—these two worlds are transcendental, that is, beyond consciousness. they cannot be perceived “in themselves” but only by the traces which they leave in the field of our consciousness. 1 no problem, like fiction:
by Jared Schickling
April 1, 2009
Office of Legal Counsel
Contest Oversight Committee
National Poetry Council
Memorandum for R izzo, wise Mouth for the National Endowment
Pure poetry is conversant with an imaginary world, peopled with beings of its own creation. It deals in splendid imagery, bold fiction, and allegorical personages. It is necessarily obscure to a certain degree; because, having to do with images generated within the mind, it cannot be at all comprehended by any whose intellect has not been exercised in similar contemplations; while the conceptions of the poet (often highly metaphysical) are rendered still more remote from common apprehension by the figurative in which they are clothed. The substratum, if I may so express myself, or subject matter, which every composition must have, is, in a poem of this kind, so extremely slender, that it requires not only art, but a certain artifice of construction, to work it up into a beautiful place. 2
To that end, we agree to conduct ourselves as ethically as possible and to address any unethical behavior…defining conflict of interest for all parties involved…to make the mechanics of our selection process available…but that each model can be run…to reinforce our integrity and dedication… 3
- When poetry therapists and applied poetry facilitators know of an ethical violation by another poetry therapist or applied poetry facilitator, must they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing the behavior to the attention of colleagues?
- If the misconduct appears to be due to lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or experience, are hard solutions really appropriate?
iii. A fire threatens the museum; do we save Rembrandt paintings or an old woman who hadn’t many years left anyhow?
- Art is a strong conductor for doubts and fears. May we enter those green fields?
Assistant to the Programs Coordinator
1 on music, 1980
2 on genius, 1756, my emphasis
3 the CLMP Code, 2005
May 1, 2009
NEA Office of Grant Management
Memorandum for John Rizzo, Acting General Counsel to the National Poetry Council
You have ab extra asked for this Office’s views on whether certain proposed conduct would not violate the prohibition against torture as expressed by the council of literary ymagazines and presses in their code of ethics. You have asked for this advice in the course of recent accusations cf. imeno gations that imen ogations are actively engaged in sponsoring imenogations while effectively debilitating Abu Zubaydah. a noteworthy shaper of thought among several Globally Dispersed Collectives which CLMP currently finds itself engaging in international armed conflicts involving recent verbal attacks on the Poetry Foundation, and like last week’s Iowa Writers Workshop, as well as miscellaneous laureateprograms cf. “The State of Poetry Today,” forthcoming in our Program Committee’s annual Budget Report, on dates that have not yet been fully determined. After review by this Office, this letter memorializes our previous oral advice given you most recently February 13, 2009,in Chicago that the proposed conduct would not violate the prohibition.
When poetry therapists and applied poetry facilitators know…
[continued] pursuant to contrast to clearly in place in the dominant position, has special force in contrast to the domestic realm, due to authority and plenary control over diplomatic relations. There can be little doubt that a matter that is fundamentally executive in nature implies the direction of the common strength of directing and employing common strength forms, a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive. Thus earlier in this current conflict we concluded that power will be at its zenith under such operations, cf. xxxxxxxxxxxx A reduced role in the effort and the courts, over time and in similar circumstances, generally defer to executive decisions concerning the conduct of construing generally applicable statutes, so as not to apply to the conduct of operations during basic allocation of authority. As our office explained in rejecting the application which would have prohibited the seizure of vessels during the current previously concluded authority, cf. xxxxxxxxxxxx) the absence of a clear statement in the existing text, or context of a prohibition, suggested that intent to circumscribe this authority. We did not believe that should be interpreted to impose such a restriction on the deference, especially appropriate in the area of respect inherent to directing against its general laws, construed as not applying. Pursuant to conduct of operations during any construction of laws that regulate the authority to determine the treatment of serious questions. Moreover we did not believe any general provisions, such as prohibitions against assault, maiming, or interstate stalking, pursuant to any express authority, would allow it to infringe on control over the operation.
If the misconduct appears to be due…
In our view we may no more regulate the ability to detain than we may regulate the ability to direct movements. In fact general applicability belies any argument that regulation in any case can be applied to persons, under the direction of the conduct for many years our office has hitherto supplied. This canon’s several highly illustrative contexts cannot be discussed in this memorandum, as the application of these to the conduct here considered would deprive the sovereign of a recognized prerogative historically free. Treat unlawful combatants as they wish, this power has been vested in the clause xxxxxxxxxxxx As one commentator has explained,4 we are more often than not treated as we are liable to be treated, so there are almost no regulatory safeguards with respect to them, and thus no obligation is owed towards them or any who do not enjoy the privileges according to a customary rule of law. The right to treat such individuals under traditional practice, as expressed in the customary laws, is left to the sovereign’s discretion. As one commentator has stated,5 the treatment is left to the discretion of the threatened, and while law enforcement efforts frequently require the literal violation of facially applicable statutes, as we inidcate above, and which we develop below, to persons acting under the color of law, the legislative history indicates no intent to apply this to the conduct of personnel.
A fire threatens the museum…
Certain acts do however consistently reappear in cases pertinent to yours or are of such a barbaric nature that it is likely a court would find that allegations here we do not consider the reliability of intelligence produced of such treatment as severe beatings, using instruments such as iron barks, truncheons, and clubs, threats of imminence such as mock executions, removing extremities, burning, especially burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, or threats to do so, rape or sexual assault, or injury to an individual’s sexual organs, or threatening to do any of these sorts of acts, forcing others to watch, that, while we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these would not constitute torture we believe that techniques would have to be similar to these acts, in their extreme nature, and in the type of harm caused to violate the law or any functioning moral code. Furthermore the Rome Statute makes a crime subject to jurisdiction in only two contexts. For your purposes the act may fall under the jurisdiction of crimes against humanity if it is committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against people, while the legislative history suggests that the relevant entity will not be figured prior to conflict, is therefore not definably restricted, nor even directly related really, but is widely constituted as something dispersed around the globe, technically, rather than bound to any state.
Art is a strong conductor for doubts and fears…
Indeed as we explained in discussing the prerogative of the sovereign, it is well established that the sovereign retains the discretion to act as it sees fit, so long as the method does not involve a dangerous weapon. This type of assault has, expanding upon III, not been committed. Even in the event of more direct physical contact, as we understand the situation, something less concrete would have to be established, being insufficient to demonstrate that the type of method involving alterations to the environment would be problematic cf. s ec tio n xx pursuant to xxxxxxxxxxxx not only because no visibly dangerous weapon would have been used, but also because such alterations are unlikely to involve the necessary intent to inflict bodily injury, so long as the method under contemplation does not involve the acts enumerated, Webster’s New International Dictionary. The conduct will not fall within the purview of this because the statute requires specific intent to maim, disfigure, or the absence of such intent is a complete defense to a charge of maiming. Thus even if severe pain will knowingly result from actions, if causing such harm is not the ultimate objective, it lacks the requisite intent, though not the infliction of pain or suffering, here a step well removed from the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury resulting in a loss of significant body function, which will likely result if that pain or suffering is from one of the acts set forth in the statute. In addition these acts must cause long term mental harm. Indeed this view of the act is consistent with torture’s common meaning, generally understood to involve intense or excruciating pain, or put another way, extreme anguish, WNID. In short, reading the definition as a whole, it is plain that the term encompasses only extreme acts, because the purpose of our analysis here is to ascertain acts that would cross the threshold of producing the list of illustrative purposes for which it is inflicted. Therefore, it would not affect this analysis.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.
Acting Counsel to Office of Grant Management
4 I The term critifiction is used because the discourse that follows is critical as well as fictitious; imagination is used in the sense that it is essential in the formulation of a discourse; plagiarism because the writing of a discourse always implies bringing together pieces of other discourses; an unfinished endless discourse because what is presented here is open at both ends, and as such more could be added endlessly.
5 The totally blasted landscape is a really hard place to leave someone…