The Book of Ben

The New Wisdom

2005-05-08T23:53:32Z

Duc's experiment in a group-written political blog is called The New Wisdom. He invited me to be one of the writers. I like the concept, so I joined up. This could be an excellent excuse to write for wider public consumption. Right now, there is no audience, as it is just getting started. The only posted content is the introductions by the writers, and there is also a forum which contains some items of discussion.

Will there be an audience? Ducky has some plans on how to promote the site, and he also hopes that the quality of the work product will be enough to draw readers. I don't know. I don't read political blogs, or any blogs for that matter, on a regular basis. Regardless of whether or not an audience develops, it is a positive experiment that should be attempted. I'm not sure how much of the nonsense I post here I should post there. We shall see.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-30T20:07:00

2005-05-01T00:21:14Z

I have been scheming of ways to pay less rent for my apartment. We are subletting from the tenant, who rents from the landlord. The tenant pays the landlord $1,700 a month. We pay the tenant $2,400 a month. I thought maybe I should try circumventing the tenant, and asking the landlord if we can sign the next lease for slightly more than $1,700. I could see, however, how this may open a bidding war, thereby resulting either in in our paying close to what we are paying now, or us being having to pay more or be kicked out because the current tenant wins the bidding war. It really pisses me off to be paying so much more than the place is going for. But then again, I suppose worth is decided by the market, and it was certainly worth it to us to rent this place at the price we now pay. But then again, I plan looking around for other places, if I can find the opportunity. I love the neighborhood. But I live with slobs who watch too much TV (not to say we don't get along). And my walls are paper thin. Privacy is not easy, nor is peace and quiet.

Out of curiousity, I looked up our building on the Department of Buildings website. I discovered that the our building is in violation of land use regulations. It is still zoned to be a factory. The Environmental Control Board cited our building for this violation. See here:

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/ECBQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&ecbin=34457563P&s=268C0BC9C682457BB9321CB5D408559B

I then found a case on Lexis where a landlord who rented a basement illegally to a tenant was allowed to evict the tenant, even though the landlord's hands were dirty. Though the court adopted a balancing test and considered the public interest and the interest of the tenant, the court also weighed the violation's effect on safety and on the fines the landlord would have to pay in the future.

I suppose our landlord may be seeking a variance, which essentially means that he can get permission for this building to be used for residential purposes despite it being zoned for a factory. I imagine all of the buildings (almost all converted factories) in my neighborhood are going through this process. But the landlord can also probably afford the fines due to the rent he's collecting. The first was for $800, but the case I read suggested the next could be as high as $5000. And if he came down to it, I doubt he would be allowed to evict the tenants (56 apartments), as his hands would be far too dirty, and the public interest would weigh far in favor of keeping so many folks from being evicted.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-28T21:57:00

2005-04-29T02:25:24Z

I am living off of my credit card until I start my new job.

The card is magical. It buys me things, yet I have no money.

It believes I will have money some day. It has faith in me.

It has so much faith that it believes I will repay it more money than I took. And I will.

What if we all choose to stop paying our debts at the same time? Should we cry for the investors? Investors are gamblers. We are the house. But we are in need.

Banks, however, are politically connected institutions. Bail-out. Police state. We will see their true colors. The day of reckoning.

More Beck:

Getting fat on your own fear,
bring that beer over here.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-27T21:49:00

2005-04-28T02:37:50Z

Don't forget that what many people call "conspiracy theory" is really institutional analysis. Thanks, Noam Chomsky.

Whenever you hear someone call another thinker something like "wacko" or "nutty" or "out of the mainstream" without any substantiation, you can probably guess that the person has nothing with which to substantiate the claim which is not vulnerable to scrutiny.

Beware of CNN and The New York Times. I don't need to tell you to beware of Fox News and the New Republic, since they are much like Soviet propaganda: obvious.

I've found that I have become better at arguing and negotiating with people in every day life since coming to law school. My undergrad philosophy classes probably also helped. I can really structure my arguments. I know how to appeal to objective principles and evidence. I can force my "opponent" to explain their positions and give away information. And perhaps most importantly, I can argue very dispassionately and civilly. This last attribute may be the most important. The strange thing is that I don't tend to think about tactics when I do argue. Probably because I tend to be right (or at least, the most right) most of the time, I don't find a need to exploit weaknesses and hide my own. But the tactics sort of come naturally in the quest for truth, reconciliation, agreement, etc. This sounds egotistical. It really isn't. I'm probably pretty average in my argumentative and negotiation abilities when among the law school community. But I'm still right most of the time on questions of policy. That is, until someone convinces me otherwise, which no one seems capable of doing.

Smokers need to know that the reason not to buy cigarettes is to no longer enrich the evil humans who try to get away with selling it. So, even if you're a nihilist smoker or a low-consumption smoker, which most smokers seem to be or claim to be these days, then you still should stop buying cigarettes and smoking them. Do they make non-addictive cigarettes for social smoking? Less deadly, but still satisfying, perhaps even buzz-inducing?

Anyone who believes in Social Security is part socialist. Even Republicans. So just accept your socialism and take the next step to helping everybody. If you believe in free markets, then the United States is the last place you want to be. We subsidize all kinds of industries. We impose trade restrictions on imports. We're hypocrites. We're socialists... if not international socialists, then at least nationalist socialists (not "national socialist" like the Nazis... they were only "socialist" to attract the votes of the workers. They even had socialist planks in their party platforms, but it was all just a ruse.)

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-27T00:15:00

2005-04-27T05:18:56Z

I had a few thoughts on the subway which I chose to stifle. I did this so I could write about it extemporaneously in this journal.

I was listening to my edited version of Beck's album "One Foot in the Grave." I say "edited" because I cut out the two obnoxious songs that ruin the consistent mellowness.

In one of the earlier songs in the album, Beck sings these lyrics:

Get yourself a pistol
Get yourself a dog
Stay up all night gettin' drunk
Sleepin' on a hollow log

Great lyrics.

So I thought about the line "get yourself a dog."

I thought about dog ownership. Which led me to think about that it is easy to get a dog. That is because there are lots of them in kennels and shelters. It was sad to think about all the dogs in the shelters in their little cages with the poop-through cage floors, and the lack of attention, and the lack of space.

Then I though about the way we treat the dogs we obtain. It seems to me people want dogs to know that the world is a good place. We walk up to them and pet them, and often talk to them as we would talk to a baby.

Then I wondered why we don't treat people the same way. Maybe because people are not so easily persuaded.

Now I wonder if people are that easily persuaded.

We can think about dogs being thrilled that they are being fed and treated by the higher lifeforms that are their masters. They don't know how it is that the food comes into their bowls. The dog feels blessed to be constantly in the presence of this magical, higher being that is myseriously is able to feed it, and provide for the rest of its survival needs.

Do people act the same way? When we're in the presence of powerful people, we like to hear nice words about how good the country is, and how we're all "good boys" and "good girls." We're the greatest nation in the world.

But forget this infantile political observation. I think the really important observation is that we care more about how the dog feels about the world than we do the human. It is not simply to placate the dog, as it is in politics. We really care about the doggy. Yet the homeless person (adult) does not easily rouse our sympathies. Why is a puppy more compelling?

Maybe it has to do with the intelligence level of a dog. I have often pondered that an animal's fear must often be far worse than a human's fear. This is because pf their inability to rationalize and understand. If I break my leg, and no one is around, I know that eventually I will get helped. I also know that a broken leg is not going to kill me, regardless of the intense pain. An animal does not know they will be helped. They may not know that the injury isn't fatal. Or maybe they don't know the pain will be temporary (then again, they probably have memories about the temporality of pain). We know. The animal does not. If we are in the middle of the the wilderness, far from civilization, and then we break our leg, then we are probably a lot more like the dog. But even then we can conjure up lots of things in our mind. God. Humor. Meaning. Curiosity. Distraction.

So, first a dog is easily persuaded that the world is great. Second, a dog in distress is more distressing to us due to it's inability to rationalize and understand.

Then another factor, and possibly the most important factor, is the dog's willingness to reciprocate intimacy. We like dogs because we know they will like us, because they like everybody that likes them and treats them well (for the most part). The dog easily rewards our friendliness with friendliness. People also often reward other people in the same way. But people are less trusting. If every time you gave a pan-handler money, they gave you heart-felt gratitude, then you might do it all the time. But they don't always give heart-felt gratitude (and this is not to say they should).

So perhaps the intimacy plays a bigger role. But maybe its more simple. Dogs are cute. People are not. Dogs will let you pet them. They are furry. People don't want you to touch them (unless you're hot). Nor do you want to touch them (unless they're hot). It is part aesthetic, part custom, part fear, part rationality.

This all may seem pretty awful, as I've been comparing the indigent to dogs. I think the reader understands that I'm not trying to equate the two by any means.

Then, on the subway, I also realized that you never know what you're interrupting when you try to talk to someone wearing headphones. They could be having any number of musical experiences that you could never appreciate. All you see is a person standing silently. Yet they may have an alternate universe flowing into their skulls. Not only are you bugging someone that has to make extra effort to communicate with you (taking the headphones off, turning down the volume, etc.), but you are shaking them from a potentially emotional ride, or simply a good groove.

But then again, as I am one of those headphone-wearing subway people, I also do not think I should be allowed to shirk my civic responsibilies just because I happen to have an iPod. It may be a disinsentive to those who might seek my audience, but it shouldn't be a suit of armor.

Forgive the grammar, spelling, sentence structure, paragraph structure. This is after 3 beers, and purposefully extemporaneous... and a little stream-of-consciousness.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-23T13:33:00

2005-04-23T18:18:25Z

This past week I was assigned to a new case at the criminal defense clinic. This was a prior client of one of the Professors. Just a teenage kid in high school. In the past, he was busted on weed possession. Now, it was assault of a fellow student.

Sparing you the intricate details, I'll just say a little about the circumstances. This is a case where the young man, instead of being arrested and arraigned, was issued a desk appearance ticket, much like an ordinary traffic ticket, that required him to be in court on a certain date. But the People weren't ready to deal with his case for a while, and there are some complications in regards to the way they had to notify him or bring him in for later scheduled appearances.

After some research I realized that we had a compelling argument to have this case dismissed on speedy trial grounds, which essentially means we'll be alleging that the delays in this case were the People's fault, and that the number of days of delay went past the 90 days they had to be ready for trial (90 days for misdemeanors, 6 months for felonies).

If we succeed, it would a real smack in the face of the prosecution. Though cases often get dismissed down the road for reasons of speedy trial, rarely do they get dismissed so shortly after a defendant's arraignment.

I must admit, it is pretty thrilling to know that with just a little training one can learn how to exercise control over the state: getting a judge to essentially say "stop it."

Thus far, I am not sure how I feel about pursuing a career in criminal defense. Some of the people I have represented at the clinic did the crimes they were charged with committing. Some denied it. Others admitted to it. Others admitted to parts of the allegations, and denied other parts. But in every case a defense attorney is required to seek the best possible outcome for the defendant. Sometimes you do not mind. You believe the defendant has had a bad life. Or the circumstances were such that they were justified. But even in cases where you have a clearly guilty and remorseless offender, I generally feel as if I can justify my zealous defense. Why? The correctional system does not help. Prisons make things worse. It is not rehabilitative. It is no longer meant to be, and this is no secret. And lets not forget that law enforcement does abuse its power, sometimes even in cases where the defendant is clearly guilty. We need to challenge these abuses in every case, or else we may risk putting future innocent victims of such abuses in jeopardy.

Perhaps I could be a prosecutor if we had rational criminal laws, less abusive law enforcement, and correctional system that did not further exacerbate the problems of society. But being a defense attorney is not necessarily rewarding. I guess I'll play it by ear. My choice between civil and criminal may depend on where I can get a job when I graduate (I'll certainly apply anywhere I believe I have a chance). Then again, I'm taking a trial advocacy course with the district attorney of Brooklyn next fall, and he is known to offer jobs to students just on the basis of their performance in class. I wouldn't call it "selling" out, as the pay still isn't great for ADAs. I'm not 0 sure I could turn down such an opportunity if there weren't any other prospects. If I took the job, I would probably be fired pretty quickly as I started disobeying the orders of my supervisors by dismissing cases against drug possessors. And, no, I'm pretty sure it is impossible to change them from the inside. Maybe it could lead to some good press? Or a book deal?

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-10T20:28:00

2005-04-11T00:34:26Z

All I can do is play Tetris. Not the original, traditional Tetris. It is the N64 version, where it allows you to have a backup piece which you can trade for the piece you have been given. And if you match the right pieces together, it also allows you to make special 4x4 blocks, silver and gold (so shiny...), thus allowing you to score more lines. Score more lines. Yes, the game is cocaine. And a straight piece is sliding right up my nose, plugging the dopamine-leaks in my synapses, Tetrissing away the pain.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-10T14:28:00

2005-04-10T19:10:15Z

I am trying to sublet my room for the summer, as I will be working in Atlantic City at South Jersey Legal Services. One girl has come to look at the place thus far, and she didn't seem even remotely interested; a little creeped out even. She said she didn't think she could "hack" living in a "warehouse," which is not an inaccurate description of our accommodations. I love the apartment, but the walls to the individual rooms were made by an amateur and are far too thin, thus allowing little from going unheard from the outside-in or the inside-out.

Favorite Tetris piece? The reverse L.

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-09T20:51:00

2005-04-10T01:14:44Z

Fenian Raids.

People should not be allowed to alter the proper pronunciations of their own names. Even if the incorrect pronunciation has been passed down many generations, someone in the family line must take responsibility.

Schiavo = she-ah-vo NOT shy-vo

Favre = fahv-er?... favor?... fahv-re?... fahv-ruh?... fahv-ree?... NOT farve

Am I wrong?

I truly doubt the false pronunciations are based on anything legitimate. Great-great-grandfather Favre was probably called "Farve" by his new boss, which everyone came to know him by, leading him to accept the pronunciation out of convenience. If I acquiesced every time someone said "fildaygo" or "fijilo" or "fydalgo" or "figaldo"...

fidalgo_negro @ 2005-04-09T15:13:00

2005-04-09T20:31:44Z

Me, I'm just a lawnmower. You can tell me by the way I walk.

What has happened:

I learned how to be a criminal defense lawyer in New York.

I learned how to be a better lawyer in general.

Other than that (not that lawyering isn't significant), I don't think I have grown much. Hence, back to writing.

A story from the law clinic. You may find it dull. But I need to start writing regularly and this is all I can think to write about.

I represented a woman accused of making harassing phone calls to her ex-best friend.

The calls were in Haitian-Creole, as both women are from Haiti. My client said it was her sister-in-law who made the calls. She was staying with her while visiting her brother in Florida, and she was letting them use her cell-phone because the local line had been cut-off by a hurricane.

Our client was arrested in the airport, when getting off of her return flight from Florida.

The Manhattan DA's office has a policy of withholding discovery (evidence) until the very last moment possible. The criminal court judges in Manhattan play along with this policy, and perhaps it can be said that the public defenders do as well, since the policy is a part of a process with which everyone is familiar. They all know what to expect, and can organize their lives and cases around such standards. And this policy/practice is accepted, despite the fact that it goes against the language of the criminal procedure law. The excuse? Court congestion, heavy dockets, over-worked ADAs, etc.

It took seven months before the ADA (assistant district attorney) on the case called in the complaining witness to bring in the answering machine tapes of the calls. It would have taken longer if it weren't for me calling him over and over again.

The same day he got the tapes, I went to his office. He played me a portion of the tape. It was clearly my client's voice, though I couldn't understand her words as they were in another language. He also provided a transcript of the calls made by the complaining witness herself, most of which we had not seen up to this point. We had seen some of this transcription in the accusatory document, and assumed that they had included the worst and most threatening calls. We were wrong, the other calls were much worse. This transcript also corroborated the sister-in-law's contention that she made some of the calls, but that our client made the rest. The ADA offered a good plea: a "disorderly conduct" violation with no jail time and no community service, just an order of protection preventing my client from bothering the complaining witness again. This was good because a violation isn't considered a crime, like the misdemeanor she was charged with, and the record of the violation would be sealed. The ADA said it would take a good deal of money and several authorizations from his superiors before he could get the tape translated. He seemed to insinuate the the offer may be off the table if we didn't take it before he started the process of getting the translation approved. So I asked him directly if this was the case. He wouldn't give me a direct answer. I offered to translate the tapes myself, with the resources of my law clinic. He was open to the idea, but wanted me to go to my client first with the offer before he would give me anything.

My client maintained her innocence from day one and would not admit guilt. Thus, she said throughout that she would not take any pleas, unless it was a dismissal. She was mad about getting arrested and felt her rights had been violated, all because her former friend had a vendetta. She had told me that she made at least one call, but only a normal call asking the complaining witness to call her back. That meant when I heard her voice on the tape, it could have been this one call. But I did not believe this. Now that I knew she was on the tape, I found a way to put the decision in her hands. In a nutshell, I said we could translate the tape and keep fighting, as she had always wanted, or we could take the plea and get this over with. This would allow her to save face. She could use the excuse that she did not want to come to court anymore. She mentioned in the past that the case had been getting in the way of her new job and school. She took the plea.

Inefficiency. If the ADA had shown us the transcript on day 1, it would have greatly informed the way we approached the case. I wouldn't have had to chase down the sister-in-law over the phone with a Haitian-Creole translator and get her to admit that she was involved. We were hoping she would be our ace-in-the-hole: the sister-in-law did it, not our client. But it turned out the ADA knew they were both involved the whole time. If the ADA had gotten the tapes right away and let us hear them, all of this would have been over with ages ago. If I had never gone to his office, despite his indications that it wouldn't get me anywhere, I would probably still be working on this case. Not only were we being played by the system, we were being played by our client. If she told us the truth from day one, it would have saved us from tons of investigation and research into trial strategies. We knew that the sister-in-law was still making the calls alone while our client took a side trip from Florida to Haiti. We had our client produce evidence that she was in Haiti when some of these calls were made. Why would she bother if she knew in the end it wouldn't prove her innocence? Some likely explanations for my clients behavior: she did not want to admit her guilt to anybody, perhaps because she was embarrased, perhaps because she felt the complaining witness deserved to be harassed, perhaps because she thought we would not work on her case as diligently if we knew she did it, perhaps she did not want to admit she lied to us when she originally professed her innocence.

The lesson: more information, more efficiency. Dull conclusion.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-26T01:28:00

2004-08-26T06:06:38Z

I attended Legal Observer training today with the National Lawyers Guild. I'll be policing the police during the RNC demonstrations. The main goal of the legal observer is to get the names of those who are arrested, and secondly, collect details of the arrest that can be gleaned from our own perspective and from other witnesses. Hopefully, lawyers can track the arrestees and use the details we provide of the arrest, and also reach whatever witnesses the observers get information from.

The downside is that I have to wear a bright green baseball cap to stand out. I hate baseball caps. Another downside is that I have to stay detached from the politics... I can't be a demonstrator while being a legal observer. At least I'll be looking out for them.

So much to look forward to in the next two weeks:

-RNC demonstrations

-New apartment

-New semester at Fordham Law

-New intern/extern/clinical/career opportunities

-Get my Netflix account back... therefore, more DVD burning and expanding the greatest DVD collection of all time (I don't have a key to the mailbox at my current summer sublet, so I've been having them send the movies to my Ma of her choosing)

-No more living in solitary confinement... actually living with people I know and can speak to without a language barrier

-A huge cash injection into my bank account

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-23T02:17:00

2004-08-23T06:18:46Z

Go to this link. It ranks words in the English language according to how often they are used. In the "find word" box, type "america" and see what you find. "ben" is four behind "iraq" and six behind "fucking smooth" Here are more connected words. Yes, my searches were very dignified. "cock penis" "mastiff retrieves littermates" "sexy stalin" "lenin heroic" "communism dissolved" "democracy cancer" "bush admit specifically agents smell denied" "athlete corpses" "joyous lsd" "touching shallow charming fuck" "captain boat" "negro recklessness" "cheney nominees anticipates" "embracing cleavage" "select alcohol" "ordinary farm sexual measures" "military army" "offshore motives corporations" "lover severely breaks finest choices" "forcing dick champions" "sticky smoked homosexual" That's enough.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-23T01:49:00

2004-08-23T05:49:54Z

LBJ buys pants.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-22T12:09:00

2004-08-22T16:11:14Z

"A graffitti in Buenos Aires reminds us that the enemy is not that huge, we are just looking at it on our knees."

-Graciela Monteagudo, in an article about Street Theater and Puppeteering

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-21T18:11:00

2004-08-21T22:37:01Z

Good news: Chavez won the referendum. As predicted, there was disinformation and fake exit polls shot out by the opposition. Some of the corporate media here took it up, but very little. Even the establishment no longer doubts that Chavez actually has the support of the Venezuelans.

Bad news: Spicy Black/Kidney Beans and Rice was a failure. Edible, yes. Desirable, no. But now it will be pizza night. Good news.

I spent about 3 days in South Jersey. We were supposed to plan the trip to England and Ireland. Instead, all that happened was drinking.

When I arrived in SJ, I got off the bus at Sands casino, as Greyhound has a deal: buy a roundtrip ticket in NYC to AC, and they stop at one casino, where they give you money or chips, usually from $15-20, which makes up for most of the price of the ticket. But it seems some of the casinos realize that too many people make off with the money without gambling, as I do. So they gave us a Sands card with $20 credit, which cannot be cashed out, only gambled. Rage.

So now I'm waiting outside Sands, which I've never been to before. I call Jason, who was in the process of driving to my location. I said what block I was on. He seemed amused. "Oh, you're with the hookers," he said. "Try not to get stabbed."

Funny, I thought, until I turned from the street and saw two women who were obviously prostitutes. I turned back around. One tried to solicit me. "Leaving already?" I made it a point not to turn around or say anything. What I have learned: prostitutes are incredibly persistent. She went on trying to get my attention, despite the fact that I hadn't even acknowledged her. "What, are you afraid to talk to girls?" "Yeah, that's it," I finally replied, swiftly retreating across the street despite the oncoming traffic. Prostitutes are scary. I called Jason back, telling him I would be altering my location slightly. Once again, he advised me not to get stabbed.

Yes, there is nothing worse than pressure to purchase goods/services. I also felt this as I walked through Little Italy yesterday with some friends, for my first time. All of the greeters try to solicit you as you walk by their restaurant to look at their menu. If a greeter sees you looking at their menu, they will come up and try to explain the dishes to you, just to suck you in. I prefer the Bronx's Little Italy, Belmont, down Arthur Avenue. Nobody bugs you.

Can anyone let me borrow a vehicle so I can move? I found out recently that it is impossible to get a moving truck on Sept 1st, as everybody moves that day.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-14T23:59:00

2004-08-15T04:28:21Z

My summer job at Legal Services is over. Now I have two weeks to kill. I think I will spend them learning how to cook more dishes. I feel woefully inadequate in the kitchen. And I wish to make beans delicious, which is truly difficult. I have succeeded in the past, but have failed to replicate those successes.

Chavez faces the referendum tomorrow. If you've been following the situation in Venezuela in the major media, you have likely been misled in many ways. Here's how:

-It is often suggested that Chavez is authoritarian, or has authoritarian aspirations. But he was elected. He did try to lead a coup in 1992, but failed. But now that he is elected, everything he has done has been through the democratic process. He established a new constitution, through democratic process, which added the very recall referendum that is being used against him today.
Also, he allows dissent, unlike former regimes. If he were authoritarian, perhaps he would shut down the corporate media in Venezuela which attacks him constantly and won't air anything pro-Chavez. The only pro-Chavez programming comes from state-run media, which also gives time to anti-Chavez points of view. There is also independent media in Venezuela, usually run by poor people, who support Chavez.

-Chavez has been blamed for dividing the country... class war and such nonsense. Yes, he is pursuing programs to help the poor, and cutting away, electorally, through conventional areas of elite power. The class war is coming from the wealthy, so it seems. They just won't tolerate someone looking to actually solve the problems that plague the country. I'm not saying Chavez isn't a part of the polarization. But it seems like he just entered into an already polarized system.

-Chavez has been blamed for Venezuela's current economic woes. But it was the opposition that lead the oil industry "strikes", which weren't strikes by the workers in the traditional sense, but more like management strikes. The managers strike, and lock out the workers from the job. What was the reason for striking? Chavez was changing the oil industry such as to eliminate redundant and wasteful spending, apply more state control, bring more profits into the state and away from corporations, and use the profits more for social programs.

-Here is the reality: 80% of Venezuela is below the poverty line. Chavez implements policies that will help the poor, and get them engaged. Therefore, Chavez will win elections. If he loses this recall referendum, there may be fraud afoot. Almost every poll, even most sponsored by the corporate media, show him winning handily.

-Another note: the NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, has been aiding the opposition. The NED is evil. Do a little research, you'll see.

-Also: the opposition lead a coup against Chavez not long ago. They captured him, flew him to an island. The head of the Venezuelan version of the chamber of commerce took the presidency. He immediately sought to abolish the Supreme Court, the National Assembly, and other democratic institutions. But soldiers loyal to Chavez remained in the palace, and poor Venezuelans from all over took to the streets in Caracas, and surrounded the palace. They had to bring Chavez back. Bush was embarrased when he quickly approved of the coup, then backtracked.

I got most of this right.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-13T23:27:00

2004-08-14T03:36:37Z

New contact info.

AIM Screen Name: BenFidalgo
Email Address: *** took this out, i don't want random folks stumbling upon this through google searches ***

I still check my AOL and Fordham email accounts regularly. I'll just be advertising this new one from now on. Does anybody know if Gmail is going to turn into a pay service, and if so, when?

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-08T21:41:00

2004-08-09T01:52:15Z

I will soon be moving into a new place with South Jersey/NYC companions. We will be living in a large loft in western Bushwick. We will have ample space, both outdoors and indoors, to play four-square, and I hope we do.

To learn more about four-square, see this. The rules listed here differ from our traditional methods, but you get the idea.

I wish I lived in Somerville.

I can't believe it, even my alma mater.

Don't hate. Rotate.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-08T16:31:00

2004-08-08T20:33:17Z

Looking back at a post from August 1st, I realized that I forgot to follow-up on why I was sleep deprived.

Thursday: South Jersey friends came up to visit, which means a trip to the Peculier Pub. They did not arrive until around 10:30, and I had to work the next morning. Yet I still did my fair share. We conquered England.

Friday: After getting three hours of drunken sleep, I went to work. I took hang-over preparations, but fatigue remained a factor. After work, I attending a meeting of Drop the Rock from 6-7. Once again, I had friends coming up that night from South Jersey. They were stopping in the city to pick up me and other New Yorkers for a trip to Boston. They didn't arrive until well after midnight, due to various complications. No sleep.

Saturday: On the road to Boston. We arrive (that is, park) around 5 am. My companions were there to see a free, farewell Dispatch concert. I have no real interest in Dispatch, so I went along to explore Boston for the first time. T-Bag was supposed to join me, but he had to stay in SJ for a friend's surgery. Thus, I walked all around Boston alone all day, from 5 AM-7PM. I went to Harvard's art museums and checked out some touristy sights. I go back to the concert area, and we leave around 9 PM. I do not sleep on the ride home. I am either driving, or keeping the driver awake.

Sunday: I get back to my apartment in NYC at around 3:30 AM. No sleep yet. I try to read some news online, as well as an article about sleep deprivation. I try to post on LiveJournal, but I largely fail.

I was not enamored by Boston. Overall, it was a nice looking city. But there are a lot of people with mental illnesses walking around, especially early in the morning. The people also didn't always seem that nice. People seem to be friendlier in NYC. I never would have thought so.

Also, there were too many white people. I never thought that being among so many of my own skin color would bother me.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed the area more if I had more time and perhaps a chance to see the Concord and Lexington areas. But that is really just more tourist stuff. When I asked natives what they would recommend I see/do, they would suggest the same tourist attractions that you find in the tourist books. Everyone said I should see Cheers. No thanks.

I am interested in hallucinations caused by sleep deprivation. When driving across the country, I experienced some very vivid hallucinations. I had a difficult time sleeping on the road, as I often do. I barely slept 15 minutes the first 3 days. At one point in the trip, I was riding shot gun with Sean Doyle at the wheel. It was late, and everyone else was asleep. I too was exhausted, and drifting fast. I knew Sean was exhausted also. He was keeping himself awake by writing poetry... while driving. I knew I should stay awake to make sure he didn't kill us. He refused my pleas to stop driving. As we went down the dark highway, I had a difficult time with the reflectors on the side of the road. I knew what they were, but by eyes kept playing tricks on me. As we were approaching one reflector, I distinctly saw it turn into a bright white bunny and run across the highway in front of us. I told Sean, "I'm hallucinating. We should stop driving." He laughed. Shortly after, I saw a park bench dart across the highway in front of us, galloping like a cartoon horse. I could not blame this hallucination of reflectors. "Sean, I'm really hallucinating. Let's pull over." Sean laughs again, as do I. Nothing better than being giddy from exhaustion. Eventually, my body and mind understood no sleep would be had, though I still had to pinch myself every so often.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-05T20:15:00

2004-08-06T01:00:30Z

Gotta write something.

I just finished writing an Article 78 petition at work. This is a suit brought against a public body or official in order to force them to perform some duty required by law, to challenge some determination they have made, etc.

What is intriguing about the petition I am writing is that I am using a famous Supreme Court decision, one I studied in my property class, as the primary basis of our argument. This is incredibly unusual, since Legal Services deals mainly with run-of-the-mill problems facing tenants.

Without this Supreme Court decision, we would have no case. Even with the Supreme Court decision, I think it unlikely we'll be successful. Our case is novel. Judges, particularly local judges, generally avoid ruling in favor of novel arguments, as their decision is likely to be appealed and overturned, which for some reason does not look good. Regardless of the realpolitik, I am even not convinced our case should succeed.

I am using Moore v. City of East Cleveland. Some quotes from the case:

"East Cleveland's housing ordinance, like many throughout the country, limits occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. § 1351.02. But the ordinance contains an unusual and complicated definitional section that recognizes as a "family" only a few categories of related individuals. § 1341.08. Because her family, living together in her home, fits none of those categories, appellant stands convicted of a criminal offense. The question in this case is whether the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
(Ben note: grandmother was living with her son, and two grandsons who were cousins)

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (quoting another case)

"But when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation."

The court struck down the criminal law in this case. It opened the door not only to the rights of families, but the rights to non-traditional families.

In the case I'm working on, a grandmother has lived with and supported her granddaughter for 4 years. She was denied a two-bedroom apartment in a "limited-profit housing development" (a form of subsidized housing) because she could not prove that she has legal custody of her granddaughter. Alas, she does not have legal custody, nor does she want it, but she is still going to care for her.

We are arguing that (1) Moore v. East Cleveland holds that there must be some compelling state interest for grandma and her granddaughter to be denied a two-bedroom apartment (as opposed to a single-bedroom), (2) grandma is the de facto guardian of her granddaughter, regardless of legal status, and (3) that the determination to deny the apartment was "arbitrary and capricious," especially since she was not told of the "legal guardian" requirement until after having been approved and waiting for an opening for almost a year.

The problem with our case is that the Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development (who we're suing) may have an easy time convincing the judge that the state has a compelling interest in requiring a "legal guardian" relationship, as people may try to cheat their way into larger apartments. Also, grandma is not being denied housing, or being denied the right to live with granddaughter... they are only being denied a two-bedroom apartment (which is allowed for a legal guardian and child). They can still get a one-bedroom.

The real hope to our case is that there are no shenanigans. But the law is the law is the law, and the law isn't totally with us.

I wrote this petition for an old attorney who used to be a judge (after retirement, he didn't want to stop, so he joined Legal Services). He told me that it was very professional, and that he doubted he could have written it better. I'm not sure if he was just being nice, or if I'm just awesome. I'm going with awesome.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-01T19:02:00

2004-08-01T23:15:36Z

Some ideas I want to try:
-Spending a week as a Republican. I will dress conservatively, whatever that means, put an elephant on my backpack, and hold myself out as a Republican. Perhaps real Republicans (the few that are in NYC) will try to talk to me about politics. I will argue their side persuasively, but will slide in even more persuasive dissenting views, and thus make my arguments clearly contridictory... or, I will take Republican views to their logical, extreme conclusions, thereby showing how they are fucked up... stuff like that, sowing seeds of doubt with my vehement approval of nonsense.

-Spenind a day as a clown. I will dress up like a clown. I will hang out around the city, doing normal everyday city things.
I imagine this exchange like this taking place on a subway:
Person: Are you going to a birthday party?
Me: No. I'm just an ordinary clown.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-01T18:39:00

2004-08-01T22:42:38Z

I cannot believe John Kerry could give this testimony in 1971 and be what he is today. Almost every detail fits perfectly with Iraq. Why is it okay to stay now?

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-08-01T03:55:00

2004-08-01T08:00:41Z

I have learned that it is very difficult to read an article about the hallucinogenic effects of sleep deprivation when one is very sleep deprived. I have been awake for 44 consecutive hours.

It is also very hard to write about sleep deprivation when one is sleep deprived. Thus, I will explain tomorrow.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-07-26T20:46:00

2004-07-27T01:20:02Z

I found the video Bill Clinton made for his last speech at the Washington correspondent's dinner. It features big Pete from Pete and Pete.

I don't think Judge Chin ever saw this coming (re: previous post).

As much as the Democrats make me want to wretch, I would like to be watching the convention. Alas, I have no TV. If I get the latest Beta version of Realplayer, I may be able to watch streaming on C-Span's website. But I doubt anything remotely interesting will happen. But hey, Kerry isn't accepting the nomination until September... Kucinich still has a chance.

fidalgo_negro @ 2004-07-23T22:20:00

2004-07-24T03:46:38Z

My Legal Writing and Research professor during my first year at law school was Denny Chin, a federal district court judge in the second circuit, southern district of New York. He is the only Asian federal court judge east of the Mississippi. Most students get professionals of various stripes to teach them legal writing, but I was extra fortunate to have someone so prominent, and as a judge, someone with an incredibly balanced view of what good writing should be, and as an arbiter, a realistic view of what kind of writing is effective.

Judge Chin presided over Fox News's recent lawsuit against Al Franken. If you didn't hear about it, Franken named his last book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," knocking on Fox's "fair and balanced" slogan.

Apparently, after Franken managed to publicly humiliate O'Reilly during a event at a book festival in which they were both panelists (it involved O'Reilly getting really upset and shouting "shut-up" a good deal), O'Reilly himself pushed Fox to sue Franken, as Fox didn't plan to do anything about Franken's book.

Here is the transcript of the oral arguments that sealed the fate of the trademark infringement suit.

Al Franken now likes to joke that Judge Chin came up with Fox News's new slogan: "wholly without merit."

Judge Chin often told us that a good way to measure whether some legal argument is plausible is if it passes the "laugh test." Normally, this is a figurative "laugh test." But as it is noted on the top of the transcript, Fox's case failed the laugh test quite literally.

Later in the year, O'Reilly did a piece on his show about another case that Judge Chin ruled on, as an obvious attempt to get a little revenge, calling him the most liberal judge in the United States, or something to that effect. Naturally, he didn't have anyone on the show to offer rebuttal. Really sad.