December 24, 2009 at 12:45 P.M. Previously corrected "error" was reinserted in the text. I have corrected that "error."
May 5, 2009 at 10:37 A.M. spacing has been affected by N.J.'s hackers. Other attacks against this essay and all of my writings are always expected. "Errors" will be inserted, vandalism, defacements are routine. Telephone calls at fifteen minute intervals, or less, from automated numbers are only a coincidence. Right, Mr. Rabner?
Americans are the most disliked people in the world right now. This is true not only in countries whose leaders have expressed genuine differences with the United States government -- notably Arab countries hostile to Israel and to the United States because it is Israel's strongest ally in the world -- but also in Europe and Latin America (where Mr. Bush's visit was greeted with protests) and even in Africa, which receives billions of dollars in aid from the U.S., more than from any other country. The reaction to the mere mention of Americans everywhere is a roll of the eyes. Americans are simply hated.
This is not a situation we can ignore since more than 80% of our wealth depends on foreign trade, notably with Latin America. Also, the loathing of Americans is feeding into support for Al Qaeda and others who do not wish us well. Al Qaeda has metastisized -- like a cancerous tumor -- and spread to different continents from which we may expect new attacks in the future.
Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Clinton's efforts to defuse tense situations in the Third World have already produced an underappreciated foreign policy achievement of major proportions, avoiding a second 9/11-like incident in Latin America (or elsewhere) through diplomacy. In my opinion, Mr. Lula's handshake with Mr. Obama and the U.S. President's cordial conversations with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez -- including a gracious smile by Obama at the gift of a book from Chavez -- together with Mr. Obama's winning response: "I was going to give him one of my books!" All of these gestures scored a knockout for President Obama. Make sure to send Brazil's President Lula a Christmas Card.
Beyond hatred, however, one finds assessments of Americans that are difficult to reconcile with our self-assessments in this country. As a naturalized U.S. citizen who loves his country and city, I think that I may be able to shed some light on this mystery. Incidentally, in my opinion, in the indirect debate between Mr. Bush and Mr. Chavez about the right future for Latin America, Mr. Bush was -- and President Obama is today -- correct about the key issues. A better future for Latin America will depend on greater individual freedom and respect for human rights. It might be a good idea to hang on to those things at home. Both Cuba and the United States can improve their human rights records.
The most obvious problem is a dislike for the failed and brutal policies of the Bush Administration, which is regarded with contempt in most places for its imbecilic misunderstanding of the world and disastrously inept policies, from the "war" on terror in Iraq to an international banking system that is destroying the economies it hopes to rescue. It may come as a shock to the tough guys and gals in Washington, D.C. -- including former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice -- that some problems cannot be solved by blowing up other countries. Inserting "errors" in a person's writings is not an argument against his opinions. The torture disaster has done more harm to American prestige and honor in the world, while delivering few (if any) benefits in terms of intelligence, than any other policy of the U.S. government that I can recall. New Jersey's censorship and torture practices may be even more of a catastrophe. ("What is it like to be tortured?")
In a televised debate, then Senator Clinton (New York!) made the sensible point that there are many options between war and doing nothing in response to Iran's nuclear program. Such qualified and nuanced thinking is much too subtle for those who just want to "kick somebody's ass." I can only hope that such "pro-war" persons will not be elected to high office in America. Earlier today an effort to post an essay dealing with the agonistic speculations of Friedrich Nietzsche was obstructed, effectively censoring me and denying First Amendment rights to YOU and all prospective readers of these essays. The image accompanying this essay could not be posted. The struggle continues, even as we speak of human rights to Cuba, China, and the world.
"In this matter [of human rights] China is not our equal, it is our inferior, and we cannot respect them [sic.] without disrespecting ourselves."
Leon Wieseltier, "In Which We Engage: Washington Diarist," in The New Republic, April 1, 2009, at p. 48 (emphasis added).
"Them?" I was under the impression that the word "China" is singular. The astonishing attacks and negative articles directed recently against China in The New York Times may be the result of a partnership between the two "Senator Bobs": Mr. Torricelli (employed as a lobbyist by Taiwan's Conservative interests) and Mr. Menendez (receiving contributions from Miami's Cubanazos). There is no excuse that I can imagine for inserting "errors" in articles such as Sharon LaFraniere's "Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home," in The New York Times, January 7, 2010, at p. A1. ("He declined the grant, resigned from Princeton's faculty and become [sic.] the dean of life sciences at Tsinghua University in Beijing.")
This embarasses the Times and insults the nation from whom we are receiving $800 BILLION per year. This seems unwise, to me, as does the continuing presence of "Manohla Dargis" in the journalistic profession. In writing what purports to be a movie review, Ms. Dargis provides the following sentence, which is not one of the worst in this article: "(Is there any other kind beyond the convent?)" This is the kind of writing that brings a tear to the reader's eyes. Please read the following astonishing essay: Manohla Dargis, "He's in Love; Excuse His French," in The New York Times, January 8, 2010, at p. A8. (Let us hope that my adversaries will cooperate by inserting further "errors" in my writings from New Jersey's government computers.)
With all respect to Mr. Wieseltier -- whose learning and writing I admire, usually -- there must be a better way to express an opinion on this matter than to describe China's five thousand year civilization, economic miracle, aesthetic and intellectual explosion of recent years as "inferior" to the political culture of the country that is borrowing billions of dollars from China in order to operate its torture program and finance its wars.
I find it impossible to believe, based on my familiarity with the writings of Mr. Wieseltier, that he wrote these words. How is it possible for American politicians to "insert" such statements in articles appearing in what is, allegedly, a "free press"? Are the Right-wing Cubanazos responsible for the crude attacks against China STILL appearing in The New York Times? Does China rape, steal from, commit cybercrimes against writers and independent scholars? Does China's alleged human rights violations even approach the horrors and disgusting reality of New Jersey's legal system? Fair-minded readers must decide this matter for themselves. However, China points out that no dead people in Beijing steal public funds. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
China's human rights issues are genuine enough. However, China's progress in this area is also undeniable. The understanding of human rights differs in China and many countries where economic survival or starvation presents serious human rights questions not usually seen in America or appreciated in such "rights" terms -- until now. 85 million handicapped persons; 70 million on the edge of survival in terms of decent quality of life are pressing issues in China that call for difficult choices. The human rights of those persons -- especially the right to live and be educated, or to receive medical care when necessary -- are of concern to China's government as a matter of the collective rights of China's people. Is this concern real in Cuba? Every society in the world understands human rights in terms that are "convenient" for that society.
There is also the question of hypocrisy. The U.S. is perceived as lying about its own practices as opposed to its ostensible commitments, as evidenced by my daily experiences of censorship and worse at the hands of government officials from at least one American jurisdiction over twenty years, together with censorship, plagiarism, and suppressions of speech experienced by many others. This daily struggle is intended to cause serious and permanent psychological damage to me, I believe, because of my opinions. ("The Heidegger Controversy.") I cannot accept that there is such a thing as "therapeutic theft or rape." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.") In addition to the items listed below, please see Philip Gourevitch, "Comment: Interrogating Torture," in The New Yorker, May 11, 2009, at pp. 33-34:
"That story [of lawyers rationalizing torture] comes to mind as Americans are seized by belated outrage over the Bush Administration's policy of practicing torture against prisoners in the war on terror. It was exactly five years ago that some of the photographs that Charles Graner and his comrades took at Abu Ghraib were aired on CBS's 'Sixty Minutes' and were published in this magazine. At that time the Administration claimed that Graner was the mastermind of the abuse represented in the photographs" -- I am among the Americans who hoped that this was true, even though I have never been a Republican or a terrorist! -- "and that they showed nothing more than the depravity of a group of rogue soldiers who had fallen under [Graner's] sway. Yet it became almost immediately apparent -- and has been confirmed repeatedly in the years since, most recently with President Obama's decision to release four Bush Administration memorandums seeking to establish a legal justification for the use of torture -- that the Abu Ghraib photos showed not individuals run amok but American policy in action. (From those memos, we now know that Bush Administration lawyers had a technical term for what Charles Graner called bashing a man against a wall. The term is 'walling.')"
My life in New Jersey law and beyond has been the psychological equivalent of "walling." The Bush Administration is mercifully gone. Iraq will be better off, long term, without Saddam or the "coalition" of the "un-willing-but-cajoled-by-the-U.S." Real damage to organizations -- such Al Qaeda -- has been done, which is in everyone's interest. Whether the morphing of the military struggle into Pakistan and the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, along with the continuing nightmare in Iraq, will collapse into a massive regional conflict threatening the entire world is uncertain. Let us hope not. Keep your eyes on Pakistan. China and India will not be comfortable with any increased U.S. military presence in Pakistan. Stephen Farrell, "Video Bolsters Pakistani Taliban Link to C.I.A. Deaths," in The New York Times, Sunday, January 10, 2010, at p. A1.
The Bush Administration will probably receive credit, if any is due, for these Cheney-described "achievements" ten or maybe twenty years down the road. Iraq may yet be a success for U.S. interests. However, I doubt it. If it is, then the Democrats will claim that it was their idea all along or that they rescued the situation. Another "error" was inserted in this essay as a further display by N.J. officials of contempt for law and all of us. There is nothing the U.S. would like more than to exit Iraq, leaving a viable democratic government behind. Perhaps there will be a viable democratic government in New Jersey, someday in the distant future maybe.
As I revise this essay, it appears bleak at best in Iraq, where the U.S. is about to sustain a terrible loss, which I hope will not turn into a catastrophic regional or global failure. During the future Administration of President Obama -- or Hillary Clinton's first term -- perhaps, much of the political or P.R. damage suffered by the U.S. during the G.W. era will be addressed and corrected. Yet the cultural damage is more longstanding and the resentments concerning "American arrogance" are not so easily resolved, especially when they are ignored by everyone, both Democrats and Republicans.
"Why are they so fucking stupid?" This is almost a broken record when foreigners are asked about Americans. This comes as a shock to people in the U.S., who like to think of ourselves as highly enlightened and knowing, "experts" on all the "issues," qualified to instruct others concerning politics and quality of life "issues." There is a failure to appreciate that this is exactly what many people around the world regard as moronic. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
"Records" are these big black and round things that people once played on "record players" in order to listen to "recorded" music. They were known as "pre-CDs" by neolithic man. Strangely, I saw a "record" buried in snow yesterday. This appears to be the work of Trenton's OAE. Will I ever receive those videos and tapes, reports and statements, Mr. Rabner?
In Paris, I remember a conversation with another couple in a restaurant, who alluded to a stay at a university in the mid-west of the U.S. with a painful sigh. Lawyers representing American companies are particularly detested everywhere. In Italy, newspapers discussed -- for days -- a picture of American tourists who visited one of the great churches in shorts and t-shirts, while eating ice cream cones. This incident was interpreted as symbolic of American crudeness. My host simply shook his head and said: "... the shoes, why?"
Why sneakers everywhere? Well, the American fascination with sports has a lot to do with it. Please remember that American lawyers are also detested in America. One problem is cultural ignorance. The educational system in the U.S. is a disaster when it comes to exposing students to "the best that has been thought and said." It is too often shaped by political considerations -- in the form of representation for previously excluded groups (a worthy goal) -- and is excessively nationalistic, focusing on American culture exclusively. In today's world this parochialism is a mistake. Hence, the criticism of foreign law in American courts seems bogus in light of the adoption of much international law into federal statutory provisions.
American graduate students know next to nothing about the cultures of others, and very little about their own culture. On the other hand, such students are usually great with computer games. None of this is all that new. The following was written by Oscar Wilde in 1887:
"When the [American man] is not lounging in a rocking chair with a cigar, he is loafing through the streets with a carpet bag, gravely taking stock of our products, and trying to understand Europe through the medium of the shop windows. He is ... Mr. Arnold's middle-class Philistine. The telephone is his test of civilization, and his wildest dreams of Utopia do not rise beyond elevated railways and electric bells. ..."
In fairness, Wilde acknowledged that:
"Yet, on the whole, he [the American male person] is happier in London than anywhere else in Europe. Here he can always make a few acquaintances, and as a rule, can speak the language. [An American] is the Don Quixote of common sense, for he is so utilitarian that he is absolutely unpractical. ..." (emphasis added).
Americans are not educated, they are trained for employment. The words "practical" and "realistic" will immediately arise in a conversation about education in the U.S., the focus will be on computers and spending, or gearing instruction to the "job market" of the future. Not surprisingly, science and technology are often taught as adjuncts to business. The neglect of the spirit borders on the tragic in such a rich country. As a result, for most people, the imagination is allowed to atrophy. Some of the most ignorant -- even stupid -- persons that I have known in the U.S. are members of America's elite professions or occupants of positions of substantial power. Senator Bob? Maybe this helps to explain the censorship I struggle against. Some of the most stupid and morally despicable persons I have known were (and are) New Jersey lawyers and judges. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.") In addition, of course, many of these persons are dishonest and mercenary. ("New Jersey's Mafia Culture in Law and Politics.")
For those who are driven to self-expression and creativity, there are fewer obstacles in America than anywhere else. Hence, one discovers the paradox that the nation responsible for the greatest imaginative achievements in science and the popular arts in the twentieth century is increasingly producing a population incapable of appreciating the importance of imagination in life. Whatever. ("Anne Milgram Does It Again.")
Appreciation of the arts, a knowledge of the history of civilization (prior to 1776), is mostly a dispensable luxury in America, while the list of great books has been shortened because it has been deemed excessively "representative" of "White European Males." Americans with graduate degrees arrive in other countries and discover counterparts who speak several languages, go to the Opera or ballet regularly, are used to conversations about books, paintings, music and political ideas, see films without explosions at three second intervals -- even if they also enjoy Hollywood movies -- and spend hours in leisurely conversations over exquisite dinners, often in several languages.
Americans respond to all questions with talk of "how the Yankees are doing this year" and "whether they need better pitchers," which they do. Americans will immediately bring up the tax consequences when, say, adultery is discussed. They will even mention being "born again." Surely, once is enough.
A European woman once explained to me that "there is no mystery" with American men, no capacity for delicious, witty, flirtatious banter, no fondness for "cultural foreplay." She suggested that I am "not really an American." I responded that she was thinking of stereotypes. We then engaged in "witty, flirtatious banter," allowing me to do my part for the red, white and blue. I am always proud to serve my country.
Incidentally, I have just made a correction which I have made previously on five occasions. This continuing cyberwarfare and "induced-frustration" protocol indicates that New Jersey's legal authorities have yet to appreciate the Constitutional and human rights issues involved in this situation. ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")
I must admit, however, that there is something to this popular critique of Americans. I remember one of my law professors who had never heard of Proust. Others had not read much of anything outside of their areas of specialization. There is a distressingly familiar narrowness characteristic of American lawyers as well as people in business and politics generally. This would be O.K., normally, except that U.S. culture is so relentlessly anti-intellectual that it now asks public figures -- like Donald Trump or Oprah Winfrey -- to discuss the "meaning of life" and dispense wisdom on television.
At the same time, some of the best philosophers, scientists, and humanistic intellectuals in the world are available for such discussions in America at the drop of a fee, but are ignored. Who wants to hear from them? What does Julia Roberts think? Celebrities have yet to realize exactly how much power they have in today's world. If that power were harnessed to serve valid and important causes, the world might be made a much better place.
Knowledge of science, the arts and humanities are not luxuries. They are necessary to the spiritual development of persons (and this has nothing to do with religion necessarily), so that one result of a relentless focus on "facts" (as opposed to the quest for truth) in education, is a stilted, narrow and impoverished human being. The "typical" American (if there is such a being) is, allegedly, a person with a diploma -- maybe even with money -- yet shallow and lacking in an intellectual life. He or she is lacking in aesthetic resources to cope with life's misfortunes and inevitable tragedies. Such a hypothetical person will be incapable of understanding others or of offering real empathy for those who suffer. For powerful Americans, according to the stereotype, the bulk of humanity falls under the category of "consumers" to whom one might sell "widgets." In his important book, The Twilight of American Culture (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000), at page 51, Morris Berman notes:
"... postmodernism brought to the table not merely the denial of truth but also the denial of the ideal of truth. Facts are now regarded as a 'fetish,' all methodology is 'problematic,' and sometimes even the highest forms of culture are despised. When feminists -- in this case, Susan McClary -- can say that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is filled with 'the throttling, murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release,' we see how nakedly sick the deconstructive enterprise finally is. This is not merely intellectual failure; it is moral failure as well."
Despite the public worship of science, at street level, knowledge of science is almost non-existent:
"Only one in five Americans has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven't heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy." (Jim Holt got it right for once in the Times.)
Go to the theater, visit a museum, read a book, see any film by a good director, listen to music that is at least one hundred years old, then listen to the new stuff. Study philosophy. Please study philosophy. If you do, then you will be contributing to enhancing the perception of Americans in the world, while promoting international understanding and cooperation. We have a moral obligation to be as intelligent and educated as we can be (William James), if we are to build a better world for our children. This would be a good time for another attempt at censorship.
Periodical Sources:
1. "A Necessary Supreme Court Showdown," (Editorial) The New York Times, March 30, 2009, at p. A26.
2. David Johnson, "Top Aides to Testify in U.S. Attorney Firings," The New York Times, March 15, 2009, at p. A19.
3. John Schwartz, "Judge Weighs Dismissing Case in U.S. Attorneys' Firings," The New York Times, March 17, 2009, at p. A13.
4. Adam Liptak, "Justices Erase Court Ruling That Allowed a Detention," The New York Times, March 7, 2009, at p. A9.
5. "Release of Memos Fuels Push for Inquiry Into Bush's Terror-Fighting Policies," The New York Times, March 4, 2009, at p. A18.
6. "Medically Assisted Torture," (Editorial) The New York Times, March 4, 2009, at p. A18. (American doctors -- like Ridgewood, New Jersey's Terry A. Tuchin -- "assist and facilitate" in tormenting, raping and devastating witnesses, especially African-American Muslims, questioned by branches of the U.S. government.)
7. Kirk Johnson, "Author of 9/11 Essay Was Wrongly Fired, Jury Says," The New York Times, April 3, 2009, at p. A19. (Political censorship and DENIALS of free speech in America.)
8. "The Dysfunctional Human Rights Council," (Editorial) The New York Times, April 11, 2009, at p. A16. (U.S. lectures the world about freedom of speech and tolerance of dissent as American critics of government are fired, disbarred, threatened and books are suppressed.)
9. Scott Shane, "Divisions Arose Over Rough Tactics for Qaeda Figure," The New York Times, April 18, 2009, at p. A1.
10. Mark Mazzetti, "Release of C.I.A. Interrogation Memos May Open the Door to More Revelations," The New York Times, April 18, 2009, at p. A1. (CIA torture methods for 2009-2010.)
11. Mark Mazzetti & Scott Shane, "Memos Spell Out Brutal C.I.A. Mode of Interrogation," The New York Times, April 17, 2009, at p. A1.
12. Eric Litchblau & James Risen, "Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceed Law," The New York Times, April 16, 2009, at p. A1. (America as carceral network.)
13. Scott Shane & Mark Mazetti, "In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Past Use," The New York Times, April 17, 2009, at p. A1.
14. Peter Baker & Scott Shane, "Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations," The New York Times, April 21, 2009, at p. A1.
15. Jane Perlez, "Taliban Seize Pakistan Area Near Capital," The new York Times, April 23, 2009, at p. A1. (Fundamentalist forces friendly to Ossama bin Laden may topple government friendly to U.S., while we continue to fire "robot bombs" at villages in Pakistan. Threats of a Pakistani governmental collapse were predicted in these writings months ago.)
16. Mark Mazzetti & Scott Shane, "Debate Over Interrogation Methods Sharply Divided the Bush White House," in The New York Times, May 4, 2009, at p. A13.
17. "The State Secrets privilege, Tamed," (Editorial) in The New York Times, April 30, 2009, at p. A26. (Abuse of "secrecy" classification to cover-up criminality by government. New Jersey?)
18. Neil A. Lewis, "Official Defends Signing Interrogation Memos," in The New York Times, April 29, 2009, at p. A12. (Official who is now a federal Circuit Court judge, one level below the U.S. Supreme Court, defends rationalizations of hideous tortures of little brown people.)
Especially Noteworthy:
Mark Danner, "US Torture: Voices From the Black Sites," The New York Review of Books, April 9, 2009, at p. 62.
Mark Danner, "The Red Cross Report on Torture and What it Means for the U.S.," The New York Review of Books, April 30, 2009, at p. 48.
Philip Gourevitch, "Torture on Trial," in The New Yorker, May 11, 2009, at pp. 33-34.
Atul Gawande, "Ordinary Torture," in The New Yorker, Mar. 30, 2009, at p. 36. (Torture of U.S. inmates is routine.)
