Author: Nick Slater

  • No, No Way, You Mooks

    A furore was set off here last year with the news that parts of New Jersey’s sizeable but non-homogenous Wise-guy community intended to use an obscure law to set up arbitration tribunals for disputes involving hoodlums’ ladies running numbers, shaking down and generally behaving like low-bred mooks when they should be attending to the kids.

    Wise-guy and non-Wise-guy critics alike protested that the 140-year-old body of Cosa Nostra-inspired laws considers Non-Sicilian broads inferior to Goodfellas and would infringe their equality rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    However, a six-month study by former Teamster’s Moll Maria Pantonello concluded in December that, with new safeguards in place, Wise-guy women would still be protected by the ‘Mob law’. Her controversial recommendations still require final approval by the New York Bosses and the consiglieri-general.

    But a leading Madame in Jersey thinks it would be a mistake to sign off on it. “(We) must say loud and clear that not only do we not want Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t arbitration in Jersey, we don’t want it in New York and we don’t even want it in Chicago,” Monica ‘Badda Bing’ Tarantella told a conference last week. The East-Coast brothel magnate went even further in denouncing New Jersey’s attempt to accommodate both brassy out of control loudmouth dames, (would-be divorcees) and the hustling rights of “no-good can’t get enough two timing b@stards” in its increasingly pluralistic society. Furthermore , she said, wannabe playboy immigrants who want to come to Jersey “and who do not respect women’s rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code – should stay in their country and not come to Jersey, because that is unacceptable. “On the other hand, if people want to accept our way of doing things and our rights, they will be welcome and we will help them to integrate.”

    The government’s opposition to Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t arbitration comes as no surprise to Sonny Bambozzo, president of the Wise-guy Council of Chicago. “We didn’t expect they’d entertain the idea because they have a taboo on all wise-guy activities,” he says. “They are trying to impose secular extremism, but we’re not France fer chrisakes. We still have a Charter of Rights in this country that should give us the right to run our rackets freely, and apportion cash to our broads as we see fit – if we see fit.”

    Which means that Jersey Wise-guys “don’t have to be given the right to use Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t arbitration. We already have the right. We’re talking about a complementary, not parallel, system of laws for those who want to live according to their numbers. It may be illegal for him to “arbitrate” in Jersey, says Alfonse, but as an high-ranking Goodfella, and successful corporate fraudster, he can and already does “mediate” between feuding couples who choose to use his services.

    “There are boundaries to tolerance. But there is a lot to be said for letting people work it out themselves with bats,” said Joey Pistone, a union organiser at the Waterfront University of NY. He notes that the legitimate Jersey law-firm rate of “totally beating a pain-in-the-ass alimony rap” is only 3 per cent, compared with Wise-guys’ ‘lawyers’ an overall rate of 50 per cent. And when it occurs, a teamster shake-down is important because otherwise a Wise-guy will feel “guilty,” he says, and be maybe unable to marry another broad, even if she’s a ten plus, right away.

    Alfonse, who is also a wise-guy regular at Badda Bing’s Bar, thinks Boyd did an “excellent job” on her report and blames the media for giving its critics a high profile. He vehemently objects to the widely raised argument that Wise-guy wives, many new to the country, unable to speak the language and unaware of brand-new legal rights, will be forced into accepting an high-ranking ‘s Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t arbitration ruling. “It is condescending to say they will be pressured,” he says. “Broads are not oppressed by The Mafia. It equates men and women, sort of, if they look good especially it does.”

    The Mafia may, but Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t laws – written over a period of 45 years after the death of Don Corleone Sr. and subject to a variety of interpretations – do not, say Wise-guy critics. They point out that one of the constants in Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t is that a woman’s testimony in a dispute is worth one-half of a man’s.

    Brenda G’iovi formerly of the Federation of Made Jersey Women is opposed to New Jersey’s move. Brenda, an Naples-born Wise-guy’s ex-moll, says many Wise-guy immigrant women will not be able to even afford a shakedown-type lawyer and will see no recourse but to accept a mid-ranking jackoff goodfella’s ruling. “New Jersey Mafia is not facing up to its responsibility to provide justice for all,” she says. “This isn’t just about religion, it’s about sexism, even not buying her furs and diamonds and stuff like that. Those lousy creeps.” Brenda says Jersey’s concept of alimony has gotta be the “reasonable settlement” of different domestic set-tos. And with different rackets, she says, “fairness protects the Family from hustling and other conflicts.”

    Possibly so, but secularism is not what Jersey as a free-thinking city subscribes to, preferring, like the Philippines, the concept of “separation of political bulls**t and making shitloads of dollars illegally.”

    “In our society, we allow violent, mercenary quasi-ethinic groups to discriminate,” says Joey Pistone, a Union Organiser and political philosopher at the bar of the Turnpike Dog Track, “because a liberal state must remain neutral.” He cites as examples the Catholic Church’s ban on female clergy and various churches’ refusal to marry same-sex partners: “Why do we permit this? Because religions are voluntary organisations.” The Mafia is no exception.

    Heath says that unless there is an issue of safety – he cites the Irish tradition of carrying C4 into classrooms – or an overriding public interest in interceding, the state should stay out of religion. Each requested exemption to the law, should be assessed, he says. “I don’t subscribe to rolling over and playing dead. Well I do sometimes. But there are boundaries to tolerance. And there is a lot to be said for letting people work it out themselves with bats.”

    New Jersey has no choice but to allow Wise-guys to use the Arbitration Act because the province’s small but deadly Chinese Triad community already uses it. Unless, Pistone adds, it decided to ban all wise-guy involvement in civil matters, including family law: “That would be acceptable because it is consistent. Crazy, but consistent.”

    Otherwise, the Bottom-feeding mob-guy bulls**t issue is an intramural debate between liberal and conservative Wise-guys, whether in New Jersey, New York or the rest of the country. “Let the Wise-guys work it out fer chrisakes.”

  • 145 Thousand Books Lost in Manipur Library Arson

    Protesters torched library because the books were in Bengali not Mayek script.

  • Protesters Explain Manipur Arson

    ‘The books in the library were all written in Bengali script and so we set the building on fire.’

  • Computer-generated Gibberish Accepted at Conference

    ‘Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy.’

  • Islamists in Pakistan Focus on Women

    Success in banning women from sport, now ban on women in advertising.

  • Saudi Religious Boffin Bans Forced Marriage

    Women still forbidden to travel alone, work most jobs, talk to men, vote.

  • Equality Bill Excludes Action on Homophobia

    Discrimination against lesbians and gays is okay, against religious believers it’s not.

  • Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

    Choudhury, journalist, columnist, magazine editor, is in prison.

  • Canine Cognition

    Dogs can predict social events, request information, obey rules, imitate human actions.

  • Another Miscellany

    A few miscellaneous items worth a look.

    At Crooked Timber, one on Christopher Hitchens. This includes Jimmy Doyle giving some quotations from the Guardian and the New Statesman from the autumn of 2001 to show sceptics that there really were people saying just the kind of thing that other people on the thread had said no one other than ol’ Ward Churchill actually said. Quite amusing, in a morbid way. And one
    on literary theory and whether literary criticism that is interested in, say, formal or aesthetic aspects of literature, or uses the dread word ‘imagination,’ is automatically ‘conservative’ and if so in what sense and according to whom and why should we care and who asked you anyway. Also quite amusing, and about a less deadly subject (though perhaps a more deadly boring one).

    At Michael Bérubé’s blog, we learn that David Horowitz has been silly. He did an email debate with Bérubé, then deleted much of what Bérubé said, then posted what was left – himself talking a lot and Bérubé being oddly tight-lipped – and, hilariously, Horowitz asking Bérubé why he keeps not answering the question. Seems like a foolhardy plan, since he didn’t exactly do this in secret. He kind of, you know, published it.

    But when I went to the FrontPage site to check out the “debate,” I found that almost all my replies to David had been cut from the “conversation,” and that Glazov and Horowitz, after chopping all the stuff I’d written, slapped me upside the head for not replying to them…Well, holy infant Jesus with a rattlesnake, folks – what a shabby little stunt. First they refuse to publish my responses, and then they chastise me for not responding to them? What is going on over there at FrontPage – are they smoking crack, or are they just giving up altogether? Did they think maybe I wouldn’t notice that fifteen paragraphs of mine had somehow disappeared from the text of the “debate”?

    What were they thinking, one wonders. That dangerous lefty professors can’t count good?

    Oh darn, there’s an update (she says, having gone from the page with the post by itself to the home page and seen the explanation posted a day or two later). Apparently Horowitz made a mistake – didn’t see the interlineated replies, or something. (Note to interlineators: put them in a different colour next time. Red is quite noticeable.) Never mind, it’s still worth a look, because of all the huffing and puffing about intellectual laziness.

    (The blog overall I don’t recommend. Bérubé has always struck me as quite self-infatuated, and unpleasant to people he disagrees with [he was remarkably rude to Russell Jacoby in the Letters section of The Baffler a few years ago, for no reason at all that I could figure out]. The combination of aggression and self-absorption is not all that appealing.)

  • Not Either Silly

    I’m going to have to disagree with my friend Norm on Polly Toynbee’s comment on the pope. I hate to do it – but he’s off on his travels, so that’s all right. David Hadley of Stuff and Nonsense alerted me to Norm’s post. (How busy I am these days. I don’t even have time to get around to checking Norm every day. Terrible.)

    I really don’t get it. Every time there’s an event that brings forth a manifestation of religious belief by large numbers of people, some militant secularist or other will give out an opinion that would be jejune coming from an intelligent sixth-former…But how she can speak in so trivializing a way of world-wide reaction to the death of the head of a church whose ‘deeper power’ she herself characterizes as lying ‘in its personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers’ is mystifying to me…I do not think there are any good evidential or other reasons for belief in a supreme deity, much less a benign and all-powerful one. But to speak now, in the face of a historical experience stretching over millennia, as if religion is no more than a silly mistake of silly people – answering to no real human concerns, meeting no deeper needs, all just froth – is (not to put too fine a point on it) silly.

    Well, it’s my turn not to get it, and to find it mystifying. Really. For one thing, the world-wide reaction is part of the point, surely. The irrationality and indeed anti-rationality of that reaction is part of the subject, not a reason for not talking about it. And the fact that this one man had ‘personal authority over 1.3 billion worshippers’ is also part of the point, not a reason for not addressing it. Why shouldn’t the strangeness (to put it rather neutrally) of that authority be examined and questioned? Norm seems to be suggesting that it ought rather to be taboo – but why? It is an absurdity, after all, and not one that we accept in any other context. It may sound silly to point out the absurdity, but maybe that’s because the absurdity is so obvious? So we’re just supposed to ignore it? Because it’s rude to mention it? But it is absurd – and of course far worse than absurd. Toynbee wasn’t actually trivializing, she was indicting. That’s the sad thing about the papacy and the whole rigmarole that goes with it – it’s both absurd (in a manner beneath even a sixth-former, I should think) and extremely harmful. Why should that subject be passed over in silence? It needs talking about more, not less, I would have thought.

    And surely it’s this idea that we ought not to say such things that helps to perpetuate them. (As I’ve said before. How tediously repetitive I am.) There is such massive cultural pressure and peer pressure these days* to be deferential to religion (excuse me, I mean ‘faith’) and believers, and that cultural-and-peer pressure just helps religion to go on being shielded from criticism, and why should it be? Why? Why should religion alone among belief systems and institutions (with the possible exception of the family, another sacrosanct item these days**) be shielded from criticism? Especially given how powerful it is? Especially in the case of the Catholic church and especially especially the pope?! Of all people! Who else has the kind of magical global power he does? No one! The dalai lama has some international influence, but he doesn’t issue edicts in the same way, and his words aren’t binding in the same way. Plus Buddhism is nowhere near as harsh as Catholicism. And dalai lamas don’t have the gall to issue edicts announcing themselves to be infallible. I ask you. This guy is officially formally infallible and he tells people not to use birth control and not to use condoms – and we shouldn’t say harsh things about him?? He is the one person on earth most in need of oversight and criticism, as sharp as possible.

    I suppose he does have one rival for magical global power – and that would be bin Laden. Same kind of power, too: power over people’s minds. Well he’s not beyond criticism, is he. Nor should the pope be, and especially when every front page you see is busy drooling over him, which is not the case with Osama.

    And the part about human concerns and human needs – I don’t see the relevance. Concerns and needs don’t cause things to exist that don’t exist. People’s putative need for god doesn’t cause god to exist, any more than my need for a falafel sandwich is going to cause one to appear on my desk. And more than that, religion is one thing, and the pope is another. It’s perfectly possible to think the papacy is an absolutely terrible idea and still believe in a deity. A certain fracas that took place in the 16th century springs to mind.

    So – there it is. I don’t think Toynbee was a bit silly, I think she said what badly needed saying.

    *I say ‘these days’ because I do think it’s gotten worse and is going on getting worse, than it was in, erm, previous days, but don’t ask me for the exact date, because I don’t know, but date it from Jimmy Carter if you like, or Reagan, or some UK-relevant date but I have no idea which one, nothing occurs to me.

    **See above but with possibly different dates.

  • Tories Propose More ‘Faith’ Schools

    Where the young can ask big questions and get damn fool answers.

  • Arab Feminists on Women’s Rights

    Laws permit beating and caging within four walls, allow them to be bought and sold.

  • What’s Up With Poetry?

    Eleven poets discuss recent swingeing attack on the current state of poetry.

  • What’s Up With Bloomsburyland?

    How to analyse Woolf’s inner life when that is impossible.

  • Margaret Drabble on Amber Reeves

    Fabian daughter of Fabian mother, adult education teacher, writer, activist, more.

  • Morality Police Enforce ‘Islamic Values’ in Gaza

    Woman murdered for walking on beach with sister and fiance.

  • Lakoff’s Vocabulary Overhaul as Road to Victory

    Just get the frames right, and everyone will finally understand.

  • Salon Visits David Horowitz

    And finds that mild criticism is on a level with terrorism.

  • Andrea Dworkin

    The New York Times obit.