Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Palisades Park - Property Tax, Bergen County NJ
Since receiving my property tax assessment for the year 2005. It has given me no other option but to contemplate a lawsuit against the municipality. If you currently live in Palisades Park, Ridgefield, Cliffside Park, Fort Lee or any of the nearby towns in Bergen County NJ, there's a chance we can fight the rapacious regulators together.
We ONLY have until April 2005 to investigate those dossiers that landed us exorbitant property tax. Most of us reside in working class towns and live in austerity; according to the Bergen Record, there are some dubious cases where their taxes went up by more than 100% in just one year. Taking on the assessor may be an arduous task few of us can handle alone. I have no vested interest in anything other than fair judgment for all.
The truth is that if you are adverstly affected by an incorrect assessment, the problem will compound over time. The best way is to take back city hall during the next election cycle. Now is the time to issue a message they can't ignore.
For more information please email me at:
jmatom@gmail.com
A Concerned Taxpayer
We ONLY have until April 2005 to investigate those dossiers that landed us exorbitant property tax. Most of us reside in working class towns and live in austerity; according to the Bergen Record, there are some dubious cases where their taxes went up by more than 100% in just one year. Taking on the assessor may be an arduous task few of us can handle alone. I have no vested interest in anything other than fair judgment for all.
The truth is that if you are adverstly affected by an incorrect assessment, the problem will compound over time. The best way is to take back city hall during the next election cycle. Now is the time to issue a message they can't ignore.
For more information please email me at:
jmatom@gmail.com
A Concerned Taxpayer
Monday, February 07, 2005
Look at me when I talk to you
EastSouthWestNorth
GLOBAL CULTURE & POLITICS
February 8, 2005.
Hong Kong in the 1960s
People seemed to have a hard time understanding why the Chinese people seemed to have visceral hatred against the Japanese. In a previous post, I have explained why I personally don't have that tendency. However, I will tell you that I can understand the visceral hatred because I have that tendency on another issue. I will ask the readers to think about whether there are other issues that seem to automatically tick them off as well.
For me, that other matter would happen every time that I hear the British Foreign Office issues yet another press release that they are not satisifed with the progress of democracy in their former colony of Hong Kong. Somehow, my blood automatically boils over.
In yesterday's post, I quoted Rey Chow:
The enormous seductiveness of the postmodern hybridite's discourse lies, of course, in its invitation to join the power of global capitalism by flattening out past injustices. Because we are already, whether or not we choose it, in the grips of that power, and because that power works efficiently (for such is the meaning of power), the recitation of past injustices seems tedious and unnecessary. Instead of emphasizing "colonial" in the world "postcolonial," the postmodern hybridite's emphasis falls on "post" in the strict sense of "after" and "over with," and, since all "posts" are considered the same, "postcolonial" is easy construed as synonymous with "postmodern." In a space such as Hong Kong, the postmodern hybridite would criticize not British colonialism (read: "international openness") but Chinese nationalism (read: "native conservatism"), thus obliterating or blurring the complex history of the rise of modern Chinese nationalism as an overdetermined response to Western imperialism of the past few centuries.
What, for example, is some of that history that the British would prefer to get "over with"? This is the history that I grew up with under the British colonial administration, and it had nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with anyone's sense of what democracy can possibly mean. I will just quote one case study from Elsie Tu's book Colonial Hong Kong In The Eyes Of Elsie Tu in the chapter titled Hong Kong - 1960s Criminal Paradise:
Madam Cheung had been beaten by her neighbour, a young man. She followed the rules and reported the asault to the nearest police station. The police sent her to a clinic where she was examined and told that there were no injuries to be found. She was given a medical chit to that effect. Knowing that the pains she suffered could not come from nowhere, she returned to the police station, where she was told that if she was not satisfied she could go to a government hospital for examination. She went to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where she was detained with a broken finger, and placed under observation for a severe eye injury. The hospital gave her a medical chit recording her injuries.
Before leaving the hospital, Madam Cheung was approached by a policeman who offered to 'fix' the case in her favour in return for a sum of money, an offer she refused. That refusal no doubt led to the circumstances that followed.
When the case went to court, to her astonishment, Madam Cheung found that the clinic chit indicating no injuries was shown to the magistrate and the date on the document had been changed. The magistrate called her a liar and dismissed the case.
One can hardly blame the magistrate since he had been shown the wrong chit, but no one can blame the woman for being outraged. She demanded an apology from the police and the assailant, whom she naturally concluded were in cahoots. It was a small thing to ask, but the police could afford to laugh at such a request because they wore the Queen's uniform and, after 1967, bore the title 'Royal.' Their word is therefore infallible and many magistrates make it clear that they trust whatever the police say.
Madam Cheung sought me out because she knew I would take up her case and try to get redress. Councillors who take up such cases are dubbed 'credulous' and 'naïve' by police, especially if they are women. But in this case they were wrong, because they did not realize that I always check up both sides of a case before accepting it as fact.
In this case, I asked the police side of the story and, after they investigated it at a higher level, a senior police officer, a British policeman, informed me that the wrong chit had 'accidentially' been shown in court. The conversation between this senior policeman and myself went something like this:
Police: It really was a mistake that the wrong chit was produced in court.
Myself: But surely, if it was a mistake, something should be done, since the women sustained injury and was very upset to be called a liar by a magistrate.
Police: Oh, calling names doesn't hurt anyone.
Myself: Would you like to have your wife called a liar in court?
Police: No, but no harm was done.
Myself: What about the man getting off scot-free after an assault like that?
Police: But he might have gotten off in any case.
Myself: Well, but wouldn't you think that his chances of getting off were improved by police producing the wrong chit?
Police: No, I think the result would have been the same.
Myself: Would you kindly give this in writing?
Police: No.
Myself: I should guess not. Please do something about it.
Nothing was done and no apology was offered as requested. Surely that would have been simple enough. However, it was admitted in writing that the wrong chit had been given 'by mistake,' and the woman was told that she could take civil action if she wished. But that costs money, so she just had to swallow her pride and accept the magistrate's insult.
The police had said that no harm was done. In fact a great deal of harm was done, because at least one more family turned against the police and the courts, and one more violent character had learned how to bypass the law. Moreover, it was a further step on my road to disillusionment with the justice system of the 1960s.
No long after this, the accused man repeated his performance, but rather than face injustice again, the woman asked if her family could be transferred to another estate, to escape the bully. Thus was the matter settled, albeit unfairly.
This is one case single study, but Elsie Tu has plenty more in her file cabinet. The point here is that nobody would ever characterize the British colonial adminstration in Hong Kong as a paragon of democratic virtues. That conversion did not appear until the British realized that they had to relinquish Hong Kong to China, and then the ephiphany about democracy occurred suddenly.
There is nothing wrong with instantaneous religous conversion per se, but it is usually accompanied by a renunciation of the former life of sin. I have never ever heard that from this bunch of hypocrites, and that is why I have this viscreral reaction whenever I hear the latest from the British Foreign Office. I wish that I could see some statement about the injustices of the Opium Wars and the subsequent anti-democratic aspects of the maladminstration over one century and a half, and then these current pro-democracy statements would be more palatable to me. That has never happend yet. So, instead, I now automatically ignore every word that they say. In fact, every time that they speak up, my disgust grows.
HOME CONTACT eswn@zonaeuropa.com
GLOBAL CULTURE & POLITICS
February 8, 2005.
Hong Kong in the 1960s
People seemed to have a hard time understanding why the Chinese people seemed to have visceral hatred against the Japanese. In a previous post, I have explained why I personally don't have that tendency. However, I will tell you that I can understand the visceral hatred because I have that tendency on another issue. I will ask the readers to think about whether there are other issues that seem to automatically tick them off as well.
For me, that other matter would happen every time that I hear the British Foreign Office issues yet another press release that they are not satisifed with the progress of democracy in their former colony of Hong Kong. Somehow, my blood automatically boils over.
In yesterday's post, I quoted Rey Chow:
The enormous seductiveness of the postmodern hybridite's discourse lies, of course, in its invitation to join the power of global capitalism by flattening out past injustices. Because we are already, whether or not we choose it, in the grips of that power, and because that power works efficiently (for such is the meaning of power), the recitation of past injustices seems tedious and unnecessary. Instead of emphasizing "colonial" in the world "postcolonial," the postmodern hybridite's emphasis falls on "post" in the strict sense of "after" and "over with," and, since all "posts" are considered the same, "postcolonial" is easy construed as synonymous with "postmodern." In a space such as Hong Kong, the postmodern hybridite would criticize not British colonialism (read: "international openness") but Chinese nationalism (read: "native conservatism"), thus obliterating or blurring the complex history of the rise of modern Chinese nationalism as an overdetermined response to Western imperialism of the past few centuries.
What, for example, is some of that history that the British would prefer to get "over with"? This is the history that I grew up with under the British colonial administration, and it had nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with anyone's sense of what democracy can possibly mean. I will just quote one case study from Elsie Tu's book Colonial Hong Kong In The Eyes Of Elsie Tu in the chapter titled Hong Kong - 1960s Criminal Paradise:
Madam Cheung had been beaten by her neighbour, a young man. She followed the rules and reported the asault to the nearest police station. The police sent her to a clinic where she was examined and told that there were no injuries to be found. She was given a medical chit to that effect. Knowing that the pains she suffered could not come from nowhere, she returned to the police station, where she was told that if she was not satisfied she could go to a government hospital for examination. She went to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where she was detained with a broken finger, and placed under observation for a severe eye injury. The hospital gave her a medical chit recording her injuries.
Before leaving the hospital, Madam Cheung was approached by a policeman who offered to 'fix' the case in her favour in return for a sum of money, an offer she refused. That refusal no doubt led to the circumstances that followed.
When the case went to court, to her astonishment, Madam Cheung found that the clinic chit indicating no injuries was shown to the magistrate and the date on the document had been changed. The magistrate called her a liar and dismissed the case.
One can hardly blame the magistrate since he had been shown the wrong chit, but no one can blame the woman for being outraged. She demanded an apology from the police and the assailant, whom she naturally concluded were in cahoots. It was a small thing to ask, but the police could afford to laugh at such a request because they wore the Queen's uniform and, after 1967, bore the title 'Royal.' Their word is therefore infallible and many magistrates make it clear that they trust whatever the police say.
Madam Cheung sought me out because she knew I would take up her case and try to get redress. Councillors who take up such cases are dubbed 'credulous' and 'naïve' by police, especially if they are women. But in this case they were wrong, because they did not realize that I always check up both sides of a case before accepting it as fact.
In this case, I asked the police side of the story and, after they investigated it at a higher level, a senior police officer, a British policeman, informed me that the wrong chit had 'accidentially' been shown in court. The conversation between this senior policeman and myself went something like this:
Police: It really was a mistake that the wrong chit was produced in court.
Myself: But surely, if it was a mistake, something should be done, since the women sustained injury and was very upset to be called a liar by a magistrate.
Police: Oh, calling names doesn't hurt anyone.
Myself: Would you like to have your wife called a liar in court?
Police: No, but no harm was done.
Myself: What about the man getting off scot-free after an assault like that?
Police: But he might have gotten off in any case.
Myself: Well, but wouldn't you think that his chances of getting off were improved by police producing the wrong chit?
Police: No, I think the result would have been the same.
Myself: Would you kindly give this in writing?
Police: No.
Myself: I should guess not. Please do something about it.
Nothing was done and no apology was offered as requested. Surely that would have been simple enough. However, it was admitted in writing that the wrong chit had been given 'by mistake,' and the woman was told that she could take civil action if she wished. But that costs money, so she just had to swallow her pride and accept the magistrate's insult.
The police had said that no harm was done. In fact a great deal of harm was done, because at least one more family turned against the police and the courts, and one more violent character had learned how to bypass the law. Moreover, it was a further step on my road to disillusionment with the justice system of the 1960s.
No long after this, the accused man repeated his performance, but rather than face injustice again, the woman asked if her family could be transferred to another estate, to escape the bully. Thus was the matter settled, albeit unfairly.
This is one case single study, but Elsie Tu has plenty more in her file cabinet. The point here is that nobody would ever characterize the British colonial adminstration in Hong Kong as a paragon of democratic virtues. That conversion did not appear until the British realized that they had to relinquish Hong Kong to China, and then the ephiphany about democracy occurred suddenly.
There is nothing wrong with instantaneous religous conversion per se, but it is usually accompanied by a renunciation of the former life of sin. I have never ever heard that from this bunch of hypocrites, and that is why I have this viscreral reaction whenever I hear the latest from the British Foreign Office. I wish that I could see some statement about the injustices of the Opium Wars and the subsequent anti-democratic aspects of the maladminstration over one century and a half, and then these current pro-democracy statements would be more palatable to me. That has never happend yet. So, instead, I now automatically ignore every word that they say. In fact, every time that they speak up, my disgust grows.
HOME CONTACT eswn@zonaeuropa.com
Friday, February 04, 2005
Javascript To Excel
Junk Resignation Letter #5
Dear [Recipient's name]:
I want to thank you for all you have done for me here at (Company). It's been a pleasure working with you, and representing the company as your (job title).
I have accepted an offer with another firm and have decided to tender my resignation. My last date of employment will be (approximately 2 week notice). This decision has nothing to do with the exceptional opportunity you have provided me here. You and the company have been more than fair with me, and I genuinely appreciate all your support.
I wish (Company) continued success, and I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of your team. Please feel free to contact me at any time if I can be of further assistance in helping with a smooth transition.
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
cc [Names for copies]
I want to thank you for all you have done for me here at (Company). It's been a pleasure working with you, and representing the company as your (job title).
I have accepted an offer with another firm and have decided to tender my resignation. My last date of employment will be (approximately 2 week notice). This decision has nothing to do with the exceptional opportunity you have provided me here. You and the company have been more than fair with me, and I genuinely appreciate all your support.
I wish (Company) continued success, and I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of your team. Please feel free to contact me at any time if I can be of further assistance in helping with a smooth transition.
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
cc [Names for copies]
Junk Resignation Letter #4
Dear [Recipient's name]:
Effective two weeks from the date of this letter, I resign my position as [title].
I've enjoyed working here. Thank you very much for the opportunities you've provided.
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
cc [Names for copies]
Junk Resignation Letter #3
Dear [Recipient's name]:
Please accept this letter as my notice of resignation, effective [date].
This wasn't an easy decision, because I am grateful for the rewarding employment I've had with [Company name]. But after long hours of consideration, my decision is now final and I have accepted a position with another company.
Sincere thanks and best wishes for the future,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
cc [Names for copies]
Junk Resignation Letter #2
Dear [Recipient's name]:
This is to formally notify you that I am resigning from [company name] as [title]. [Date] will be my last day of employment.
Thank you for the opportunity to work for such an outstanding organization.
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
cc [Names for copies]
Junk Resignation Letter #1
Dear [Recipient's name]:
Please accept this letter as my formal notice of resignation from [Company name], effective [date, two weeks from date above]. The associations I've made during my employment here will truly be memorable for years to come.
I hope a two-week notice is sufficient for you to find a replacement for me. If I can help to train my replacement or tie up any loose ends, please let me know.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to work here.
Sincerely,
[Sign here]
[Your name, title]
