongest, and which the PD still holds today, is rife with both: family enterprises, flourishing micro-firms, independent artisans and shopkeepers, as well as the region’s co-operatives, a world not of large factories or assembly lines, but of small property.
Berlusconi’s real lineage is more pointed. Fundamentally, he is the heir of Craxi and the mutation he represented in the Italian politics of the 1980s, rather than of the DC. The descent is literal, not just analogical. The two men were close contemporaries, both products of Milan, their careers continuously intertwined from the time that Craxi became leader of the Socialist Party (PSI) in 1976, and Berlusconi set up his first major television station two years later, funded with lavish loans from banks controlled by the Socialist Party. The relationship could hardly have been more intimate, at once functional and personal. Craxi created the favours from the state that allowed Berlusconi to build his media empire: Berlusconi funded Craxi’s machine with the profits from it, and boosted his image with his newscasts. A frequent guest at Berlusconi’s palatial villa in Arcore, where he was liberally supplied with soubrettes and haute cuisine, in 1984 Craxi was godfather to Berlusconi’s first child by the actress Veronica Lario before he married her, and best man at the wedding when he did marry her in 1990. On becoming premier in 1983, he rescued Berlusconi’s national television networks, which were broadcasting in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, from being shut down, and in 1990 helped ensure Berlusconi’s permanent grip on them, with a law for which he received a deposit of $12 million to his account in a foreign bank. At the pinnacle of his power, Craxi cut a new figure on the postwar Italian scene – tough, decisive, cultivating publicity, in complete command of his own party, and a ruthless negotiator with others.
Three years later, with the revelations of Tangentopoli exposing the scale of his corruption, Craxi had become the most execrated public figure in the land. But he was not finished. His own career in ruins, he passed his vision of politics directly to Berlusconi, urging him to take the electoral plunge at a meeting in Milan in April 1993.
An Entire Order Converted into What It Was Intended to End
An Entire Order Converted into What It Was Intended to End
This is a view of the Piazza di Saint' Ignazio from the steps of Saint' Ignazio church. Filippo Raguzzini was the designer of the piazza and like so much in Rome there is a feeling that what the designer really had in mind was stage-craft and not street-scape or architecture. Modern architects could well learn that one craft is not separate from the other. The buildings at the time of Raguzzini were working class and craft-makers' apartments and not the usual aristocratic town palaces that one finds on such piazzas. But Raguzzini places the apartments around the square with a realization that the square is made for viewing people. The shapes of the building seem to be part of a moving set, each piece fitting into the next. The square when viewed from the steps of the church reveals five buildings and six streets which makes for eleven entrances and exits. One can already imagine the vast comic farce or opera with people pouring in and out of every entrance and always missing each other except at crucial times. If you ever have a chance to go to the Piazza di Sant'Ignazio stand on the church steps and imagine the windows opening, people shouting, men and women coming on stage from the doors and going off stage into the streets. A movie is ready for filming and the piazza is ready for its close-up.
The first time I stumbled onto this square it was at night and I wasn't looking for it. But as soon as I stepped onto the set of this piazza I knew that this was a place I had marked out in my mind to look at and imagine. There are places in our world, whether human artifact or natural, that must be filled with imagination in order to see them clearly. This is one of them. Think of the thousands of people who pass through this square without a second look. There are no spectacular fountains and no great palaces and the Church, that gives the piazza its name, looks like a bad imitation of the Gesu from the outside -- a neo classical Baroque at its most plain. (Inside the Saint' Ignazio bursts with the theatricality of Baroque art, especially Andrea Pozzo's ceiling fresco.) But lend your mind to this piazza which Raguzzini built as a homage to the complications and intersections of urban working class life and you begin to see what was once considered radical and dangerous about urban street-scapes.
It is Bloomsday and though Leopold Bloom never seems to have set foot in Rome I think that a walk through Rome with one of the great city-walkers in all fiction would have been a pleasure. He, surely, would have been able to enjoy the comedy of this theatrical street-scape.
16 June 2008
New York City
Jerry Monaco is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.