Author: Rock Hackshaw

Whenever I write on these blogs, and my topic elicits scores of vitriolic drivel in the comments-section, from people whose IQs seem to be in single-digits; my mind travels back to the days of the first messengers. Back in the day when kings, queens, princes and princesses might have been relevant (I have some doubt as to whether they ever were), the first messengers were runners to and from the war front. They were also the first news reporters of sort. Whenever the kingdom went to war, a call went out for teenage orphans to fill the bill of riding to and from the front, reporting on the status of the war. If the update was good and /or positive, then the messenger was feted on returning to the castle. He would be given a sumptuous banquet, bedded down in some lavish and elegant castle chamber, given his choice of courtesans, and sometimes even gold, silver, jewelry and other perquisites as a bonus. If there was bad news from the warfront; beheading the messenger, or imprisoning him in some dungeon were normal rewards; hence the term “killing the messenger”.

When I first wrote the “Brooklyn Story”, I figured that two parts would take care of this issue (residency), this time around: I was wrong. The story painfully continues. I talked about three individuals (and others by association and implication) whose residencies have been questioned by many in Brooklyn. I hoped to show that residency laws are ambiguous and nebulous, and that in political races both the spirit and letter of the law are usually violated; especially when applied against those not connected to the powers that be. Especially when used against insurgents challenging elected officials. I have always been outraged by this; it’s unfair and unjust.

Last week, the court challenge against Judge Shawndya Simpson’s residency started in a Brooklyn court. It was hastily moved to a court in Queens. For those who came into the room late, Ms. Simpson is running against Judge Diana Johnson, in a contest for the second Brooklyn Surrogate spot. Judge Margarita Lopez holds the other. Last Friday 17th August, 2007, Judge Peter O’Donoghue ruled that Ms. Simpson did in fact live in Brooklyn; tomorrow however, her opponents are going to the Appellate Court in order to reverse that ruling. Please remember that Ms. Simpson is the candidate being backed by the Brooklyn Democrat’s county organization. Note also that the same organization has in the past, backed surrogate judges who have been convicted- or removed under clouds of suspicion and corruption- over the last 30 years plus. Please remember also, that it was NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia who called the Surrogate Court: “the piggy bank for elected officials and politicians.” They all see it as a cookie jar of sorts.

Earlier in the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, his people believed that New York was a write-off; they felt that Hilary Rodham-Clinton was a lock to win most if not all the convention delegates coming out of New York. To the shrewd political analyst this observation probably made a lot of sense, but sometimes politics defy common sense, and at other times common sense defies conventional political thinking. What is shaping in Brooklyn is a case in point.

As soon as Barack Obama officially announced his presidential pursuit last winter, a group of young idealists came together shortly after to form an organization called: “Brooklyn for Barack Obama”. Almost immediately they hit the street; registering voters, recruiting volunteers, staging rallies, canvassing, politicking, visibly dealing with issues, spreading the Obama message and pushing their candidate. Despite the knowledge that Obama’s national campaign was reluctant to invest in a New York challenge, these young political neophytes, have been undeterred in their objective to deliver Brooklyn’s democrats to the Obama delegate count.

Please note that this column is rated for “mature audiences only”. If one or two “choice” words offend your pristine tastes: then skip this column. And please don’t lecture me in the comments-section about my writing-style unless you are willing to join the Room Eight colony of writers/bloggers, in order to demonstrate how best to do this.

And while I am on to disclaimers, let me state that I work for no political campaign this summer (and that was by my choice). Let me also state that I have no personal dislike for Vito, Bernie or Shawndya, who are the subjects in this two-part series; the issue at hand is bigger than either one of them. Let’s hope that this time around, they (and others) catch my drift; which I don’t even think is an abstract one.

I could write scores of Marty Markowitz stories; but I won’t; at least not right now. It would be fun though; it really would be. For full disclosure, let me state upfront that for many years, I was one of quite a few in the Crown Heights/ Flatbush community, committed to taking Marty Markowitz out of his senate seat (20 SD). We failed.

Marty was in office for about 20 years or so, in a district where minorities made up about 80% of the residents-with more than half of them either born in the Caribbean, or of parents so born. Some called Marty a comedian, others snidely remarked that he was a clown; lore has it that one Easter Sunday, he even ran around the black community in a white Easter-bunny suit. Needless to say: many of the more militant-black types thought he was an embarrassment. Well; I am not sure that those comments can hold up any more folks; Marty has been and continues to be: a winner (politically speaking).

Almost six months ago, when I started this three part series on the reasons why I felt that Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama should run for the US presidency, many people didn’t feel me; those two columns didn’t generate the usual responses that my writings on New York’s political cesspool generally do. Plus, after all: this enigma (Obama), calling himself a Negro (black-man), had no chance of winning; right?

Truth be told, it appears to me that most of the people here on Room Eight (along with most of the readers), really want me to focus my writings on Brooklyn’s political gossip, spiced with a lil history of my personal involvement in some of the in-fighting. It’s what draws many of them to Room Eight (www.r8ny.com); it’s what makes me the most read (and most commented on) blogger of this particular colony of political writers. It’s what makes this blog so popular in Brooklyn especially (and in some other parts of the city too). Political gossip and credible innuendo is sexy; it’s like a catfight (for men). So; a lot of people will probably hate this particular column for various reasons; I must admit that the hate will be somewhat understandable given the true nature of this country; which despite all its great attributes: is still very racist.

Youngsters have a rhyme that they say or chant, whenever they accuse another of lying; it goes like this: “liar, liar, pants on fire” (if it’s a male being accused); or “liar, liar, panties on fire” (if it’s a female being accused of not telling the truth). So there is a story presently circulating in political Brooklyn that accuses three people of lying through their teeth; some are saying that any minute now, the noses on these three individuals will start growing inch by inch-just like Pinocchio’s did when he lied. Could this be true?

Let me introduce the three individuals involved: Vito Lopez, Bernie Catcher and Shawndya Simpson. Mr. Lopez is the Democrat’s county leader-having succeeded the disgraced Clarence Norman a year or so ago. Some say his lies start with his residency- which Brooklyn’s District Attorney (Charles Hynes) refuses to look into- since many claims that he really lives in Queens, but represents Brooklyn’s Bushwick area in the New York State Assembly. Mr. Catcher is the district leader of the 59 AD, but most insiders say that he really lives outside the district. Ms. Simpson is a civil court judge from King’s County, who insiders claim lives in South Orange, New Jersey. Since I am told that they all read my blog, I expect that they (or their minions) will respond to this column in the comment section, ensuring a nice discussion on the contents.

Recently, the New York State Assembly passed legislation favoring same-sex marriages, despite the fact that a federal statute (Defense of Marriage Act) legally defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. Proponents of this measure have argued that it’s about equality, civil-rights, justice and human-rights for all; but is it really? To me, the same-sex marriage debate is ostensibly an attempt by advocates to redefine traditional marriage, which for eons in civil society, has been in essence: quasi-religious ceremonial arrangements/agreements between men and women; which society, culture, religion and government, sanctioned, blessed, approved, encouraged, formalized, legalized and such; for myriad positive and sensible reasons.

To the many peeps who have contacted or tried to contact me, enquiring as to why I haven’t written a column here for the past seven weeks: I’ll be back real soon.<.......> I had to take a lil hiatus in order to clear my head a bit. I also had to consider a couple runs for public office. I went to Trinidad for a brief visit (as a pre-requisite to possibly participating in the election campaign down there later this year) and for a little R&R. <....>

Today, I decided not to run for Congress in 2008 (it’s too late to start this/ especially as it relates to fundraising), but I am considering a run for the City Council in 2009; I will finalize that decision next year. There are talks afoot to do a wide ranging challenge of various district-leaderships (Dems.) in many boroughs during next year’s presidential excitement; so far these ideas are inchoate. There are many people who are rather disenchanted with the leadership of New’s York’s democrats and want to mix it up a bit. If those conversations mature then who knows what I’ll do next year; but I am definitely not running for Congress (11th) then, unless I hit the LOTTO soon/ lol. <....>

Some impatient people are betting that New York governor Eliot Spitzer will disappoint his many fans, who were so optimistic for his political agenda, after his landslide victory last fall. They are saying that given Spitzer’s rocky start as governor, it is imperative that the democrats control the Senate in two years. They are saying that Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver may batter Spitzer into submission unless he pulls this off. They are also saying that the powers behind the leaders of the Senate and Assembly are so entrenched that Eliot has bitten off more than he could chew. They are suggesting that he change his approach since most of the members of the two legislative bodies are spineless. I hope like hell that he continues the good fight for political reform and the like. I hope like hell that he stands strong, stands his ground and stays the course.