"Jewelry Store Clerk, Slain in Robbery"
DATE: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010, 12:20 p.m.
LOCATION: 962 Madison Ave., Upper East Side, Manhattan.
The police say the robber who killed 71-year-old jewelry store clerk Henry Menahem Wednesday dumped a Fabrege-style egg in the trash as he fled with $1 million in gems and expensive necklace.."
"The New York Post reported that the suspect entered R.S. Durant Jewelers at lunchtime, brandished a 9 mm pistol and threw two bags at Menahem and a second clerk. They refused to fill the bags."
On the upper East Side, Madison Avenue jewelry stores do not have clerks.
They have employees. Clerks are people who do the paper work, menial tasks that usually deal with paper. But Henry Menahem was a 71 years old man who worked as a salesperson, an employee at a fancy Jewelry store on the upper east side of Manhattans and to refer to him as a clerk is an insult.
71 years old man. What is this all about? Why is he not retired?
If there was any bad feeling, any kind of degrading experience going on in this jewelry store this 71 year old man could have stayed away. He would not have been at the R.S. Durant jewelery store on the day of the robbery.
But there he was, already in possession of his medical insurance from the federal government and social security and maybe, if his employees had been generous, a pension check awaited his retirement.
We will never know the mind set of this financial arrangement because the newspapers which provided the readers with the "information" did not interview the establishment owners to learn and convey to us why this 71 year old man was still working at their store and what the arrangement would have been upon his retirement.
Evidently, Henry, known affectionately by those close to him as Hank, was asked to put the store's merchandise in the bags that the assailant held out to him. Hank refused.
A clerk refused to turn over the merchandise. Who is this man? Who is the employer?
In a jewelry store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan located in a part of town where even the clothing stores which house merchandise far less valuable than the multimillion dollar jewelry store, R.S. Durant, station a guard at the door to protect....... You know him. He is the man who contracts out his life to protect the store and its contents with his Life if need be in exchange for a given amount of money.
That in itself is strange. I can't imagine any money that can compensate for the loss of human life, no matter how common a practice this might be.
We don't know why, but we know that the man appointed to save Henry's life did not do so and as there was no mention of his absence in the article it is safe to conclude, he was not supposed to be there, not paid to guard the R. S. Durant jewelry store. I wonder if the assailant knew that as well.
Why did Henry refuse to comply with the request?
That mystery defies all possibility that Henry thought of himself as a "clerk". If I am a clerk there is sufficient separation between me and my work that upon request made for compliance at gun point I would have handed over whatever the assailant wanted. I would not have thought twice about releasing a set of papers or anything the content of which would have been deemed well beyond my level of comprehension or possible personal possession.
Upon denying the request /demand Henry was shot in the chest, bled profusely and died. The assailant left the store dropping a Fabrege-style jeweled egg into the common trash bin on the street, The egg's worth, well over one million dollars.
So....... in addition to the highly prejudicial articles that appeared in the newspapers void of the human interviews with employer, wife, children grandchildren or friends and neighbors etc. (for which, given the mind set of the reporters is probably a good thing) we know....
There was no guard stationed in the store at the time of the robbery
Henry did not think of himself as a clerk but as an employee.
His opinion of himself at work seems to be shared by his employer because they kept him on the job 6 years after the customary or legal retirement age.
Why Henry was working at the Jewelry store that day is not know and without asking those who do know, we can not know the answer.
But
from our personal experience we know that
if the employer, the owner of the store had been shot dead while trying to defend his precious commodity, his multi million dollars worth of Jewelry this story would go on and on with the fullness of detail, interviews, tears, that would make everyone in the fullness of time tired of reading about it.
Fortunately
Henry's closest friends and family were spared that obsession with the 'truth'
The contrast between Henry giving his life to save his employer's jewelry and the failure of the employer to value Henry's life enough to place a guard in the store at all times to protect him forces the question; who is the stores' owner who values his wealth over people's lives. And who was Henry Menahem?
Henry appears to have been a devoted man, devoted to his menial job and most likely to his family. He lived by the creed of "thou shall not steal".
One can assume, he had self respect, the very sense of self respect that the New York Post and the New York Daily News undermined in their tabloid articles when they referred to Henry as a clerk. He was not a clerk. Henry was a loyal employee, a salesman in a high class, high powered Madison Ave upper east side of Manhattan establishment who gave his life for the possessions of another man. if Henry had complied and said, "here, take it", and filled the opened bags as requested, would he have gained financial reward or remuneration? We don't know, and unfortunately, we never will.
Henry Menahem is likened to a hero as in a Green tragedy. A man who is loyal to a fault, a man who lives by values we should all embrace, a man who seemed to go to work for more reasons than to make whatever little bit of money employees in our society earn.
Henry Menahem doomed by your own intractable virtues which we all strive for but seldom achieve.
May you rest in peace.
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Black Infidels: Humanism and African American Social Thought
By Sikivu Hutchinson
excerpt from The New Humanist Magazine, A Publication of Harvard's Humanist Chaplaincy
During a talk show discussion on relationships last year, radio personality and self-proclaimed dating guru Steve Harvey charged that atheists had no moral values. Anyone who didn't believe in God was an "idiot," he said, and women should steer clear of these rogue blasphemers at all costs. While atheist websites were abuzz with condemnations of Harvey, his tirade went unchallenged by mainstream African American media. Yet his view reflects conventional wisdom about African American communities and faith. Namely, that African Americans are so unquestioningly religious that having any other viewpoint is grounds for "revocation" of one's race credentials. With churches on every corner, religious idioms seamlessly woven into everyday black speech, faith-based license plates ubiquitous in black neighborhoods and black celebs thanking Jesus at every awards event, how could it be otherwise? According to a 2008 Pew Research Forum study, African Americans are indeed the most "consistently" religious ethnic group in the U.S. However, black Humanist scholars like Norm Allen, Executive Director of African Americans for Humanism, and Anthony Pinn, Professor of Humanities and Religious Studies at Rice University, point to another tradition. Both have critiqued the exclusion of Humanist influence from appraisals of African American social thought and civil rights resistance. Whilst acknowledging the key role African American Christian ideology played in black liberation, these scholars believe it is also crucial to highlight the influence of Humanist principles of rationalism, social justice, skepticism and freethought...
Read more at www.thenewhumanism.org
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Toe to Toe An improvement over Precious!
Ejecting "bad people" from the ghettos makes everyone happy,
A film by Emily Abt
This is the story of two girls, Tosha and Jesse, who attend a competitive Washington, D.C., prep school. Tosha is a fiercely determined African American scholarship student from Anacostia, one of Washington's poorest areas, while Jesse is a privileged, but troubled, white girl from Bethesda, who deals with promiscuous tendencies that pull her toward self-destruction. Toe to Toe is the story of their friendship that incorporates many common prejudices and tries to get beyond them. Sadly, one prejudice remains: to be poor is to be brutish, quasi human, almost mindless with little impulse control over immature angry impulses.
I don't expect men, nor young teenage boys to embrace this film I don't think it has the prejudicial ingredients to make it into the main stream American culture that wants to see white people "helping" the poor, fat, black, supposedly mean, stupid, lazy denizens who haven't made it into the White House. (as the recent and much too much applauded film Precious does) But my hesitation in recommending this film is the elevation of Princeton as a college over Howard where I think a healthier overall environment ensues and the clothes worn by the actors were too nice, too expensive.
This is a film where the poor seem angry at each other making life hell for everyone in their environment which is the unfounded prevalent idea of what ghetto life in America is like today. Putting family without community back into the picture of ghetto life doesn't give a true picture of what it is like to live in the "inner city".
What I enjoyed about Toe to Toe is its insistence on being about teenage kids being teenage kids, not miniature adults. I liked the detail of how isolated very wealthy people can be. The film captured how too much money seems to interfere with intimacy and healthy people interactions while the black girl is overwhelmed by family and unwanted people intrusions in the intimacy of her personal space.
What holds these girls together is how both are trying to survive in their own worlds where they are outcasts; one because she is smarter or rather a better student then her cohorts, the other because she is wealthier than her school mates and lives essentially without a stay-at-home mother.(unfortunately women don't rise above the ugly fray of prejudice in this film)
Both girls suffer silently but eventually form a friendship that fosters their mutual growth. Just seeing/hearing the black girl telling the white-soon-to-be friend, "you haven't done anything for me", was a wake up moment well worth the price of admission.
Even though Toe to Toe was obviously contrived, there was something so raw and seemingly real about the production that I felt drawn to the experience.
Rather than waiting for it to end, I wished it could go on and on.
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Monday, March 22, 2010
WON: Abortion on Demand
With the recent passage of the "health care bill" that has a parade of congratulations coming forth from mostly men, the red flag has been waved and women throughout the country are now free to act, act on their own behalf.
Wellness Clinics for women to include:
-abortion specialist instruction manuals to be written and put up on the Internet
-hands on practical abortion tutorial sessions with live subjects, given by seasoned practitioners
-a nation wide effort to have every mother/daughter of age and grandmother sign up for inclusion (voluntary or paid positions) in their local wellness clinics.
Without hope of Federal monies, without State endorsement, women must take matters into their own hands. Act now. Sponsor get togethers in your home. Let the dialogue ring out.
We will Abort,
On demand!
No questions asked.
(WON) Now!
who's body?
OURS
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Wellness Clinics for women to include:
-abortion specialist instruction manuals to be written and put up on the Internet
-hands on practical abortion tutorial sessions with live subjects, given by seasoned practitioners
-a nation wide effort to have every mother/daughter of age and grandmother sign up for inclusion (voluntary or paid positions) in their local wellness clinics.
Without hope of Federal monies, without State endorsement, women must take matters into their own hands. Act now. Sponsor get togethers in your home. Let the dialogue ring out.
We will Abort,
On demand!
No questions asked.
(WON) Now!
who's body?
OURS
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Greenberg: Noah Baumbach and Jennifer Jason Leigh
107 minutes
Director: Noah Baumbach
Cast: Ben Stiller, Greta Gerwig, Rhys Ifans,Jennifer Jason Leigh, Chris Messina, Brie Larson, Juno Temple
Theatrical Trailer Link: http://filminfocus.com/video/greenberg___the_trailer
In this drama of coming of age by over aged teenage acting people who live in the unattached world of being "afloat" or living off of others because.........the viewer is exposed to cute phrases that last no longer than the length of the film. Ben Stiller is the star and although he is appealing in a Woody Allen sort of way this appeal does not last the duration of the film
Maybe Greenberg would have been an enjoyable radio program where images would be avoided. and the power of the dialogue could have prevailed. But the dialogue is not profound, as it would have been in a Henry James novel where James compares European ways to those of New York. In Greenberg the dialogue sounds shallow, the sight of Ben Stiller gets so over done that the film is one long(too long) look at this actor Even though he has the agility of a kangaroo and seemed interesting at first in the fullness of the film's longevity, he grows less interesting, less worth the time and effort that film viewing requires.
What is striking about the film is the lack of commitment the Stiller's character, Roger Greenberg, demonstrates with his lack of interest in being a productive member of society, or a solid member of a relationship be it to his best friend or a female lover.
He takes endless abuse from those who continue to be in the regulated world of involvement because he is alive, thriving off of his wealthy brother and able to acquire thoughts of a continued existence without the down to earth understanding that without money survival for most people is not possible.
Greenberg is too wealthy, too absorbed in his life and sitting in the theater that same lack of involvement in film making seeps through. The lack of beauty in the sets, the lack of variety in the images projected on the screen, the lack of connection is irritating more than anything else.
How much time is spent on the close up of Ben Stiller? Well, whatever it is, it is too much. No one person can hold my interest for that long no matter how great an actor they might be. And maybe that is the point of the film. To show how in this world that is changing so dramatically, that is falling apart with threats of annihilation coming at us from many different fronts, Roger Greenberg can manage to create a niche for himself where he does nothing, cares about nothing, and projects nothing for himself in the days, years to come. His lack of interest/involvement is contagious.
Greenberg: What a disappointment, or is it?
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Director: Noah Baumbach
Cast: Ben Stiller, Greta Gerwig, Rhys Ifans,Jennifer Jason Leigh, Chris Messina, Brie Larson, Juno Temple
Theatrical Trailer Link: http://filminfocus.com/video/greenberg___the_trailer
In this drama of coming of age by over aged teenage acting people who live in the unattached world of being "afloat" or living off of others because.........the viewer is exposed to cute phrases that last no longer than the length of the film. Ben Stiller is the star and although he is appealing in a Woody Allen sort of way this appeal does not last the duration of the film
Maybe Greenberg would have been an enjoyable radio program where images would be avoided. and the power of the dialogue could have prevailed. But the dialogue is not profound, as it would have been in a Henry James novel where James compares European ways to those of New York. In Greenberg the dialogue sounds shallow, the sight of Ben Stiller gets so over done that the film is one long(too long) look at this actor Even though he has the agility of a kangaroo and seemed interesting at first in the fullness of the film's longevity, he grows less interesting, less worth the time and effort that film viewing requires.
What is striking about the film is the lack of commitment the Stiller's character, Roger Greenberg, demonstrates with his lack of interest in being a productive member of society, or a solid member of a relationship be it to his best friend or a female lover.
He takes endless abuse from those who continue to be in the regulated world of involvement because he is alive, thriving off of his wealthy brother and able to acquire thoughts of a continued existence without the down to earth understanding that without money survival for most people is not possible.
Greenberg is too wealthy, too absorbed in his life and sitting in the theater that same lack of involvement in film making seeps through. The lack of beauty in the sets, the lack of variety in the images projected on the screen, the lack of connection is irritating more than anything else.
How much time is spent on the close up of Ben Stiller? Well, whatever it is, it is too much. No one person can hold my interest for that long no matter how great an actor they might be. And maybe that is the point of the film. To show how in this world that is changing so dramatically, that is falling apart with threats of annihilation coming at us from many different fronts, Roger Greenberg can manage to create a niche for himself where he does nothing, cares about nothing, and projects nothing for himself in the days, years to come. His lack of interest/involvement is contagious.
Greenberg: What a disappointment, or is it?
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Sunday, March 14, 2010
poetry by linda z
I
How silent the earth is
how hot the sun
cool the moon
how quiet you are
rocking back and forth
to the beat of another
an invisible force
I see it through your closed eyes
I smell it in your weak breath
is this what it means to be
old,
so
so
old?
II
you said, yes
I heard you say
yes, and again
I heard,
yes
and give me more
and i said
maybe
if
and you said
then maybe not yes
maybe no
and I said
no ifs
no maybes
just
yes, yes
and then
only then
maybe
no
III
Divorce
when you came home
I thought good
you are home
you sat down in your chair
the cushioned high back
winged chair
while i wiped dry another dish
another tear from my reddened sore eyes
I heard,
you heard our baby
crying in his crib and I thought
no,
not again
I stood by the kitchen sink
the shape knife posed
the carrots,
always so difficult to slice
lying on the wooden board
straight, orange chubby sticks
and the cries got louder
and louder
he wasn't playing this time
nor calling out because
because
I slammed the knife down on the carrot
I did it again and again
while
you sat in the chair
your back to me, to him
that's when I knew
it was over
IV
Kitty Cat Candy
that morning when I
awoke to the sound,
to the feel of your purr,
your claws kneading into
my scalp
I pushed you off of me
your head resisted,
your forehead nuzzled deep into my neck
onto my cheek
your cold nose wet, always wet
pushed onward
your mouth opened
a split second, and
your sharp teeth
gnawed onto the flesh of my nose
instant pain!
remind me
why I paid
$75 dollars
for a cat I could have found for free
on the street
the ones who know how
and eat and sleep
and act like a cat,
aloof
V
Left
she died
she wanted to die
she said, it was the quality of life
there was nothing more
nothing left
except
thoughts
images of her
of me
of her and me
and
what would she do if
or why did she do that
and that
and not that
58 years
and 15 more of memories,
of things,
evaporating
VI
never!
that's what I said
what I meant
when I ran down the street
away
never
i uttered into the
air, the sky
the world
around
and around
never
not now
not later
not ever
just
never
ever
forever
but why?
How silent the earth is
how hot the sun
cool the moon
how quiet you are
rocking back and forth
to the beat of another
an invisible force
I see it through your closed eyes
I smell it in your weak breath
is this what it means to be
old,
so
so
old?
II
you said, yes
I heard you say
yes, and again
I heard,
yes
and give me more
and i said
maybe
if
and you said
then maybe not yes
maybe no
and I said
no ifs
no maybes
just
yes, yes
and then
only then
maybe
no
III
Divorce
when you came home
I thought good
you are home
you sat down in your chair
the cushioned high back
winged chair
while i wiped dry another dish
another tear from my reddened sore eyes
I heard,
you heard our baby
crying in his crib and I thought
no,
not again
I stood by the kitchen sink
the shape knife posed
the carrots,
always so difficult to slice
lying on the wooden board
straight, orange chubby sticks
and the cries got louder
and louder
he wasn't playing this time
nor calling out because
because
I slammed the knife down on the carrot
I did it again and again
while
you sat in the chair
your back to me, to him
that's when I knew
it was over
IV
Kitty Cat Candy
that morning when I
awoke to the sound,
to the feel of your purr,
your claws kneading into
my scalp
I pushed you off of me
your head resisted,
your forehead nuzzled deep into my neck
onto my cheek
your cold nose wet, always wet
pushed onward
your mouth opened
a split second, and
your sharp teeth
gnawed onto the flesh of my nose
instant pain!
remind me
why I paid
$75 dollars
for a cat I could have found for free
on the street
the ones who know how
and eat and sleep
and act like a cat,
aloof
V
Left
she died
she wanted to die
she said, it was the quality of life
there was nothing more
nothing left
except
thoughts
images of her
of me
of her and me
and
what would she do if
or why did she do that
and that
and not that
58 years
and 15 more of memories,
of things,
evaporating
VI
never!
that's what I said
what I meant
when I ran down the street
away
never
i uttered into the
air, the sky
the world
around
and around
never
not now
not later
not ever
just
never
ever
forever
but why?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The Runaways:
Directed and Written by
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/100310_110001wed11amtoNoon.MP3
The Runaways is a film about rock and roll stars, Cherie Curry and Joan Jett, their trip to the top of the charts as teenagers, their fall from fame as adults. Well for Cherie anyway. Joan continues to be world famous with her energy, creativity and love of the art of musical performance
WBAI Women's Collective live interview focused on Cherie, the woman who at 15 years of age managed without benefit of a sponsor, a parent, a guiding hand to quit, to end her participation in the Runaways at the height of their success.
A moment of survival, of personal strength and commitment to life.
This courageous stand against the group with whom she had lived, worked, slept and taken endless amount of drugs ended because she took control of her life for the sake of her health and possible longevity. She said "No" and she meant it
She took a stand against her continued participation in the Runaways and in the process she established a drug free home for her son, a 19 year old musician and herself, filled with activities that commence at 6 A. M. every morning. Tell me, is that Ungodly hour the epitome of health or what?
Linda Zises
wbai Radio
Floria Sigismondi
Featuring Kristen Stewart & Dakota Fanning. In Theaters On March 19th
WBAI Interview:
Featuring Kristen Stewart & Dakota Fanning. In Theaters On March 19th
From a POPS post:
"ANAHEIM, California — For the first time in almost a quarter of a century, former Runaways Joan Jett and Cherie Currie appeared onstage together to bang out the seminal girl-band staple "Cherry Bomb."
Topping her hour-plus show Saturday night with the Blackhearts, Jett surprised the Sun Theatre crowd by introducing her childhood friend and ex-bandmate, who emerged in basic black instead of her once-trademark lingerie. Each appearing considerably younger than her 40 years, the ladies tore through the 1976 number like two sex-craved, rebellious teenagers born again — Currie singing and Jett playing guitar as though they were seducing and serenading each other. The song ended with Currie bowing at Jett's feet and the two sharing a hug and kiss.
"I was in the moment — I wasn't flashing back," Jett said afterward. "I was enjoying watching Cherie have fun, and I was having fun."
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/100310_110001wed11amtoNoon.MP3
The Runaways is a film about rock and roll stars, Cherie Curry and Joan Jett, their trip to the top of the charts as teenagers, their fall from fame as adults. Well for Cherie anyway. Joan continues to be world famous with her energy, creativity and love of the art of musical performance
WBAI Women's Collective live interview focused on Cherie, the woman who at 15 years of age managed without benefit of a sponsor, a parent, a guiding hand to quit, to end her participation in the Runaways at the height of their success.
A moment of survival, of personal strength and commitment to life.
This courageous stand against the group with whom she had lived, worked, slept and taken endless amount of drugs ended because she took control of her life for the sake of her health and possible longevity. She said "No" and she meant it
She took a stand against her continued participation in the Runaways and in the process she established a drug free home for her son, a 19 year old musician and herself, filled with activities that commence at 6 A. M. every morning. Tell me, is that Ungodly hour the epitome of health or what?
Linda Zises
wbai Radio
Henry Menahem: Examination of an Obituary:
Henry Menahem, Jewelry Store Clerk, Slain in Robbery
DATE: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010, 12:20 p.m
LOCATION: 962 Madison Ave., Upper East Side, Manhattan.
The police say the robber who killed 71-year-old jewelry store clerk Henry Menahem Wednesday dumped a Fabrege-style egg in the trash as he fled with $1 million in gems and expensive necklace.."
Did you see this or a similar one in the New York Daily News?
"The New York Post reported that the suspect entered R.S. Durant Jewelers at lunchtime, brandished a 9 mm pistol and threw two bags at Menahem and a second clerk. They refused to fill the bags."
On the upper East Side, Madison Avenue jewelry stores do not have clerks.
They have employees. Clerks are people who do the paper work, menial tasks that usually deal with paper. But Henry.... was a 71 years old man who worked as a salesperson, an employee at a fancy Jewelry store on the upper east side of Manhattans and to refer to him as a clerk is an insult.
71 years old man. What is this all about? Why is he not retired?
If there was any bad feeling, any kind of degrading experience going on in this jewelry store this 71 year old man could have stayed away, not been at the R.S. Durant jewelery store on the day of the robbery.
But there he was, already in possession of his medical insurance from the federal government and social security and maybe, if his employees had been generous, a pension check awaited his retirement
We will never know the mind set of this financial arrangement because the newspapers which provided the readers with the "information" did not interview the establishment owners to learn and convey to us why this 71 year old man was still working at their store and what the arrangement would have been upon his retirement.
Evidently, Henry, known affectionately by those close to him as Hank, was asked to put the store's merchandise the bags that the assailant held out to him. Hank refused.
This is the point where my eyes stopped reading;
A clerk refused to turn over the merchandise. Who is this man? Who is the employer?
In a jewelry store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan located in a part of town where even the clothing stores which house merchandise far less valuable than the multimillion dollar jewelry store, R.S. Durant, station a guard at the door to protect....... You know him. He is the man who contracts out his life to protect the store and its contents with his Life if need be in exchange for a given amount of money.
That in itself is strange. I can't imagine any money that can compensate for the loss of human life, no matter how common a practice this might be.
We don't know why, but we know that the man appointed to save Henry's life did not do so and as there was no mention of his absence in the article it is safe to conclude, he was not supposed to be there, not paid to guard the R. S. Durant jewelry store. I wonder if the assailant knew that as well.
Why did Henry refuse to comply with the request?
That mystery defies all possibility that Henry thought of himself as a "clerk". If i am a clerk there is sufficient separation between me and my work that upon request made for compliance at gun point I would have handed over whatever the assailant wanted. I would not have thought twice about releasing a set of papers or anything the content of which would have been deemed well beyond my level of comprehension or possible personal possession.
Upon denying the request /demand Henry was shot in the chest, bled profusely and died. The assailant left the store dropping a Fabrege-style jeweled egg into the common trash bin on the street, The egg's worth, well over one million dollars.
So....... in addition to the highly prejudicial articles that appeared in the newspapers void of the human interviews with employer, wife, children grandchildren or friends and neighbors etc. (for which, given the mind set of the reporters is probably a good thing) we know.............
There was no guard stationed in the store at the time of the robbery
Henry did not think of himself as a clerk but as an employee.
His opinion of himself at work seems to be shared by his employer because they kept him on the job 6 years after the customary or legal retirement age
Chancres are Henry was not at the store because of the financial remuneration. Why he was there is not know and without asking those who do know, we can not know the answer.
But
we do know from our personal experience that
if the employer, the owner of the store had been shot dead while trying to defend his precious commodity, his multi million dollars worth of Jewelry this story would go on and on with the fullness of detail, interviews, tears, that would make everyone in the fullness of time tired of reading about it.
Fortunately
Henry's closest friends and family were spared that obsession with the 'truth'
The contrast between Henry giving his life to save his employer's jewelry and the failure of the employer to value Henry's life enough to place a guard in the store at all times to protect him forces the question, who is the stores' owner who values his wealth over people's lives. And who was Henry Menahem?
That he was loved, dearly, is a give. Any man who displays such loyalty has earned deep everlasting love.
Henry appears to have been a devoted man, devoted to his menial job and most likely to his family. He lived by the creed of "thou shall not steal".
One can assume, he had self respect, the very sense of self respect that the Post and the New York Daily News undermined in their tabloid articles when they referred to Henry as a clerk. He was not a clerk. Henry was a loyal employee, a salesman in a high class, high powered Madison Ave upper east side of Manhattan establishment who gave his life for the possessions of another man. if Henry had complied and said, "here, take it", and filled the opened bags as requested, would he have gained financial reward or remuneration? We don't know, and unfortunately, we never will.
Henry Menahem is a hero, consistent with the Green tragedy. A man who is loyal to a fault, a man who lives by values we should all embrace, a man who seemed to go to work for more reasons than to make whatever little bit of money employees in our society earn.
Henry Menahem, a tragic/hero doomed by your own intractable virtues which we all strive for but seldom achieve.
May you rest in peace.
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
DATE: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010, 12:20 p.m
LOCATION: 962 Madison Ave., Upper East Side, Manhattan.
The police say the robber who killed 71-year-old jewelry store clerk Henry Menahem Wednesday dumped a Fabrege-style egg in the trash as he fled with $1 million in gems and expensive necklace.."
Did you see this or a similar one in the New York Daily News?
"The New York Post reported that the suspect entered R.S. Durant Jewelers at lunchtime, brandished a 9 mm pistol and threw two bags at Menahem and a second clerk. They refused to fill the bags."
On the upper East Side, Madison Avenue jewelry stores do not have clerks.
They have employees. Clerks are people who do the paper work, menial tasks that usually deal with paper. But Henry.... was a 71 years old man who worked as a salesperson, an employee at a fancy Jewelry store on the upper east side of Manhattans and to refer to him as a clerk is an insult.
71 years old man. What is this all about? Why is he not retired?
If there was any bad feeling, any kind of degrading experience going on in this jewelry store this 71 year old man could have stayed away, not been at the R.S. Durant jewelery store on the day of the robbery.
But there he was, already in possession of his medical insurance from the federal government and social security and maybe, if his employees had been generous, a pension check awaited his retirement
We will never know the mind set of this financial arrangement because the newspapers which provided the readers with the "information" did not interview the establishment owners to learn and convey to us why this 71 year old man was still working at their store and what the arrangement would have been upon his retirement.
Evidently, Henry, known affectionately by those close to him as Hank, was asked to put the store's merchandise the bags that the assailant held out to him. Hank refused.
This is the point where my eyes stopped reading;
A clerk refused to turn over the merchandise. Who is this man? Who is the employer?
In a jewelry store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan located in a part of town where even the clothing stores which house merchandise far less valuable than the multimillion dollar jewelry store, R.S. Durant, station a guard at the door to protect....... You know him. He is the man who contracts out his life to protect the store and its contents with his Life if need be in exchange for a given amount of money.
That in itself is strange. I can't imagine any money that can compensate for the loss of human life, no matter how common a practice this might be.
We don't know why, but we know that the man appointed to save Henry's life did not do so and as there was no mention of his absence in the article it is safe to conclude, he was not supposed to be there, not paid to guard the R. S. Durant jewelry store. I wonder if the assailant knew that as well.
Why did Henry refuse to comply with the request?
That mystery defies all possibility that Henry thought of himself as a "clerk". If i am a clerk there is sufficient separation between me and my work that upon request made for compliance at gun point I would have handed over whatever the assailant wanted. I would not have thought twice about releasing a set of papers or anything the content of which would have been deemed well beyond my level of comprehension or possible personal possession.
Upon denying the request /demand Henry was shot in the chest, bled profusely and died. The assailant left the store dropping a Fabrege-style jeweled egg into the common trash bin on the street, The egg's worth, well over one million dollars.
So....... in addition to the highly prejudicial articles that appeared in the newspapers void of the human interviews with employer, wife, children grandchildren or friends and neighbors etc. (for which, given the mind set of the reporters is probably a good thing) we know.............
There was no guard stationed in the store at the time of the robbery
Henry did not think of himself as a clerk but as an employee.
His opinion of himself at work seems to be shared by his employer because they kept him on the job 6 years after the customary or legal retirement age
Chancres are Henry was not at the store because of the financial remuneration. Why he was there is not know and without asking those who do know, we can not know the answer.
But
we do know from our personal experience that
if the employer, the owner of the store had been shot dead while trying to defend his precious commodity, his multi million dollars worth of Jewelry this story would go on and on with the fullness of detail, interviews, tears, that would make everyone in the fullness of time tired of reading about it.
Fortunately
Henry's closest friends and family were spared that obsession with the 'truth'
The contrast between Henry giving his life to save his employer's jewelry and the failure of the employer to value Henry's life enough to place a guard in the store at all times to protect him forces the question, who is the stores' owner who values his wealth over people's lives. And who was Henry Menahem?
That he was loved, dearly, is a give. Any man who displays such loyalty has earned deep everlasting love.
Henry appears to have been a devoted man, devoted to his menial job and most likely to his family. He lived by the creed of "thou shall not steal".
One can assume, he had self respect, the very sense of self respect that the Post and the New York Daily News undermined in their tabloid articles when they referred to Henry as a clerk. He was not a clerk. Henry was a loyal employee, a salesman in a high class, high powered Madison Ave upper east side of Manhattan establishment who gave his life for the possessions of another man. if Henry had complied and said, "here, take it", and filled the opened bags as requested, would he have gained financial reward or remuneration? We don't know, and unfortunately, we never will.
Henry Menahem is a hero, consistent with the Green tragedy. A man who is loyal to a fault, a man who lives by values we should all embrace, a man who seemed to go to work for more reasons than to make whatever little bit of money employees in our society earn.
Henry Menahem, a tragic/hero doomed by your own intractable virtues which we all strive for but seldom achieve.
May you rest in peace.
Linda Zises
WBAI Women's Collective
Monday, March 1, 2010
My Name is Khan and I am not a Terrorist: an historic cinematic moment
Arindam Chaudhuri
Some people watch television to relax. i watch Bollywood films. There is an interesting display of dancing, excellent use of color, really smoothing music and the actors appear from film to film: something akin to meeting old friends all dressed up in new clothes.
So imagine my surprise when I sat down in my favorite recliner, for the three hour entertainment of chose, My Name is Khan and I am not a Terrorist, and there is no music, no dancing, no light almost simplistic comedic moments. Instead there is a film with all my friends dressed in European or traditional clothes but the film had a message, a message I am not certain I wanted to hear.
Don't go to America. Don't get on that plane. Stay home
This message was punctuated with scenes from airport security and scenes from United States jails that reminded me of the horror of living in third world countries where humanity is painfully absent. Is this really the Bollywood image of America, i had to ask, with my eyes half closed to the torture afforded my actor friends.
Yes, things have changed. Even in India and this film My Name Is Khan and I am not a Terrorist is making more money in a shorter period of time than any film that came before it, or so I have been told.
What prompted the film is the ill treatment afforded the lead actor, "The week’s big story was Shahrukh Khan's interrogation in the USA".
The mega superstar when he came to the United States, was detained for two hours with his name not registering as anyone special, just another Muslin. He never left the airport but got on a return flight to India. It was an ordeal that brought reality into clear focus. Don't go to America. It is worse than living here in our country where dead bodies lie on the streets and the homeless rate is fifty per cent of the population.
Is this what has happened to the image of America: the home of the brave, the free, the wealthy, void of random detention, or crippling prejudice; a place where everyone is welcomed?
If you don't see any other Bollywood film this year or next, I recommend you see this one.
On DVD
Linda Z
WBAI Women's Collective
Some people watch television to relax. i watch Bollywood films. There is an interesting display of dancing, excellent use of color, really smoothing music and the actors appear from film to film: something akin to meeting old friends all dressed up in new clothes.
So imagine my surprise when I sat down in my favorite recliner, for the three hour entertainment of chose, My Name is Khan and I am not a Terrorist, and there is no music, no dancing, no light almost simplistic comedic moments. Instead there is a film with all my friends dressed in European or traditional clothes but the film had a message, a message I am not certain I wanted to hear.
Don't go to America. Don't get on that plane. Stay home
This message was punctuated with scenes from airport security and scenes from United States jails that reminded me of the horror of living in third world countries where humanity is painfully absent. Is this really the Bollywood image of America, i had to ask, with my eyes half closed to the torture afforded my actor friends.
Yes, things have changed. Even in India and this film My Name Is Khan and I am not a Terrorist is making more money in a shorter period of time than any film that came before it, or so I have been told.
What prompted the film is the ill treatment afforded the lead actor, "The week’s big story was Shahrukh Khan's interrogation in the USA".
The mega superstar when he came to the United States, was detained for two hours with his name not registering as anyone special, just another Muslin. He never left the airport but got on a return flight to India. It was an ordeal that brought reality into clear focus. Don't go to America. It is worse than living here in our country where dead bodies lie on the streets and the homeless rate is fifty per cent of the population.
Is this what has happened to the image of America: the home of the brave, the free, the wealthy, void of random detention, or crippling prejudice; a place where everyone is welcomed?
If you don't see any other Bollywood film this year or next, I recommend you see this one.
On DVD
Linda Z
WBAI Women's Collective
Thursday, February 4, 2010
religion: love, hope, and dispair springs eternal
LOURDES:
Jessica Hausner
The historical bases for the film:
The Pilgrimages
Following the reports that Our Lady of Lourdes had appeared to Bernadette Soubirous on a total of eighteen occasions, Lourdes has developed into a major place of Christian pilgrimage and of alleged miraculous healings. The 150th Jubilee of the first apparition took place on 11 February 2008 with an outdoor mass attended by approximately 45,000 pilgrims.
It is the joint seat of the diocese of Tarbes-et-Lourdes and is the largest pilgrimage site in France.
As much as some might want to think the activity depicted in the film is an event of the past, it is alive and well and flourishing in the midst of Lourdes, the site where wishes come to the fore and hope springs eternal.
The film
A cross between Thomas Mann's Book, The Magic Mountain and Bill Maher's film 'Religulous' brings the technical expertise of this noted film director into focus. It is slow moving, few words, bizarre behavior with great characters extremely well acted but in the end.......we learn what some of us already knew, there is no God and dessert is more important than the contemplation of the strange and mysterious ways God is reputed to act.
The scenery makes a trip to Lourdes inevitable given the means, the ways of the people seem understandable in context and weird, almost crazy in the light of logical assessment. It is a beautiful film, a little too long, but then aren't all traditional religious events, too long.
When you need to reconnect to the past, to simple extraordinary beauty, to a plot that brings us together to remember where we come from and why we are who we are, I recommend Jessica Hausner's Lourdes
Linda Z
Wbai Women's Collective
Jessica Hausner
The historical bases for the film:
The Pilgrimages
Following the reports that Our Lady of Lourdes had appeared to Bernadette Soubirous on a total of eighteen occasions, Lourdes has developed into a major place of Christian pilgrimage and of alleged miraculous healings. The 150th Jubilee of the first apparition took place on 11 February 2008 with an outdoor mass attended by approximately 45,000 pilgrims.
It is the joint seat of the diocese of Tarbes-et-Lourdes and is the largest pilgrimage site in France.
As much as some might want to think the activity depicted in the film is an event of the past, it is alive and well and flourishing in the midst of Lourdes, the site where wishes come to the fore and hope springs eternal.
The film
A cross between Thomas Mann's Book, The Magic Mountain and Bill Maher's film 'Religulous' brings the technical expertise of this noted film director into focus. It is slow moving, few words, bizarre behavior with great characters extremely well acted but in the end.......we learn what some of us already knew, there is no God and dessert is more important than the contemplation of the strange and mysterious ways God is reputed to act.
The scenery makes a trip to Lourdes inevitable given the means, the ways of the people seem understandable in context and weird, almost crazy in the light of logical assessment. It is a beautiful film, a little too long, but then aren't all traditional religious events, too long.
When you need to reconnect to the past, to simple extraordinary beauty, to a plot that brings us together to remember where we come from and why we are who we are, I recommend Jessica Hausner's Lourdes
Linda Z
Wbai Women's Collective
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)