***

THE CLEAR INTENT of Alabama’s viciously xenophobic immigration law — and the likely effect, now that most of it was upheld by a federal judge this week — is to hound, harass and intimidate illegal immigrants into uprooting their lives and moving elsewhere.  The law aims to do this by various means, but none is more pernicious than a provision requiring the state’s public schools to collect information on every student’s immigration status, starting in kindergarten and going to 12th grade.

In a ruling that tortures plain words and logic, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn wrote that Alabama’s law does not create a state-specific registration scheme applicable to illegal immigrants, nor does it attempt to register anyone.

In fact, that’s precisely what it does and is meant to do.  The law sets out procedures whereby schools must determine if enrolling students were born outside the United States or are the children of illegal immigrants.  Any student whose parent or guardian does not provide that documentation will be automatically assumed to be an illegal immigrant and classified as such by the schools in the state’s records.

In turning the schools into immigration registrars, Alabama’s new law flies in the face of good sense and settled law.  The Supreme Court has specifically prohibited such registration schemes by the states aimed at immigrants, legal or illegal.  And, in a ruling almost 20 years ago, it conferred on undocumented students an unfettered right to a public education through high school.

The court did so for sensible reasons.  It noted that there is no legal precedent in America for punishing children for the actions of their parents.  Writing for the court in a 1982 decision squashing Texas’s attempt to exclude illegal immigrants from public schools, Justice William Brennan said, “It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.”

Apparently, Alabama didn’t get the message.  By forcing schools to collect and report data on the immigration status of students and their parents, the state will frighten kids away from attending school.  The day after Judge Blackburn’s ruling, the Press-Register of Mobile, Ala., reported that 58 of 223 Hispanic students at a local elementary school either withdrew from school or were absent.

Most likely, illegal immigrants will simply go further underground, or move to more hospitable parts of the country — leaving Alabama bereft of the labor it needs to pick crops, wash dishes in restaurants and do landscape and construction jobs.  Indeed, Alabama farmers are already warning that the law will leave them badly shorthanded at harvest time.

By vilifying and victimizing schoolchildren and their families, Alabama lawmakers are mounting an end run around Supreme Court precedent in hopes of cleansing communities of what they see as the scourge of illegal immigrants.  But the real legacy will be a wave of fear, bitterness and desperation in hardworking minority communities .  In Alabama, the nation’s ugly fight over immigration policy just got uglier.

Why Not?
(based on Terrebonne)

Why not
Just take
The prettiest people you know
And film
Them in
The prettiest place you know?

The Hinterlands
(based on Sahkanaga)

Don’t look away,
Says Hollywood.
Nothing good is happening
(Without us)
In the hinterlands of Georgia
Or anywhere else.
Look at this
Explosion!
Watch the stars
Fuck!
Keep your eyes
Here!
When you crave
Quality art,
You’re trained (Sit! and Stay!)
To expect
SAG, ILM, CGI, and 3-effing-D.
Even our punks are polished
And processed –
Think Green Day.
We don’t photoshop
Ugly girls.  The fact that
We went through
All that trouble
Means she must be beautiful.
The fact that
You can’t afford to have us
Airbrush your picture
Means you’re not worth it.

Technology
(based on Catfish)

For some,
The only good use
Of technology
Is for US
To beat the snot
Out of THEM.
Future generations
Might laugh at Dr. Salk
For not charging us
To use our legs.

Persistence
(for Johnny Barnes, based on Mr. Happy Man)

Love mostly seems silly
In small doses,
Like my crush on
Today’s redhead.
It gathers meaning
By persistence
Through spans of time:
Will you still love me
Tomorrow?

One Of Us
(based on The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement)

Thinking that Obama
(Or anyone else) is
One of us
Because of his color
Is as wrong
As thinking he’s not
One of us
For the same reason.

Grown Men
(based on Walla Walla Wiffle)

I’m all for
Giving grown men
A chance
To act like
Twelve-year olds.

An Inconvenient Youth
(based on An Inconvenient Youth)

Several generations
Have quietly internalized
The central lesson of
The activist sixties.
It wasn’t
That the people
Have the power
To advance an idea
Through concerted activism.
No.
The insidious takeaway
Was that dissidents suffer
And still lose.
Look around:
Colored America
Has gained little ground
In fifty years.
Vietnam stretched out until
Everybody knew it was over.
The house always wins.
The only ones
Not yet accepting this
Are the inconvenient youth
Protecting the global poor
From our hostile environment.
But given enough time,
They will.

Flourish
(based on You Must Be Something)

Your scenic nature walk
Will completely change
When you realize
That any bushes
Which flourish
Were fertilized
With human blood.

Only Numbers
(based on Standardized)

Don’t despair
If you can’t take every trick
With a bad deal.
No one could, and
No one expected you to.
Just do your best.
High expectations
Rest just on those
Holding the aces.
But if you find,
Every time you play,
You’re passed only numbers,
It’s time to
Shoot the dealer.

Go Fish
(based on If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front)

Legal advice
Almost always
(See, there it starts)
Includes a “maybe”
Or “it depends.”
About the only
(See, there again)
Hard and fast rule
Is to never
Under any circumstances
Talk to law enforcement.
No, you’re not smart enough.
No, you’re not charming enough.
No, you don’t know how fast you were going.
No, you don’t want to answer a few questions.
No, you don’t want to help.
No, no, no, no, no, (politely) no.
Those guys
(Set an odd moral example and)
Are allowed and encouraged
To flagrantly lie to you,
But if they (for any reason) think
That you or your story smells
Even slightly fishy,
You’ll regret it.
If they actually had the goods,
You’d probably
(See, one last time)
Already be arrested.
Go fish, Sir.  Go fish.

Soap, Cars, and Insurance
(based on Page One: Inside the New York Times)

If 90% of everything is crap,
Then the wars
Are all in the editing.
How many new YouTube videos
Post every day?
What’s 10% of that number and
How do I know to look at those?
If the government can release
100 proclamations on any given Tuesday,
Who’ll tell me
Which 10 are important?
Will it be the White House reporter
Who comes back and says,
“Nope, not mine today”?
Seems like a bad idea for job security.
All I want is
A credible critic
To tell me what’s good and
What I need to know.
But once you waste
My energy and goodwill on
Soap, cars, and insurance –
Bought and paid for like a whore –
You’re not a credible source.

So instead of a traditional piece, I decided to write some poetry based on my impressions of the movies I saw at one of my favorite Birmingham events: the 2011 Sidewalk Film Festival.  (PDF link)

Open Manipulation
(based on The Innkeepers)

A scary movie makes you go places
You don’t want to go,
You wouldn’t ever go,
If they didn’t make you.

They,
Not it.

I react inappropriately to a thriller.
My imagination
Keeps me up,
Even when no one else admits
To being frightened.
(I won’t usually watch past noon.)

But in a crowded theater,
I’m often the only laugher
As the earnest blonde kid
Makes the dumbest choices
And dies the gruesomest death.

They tell you right up front
What they’re going to do with you –
Open manipulation –
And I admit to ambivalence:
I see right through it
While, at the same time,
I’m easily led.

Now
(based on Father Clown)

If I’ve ever got
24 hours to kill
In a strange city,
I’m pretty sure I’ll never be
The enterprising artist
Who creates a short film
As a reminder to
Enjoy the now.

Murder Poets
(based on Puppet)

“Cellar door”
Is said to be
Inherently beautiful.
The language itself
Or the way the
Phonemes fit together.
A murder of poets
And word-lovers
Standing around
Pretensing that
The poet is integral to
The enjoyment of the poem:
“You won’t really get it
Until you hear him read it.”

Oh bullshit.

Writing is a tool for
Communicating ideas.
If you didn’t get it,
It wasn’t any good.
An expert orator
Might charm us all
With a box of Frosted Flakes,
But that’s good speaking,
Not good writing.
A bird chirping
Without any ideas
Is as vain as that
Cellar door.

Through Weakness
(based on Holy Rollers: The True Story of Card Counting Christians)

You are a fuckup and a failure:
That’s the first and foundational lesson of Christianity.

So when a person says,
“You can trust me – I’m a Christian,”
They’ve missed the point.
And they’re probably selling something.

Expressing your Christianity
Isn’t a declaration of strength;
It’s an admission of weakness.

As the Bible teaches,
We’re all fish in a barrel to temptation
And doomed to our shortcomings.
At best, the standard Jesus set is aspirational.

But only through weakness
Does the New message gain its power:
You’re going to fuck up and fail,
But I love you anyway.

Curious MacGuffiny Thing!
(based on Without)

Unpacking is easy.

If maybe,
In the middle of this poem,
I introduce a
Curious MacGuffiny Thing,
But then I
Fail to give it any meaning,
Forgive me.

Repacking is hard.

Checkered Life
(for Bob Ingersoll, based on Project Nim)

Among animals,
An individual’s power
Always extends to its limit,
Like Boyle’s Law for gases.
Every adolescent asks,
Over and over:
What can I get away with?
If you won’t stop me,
Then I must be bigger than you.
A winner and a loser.
But even the baddest chimp,
Can’t bully Mother Nature:
Teeth and muscles
Are no match for
Hunger, illness, and death.

I heard the other day
That the bankers
Essentially voted themselves
The federal treasury.
I took a walk
And pointed out
A shimmering beetle
To a child
Who gleefully stomped it.

Snap
(based on The Robber)

If you stress the heart
By snapping it
Too hard in a direction
Other than
The way it was already going,
It suffers
An inertial condition
Akin to a concussion.
If handled gently
And incrementally,
This organ, capable of
Nearly infinite compassion, can
Accept and understand
Almost anyone.
When he told her
Those other things,
They made love
And she filed them away under
Complexity and frailty, but
When they told her
That,
She cried for two weeks straight.

Rabbit, Run
(based on Kidnapped)

I used to have dreams
Of being terrified of something –
It doesn’t matter what –
And my fear expressed itself
By freezing me to the spot,
Hysterical,
No fight or flight,
Unable to move at all.
It felt awful,
Wanting to run,
Wanting to take action,
But out of charge,
And without command
Of my body.
It’s never happened
In a real emergency,
And I like to believe
I’m sensible in a crisis,
Not prone to comeaparts,
But I can’t know
It wouldn’t.
The practical problem
Is that there aren’t enough
Battles everyday
To wring sensible decisions
Out of me.
Most days offer just the
Unobvious, numbing paralysis
Of too many options.
Look,
Death is racing at me
Right now, and
I don’t know what to do.

On the other hand, I think Pablo Picasso was memorably right: “Art is not made to decorate rooms.  It is an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy.”  Painting, theatre, music, dance, and writing aren’t just superficial or idle pursuits.  They serve a critical purpose.

Ideas are powerful.  And the arts can be a sword or shield.  Even lightly practicing a craft can be preparation for when you’ll really need it.  It helps hone an appreciation of or resistance to attempts to influence you.  I find that a key use of art – even in very subtle ways – is to delineate or define the “good guys” and the “bad guys”.

With that background, I recently combined my lawyer/artist roles to write the following letter.  If you’re interested in a glimpse of my non-arts life, here you go.  I just put this in the mail about the potential reappointment of Paul W. Greene to the position of United States Magistrate Judge over at our federal courthouse.  (If it’s easier to read, here’s a PDF link)

***

Ms. Sharon N. Harris, Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Northern District of Alabama
1729 5th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203

Republished at: http://www.birminghamverse.com

Ms. Harris:

I am writing about the potential reappointment of Paul W. Greene to the position of Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  As you will remember, I was hired and employed twice by the Northern District in two different attorney roles.  Prior to my work at your court, I served as a judicial clerk at both the Western District of Tennessee and the United States Court of Federal Claims.  Throughout my federal court employment, I frequently received remarkable compliments about my performance.  I enjoyed serving my country and each court recommended me to the next.  I worked directly with Mr. Greene during my time at the Northern District and I’ve also had professional reasons to interact with and observe him from roles outside the court.

I understand that any particular person can only approach or understand an elephant from his own particular viewpoint, but my experience may offer a unique perspective to explain why Mr. Greene would be a poor choice to reappoint as a Magistrate Judge.  It is my opinion that he is a dim, biased, and unsophisticated thinker; an incompetent supervisor; a foolishly consistent man of dishonest and vengeful character; a reckless and unethical public servant; and a potentially felonious perjurer.  Paraphrasing regulation § 420.10.10(c), Mr. Greene is not competent, lacks good moral character, lacks commitment to equal justice under the law, and is not emotionally stable, patient, courteous, or mature.  Given that other competent attorneys would currently be available, the Northern District could and should find someone better.

I have a low opinion of Mr. Greene’s capacity as a thinker and jurist.  My experience with him from both inside and outside the court would indicate that he is frequently ignorant of the law, though he acts arrogantly as if he was omniscient or infallible.  I do not believe he comprehends or understands sophisticated legal arguments.  This lack of facility, however, does not appear to stop Mr. Greene from exhibiting hostility towards individuals as litigants and I believe he is typically prejudiced against them.  Further, as sloppy writing is often a symptom of sloppy thinking, Mr. Greene’s judicial writing can be full of typographical or stylistic errors.  And though a working knowledge of computer research, drafting, and communication may be essential requirements for the 21st century, I have some reason to believe that Mr. Greene may not be functionally computer literate.

Mr. Greene’s arrogant demeanor made him a poor supervisor.  I observed him being mostly cold and dictatorial to court employees.  He often does not bother to learn or remember employee names.  This was only one way he expressed a surprisingly poor attitude towards federal attorneys.  On the record, I’m sure Mr. Greene would reiterate the conventional view that judges expect law clerks and other court attorneys to exercise good and independent judgment.  Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Greene (and other judges) routinely demeaned the responsibilities and expertise of these highly-educated and high-functioning professionals.  Corrupt officials like Mr. Greene tend to view the courthouse as their own personal playground – rather than a place dedicated to serving the public – and think that subordinate attorneys are “just here to do what we tell you to do.”  This warped and selfish view overlooks the broad and independent obligations of government attorneys to both the legal profession and the American people.

His one-sided and uncooperative nature made Mr. Greene virtually unapproachable with regard to any discussion of court business.  My experience was that he expected any court employee without a black robe to stay quiet and out of his way.  In the recent past, Mr. Greene’s practice has been to reflexively and recklessly terminate employees who voiced conflicting interpretations with regard to the law or important court matters, even when those employees might be hired specifically for their expertise or opinions.  Rather than promoting or encouraging forward-looking discussions about court business, Mr. Greene would rather cull his playground of anyone who will not submit to his personal views.  Those who are accustomed to near total dominance of articulate opinion often feel that the world is coming to an end if their control is threatened or weakened ever so slightly, reacting in the manner of an overindulged child who is chided for the first time.  My opinion is that Mr. Greene has come to view the Northern District courthouse as his – and other employees better not forget it.  This view is unacceptable under our democratic system.

Even the United States Supreme Court has sensibly advised that public employers should, as a matter of good judgment, be receptive to constructive criticism.  Dissent is not always a personal challenge and criticism is usually an organization’s friend.  For example, my criticism of Mr. Greene in this letter represents my attempt to improve the Northern District.  Juvenile bullies like Mr. Greene who intentionally or recklessly discourage the free discussion of ideas have a chilling effect on the speech and counsel of government employees.  Mr. Greene’s outdated, Old Testament approach engenders a constant fear of capricious retaliation.  I know from experience that this fear regularly discourages government workers from giving candid advice and assistance.  I would not be surprised to find that other court personnel have had similar, negative experiences – or could corroborate my experiences – but are deterred from speaking by a real apprehension of endangering their jobs or careers by irritating Mr. Greene or other judges at the Northern District.  I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles, but today it means getting along with people.  This is not an appropriate way to run our government.

Also during my tenure at the Northern District, Mr. Greene (and other judges) implemented a self-serving and unethical policy towards death penalty cases.  I was told multiple times that the Northern District had made a conscious and intentional decision to delay its review and publication of death penalty opinions for the sole purpose of increasing its reported number of active cases.  This practice artificially inflated the Northern District’s budgetary “requirements” for staffing and resources.  On at least one occasion, a Magistrate Judge specifically ignored my finished death penalty drafts and told me to slow down my work on those opinions.  I still find it repulsive and corrupt that any group of judges would keep an incarcerated citizen waiting months longer than necessary – or would force the state of Alabama to postpone justice – all so the Northern District could score additional funding or play games with its budget.

The Code of Conduct for federal judges requires these officials to observe only the highest standards of integrity and honor.  Judges are called upon to set a high bar for honesty as they act as one of the primary defenders of truth within our system.  Based on my time with the Northern District, I believe that Mr. Greene has been fundamentally – and possibly criminally – dishonest.  There is reason to believe that Mr. Greene intentionally made material statements to government officials which were misleading, misrepresentations, or outright false.  By repeating some of these statements in the form of a sworn declaration (2:09-cv-700), he may have compounded the problem and committed criminal perjury.

I wrote a November 2009 letter to Chief District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn which explained this issue in further detail and asked her to take action on behalf of the District Court.  She did nothing about it.  I then personally visited the Federal Bureau of Investigation and reported this as a potentially criminal matter.  I spoke with an agent and compared the statements Mr. Greene had made with the documents that would indicate that he had lied under oath.  The agent led me to understand that he believed that Mr. Greene may have committed criminal perjury.  Very pointedly, however, he told me that – for political reasons – there was almost no way the FBI would investigate or prosecute a sitting federal judge.

To this day, this reaction shocks my conscience.  Federal officials are not exempted from the rule of law.  If anything, they should be subject to higher standards and more accountability.  Instead, every supervisory authority provided disingenuous reasons why they would do nothing.  This pretense of oversight is a truly frightening illusion.  But the truth is the truth, even if you are a minority of one.  For that reason, even in the absence of any formal investigation and prosecution, my opinion of Mr. Greene is that he is fundamentally dishonest and probably a criminal perjurer.  Even without a conviction, this taint should raise questions which should disqualify him from reappointment as a Magistrate Judge.  He is not competent to adjudicate the honesty or credibility of others.

It is my understanding that Judge Blackburn and the judges of the Northern District cooperatively made the decision to submit Mr. Greene’s name for reappointment.  I find this decision baffling, considering that I’d already made Northern District officials aware of Mr. Greene’s problematic, unethical, and potentially criminal behavior.  It does not reflect well on either Judge Blackburn’s leadership or our judiciary as a whole that they would either cover up or ignore these issues.  The judges of the Northern District have repeatedly demonstrated that they are inflexibly determined to circle the wagons and lash out against any perceived attack on one of their brethren, rather than acting to assess the situation with proper administrative objectivity or with proper regard to ensuring the integrity of the judiciary and serving citizens.  It should come as no surprise that judges treat judges much more fairly than they treat other people.  Orwell was right: Some animals are more equal than others.

This reappointment also appears unimaginative and inequitable.  So far as I know, there are spots for five Magistrate Judges in the Northern District.  Reappointing Mr. Greene to this position would continue a possibly unbroken tradition of empanelling five old, white men.  Not just five old, white men, but the same five old, white men.  Alabama is over 50% female, over 25% non-Caucasian, and our median age is around 35.  It’s 2011.  The time has long passed to start promoting and considering candidates who are female, non-Caucasian, and/or under 40.  Although the District Judges (if judges with senior status aren’t included) are a somewhat satisfactory reflection of Alabama demographics, this group of Magistrate Judges look like they stepped right out of Birmingham’s Bull Connor era.  The lack of ability to imagine any citizen in these positions other than those who look like Mr. Greene may represent the most insidious kind of glass ceiling discrimination.

This decision to re-nominate Mr. Greene calls into serious question the Northern District’s commitment to diversity and to behaving like an Equal Opportunity Employer.  It also reveals a certain institutional blindness and a troubling drift in philosophy, especially given this particular district’s important flagship role with regard to discrimination and race relations.  When our nation considers difficult problems of race and diversity, it often cites to Birmingham.  And what would commentators, journalists, and historians find in 21st century Birmingham?  They find that our federal judges still prefer that their discrimination and criminal cases be handled by five old, white men.  One of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way we’ve internalized a sense of limitation; so many in our community have come to expect so little from the world and from themselves.  I’m embarrassed by this kind of narrow-mindedness.

I intend to spend the next thirty years helping to lead America forward.  Reactionary forces surrounding the baby boom generation have rotted our country, its institutions, its economy, and our court system.  Like Howard Zinn, my experience is that if you’re not part of the old, white establishment, they will hate you and want you to fail.  I believe I speak for many or most of my generation when I say that we disagree with virtually everything about Mr. Greene’s philosophy and attitude – and we represent the future.  Experience alone is not a trustworthy panacea.  Neither does an error become truth by reason of multiplied propagation.  We the people hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, control our laws, and shape our own destiny.  We can’t afford to stand pat while the world races by.  We can’t meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking.  America became successful because each time a new generation of Americans has faced a changing future and a changing world, we have acted to shape it.  This reappointment would not facilitate progress – it would guarantee more of the same.

I have serious concerns about some practical problems or limitations with this reappointment procedure.  As explained to me, our district judges have hand-picked twelve of their most-favored attorneys and civilians for the merit selection panel.  Chief District Judge Blackburn then submitted Mr. Greene’s name to this panel for consideration.  The panel is then asked to make an “objective” recommendation back to the same judges that picked them for service.  I find this disturbingly incestuous.  For one, any person asked to serve on the panel surely already has a cozy relationship with the court and would be highly unlikely to endanger this affinity by voting against its intended nominee.  This procedure recalls Alabama’s Jim Crow era, where our government officials acted out empty theater with fixed or predetermined outcomes.  Also, there is nothing to stop the Northern District from empanelling (the one-sided equivalent of) twelve old, white men.  These panelists could get fifty or a hundred negative letters about a nominee, but still recommend reappointment.  The only check on this important government process would be transparency.  In fact, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts recommends that district courts provide the names of panel members to the public.  Though I imagine most north Alabama attorneys would be interested to know which members of the bar have attained most-favored or insider status with our federal judiciary and which groups were denied a seat at this table, the Northern District refuses to provide these names.  Perhaps for that very reason.  The court also refuses to disclose any comments from the public or the panel’s final recommendation.  This open disdain for oversight and transparency raises bothersome and fundamental questions about how the Northern District prefers to conduct the work of our government.

Finally, most citizens will not be aware of or interested in this process.  Regional attorneys or court staff might be interested, but my intuition is that the majority of letters will anticipate that Mr. Greene will be reappointed and include only empty brown-nosing and ingratiation.  Any “no” uttered with deep conviction should be better than any “yes” merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.  Most will be afraid to speak out because – let’s be frank – federal judges have a lot of discretionary power.  My experience with the Northern District shows that several of its judges, including Mr. Greene, may be prone to misusing their authority to strike out at perceived enemies.  I guarantee I’m not the only attorney or citizen in the Northern District who finds that our judicial officials can frequently set a paranoid, malevolent, or vindictive tone.  Any retaliation or defamation directed at me, however, would represent a strike at democracy, the freedom of political discourse, and the promise of a better tomorrow.  Our courts of conscience consistently function on a higher level than our courts of justice.

The merit selection panel should recommend against this reappointment.  The Northern District of Alabama can do a lot better than Paul W. Greene.

I can beat
Your snit
With my cool
I rock

In that dress
Her butt said yes

There is snow
We can sleep
Next spring

Whisper
Ice ice
Baybe
Go white boy

A man who would
Rob ducks
Ain’t no
Friend to me

She moaned
And drooled
Then
Wet the bed
Like a puppy

Shake your finger
All you like
But never tell me
What to do

One shell
Pink mist
Black spray
Hair skin and blood
Not life
Only meat
The politics of protest
This is history
The revolution starts

I heave my breasts
At the ocean
Up to the neck
It stares
At their size
Yay fresh milk

A diamond
Will mean
She must
Worship the
Pound me pole
For eternity
Right?

Gorgeous
Crush
Of
My
Dreams
To
Incubate
My
Seed

To leave a woman
Is power
Do you recall her smell
Like northful weather
Trudged into the south
Sagging those smooth petals
And voiding the sweet moon
Summer blue to winter blue
The symphony has gone away
Did you cry
A flood of tears
As though you hit her

Watch the scenic sea
Beneath its water
Swim werefish
Time for screaming

It is chocolate goddess season
Freezeing in a honey blizzard
Float in a winter garden storm
Bare feet rowing in a cold fluff pond

Our fall was like
An Irish drunk from above
Ugly boiling public lust
A Red Sox and Yankee marathon
Eating out and drinking
Lifes sordid urges
Raw repulsive language
Lathered together
Always watching
With a true friend
Acheing all the way through
Our sad show sunday
Near the end of autumn