Monday, July 30, 2007

Mark Lilla on Science, Religion, and Modernity.

August 23, 2010 at 12:44 P.M. "Errors" inserted in this text which was left in peace for a while. I hope to have made all necessary corrections for now.

July 30, 2007 at 10:41 A.M. I am unable to print items from Critique. "Errors" will be inserted repeatedly in this essay. I will make the same corrections, also repeatedly. You are witnessing power's need to eliminate dissent -- or even truth -- when it becomes an obstacle to controlling others. This is the opposite of the spirit of democracy or the rule of law. It is also the opposite of intelligence. Porter Goss? I am blocking:

http://view.atdmt.com/MSN/iview/msnnkhac00172,

http://view.com/NYC/iview/brstmcpc01800, (City Council?)

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N4225.Trlgy/B198514 (Times)

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3880.sd2527.38880/... (SD?)

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3016.msn.comSd25

On August 1, 2007 at 3:41 P.M. I am blocking:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N950.NPR/B239818 (NPR)

http://view.atdmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001728x90 (NJ)

Articles borrowed from my sites or links have appeared in a number of scholarly sites lately. I cannot say what the motive for this "kindness" may be. I have not been consulted about these appropriations. I hope that some day I will be able to use my printer again and that I will not have to deal with hackers looking over my shoulder or seeking to destroy my writings. I hope to live in a society that respects privacy and freedom of speech, even for those who are not tenured or allowed to write for elite publications, nor contributors to one or both of America's political parties. The first chapter of a novel and memoir was so damaged at my home computer that I was forced to delete it. I will write it by hand, then I will retype it on to a new computer file. Eventually, I will find a way to publish that work.


Mark Lilla, "The Cost of Utopia," in The New York Times, Sunday, July 29, 2007, Book Review, at p. 15. A review of Lesley Chamberlain, Motherland: A Philosophical History of Russia (London: Rookey, 2007), $35.00.
Mark Lilla, "Wolves and Lambs," in The Legacy of Isaiah Berlin (NYRB, 2007), p. 31.
Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers (London: Pelican, 1979), "The Hedgehog and the Fox" (p. 22.) and "German Romanticism in Petersburg and Moscow" (p. 136.)
Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity (New York: Vintage, 1992), p.1. ("The Pursuit of the Ideal").
Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Volume 7 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 15-50, 121-157.
Andrew Bowie, Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction (New York & london: Routledge, 1993), pp. 30-42, 55-87.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, "The Political and the Divine," in The New York Times, Book Review, September 16, 2007, at p. 9.
Juan Galis-Menendez, "Kant and the Historical Turn: Philosophy as Critical Interpretation," in Applied Epistemology, http://www.appliedepistemologytoday.com/shop.php?= (reissue or link to my essay on Kant in the Philosophy section at Critique. I hope without editorial additions.)

I never authorized the use of my essay, but it has been reprinted (or linked) and my goal is to have the work read, as I wrote it, by as many people as possible. Unfortunately, at this time, one of my books cannot be downloaded. I am struggling to make it more widely available. The true number of visitors to this blog or readers of my books is not known by me. I am obstructed in my efforts to access my own books on-line. Despite paying for the full ISBN service and distribution, one of my books is not being sent to on-line book sellers. The ISBN number may be a fake. I will continue to struggle. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")

Sundays are great for reading the Times, seeing old movies, spending hours with loved-ones and thinking, just thinking. I find that, rather than meditating while sitting on a rock or smoking a pipe at my gentlemen's club, I do some of my best philosophical meditation at the busy laundromat in my neighborhood. Kids screaming, women chatting about their sex lives in Spanish because they assume that I do not understand what they're saying -- since I am obviously a "Gringo" -- all provide soothing background music for the contemplation of lofty things. The things that women say to one another when they believe there are no men around who understand their words would knock your socks off! -- unless you're a woman, of course.

For those who came in late, there is much talk these days about "The Clash of Civilizations," to which others respond with discussions of the "Clash Within Civilizations"; there is talk of "Science and Religion" and of the conflict between civilizations devoted to archaic religions (bad) and others committed to the scientific world view (good). These opinions may be defended at a very sophisticated level or at a not-so-sophisticated level. The people I usually deal with on-line are at the not-so-sophisticated end of the spectrum.

People who attend Smith College and Harvard Law School are annoyed at all of the second-guessing of their wisdom by the lower orders. Intellectual fashionistas of all genders are ready to advise candidates (Democrats, naturally) about the correct stance on all matters before lunch. (Susan Faludi explained: "9/11 was about silencing women!")

This avoidance technique will allow successful candidates to pass on this wisdom -- like kidney stones -- and accompanying instructions to unenlightened nations, filled with annoying brown people located in dangerous parts of the world. Things never really work out as planned, for some reason, so there is much puzzled discussion in American academia of global "irrationality." David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest should be required reading for American politicians.

My intelligence and annoying habit of independent thinking are shared by persons in different parts of the world making life difficult for self-styled Masters of the Universe residing on the Upper West-Side of Manhattan. Why will we not simply allow others to "instruct" us concerning these matters -- about which they know nothing -- since they have clearly attended Brown University and Yale Law School besides having our welfare at heart? Who knows? Stubborn, I guess.

I have just spent hours fighting obstacles to write at my msn group. If only I will accept "conventional wisdom" (whatever that is), I am sure that I would experience fewer problems with hackers. Power desires the collapse of human autonomy not for some ulterior purpose, but for the sake of wielding power and the jolt of supriority over others. It is a sick sadist's joy in "controlling" fellow human beings that seems to motivate my self-styled "superiors" in Trenton.

I am what torturers call a "difficult subject." Most philosophers are annoyingly independent and strangely smart. These qualities are more unacceptable in some persons than in others. My unwillingness to legitimate the crimes committed against me means that I am in "denial." Why can't we move on? These were the words of many defendants at Nuremberg.

Professor Lilla's review is well-written and engaging, marred by an unfortunate subtitle for which he must not be blamed. "In rejecting the Enlightenment for a HAZY German Idealism, 19th-century Russian thinkers did their country no favors." By seeing the issue in such terms the controversy is predetermined and (more importantly) misunderstood: Why is German idealism "hazy"? Why should we be thrilled about the separation of church and state? What kind of separation of religion and politics is good and why? Does Israel, for example, "separate" religion and politics? Would it make sense for Israel to do such a thing? What kind of separation does make sense?

I wonder whether the person responsible for this subtitle -- one of the geniuses who writes for the Times -- is aware of exactly how "hazy" linguistic philosophy or pragmatism looks to other people? Clearly not. How can we speak of the Enlightenment apart from German thought, especially in the form of the greatest Enlightenment thinker, Immanuel Kant? Whose Enlightenment are we discussing? How is it possible for Mr. Lilla to suggest that "we" (smart people) in the West are beyond religion whereas unenlightened "others" are shrouded in darkness, when most people in the world -- including the Western world -- continue to express religious affiliations? Who's "we"? Consider the arrogance in the following statement from the point of view of any religious person:

"We in the West find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still inflame the minds of men, [Do women have minds?] stirring up messianic passions that can leave societies in ruin. [Stalin's Soviet Union was atheistic.] We had assumed that this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, [Why should they do that in a non-Enlightenment society?] that political theology died in 16th century Europe. [Have you read the newspaper, Mark?] We were wrong. [You said it.] It's we [who's we?] who are the fragile exception."

Mark Lilla, "The Great Separation," in The New York Times Magazine, August 19, 2007, at p. 28.

This paragraph alone was enough for me to pass on the rest of the article, despite having read several of Professor Lilla's essays. I wonder whether Mr. Lilla is censored at his computer when he writes? I doubt it. Get the self-congratulatory flavor (a new "error" -- not found in my earlier print version of this essay -- has just been corrected) and notice the smug tone of this paragraph by Professor Lilla:

"Time and again we must remind ourselves that we are living an experiment, that we are the exceptions."

Aren't we just wonderful? Makes your toes curl up with pleasure, doesn't it?

"We have little reason to expect other civilizations [the brown people in funny clothes, Mark?] to follow our unusual path, which was opened up by a unique theological-political crisis within Christendom."

Book Review, September 16, 2007, at p. 9 (Goldstein quoting Lilla).

In other words, around the seventeenth century, there were some bloody wars when everybody got the shit kicked out of them in Europe. Suddenly, there was a philosophical illumination: "Hey, I'm John Locke and I'm into tolerance now. You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. We'll be 'for' liberty, then we'll get into the slave trade, so we can make money. Whatta-ya say?"

Notice that what is intellectually possible in the world is determined (or should have been) for Professor Lilla only by what happened in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. China's 5,000 year civilization does not matter to world religious/scientific thinking, neither does Islam, India, Africa or Latin America. After reading the first paragraph of Mr. Lilla's recent article in the New York Times Magazine, I knew that there was no need (for me) to read the rest of his essay or anything else by this author at any future time. Life is short:

"The twilight of the idols has been postponed. For more than two centuries, from the American and French Revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, world politics revolved around eminently political problems. [Another "error" just corrected.] War and revolution, class and social justice, race and national identity -- these were the questions that divided us. Today, we have progressed to the point where our problems again resemble those of the 16th century, as we find ourselves entangled in conflicts over competing revelations, dogmatic purity and divine duty. We in the west are disturbed and confused. Though we have our own fundamentalists, we find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong."

This is a catalogue of contemporary trendy assumptions compatible with political correctness and philosophical-historical blunders, in my opinion. Also, I'm sorry Professor Lilla, but your self-love and cultural blindness are a little hard to take. By the way, inserting errors in this essay will not help Mr. Lilla's argument. For example, why assume that political problems are ever really distinguishable from religious controversies? Or that, say, Communism (whatever else it was) could not also be called a "religion"? Psychoanalysis? Scientism? Are those ideologies? Or religions? Psychoanalysis and scientism are a little of both -- religion and ideology -- with a sprinkling of bullshit on top.

Why determine "world" political themes and possibilities or understandings on the basis of one contested reading of modernity in Western consciousness? Why isn't your scientism, Professor Lilla, exactly the "dogmatic purity" and "fanaticism" that you complain of and also "religious"? Societies may be ruined by the denial of spiritual realities and needs, by denials of recognition and respect to believers or the opposite. People are good at ruining and building societies for any reason or no reason. ("Umberto Eco and the Semiotics of Power.")

If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended by this essay, suggesting that "we" are either secularists, pragmatists, or "we" are fools. Maybe I should be insulted even as a non-Muslim. (Another "error" detected and corrected.) Why should cultures "separate" religious questions from political ones? Where is such a separation written in the stars? Is this not merely assuming one particular resolution concerning the boundaries between spiritual and secular concerns, private and public, fact and value which is the result of a troubled history in a narrow part of the world seeking to overcome the legacy of religious wars -- an overcoming that is achievable in other ways, by other cultures -- while presuming to govern other people in the world through cultural hegemony? Isn't this division of religion and politics itself highly political? In fact, such a division may also be religious.

"What our leaders and their intellectual lackeys seem incapable of understanding," Edward Said writes, "is that history cannot be swept clean like a blackboard, clean so that 'we' might inscribe our own future there and impose our own forms of life for these lesser people to follow. It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of changing the map of the Middle East, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar."

"Preface," in Orientalism (New York: Vintage 1979), p. xviii, with Afterword dated 1994.

I say this as a supporter of the First Amendment who wants a neutral public square in America, without telling other people what is "rational" or "modern." Don't help or hurt religion. Don't assume that religion means only one of the traditional faiths.

The Islamic world would say to Professor Lilla that these Western solutions are unworkable in societies that do not recognize a bifurcation between secular and religious realms, but rather see co-extensive domains, religious and secular, with overlapping areas of concern that are equally important and real. Professor Lilla is mistaken to think that fanaticism could ever be dead. His essay may be an example of fanatical scientism.

Lesley Chamberlain's book entitled Motherland: A Philosophical History of Russia (London: Rookery Press, 2007), is finally available in the United States. I will read it because I am very interested in the subject. I'll also weep bitter tears for the 35 clams that it will cost me to own this opus. Anyway, all of this allows me to get into into some heavy political and philosophical stuff. I also enjoyed a lecture by Professor Martha Nussbaum on c-span 1 or 2, or 3, maybe C-span 3 and 1/2, I'm not sure, focusing on political developments in India, right before a fascinating lecture on Mongolian stamp collectors and their busy sex lives.

Do you find it difficult to keep up with all of the t.v. channels that suddenly exist? I do. I think this may be a distressing sign of age. I was unable to identify the "WAM!" channel on my cable service. No doubt there is a "GEEWIZ!!" channel. Maybe all of them are gee wiz channels, as a friend likes to say.

Back to Russia's nineteenth century philosophical challenge. Surprisingly, Charles Taylor's work in Continental thought is not mentioned by these philosophical grandmasters, neither is the theoretical difficulty faced by Russian intellectuals, then and now. Regrettably, an important analogy to current difficulties between Islam and the West is not fully explored. (I haven't read Tom Stoppard's "Coast of Utopia," but I will.)

Russia faced, we are told, the impasse of choosing between Western Enlightenment, "modern" science and philosophy, as opposed to commitment to Russian culture and especially religious bonds, love and community. The fear of excessive rationalization and science's cold inhumanity was tempered by a desire for progress. Everybody wants "progress." Not everyone is attracted to the English-American model of society as legally mediated interactions between persons, then among persons and the State. The red copy is for me, the blue is for you. This comes as a shock to many American graduate students and others, who should know better. American community always transcends political forms and is better found in culture. This is something that visitors to the U.S. fail to get. Professor Lilla explains from on high -- somewhere near the celestial throne in Morningside Heights -- exactly what we should think about all this:

"What the 19th-century Russian intellectuals found in, and partly projected onto, Germany was a romantic alternative to the supposedly cold, heartless logic of Descartes and his progeny. They were especially drawn to F.W. J. Schelling, whose philosophy of nature, a hash of intuition and metaphysical speculation, was closer to theosophy than to modern science."

I disagree about the dismissal of Schelling. See Andrew Bowie, Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction (New York & London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 30-42, 55-87.

"(Lots about 'life,' nothing about the pancreas.) Schelling's doctrines proved to be infinitely adaptable and unfalsifiable, and thus served as useful defenses against French and English rationalism. Like Napoleon's troops, the modern ideas of Bacon, Descartes, Locke and Hume were turned back at the gates of Moscow and beat a slow retreat through the snow."

Notice the assumption made by Professor Lilla concerning what is modern. Man cannot live without a pancreas, Professor Lilla, but he lives in order to do more than observe his pancreas working away all day. All that a person is cannot be reduced to biological functions which are certainly essential to mental survival. Presumably, according to this review, Spinoza, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel are not "modern." Neither are Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Lenin, or Pasternak.

I wonder whether Professor Lilla can even imagine the insults and stupidity, torture and censorship used against someone like me, in many places in America, by people spouting opinions derived from reviews such as his, confident that there is nothing more to say on the subject. Some of us have our writings defaced by hackers all the time. Mostly because they can not refute our arguments. Empiricism and scientific method define the modern for this Anglo-American theory or interpretation of philosophical history. This view, if accepted, makes much modern political and military history incomprehensible. Modernity is more complex and more riddled with contradictory elements -- like Russia and all of us -- than such a summary will allow. Professor Lilla grudgingly admits: "Hostility to the modern Enlightenment is itself a modern phenomenon, though it usually has archaic roots."

What is the anti-modern Enlightenment? Isn't modernity coextensive with Enlightenment, according to some theorists? What on earth does the good professor mean by the "modern Enlightenment"? Is there a European Elightenment that is not modern?

I bet Professor Lilla is not accustomed to having people suggest that he may be mistaken about something or that he is anything less than modern. There is no single "central" strand of modernity associated with science and the disenchantment resulting from Gallileo, Darwin and Freud to which unenlightened millions react with hostility and "backward-looking" grasping at tribal or "mythical" traditions, which will be swept away by scientific thinking, eventually -- as Jonathan Miller suggests at the conclusion of his recent PBS series discussing reason and religion. (A new "error" was inserted in this essay since my last review of it.) This view is itself "mythical." However, I cannot say whether it has "archaic" roots.

We "archaic" types resent being lectured by anyone concerning what is the appropriate view of modern history or truth. We also resent tampering with and destruction of our writings as well as censorship from persons who call themselves "liberals." (A new "error" was discovered in this last sentence, inserted by New Jersey's legal whores.)

This resentment and independence of opinion is appropriate since these are contested and open-ended matters that are seen in one way among a tiny group of dominant American intellectuals and very differently elsewhere. (I have just corrected another "error" inserted in this last sentence.) Destroying my writings is no answer to these points. Hurting me, even more than I have been hurt, is no answer to these arguments. ("What is it like to be tortured?") You want to discuss "silencing," Susan Faludi? I can lecture on that subject.

Torturing Muslim men will not make us safer nor will it demonstrate our intellectual superiority to those benighted millions who presume to worship and believe, to reason and create differently than we do. I insist on my freedom. Millions in the Islamic world, who are potential allies, are turned into enemies by the denial of dignity and respect to them or their faith and opinions by well-meaning "intellectuals" like Mark Lilla and his government counterparts. The controversy over the creation of a mosque at or near ground zero is absurd, Constitutionally, besides feeding into the perception in the world that America's war is not against terrorism (Luis Posada Carriles is protected by the C.I.A.), but a holy inquisition against Islam.

Jihad, for example, can be spiritual struggle or a form of moral discipline having nothing to do with military weapons. For Islam, I am a Jihadist. Millions of persons who are Muslims and fellow Americans, also intellectuals -- including scientists -- are members of a culture that does not see a conflict between religion and politics in these stark analytical terms. All of those people are not stupid or no longer Americans. They have adopted different philosophical views which are just as rational and true, even objectively true as Mr. Lilla's platitudes -- views which should be seen to supplement the perspective of Mr. Lilla in our collective quest for a more total and truthful perspective on these matters.

There is no single American perspective on these philosophical issues because -- not in spite of -- the First Amendment, which is violated by my would-be censors on a daily basis. As I write this sentence, after more than twenty years of violations of my rights by N.J. people who do not seem to get it, I am forced to post and revise my work against efforts to destroy it and me. The experience of such violations of one's humanity -- by people uttering banalities worthy of fortune cookies and concealing a vicious will to power -- must compare with what is endured in the streets of nations lectured by the U.S. on human rights. We fire robot bombs into villages to (possibly) kill one person, then we explain "ethics" to other people. For me, this is idiotic and hypocritical.

We speak of human rights to others as pilots -- with computer game-like zeal -- fire missiles at unarmed bystanders and witnesses in Iraqui streets, dissidents (like me) are censored at home, harassed, have their lives destroyed and are subjected to forms of conditioning intended to wipe all out all domestic opposition to a doubtful consensus. Any more sabotage of this essay? My life has indeed become symbolic of American hubris and ideological blindness.

For New Jersey criminals in judicial robes to refer to the same Constitution, whose provisions they ignore as they defecate on the Bill of Rights, is a joke. The neutrality we desire in the public square guaranteed by our Constitution allows each of us to resolve these questions of faith and reason for ourselves, saying nothing about how other societies must resolve these issues. This is not to adopt a skeptical view of truth or any such nonsense.

The yearning for the benefits yielded by science and technology has always been mixed everywhere with legitimate and very rational-- also modern -- concerns about the price of so-called progress in terms of alienation, conflict, depersonalization, displacement and loss of beauty and meaning resulting from an excessive reliance on the scientific world view or collapse into the destructive ideology of scientism. See the works of Professor Charles Taylor and Leszek Kolakowski's "Why Do We Need Kant?," in Modernity on Endless Trial (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990), p. 44; and also Tariq Ali, "Bush in Babylon," in Speaking of Empire and Resistance (New York: The New Press, 2005), at p. 58: "When the empire behaves in this way, all the while claiming to act in the interest of democracy and freedom, I tend to doubt it."

The "empire" is not only military power, but a trivializing of ideas -- ideas found in the Islamic world and everywhere else, ideas and values focusing on the dignity of the human person as well as the moral limits on scientific inquiry that should provide a place of meeting for all of us. This is not to deny that all human societies may be criticized for human rights failures. Nationalism is also poorly understood in this review since the question should not be, say, "What is Russian truth?" but "What is truly Russian?"

How can science be done "here," wherever this may be, while preserving cultural values that are the reason why persons do science in the first place? For example, the values of community, love, compassion and preserving the aesthetic and unifying elements in religions? "Here" might be the Islamic world, Latin America, Africa, China or Cuba, Russia. There is also a dissenting tradition in America, after all, a tradition celebrating human values which is respectful of religion. Science is certainly a great intellectual adventure. However, we must remember:

"... sooner or later the exhilirating breakthroughs enfuel the engines of Juggernaut. No glory for the technician's boldness without the attendant blame. For knowledge is power. And power is politics -- somebody's politics -- as it turns out, anybody's politics who pays the way. A tragic perversion of noble intentions? To a degree. But at Los Alamos on August 5, 1945, there were physicists who rushed to order champagne dinners when news came that the thing had worked. 'Worked!' The original sin to which science was born: hubris -- at last become pandemic. 'We have now,' the head of a promiment think-tank announces, 'or know how to acquire the technical capability to do very nearly anything we want ... if not now or in five years or ten years, then certainly in 25 or in 50 or in 100.' ..."

"And ye shall be as gods. ..."

Theodore Roszak, Sources (New York: Harper-Collophon, 1972), p. xvi.

Has science become the latest religion of the West? This might be a good future topic. The "bottom line" is that Professor Lilla's conclusion is unacceptable to many of us:

"At its best, Chamberlain's account sheds light on the complex cultural reaction set off when modern Western ideas wash up on the shores of cultures simultaneously ashamed of their social and scientific backwardness and convinced of their moral superiority." (emphasis added)

There are cultures more "ashamed" -- and horrified -- at what is done by nations believing themselves scientifically and technologically "superior" to others, atrocities like Mi Lai and Abu Ghraib or (perhaps) Hiroshima.

What is "shameful" is the failure to recognize the shame in such actions, whatever government is responsible for them. Needless to say, these more "modern" nations see themselves as entitled to "instruct" the lesser breeds, to explain how people should live, and what are the right value choices for them to make. No country is without sin. No interpretation of a phenomenon as complex as "modernity" will be shoved down my throat nor can it be imposed on intelligent people anywhere, much less everywhere. Censoring and further harming me will not alter the truth in these statements. You cannot torture opinions out of (or into) people.

Many of us have experienced the arrogance of wealthy and politically powerful persons in America, who are not always intellectually impressive, like Professor Lilla. Sometimes they are quite stupid and their world views are hand-me-down drivel. ("Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Is New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz unethical or only incompetent?")

Many nations have experienced colonialism or the status of a chess piece in a superpower tournament, rarely enjoying the experience. No one wants to be or see themselves as "chess pieces" in a game played by others. I also know what that is like, the feeling of being reduced to a plaything for others. None of us should accept slavery or the torture of unchosen "conditioning for our own good." I will always resist such torture. These are things very distant from Professor Lilla's world. They are seemingly beyond his comprehension. Dennis Overbye? (Dennis Robinson?)

Manohla Dargis, you cannot force your opinions on people who reject them as absurd or unwarranted, through computer crime or other forms of cruelty. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!")

There is a countertendency within modernity (notice, again, Professor Lilla's assumptions concerning what are "modern Western ideas") that appreciates the complexity and nuances involved in judgments concerning what is rational or modern, humane or proper in the light of our scientific learning, while refusing to abandon fundamental human concerns with meaning, beauty or love.

I fear that this more nuanced and emotionally rich position is often underappreciated in the West, even by some of our political and intellectual "leaders," as we humble little people wash and fold clothes on Sunday afternoons, allowing these great minds to think on our behalf. Our intellectual leaders have always done such a good job of thinking and acting for us, like in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

"Keep your friends close, in New Jersey, but keep your enemies closer."

July 29, 2007 at 9:48 A.M. I am blocking:


http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N763.networksite.ww

http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/1442731/1-transparent

Connections to my computer include:

http://www.speedpointroll.com/ (168.143.241.80); http: (80); 1575 bytes sent; 93472; bytes received; 1:11 time elapsed.

http://doubleclick.net/ (216.73.86.152); from hppav (24.193.70.253).


Richard G. Jones, "Investigation Of Lawmanker Is Under Way In New Jersey," in The New York Times, July 28, 2007, at p. B2.


"NEWARK, July 27 -- Federal investigators have notified a New Jersey lawmaker that he could soon face corruption charges as part of a widening inquiry into the awarding of special legislative grants, his lawyer said."

"The lawmaker, State Senator JOSEPH CONIGLIO, a Democrat from Bergen County, was contacted by investigators from the office of the United States attorney for New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie.'

"Mr. Coniglio's lawyer, Gerald Krovatin, confirmed on Friday that the Senator had received a so-called target letter from Mr. Christie's office. Such letters typically serve as an invitation to the recipient to testify before a grand jury. They sometimes also serve as the precursor to a plea bargain."

I have a feeling that quite a few New Jersey politicians AND JUDGES are checking their mail with extra care this week.

"In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Krovatin said that Mr. Coniglio planned to discuss the investigation with Mr. Christie. 'We fully intend to do so because Senator Coniglio has done nothing wrong,' Mr. Krovatin said in a statement. 'The investigation is ongoing and has not been completed.' ..."

Mr. Krovatin should have said that his client was "looking forward to the opportunity to dispel any false accusations and clear his name." Whenever you hear lawyers say that kind of stuff it means that their clients are guilty as sin and scared shitless.

"... In March, Mr. Coniglio was one of three lawmakers who were subpoenaed by Mr. Christie to explain their connection to organizations that had received about $3.5 MILLION in special grants from the legislature." (emphasis added)

"For months now, Mr. Christie has been investigating a longstanding practice in Trenton that allows lawmakers to include special grants for pet projects -- often called 'Christmas tree' items in State House parlance."

"... Two other lawmakers NICOLAS SCUTARI, who represents Middlesex, Somerset and Union Counties, and Assemblyman BRIAN P. STACK, a Democrat from Hudson County -- have been subpoenaed in connection with about $300,000 worth of special grants that had been given to organizations connected to their wives." (emphasis added)

I wonder whether all of this is CONNECTED?

"Critics of the grant system have also said that the grants are a burden on the state budget. In 2006, Gov. Jon S. Corzine cut more than $50 MILLION in special grants from the state's budget."

This news -- and I'm sure the best is yet to come! -- is added to the indictments of Mr. Bryant and Mr. James, continuing multiple investigations of Senator Robert Menendez, and (so far) un-named "others."

New Jersey's political corruption and theft of public funds, incompetence as well as malice in the judiciary and contamination of law enforcement is a national disgrace. Organized crime uses the offices of government in New Jersey both to advance its interests and to shield those charged with heinous crimes. There are protected criminals who seem to escape state law enforcement agencies entirely, while resources are devoted to such absurdities as whether a judge gave someone his business card.

The services of government are for sale, very often, while power is misused for personal gain or self-enrichment as vital public interests are allowed to go unattended. This is a matter than can no longer be ignored. Tortures and murders, allegedly, in the state's prisons and elsewhere only make clear how much the people of New Jersey are also tortured, every day, by this level of corruption and incompetence in goverment and courts.

The nightmare and torture of victims and their families must end.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

New Jersey Computer Official Fired -- More Corruption Feared.

August 31, 2007 at 9:48 P.M. Access to my msn account has been denied for hours, many obstacles to working on an essay examining the ideas of Donald Davidson makes it impossible to continue working on that project. My second book is not being distributed to book sellers and cannot be downloaded at this time.

My image posting feature is blocked. July 26, 2007 at 12:14 P.M. Please see http://shalomrav.files.wordpress.com/2007/holocaust2.jpg

As of July 15, 2007 at 3:28 A.M. there were 18 intrusion attempts against my computer, main attacker 24.192.244.190; there were exactly 76,933 websites blocked over six months; many illegal connections from http://www.siruela.com/ (77.240.112.13), http: (80), from HPPAV (24.193.70.253). "Siruela" is the Spanish word for prunes. This may have been an attempt at humor. "On the one hand, but on the other hand ..." Something called http://www.filosofitis.com/ falls into the same category. The persons responsible for these crimes are saying everything I wish to say about them, all by themselves. They are providing us with their self-portraits. Miami? Or New Jersey? How you doing Senator Bob?

"Trenton: Senior State Computer Official Fired," in The New York Times, July 25, 2007, at p. B6.


"The deputy director of the state's Office of Information Technology was stripped of his post yesterday and allowed to enter a pretrial intervention program (PTI)" -- PTI allows defendants to be "spared" criminal charges -- "to resolve a charge that he submitted bogus information in applying for a $422,500 home loan, state officials said. The deputy director RAYMOND J. HAYLING, II, 32, of Englewood, had been suspended without pay since May after being charged with forgery, the state Division of Criminal Justice said. Under the program, Mr. Hayling must reimburse the loan within 60 days. The charge could be dropped if he completes a year under supervision. Besides, his information technology post, which paid $107,382 a year, Hayling also forfeited two other state posts" -- Hayling must have been "close" to New Jersey Senator Wayne R. Bryant -- "interoperability communications officer with the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, and special investigator with the Department of Law and Public Safety."

Gee, wouldn't it be a hoot if we find that good old Ray has been visiting my blogs and msn group? For some reason, I would not be surprised in a state where a high official of several "elite" anti-terrorism and cybercrime units engages in his own computer crimes. Ethics?

I wonder whether this incident -- and others like it that may still be hovering on the horizon -- has a little something to do with the busting up of a $500 MILLION cyber-gambling unit (what's Debbie going to do for a few laughs?) and Internet child porn services based in the Garden State, "serving" the global population.

"Remember the customer is always right!" Guess what fellas, the customer is sometimes the FBI! Ain't that a kick in the pants? I'd say so.

Good old Ray will be "spared" criminal charges and all accusations will be "dropped" -- even though he may have attempted to finagle almost HALF-A-MILLION guacamoles. But if your kid goes to the store and walks away with a CD, he'll get six months -- if he's got some bullshit priors and happens to be a minority. That's New Jersey law.

Not only will participants in the PTI program -- which is highly political, since prosecutors have discretion when it comes to recommending PTI for particular defendants -- find all charges against them dropped, but they will have no public criminal record and their names will not be posted publicly. Sweet, huh?

Some persons involved in civil litigation will find themselves smeared publicly, but not good old Ray. Furthermore, this alleged offender is someone entrusted with enforcing the law and investigating the conduct of others. Imagine a New Jersey lawyer or judge being a party to criminal interference with civil rights in violation of federal law, on a daily basis, involving the institutions of his state -- including the Supreme Court -- in such criminality, then covering up things like rape, theft, assault, kidnapping and justifying this conduct by questioning the victim's "ethics," wouldn't that be a laugh? I think so.

When asked about all this, New Jersey Chief Justice STUART RABNER spoke of the urgent need to have judges refrain from giving strangers their business cards or from smoking in public places, then probably explained that he would need to call his "bosses" for further instructions. That's good old Stu.

Shouldn't the judiciary be independent of political "bosses"?

Monday, July 23, 2007

Shenanigans in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Hackers have already affected the spacing of this essay, continuing illegal (criminal) interference with free speech rights must be expected. Does the commission of crimes by public officials not create the reality as opposed to the appearance of impropriety? Isn't the reality of criminal violations of free speech rights much worse than the alleged "appearance" of impropriety in New Jersey? I think so. I will do my best to keep writing. My computer is always under attack and there may come a point when I can no longer post essays. Any prolonged silence will not be voluntary. July 24, 2007 at 4:14 P.M. the following sites have been blocked this afternoon:

http://view.atdmt.com/CNT/iview/msnnkcin04700

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3340.msn/B231326...







Why are you trying to suppress these essays? Guilty conscience? Can you think of a better way to demonstrate the truth of my allegations than these continuing harassments and censorship efforts?








David W. Chen, "Highest Court in New Jersey Censures One of its Justices," in The New York Times, July 21, 2007, at p. B2.


Peter Seinfels, "An Evangelical Call on Torture and the U.S.," in The New York Times, July 21, 2007, at p. B5.










"TRENTON, July 20 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court on Friday meted out the harshest judgment in its history against one of its own."






"In a 5-to-0 decision, with one justice of the seven member court not participating, the court censured Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto for creating an appearance of impropriety by intervening in a dispute between his son and a high school football teammate."






Most people in the world, including attorneys in many other societies, look at this farce and wonder at the absurdity of it all. New Jersey is a state saturated with organized crime. Criminal families control many government positions and judges -- including, allegedly, two justices of this same Supreme Court -- and they are worried about whether one judge handing someone his business card and asking for no special treatment may have created an "unintended appearance of impropriety." This is nonsense. (Have N.J. hackers affected the spacing of paragraphs in this essay?)





Clearly, all of this is a smoke-screen for hypocrisy and continued criminality, as well as depravity, by those judging the ethics of others in New Jersey. Curiously, the one Latino member of the court was chosen for a starring role in this farce. I wonder why they selected him? How many of the 200 officials convicted (so far!) in New Jersey happen to be Latino? Less than 25%, probably. Latino attorneys are disproprotionately selected for harassment and sanctioning by the OAE. I wonder why that is?





"Concurring with the recommendation for censure issued last week by a state advisory panel, the court found that Justice Rivera-Soto had violated judicial standards by handing out business cards or otherwise identifying himself as a justice to local officials."





How else should he identify himself? He is a justice? Should he assume a false name? That is also an offense -- and a more serious one.





"[New Jersey] has removed or suspended 16 judges, including 9 at the state level, and censured 13, including 4 at the state level. But only once before has the court disciplined a colleague. ..."





These numbers represent a tiny fraction of the judges who are either inept or corrupt in the Garden State, including several tainted justices on the current Supreme Court itself. What is this really about?





New Jersey is aware of becoming an international horror story and joke in light of the duplicity, malice and hypocrisy in the U.S. legal system during recent years together with the visible decline in intellectual standards. Judicial opinions were once impressive essays in political and social thinking, aside from their technical virtuosities. Judicial opinions have now become irrefutable evidence of mediocrity and politically biased decision-making in dismal and foul-smelling places, like New Jersey. Often they are also fraudulent. Readers have to guess at the real reasons for decisions as opposed to the rhetoric dispensed for public consumption.

Continuing harassments of me -- and new attempts to censor my work -- leave me with no alternative but to persist in pointing out the hypocrisy and incompetence as well as unethical conduct of New Jersey's judges and justices. My response to newly discovered "errors" in this essay, accordingly, will be to turn to a new post examining the laughable incompetence of Judge Tolentino. Judge Schaeffer along with semi-judges like Romano and Bolstein will be next.





The goal of this theater of the absurd is to convey the impression that this court and these judges are above reproach, even as they cover-up psychological torture by so-called therapists like Tuchin and Riccioli, acting on behalf of the OAE or the court itself. This tribunal winks at continuing efforts to suppress the free speech of critics, like me -- in violation of federal criminal laws -- and then pontificates about not handing out business cards. (Notice the spacing in this essay and the "errors" routinely inserted in these writings -- I have just corrected this very sentence, again, after a flagrant "error-insertion" by protected criminals.)





To get appointed to the New Jersey Supreme Court a person must be a politician. Such a politician must be on friendly terms with the big bosses of the political machines in the state ("the Barons"), who really call the shots in complex cases. One theory concerning the true source of the complaints against Rivera-Soto is the Camden "organization" and its friends on the court. Find out who is connected to the Camden machine in the New Jersey Supreme Court and you'll know who was really behind the effort to smear Rivera-Soto. Virginia? Jaynee? Stu?



Here is what the world thinks is unethical: "17 prominent evangelical leaders and scholars issued 'An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror.' ... "



"... 'We renounce the resort to torture [including psychological torture] and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, call for the extension of procedural protections and human rights to all detainees, seek clear government-wide embrace of the Geneva Conventions, including those articles banning torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, and urge the reversal of U.S. government law, policy or practice that violates the moral standards outlined in this declaration. ...' "



I am asking, PUBLICLY, for any and all reports pertainting to me prepared by Tuchin or anyone else, claiming to be a therapist or other expert of any kind, all video tapes and notes, documents of all sorts or recordings prepared in any manner pertaining to the use of hypnosis or any other coercive psychological process or questioning techniques of any kind, by anyone, of which I was or have been the subject and/or a topic, submitted to any state or federal agency or court, at any time from 1988 to 2008 and beyond, or withheld from me as part of any expert's confidential records. A copy of my letter to Physicians for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union will be posted here soon.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

New Jersey Power-Broker Loses Pension.

"Errors" will be inserted on a regular basis in this essay, spacing may be affected, letters may be deleted. Any comments posted to these essays have not been approved by me.

"Convicted New Jersey Power Broker Loses Pension," in The New York Times, July 19, 2007, at p. B2.
"Lacey Township: Small Radiation Release at Plant," in The New York Times, July 19, 2007, at p. B6."

The former State Senate president, John A. Lynch, Jr., who pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges last year and is serving a 39-month sentence, was stripped of his legislative pension on Wednesday because of illegal conduct while in office."

"... Mr. Lynch's $1,865 monthly pension was suspended last November after he pleaded guilty to federal fraud and tax-evasion charges. The decision on Wednesday prohibits him from receiving future benefits based on his years of service in the Senate."

Service? Oh, you mean "service" to himself!

"... Once among the most powerful people in New Jersey politics, Mr. Lynch, a Democrat, told a federal judge he accepted a bribe of more than $25,000 from a mining company in exchange for using his influence on the company's behalf.

You can't swing the proverbial dead cat in Trenton without hitting one or two politicians who have done the same, or worse, including a judge or justice who also engages in the occasional "dipping" spree. My fondest hope is that the feds are on to them -- and I suspect that they are. Stick your head into the New Jersey Legislature's next session and shout: "F.B.I.!" Everyone will run for cover.

You -- or a member of your family in New Jersey -- may someday have cancer or you may contract a similar disease. (Fortunately, I have no such diseases.) If you do -- and I hope that you won't! -- then you can probably thank the failure of state regulators to supervise nuclear and other industries in the "Garden State," which is better known in medical circles as "cancer alley." New Jersey has been described as "America's radioactive toilet." Legally, this is an accurate and fair description.

"A day after an electrical problem caused the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant to shut down, its operators" -- good word! -- "said yesterday that a small amount of radiation had been released into the atmosphere during the shut down. [How small?] About one curie of Titrium, a weak radioisotrope, was released, said Neal Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He said that was half the dose a person would receive in a year from a smoke detector. ..."

Yes, but people will be getting that full dose not in a year, but in seconds. "There's nothing to worry about," plant officials and their lawyers said with a chuckle -- as they scurried into their vehicles and drove for the hills -- even as workers at the plant and their families began to take on a weird, greenish color.

"New Jersey -- What's that smell?!"

Thursday, July 19, 2007

"The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters" -- Even in New Jersey.

Why are you so frightened by what I have to say? Why do you attempt to destroy my work? Guilty conscience?

Spacing will be affected in this post, "errors" will be inserted on a regular basis, and it will be difficult to make corrections sometimes.

David W. Chen, "Making Ex-Bedfellows In Trenton, Strangely Fast," in The New York Times, July 18, 2007, at p. B5.


"TRENTON, July 17 -- A Republican could not have said it any better."

"This week, Joseph Cryan, the Democratic Party chairman" -- shouldn't it be "Chairperson" or "Chair"? -- "gave the state's political establishment a bit of a start when he said on a television program that two state senators under indictment on corruption charges -- Sharpe James, Newark's former mayor, and Wayne R. Bryant of Camden -- should resign immediately."

"In fact, the comments were so pointed that Tom Wilson, the state Republican chairman, issued a news release on Monday that praised Mr. Cryan and challenged the party's de facto leader, Gov. Jon S. Corzine, to do the same thing."

It is highly unusual for a member of an, as yet, unconvicted politician's own party to issue statements such as this. One theory is that there is a split in the New Jersey Democratic party -- which is Democratic in name only -- between the old school Jersey Boys ("The Mob") and African-American and other minority group members looking to change the power-structure.

Bob Menendez, as always, was eloquent: "On the one hand," Bob said, and added: "but on the other hand." Senator Bob is firmly neither here nor there, but he is with all of us in spirit -- except when he is not.

"Mr. James, 71, was indicted last Thursday on charges that he used city-issued credit cards to ring up $58,000 in personal expenses and allowed a female companion to buy city property at cut-rate prices, and then quickly sell them at a profit of more than $600,000."

"In March, Mr. Bryant, 59, was indicted on charges that he was given a $37,000-a-year no-show job at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in exchange for bringing it millions of dollars in grants and padding his pension in the process. ..."

These "gentlemen" are as "gentle" as the Spring breezes and every bit as honest when compared with the ruthless, greedy, and lecherous trolls happily placed in positions of power and in dangerous proximity to the people's money, somewhere near the New Jersey Supreme Court's chambers. New Jersey's Supremes have handed down a decision recently interpreting the state constitution to require that each of their faces be added to the sculptures at Mount Rushmore. Where are the $300 MILLION, Jaynee?

The interesting question for the Garden State today is whether government by organized crime and judiciary by corrupt mediocrities has a future. On behalf of so many current and former victims of the state's hopelessly tainted institutions, I hope that the days of mob rule are numbered.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Women ...

At this writing, I am prevented from posting these poems at my msn group. I will post them here. I am blocking all of the following as of July 16, 2007 at 1:08 P.M. As of 3:09 P.M., I can't get back into my msn group. I believe that I managed to post these poems at Critique, when I had brief access to the site.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3285.msn_cusa/b23

http://m1.2mdn.net/viewad/1420759/3-1x/pixel.gif

http://view.atdmt.com/iview/msnnkhac00130x250

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3285.msn-dm/B17/



For the fair ballerina ...

To a Lady Who Presented to the
Author a Lock of Hair Braided With
His Own, and Appointed a Night in
December to Meet Him in a Garden

by

George Gordon, Lord Byron

These locks, which fondly thus entwine,
In firmer chains our hearts confine
Than all th' unmeaning protestations
Which swell with nonsense love orations.
Our love is fix'd, I think we've proved it,
Nor time, nor place, nor art have moved it;
Then wherefore should we sigh and whine,
With groundless jealousy repine,
With silly whims and fancies frantic,
Merely to make our love romantic?
Why should you weep like Lydia Languish,
And fret with self-created anguish?
Or doom the lover you have chosen,
On winter nights to sigh half frozen;
In leafless shades to sue for pardon,
Only because the scene's a garden?
For gardens seem, by one consent
(Since Shakespeare set the precedent,
Since Juliet first declared her passion),
To form the place of assignation.
Oh! would some modern muse inspire,
And seat her by a sea-coal fire;
Or had the bard at Christmas written,
And laid the scene of love in Britain,
He surely, in commiseration,
Had changed the place of declaration,
In Italy I've no objection,
Warm nights are proper for reflection;
But here our climate is so rigid,
That love itself is rather frigid:
Think on our silly situation,
And curb this rage for imitation.
Then let us meet, as oft we've done,
Beneath the influence of the sun;
Or, if at midnight I must meet you,
Within your mansion let me greet you:
There we can love for hours together,
Much better, in such snowy weather,
Than placed in all the Arcadian groves
That ever witness'd rural loves;
Then, if my passion fail to please,
Next night I'll give a loose to laughter,
But curse my fate for ever after.

For the gentle Portia,


Did not the heavenly rhetoric of thine eye ...

by William Shakespeare

Did not the heavenly rhetoric of thine eye,
'Gainst whom the world cannot hold argument,
Persuade my heart to this false perjury?
Vows for thee broke deserve not punishment.
A woman I forswore, but I will prove,
Thou being a goddess, I forswore not thee.
My vow was earthly, thou a heavenly love;
Thy grace being gained cures all disgrace in me.
Vows are but breath, and breath a vapor is.
Then thou, fair sun, which on my earth doth shine,
Exhales this vapor-vow; in thee it is.
If broken then, it is no fault of mine.
If by me broke, what fool is not so wise
To lose an oath to win a paradise?

Friday, July 13, 2007

Corruption and Unethical Conduct Among New Jersey's Supreme Court Justices.

David W. Chen, "Facing a Lawsuit, Corzine Swears Off E-Mail," The New York Times, July 12, 2007, at p. B1.
David Kociniewski, "In Newark, Anxiety Grows Over Inquiry On Ex-Mayor," in The New York Times, July 12, 2007, at p. B5.
"Trenton: Panel Recommends Judge's Censure," in The New York Times, July 12, 2007, at B4.


"A New Jersey Supreme Court justice [Rivera-Soto] should be censured because he created an appearance of impropriety when he interceded in a dispute between his son and a high school football teammate, a state panel said yesterday."

This finding and bizarre charges arising, mysteriously, against Mr. Rivera-Soto have become a subject of much speculation in courthouses all over New Jersey. Who was really behind these accusations? The most plausible theories focus on attempts by the Trenton Syndicate to "brush off" the judiciary by reminding judges of their lack of indepedence in a highly politicized and corrupt environment. The goal is to intimidate judges.

"We can reach even members of the New Jersey Supreme Court," the Jersey Boys say. They're right. They can and do "reach" judges all the time. Hence, most judges in state courts will do what they're told, being mindful of just how short are the political leashes that they are wearing. The morons will learn this the hard way.

"The panel found that the justice, Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, 53, a Republican appointed by Gov. James E. McGreevey in 2004, violated judicial rules against using the prestige of his office [New Jersey's Supreme Court and judiciary has no prestige these days!] to advance a private interest."

In a state where $4.3 billion vanished from or was "short" in previous budgets; $100 million was stolen from UMDNJ; $630 million disappeared from other hospital facilities -- all of it federal/public money -- and where Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez gets $300,000 in rents from tenants as they are receiving federal funds on his watch, while $30 million in federal seed money is put out to "developers" hiring the Senator's "appreciative" friends, these charges against a Supreme Court justice who gave someone his business card and asked for no special treatment are obviously absurd.

Much the same may be said of the forthcoming indictment of Mayor Sharpe James, whom the feds have no choice but to pursue -- since information pertaining to Mr. James has been disseminated by Democrats loyal to the Jersey Syndicate. The allegations against Mr. James amount to what is known in the neighborhood as "chump change." The serious stealing is taking place behind the scenes and amounts to BILLIONS. The big time thieves are "spared" criminal charges, after making restitution of a minute portion of the sum stolen and (probably) a "small political contribution." Ethics?

One theory is that Richard J. Codey is behind these efforts to distract public opinion from all the shenanigans in Trenton by smearing Corzine and James, while Speaker Roberts and his shady friends in Camden are going after Menendez. Codey and Roberts are hoping to be the last men standing when the smoke has cleared. Menendez "threw down the gauntlet" by making it clear that: "on the one hand, but on the other hand ..." Senator Bob said we can quote him on that. What a guy.

"[Rivera-Soto's] fellow Supreme Court justices must now decide whether" -- incidentally, the Trenton Gang is said to own at least two members of the current New Jersey Supreme Court -- "to censure or take some other action; including suspension or removal; or decide that no punishment is warranted."

Mr. Rivera-Soto could be disbarred for this bullshit while "made men" of the organization get elevated to the Appellate Division. Republicans are looking for payback. Anticipated federal indictments of prominent New Jersey politicians (from both parties) will add to the flavor of this "stew," right Stu? New Jersey's legal system and judiciary is not a scene that is "blazing with light."

"Justice Rivera-Soto's lawyer, Bruce P. McMoran, told the Star Ledger[sic.] of Newark that he was gratified because the committee found that his client did not intend any harm."

This reminds me of the Woody Allen joke about the prisoner who boasts that he is scheduled to be shot at noon. "They were going to shoot me at dawn," the prisoner says, "but I had a smart lawyer." Thanks a lot, Mr. McMoran. Roberto, wait till you get that guy's bill. You may ask them to shoot you at dawn.

"The panel said Justice Rivera-Soto handed out his business cards to a police detective and contacted prosecutors and judges in Camden County" -- wrong place -- "to discuss the juvenile deliquency complaint he had filed."

Legal officials in Camden County will pass along any information of a confidential sort to big crime or political bosses behind the scenes, who will then arrange for unpleasant consequences for those chosen for destruction.

Dem guys, I don't know. Wadda-ya gonna do ... It's always a little this, a little of that. Hey, you want a fruit basket?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

"Driving While Black" (DWB) in New Jersey.

Ronald Smothers, "Driver Stopped in New Jersey Sues, Claiming Police Profiling," in The New York Times, July 11, 2007 at p. B2.

"TRENTON, July 10 -- A black driver who was stopped, detained and extensively searched by state police on the New Jersey Turnpike last year and was given a warning for a faulty tail light filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court on Tuesday charging that there was nothing wrong with his van and that racial profiling was at work." (An "error" was inserted in this essay and corrected, until the next time that I read this post.)

"... 'I didn't do anything wrong, and there was nothing wrong with my car, so the police stopped me for only one reason: I am a black man,' said the man, Willie Nevius, 38, of North Carolina, in a statement."

It is interesting that the Times did not find it necessary, initially, to refer to this gentleman as "Mr. Willie Nevius."

"Mr. Nevius said he 'felt humiliated' because of the two hour stop, which ultimately involved five officers and a drug-sniffing dog."

No helicopters? Usually, corrupt politicians tell cops to hit enemies with tons of parking tickets or arrest them for pissing on the sidewalk. (Another "error" inserted and corrected.) The legal system is responsive to unofficial and extra legal pressures making a mockery of due process of law. Right, Senator Bob? How about taking a letter out of what I've written to show that you're on the up-and-up?

I recall numerous occasions when African-Americans were stopped, allegedly, because a police officer sitting in a police cruiser, at night, claimed to observe the passengers in a car travelling at the speed limit -- on the opposite side of the Turnpike -- to be without their seat belts. Not once did a judge or prosecutor find this testimony "questionable."

"... 'The dog made quite a mess of things and helped itself to some of my client's edible property,' said the lawyer for Mr. Nevius, William Buckman, 'I think it was an apple pie.' ..."

This calls for punitive damages. No more "errors" inserted?

"This latest charge of racial profiling comes at a time when a 21-member advisory committee appointed by Governor Jon S. Corzine is deciding whether the state should terminate an agreement allowing federal monitors to review records of the department's traffic-stop monitor."
I think New Jersey should agree to have federal monitors run the entire state, especially the legal system. State inmates would probably do a better job (because they are more honest) than Trenton's politicians and justices. True, these are overlapping categories -- New Jersey inmates and politicians. Everybody can see that Mayor Sharpe James is being offered to the feds as a distraction. I wonder why?

How the hell are ya, Bob? How's that Grand Jury investigating your activities? Hope everything's O.K. How's the scuba diving off Miami Beach?

"According to a suit filed in Camden, two state troopers stopped Mr. Nevius in northern Burlington County at about 4:30 p.m. on Sept. 12, and they were eventually joined by two other troopers who asked to search his 2001 Chevrolet Express van. Under state court precedents, the state police are required to seek permission for such a search in the absence of visible contraband."

The police officers will usually put the contraband on the scene, if they need to do so. There has been no response to Defense requests for records made by a hood-mounted video camera. There won't be any meaningful response to those requests. No doubt videos and other records will be "lost." Despite the state's Open Public Records Act, I can attest to the daily denial of reports and records by the authorities in the most corrupt and mob-infested jurisdiction in the nation, whose courts are a gruesome joke for those forced to appear in them.

Give New Jersey's shit-smeared courts (and the judges propped up in them after three martini lunches) no respect. They deserve no respect. "Errors?" Judges give no respect to litigants. Oh, here come the hackers and computer viruses. More threats and attempts at intimidation, guys?

What you smell, as you drive past landfills and chemical plants near the Turnpike, is the dismal moral quality of New Jersey's laws and of those who apply them. Keep driving.

Monday, July 2, 2007

The Jersey Boys Are Back to Business as Usual!

Continuing harassment makes writing very difficult today. I lost access to my Internet connection, briefly, as my cable signal was blocked. My printer is still not 100%. I believe that these attacks are attempts to intimidate me. I am more certain than ever that New Jersey is ruled from behind the scenes by organized crime figures. The majority of New Jersey lawyers and judges I have known are intellectual mediocrities. A few are dishonest and blithering idiots, who are usually elevated to the bench. A number of N.J. lawyers are bright and decent people. Many of them go into real estate.

Efforts to destroy or supress speech directed against me (a new essay was just destroyed by hackers, probably in an effort to provoke an irrational or angry response from me) come from the chromium-saturated home of cancer cells known as the Garden State. Good luck with those Grand Juries, Bob!

Any insertions of "errors" into this text should be attributed to the powers-that-be in Trenton, New Jersey. I will now make a heroic effort to avoid anger and say something nice about New Jersey: "Princeton Township is very pleasant in the Fall." July 3, 2007 at 3:11 P.M.

David Kociniewski, "Judge Rejects Hospitals' Suit Against Chain in New Jersey," in The New York Times, June 28, 2007, at p. B2.
"Trenton: Attorney General's Top New Deputy," in The New York Times, July 3, 2007, at p. B4.
"Paramus: Removal of Tainted Soil at School," in The New York Times, July 2, 2007, at p. B5.
Linda Greenhouse, "Clues to a New Dynamic on the Supreme Court," in The New York Times, July 3, 2007, at p. A11.
Jeffrey Rosen, "Supreme leader: The Arrogance of Anthony Kennedy," in The New Republic, June 18, 2007, at p. 16.


"... St. Barnabas, which grew into New Jersey's largest hospital system starting in the early 1990s, systematically overcharged the federal government" -- that's you and me -- "by at least $630 MILLION from 1995 to 2003, according to court papers, and agreed last year to pay a $230 MILLION settlement [which will come from consumers in New Jersey, that's also YOU] to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. St. Barnabas denied defrauding Medicare and admitted to no deliberate wrongdoing, although it acknowledged the overbilling, calling it a misrepresentation of Medicare rules." (emphasis added)

It sure was, kids. Lawyers representing the hospital were part of this fraud, costing tax payers millions. No one thinks that these lawyers are "unethical." Some will become New Jersey judges or justices. This is because they went to school with regulators ("Boola, Boola! Rah, Rah, Rah!") and wear nice suits: "Shortly after that settlement, the largest ever agreed to at that time, two small hospitals in Maine and Colorado filed a racketeering suit against St. Barnabas and its executives."

In New Jersey, even the hospitals are involved in racketeering. Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli, allegedly, are still scamming federal moneys for their torture services. They must have done so for years. It is impossible to rule out that those two cretins are among the defrauders of the federal government. New Jersey can neither admit nor deny that such an eventuality is at least possible, given the therapist-torturers' demonstrated antisocial tendencies, so that it may be advisable to monitor their activities, indefinitely, to forestall further criminal conduct. I am afraid that much the same may be said for Debbie Poritz and Sybil R. Moses, both of whom (like anyone else) may pose a future danger to the community and a present danger to the administration of law.

Come to think of it, the same may be said of you or anybody. Perhaps Governor Corzine will someday pose a threat to society. His driver certainly poses such a threat right now. Both should be monitored ("for their own good") by therapists hoping to bill the chumps, while doing as little as possible for the monies they receive, except torturing and/or raping victims.

"[The New Jersey hospital] CHEATED thousands of health care facilities nationwide out of HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in federal money they would have been entitled to." (This is in addition to the shenanigans at UMDNJ, where $100 MILLION flew the coop.)

Although the suit has been dismissed at the trial level, the likelihood of success on appeal with a more unfavorable (unfavorable to graft, that is) Circuit Court panel is very high.

"The United States attorney's office reviewed the bookeeping at St. Barnabas -- which at one point operated nine hospitals and 3,200 beds accross New Jersey -- and found that it BILKED the federal goverment out of at least $630 MILLION, according to prosecutors."

That's what I call stealing! They got a deal most minority defendants are not offered. I wonder why? These white people in nice suits walked after scooping almost a billion clams. Sweet.

"Hospital officials agreed to repay $265 million and were spared criminal charges." (This last sentence was altered, after my most recent correction and an "error" was inserted.)

Isn't that nice? They were "spared" criminal charges. Your kid won't be "spared" charges if he takes a pair of sneakers from "Footlockers." That kid -- with some b.s. priors -- is looking at a few months in juvi and a record. I bet he won't go to Harvard. Perhaps he will be described as "mentally impaired" or "retarded," like me. Maybe it is all a matter of "brain chemistry." But then, New Jersey's power structure could not care less about children's health:

"Clean-up crews were scheduled to remove contaminated soil today from a middle school that was the focus of controversy after school officials failed to notify parents and teachers about the problem earlier this year. [Are they lawyers? Did they have the advice of counsel? Where is the OAE to investigate those lying lawyers? Of course, OAE lawyers are also lying lawyers.] School board members and administrators learned of the pesticide contamination -- at levels up to 39 times the state's safety guidelines -- at the West Brook Middle School in January, but did not tell parents and teachers until May. The removal was expected to take about a week, Mario V. Sicari, the school board president, told the Record, in Hackensack, in an article yesterday."

When those children get cancer a few years down the road, if they do, will New Jersey send them a fruit basket? Why not send the families of dying children a portrait of New Jersey's Supreme Court justices?

In an article discussing the current dynamics on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is so filled with jurisprudential errors as to shock a first year law student, we are told by one "Linda Greenhouse":

"A new dynamic emerged in the court's last term, which ended last week with [Justice Kennedy?] standing in the middle, all alone. Not only the lawyers, but also the justices themselves, are now in the business of courting him."

This reporter fails to notice the implications for the legitimacy of decisions resulting from suggesting that 8 of the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have predetermined matters before they come to the Court on the basis of their politics. Only one justice, who is a centrist, is the person at whom lawyers should direct their arguments. This is because "Justice Kennedy" (sometimes it is Justice Stevens) is the only justice on the Court whose politics, allegedly, do not control outcomes regardless of the merits of legal arguments.

This New York Times article succeeds in insulting ALL of the members of the current Court. I hope things are not so farcical and fraudulent on the U.S. Supreme Court. I admit that they are fraudulent when it comes to New Jersey's Supreme Court. I can only assume that Ms. Greenhouse was thinking of New Jersey's tainted and disgraced "supreme" tribunal -- supremely incompetent, that is -- that must bear ultimate responsibility for continuing censorship efforts directed against me. ("Errors" will be inserted in this essay. I will correct them. I will then discover them again in the morning.)

Adding further insult to injury, the Times reporter implies that Justice Kennedy or all the justices should be "pragmatists," settling cases along political lines. However, the United States Supreme Court is not traffic court in North Bergen, New Jersey. One does not make deals, off the record -- regardless of the law -- on a so-called pragmatic basis. Cash in envelopes only works with New Jersey judges. Someday payoffs will not be accepted practice even in New Jersey's municipal courts. (See my essay detailing arrests in Jersey City Municipal Court for "ticket-fixing." More such arrests are likely to be "forthcoming.")

The judicial task for the High Court, according to Ronald Dworkin, is more concerned with applying Constitutional principles with objective merit and historical weight to current controversies -- even when there is a political price to pay for doing so. Maybe especially when there is a political cost to enforcing Constitutional principles, justices must be willing to do so. I often disagree with results. However, I am not willing to give up on the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court as a locus of neutral decision-making in accordance with juridical principles. I am even foolish enough to continue believing in my First Amendment rights.

Hackers continue to obstruct my communicative efforts, illegally, from New Jersey government computers. You do not have First Amendment rights on Monday, but then lose them on Tuesday -- if pragmatic considerations dictate that it's more convenient for "society" that you "little people" (like me) not have such rights. Rights and Constitutional guarantees are antimajoritarian instruments linked to your moral status as a person. This is not idealism. It is basic Constitutional theory. Who decided to destroy my "Philosophy Cafe" and why? Ethics?

New Jersey's so-called "Baby Attorney General" is doing a good job (so far) by hiring experienced prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office -- like the very able JOHN VAZQUEZ, who brings to state prosecution developed political and legal skills in coping with New Jersey's notorious corruption and mob influence in politics as well as courts. If Ms. Milgram is really concerned to fight child molestation, then start with New Jersey's corrupt judges, who are alleged to be complicit with child exploitation and other mob activities. (Two "errors" were just corrected in this sentence. They were not part of my original post.)

There was a fear that Ms. Milgram was being offered as a sacrificial lamb to the Jersey Boys, who would initiate a smear campaign against her, if she got too ambitious. (An "error" was inserted in this last sentence which was also not part of my original post.) Ms. Milgram promises to be tough-minded and brave in the office that she holds. If she is provided with political protection from media attacks and given the chance to do what she is able to do, then critics will be silenced. I hope. Maybe they'll hack into her computer for a while and leave me alone. However, I doubt it.

Ms. Milgram, I believe, hopes to do the right thing. Governor Corzine should be prepared to provide the resources that will allow her to do the work that needs to be done in New Jersey. Also, Ms. Milgram should be wary of being driven anywhere by state troopers. Maybe she should get a food taster. How about Richard J. Codey or Speaker Roberts? Oh, wait ... they're on their computers a lot and much too busy. I wonder what they're up to? My hopes for Anne Milgram are fading fast, along with the confidence of New Jersey law enforcement officials.

Keep your right hand high, Ann, and give 'em hell -- the bad guys, I mean. Duh ...