Final Essay in New York

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTTSX694

 

Final Essay in a Drama School

Booklet for Musical by Ignazio Salvatore Basile

 

Final Essay in New York

Booklet for Musical by Ignazio Salvatore Basile

The drama is set in New York city around the 2002

Characters

Papa John Brook(baritone) = King of Cleaning also Frank Bandello and Director of the Drama School

Norma Nursey (alto)= His Wife

Geena Loyd (soprano)= Cleaner also student of Drama  School as Lavinia

Mel Baron (tenor)= Delivery Boy and student as Mariotto

Bill Dauber (bass): A kind soul- Student at Drama School

Vincent Da Porto= Boss in the Laundry business

Paris Da Porto= his son (does not appear)

Governor Escalus  Rockefeller (does not appear)

Charlie  Dealer: Pusher, chemist and pharmacist

Flora: housekeeper chez Bandello’s

Other students of the Drama School:David, Patrick, Susan, Ellen, Ada, Lawrence ,Henry, James,Leslie,Edna,Basil,Reginald,Ralph, Margaret

Chief Police Michael Masuccio; Various policemen,

Cleaners, dustmen, choristers and dancers

 

 

First Scene

 

An open space, like the courtyard of a firm. A dozen of handcarts are aligned, waiting for the dustmen to come to work.

As the scavengers arrive the boss assigns them the intervention sectors.

All the scavengers are young and have got an athletic build.

 

J.B. : Hi, Marcus! Good boy! Always the first to come. You’re in pole for the bonus also this week!

Marcus: Thanks Boss!

J.B.: Go to the twelfth  if you don’t mind!

Marcus:  ( taking a trolley) At once!

J.B. (to a girl who in coming) Glenda, to the eleventh today, please!

Glenda: Straightaway J.B.!

J.B. Thanks dear! (approaching a cart to another coming cleaner) To the tenth sector, be kind!

Third cleaner: I go immediately Papa John Brook!

Old and new dictatorships

How many dictators will we still have to see, haranguing from the balconies of power, the dull masses of the Naziolists, before a true universal government forever prevents them from exercising a power that offends the soul of the world?

 How many Hitlers, how many Mussolins, how many Erdogan, will we still have to endure, without being able to prevent them from imprisoning dissenting politicians and the lawyers who defend them? 

 The latest, in order of time, seems to be the elected president of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, one who has imprisoned dozens of lawyers, guilty in his eyes of having defended dissenting politicians in court. The bully of Instambul now took it out on Mario Draghi, who had the courage (and perhaps also the unconsciousness, being a non-political in a strictly sense) to remove from him the mask of democratic fiction behind which he disguised himself since long time and that other politicians pretend not to see, in the name of diplomacy, business and politics.

 The diatribe between Mario Draghi and the Turkish president starts from the recent "sofagate", the diplomatic incident involving the Turkish ceremonial, which saw Ursula Von der Layen, president of the EU Commission, deprived of the diplomatic chair that was due to her (perhaps more as a woman than as chief of the executive of the European Union) and on which the president of the European Council

Charles Michel, has instead slammed! 

 But that's just the finger! The moon, or rather the real question that lies behind this apparently trivial motivation, is the exit from the Istanbul Convention, already signed by Turkey in 2011, from which Erdogan wanted to call himself out, worried that international norms they could force him to respect those human rights that he refuses to acknowledge even to men; and even less to  women, mercilessly imprisoned, even if they perform defense functions in court as lawyers! 

 And here it  comes to the focal point of this post. 

The only way to stop these dictators of whom we've really had enough,  would be to set up a world government that abolishes by law all naziolisms, discrimination and the thirst for power that are the common denominators of every and each  dictator, since  the existing world! 

 I know it won't be easy! 

But must we wait for an alien's invasion in order to unite in an international coalition that recognizes the right to exist for all peoples? Or should we wait for the ongoing third world war to finish destroying the earth?

You may also say I'm a dreamer, again; but dreams and words are the only arms I have to make my thought spread!

Aytaç Unsal Free

While some proud boys are attenting to democracy at Capitol Hill, some other  turkish proud boys are attempting the core og the law at Istambul, arresting Aytaç Unsal, a lawyer accused  for defending in a trial the  oppositors of Turkish proud boys leader Erdogan!

Let's remember that any time a dictator attempts the right of defence in a trial, he attempts to democracy.

The right of defence is a result of a millennial struggle against the power, in order to guarantee to any defendant, not matter if guilty or not guilty, the legal defence in a trial.

The assault to Capital Hill, the arrest of Aytaç Unsal, even the abuse of patience of some new, modern Ctilina in Rome, are ominous signals of the sunset of our democracy in nowdays world.

Let's rise the voice against dictatorship, against anarchy, against the law of the strongest.

Let's howl at one voice: Free Aytaç Unsal in Turkey! Right now!

Manifesto for Panracial Rights

There is nowdays a great movement of people from the most poor regions of the world to Europe and the other western countries. The European states, facing the worst crisis after 1929, seem to be not able to manage what seems to represent an unstoppable exodus. These moving people, escaping famine and wars, are searching a better chance of life for themselves and for their sons.

The European citizens, mostly those paying the high price of the crisis, in terms of unemployment and cut of  public services, don't want these mass of desperates from Asia and Africa occupying their spaces in their towns, consequently diminishing the resources already scarce because of the crisis.

I wonder who owns the most valuable right between those who have firstly occupied the European lands and who secondly comes in search of fortune.

The question might seem rethoric and the answer quiet easy to be done. But , on the contrary, I find hard to debate the matter, above all if I try to look at it with a gaze of proof, avoiding a selfish a narrow minded approach.

Since long time ago, ethnic groups, countersigned by common uses and language, have started conquering lands, fencing them whith enforced borders and calling them states. So the earth now is fractioned in to 190 states, more and less, which one with its own laws, flags and soldiers, the most numerous, the most powerful.   Talking about natural rights and from a point of view not merely nationalist are we sure that each of these state has the right to close its borders to the arriving people and to push them off?

I mean: it's really so pacific and clear that Africa belongs to Africans, China to Chinese and America to Americans?

And what kind of right behold the single states of Europe to declare themselves owners of the lands their ancestrals have conquered centuries ago may be taking them off from the former inhabitants? What if we start reasoning about the earth belonging indinstinctly to the all humanhood ?

I have worked the following principles:

1. The earth belongs to all human kind indistinctly and pro quota;

2. The human groupes who have closed portions of land, sea and sky, whatever they have called them, are running those territories on behalf of the whole humanity;

3. Hence every man born on the earth has the same rights and same duties anywhere on the earth no matter who is ruling the territory where he's standing;

4. Every man born on the earth has the right to move and to stay anywhere on the earth no matter who is in charge in those lands, or seas or skies he wants to move to or stay;

5. Every man has the right to be able to exercise the previous rights and therefore he must be welcomed and nurtured for a reasonable time until he is able to work and legally obtain his own livelihood or move to another place;

6. Every man, anywhere he lives, is compelled to respect the rules, the customs and the laws generally observed by the sedentary population who inhabits the territories he moves to ;

7. All the natural resources, wherever they might be set, belong to the whole manhood, no matter who temporarily is exploiting them.

1. to be continued...

London for ever - 10

I’ve  recently been to  an important conference which took place in London in the premises of the Royal  Law Society.

It was organized by an important International Law Firm called SLIG, founded by the three Gaglione Brothers (Alessandro, Giuseppe and Roberto) who are  skillful lawyers both in Italy and in Egland and Wales (as a matter of fact they practise in London  as Solicitors and in Rome as Lawyers in a high degree of expertise ).

It was about being solicitors in England and Wales today and what presumably it could be after Brexit. It was really  very thrilling for me to meet a lot of lawyers coming from so many different towns in Italy and lawyers who practise in London as Solicitors or under different labels (but still in the juridical field).

Though I’m already in my sixties I’m still able to dream. And to be a solicitor in London is one of my dreams.

In the afternoon there was even a space for us to pose some question to three English solicitors come to show us what Brexit might change in the legal profession for Italian lawyers in England and Wales. The scenario they drew up wasn’t not all catastrophic, though surely remains a certain degree of uncertainty.

I was tempted to take the  word just to say how I’m sad of the Brexit (though I respect the democratic expression of British voters; we could even say a lot about the way the 2016 June’s  referendum was held and what kind of negative, external forces influenced the voters, but I still respect the road our British friends are taking to drive their Country out of EU, saving the Unity of the Kingdom and doing the best for themselves).

I’m not neutral as the Solicitors Regulation Association are. I’ve already said that I wanted UK staying in the E.U. because I believe that British are essential part of the European brotherhood I’m fond of.

That's why I say London is for ever.

after the Conference The SLIG Firm had a suprise for all of us: they brought all around London in a free tour in a wonderful, original  Router Master double deck red bus.
I want to thank Alessandro Gaglione and his brothers also for this final present.
That's why I still think London is for ever.

10. to be continued…

Thank you Lords

It  invites us to a serious reflection the amendment the Lords have inserted in  the Brexit bill in order to protect three millions of EU citizens, working and living in UK, after Artcle 50 is triggered.

What I expected  was to be done by the  House of Commons It has been done instead by the House of Lords.

It is a widespread belief, even abroad, that  Lords are  people of privileges,  living in the past,  insensitive and rich enough to snub all the rest of the world, indifferent to anybody'else problems.

I don't know if that's true.

What I know for sure it's that yesterday 358 (against 256) of them vote an amendment to secure the acquired rights of 3 millions of EU citizens living in UK.

But why such a vote is surprising?

I'll try to answer this question.

In my opinion as the Commoners were afraid  to lose the political consent by the voters, they voted, on both fronts (tories and labs) giving carte blanche to Government on Brexit bill.

The sad truth is that inspite we rant about democracy, a forum of no elected people (The Lords, as matter of fact) remember the world, with their amendment,  the real basis of morality and principles of human rights.

And in times of trumps, lepens and various despots, pushed by blind populism, it's not really a poor thing.

And anyway, I told you  various times that London is forever. 

The supremacy of law

It has not been a surprise the Supreme Court vote on the Brexit affair. At least for those who know the long, noble history of both English legislative and Judicial powers. 

On the other end we all know that between the legislative power (the Parliament) and the executive power (id est the Governement) the first is higher.

The law is to uphold over ministers.

Legally and logically: if the Parliament has delivered the entry of Great Britain in the EU, how could the Governement only think to ride the Country out of it without consulting the Parliament?

Someone may say that the Electorate is much more worth than the same Members of Parliament (who eventually are elected by the Electorate). But in this sick democracy we are liveing  in I'm not sure the Electorate is really free in his thoughts.

I'm thinking, for instance, of press and television's power. 

Papers and television are able to influence the Electorate more than we might think.

And I'm not sure either that another vote, today, would see the Brexit's prevail.

Of course I know that the televisions and the papers are part of the society and if people believe on what they write and say that makes democracy going on.

But let me please rebut that if ten people are able to make twenty millions of electors to think as they want the, to think, then we are not living in a democracy (we are live in a plutocracy or in a mediocracy).

And let me please say another thing: I'm very worried about this secret or evident powers, as far as they in a certain way are allowing politicians dealmakers and warmongers to rule the world who knows where about (I hope they won't lead us in the brink of a precipice).

And for the memory of Jo Cox (and for her bllod spread for European Unity) I hope the British Parliament will reconsider at least the importance of the    single market, the customs union and free movements of goods and people all over Europe (including all the Great Britain).

I respect the will of  the majority of British people, as expressed in the referendum of last June, but I wanted all Britons great with the other Europeans (Italians, French, Germans, Spanish) and not with the NorthAmericans (though I feel sentiments of friendship even with the Americans).

And I don't want see the Europeans making war with each other like in the past.

What life's for

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0190LAQBM?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

Horace and his lawyer

The distinguished jurist Gaius Trebatius Testa (I century B.C.), warned the sublime poet Horace, his great friend, the rigor of the laws to which it was likely to meet with his biting satire.

- "If a man has composed bad verses  against someone, he will be taken to court and sentenced" - said the careful lawyer  to his friend.

- "All right!" - Horace replied - "But if someone had written   good verses also pleased to publict?"

- "Then even the tables of the law would melt with laughter and solved you would go to home!" - Concluded the great jurist reassuring his poet friend.

Here's how I imagined the dialogue between the two, freely translatingfrom the First Satire of the Second Book of the Satires of the great poet Horace:

Gaius Trebatius Testa- ” Si mala condiderit in quem quis carmina, ius est iudiciumque!”- ego tibi moneo Horatius

Quintus Flaccus Horatius – ” Esto, siquis mala, docte Trebati; sed bona siquis judice condiderit?”

Gaius Trebatius Testa: – ” Solventur risu tabulae, tu missus abisis laudatus Flaccus.

Annulla modifiche

Alpha

Questa traduzione è migliore dell'originale?

Sì, invia traduzione

Grazie per l'invio.

Il tipo di link che rilasci non è supportato. Prova altri tipi di link. Trascina e rilascia il file o il link qui per tradurre il documento o la pagina web.Trascina e rilascia il link qui per tradurre la pagina web.Il tipo di file che rilasci non è supp