A. Robert Allen's Blog, page 2

Zero Tolerance for Staying on The Sidelines

The story began weeks ago but took a while to become front and center. The new Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy at the border resulted in children being separated from their parents. From what I recall, it was the misguided reference to a passage in the Bible by our Attorney General that brought this to the national spotlight.  Within a week, politicians from both sides of the aisle came out against the policy—some were in favor of it, but more were opposed. The majority, however, were either silent or very careful with what they said publicly.

While the issue is not totally resolved, political pressure did lead to an executive order stopping the practice of separating families.  As I reflect on what happened and what may still happen at this point, certain things trouble me deeply. As always, I will provide my interpretation with a bit of a historical bent.

One survey that I read showed the country was 67% against the policy with Republicans 55% opposed. The United States has always supported the concept of “the family.” Even if it is just lip service, pro-family statements have appeared in the messages offered by both parties for decades. Given that this is the case, why didn’t the groundswell of opposition in Congress mirror the groundswell of public opinion?

I’m sure there are many theories on this matter, but if we look to history, there were moments when a powerful leader promoted an extreme agenda that resonated with a small, but powerful few, and others didn’t speak up. The powerful leader was then emboldened by this initial success and took things to the next level with another provocative move. The second time around, the opposition was not quite as vocal and many of those who initially stayed on the sidelines, now went with the crowd. The leaders within the Republican Party who came out against this measure, many of whom are among the elite, showed courage. I’m worried, however, about the large numbers of officials who remained silent or who were very careful with their words.  The people who initially say nothing are the very ones who go whichever way the wind blows.

While I may not always agree with a particular politician’s position, I do respect those who are clear with their beliefs. The people who play the middle and do nothing, however, will be the death of us all.  Let’s remember who said what regarding this issue and file that away for future reference—we need leaders not followers. Please note that I’m intentionally not giving a specific historical reference because they are all too dramatic and will only serve to sensationalize my argument, which I believe stands on its own.

A Visit to Minetta Lane

New York is about as modern as any city in the world.  Once it began marching northward in 1811 with its grand grid design, all of the new blocks were both spacious and predictable.  Over the years, the never-ending building boom replaced older structures with new modern spaces at remarkable speeds. Even in old New York, where the streets curve and do not possess a great sense of order, the buildings have generally been modernized or replaced.  This is why a visit to Minetta Lane, which is both the setting and name of my latest book, was so special.  As I made the left from Sixth Avenue onto Minetta, it felt as if I went back in time.

The street is so narrow it doesn’t support the vehicular traffic in the area.  I stood at the intersection of Minetta Lane and Minetta Street, which was often referred to as The Bend, and admired the buildings, which appeared to be a throwback to a simpler time.  I thought back to what may have transpired at this small, but important, intersection in the early days of city, when it was known as New Amsterdam.

Beginning in the 1640s, the Dutch permitted the partially free Black population to call this area home.  The Blacks were only considered partially free because their freedom depended on the timely payment of an annual fee. The path currently occupied by Minetta Street/Minetta Lane was on the side of a brook called Minetta Creek.  This path became known as The Negroes Causeway.  Minetta Street was built on top of the brook when it was boarded over in the 1820s.  By 1829, when slavery ended in New York, the area was home to most of Manhattan’s Black population.  People started to call it Little Africa.

Irish immigration into the area picked up steam in the 1840s and by the late 1800s, the area became a mixing bowl of Black and Irish.  In 1896, Stephen Crane, a well known writer of the time, wrote, “the Minettas are the two most enthusiastically murderous thoroughfares in the city.”  Crime was rampant in the Minettas—anyone who didn’t belong became targets.  The neighborhood featured Black and Tan Saloons, mixed race bars of a morally questionable nature, as well as openly gay bars.  Italians moved into the area around the turn of the century and that influence can still be seen today with scores of fine Italian restaurants spread throughout the surrounding blocks.

The area eventually was cleaned up around the time that Theodore Roosevelt was New York’s Police Commissioner, but interesting things continued to happen on Minetta Lane. For example, in 1962, Bob Dylan wrote “Blowin in the Wind” at the Fat Black Pussycat at 11-13 Minetta Lane.  In 1973, Al Pacino, who was playing Frank Serpico, moved into 5–7 Minetta Lane.

Minetta Creek has been covered up for almost 200 years and many think it has finally gone dry.  One doorman in a nearby hotel, however, claims that every once in a while, the creek still manages to bubble-up into the hotel garden.  I think it bubbled just a little bit for me today.

The Third Eye

I’ve always believed that as time marches forward, we will come to understand more things that are mysteries to us today.  For example, if we could transport people from 1618 to 2018, they would have great difficulty understanding how a light bulb works.  The evidence of light would be apparent, but the concept of the invisible electricity might seem magical and would have to be taken on faith.  Similarly, a few characters in my books have special gifts that enable them to see or feel future events. Just like with the light bulb, I ask my readers to accept this on faith.  Some readers send me emails or write reviews where they express how much they love this stuff.  Others hate it and aren’t shy about letting me know that as well!  The purpose of this month’s blog is to shed a little light on topics like this so that the haters have an opportunity to be more accepting and the lovers will get a deeper understanding.

Let me begin by saying that I am by no means an expert in the paranormal.  My mother believes in it deeply and I heard about this a lot as a child.  As a writer, I find the topic fascinating and use special gifts as an effective tool to occasionally move my stories forward and provide added color to characters.  My first book, Failed Moments, is actually the result of a very vivid dream I had about my deceased Aunt Grace.  My most recent book, Minetta Lane, includes a clairvoyant character.  “Clair” can be translated as clear and “voyant” as one who sees.  A clairvoyant, therefore, is one who sees clearly.  Most of the readers of my blogs are fans of fiction, so I’m sure you can see the potential in using clairvoyant characters to add interesting twists to a storyline.

In Minetta Lane, I explain how this clairvoyant character used his Third Eye to see things that will happen in the future.  When I did my research on the Third Eye, I found a tremendous amount of material.  This concept is firmly grounded in Eastern religion and loosely supported by modern-day science.  The ancients referred to the Third Eye, the spot in the middle of the forehead, as the seat of the soul.  In later years, people used terms like Mind’s Eye or Inner Eye to refer to the same thing. The scientific basis for this relates to the pineal gland, which is located in the spot where the Third Eye is assumed to be.  This gland is sensitive to light and produces melatonin, which affects the modulations of sleep patterns.  The pineal gland is shaped like a pinecone and symbols of this gland can be found in artifacts dating back to ancient times.

In more recent history, there are stories of the Nazi government in Germany conducting experiments involving clairvoyance during World War II in an effort weaponize the gift.  In addition, according to some sources, both the United States and former Soviet Union governments conducted similar experiments after the war ended.  Some shadow organizations like the Illuminati are also rumored to have explored research in this area as well.  I’m not sure if I can back up all of the statements in this paragraph, however, so let’s just accept them as additional color relating to a fascinating topic and maybe the next time someone says, “I saw this in my Mind’s Eye,” you’ll have a whole new appreciation for their meaning!

More Guns Equals More Safety?

Seventeen people were killed on February 14th in a Florida school—the latest in a series of mass shootings we’ve endured in public settings over the past few years.  The automatic responses have already been issued:  the Left is calling for gun control and the Right indicated that this is not the time to discuss it.  It is likely that time will pass and focus will shift from this terrible incident to something else and nothing will change.  The question is why?

We are different in the United States when it comes to guns.  By some estimates, we have more guns than people.  One article I read, however, places the number a little lower at 89 firearms for every 100 people.  That same study places Yemen in second place with 55 guns per 100 people.  The U.S. has less than 5% of the world’s population, but close to 40% of the world’s guns.  Often we have a lot in common with our European cousins, but in this case we are so different.  The European school of thinking prohibits or strictly limits firearms for most citizens.  So if Europe, to a very great extent, represents the roots of our culture, why are we so different?

Many would say that gun ownership in the U.S. reflects the spirit of the American Revolution.  One of our founding fathers, George Mason of Virginia, was quoted as saying, “Disarming the people is the best way to enslave them.”  Mason opposed the constitution at first because of the lack of specific language granting the right to bear arms.  I’m sure he was pleased when the Second Amendment to the Constitution offered this language:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment, which was part of the Bill of Rights, used the word militia in the sense of a state-level military force, which could be called upon if the standing national army needed to be opposed—the very thing we’d just finished doing in the late 1700s when state militias opposed British forces.  Mason wasn’t going to let the country become disarmed only to suffer through a more homegrown kind of tyranny.  He later clarified his view of militia stating that it consisted of, “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”  Remember, this was the era of the musket.  If the national government started to trample on the states, everyone needed to be able to pick up their musket and join the militia.  It was a simpler time.

So this was our starting point and the courts interpreted the Second Amendment for many years as pertaining more to the rights of state militias and less about the rights of individuals.  The original language, however, was unclear and open to interpretation.  In the 1970s, a movement began to more closely interpret the Second Amendment as relating to an individual’s right to bear arms.  Progress with this movement was steady and in 2008, the Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation in its District of Columbia vs. Heller ruling.  Antonin Scalia factored in the development of modern weapons when he wrote the majority opinion and identified handguns as the one type of weapon that could not be prohibited.

Now the anti-gun control proponents not only had the spirit of the revolution on their side, but a fresh new interpretation of the Second Amendment from the Supreme Court.  The next development, however, is one that has begun to resonate with a growing group after each terrible public shooting.  As a result, the number of automatic responses described in my first paragraph has grown.  It now goes something like this:  1.  Incident happens.  2. The Left calls for gun control.  3.  The Right indicates this isn’t the time for to discuss it.  4.  Another pro-gun group offers, “If the teachers and staff in the school all had guns, fewer people would have died.”

This is where we are today.  My unfortunate conclusion is that the pro-gun logic, which was weakest when only based on the vague language of the Second Amendment, was buttressed by a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, and now is being further supported by an argument that supports a “more guns equals greater safety” logic.  According to the numbers, we already have as many guns as people.  At what point, does the safety part kick in?

Let’s Stop Screaming Yes and No

I’ve written a few times about the great debate involving controversial historical monuments in this country.  The two sides in the matter are deeply dug into their positions.  One group yells, “No, you can’t take them down—it’s history,” and the other screams, “Yes, you must take them down because they’re hateful.”  In my opinion, the dialogue never became much more sophisticated than this—one side simply tries to scream louder than the other.

My last blog on the topic, “The Difference Between Celebrating and Not Forgetting,” which I posted on May 30th and reposted on August 18th, was an effort to provide a nuance to the discussion.  I suggested that it was appropriate to “not forget” something that was bad through a monument (e.g. the 9/11 Monuments in NY) but it was not okay to celebrate something that is hateful (e.g. a statue of an individual who fought for a cause or principle that was evil).  My blog reached over 21,000 people on Facebook and received almost 400 posted comments, but very few addressed my nuance and most simply continued screaming either a loud “No” or “Yes.”

Today, I read an interesting article in the NY Post, entitled, “Public Chimes in on Monumental Debate.”  The piece describes a meeting of Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s Commission on City Art, Monuments, and Markers—a group that was established to provide recommendations about what to do with potentially offensive statues and monuments.  One commenter spoke of Christopher Columbus and suggested that the good he did as an explorer outweighed the bad he did in annihilating the Taino and other indigenous peoples in the Caribbean.  This to me is a twist to the dialogue, and while I won’t choose to discuss the merits of statues celebrating Columbus, I would like to explore the concept of this argument further.

The logic of this approach is to consider the benefit of an individual’s positive achievements against any negative deeds or positions associated with them.  Let’s start with an extreme, and perhaps absurd, example of this approach—just to make a point.  Imagine that Adolf Hitler was associated with a significant scientific achievement before coming to power in Germany.   It would be hard to fathom how any achievement could outweigh the evil associated with his later deeds—clearly, there would be no justification for any monuments in this case.

1904- What a Year!

My process in writing begins with the selection of an interesting point in time.    Failed Moments, which took place from 1790 to 1863, began with the Haitian Slave Revolution and ended with the American Civil War.  A Wave From Mama, set in Brooklyn, spans the great period of change between the end of the Civil War and the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. When I began to work on my third novel, I made the decision to move forward chronologically, but stopped my research once I reached 1904—a truly memorable year that featured all of the following:

 

National Events-

 

Henry Ford sets a new speed record for automobiles with an impressive 91.37 mph.

 

Cy Young throws the first perfect game.

 

A big year for St. Louis, which includes both the World’s Fair and the Olympics.

 

The debut of the ice cream cone.

 

Theodore Roosevelt is elected President.

 

The Great Baltimore fire destroys more than 1500 buildings covering 140 acres of land.

 

International Events-

 

Peter Pan debuts in London

 

Roosevelt sends the Marines to Tangiers.

 

The U.S. gains control of the Panama Canal

 

Pope Pius X bans low-cut dresses in the presence of churchmen.

 

Japan and Russia declare war.

 

A massive fire in Toronto destroys over 100 buildings.

 

 

Local New York Events-

 

The first underground subway opens in Manhattan.

 

The Boston Herald refers to the NY Highlanders as the “Yankees” for the first time. This will become their name in 1913.

 

The tragic fire aboard the General Slocum Steamship in the East River claims over one thousand lives.

 

Longacre Square is renamed Times Square and the first New Year’s Eve celebration takes place.

 

A woman is arrested on Fifth Avenue for smoking a cigarette in a car.

 

 

As I read about each of these events, my next novel of historical fiction began to emerge.  Minetta Lane takes you back to this special year—look or it in January 2018!

When You Attack the UK, You Attack US

I’ve been reflecting on the attacks in the UK over the last several months and while I cringe when I hear about this type of thing happening anywhere in the world, I must say that the UK attacks feel particularly close to home.  Given that I have no close personal connections to the UK, I tried to determine the source of my great sense of connection.  The answer came to me quickly…the attacks feel close to home because of the special relationship between the US and the UK.

As someone who tries to make sense of current events by learning from the past, I started Googling the idea of a special relationship between the two countries and found that is already an established “thing.” Presidents and Prime Minsters have used this phrase over the years to describe relations between the UK and the US.  If you were to look up the phrase in Wikipedia, you will find a well-developed entry about the US/UK Special Relationship, but I’m not using the phrase in this generally accepted sense.

To me, the special relationship between The UK and the US, is, in a way, what the healthiest of divorces should ultimately become.  Initially, after the split there is a period of conflict—let’s put the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 in that category, but after being together for so many years, the relationship evolves again with time. You realize that you speak the same language, share common interests, and let’s never forget about the kids.  In these healthy divorces, there comes a time that the former partners respect what they had and look out for each other moving forward.  You may no longer be living together, but the connection is deep and lasting.

So this American from New York offers this statement to the world: The US and the UK have a special relationship that will continue to stand the test of time, and when you attack the UK, you attack US.

The Difference Between Celebrating and Not Forgetting

The New York Times published an article on May 27th entitled, “In Popular Park, a Point of Contention.”  The opening line provides the angle for the piece:

“ST. LOUIS—The angry, divisive fight over public symbols of the Confederacy has swept through Columbia, S.C., Birmingham, Ala., and New Orleans.  This week the debate made its way some 600 miles north, up the Mississippi River, to St. Louis…”

The article went on to explain that a 103-year-old monument containing images of confederate soldiers located in a park in St. Louis, Missouri had become the subject of an intense debate.  The mayor, Lyda Krewson, commented, “It reveres something that, you know, we’re not proud of.”  Others indicated that removing it would be, “blotting out the history of the Civil War.”  One passerby suggested, “I feel like it is O.K. to honor ordinary soldiers.”  This last line was not the focus of the piece, yet for me it resonated deeply because it highlighted the important difference between “celebrating” and “not forgetting.”

If a monument or a symbol glorifies something, it is celebratory.  For example, the famous WWII image of the flag-raising by U.S. Marines in Iwo Jima, celebrates a great victory.  Whereas, if I were to visit the 9/11 Memorial where the names of the almost 3,000 men, women, and children who were killed in the attacks are inscribed into bronze parapets surrounding the memorial pools, I would file that under “not forgetting.”  Many young soldiers on the Confederate side may have viewed their service as doing what was expected and felt they had no choice but to follow orders, but we cannot celebrate their service because it is at the expense of all of the victims of slavery.

If I compared this to a much less emotional and fictional example to drive home my point, imagine that a mid-level employee in the back office of Bernard Madoff’s securities investment firm retired in 2006 after thirty-years of service.  Throughout her career she received numerous awards—she was employee of the month several times and was given a special commendation for the reorganization of the human resource system, which she viewed as her career-capping achievement.  At the point of her retirement in 2006, her home office was fully decorated with all of the symbols of her consistent good work over a thirty-year career.  She did her job well, had no idea of the terrible Ponzi scheme that would ruin the lives of so many, and enjoyed glancing at her wall of honor every time she sat at her desk to pay her bills.

Unfortunately, when the scandal broke in 2008, her first order of business should have been to take all of her awards down from the wall, because while her service to her employer still cannot be questioned, she now fully appreciated the evil nature of the organization, which may have been hidden from all but a few at the top.  Is this unfair to her, just as perhaps it is unfair to the young confederate soldiers?  The answer may be yes, but the bigger issue becomes that any celebratory symbol that is at the expense of countless victims is inappropriate.

My imaginary Madoff employee likely spent many hours in the years following the news of the scandal wondering how she didn’t know.  She might have also experienced some level of guilt at her unwitting participation in this terrible scheme.   In other words, she should “not forget,” but it is no longer appropriate to “celebrate.”

Perhaps it was wrong to compare the suffering from slavery with that of the financial kind, but you see my point.  The monument should come down and, therefore, the “celebration” should end, but none of it should ever be “forgotten.”

Applause for Mushroom Clouds

A full orchestra provided a sound track to the images on the screen for an audience, clad in their finest evening attire, which represented the elite of society.  Missiles were launched and video tracked their progress across the Pacific.  At times the crescendo of the music surpassed the applause, but in the end the applause assumed the lead as the missiles neared their ultimate destinations.  The leader, prominently seated onstage, smiled and stood for the great finale, which represented his vision, and therefore, his nation’s vision, for a glorious future.  All eyes focused on the screen as the mushroom clouds formed—the final image, a cemetery with a burning U.S. flag, triggered the biggest applause of all.  The glorious future of their nation was now clearly defined as the total destruction of another.

Really?  That’s the goal of the nation?  What about improving the standard of living? What about economic growth?  What about more generally accepted, but perhaps evil goals, like conquering your neighbor?  Even that would be better.  What kind of nation is this?  What kind of place is this?  Thank God, there’s only one.  Yes, that’s right, there’s only one North Korea.

My first paragraph painted a picture of an actual event that took place in April during North Korea’s annual Sun Festival, which celebrates the birth of its first ruler, Kim Il Sung, who passed away in 1994.  Power was then transferred to his son, Kim Jong Il, who died in 2011.  The grandson, Kin Jong Un, has ruled since then.  North Korea’s State Chorus and Orchestra performed, and it was all captured on video.  I was sickened as I watched it and thought back to the few isolated scenes of celebration around the world that were also captured on video when the twin towers fell.

So why do I say, thank God there’s only one North Korea?  Because they are one of the very few remnants of the old world order created at the end of World War II, when the two Cold War blocs were established.  The West, led by the United States, and the East, led by the Soviet Union.  Over the last forty years, Germany has been unified, the Berlin Wall came down, and the leader of the East, the Soviet Union, no longer exists.  You can argue that Russia is the new leader of a different kind of eastern bloc, but Russia has evolved over the last seventy years.  While we may not agree with many of their national ambitions, at least we understand their motivations and can, therefore, deal with them appropriately.   When Russia supports governments we oppose, conquers lands we view as sovereign nations, and interferes with our elections, we can take actions that might influence them and possibly push them in a different direction.

Even China, the new major player on the scene, has evolved.  Like Russia, we may not agree with many of China’s objectives, but we do understand them.  This is one of the great challenges of dealing with North Korea—how can we even process the idea that a country’s national objective is the total destruction of another?  How can we ever understand, and therefore, appropriately deal with them?  To be fair, there may be a few other countries with similar objectives, but they don’t have a developing nuclear weapons program—that makes North Korea special, in a bad way.

North Korea is a dangerous throwback to the Cold War.  Perhaps this is because power has passed from father to son to grandson like an old world monarchy.  It is time for the North Korean people to have access to a true worldview, so they can reject this terrible path that the son of the son has declared to be a national priority.  It is time for the North Korean people to demand the kinds of changes that will improve their quality of life.  But more than anything, it is time for North Korea to realize that it is no longer 1946.

They Don’t Belong Here

You know the ones…they took our jobs and drained our resources…they need to go back to where they came from.

A major newspaper explained their racial inferiority through a series of detailed articles and things became uncomfortable for them—some left.  Bus companies did their part and offered one-way reduced fare tickets.  The Federal government hired additional agents to check documentation.  A large state government took an interest and researched the legality of the Federal actions—everything appeared to be on solid ground.  A particular county within that state joined the fight against them with an added level of sophistication; deportations were reframed as repatriations.  A coordinated program of propaganda and intimidation was launched and the media assisted by providing graphic documentation of the brutal raids.  More of them became afraid for their lives.  More of them left.

Organized protests began and this presented an opportunity.  The Federal government arrested the leaders along with the more vocal protesters as possible subversives.  They were already stealing jobs…they were already inferior, but now, they were criminals.

Estimates are that approximately one million of them were deported or left voluntarily based on the abuse to which they were subjected.  According to many sources, as many as half of them were U.S. Citizens.

This is all true.  Yes, I’m sad to say this actually happened.  They are Mexicans, the Federal government is our own and this happened in the early1930s.  The major newspaper that ran the series about the inferiority of Mexicans was the Saturday Evening Post.  The state that joined the fight and the county that “upped the game” were California and the County of Los Angeles.

My limited research didn’t uncover any evidence that The Saturday Evening Post acknowledged any wrongdoing for its inflammatory series of articles with titles such as, “The Mexican Conquest,” “Wet and Other Mexicans,” and “The Mexican Invasion.”   California, however, apologized for their actions in 2005 and the County of Los Angeles, in 2012. The United States, however, never apologized.  In 1954, The Federal government deported another million Mexicans with a program that was actually entitled, Operation Wetback. Then in 2017…