Custody: Emailed Agenda of Son and Daughter 29 NOV 21- Court Order Compliance

So far, we had only heard from Mr. Jones, who sent two emails to Ms. Jones—one via OFW and one to her personal email. Ms. Jones responds for the first time after these emails, replying to Mr. Jones’ 3 November 2021 email without addressing its content. For more information on the last email click, https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2025/11/communicating-via-personal-email-when.html?spref=tw

On 25 Nov 2021, Ms. Jones wrote an angry and threatening email:

You have violated the court order issued on Oct 29, 2021, 1 day after it is issuance.  

The first response we received from Ms. Jones began with an accusation of violation of the court order. Starting an email with an accusation or using an accusatory tone can impede communication between the parties involved. The other parent may become defensive or hostile after reading the opening sentence. Neither response is likely to result in a positive outcome. Before making an accusation, it is better to explain the reasons for concern regarding a potential violation of the existing court order. The issue that needs to be resolved should be stated clearly, with an objective focus on the matter itself rather than on the other parent’s perceived negative behavior. 

You have no legal authority to make a decision to open a gmail account without my knowledge or permission as their father in accordance with the court decision.  

This statement appears overly demanding. Nothing is more likely to upset the other parent than language that appears to minimize his or her parental rights. Ms. Jones’ position that Mr. Jones does not have legal authority to open a Gmail account for their son without her approval is based on the tie-breaker authority granted to her by the court.

ORDERED that Plaintif (hereinafter Mr. Jones) and Defendant (herinafter Ms. Jones) shall have joint legal custody the minor children, Son (born XX, XXXX) and daughter (born XX, XXXX). Ms. Jones shall have a tie breaking authority in the event that the parties are not able to agree on a legal custody decision. Ms. Jones shall be required to a make good faith attempt to communicate with Mr. Jones on legal custody decisions and shall make a good faith attempt to reach a joint decision prior to utilizing her tie breaking authority. The parties shall have equal access to all information and documents pertaining to son and daughter's education, medical care, and other important aspects of their lives and both parties shall be listed as parents/emergency contacts for all third party forms related to the children,

Mr. Jones and Ms. Jones are expected to discuss matters relating to their children before making decisions. If they do not agree, Ms. Jones makes the final decision in the best interests of the children. Mr. Jones should have spoken with Ms. Jones before proceeding, if in fact he was the one who opened the Gmail account for their son. However, Ms. Jones should have focused on explaining why she did not believe it was a good idea to open a Gmail account for their young son, rather than emphasizing Mr. Jones’ lack of final decision-making authority. Doing so may cause Mr. Jones to focus on the negative tone and reinforce the existing power struggle.

Your wife has no right to open a gmail account using our son's information without your knowledge or permission.  

Ms. Jones’ statements do not make it clear whether she believes Mr. Jones or his wife opened a Gmail account for their son, or whether they did it together. Accusing both of them creates confusion. Ms. Jones appears to be trying to clarify that neither Mr. Jones nor his wife has the right to open a Gmail account for their son without first speaking to her and obtaining her consent. She could have been clearer by stating what occurred and what she found, rather than framing it as an accusation. It is correct that Mr. Jones’ wife does not have any legal rights to make decisions regarding the children of Mr. and Ms. Jones. However, it is important to state that fact clearly and appropriately.

Her actions are illegal and I will be taking legal actions against. 

It is becoming clearer that Mr. Jones’ wife may have been the one who opened the Gmail account. In many U.S. states, a stepparent has no legal authority to make decisions regarding their spouse’s children. If Ms. Jones were to report Mr. Jones’ wife for unlawful online activity involving children, there could be legal consequences. A stepparent should be careful about what actions they can and cannot take in relation to their spouse’s children.

There is, unfortunately, a common misconception—often reinforced by terms such as ‘stepmother’ or ‘stepfather’—that suggests parental authority is automatically granted through marriage. However, marriage to a parent does not make a person a legal mother or father to the children. It simply means they are married to one of the child’s parents and may share a household depending on custody arrangements.

The legal parent must clearly define the stepparent’s role in relation to the children. Without a court order or legal agreement, marriage alone does not grant a stepparent rights to make decisions regarding their spouse’s children

Feel free to check FTC's guidelines, these guidelines have been violated by your wife.

This suggests that Ms. Jones has done some research before drafting this email. Ms. Jones further explains why she believes Mr. Jones’ wife may have violated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) guidelines. FTC guidelines, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection framework, generally require parental consent before collecting or using a child’s personal information to create online accounts, and an email address can involve the use of personally identifiable information.

In this case, Ms. Jones alleges that Mr. Jones’ wife used their son’s information without her consent, which she believes may be a violation of FTC guidelines. Online issues involving children are taken very seriously. However, such matters can be difficult to prove and would depend on the specific facts and applicable law.

If a matter rises to the level of a potential violation, it may be reported to the Federal Trade Commission through their fraud reporting system: FTC Fraud Reporting Portal.”

it is a federal offence. 

Crimes against children online are a federal matter. It is important for stepparents to understand that their spouse’s children are not their own, and they cannot take actions involving another person’s children without the consent of the child’s mother and/or father. In this particular case, that would require Ms. Jones’ consent. 

This is exploiting minor children.

It is true that using a child’s personally identifiable information to open an account may constitute fraud or exploitation. However, a court would likely consider it an extreme response if the stepparent acted without malicious intent.

The fact that you don't know about it shows that she has no regard for you either. 

Ms. Jones is making a claim that Mr. Jones’ wife did not inform Mr. Jones about her actions. Mr. Jones’ wife is a foreign national who visited the United States for the first time during the court proceedings. She may not be familiar with cultural or legal expectations in the U.S. At this point, Mr. Jones should have a conversation with his wife and explain that she does not have legal authority to take such actions, particularly involving his children under the age of thirteen. 

This is the second incident from the same weekend- Tictoc video and gmail account both without my knowledge and both were not communicated to me. 

Ms. Jones, as the mother of the children and primary legal parent, raises an important point. It was not only the Gmail account at issue; there was also a TikTok video recorded by Mr. Jones’ wife with the children. Mr. Jones’ wife did not speak with Ms. Jones to obtain permission or inform her that she was recording a TikTok video involving the children. In the United States, recording or using images of minors may require parental consent depending on the circumstances and applicable laws.

Although Ms. Jones believes Mr. Jones’ wife may be at fault and could potentially be held accountable, Ms. Jones’ email comes across as angry and demanding, which may not create a positive impression on a judge or on Mr. Jones. Such a tone is more likely to provoke a defensive or hostile response from Mr. Jones, neither of which would be a constructive outcome for Ms. Jones.

This morning I called to speak about this subject and you hung up on me.

Now we understand where some of the information she was referring to above came from. Ms. Jones found out from her son that Mr. Jones’ wife opened a Gmail account for him without their son asking Mr. Jones’ wife to do so. Their son was about 12 years old. She felt infuriated that this new person, who had just met her children for two days, could do something like this.

She picked up the phone and called him. The phone call turned into a shouting match, during which Mr. Jones diverted the conversation to his relationship with his wife in an attempt to make Ms. Jones jealous, rather than focus on the fact that his wife may have crossed legal lines. Mr. Jones screamed and yelled, and Ms. Jones did not get to tell him what she wanted. She became even angrier when he hung up on her.

The best course of action is to take a minute to calm yourself down before making a call or sending an email. Never send an email while angry. Anger clouds judgment. Ms. Jones could have written a much better message, which would have triggered a better response from Mr. Jones—one focused on resolving the problem rather than defending or attacking her.

I need the password and the email address to delete the email. provide me with these asap. 

This last sentence is the only one that actually matters. Ms. Jones had a purpose for this email: she wanted Mr. Jones’ wife to provide the information regarding the email address so that Ms. Jones could delete the email account for her son. Unfortunately, the angry and threatening tone of the email undermined its purpose and prevented Ms. Jones from achieving her intended outcome.

This point should have been the central theme from the beginning of the email. She should have focused on her son’s age and why she believed he was not ready for an email account. She could then have requested the necessary information to remove or delete the Gmail account.

Set a clear goal for what you want to achieve with your email. Make sure you clearly convey your message so that your goal can be achieved. To do this, wait until you are calm before writing an email or making a phone call. As stated before, anger clouds judgment and creates a hostile situation in which positive communication is difficult. 

This email was written very poorly. It expressed anger and contained numerous threats. The tone focused so heavily on the threats that the request for information was effectively lost. It is very unlikely that Mr. Jones or his wife would provide the information, or even recognize that it was being requested, because the threatening language overwhelmed the message.

The email was sent as a reply from her personal account to his personal email account. This matter involves an incident concerning their children; therefore, it should have been sent through OFW and not from her personal account. Does Ms. Jones still lack access to OFW?

Even though the party at fault was Mr. Jones and his wife, in a custody case this email would reflect very unfavorably on Ms. Jones. It would make her appear to be someone who cannot have a rational conversation without making threats and who struggles to control her anger.

As a parent, communication with the other parent should focus solely on the children. The children are the only reason the parents need to communicate with one another. Therefore, when analyzing the issue, it is important to consider what is in the best interest of the child or children.

In this situation, Ms. Jones did not support her young son’s information being entered into Gmail because he is under the age of thirteen, which may create a risk of his personal information being collected by bad online actors. Additionally, he does not yet have the resources or maturity to manage this type of system.

Accordingly, she should have simply requested that the necessary information be provided so she could delete the created Gmail account. In that tone, the likelihood of receiving a positive response from the other parent would have been significantly higher.

What do you think Mr. Jones' response would be? 

Poetry: OBIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To the shadow I had left alone before I

crossed the border, my shadow that stayed

lonely and hid in the dark of the night,

freezing where it was, never needing a visa.

To my shadow that’s been waiting for my return,

homeless except when I was walking by its side

in the summer light.

To my shadow that wishes to go to school

with the children of morning, but couldn’t fit

through the classroom doors.

To my shadow that has caught cold now, that’s been

sneezing and coughing, no one there saying o it God Bless!

To my shadow that’s been crushed by cars and vans,

its chest pierced by shrapnel and bullets

flying with no wings,

my shadow that no one’s attending to,

                                      bleeding black blood

                                       through its memory

                                       now, and forever.

 

Poetry: My Grandfather's Well

 I never met Grandfather, but I can see him

close to a well in Yaffa. The forehead he's wiping

is a glittering, wrinkled map of the past

His olive-wood cane leans

against an orange tree.

I can see birds the color of earth

when it rains.

I can watch them

harvest oranges, pile them

on roofs of houses

in the refugee camp.

Where have you been? Grandfather asks me,

his voice getting

weary of

plowing the thick, muddy,

soil of language.

My arms are down, too tired to lift

even to say hi.

 

 I have been pulling up buckets of water

from the camp's well,

searching for words

for my epic.

 

My grandfather stands still close to the well.

He never abandoned it, even after the Nakba,

even after death.

His hands pour water

down into the well.

 

In the refugee camp,

where land is strewn with 

debris, where air chokes with rage,

my harvest is yet to arrive,

my seeds only sprout on this page. 

Toha . 

 

Federalist 7

The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

To the People of the State of New York:

IT IS sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It would be a full answer to this question to say--precisely the same inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those restraints were removed.

Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)

 Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject. At present, a large part of the vacant Western territory is, by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which made the cession, on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt when the motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion. The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion, by right of representation. Their argument would be, that a grant, once made, could not be revoked; and that the justice of participating in territory acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy, remained undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all the States, that each had a right to a share of this common stock, there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted, as to a proper rule of apportionment. Different principles would be set up by different States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a pacific adjustment.

In the wide field of Western territory, therefore, we perceive an ample theatre for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend, that the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, respecting the land at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The articles of confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their disadvantage.

Those who had an opportunity of seeing the inside of the transactions which attended the progress of the controversy between this State and the district of Vermont, can vouch the opposition we experienced, as well from States not interested as from those which were interested in the claim; and can attest the danger to which the peace of the Confederacy might have been exposed, had this State attempted to assert its rights by force. Two motives preponderated in that opposition: one, a jealousy entertained of our future power; and the other, the interest of certain individuals of influence in the neighboring States, who had obtained grants of lands under the actual government of that district. Even the States which brought forward claims, in contradiction to ours, seemed more solicitous to dismember this State, than to establish their own pretensions. These were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. New Jersey and Rhode Island, upon all occasions, discovered a warm zeal for the independence of Vermont; and Maryland, till alarmed by the appearance of a connection between Canada and that State, entered deeply into the same views. These being small States, saw with an unfriendly eye the perspective of our growing greatness. In a review of these transactions we may trace some of the causes which would be likely to embroil the States with each other, if it should be their unpropitious destiny to become disunited.

The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.

The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative.

The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties. There are even dissimilar views among the States as to the general principle of discharging the public debt. Some of them, either less impressed with the importance of national credit, or because their citizens have little, if any, immediate interest in the question, feel an indifference, if not a repugnance, to the payment of the domestic debt at any rate. These would be inclined to magnify the difficulties of a distribution. Others of them, a numerous body of whose citizens are creditors to the public beyond proportion of the State in the total amount of the national debt, would be strenuous for some equitable and effective provision. The procrastinations of the former would excite the resentments of the latter. The settlement of a rule would, in the meantime, be postponed by real differences of opinion and affected delays. The citizens of the States interested would clamour; foreign powers would urge for the satisfaction of their just demands, and the peace of the States would be hazarded to the double contingency of external invasion and internal contention.

Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted, and the apportionment made. Still there is great room to suppose that the rule agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some States than upon others. Those which were sufferers by it would naturally seek for a mitigation of the burden. The others would as naturally be disinclined to a revision, which was likely to end in an increase of their own incumbrances. Their refusal would be too plausible a pretext to the complaining States to withhold their contributions, not to be embraced with avidity; and the non-compliance of these States with their engagements would be a ground of bitter discussion and altercation. If even the rule adopted should in practice justify the equality of its principle, still delinquencies in payments on the part of some of the States would result from a diversity of other causes--the real deficiency of resources; the mismanagement of their finances; accidental disorders in the management of the government; and, in addition to the rest, the reluctance with which men commonly part with money for purposes that have outlived the exigencies which produced them, and interfere with the supply of immediate wants. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.

Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice.

The probability of incompatible alliances between the different States or confederacies and different foreign nations, and the effects of this situation upon the peace of the whole, have been sufficiently unfolded in some preceding papers. From the view they have exhibited of this part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars; and by the destructive contentions of the parts into which she was divided, would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us.

 Hamilton, A (1787, dec ) Federalist 7. The Independent Journal. 

Poetry: Love has to be Blind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The moment things turn into desperation

Love appears with its glory

It smiles big and embraces your dedication

You did not give up

You held on to the hope with all of your heart

In the face of the darkest memories

The loneliest hours you wished for that pureness

You wished for that one person who would

Love you no matter what

Never sees your past

Never lets other people paint a picture of you

For all one knows, you are the one

Love has to be blind

Love has to be blind

Williams, C. (Aug 22, 2013). Love Has to be Blind

Poetry: Illusion

And he looked into her eyes

She was not sure if he was all right

Did he mean all the nice things he said?

Or was it another man with whole bunch of lies

 

She thought for a second then

She liked it even if it was a lie

She has not heard compliments for a long time

It has moved her body and mind

 

She could not help but fantasize

Think about hot moments that might to come

Did he mean all the nice things he said?

Or was it another man with whole bunch of lies

 

Williams, C. (Sep 16, 2014) Illusion

Potery: My Dream as a Child

 I still have dreams about

a room filled with toys

my mother always promised

we could have

if we were rich.

I still have dreams about

seeing the refugee camp

from a window on a plane

I still have dreams about

Seeing the animals

I learnt about in third grade:

elephant, giraffe, kangaroo,

and wolf.

I still have dreams about

running for miles

and miles with no border

blocking my feet,

with no unexploded bombs

scaring me off.

I still have dreams about

my favorite team playing

soccer on the beach,

me waiting for the ball

to come my way

and run away with it.

I dream still about

my grandfather, how much

I want to pick oranges

with him in Yaffa.

But my grandfather died

Yaffa is occupied, and oranges

no longer grow

in his weeping groves.

Toha, M. A (2024) Forest Noise, My Dream as a Child

Poetry: Gaza Notebook (2021-2023)

 My two eyes, when closed,

see different things:

one me leaving Gaza in peace,

in one piece,

the other, me getting jailed at the Erez crossing point.

My head: a confused old TV channel

picking up crossed signals.

                             

(In Egypt visiting the Red Sea)

Riding a jet boat for the first time,

my hat falls in the sea, waves

wear it now,

and at night I'm back home, 

unable to sleep.

  Toha, M. A. (2024) Forest of Noise, Gaza Notebook

At fifth grade, I visit the school library.

On a wall by the door, a poster claims,

"If you read books, you live more than one life."

Now I'm thirty and whenever I look at faces

around me, old or young, on each forehead I read:

"if you live in Gaza, you die several times."

 

The bomb when it pounded the sea

made an eye socket beneath the sand.

The fish thought the sea

had been crying forever.

             .

She asked her teacher:

if there are four directions,

then why do we have only two feet?

             .

 When it rains, farmers think the sky loves them.

They are wrong. It rains either because 

the clouds cannot carry the sacks of water too long,

or a because a sparrow has said a prayer

when it heard the thirsty roots begging.

           .

No one at home.

the door knob 

only dust touches it now

Post grow parched 

Frying pans miss the smell of olive oil.

Clothlesliness everywhere pine for soap scent.

The flower pot / the window /the key 

{language}

stone of house after explosion  get amnesia

Some forget they were in a wall in a bedroom or a kitchen or a bathroom

some in a ceiling

some forget they sat behind photo frames for years

a few stones (forget) / they were stones

those hit by the bomb

           . 

Birds draw the lines of their homes in the sky.

and the wind...

      .

walking on the beach,

dreams grow between each two footprints 

on the sand

and the waves...

     .

Her dreams,

She threw them onto the closest sea wave

and that wave

never returned

    .

Raindrops slide on windowpanes, 

each one exploring a new space, 

a bed made for the night,

or, on the kitchen counter, a glass full of water

(young ancestors)

(or missing siblings)

           .

upon birth, mask up your children and leave them unnamed

so

the angel of death can't find them

someone may ask 

why not paint their faces change their names

everyday

a nightingale on the tree of dusk exclaims

what if both the painter and the paint

work for the angel of death

a stone near a cemetery suggests

why give birth to children

at all

     .

in the camp / house small

power off / humid

drone sound buzz in through bullet holes

to have walls

in a blessing

outside

young and old

spend most of the night 

in the street 

in the camp

a street can become a living room

talking talking   /watching cats and mice

scavenging through trash for cheese and meat

rooms inside: drawers for tired souls

temporarily stored

 

Culture: Tail of Quarrel of Two Kurdish Aghas

Tefik and Gafur Aghas quarreled over a widower Kurdish woman. A daughter of a well known agha and widower of a well known man, she was known for her beauty and wealth. Each of the man demanded her and threatened to kill each other. As more threats were flying around, both tribes became enemies and conflict between the two Kurdish tribes escalated to a point the English political officer, residing over Iraq, worried about the stability of their colonization in the region. English political officer aka the colonizer sent for both men to attend Serai at Erbil for the same day and the same time in secrecy. Neither one of them knew the other would be there. First Tefik Agha arrived he was taken to a room then Gafur Agha arrived and he too was taken to another room. As they were being usher to be taken to the colonizing officer's room, they came face to face with each other. The English officer said, 

You too are just pair of braggarts. Because you both happened to want the same woman you go about boasting what you will do if you meet and upsetting the whole country. Well now you've met and we will see what happens. I have here two loaded pistols. You are to be taken to the opposite corners of the courtyard outside and each will be given one of them. You can then shoot away each other until only one of you is alive to claim the lady.

He then turned to the police officer to take them to the courtyard. He said, 

Show these gentlemen to courtyard, I have ordered a mule driver to be ready to take the dead one back to his village. 

Tefik Agha looked back at the English officer then the pistol. Shocked at the ridiculous words which were coming out of this ignorant stranger's mouth, said, 

You can't expect us to fight.

Gafur Agha said, 

Absolutely not. We don't fight each other this way. Our men fight.

Clueless colonizer officer asked, 

Will you take the pistols or not.

They responded, 

No.

Colonizer continued, 

Well don't come back to see me again. I will let everyone and the lady know how cowardly humbug you are. I guess she will hear of it anyway.

These two Kurdish aghas found this as some sort of a joke and thought hilarious and broke into laughter. Bonded over the joke and left merrily then normalized their relationship.

Road to Kurdistan. 

Poetry: Grandparents

 In the refugee camp, Grandmother Khadra puffs away at her 

cigarette. Smoke mingles with the coffee steam rising from

Grandfather Hasan's chipped but favorite cup. Short Khadra muses 

on her wedding party in Yaffa in 1946: They placed two cinder blocks 

under my feet on the stage. My mother brought dinner for us at night: 

chicken soup, rice and some bread she baked in her clay oven.  

 

Khadra turns to Hasan: You lit the candle before the wind blew it out.

Through our bedroom's wooden casement window, a breeze froze my 

makeup but your kisses melted me down.

 Together in the refugee camp,  thirty-five years after their 

wedding, Khadra fingers her beads while Hasan observes her from his 

wheelchair. Dust covers their photo frame, which Hasan hung on a 

wall when he could stand. Hasan and Khadra's stories fill their small

house. At night, it starts to drizzle, and beads of rain seep through 

some holes in their corrugated asbestos roof.  Rain wakes my Khadra

and her children. My father is still nine. Rain waters the stories that 

sleep on the old, tiled floor.  

Political Article: Federalist 6

Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

To the People of the State of New York:

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804)

 A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion--the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.

The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute, at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the MEGARENSIANS, another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias, or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity, or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.

The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII., permitting his vanity to aspire to the triple crown, ⁵ entertained hopes of succeeding in the acquisition of that splendid prize by the influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure the favor and interest of this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England into a war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at the hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over which he presided by his counsels, as of Europe in general. For if there ever was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of universal monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V., of whose intrigues Wolsey was at once the instrument and the dupe.

The influence which the bigotry of one female, the petulance of another, and the cabals of a third, had in the contemporary policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally known.

To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the production of great national events, either foreign or domestic, according to their direction, would be an unnecessary waste of time. Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the sources from which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a variety of instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of the reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference, tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a DESPERATE DEBTOR, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,  which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.

There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA and BOURBON, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader, protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court.

The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of commercial considerations,--the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation.

From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?

Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare--!

So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors." This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.

PUBLIUS, 

 Hamilton, A (1787, November 17) Federalist 6. The Independent Journal.

Jay, J (1787, November 10) Federalist 5. The Independent Journal. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/09/federalist-no-5-author-john-jay.html

Book Review: Confession of a Fast Woman

Published in 1992

Cars have been an important part of socioeconomic status, as well as a necessity, in the United States since the 1920s. At some point in their lives, most people in the United States own or operate a car due to the country’s geography and infrastructure. Public transportation is not widely available in many states, particularly in rural areas.

Given this context, it is not surprising to find books about cars in the United States. However, it is somewhat surprising to find a book about fast cars written by a woman who, by her own admission, identified as a feminist and an environmentalist in 1992.

Lesley Hazleton was writing about politics for The New York Times when she began writing for Lear’s Magazine about race cars. Lear’s Magazine was founded by Francine Lear, a three times divorcee, and focused on targeting women over forty-five as its readership. It is not clear whether the magazine achieved its mission, as it closed after six years. Hazleton’s column about her experiences driving race and fast cars ran in Lear’s Magazine from 1989 to 1991. In 1992, Hazleton published her book, Confessions of a Fast Woman, to recount her experiences and provide a picture of her conflicting feelings in a reflective, and at times overly romanticized, manner. Even today, the book has a limited appeal to women as a broader audience.

Hazleton, in her forties, was writing for the targeted audience of women in their forties in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The idea was that women can enjoy driving fast cars just as much as men and can experience the same level of thrill and exhilaration. To prove her point, Hazleton went so far as to take a job in a car shop as an apprentice mechanic. She learned the detailed workings of car repair and how an engine functions.

Were women interested in cars in the same way men were interested in cars during that period in history, or was Hazleton’s column an attempt to create that interest? Or was it an attempt to present a picture of a woman as a representative of all women in an alternate narrative?

Let’s be honest: women are not as broadly interested in cars beyond their function and, perhaps, their aesthetics. If a car is expensive, it may even be more appealing to some women. In 2026, I have yet to see a single woman working as a car mechanic. Car dealerships still have very few women in sales roles; however, receptionists at these dealerships and shops are often women.

I do not believe anyone is stopping women from becoming car mechanics. I think women are generally not as interested in becoming mechanics and/or race car drivers. I doubt the situation was any different in 1992, when Confessions of a Fast Woman was published, or during Hazleton’s research from 1989 to 1991. From 1951 to the present, only five women have competed in Formula One racing.

Hazleton was a hopeless romantic in many of her works, and Confessions of a Fast Woman is no exception. She romanticized fast cars and created analogies and metaphors between driving fast cars, feeling powerful, feeling excited, and even experiencing sexual gratification. She described cars, and their impact on the male psyche, as empowering, status-elevating tools associated with masculinity. She suggested that cars and their drivers (usually male) can become psychologically merged, with the cars’ horsepower symbolizing the drivers’ own power.

She also compared these ideas to her own experiences driving fast cars as a woman, describing how, in one instance, she not only felt exhilarated but also experienced a peak emotional and physical response while driving. She equated fast cars with machismo, power, and heightened sensation, and explored how women might experience similar feelings through their own engagement with driving.

Much of her work focuses on how drivers of fast cars may self-identify with their vehicles and internalize the power of the machine as an extension of themselves.

"By dehumanizing others, we dehumanize ourselves." As Hazleton attempted to provide a more refined exploration of the relationship between humans and machines, calling it machine/I—particularly themes of power and dehumanization through identification with technology—she also drew on historical references, including Nazi Germany. In doing so, she highlighted information about one of the most well-known automakers, Porsche, that may not have been widely known by the general public: the role of the company’s founder during World War II and his involvement in supporting Nazi Germany.

“Hazleton did a great job of analyzing different genders’ approaches to cars and the impact of gender roles, femininity, and masculinity on how cars and their drivers perceive themselves, as well as on the culture of macho men. She stood firmly against the rigid gender roles of the time. She stated,”

"It is simplistic, even crude, to say that a refusal of sexual stereotyping means that I am trying to be male."  

She wanted to portray the idea that she could be just as interested in cars as the next guy. However, she contradicted herself when she told the story of older men taking turns sitting in a fast car and how she felt it was silly to do so. This suggested a lack of interest in cars compared to male interest in general. She also explained how the people around her—those in her social circle and class—were very curious about and supportive of her efforts to drive very expensive and fast cars, yet the same people were judgmental about her interest in working in a car shop as an apprentice mechanic. She explored ideas of status, cars, jobs, gender, gender roles, and the environmental impacts of cars.

Her comparison of her first car,  deux chevaux, to the fast cars, Jaguars, Porsches, Mercs, Lamborghinis, Corvettes, Alfasa and Range Rovers,  she later drove for her job, rang a drastic contrast to her feelings about what these cars represents in general. She emphasized the Frenchness of deux chevaux and what this car meant to French people.

 She continued her analysis with the risk taking by drawing similarities between driving fast cars and the bungee jumping. She believed car racing was a risk filled activity and was an abnormal behavior. 

Hazleton tried and drove these fast cars to understand the feeling behind it. She perfectly described the speed and its physical and mental impact on the driver. However, was she taken seriously by others as a speed driver? She stated in the book that some of her instructors suggested she should become a race driver. The book gave me the impression that the male instructions were being kind in the way of men. Men will encourage women when they feel a sexual tension or when woman comes across sexually forceful. Hazleton in her mid forties was an attractive, sexually confident, flirtatious, white woman. I don't believe for a second the men truly believed she should become a race driver.   

Lesley Hazleton (1945-2024)

She also compared her sexual gratification from fast fossil fuel cars to the electric cars which she perceived as the cars of the future.  She doubted her own convictions and loyalty to the cause of environmentalism and the impact of fossil fuel cars due to her obsession with speed and fast cars at the time. She thought of the speed as something demonic which had a hold of her. 

There is so much to unpack in this book. Did she fall into the trap of having the opportunity to have access to fast cars and completely forgot her own principals for a while?  She had to remember she was an environmentalist and against the fossil fuel cars.  

The book manifests a couple of very powerful points: It shows given the opportunity anybody can sway from the right path. Hazleton was an environmentalist yet she became obsessed with fast cars. She promoted these cars passionately in her columns and in this book, there is a glorification of fast cars. Her writings influence regular woman to think it is seductive, powerful and sexually gratifying to drive a fast car. The Lear's Magazine's owner, Frances Lear and Hazleton, both, believed that women's liberation depended on women's practice of male activities and being accepted in male dominated areas, jobs and cultures. This book is a testament of an era where women try to do the things men liked to free themselves from men.

Hazleton successfully covered, compared, analyzed many aspects which included, gender, social norms, power, status, technology, changes, personal conflict between what is wanted and what is needed, etc. The book is an enjoyable book. Hazleton uses a basic language and romanticizes with concepts. The book is available free of charge on Internet Archive, a free online library where the books can be checked out for fourteen days each time. 

Hazleton, L. (1992) Confession of a Fast Woman. Addison-Wesley. https://archive.org/details/confessionsoffas0000hazl/page/40/mode/2up

Schraff, A. (2001) Secrets in the Shadows. Townsend Press.  https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2025/07/book-review-secrets-in-shadows.html