Difficulties today have made it impossible to write. Essays have been vandalized, several times, and access to the Internet has been affected. Attempted revisions of this work could not be posted. My home e-mail is obstructed. I receive an "error" notice as drafts are altered at my computer. I received a call as I was working on this statement. Probably just a coincidence.
I will now repeat my earlier message of concern for the victims of the hurricane in Cuba. The U.S. offer (Bush/Cheney) of $100,000.00 with strings attached was rightly rejected by the Cubans, who continue to insist on their independence. They would prefer to purchase the equipment they need to make necessary repairs themselves. With a lifting of the embargo for six months, they could do all that needs to be done. I think the embargo should be lifted permanently.
Unfortunately, saying this means further censorship and attacks against these essays from N.J. government computers and state agencies. However, this truth must be stated. Right-wing anti-Castro groups can only offer Cuba much worse than what exists on the island today. The sadism directed against me -- which is made possible by N.J. corruption -- makes this clear. You cannot beat up ideas. Threatening me will not alter these facts, taking letters out of my sentences or other alterations of these writings will not change these facts. Are intellectuals in Cuba subjected to torture and rape, suppression and censorship of writings today? You are witnesses to sanctioned public criminality by government in America. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
I spent about thirty minutes trying to post a revision of an essay at Critique -- a revision required by the reinsertion of a previously corrected "error." I was prevented from doing any writing by obstructions and harassment. I will fight to get back to my MSN group at some time today in order to do that revising. Meanwhile, I will post this essay about a recent federal bust of more New Jersey Democrats for corruption. Senator Bob is reportedly next. We'll see whether Bob gets indicted. (See "Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in a Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")
Anybody seen the New Jersey state pension funds? New Jersey state employees probably will not see them. Right, Richard J. Codey? George E. Norcross, III? A second attempt to work at my MSN group (10:25 A.M.) was also unsuccessful due to obstructions. I will devote the rest of the day to finishing my essay on George E. Norcross, III. I will then spend the day -- or week, if necessary -- trying to post that new essay at Critique. I am told that MSN groups has closed. No images can be posted at these blogs.
Whenever I am denied access to my own sites by hackers, it means that errors are inserted in Constitutionally- and copyright-protected writings. I will make corrections of whatever essays have been damaged this morning as soon as I am able to regain access to my group. Please tell your friends in law enforcement about these crimes committed, publicly, by (I am sure) the authorities in an American jurisdiction, N.J., which is now the most CORRUPT place in the United States of America.
Ironically, this week the U.S. State Department has commented on alleged human rights violations and suppressions of freedom of speech, at a time when violations of Constitutionally-protected freedoms take place, publicly, at the hands of Cuban-American and mafia bosses protected by corrupt politicians from New Jersey and Florida. Have you no shame, Ms. Milgram?
This hideous public spectacle degrades and dishonors the nation and all who have given their lives for the freedoms protected by the Constitution and who are betrayed by men and women in judicial robes near Trenton, New Jersey.
Do you wish to obstruct my Internet access now? How about taking a letter out of something I've written to induce frustration? I will keep fighting.
David Johnston, "Justice Report Advises Pursuit of Abuse Cases," in The New York Times, August 24, 2009, at p. A1. (Investigations of alleged C.I.A. torturers. Will N.J. be next?)
"U.S. Accuses 2 in Bergen Of Corruption," in The New York Times, September 10, 2008, at p. B5.
"Time of Reckoning," in The New York Times, February 25, 2009, at p. A26. (Bush economic fiasco inherited by Obama, together with New Jersey's "culture of corruption" leading to Xanadu's $2 BILLION boondoggle in the Meadowlands.)
"NEWARK (AP) -- The influential chairman of the Bergen County Democratic Organization and a party lawyer have been indicted on federal corruption charges."
"Hey, that's not unethical," according to the OAE. Corruption is peachy-keen in New Jersey. This politically-connected lawyer is not a minority solo practioner who challenges the political boss system. We don't care about that guy. We'll also let Paul Bergrin, Esq. slide and look the other way at possible child molestation when it comes to Neil M. Cohen, Esq., or the alleged participation in "shenanigans" by the juiced-up De Cottiis firm. Right, fellas? Whatta-ya say at the OAE? DRB? AG? Anne, you got a big date? Tickets for the Ellen DeGeneres Show?
Bergrin is being tried by the feds, not state prosecutors. What's TWO BILLION DOLLARS "lost" to the taxpayers? Nothing. ("One of New Jersey's Highly Ethical Attorneys Has a Problem" and "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House," then "Senator Bob Says: 'Xanadu and You -- Perfect Together!'")
"[The] United States Attorney ... announced the indictments of party chairman Joseph A. Ferreiro, and Democrat lawyer, Dennis Oury, on Tuesday."
I remember Dennis. I believe we may have some mutual friends, Dennis. How's Alex doing? Not so good, huh? (See "An Open Letter to My Torturers, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" as well as "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"The eight-count indictment charges them with conspiring to defraud the Borough of Bergenfield and using the mail to further their scheme."
That's an old trick in New Jersey. Criminal fraud. Garcia? I wonder whether these guys are challenging Hudson County for corruption capital of the state and nation? If so, they have a long way to go in Bergen County. The Bergen County courthouse is the biggest "clubhouse-courthouse" in the state.
See "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" as well as "New Jersey Superior Court Judge is a Child Molester."
In Bergen County Family Court some lawyers strolled into the judge's chambers and enjoyed ex parte chats with the same judges expected to decide controversies "on the merits." Some firms seemed to have "access to the backstage stuff"; other firms did not. Political favors? Cash in envelopes? A little of both?
No wonder I am prevented from accessing my own web sites this morning. They don't want you to know this stuff.
"The investigation focused on their dealings as partners in a firm, Government Grants Consulting" -- the name says it all! -- "that did business with a number of local governments in northern New Jersey." You getting nervous, Alex? Senator "Bob"?
"The indictment charges that the two men conspired to conceal Mr. Oury's interest in the grant-writing firm from officials in Bergenfield, which employed Mr. Oury as borough attorney. His dual role posed a conflict of interest, prosecutors contend."
You're really getting nervous, huh, Alex Booth, Esq.? How about you, Terry? Diana?
Federal agents raided the law offices of the two men last month, carting out boxes of documents."
Where's Anne Milgram? Jon S. Corzine? "Chief Justice" Stuart Rabner? Where's the OAE? Nobody speaks English. You better remove some letters from my words. Try inserting "errors" in several essays at once and see whether that will stop me.
"Mr. Ferreirro is a partner at the law firm of Scarinsci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst. [emphasis added! -- right, Senator Bob?] Mr. Oury works at a law office in Hackensack. Mr. Ferreiro took a leave of absence as party chairman last week, citing legal difficulties."
There's some more "legal difficulties" coming for all of you in Trenton and Hudson as well as Bergen Counties, very soon.
"Mr. Oury and Mr. Ferreiro are to surrender to the authorities on Wednesday. Hey, Senator Robert "Bob" a.k.a. "Roberto" Menendez. (How's the babe, "BobbyM"?) "How's it shaking "Big Pappa"? $1,500.00 still help to smooth the "process" in Union City? Is it $2,500 now? I wonder why I can't write at my MSN group in peace? You would be amazed at what I have gone through to post this essay. Is MSN groups still "closed"?
The boys are represented by some pretty good mouth pieces. Joe Hayden, reputedly and allegedly, himself a political animal who is not averse to "public legal work" is going to (as lawyers say) "come up with something to say" for Ferreiro. Gerald Krovatin, attorney for many "alleged" underworld figures, will put in a good word for Mr. Oury. Cash up front, fellas. These guys ain't gonna walk.
New Jersey's judiciary may be the most corrupt in the nation. N.J. judges "look the other way" at daily censorship efforts against little-old-me, and at the destruction of the old "Philosophy Cafe." Garden State judges often accept bribes and sexual favors for doing nothing. They're good at doing nothing. OAE? DRB? AG? Naaa ... These crooks are Cash Contributors to the Democratic Party in N.J. Nothing happens to them. N.J. Judgeships still cost $25,000 in cash?
Hey, whatta-ya gonna do? "Business as usual."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
New Allegations of Torture and Crimes Against Humanity in America's Prisons.
February 25, 2009 at 12:40 P.M. After approximately 30 minutes of attempting to reach MSN, I have been blocked from the Internet numerous times. I am informed that "MSN" -- and not just MSN Groups -- is apparently "closed." I am skeptical about this claim. I am also deeply resentful of these censorship and suppression of speech efforts that are based on the contents of my opinions.
I hope that this sad spectacle of decline in America's commitment to freedom of expression, following President Obama's First Speech before Congress, will not be a harbinger of things to come. I will try again later today to reach my group at MSN. I will continue to post writings at these blogs. In the event that I experience an unfortunate accident, I suggest that you see "What is it like to be tortured?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture."
The victims of these fascist tactics are the United States of America, the judiciary throughout the country, and The U.S. Constitution.
As an African-American, N.J. Justice Benjamin Wallace: Is it possible for you to be a part of enslaving another human being or covering-up tortures, rapes, obstructions of justice, thefts?Efforts to reach my MSN Group and writings continue to be obstructed. February 25, 2009 at 8:46 A.M.
Jordan Flaherty, "Brutality at Angola Prison," The Indypendent, February 6-26, 2009, at p. 6. http://www.indypendent.org/
Jim Dwyer, "For Inmate Seeking Vindication, Freedom Can Wait," The New York Times, February 7, 2009, p. A17.
Raymond Bonner, "Guantanamo Detainee's Lawyers Appeal to Obama for Help," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, at p. A13.
"Pennsylvania Judges Are Charged," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, p. A27. (Allegations of "connections" between corrupt judges in Pennsylvania and South Jersey's powerful Democrat political machine are unconfirmed.)
John Eligion, "An Officer is Accused of Beating a Suspect," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, at p. A30.
Clyde Haberman, "Justice, Not Revenge, is Her Motive," The New York Times, February 10, 2009, at p. A19.
The consistent allegations and evidence of heinous tortures at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons should not detract from the equally horrifying charges of torture involving American inmates as well as others, including allegations of psychological tortures designed and intended to bring about the schizoid and psychotic reactions of victims.
It is alleged by many inmates and others that incarcerated men and women "are cheaper than lab rats" as "specimens" for psychologists and/or psychoanalysts making use of unwilling and non-consensual victims in experiments aimed at maximizing the destructive capacities of forms of so-called "mind control." Sadists are not uncommon among these alleged "therapists." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
If you are an inmate anywhere and have been "examined" by a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist, there is an excellent chance that you were subjected to hypnosis and questioning in an impaired state to obtain information, illegally, that will be used against you without your knowledge. Start filing those motions in New Jersey.
YOU may have been tortured, then instructed under hypnosis to forget these sessions -- sessions possibly taking place in the presence of the authorities. Among the methods of psychological torture used, routinely, in American prisons are: 1) isolation and solitary confinement; 2) extreme discomfort; 3) denials of access to sanitary facilities; 4) physical beatings; with 5) possible sexual abuse thrown into the mix -- these and other techniques are prohibited under international treaties accepted by the United States of America, also under key provisions of the U.S. Code, such as title 42 which criminalizes violations of civil rights, conspiracies to violate civil rights, and cover-ups of violations of civil rights.
Judges in New Jersey know that these state crimes take place, in my opinion, and they cover-up for corrupt officials in state agencies, such as the tainted OAE.
"If President Barack Obama is serious about ending U.S. support for torture, he can start here in Louisiana." ("America's Holocaust" and "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey.")
This almost defies rational description or belief in 2009. Deliberate torture taking place publicly. ("Morality Play.") However, it is undisputed that "Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox" -- members of the Black Panther political party were placed -- "in solitary confinement for 36 years." ( Indypendent, p. 6, emphasis added.)
"At least a dozen inmates testified to receiving the same beatings, assaults, threats of sexual violence, and freezing treatment. ..."
These offenses were especially targeted at alleged political prisoners, such as members of the Panthers, or other "weird socialists":
"Some guards at the prison treated the abuse as a game." -- This is something that I have experienced, amusement at the infliction of pain on victims. -- "Inmate Brian Johns testified at the hearing that, 'One of the guards was hitting us all in the head. Said he liked the sound of the drums -- the drumming sound -- from hitting us in the head with the stick.' ..." (Ibid.)
Solitary confinement, aggravated by severe deprivations of sunlight and fresh air, inadequate sanitary facilities, poor food, and other deliberate inflicted emotional cruelties are commonly focused on African-American inmates and other alleged "sub-humans" (like poor whites), whose political opinions are deemed controversial or unacceptable. Much of Mumia Abu-Jamal's difficulty in winning release and strange "delays" in his legal process resulted from Mr. Abu-Jamal's expressed political opinions. ("News From the 'War on Terror.'")
What is unacceptable to authoritarians or fascists is autonomy, freedom of thought and expression. These tortures and psychological methods are about control. Control is always aimed at civilian populations, ultimately, and so are methods of crowd manipulation. What makes a highly intelligent inmate dangerous is his or her unwillingness to be controlled combined with insistence on humanity, freedom of the will, dignity. These things must be recognized as due to persons as a matter of human rights law, not as a favor or concession from officials.
"[Herman Wallace said:] ... 'The government tries out it's torture techniques on prisoners in the U.S. -- just far enough to see how society will react. It doesn't take long before they unleash their techniques on society as a whole.' If we don't stand up against this abuse now, it will only spread." (Indypendent, p. 6.)
Everton Wagstaffe was offered release from a penitentiary in exchange for accepting continued monitoring as a sex offender. I am not and never have been any kind of sex offender or any kind of criminal. Unless framed for something by New Jersey officials, I doubt that (unlike Mr. Cohen in the N.J. Legislature) I will ever be charged with such a heinous offense. Mr. Wagstaffe refused release on the grounds that he would not accept such conditions of monitoring nor admit to an offense that he did not commit. The victim's death attributed to Mr. Wagstaffe was ...
" ... investigated by the 75th Preccint detective squad, which later came under fire from prosecutors and [was] the subject of an unusual audit by the Police Department for its handling of murder cases. In at least three cases handled by the squad, innocent people were convicted on the testimony of a single eyewitness." (New York Times, February 7, 2009, p. A17.)
This eyewitness and others, allegedly, were kept in confinement at a psychiatric medical facility until they provided testimony that "satisfied" the authorities. Under such circumstances, you (or anyone) will say whatever they tell you to say in order to escape confinement. I agree with Mr. Wagstaffe's decision to fight this injustice and persist in his struggle. Mr. Wagstaffe is African-American. I venture to suggest that he is not a Republican. To my knowledge, no white Republican has been tortured by American officials, either within the U.S. or at any international facility.
"Two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers." (New York Times, February 12, 2009, p. A27.)
This is further evidence of the financial exploitation of inmates as chattel, slaves who are transformed into money by America's still overwhelmingly white power-structure. This includes white inmates who, for the purposes of this financial arrangement, are deemed "like" blacks and also made into slaves. When the prison-industrial system sees an inmate what registers is dollar signs, not skin color.
Who was paying Terry Tuchin? For what services were you paid, Terry? What judges or members of the bar were sharing in the loot fraudulently obtained by Terry from insurance companies? Diana? Debbie Poritz? A boy named Stu'?
"Prosecutors said the judges, Mark Clavarella, 58, ... and Michael Conahan, 56, who both presided in Luzerne County, took $2.6 MILLION in payoffs to put" -- mostly African-American young people, which would please Cubanazos -- "in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on January 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court." (Ibid.)
This is a modern version of slavery. Inmates are "SOLD" to facilities that know how to show their appreciation to judges for sending them "business." Doctors at these facilties are supplied with new "lab rats" for their experiments and everybody is happy -- except for the mostly African-American young people whose lives are destroyed. ( See "America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
"Torture's willing advocates" -- ethical lawyers at New Jersey's OAE? -- "needless to say, took a much more 'optimistic' line. They argued that extreme physical pain, artfully applied, will take away the examinee's freedom to keep secrets and withhold the truth. [Often the real motive for torture is "sexual pleasure on the part of torturers, usually torturers experience suppressed homosexual desires."] This 'de-liberation' (or removal of free will) no doubt bore fruit some of the time."
Stephen Holmes, "Is Defiance of Law a Proof of Success? Magical Thinking in the War on Terror," in Karen J. Greenberg, ed., The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 118-135, esp. p. 120.
Do you speak to me of ethics, Stuart Rabner? Are Anne Milgram and Debbie Poritz going cruising later? Diana? No wonder Judge Richard A. Posner writes that law must treat persons as "objects."
I hope that this sad spectacle of decline in America's commitment to freedom of expression, following President Obama's First Speech before Congress, will not be a harbinger of things to come. I will try again later today to reach my group at MSN. I will continue to post writings at these blogs. In the event that I experience an unfortunate accident, I suggest that you see "What is it like to be tortured?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture."
The victims of these fascist tactics are the United States of America, the judiciary throughout the country, and The U.S. Constitution.
As an African-American, N.J. Justice Benjamin Wallace: Is it possible for you to be a part of enslaving another human being or covering-up tortures, rapes, obstructions of justice, thefts?Efforts to reach my MSN Group and writings continue to be obstructed. February 25, 2009 at 8:46 A.M.
Jordan Flaherty, "Brutality at Angola Prison," The Indypendent, February 6-26, 2009, at p. 6. http://www.indypendent.org/
Jim Dwyer, "For Inmate Seeking Vindication, Freedom Can Wait," The New York Times, February 7, 2009, p. A17.
Raymond Bonner, "Guantanamo Detainee's Lawyers Appeal to Obama for Help," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, at p. A13.
"Pennsylvania Judges Are Charged," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, p. A27. (Allegations of "connections" between corrupt judges in Pennsylvania and South Jersey's powerful Democrat political machine are unconfirmed.)
John Eligion, "An Officer is Accused of Beating a Suspect," The New York Times, February 12, 2009, at p. A30.
Clyde Haberman, "Justice, Not Revenge, is Her Motive," The New York Times, February 10, 2009, at p. A19.
The consistent allegations and evidence of heinous tortures at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons should not detract from the equally horrifying charges of torture involving American inmates as well as others, including allegations of psychological tortures designed and intended to bring about the schizoid and psychotic reactions of victims.
It is alleged by many inmates and others that incarcerated men and women "are cheaper than lab rats" as "specimens" for psychologists and/or psychoanalysts making use of unwilling and non-consensual victims in experiments aimed at maximizing the destructive capacities of forms of so-called "mind control." Sadists are not uncommon among these alleged "therapists." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
If you are an inmate anywhere and have been "examined" by a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist, there is an excellent chance that you were subjected to hypnosis and questioning in an impaired state to obtain information, illegally, that will be used against you without your knowledge. Start filing those motions in New Jersey.
YOU may have been tortured, then instructed under hypnosis to forget these sessions -- sessions possibly taking place in the presence of the authorities. Among the methods of psychological torture used, routinely, in American prisons are: 1) isolation and solitary confinement; 2) extreme discomfort; 3) denials of access to sanitary facilities; 4) physical beatings; with 5) possible sexual abuse thrown into the mix -- these and other techniques are prohibited under international treaties accepted by the United States of America, also under key provisions of the U.S. Code, such as title 42 which criminalizes violations of civil rights, conspiracies to violate civil rights, and cover-ups of violations of civil rights.
Judges in New Jersey know that these state crimes take place, in my opinion, and they cover-up for corrupt officials in state agencies, such as the tainted OAE.
"If President Barack Obama is serious about ending U.S. support for torture, he can start here in Louisiana." ("America's Holocaust" and "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey.")
This almost defies rational description or belief in 2009. Deliberate torture taking place publicly. ("Morality Play.") However, it is undisputed that "Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox" -- members of the Black Panther political party were placed -- "in solitary confinement for 36 years." ( Indypendent, p. 6, emphasis added.)
"At least a dozen inmates testified to receiving the same beatings, assaults, threats of sexual violence, and freezing treatment. ..."
These offenses were especially targeted at alleged political prisoners, such as members of the Panthers, or other "weird socialists":
"Some guards at the prison treated the abuse as a game." -- This is something that I have experienced, amusement at the infliction of pain on victims. -- "Inmate Brian Johns testified at the hearing that, 'One of the guards was hitting us all in the head. Said he liked the sound of the drums -- the drumming sound -- from hitting us in the head with the stick.' ..." (Ibid.)
Solitary confinement, aggravated by severe deprivations of sunlight and fresh air, inadequate sanitary facilities, poor food, and other deliberate inflicted emotional cruelties are commonly focused on African-American inmates and other alleged "sub-humans" (like poor whites), whose political opinions are deemed controversial or unacceptable. Much of Mumia Abu-Jamal's difficulty in winning release and strange "delays" in his legal process resulted from Mr. Abu-Jamal's expressed political opinions. ("News From the 'War on Terror.'")
What is unacceptable to authoritarians or fascists is autonomy, freedom of thought and expression. These tortures and psychological methods are about control. Control is always aimed at civilian populations, ultimately, and so are methods of crowd manipulation. What makes a highly intelligent inmate dangerous is his or her unwillingness to be controlled combined with insistence on humanity, freedom of the will, dignity. These things must be recognized as due to persons as a matter of human rights law, not as a favor or concession from officials.
"[Herman Wallace said:] ... 'The government tries out it's torture techniques on prisoners in the U.S. -- just far enough to see how society will react. It doesn't take long before they unleash their techniques on society as a whole.' If we don't stand up against this abuse now, it will only spread." (Indypendent, p. 6.)
Everton Wagstaffe was offered release from a penitentiary in exchange for accepting continued monitoring as a sex offender. I am not and never have been any kind of sex offender or any kind of criminal. Unless framed for something by New Jersey officials, I doubt that (unlike Mr. Cohen in the N.J. Legislature) I will ever be charged with such a heinous offense. Mr. Wagstaffe refused release on the grounds that he would not accept such conditions of monitoring nor admit to an offense that he did not commit. The victim's death attributed to Mr. Wagstaffe was ...
" ... investigated by the 75th Preccint detective squad, which later came under fire from prosecutors and [was] the subject of an unusual audit by the Police Department for its handling of murder cases. In at least three cases handled by the squad, innocent people were convicted on the testimony of a single eyewitness." (New York Times, February 7, 2009, p. A17.)
This eyewitness and others, allegedly, were kept in confinement at a psychiatric medical facility until they provided testimony that "satisfied" the authorities. Under such circumstances, you (or anyone) will say whatever they tell you to say in order to escape confinement. I agree with Mr. Wagstaffe's decision to fight this injustice and persist in his struggle. Mr. Wagstaffe is African-American. I venture to suggest that he is not a Republican. To my knowledge, no white Republican has been tortured by American officials, either within the U.S. or at any international facility.
"Two Pennsylvania judges have been charged with taking MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers." (New York Times, February 12, 2009, p. A27.)
This is further evidence of the financial exploitation of inmates as chattel, slaves who are transformed into money by America's still overwhelmingly white power-structure. This includes white inmates who, for the purposes of this financial arrangement, are deemed "like" blacks and also made into slaves. When the prison-industrial system sees an inmate what registers is dollar signs, not skin color.
Who was paying Terry Tuchin? For what services were you paid, Terry? What judges or members of the bar were sharing in the loot fraudulently obtained by Terry from insurance companies? Diana? Debbie Poritz? A boy named Stu'?
"Prosecutors said the judges, Mark Clavarella, 58, ... and Michael Conahan, 56, who both presided in Luzerne County, took $2.6 MILLION in payoffs to put" -- mostly African-American young people, which would please Cubanazos -- "in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. The judges were charged on January 26 and removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court." (Ibid.)
This is a modern version of slavery. Inmates are "SOLD" to facilities that know how to show their appreciation to judges for sending them "business." Doctors at these facilties are supplied with new "lab rats" for their experiments and everybody is happy -- except for the mostly African-American young people whose lives are destroyed. ( See "America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
"Torture's willing advocates" -- ethical lawyers at New Jersey's OAE? -- "needless to say, took a much more 'optimistic' line. They argued that extreme physical pain, artfully applied, will take away the examinee's freedom to keep secrets and withhold the truth. [Often the real motive for torture is "sexual pleasure on the part of torturers, usually torturers experience suppressed homosexual desires."] This 'de-liberation' (or removal of free will) no doubt bore fruit some of the time."
Stephen Holmes, "Is Defiance of Law a Proof of Success? Magical Thinking in the War on Terror," in Karen J. Greenberg, ed., The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 118-135, esp. p. 120.
Do you speak to me of ethics, Stuart Rabner? Are Anne Milgram and Debbie Poritz going cruising later? Diana? No wonder Judge Richard A. Posner writes that law must treat persons as "objects."
Death and the Maiden.
February 25, 2009 at 8:40 A.M. Access is still obstructed to my MSN Group, Critique. I cannot prevent or repair damage to my writings at that location at this time. However, I will continue to struggle to return to that location.
Jim Holt, "Death: Bad?," The New York Times, Sunday Book Review, February 15, 2009, p. 27.
Simon Critchley, The Book of Dead Philosophers (New York: Vintage, 2009).
This Sunday Jim Holt decided to review one of the books written by a New School Continental theorist in mitigation of his description of us "weird" phenomenological-hermeneutic types as constituting a mere "sprinkling" among intellectuals -- adding to the flavor of New York philosophy, perhaps -- even as we are, presumably, far from important to the philosophical conversation of our culture. Science-based, analytical and pragmatist philosophy is what matters, not that fuzzy Continental stuff. Right, Jim?
Being one of those "sprinkles," I am sure that phenomenology and hermeneutics are vitally important developments in Western thought. Nobody has counted lately, but most people in the world studying philosophy and working on these highly difficult theoretical challenges -- including quite a few scholars pursuing fusion approaches with Chinese philosophy -- are probably best placed in one of the traditions associated with Continental philosophy.
People like me are silenced, suppressed, censored, denied publication opportunities in order for "Jim Holt" to appear in the pages of America's premier newspaper and inform us, drum roll please:
"The idea that death is not such a bad thing may be liberating, but is it true? Ancient philosophers tended to think so, and Critchley (along with Hume) finds their attitude congenial. He writes, 'The philosopher looks death in the face and has the strength to say that it is nothing.' ..."
The issue, Jim, is not so much whether death is "nothing" as whether life is "something." My own humble article might be entitled: "Life: Good?"
There are several "difficulties" (as philosophers say) to be noticed right away. For example, exactly whose death are we talking about here? Jim Holt's death may result in bearable pain for most of us. On the other hand, our own deaths or the deaths of our loved-ones are exceedingly worrisome and to be avoided. There is a remarkable consensus on this point on the part of philosophers. Paradoxically, however, there is also a wealth of writing by philosophers and others suggesting that a life deprived of meaning and without purpose is a kind of living death. Such lives are not worth living.
"A major purpose of these meditations is to investigate what the important things are -- not in preparation for dying but to advance living. It is undeniably important to avoid the worst fates -- not to be paralyzed and comatose for the preponderance of one's life, not to be forced to witness those you love being tortured, and so on -- but I mean to refer to things, activities, and ways of being that are positive and good. As for what typically goes on psychologists' lists of what constitutes 'positive mental health' -- things such as being healthy and confident, having self-esteem, being adaptable, ["adjust!"] caring -- we might specify our subject by supposing such traits already are present. The question then becomes: How should one live who has reached the ample launching pad these traits provide?"
Robert Nozick, "Dying," in The Examined Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), p. 22. (Nozick was terminally ill when he wrote these words.)
How indeed. For some very strange persons this need for purpose and meaning requires an intense, life-altering engagement with the great questions in philosophy, beginning very early in life, certainly long before any alleged "middle-aged morbidness" can explain our peculiar intellectual habits. We need freedom and love. Loss of these qualities is loss of humanity. Worse, the sense that life has meaning and purpose -- if it arrives at all -- usually brings with it the unwelcome knowledge that this purpose and meaning reveal for what (or whom) the thinker will die. ("Why Philosophy is for Everybody" and "Shakespeare's Black Prince.")
The meaning of death is concerned with the reasons why we live. Hedonists and epicureans do not usualy do well at the hour of their deaths. This is no doubt because death is rarely a pleasure. The exception may be one's third visit to the ice capades -- or a single trip to the Republican National Convention -- which may well make death a welcome respite from the agony of listening to more speeches opposing gun control.
Death is acceptable as the realization of one's purpose or the culmination of a life well-lived for others, for persons we love, or fighting for a cause in which we believe -- like the American Constitution's promise of freedom, equality and dignity for every human being. This is a promise which is increasingly unfulfilled. However, it remains the greatest promise in world politics and a responsibility that we share as Americans. Every human being matters under the vision of the Constitution. I still believe that promise and in the document as well as the tradition which contains it. No one who dies for that dream-like and increasingly distant vision will ever die in vain.
That sounds "corny" or "old fashioned" to many people today who are into the whole nihilism thing in their East Side apartments and Chelsea art galleries -- even in the offices of The New York Times, perhaps -- where this so-called wisdom is no doubt often expressed. We are told that "there is no truth" or that "truth is relative." Jim Holt may have expressed such opinions in the past, even as he now speaks of or alludes to the "truth" concerning "death being nothing." Jim Holt is an ironist. We are delighted to benefit from the thoughts of Jim Holt, philosopher. ("Incoherence in the New York Times.")
George Santayana did not attend Columbia University, of course, nor did he write for the Times. Somehow, this unusual Latino -- who actually wrote his texts himself, although people found this hard to believe and I know the outrage Santayana must have felt at this response to his work -- expresses melancholy concerning mortality and loss, also in meditating upon optimism and stoicism in the twentieth century:
" ... you talk about yourself as inspecting the universal joke of things from the point of view of the grave, and wondering what is the use of taking life in the unsophisticated and primitive way you attribute to me. At the same time you blame yourself for lack of energy and give me your paternal blessing, trusting my illusions may not be shaken too rudely. But I should like to know how the path of least resistance has led you to the point of view of the grave, (pun apart) which according to my naive notion of things lies decidely in the direction of the greatest resistance. What you call the point of view of the grave" -- also, Mr. Holt's review for that matter! -- "is what I should call the point of view of the easy chair. From that [perspective,] the universal joke is indeed very funny. But a man in his grave is not only apathetic, but also invulnerable. That is what you forget. Your dead man is not merely amused, he is also brave, and if his having nothing to gain makes him impartial, his having nothing to lose makes him free. ... "
Santayana offers some witty digs at his school friend's "pose," then concludes:
" ... the point of view of the grave is not to be attained by you or me every time we happen not to want anything in particular. It is not attained except by renunciation. Pleasure must cease to attract and pain to repel, and this you will confess, is no easy matter. But meantime, I beg of you, remember that the joke of things is one at our expense. It is very funny, but it is exceedingly unpleasant."
Daniel Cory, ed., Letters of George Santayana (New York: Scribner's, 1955), pp. 14-15 (Letter to Ward Henry Abbott dated Jan. 16, 1887, posted from Berlin).
Santayana's life-long commitment to Spinoza and Aristotle, Thomism and (Santayana would deny this) Kant, certainly allowed for his serenity at the hour of his own death: "Are you in difficulties, Professor?" Santayana's secretary and friend, Daniel Cory, asked the Spanish philosopher this question as Santayana was dying in Rome.
"Yes, my friend," Santayana answered. "But the difficulties are entirely physical. There are no spiritual difficulties whatsoever."
Death is a familiar companion. Every day and night, she is with us. Death is a seductress. In the end, we all surrender to her charms, some more willingly than others. Her sister is Life. They quarrell over their favorites all the time. Death takes the living; life restores the cycle, eternally, by providing new organisms to replace the old and exhausted ones. Love (life) and Death are engaged in a never-ending waltz. ("Faust in Mahattan.")
Nothing is as horrifying as eternal life in this earthly condition. Think of the centuries of boredom and loss of meaning, the instant pointlessness of everything, if one might do "it" tomorrow, then who cares about doing "it" today? It is the loss of all our tomorrows (MacBeth) that makes our todays so priceless -- the loss of those I love is what gives infinite meaning to every minute with them and bottomless pain to their unwanted absence or loss in my life. "Out brief candle ..." To add mystery to that loss in the form of unexplained absences (not to know the whereabouts of persons you love) is to describe the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno.
To choose even such indescribable pain as the absence of a deeply loved person because this pain is inextricable from one's love for that person is to describe the ultimate defeat of death -- not in nature, but in the realm of human meanings where we must face the question of whether death is "good" or "bad." My answer to this question will depend on those who are near to me when I live my response by (I hope) affirming my choices as I lay dying.
Jim Holt, "Death: Bad?," The New York Times, Sunday Book Review, February 15, 2009, p. 27.
Simon Critchley, The Book of Dead Philosophers (New York: Vintage, 2009).
This Sunday Jim Holt decided to review one of the books written by a New School Continental theorist in mitigation of his description of us "weird" phenomenological-hermeneutic types as constituting a mere "sprinkling" among intellectuals -- adding to the flavor of New York philosophy, perhaps -- even as we are, presumably, far from important to the philosophical conversation of our culture. Science-based, analytical and pragmatist philosophy is what matters, not that fuzzy Continental stuff. Right, Jim?
Being one of those "sprinkles," I am sure that phenomenology and hermeneutics are vitally important developments in Western thought. Nobody has counted lately, but most people in the world studying philosophy and working on these highly difficult theoretical challenges -- including quite a few scholars pursuing fusion approaches with Chinese philosophy -- are probably best placed in one of the traditions associated with Continental philosophy.
People like me are silenced, suppressed, censored, denied publication opportunities in order for "Jim Holt" to appear in the pages of America's premier newspaper and inform us, drum roll please:
"The idea that death is not such a bad thing may be liberating, but is it true? Ancient philosophers tended to think so, and Critchley (along with Hume) finds their attitude congenial. He writes, 'The philosopher looks death in the face and has the strength to say that it is nothing.' ..."
The issue, Jim, is not so much whether death is "nothing" as whether life is "something." My own humble article might be entitled: "Life: Good?"
There are several "difficulties" (as philosophers say) to be noticed right away. For example, exactly whose death are we talking about here? Jim Holt's death may result in bearable pain for most of us. On the other hand, our own deaths or the deaths of our loved-ones are exceedingly worrisome and to be avoided. There is a remarkable consensus on this point on the part of philosophers. Paradoxically, however, there is also a wealth of writing by philosophers and others suggesting that a life deprived of meaning and without purpose is a kind of living death. Such lives are not worth living.
"A major purpose of these meditations is to investigate what the important things are -- not in preparation for dying but to advance living. It is undeniably important to avoid the worst fates -- not to be paralyzed and comatose for the preponderance of one's life, not to be forced to witness those you love being tortured, and so on -- but I mean to refer to things, activities, and ways of being that are positive and good. As for what typically goes on psychologists' lists of what constitutes 'positive mental health' -- things such as being healthy and confident, having self-esteem, being adaptable, ["adjust!"] caring -- we might specify our subject by supposing such traits already are present. The question then becomes: How should one live who has reached the ample launching pad these traits provide?"
Robert Nozick, "Dying," in The Examined Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), p. 22. (Nozick was terminally ill when he wrote these words.)
How indeed. For some very strange persons this need for purpose and meaning requires an intense, life-altering engagement with the great questions in philosophy, beginning very early in life, certainly long before any alleged "middle-aged morbidness" can explain our peculiar intellectual habits. We need freedom and love. Loss of these qualities is loss of humanity. Worse, the sense that life has meaning and purpose -- if it arrives at all -- usually brings with it the unwelcome knowledge that this purpose and meaning reveal for what (or whom) the thinker will die. ("Why Philosophy is for Everybody" and "Shakespeare's Black Prince.")
The meaning of death is concerned with the reasons why we live. Hedonists and epicureans do not usualy do well at the hour of their deaths. This is no doubt because death is rarely a pleasure. The exception may be one's third visit to the ice capades -- or a single trip to the Republican National Convention -- which may well make death a welcome respite from the agony of listening to more speeches opposing gun control.
Death is acceptable as the realization of one's purpose or the culmination of a life well-lived for others, for persons we love, or fighting for a cause in which we believe -- like the American Constitution's promise of freedom, equality and dignity for every human being. This is a promise which is increasingly unfulfilled. However, it remains the greatest promise in world politics and a responsibility that we share as Americans. Every human being matters under the vision of the Constitution. I still believe that promise and in the document as well as the tradition which contains it. No one who dies for that dream-like and increasingly distant vision will ever die in vain.
That sounds "corny" or "old fashioned" to many people today who are into the whole nihilism thing in their East Side apartments and Chelsea art galleries -- even in the offices of The New York Times, perhaps -- where this so-called wisdom is no doubt often expressed. We are told that "there is no truth" or that "truth is relative." Jim Holt may have expressed such opinions in the past, even as he now speaks of or alludes to the "truth" concerning "death being nothing." Jim Holt is an ironist. We are delighted to benefit from the thoughts of Jim Holt, philosopher. ("Incoherence in the New York Times.")
George Santayana did not attend Columbia University, of course, nor did he write for the Times. Somehow, this unusual Latino -- who actually wrote his texts himself, although people found this hard to believe and I know the outrage Santayana must have felt at this response to his work -- expresses melancholy concerning mortality and loss, also in meditating upon optimism and stoicism in the twentieth century:
" ... you talk about yourself as inspecting the universal joke of things from the point of view of the grave, and wondering what is the use of taking life in the unsophisticated and primitive way you attribute to me. At the same time you blame yourself for lack of energy and give me your paternal blessing, trusting my illusions may not be shaken too rudely. But I should like to know how the path of least resistance has led you to the point of view of the grave, (pun apart) which according to my naive notion of things lies decidely in the direction of the greatest resistance. What you call the point of view of the grave" -- also, Mr. Holt's review for that matter! -- "is what I should call the point of view of the easy chair. From that [perspective,] the universal joke is indeed very funny. But a man in his grave is not only apathetic, but also invulnerable. That is what you forget. Your dead man is not merely amused, he is also brave, and if his having nothing to gain makes him impartial, his having nothing to lose makes him free. ... "
Santayana offers some witty digs at his school friend's "pose," then concludes:
" ... the point of view of the grave is not to be attained by you or me every time we happen not to want anything in particular. It is not attained except by renunciation. Pleasure must cease to attract and pain to repel, and this you will confess, is no easy matter. But meantime, I beg of you, remember that the joke of things is one at our expense. It is very funny, but it is exceedingly unpleasant."
Daniel Cory, ed., Letters of George Santayana (New York: Scribner's, 1955), pp. 14-15 (Letter to Ward Henry Abbott dated Jan. 16, 1887, posted from Berlin).
Santayana's life-long commitment to Spinoza and Aristotle, Thomism and (Santayana would deny this) Kant, certainly allowed for his serenity at the hour of his own death: "Are you in difficulties, Professor?" Santayana's secretary and friend, Daniel Cory, asked the Spanish philosopher this question as Santayana was dying in Rome.
"Yes, my friend," Santayana answered. "But the difficulties are entirely physical. There are no spiritual difficulties whatsoever."
Death is a familiar companion. Every day and night, she is with us. Death is a seductress. In the end, we all surrender to her charms, some more willingly than others. Her sister is Life. They quarrell over their favorites all the time. Death takes the living; life restores the cycle, eternally, by providing new organisms to replace the old and exhausted ones. Love (life) and Death are engaged in a never-ending waltz. ("Faust in Mahattan.")
Nothing is as horrifying as eternal life in this earthly condition. Think of the centuries of boredom and loss of meaning, the instant pointlessness of everything, if one might do "it" tomorrow, then who cares about doing "it" today? It is the loss of all our tomorrows (MacBeth) that makes our todays so priceless -- the loss of those I love is what gives infinite meaning to every minute with them and bottomless pain to their unwanted absence or loss in my life. "Out brief candle ..." To add mystery to that loss in the form of unexplained absences (not to know the whereabouts of persons you love) is to describe the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno.
To choose even such indescribable pain as the absence of a deeply loved person because this pain is inextricable from one's love for that person is to describe the ultimate defeat of death -- not in nature, but in the realm of human meanings where we must face the question of whether death is "good" or "bad." My answer to this question will depend on those who are near to me when I live my response by (I hope) affirming my choices as I lay dying.
Babalu and Free Speech Too!
A photo of the White House with a KFC restaurant on it was circulating on the Internet, which was attributed to Miami's Cubanazo Right-wingers. This image has been interpreted, correctly, as a racist image.
KFC is very popular with Cuban-Americans. When I was growing up, a trip to KFC was like dinner at "The Four Seasons" restaurant in New York.
"Banning Books in Miami," (Editorial) The New York Times, February 11, 2009, p. A30.
"Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints. [The] Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children's book 'A Visit to Cuba' from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling."
Controversial materials in school libraries -- also freedom of speech in classrooms -- are essential ingredients of a good education. I am certain that appreciating the First Amendment must begin in schools. Ever since the Piko decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this notion -- for the most part. This appreciation requires that children be exposed to diverse, conflicting, controversial points of view, understanding their rights to accept, reject, discuss or analyze all sides of contested issues freely. The key word being "freely."
Most people will not attend law schools or take a full university course in First Amendment law. However, every American should have some appreciation of the ideas and values underlying America's controversial commitment to freedom of expression and conscience. This magnificent and still revolutionary national commitment is the essential principle of U.S. democracy. You do not underscore your differences with so-called "totalitarian" regimes by censoring dissidents or those with whom you disagree because you have the power to do so in Miami or New Jersey. One way to demonstrate what we say that we believe in America is by inviting disagreement and free discussion of rival points of view.
Any letters deleted from words in this essay so far? I am still obstructed from accessing my writings at Critique. The American Constitutional vision -- this is a matter of daily struggle and always will be -- suggests that individuals have a zone of spiritual-intellectual life that must be protected from intervention by government. You may believe or think what you like. You have the right to say what you please concerning political issues, religious questions, beliefs or atheism, without fear of government. This includes persons with controversial or minority radical views or philosophies, even (gasp!) "Communists." ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
Justice Holmes famously relied on the "market" of opinion to weed out false views and "select" among opinions those that are most successful. These metaphors feel dated since the collapse of social Darwinism and brutal capitalism. Nevertheless, the crux of the principle that opinions and ideas must fend for themselves in the give and take of societal dialectics still stands.
I am not troubled at defending my views. Criticism is O.K. Suppression, harassment, destruction of any forms of political or philosophical speech is not O.K. -- in fact, censorship is a crime, expecially when state action is involved. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
My opinion of the underlying basis for enshrining freedom of expression in the Constitution is that this concept is interrelated with our American belief in the dignity of each person as well as democratic principles. By virtue of your humanity, you deserve that your values and beliefs along with their expression be respected. Not only is fallibilism a rationale for free speech, but (more fundamentally) principles of alterity (meaning rights of the Other) and recognition, mutual spiritual concern require that the thoughts, values, beliefs and inner of lives of other persons be accorded the toleration (John Locke) that I desire for my own views. ("John Rawls and Justice.")
Everybody favors freedom of speech for oneself and those with whom one agrees. The hard part is to protect the freedom of speech of those we disagree with and/or consider mistaken, stupid, or wrong. Hence, you will not find me advocating censorship of any opinion, however moronic it may be from my perspective for a person to hold any one opinion -- this includes the Cubanazos' efforts to restore the ethos of 1957 in Havana.
You will also not find me hesitant about expressing (or insisting on) protection for expressions of my opinions. Did I mention the hackers and cyberwarfare directed at me from New Jersey's government offices? An American jurisdiction cannot tolerate or encourage public criminality while judging anyone's ethics. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The best way of making the argument that Cubanoids wish to present to the Revolutionary government in Havana that greater tolerance of dissent in Cuba is appropriate is by demonstrating their own tolerance of disagreement in Miami. Thus far, I have seen very little appreciation of rights of dissent and conscience in Miami's calle ocho. There are at least two views concerning the Cuban Revolution. The solution to disagreement with the opinions or perspectives of the person writing "A Visit to Cuba" is to include in discussions another book with different views.
I wish to point out to those concerned about the lives of artists and eccentrics in Havana that a society that is not threatened is always more tolerant of disagreement than a country that is menaced 24 hours per day by economic embargos and military threats. I deal with a war every day to write and defend my essays. This experience -- after years of what any rational person will describe as psychological torture -- has not filled me with the milk of human kindness. (A word was deleted from the foregoing sentence and restored to the text by me.)
" ... 'A Visit to Cuba' and its Spanish edition, 'Vamos a Cuba,' are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District had 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools."
"The father of an elementary-school student, complaining that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, petitioned to have 'A Visit to Cuba' pulled. The school superintendent denied the petition, but the school board overruled him. The board said it was acting because of inaccuracies and omissions in the book, but Miami's strong anti-Castro political sentiment was undeniably a factor."
Based on my experiences -- this saddens me -- I am convinced that there is a fascist mutation in Cuban-American political culture (and in the population) that is a twisted version of the very evils that many Cuban-Americans claim to oppose. You do not censor the speech of others. You do not hack into someone's computer, alter texts, deface works of art or books because you "don't like" someone, even if you have the political protection that allows you to do such a thing because you will harm America's credibility on free speech issues. Much less should you do such a thing -- censor any form of speech -- because you disagree with a person's opinions. To speak of bringing democracy and freedom to others, after engaging in censorship, is absurd.
Persons given secret power over others, or control of speech, will abuse that power or control. Worse, we have learned from Zimbardo and Milgram, that they will enjoy hurting, manipulating, or controlling others. Sure enough, the ACLU sued on the grounds that this was censorship, content-based, involving state action, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.
I am aware of the ages of the children involved. However, the singling out of one book dealing with Cuba out of a series that was otherwise acceptable suggests or reveals a political motive. Worse, is to teach children the opposite of the lesson necessary in a democracy. Tolerance, tolerance of diversity of points of view is what we want those children to learn early in their lives.
After winning at the District Court level, a federal Circuit Court in Atlanta (Republican appointees?) deemed the removal of the book just fine, deciding against the original Plaintiffs. This case should go to the U.S. Supreme Court where I am confident that even Justices Scalia and Thomas will agree that free speech prohibits governmental removal of books from school libraries based on "controversial" ideas and opinions. Any ideas or opinions in books -- including, I was shocked to learn this -- the Harry Potter books (?!) may be "controversial."
The counterargument will focus on the age group of the intended readers and society's obligation to act in locus parentis ("in the place of parents") for school children. There is no allegation that disgusting child porn was found in this book. Unlike the computers of New Jersey's legislators and (probably) judges, which are filled with illegal materials, no child is tortured in this text, apparently, nor are sexual acts involving children depicted in this work.
Neil M. Cohen, Esq., of the New Jersey Legislature and Bar Association's Ethics Committee will be disappointed. Such actions and depictions violate child safety laws -- as do many N.J. politicians and legal officials -- and are irrelevant to this discussion. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey.")
Schools are places where academic freedom and protection of free communication of ideas are vital. It is unwise to teach children to disregard some opinions that are placed beyond the pale of discussion for unexplained reasons. Besides, geography in most places in the world is usually non-political, even as descriptions of landscapes are not easily seen as controversial. To suggest that there are palm trees in Cuba should be possible for both Communists and Cubanazos.
"The Supreme Court should not let this ruling stand. School boards have some discretion about what books to place in school libraries. The First Amendment does not, however, allow them to suppress political viewpoints."
Stereotypes are a two-way street. I have experienced being stereotyped. For this reason, I am profoundly offended by malevolent uses of such racist images, especially as regards African-Americans, who are typically belittled by racist stereotypes in the shopping malls and baseball fields of Miami's Cubanoid neighborhoods.
What do you think, Senator Bob? "On the one hand, but on the other hand."
KFC is very popular with Cuban-Americans. When I was growing up, a trip to KFC was like dinner at "The Four Seasons" restaurant in New York.
"Banning Books in Miami," (Editorial) The New York Times, February 11, 2009, p. A30.
"Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints. [The] Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children's book 'A Visit to Cuba' from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling."
Controversial materials in school libraries -- also freedom of speech in classrooms -- are essential ingredients of a good education. I am certain that appreciating the First Amendment must begin in schools. Ever since the Piko decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this notion -- for the most part. This appreciation requires that children be exposed to diverse, conflicting, controversial points of view, understanding their rights to accept, reject, discuss or analyze all sides of contested issues freely. The key word being "freely."
Most people will not attend law schools or take a full university course in First Amendment law. However, every American should have some appreciation of the ideas and values underlying America's controversial commitment to freedom of expression and conscience. This magnificent and still revolutionary national commitment is the essential principle of U.S. democracy. You do not underscore your differences with so-called "totalitarian" regimes by censoring dissidents or those with whom you disagree because you have the power to do so in Miami or New Jersey. One way to demonstrate what we say that we believe in America is by inviting disagreement and free discussion of rival points of view.
Any letters deleted from words in this essay so far? I am still obstructed from accessing my writings at Critique. The American Constitutional vision -- this is a matter of daily struggle and always will be -- suggests that individuals have a zone of spiritual-intellectual life that must be protected from intervention by government. You may believe or think what you like. You have the right to say what you please concerning political issues, religious questions, beliefs or atheism, without fear of government. This includes persons with controversial or minority radical views or philosophies, even (gasp!) "Communists." ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")
Justice Holmes famously relied on the "market" of opinion to weed out false views and "select" among opinions those that are most successful. These metaphors feel dated since the collapse of social Darwinism and brutal capitalism. Nevertheless, the crux of the principle that opinions and ideas must fend for themselves in the give and take of societal dialectics still stands.
I am not troubled at defending my views. Criticism is O.K. Suppression, harassment, destruction of any forms of political or philosophical speech is not O.K. -- in fact, censorship is a crime, expecially when state action is involved. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
My opinion of the underlying basis for enshrining freedom of expression in the Constitution is that this concept is interrelated with our American belief in the dignity of each person as well as democratic principles. By virtue of your humanity, you deserve that your values and beliefs along with their expression be respected. Not only is fallibilism a rationale for free speech, but (more fundamentally) principles of alterity (meaning rights of the Other) and recognition, mutual spiritual concern require that the thoughts, values, beliefs and inner of lives of other persons be accorded the toleration (John Locke) that I desire for my own views. ("John Rawls and Justice.")
Everybody favors freedom of speech for oneself and those with whom one agrees. The hard part is to protect the freedom of speech of those we disagree with and/or consider mistaken, stupid, or wrong. Hence, you will not find me advocating censorship of any opinion, however moronic it may be from my perspective for a person to hold any one opinion -- this includes the Cubanazos' efforts to restore the ethos of 1957 in Havana.
You will also not find me hesitant about expressing (or insisting on) protection for expressions of my opinions. Did I mention the hackers and cyberwarfare directed at me from New Jersey's government offices? An American jurisdiction cannot tolerate or encourage public criminality while judging anyone's ethics. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
The best way of making the argument that Cubanoids wish to present to the Revolutionary government in Havana that greater tolerance of dissent in Cuba is appropriate is by demonstrating their own tolerance of disagreement in Miami. Thus far, I have seen very little appreciation of rights of dissent and conscience in Miami's calle ocho. There are at least two views concerning the Cuban Revolution. The solution to disagreement with the opinions or perspectives of the person writing "A Visit to Cuba" is to include in discussions another book with different views.
I wish to point out to those concerned about the lives of artists and eccentrics in Havana that a society that is not threatened is always more tolerant of disagreement than a country that is menaced 24 hours per day by economic embargos and military threats. I deal with a war every day to write and defend my essays. This experience -- after years of what any rational person will describe as psychological torture -- has not filled me with the milk of human kindness. (A word was deleted from the foregoing sentence and restored to the text by me.)
" ... 'A Visit to Cuba' and its Spanish edition, 'Vamos a Cuba,' are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District had 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools."
"The father of an elementary-school student, complaining that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, petitioned to have 'A Visit to Cuba' pulled. The school superintendent denied the petition, but the school board overruled him. The board said it was acting because of inaccuracies and omissions in the book, but Miami's strong anti-Castro political sentiment was undeniably a factor."
Based on my experiences -- this saddens me -- I am convinced that there is a fascist mutation in Cuban-American political culture (and in the population) that is a twisted version of the very evils that many Cuban-Americans claim to oppose. You do not censor the speech of others. You do not hack into someone's computer, alter texts, deface works of art or books because you "don't like" someone, even if you have the political protection that allows you to do such a thing because you will harm America's credibility on free speech issues. Much less should you do such a thing -- censor any form of speech -- because you disagree with a person's opinions. To speak of bringing democracy and freedom to others, after engaging in censorship, is absurd.
Persons given secret power over others, or control of speech, will abuse that power or control. Worse, we have learned from Zimbardo and Milgram, that they will enjoy hurting, manipulating, or controlling others. Sure enough, the ACLU sued on the grounds that this was censorship, content-based, involving state action, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.
I am aware of the ages of the children involved. However, the singling out of one book dealing with Cuba out of a series that was otherwise acceptable suggests or reveals a political motive. Worse, is to teach children the opposite of the lesson necessary in a democracy. Tolerance, tolerance of diversity of points of view is what we want those children to learn early in their lives.
After winning at the District Court level, a federal Circuit Court in Atlanta (Republican appointees?) deemed the removal of the book just fine, deciding against the original Plaintiffs. This case should go to the U.S. Supreme Court where I am confident that even Justices Scalia and Thomas will agree that free speech prohibits governmental removal of books from school libraries based on "controversial" ideas and opinions. Any ideas or opinions in books -- including, I was shocked to learn this -- the Harry Potter books (?!) may be "controversial."
The counterargument will focus on the age group of the intended readers and society's obligation to act in locus parentis ("in the place of parents") for school children. There is no allegation that disgusting child porn was found in this book. Unlike the computers of New Jersey's legislators and (probably) judges, which are filled with illegal materials, no child is tortured in this text, apparently, nor are sexual acts involving children depicted in this work.
Neil M. Cohen, Esq., of the New Jersey Legislature and Bar Association's Ethics Committee will be disappointed. Such actions and depictions violate child safety laws -- as do many N.J. politicians and legal officials -- and are irrelevant to this discussion. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey.")
Schools are places where academic freedom and protection of free communication of ideas are vital. It is unwise to teach children to disregard some opinions that are placed beyond the pale of discussion for unexplained reasons. Besides, geography in most places in the world is usually non-political, even as descriptions of landscapes are not easily seen as controversial. To suggest that there are palm trees in Cuba should be possible for both Communists and Cubanazos.
"The Supreme Court should not let this ruling stand. School boards have some discretion about what books to place in school libraries. The First Amendment does not, however, allow them to suppress political viewpoints."
Stereotypes are a two-way street. I have experienced being stereotyped. For this reason, I am profoundly offended by malevolent uses of such racist images, especially as regards African-Americans, who are typically belittled by racist stereotypes in the shopping malls and baseball fields of Miami's Cubanoid neighborhoods.
What do you think, Senator Bob? "On the one hand, but on the other hand."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
http://www.Critique@MSN.Groups.com
As of yesterday, my access to MSN Groups is blocked, daily harassment is aimed at frustrating my communication efforts or on-line research. This experience is part of a pattern dating from 1988 to 2009. I believe that New Jersey officials and members of that state's bar association are complicit in these and many other criminal violations of my rights in a state that is the most corrupt and inept in the nation. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")
What follows is the "Welcome" message that appeared at my MSN group, Critique. My words have proved prophetic. I am unable to post images with my writings or profile due to damage done to my computer by New Jersey's protected criminal hackers. I will provide links to images that I will continue to use in my work.
I do not know and cannot say whether my writings at Critique -- including my short stories -- continue to exist or have been plagiarized and/or destroyed. I will, eventually, re-post each one, with the initial date of publication listed. I will spend part of every day struggling to return to MSN Groups. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
I am now informed by a notice that appears on my screen that MSN has also "closed." I am somewhat doubtful about this claim. I am even more doubtful, sadly, about America's commitment to freedom of speech these days.
http://nyc.metblogs.com/archives/2006/08/16%20-%20shaft.gif (Image)
I have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. I have never informed against anyone or filed a grievance against an attorney. I have never committed a crime. Cyberstalking is still a daily experience for me. (See "Burn Notice.") I am often unable to update my security system.
Still difficult to get here, sometimes, reach my e-mail, or to correct new "errors." Images have been blocked. Many essays were defaced. (See "What is it like to be tortured?" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.") I am told that MSN Groups is closing in February, 2009. If this is true, then I will try to reproduce this group elsewhere. Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama!
Essays at this Group are copyright protected. This notice is intended to satisfy the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act. Images will be blocked. "Errors" will be inserted by hackers. Sometimes, it will be difficult for me to access this site. I will struggle, every day, to write and change the image at Critique. Some of my essays have been corrected in identical ways maybe fifty times or more. Telephone calls from telemarketers are received throughout the day, every day. My Internet signal is often blocked. My security system is frequently disabled. This suggests use of government resources in a targeted effort at harassment that is based on the content of my opinions.
All posts are also subject to the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, this does not mean much to hackers attacking these works. A list of websites blocked was deleted by hackers from this page. I do not believe in anonymity when criticizing public figures. My name is Juan Galis-Menendez. (2009) All rights reserved.
My books should be available from http://www.lulu.com/JuanG I cannot access my books on-line. I do not know whether they remain available as I wrote them. One of my books will not be distributed to book sellers. Much of what I write meets with the disapproval of Right-wing anti-Castro groups and their political friends. (See the "General," "Law," "Digs" and "Politics" sections of this Group.)
Today, I experience censorship; tomorrow, it will be your favorite newspaper that is censored. If more than two days pass without a new post, please believe that my silence will not be voluntary. At any time my computer may be destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
Hackers (today) have made numerous efforts to insert the same errors or typos in these texts, as part of an on-going attempt to destroy my work or to frustrate my writing efforts, with the goal of discouraging me from writing. A reader who does not know me or my work will assume: 1) such errors are mine, and are "missed" by me in proofreading; 2) thus, my thoughts will be deemed "unworthy of consideration" while they, these adversaries, are entitled to feel smarter or otherwise superior to me and to ignore what I say. This is not paranoia, but the fruit of painful experiences, over many years. See my essays concerning Noam Chomsky's Turkish Publisher and the various comments on the "Publish America" episode and destruction of "The Philosophy Cafe," also at MSN. Corruption? Pay offs? What else can explain use of such tactics over a period of years?
A relentless, insulting, offensive, ignorant attack on a person's self-esteem produces either iron-like determination or abject surrender and collapse. Whatever else happens in my life, my only response to such tactics is -- and will be -- unrelenting and total resistance, determination, and fierce struggle against this evil. This is true even if I must make the same corrections, endlessly.
"To speak of the 'purposes' of the first amendment's protections of speech, press, assembly, petition, and (by implication) association is to risk begging the central question posed by the Constitution's most majestic guarantee: is the freedom of speech to be regarded only as a means to some further end -- like successful self-government, or social stability, or (somewhat less instrumentally) the discovery and dissemination of truth -- or is freedom of speech in part also an end in itself, an expression of the sort of society we wish to become and the sort of persons we wish to be? No adequate conception of so basic an element of our fundamental law, it will be argued here, can be developed in purely instrumental or purposive terms."
Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1988), p. 785 (emphasis added). As you see my daily struggle against state censorship, ask yourself this question, a question which is baffling the world:
"What happened to the United States of America?"
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_01/mcavoyG0503_468x694.jpg (Still here.)
What follows is the "Welcome" message that appeared at my MSN group, Critique. My words have proved prophetic. I am unable to post images with my writings or profile due to damage done to my computer by New Jersey's protected criminal hackers. I will provide links to images that I will continue to use in my work.
I do not know and cannot say whether my writings at Critique -- including my short stories -- continue to exist or have been plagiarized and/or destroyed. I will, eventually, re-post each one, with the initial date of publication listed. I will spend part of every day struggling to return to MSN Groups. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
I am now informed by a notice that appears on my screen that MSN has also "closed." I am somewhat doubtful about this claim. I am even more doubtful, sadly, about America's commitment to freedom of speech these days.
http://nyc.metblogs.com/archives/2006/08/16%20-%20shaft.gif (Image)
I have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. I have never informed against anyone or filed a grievance against an attorney. I have never committed a crime. Cyberstalking is still a daily experience for me. (See "Burn Notice.") I am often unable to update my security system.
Still difficult to get here, sometimes, reach my e-mail, or to correct new "errors." Images have been blocked. Many essays were defaced. (See "What is it like to be tortured?" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.") I am told that MSN Groups is closing in February, 2009. If this is true, then I will try to reproduce this group elsewhere. Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama!
Essays at this Group are copyright protected. This notice is intended to satisfy the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act. Images will be blocked. "Errors" will be inserted by hackers. Sometimes, it will be difficult for me to access this site. I will struggle, every day, to write and change the image at Critique. Some of my essays have been corrected in identical ways maybe fifty times or more. Telephone calls from telemarketers are received throughout the day, every day. My Internet signal is often blocked. My security system is frequently disabled. This suggests use of government resources in a targeted effort at harassment that is based on the content of my opinions.
All posts are also subject to the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, this does not mean much to hackers attacking these works. A list of websites blocked was deleted by hackers from this page. I do not believe in anonymity when criticizing public figures. My name is Juan Galis-Menendez. (2009) All rights reserved.
My books should be available from http://www.lulu.com/JuanG I cannot access my books on-line. I do not know whether they remain available as I wrote them. One of my books will not be distributed to book sellers. Much of what I write meets with the disapproval of Right-wing anti-Castro groups and their political friends. (See the "General," "Law," "Digs" and "Politics" sections of this Group.)
Today, I experience censorship; tomorrow, it will be your favorite newspaper that is censored. If more than two days pass without a new post, please believe that my silence will not be voluntary. At any time my computer may be destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
Hackers (today) have made numerous efforts to insert the same errors or typos in these texts, as part of an on-going attempt to destroy my work or to frustrate my writing efforts, with the goal of discouraging me from writing. A reader who does not know me or my work will assume: 1) such errors are mine, and are "missed" by me in proofreading; 2) thus, my thoughts will be deemed "unworthy of consideration" while they, these adversaries, are entitled to feel smarter or otherwise superior to me and to ignore what I say. This is not paranoia, but the fruit of painful experiences, over many years. See my essays concerning Noam Chomsky's Turkish Publisher and the various comments on the "Publish America" episode and destruction of "The Philosophy Cafe," also at MSN. Corruption? Pay offs? What else can explain use of such tactics over a period of years?
A relentless, insulting, offensive, ignorant attack on a person's self-esteem produces either iron-like determination or abject surrender and collapse. Whatever else happens in my life, my only response to such tactics is -- and will be -- unrelenting and total resistance, determination, and fierce struggle against this evil. This is true even if I must make the same corrections, endlessly.
"To speak of the 'purposes' of the first amendment's protections of speech, press, assembly, petition, and (by implication) association is to risk begging the central question posed by the Constitution's most majestic guarantee: is the freedom of speech to be regarded only as a means to some further end -- like successful self-government, or social stability, or (somewhat less instrumentally) the discovery and dissemination of truth -- or is freedom of speech in part also an end in itself, an expression of the sort of society we wish to become and the sort of persons we wish to be? No adequate conception of so basic an element of our fundamental law, it will be argued here, can be developed in purely instrumental or purposive terms."
Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (New York: Foundation Press, 1988), p. 785 (emphasis added). As you see my daily struggle against state censorship, ask yourself this question, a question which is baffling the world:
"What happened to the United States of America?"
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_01/mcavoyG0503_468x694.jpg (Still here.)
American Hypocrisy and Luis Posada Carriles.
If you are interested in Cuba, stay away from Miami's gangsters and visit:
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/
January 18, 2009 at 4:05 P.M. Hours of obstructions and cyberharassment make it impossible for me to write at my MSN group, Critique. I cannot say whether essays have been vandalized. I am sad and surprised to discover that ideas that I set forth and defended in reviewing the original Shaft movie were, I believe, PLAGIARIZED in today's article by Manohla Dargis & A.O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President," in The New York Times, January 18, 2009, at p. 1 ("Arts & Leisure"). ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
I received no acknowledgment, despite the "copyright" and "all rights reserved" notice in my MSN group. How can any journalist be a part of censorship and plagiarism? The New York Times?! Furthermore, I believe Ms. Dargis visited my sites to read my comments on her work in "The Reader': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review."
How can someone "like" Ms. Dargis write for The New York Times? Politics? What is the true identity of Ms. Dargis? Ginger Thompson? Bob Menendez? I wonder whether these persons know Daniel Mendelsohn whose essay reviewing "Brideshead Revisited is so similar to mine. ("'Brideshead Revisited': A Mocie Review.")
You need not acknowledge or respect the creative or intellectual work of someone you consider sub-human, according to the Times. You can even plagiarize and try to destroy that person's work because you feel no need to accord to the author the minimal respect to which every person is entitled. Those members of minority groups (like me) who have the temerity to write well or freely need not be accorded due consideration. Under the circumstances, talk directed at me of free speech or ethics is absurd. I am blocking, among other hackers:
http://www.msnusers.com/common/js/1576564590... (NJ?)
If MSN Groups continues to exist and other users can access Critique, assuming that my copyright-protected essays are not being altered, I urge readers to continue to see my work there.
Luis Posada Carriles is an anti-Castro Right-winger, alleged terrorist and sadist.
January 28, 2009 at 12:15 P.M. An attack on my computer connections, disabling my security system, resulted in destroying my child's Internet connection, I believe, also defacing and vandalizing a number of essays -- like this one and others. I will struggle to make the necessary corrections and provide assistance to my child. My opinions and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution have not changed.
January 27, 2009 at 11:03 A.M. My cable signal has been blocked, illegally, and I cannot access my home e-mail account. I suspect that someone did not like this essay. I will continue to struggle to post this work and to write on-line. This censorship and intimidation campaign is unconstitutional and criminal. Regardless of what you think of my opinions, this sort of brutality cannot be allowed to prevail in a free society.
Simon Romero & Damien Cave, "Venezuela Will Push U.S. to Hand Over Man Tied to Plane Bombing," The New York Times, January 23, 2009, at p. A5. ("Damien Cave" suggests that someone has been reading Herman Hesse.)
Jim Holt, "New York Has Become a World Capital of Philosophy," in New York, December 22-29, 2008, at p. 72. (" ... and there's even a sprinkling of Hegelians, Nietzscheans, and phenomenologists at the New School.")
Emily Nussbaum, "Choosing The Gray Lady," in New York, January 19-26, 2009, at p. 28. (Young turks at the Times are not averse to doing "favors" for powerful politicians, allegedly.)
Luis Posada Carriles is sought by the Venezuelan government as a naturalized citizen of that country for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a Cuban civilian airliner with 73 passengers on board. All of the innocent persons travelling on that plane were killed. Their photos appear below. (No images can be posted at blogger because of damage to my computer caused by hackers.) The U.S. government protected Mr. Posada Carriles, as a former C.I.A. agent (allegedly), who was part of the agency's "exploding cigar" efforts against Fidel Castro.
"Mr. Posada, 80, is charged ... with masterminding the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane as it flew over Barbados, killing all 73 people on board, including dozens of Cuban civilians and a 9-year-old Guyanese girl. It was the Western Hemisphere's first act of midair terrorism, the bloodiest of a series of bombings aimed at weakening Fidel Castro's government."
The U.S. government has taken a radical position against world terrorism, inviting the cooperation of other countries, ostensibly, to punish all terrorists for their crimes. Mr. Posada Carriles happens to be a Right-wing terrorist, allegedly, living happily in Miami, while painting landscapes for a living. This does not sound like a sufficiently macho job for a super anti-Communist. The persons whose lives ended when that airplane fell to earth will not be living into old age, like Posada-Carriles, nor will they enjoy looking at paintings.
Victims' relatives are not concerned about Mr. Posada Carriles' politics or views of Fidel Castro. However, they are disturbed by the hypocrisy of the U.S. government that shelters this man from liability, reportedly, or even from being tried for these heinous offenses. It is impossible to believe that such a man will bring democracy or freedom to any country. Does the N.J. Supreme Court or legal establishment (Senator Bob?) consider Mr. Posada Carriles "ethical" whereas I am not? If so, then I must disagree. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")
The first "error" inserted in this text since my previous review of the work has been discovered and corrected. This may explain the disabling of my security updating system recently. No doubt other essays have been similarly vandalized by Miami's champions of the "American way of life."
If the concern is that Mr. Posada Carriles will be tortured in Venezuela or Cuba (like persons in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) -- if he is returned to either country, Cuban and non-Cuban citizens were among his victims -- then there is nothing to prevent a trial in American federal courts applying international human rights law or Florida criminal law. There are precedents for U.S. courts applying foreign substantive laws, usually in civil cases. Murder laws are pretty much the same all over the world. Murder is a crime even when victims are residents of Communist countries. Preventing me from speaking or accessing the Internet does not change this reality. (The foregoing sentence was altered. I have now restored the deleted word to that sentence.)
Mr. Posada Carriles was photographed visiting U.S. federal courts on a prior occasion. (Images may be blocked by New Jersey's Cubanoids.)
The main reason that Mr. Posada Carriles and his ilk have escaped liability, so far, is an alleged affiliation with Cuban-American politicians, like New Jersey's Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?") Also, Big "Mel" Martinez, former Florida Republicano Senator, is an alleged "friend" of these paramilitary anti-Castro groups. This is something I can neither confirm nor deny at this time. Mr. Menendez has issued a press release stating that he is "for all the people." Is Ginger Thompson of the Times is related to Manohla Dargis? See what purports to be the English language article, Ginger Thompson, "Couple's Capitol Ties Said to Veil Spying for Cuba," in The New York Times, June 19, 2009, at p. 1. (Ms. Thompson's creative use of the English language defies description by me.)
I wonder whether Ginger Thompson and Manohla Dargis are "friends"? Or are they the same person? Jean Paul Rathbone? Do you wish to delete a word from one of my sentences, again?
Have either of those men, Menendez or Martinez -- whether directly or indirectly -- received political contributions in any manner from Mr. Posada Carriles and/or any organization espousing anti-Castro views that has opposed extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles? If so, then should these Senators and other Cuban-American politicians not refrain from taking any stand (publicly or privately) concerning this extradition request, in order to preserve the appearance at least of disinterested decision-making with regard to such matters on the part of the federal judiciary and Congress? I suspect so. ("Menendez" has been changed several times to "Memendez.")
Radical Right-wing Cubanazos have been rumored to engage in organized crime in order to collect funds for their anti-Castro efforts. I suspect that organized crime by any groups is about collecting funds for themselves.
Realistically, I doubt that Mr. Posada Carriles will be extradited by the U.S. or charged with any crimes that bear a rational relationship to his alleged actions. I am aware of his legal experiences and charges in Louisiana. This absolution will have the effect of diminishing or destroying U.S. credibility on terrorism throughout the world by making it clear to everyone that Americans have a double standard depending on the political views of the terrorists in question or the identities of their victims. This essay usually produces either a death threat or interference with my computer's cable signal. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Right-wing anti-Castro forces or quasi-military groups operate with impunity -- or with the assistance of corrupt politicians in places like New Jersey -- who then censor Constitutionally protected speech, like my blogs, whereas all Arab political groups and Leftist intellectuals, as well as activists, can count on harassment and worse from "protected goons" serving in New Jersey's legislature or judiciary. Is this "ethical," Mr. Menendez?
Forty minutes of harassment preceded my writing efforts today. Cyberattacks have mostly damaged my family members' efforts to make use of Internet resources. About one out of fifty hits at my blogs are counted. I am illegally prevented from accessing MSN groups. My books are suppressed in America. I am plagiarized and denied publication opportunities. I understand that my writings are being read outside the U.S. and, especially, in Cuba and China. I am grateful for this attention.
My second book, specifically, is suppressed and not sent to on-line booksellers, even as I am still prohibited from accessing MSN groups, every morning, if that site still exists. These censorship and suppression efforts are made possible by state action and are, I believe, content-based. I wonder whether there is a "connection" to Ms. Dargis from the Cuban-American community?
My response to the continuing harassment and insertions of "errors" is a long awaited essay on further corruption in the Garden State. The opinion of Mr. Posada-Carriles concerning my "ethics" does not trouble me. I say the same concerning the views of Mr. Menendez. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His conscience.")
All Cuban-American politicians -- including the befuddled Congresswoman from Miami who hung up on President Obama, Iliana Ross-Lehtinen ("Who knew it was really him calling little-old-me?") -- are expected to anounce publicly, on a daily basis, that they are "against Communism" and in favor of "censorship-of-socialist-weird-people-who-refuse-to-live-in-Miami-or-Miami-Beach." ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")
Among the likely co-conspirators are "Lincoln" Diaz Balart, former Florida politician and "firebrand" in the "struggle against Communism" and friends, like "Jose" Diaz-Balart, who is a less intelligent version of Lincoln Diaz-Balart. That's not saying much, Jose. It should sadden you to think that the name "Lincoln" can be attached to any kind of suppression of freedoms or to the persons who favor such totalitarianism, allegedly.
I am afraid that the category of "weird" persons includes me, according to many Cubanazos and Cubanazas. Here is a gold medallion for you, plastic covers for the couch, and a nice Guayavera. These are unisex items. Mazeltov. (Again: "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen favors the death penalty for Communists, allegedly, also for liberals and advocates for the environment and/or persons adopting non-traditional lifestyles. Ms. Ross-Lehtinen is undecided concerning the possible execution of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as well as other liberal commentators and/or "Godless, pinko, semi-Communists!" (Well, she had to be right about something!)
The Congresswoman is not on record as favoring the extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles, despite the heinous crimes alleged against him. Is the Congresswoman getting soft on criminals? Does Ms. Ross-Lehtinen's attitude to criminals depend on the criminal's politics? ("And How!")
Pictures of dozens killed who are only some of the alleged victims of Mr. Posada Carriles' "activities" are available on-line. The response from the Cuban-American community in Union City and Miami has been amused indifference: "Boys will be boys ..." said one promiment politician from West New York, New Jersey -- who is, perhaps, a former gym teacher. Mr. Albio Sires is rumored to have insisted that opposing candidates "drop and do fifty pushups!" This is a man we need in the U.S. Congress.
The terror victims' family members did not laugh merrily over this alleged display of humor and wit.
I am told that someone called "Leslie Martinez," Cubanaza-Republicana and advocate (allegedly) of "public executions" and "conspicuous consumption" in the vicinity of the University of Miami, insisted that we "must get tough on crime," but not on "alleged" Right-wing Cuban-American criminals or terrorists, since (allegedly) they are not Communists, or Arabs. Shopping, Leslie? Let me guess: You live in Coral Gables?
I am sure that Ms. Martinez is "for" the First Amendment and all Constitutional rights for persons like herself. I wonder whether Ms. Martinez knows "Manohla Dargis"? ("What is it like to be plagiarized?") Perhaps Jim Holt has also met Ms. Dargis and/or Benedict Carey, Ginger Thompson maybe?
Mr. Holt appears to be dismissive of the "sprinkling" of phenomenologists and hermeneuticists who constitute a large portion of students of Western thought in the world, whether in Latin America, Europe or Asia. They are not analytical philosophers or American pragmatists. Hence, there is no need to take such philosophies (or philosophers) seriously. Right, Jim? Jim has been to Columbia University. This entitles Jim to explain such things to the rest of us. Isn't that right, Mr. Holt?
Attacks against this essay and all essays at my sites will be constant. Chinese philosophers are in need of Mr. Holt's instruction, along with those lesser persons (like myself) who presume to contribute to phenomenological-hermeneutics because, naively, we believe that this theoretical approach is vital and important today. A collection of essays dealing with China's enagement with phenomenology-hermeneutics and Marxism is available. I suggest a glance at Derrida's Specters of Marx.
Is it possible that any journalist at The New York Times would be a part of censorship and suppressions of speech efforts? I can only hope that no writer would contribute to such criminality.
http://www.revolutionbooksnyc.org/
January 18, 2009 at 4:05 P.M. Hours of obstructions and cyberharassment make it impossible for me to write at my MSN group, Critique. I cannot say whether essays have been vandalized. I am sad and surprised to discover that ideas that I set forth and defended in reviewing the original Shaft movie were, I believe, PLAGIARIZED in today's article by Manohla Dargis & A.O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President," in The New York Times, January 18, 2009, at p. 1 ("Arts & Leisure"). ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
I received no acknowledgment, despite the "copyright" and "all rights reserved" notice in my MSN group. How can any journalist be a part of censorship and plagiarism? The New York Times?! Furthermore, I believe Ms. Dargis visited my sites to read my comments on her work in "The Reader': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review."
How can someone "like" Ms. Dargis write for The New York Times? Politics? What is the true identity of Ms. Dargis? Ginger Thompson? Bob Menendez? I wonder whether these persons know Daniel Mendelsohn whose essay reviewing "Brideshead Revisited is so similar to mine. ("'Brideshead Revisited': A Mocie Review.")
You need not acknowledge or respect the creative or intellectual work of someone you consider sub-human, according to the Times. You can even plagiarize and try to destroy that person's work because you feel no need to accord to the author the minimal respect to which every person is entitled. Those members of minority groups (like me) who have the temerity to write well or freely need not be accorded due consideration. Under the circumstances, talk directed at me of free speech or ethics is absurd. I am blocking, among other hackers:
http://www.msnusers.com/common/js/1576564590... (NJ?)
If MSN Groups continues to exist and other users can access Critique, assuming that my copyright-protected essays are not being altered, I urge readers to continue to see my work there.
Luis Posada Carriles is an anti-Castro Right-winger, alleged terrorist and sadist.
January 28, 2009 at 12:15 P.M. An attack on my computer connections, disabling my security system, resulted in destroying my child's Internet connection, I believe, also defacing and vandalizing a number of essays -- like this one and others. I will struggle to make the necessary corrections and provide assistance to my child. My opinions and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution have not changed.
January 27, 2009 at 11:03 A.M. My cable signal has been blocked, illegally, and I cannot access my home e-mail account. I suspect that someone did not like this essay. I will continue to struggle to post this work and to write on-line. This censorship and intimidation campaign is unconstitutional and criminal. Regardless of what you think of my opinions, this sort of brutality cannot be allowed to prevail in a free society.
Simon Romero & Damien Cave, "Venezuela Will Push U.S. to Hand Over Man Tied to Plane Bombing," The New York Times, January 23, 2009, at p. A5. ("Damien Cave" suggests that someone has been reading Herman Hesse.)
Jim Holt, "New York Has Become a World Capital of Philosophy," in New York, December 22-29, 2008, at p. 72. (" ... and there's even a sprinkling of Hegelians, Nietzscheans, and phenomenologists at the New School.")
Emily Nussbaum, "Choosing The Gray Lady," in New York, January 19-26, 2009, at p. 28. (Young turks at the Times are not averse to doing "favors" for powerful politicians, allegedly.)
Luis Posada Carriles is sought by the Venezuelan government as a naturalized citizen of that country for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a Cuban civilian airliner with 73 passengers on board. All of the innocent persons travelling on that plane were killed. Their photos appear below. (No images can be posted at blogger because of damage to my computer caused by hackers.) The U.S. government protected Mr. Posada Carriles, as a former C.I.A. agent (allegedly), who was part of the agency's "exploding cigar" efforts against Fidel Castro.
"Mr. Posada, 80, is charged ... with masterminding the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane as it flew over Barbados, killing all 73 people on board, including dozens of Cuban civilians and a 9-year-old Guyanese girl. It was the Western Hemisphere's first act of midair terrorism, the bloodiest of a series of bombings aimed at weakening Fidel Castro's government."
The U.S. government has taken a radical position against world terrorism, inviting the cooperation of other countries, ostensibly, to punish all terrorists for their crimes. Mr. Posada Carriles happens to be a Right-wing terrorist, allegedly, living happily in Miami, while painting landscapes for a living. This does not sound like a sufficiently macho job for a super anti-Communist. The persons whose lives ended when that airplane fell to earth will not be living into old age, like Posada-Carriles, nor will they enjoy looking at paintings.
Victims' relatives are not concerned about Mr. Posada Carriles' politics or views of Fidel Castro. However, they are disturbed by the hypocrisy of the U.S. government that shelters this man from liability, reportedly, or even from being tried for these heinous offenses. It is impossible to believe that such a man will bring democracy or freedom to any country. Does the N.J. Supreme Court or legal establishment (Senator Bob?) consider Mr. Posada Carriles "ethical" whereas I am not? If so, then I must disagree. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")
The first "error" inserted in this text since my previous review of the work has been discovered and corrected. This may explain the disabling of my security updating system recently. No doubt other essays have been similarly vandalized by Miami's champions of the "American way of life."
If the concern is that Mr. Posada Carriles will be tortured in Venezuela or Cuba (like persons in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) -- if he is returned to either country, Cuban and non-Cuban citizens were among his victims -- then there is nothing to prevent a trial in American federal courts applying international human rights law or Florida criminal law. There are precedents for U.S. courts applying foreign substantive laws, usually in civil cases. Murder laws are pretty much the same all over the world. Murder is a crime even when victims are residents of Communist countries. Preventing me from speaking or accessing the Internet does not change this reality. (The foregoing sentence was altered. I have now restored the deleted word to that sentence.)
Mr. Posada Carriles was photographed visiting U.S. federal courts on a prior occasion. (Images may be blocked by New Jersey's Cubanoids.)
The main reason that Mr. Posada Carriles and his ilk have escaped liability, so far, is an alleged affiliation with Cuban-American politicians, like New Jersey's Senator Robert "Bob" Menendez. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?") Also, Big "Mel" Martinez, former Florida Republicano Senator, is an alleged "friend" of these paramilitary anti-Castro groups. This is something I can neither confirm nor deny at this time. Mr. Menendez has issued a press release stating that he is "for all the people." Is Ginger Thompson of the Times is related to Manohla Dargis? See what purports to be the English language article, Ginger Thompson, "Couple's Capitol Ties Said to Veil Spying for Cuba," in The New York Times, June 19, 2009, at p. 1. (Ms. Thompson's creative use of the English language defies description by me.)
I wonder whether Ginger Thompson and Manohla Dargis are "friends"? Or are they the same person? Jean Paul Rathbone? Do you wish to delete a word from one of my sentences, again?
Have either of those men, Menendez or Martinez -- whether directly or indirectly -- received political contributions in any manner from Mr. Posada Carriles and/or any organization espousing anti-Castro views that has opposed extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles? If so, then should these Senators and other Cuban-American politicians not refrain from taking any stand (publicly or privately) concerning this extradition request, in order to preserve the appearance at least of disinterested decision-making with regard to such matters on the part of the federal judiciary and Congress? I suspect so. ("Menendez" has been changed several times to "Memendez.")
Radical Right-wing Cubanazos have been rumored to engage in organized crime in order to collect funds for their anti-Castro efforts. I suspect that organized crime by any groups is about collecting funds for themselves.
Realistically, I doubt that Mr. Posada Carriles will be extradited by the U.S. or charged with any crimes that bear a rational relationship to his alleged actions. I am aware of his legal experiences and charges in Louisiana. This absolution will have the effect of diminishing or destroying U.S. credibility on terrorism throughout the world by making it clear to everyone that Americans have a double standard depending on the political views of the terrorists in question or the identities of their victims. This essay usually produces either a death threat or interference with my computer's cable signal. ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Right-wing anti-Castro forces or quasi-military groups operate with impunity -- or with the assistance of corrupt politicians in places like New Jersey -- who then censor Constitutionally protected speech, like my blogs, whereas all Arab political groups and Leftist intellectuals, as well as activists, can count on harassment and worse from "protected goons" serving in New Jersey's legislature or judiciary. Is this "ethical," Mr. Menendez?
Forty minutes of harassment preceded my writing efforts today. Cyberattacks have mostly damaged my family members' efforts to make use of Internet resources. About one out of fifty hits at my blogs are counted. I am illegally prevented from accessing MSN groups. My books are suppressed in America. I am plagiarized and denied publication opportunities. I understand that my writings are being read outside the U.S. and, especially, in Cuba and China. I am grateful for this attention.
My second book, specifically, is suppressed and not sent to on-line booksellers, even as I am still prohibited from accessing MSN groups, every morning, if that site still exists. These censorship and suppression efforts are made possible by state action and are, I believe, content-based. I wonder whether there is a "connection" to Ms. Dargis from the Cuban-American community?
My response to the continuing harassment and insertions of "errors" is a long awaited essay on further corruption in the Garden State. The opinion of Mr. Posada-Carriles concerning my "ethics" does not trouble me. I say the same concerning the views of Mr. Menendez. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?" and "Senator Bob Struggles to Find His conscience.")
All Cuban-American politicians -- including the befuddled Congresswoman from Miami who hung up on President Obama, Iliana Ross-Lehtinen ("Who knew it was really him calling little-old-me?") -- are expected to anounce publicly, on a daily basis, that they are "against Communism" and in favor of "censorship-of-socialist-weird-people-who-refuse-to-live-in-Miami-or-Miami-Beach." ("Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")
Among the likely co-conspirators are "Lincoln" Diaz Balart, former Florida politician and "firebrand" in the "struggle against Communism" and friends, like "Jose" Diaz-Balart, who is a less intelligent version of Lincoln Diaz-Balart. That's not saying much, Jose. It should sadden you to think that the name "Lincoln" can be attached to any kind of suppression of freedoms or to the persons who favor such totalitarianism, allegedly.
I am afraid that the category of "weird" persons includes me, according to many Cubanazos and Cubanazas. Here is a gold medallion for you, plastic covers for the couch, and a nice Guayavera. These are unisex items. Mazeltov. (Again: "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")
Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen favors the death penalty for Communists, allegedly, also for liberals and advocates for the environment and/or persons adopting non-traditional lifestyles. Ms. Ross-Lehtinen is undecided concerning the possible execution of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as well as other liberal commentators and/or "Godless, pinko, semi-Communists!" (Well, she had to be right about something!)
The Congresswoman is not on record as favoring the extradition of Mr. Posada Carriles, despite the heinous crimes alleged against him. Is the Congresswoman getting soft on criminals? Does Ms. Ross-Lehtinen's attitude to criminals depend on the criminal's politics? ("And How!")
Pictures of dozens killed who are only some of the alleged victims of Mr. Posada Carriles' "activities" are available on-line. The response from the Cuban-American community in Union City and Miami has been amused indifference: "Boys will be boys ..." said one promiment politician from West New York, New Jersey -- who is, perhaps, a former gym teacher. Mr. Albio Sires is rumored to have insisted that opposing candidates "drop and do fifty pushups!" This is a man we need in the U.S. Congress.
The terror victims' family members did not laugh merrily over this alleged display of humor and wit.
I am told that someone called "Leslie Martinez," Cubanaza-Republicana and advocate (allegedly) of "public executions" and "conspicuous consumption" in the vicinity of the University of Miami, insisted that we "must get tough on crime," but not on "alleged" Right-wing Cuban-American criminals or terrorists, since (allegedly) they are not Communists, or Arabs. Shopping, Leslie? Let me guess: You live in Coral Gables?
I am sure that Ms. Martinez is "for" the First Amendment and all Constitutional rights for persons like herself. I wonder whether Ms. Martinez knows "Manohla Dargis"? ("What is it like to be plagiarized?") Perhaps Jim Holt has also met Ms. Dargis and/or Benedict Carey, Ginger Thompson maybe?
Mr. Holt appears to be dismissive of the "sprinkling" of phenomenologists and hermeneuticists who constitute a large portion of students of Western thought in the world, whether in Latin America, Europe or Asia. They are not analytical philosophers or American pragmatists. Hence, there is no need to take such philosophies (or philosophers) seriously. Right, Jim? Jim has been to Columbia University. This entitles Jim to explain such things to the rest of us. Isn't that right, Mr. Holt?
Attacks against this essay and all essays at my sites will be constant. Chinese philosophers are in need of Mr. Holt's instruction, along with those lesser persons (like myself) who presume to contribute to phenomenological-hermeneutics because, naively, we believe that this theoretical approach is vital and important today. A collection of essays dealing with China's enagement with phenomenology-hermeneutics and Marxism is available. I suggest a glance at Derrida's Specters of Marx.
Is it possible that any journalist at The New York Times would be a part of censorship and suppressions of speech efforts? I can only hope that no writer would contribute to such criminality.
Legal Ethics Today.
The blocking of my access to MSN Groups, together with the message that "MSN Groups is closed," means that images cannot be part of my communication efforts. Any media attention that you can bring to this harassment and cybercensorship effort will be greatly appreciated. (See "How Censorship Works in America" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
Mission Statement of New Jersey's Judiciary:
"We are an independent branch of government constitutionally ENTRUSTED with the fair and just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution [irony?] and laws of the United States and this State."
Neil A. Lewis, "Official Defends Signing Interrogation Memos," in The New York Times, April 29, 2009, at p. A12.
"The State Secrets Privilege, Tamed," (Editorial) in The New York Times, April 30, 2009, at p. A26.
Ian Urbina, "Judge Guilty In Kickbacks Is Accused of Fixing Suits," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A10.
Scott Shane, "Justice Dept. Is Reviewing Interrogation Under Bush," in The New York Times, February 17, 2009, at p. A22.
"The Unfinished Case of Maher Arar," (Editorial) in The New York Times, February 18, 2009, at p. A26.
Charles V. Bagli, "New Jersey Takes Another Run at a Major New York Employer," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A16.
William Glaberson, "Pentagon Finds Guantanamo Follows Geneva Conventions," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A11. (Do these people believe their own bullshit?)
Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: macmillan, 2009), entirety.
With the departure of the Bush contingent from Washington, D.C., an effort is underway to repair the harm done to America's legal institutions, loss of respect on a global level for U.S. courts, lawyers and judges. This loss of respect is well-deserved. America's lawyers have been guilty of constructing transparently fraudulent arguments to justify atrocities like secret tortures of detainees who have never been tried or even charged with offenses.
Among the people involved in this heinous evil are persons entrusted with applying the nation's laws and evaluating the "ethics" of others. New Jersey law enforcement and judiciary personnel are contaminated by organized crime. Media indifference and silence, mostly, is taken for granted by a majority of people. At the same time, the U.S. media presumes to judge or criticize the legal systems and human rights records of other societies.
Americans can no longer distinguish journalism from entertainment or propaganda. They wonder why newspapers are going out of business when the average t.v. program, including the news, is aimed at a 6th grade reading level and is still found "too complex" by a majority of test subjects.
These appalling actions by the U.S. contravene binding treaties signed by the American government that seeks to hold other nations to such treaties. American Constitutional provisions prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment," requiring "due process of law" and "equal treatment of persons under law" continue to be violated, every day, both at home and internationally.
New Jersey and a handful of American jurisdictions are defined by mafia control of corrupt institutions, legal incompetence and stupidity at the highest levels of government. During recent years, for example, the plague of grotesque incompetence has spread beyond the borders of any single state, creating an image in the world for American institutions that horrifies even traditional friends -- such as the UK -- and has resulted in international condemnations and protests among activists at home.
Public censorship of powerless critics allows MSN to be "closed" to persons (like me) and for suppression or ignoring of books written by outsiders to the establishment. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
"Mr. Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, is the most well-known victim of the Bush administration's notorious policy of extraordinary rendition, or the outsourcing of interrogations to foreign governments known to use torture. Former President George W. Bush and his aides stubbornly refuse to admit the grave injustice done to Mr. Arar. President Obama must do better."
"Mr. Arar was seized at Kennedy International Airport in 2002 as he tried to change planes on his way home to Canada from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to harsh questioning before being sent to Syria. He was tortured there and imprisoned for nearly a year in an underground cell the size of a grave until the Syrians finally let him go."
New Jersey is guilty of horrible tortures, complicit in the daily violations of civil rights -- including cyberstalking and cyberharassment directed against me, I believe -- censorship and suppressions of speech, even as the state continues to remain silent concerning the responsibility of state agencies, attorneys, law enforcement officials in these crimes. Guilty persons presume to comment upon and judge my ethics. I am judging their ethics. I find those ethics "wanting."
Ms. Milgram's alleged lesbianism is a matter of indifference to me. On the other hand, such a preference or sexual-orientation -- if it exists -- may have led to a cover-up of crimes committed by her alleged "friends" (or those of Ms. Poritz). This possibility then creates a legitimate ethical and criminal set of issues. Continuing silence and apathy before obvious and public violations of rights is unacceptable, Ms. Milgram. Did Ms. Poritz trade judicial favors for lesbian sex with Ms. Riccioli, alleged "therapist" without a degree?
This points to the hypocrisy and contradictions which many people in the world detect in America's often criminal practices against its professed ideals and legal commitments. We claim to abide by a set of principles found in our Constitution and laws, then we systematically violate those same principles and laws in order to commit terrible crimes before the eyes of the world. Sophistry, rhetoric, rationalizations no longer fool the "little brown people." ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
I am censored, my writings are suppressed, vandalized, defaced, then they are plagiarized. Silence on the part of a coopted media is especially dispiriting. I wish that it were possible to draw the attention of international observers to these events. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
America's legal system and its self-styled "servants" have come to be seen, deservedly, as frauds by millions (maybe billions) of persons in the world. Contrast "Manifesto for America's Unfinished Revolution" with "This is My First Torture." ("Senator Bob, Corrupt Law Firms, and New Jersey Ethics.")
" ... the Bush administration stonewalled the Canadian inquiry and brushed off Mr. Harper's request that the United States, which bears the bulk of responsibility for Mr. Arar's abuse, acknowledge 'inappropriate conduct.' When Mr. Arar sued the United States for denying him his civil rights, the Bush administration -- predictably -- argued that for reasons of national security the case should never be allowed to come to trial."
Compare "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" with "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System."
"The question of whether those and similarly unconvincing claims are sufficient to block Mr. Arar from having his case tried is now pending before the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan." ("America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
" ... President Obama can demonstrate his commitment to human rights and the rule of law by pressing Mr. Arar's case."
The judiciary's continuing apathy and corruption is sickening:
"A judge [with possible ties to South Jersey's Democrat Machine] who pleaded guilty last week to taking part in a kickback scheme has been accused by a Wilkes-Barre newspaper of fixing an unrelated defamation case in which he ordered the paper to pay $3.5 MILLION." (emphasis added)
The amount that plaintiffs receiving this award, if any, were to pay back to this crooked judge (who was probably sharing his "proceeds" with the New Jersey Mafia) is unknown at this time. Whether there was a "cut" for Ms. Milgram or Mr. Rabner -- and if so, how much they expected to receive, if they were to receive anything -- cannot be said today on the basis of the information that is currently made public. Perhaps we will never know the answer to these questions. (See "George E. Norcross, III is the Boss of New Jersey's Law and Politics" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" as well as "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Mafia Involvement in New Jersey's Courts and Politics.")
A letter was deleted from the foregoing paragraph. This is the preferred method of "error-insertion" these days. Deleting a single letter or punctuation mark from a paragraph, preferably the same letter that has been restored several times before. I will continue to make all necessary corrections. (See the introduction to my essay "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Do you speak to me of "ethics" in New Jersey's corridors of power? "Fixing" personal injury cases has been rumored to be a routine feature of big personal injury practices. This is neither confirmed nor denied by New Jersey's tainted OAE, which is busy inspecting urinals in the offices of minority solo practioners to ensure that they -- these urinals -- are fair to our handicapped friends, allegedly. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Ginarte in New Jersey whether he has an opinion on this matter. Trouble with the OAE, Jose?
" ... the former judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., may have had close ties to a reputed mobster at the heart of the defamation case and ... the award should be reviewed in light of the corruption to which Mr. Ciavarella has now admitted."
Unlike Milgram and Rabner, Mr. Ciavarella has at least admitted committing "errors."
" ... the list of possible conspirators continues to grow in the kickback case, one of the worst episodes of judicial misconduct ... in history. In that case, Mr. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, a judge with whom he worked in the court system of Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty last week in a federal court in Scranton to wire fraud and conspiracy."
These men were "selling" (mostly African-American defendants) to institutions sending a kickback, allegedly, under the table. This is similar to what New Jersey does, also allegedly, in sending victims to "sub-contractors" who extract information through psychological tortures. Cubanazos? Who was paying Tuchin and for what services? How much, if anything, was Tuchin kicking back to Poritz and others? How much did you steal from my office, Diana? How many lawyers were sharing in the loot or stolen clients from my office? Who was cooperating with Tuchin? What did the OAE or New Jersey Supreme Court know and when did they know it? I want all of the records and reports, 1988-2010 and beyond.
This blatant and obvious corruption is neither admitted nor denied by the Garden State, or the so-called OAE, which is among the most corrupt and politically-tainted agencies in state government, allegedly. No wonder OAE lawyers are called, "walking turds."
A number of New Jersey public officials are rumored to have an intense "interest" in attracting businesses that can be stolen from New York and other states to the putrid and poisonous Cranberry Fields of the Garden State. I wonder what that interest might be? Fruit baskets?
"Earlier this month the New Jersey Economic Development Authority granted tentative approval for a 10-year grant to Depository Trust, worth an estimated $74.6 MILLION, under the state's business employment incentive program."
How lovely? I wonder whether businesses considering the Garden State are aware of the nefarious elements wielding power in Trenton and mafia saturation of incompetent courts? I doubt it. Businesses accepting such grants will move back to Manhattan when the New Jersey money runs out, after they share some of it with Trenton's generous public officials.
"The grant would be based on a rebate of state income taxes should the company move to New Jersey, according to GlEN J. PHILIPS, a spokesman for New Jersey's development authority."
Allegations of kickbacks to New Jersey officials as a result of this deal can neither be confirmed nor denied, at this time, as there is insufficient information from which to draw a conclusion. No allegation of corruption surprises residents of New Jersey. 1/3 of the $74.6 MILLION, allegedly, comes back to people like Codey and Menendez. Or is it more than that, "BobbyM"? ("Senator Bob Loves Xanadu!")
What of the American legal profession's laughable so-called "ethics"? Where's the ABA in all of this? NJSBA is consumed with the burning issue of whether they can schedule a golf outing this year.
"The Justice Department's ethics office is in the final stages of a report that sharply criticizes Bush administration lawyers who wrote legal opinions JUSTIFYING waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, [Terry Tuchin probably approves of such torments for gentiles and Muslims, of course!] according to department and Congressional officials."
"The report, by H. Marshall Jarrett, who leads the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, would be the first accounting for legal advice that endorsed interrogation techniques historically considered by the United States and other Western countries to be ILLEGAL TORTURE. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., will have to decide whether to approve the findings and whether to make them public." (emphasis added)
Have you no shame, Ms. Milgram, about the actions (as well as inactions) of the OAE? It is a "real job" being Attorney General, isn't it?
"The report is expected to focus on three former officials of the Justice Department office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that advises the executive branch on the interpretation of the law. They are John Yoo, a Berkely law professor, now a visiting professor at Chapman University, who was the primary author of opinions on torture while at the counsel's office in 2002; Jay S. Bybee, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who as head of the office signed the 2002 opinions, which were later withdrawn; and Steven G. Bradbury, who wrote three more still-secret opinions on interrogation in 2005, when he was the top lawyer in the counsel's office."
According to two U.S. Senators, these attorneys gave "legal advice so misguided that it damages America's image around the world and the Justice Department is forced to repudiate it." ("Senator Bob Says: 'Xanadu and You -- Perfect Together!'")
Senator Robert "Big Bob" Menendez said that he "favors the rule of law, usually." This reported statement by Mr. Menendez can neither be confirmed nor denied -- not even by Mr. Menendez. Don't forget to visit your local county courthouse in New Jersey. ("More Problems for Menendez -- Tapes!")
U.S. Senator Robert ("Big Pappa") Menendez (D) is said to be looking for his "cut" on the Xanadu deal. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")
Mission Statement of New Jersey's Judiciary:
"We are an independent branch of government constitutionally ENTRUSTED with the fair and just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution [irony?] and laws of the United States and this State."
Neil A. Lewis, "Official Defends Signing Interrogation Memos," in The New York Times, April 29, 2009, at p. A12.
"The State Secrets Privilege, Tamed," (Editorial) in The New York Times, April 30, 2009, at p. A26.
Ian Urbina, "Judge Guilty In Kickbacks Is Accused of Fixing Suits," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A10.
Scott Shane, "Justice Dept. Is Reviewing Interrogation Under Bush," in The New York Times, February 17, 2009, at p. A22.
"The Unfinished Case of Maher Arar," (Editorial) in The New York Times, February 18, 2009, at p. A26.
Charles V. Bagli, "New Jersey Takes Another Run at a Major New York Employer," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A16.
William Glaberson, "Pentagon Finds Guantanamo Follows Geneva Conventions," in The New York Times, February 21, 2009, at p. A11. (Do these people believe their own bullshit?)
Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: macmillan, 2009), entirety.
With the departure of the Bush contingent from Washington, D.C., an effort is underway to repair the harm done to America's legal institutions, loss of respect on a global level for U.S. courts, lawyers and judges. This loss of respect is well-deserved. America's lawyers have been guilty of constructing transparently fraudulent arguments to justify atrocities like secret tortures of detainees who have never been tried or even charged with offenses.
Among the people involved in this heinous evil are persons entrusted with applying the nation's laws and evaluating the "ethics" of others. New Jersey law enforcement and judiciary personnel are contaminated by organized crime. Media indifference and silence, mostly, is taken for granted by a majority of people. At the same time, the U.S. media presumes to judge or criticize the legal systems and human rights records of other societies.
Americans can no longer distinguish journalism from entertainment or propaganda. They wonder why newspapers are going out of business when the average t.v. program, including the news, is aimed at a 6th grade reading level and is still found "too complex" by a majority of test subjects.
These appalling actions by the U.S. contravene binding treaties signed by the American government that seeks to hold other nations to such treaties. American Constitutional provisions prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment," requiring "due process of law" and "equal treatment of persons under law" continue to be violated, every day, both at home and internationally.
New Jersey and a handful of American jurisdictions are defined by mafia control of corrupt institutions, legal incompetence and stupidity at the highest levels of government. During recent years, for example, the plague of grotesque incompetence has spread beyond the borders of any single state, creating an image in the world for American institutions that horrifies even traditional friends -- such as the UK -- and has resulted in international condemnations and protests among activists at home.
Public censorship of powerless critics allows MSN to be "closed" to persons (like me) and for suppression or ignoring of books written by outsiders to the establishment. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
"Mr. Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, is the most well-known victim of the Bush administration's notorious policy of extraordinary rendition, or the outsourcing of interrogations to foreign governments known to use torture. Former President George W. Bush and his aides stubbornly refuse to admit the grave injustice done to Mr. Arar. President Obama must do better."
"Mr. Arar was seized at Kennedy International Airport in 2002 as he tried to change planes on his way home to Canada from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to harsh questioning before being sent to Syria. He was tortured there and imprisoned for nearly a year in an underground cell the size of a grave until the Syrians finally let him go."
New Jersey is guilty of horrible tortures, complicit in the daily violations of civil rights -- including cyberstalking and cyberharassment directed against me, I believe -- censorship and suppressions of speech, even as the state continues to remain silent concerning the responsibility of state agencies, attorneys, law enforcement officials in these crimes. Guilty persons presume to comment upon and judge my ethics. I am judging their ethics. I find those ethics "wanting."
Ms. Milgram's alleged lesbianism is a matter of indifference to me. On the other hand, such a preference or sexual-orientation -- if it exists -- may have led to a cover-up of crimes committed by her alleged "friends" (or those of Ms. Poritz). This possibility then creates a legitimate ethical and criminal set of issues. Continuing silence and apathy before obvious and public violations of rights is unacceptable, Ms. Milgram. Did Ms. Poritz trade judicial favors for lesbian sex with Ms. Riccioli, alleged "therapist" without a degree?
This points to the hypocrisy and contradictions which many people in the world detect in America's often criminal practices against its professed ideals and legal commitments. We claim to abide by a set of principles found in our Constitution and laws, then we systematically violate those same principles and laws in order to commit terrible crimes before the eyes of the world. Sophistry, rhetoric, rationalizations no longer fool the "little brown people." ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
I am censored, my writings are suppressed, vandalized, defaced, then they are plagiarized. Silence on the part of a coopted media is especially dispiriting. I wish that it were possible to draw the attention of international observers to these events. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "What is it like to be tortured?")
America's legal system and its self-styled "servants" have come to be seen, deservedly, as frauds by millions (maybe billions) of persons in the world. Contrast "Manifesto for America's Unfinished Revolution" with "This is My First Torture." ("Senator Bob, Corrupt Law Firms, and New Jersey Ethics.")
" ... the Bush administration stonewalled the Canadian inquiry and brushed off Mr. Harper's request that the United States, which bears the bulk of responsibility for Mr. Arar's abuse, acknowledge 'inappropriate conduct.' When Mr. Arar sued the United States for denying him his civil rights, the Bush administration -- predictably -- argued that for reasons of national security the case should never be allowed to come to trial."
Compare "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" with "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System."
"The question of whether those and similarly unconvincing claims are sufficient to block Mr. Arar from having his case tried is now pending before the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan." ("America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
" ... President Obama can demonstrate his commitment to human rights and the rule of law by pressing Mr. Arar's case."
The judiciary's continuing apathy and corruption is sickening:
"A judge [with possible ties to South Jersey's Democrat Machine] who pleaded guilty last week to taking part in a kickback scheme has been accused by a Wilkes-Barre newspaper of fixing an unrelated defamation case in which he ordered the paper to pay $3.5 MILLION." (emphasis added)
The amount that plaintiffs receiving this award, if any, were to pay back to this crooked judge (who was probably sharing his "proceeds" with the New Jersey Mafia) is unknown at this time. Whether there was a "cut" for Ms. Milgram or Mr. Rabner -- and if so, how much they expected to receive, if they were to receive anything -- cannot be said today on the basis of the information that is currently made public. Perhaps we will never know the answer to these questions. (See "George E. Norcross, III is the Boss of New Jersey's Law and Politics" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" as well as "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Mafia Involvement in New Jersey's Courts and Politics.")
A letter was deleted from the foregoing paragraph. This is the preferred method of "error-insertion" these days. Deleting a single letter or punctuation mark from a paragraph, preferably the same letter that has been restored several times before. I will continue to make all necessary corrections. (See the introduction to my essay "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Do you speak to me of "ethics" in New Jersey's corridors of power? "Fixing" personal injury cases has been rumored to be a routine feature of big personal injury practices. This is neither confirmed nor denied by New Jersey's tainted OAE, which is busy inspecting urinals in the offices of minority solo practioners to ensure that they -- these urinals -- are fair to our handicapped friends, allegedly. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Ginarte in New Jersey whether he has an opinion on this matter. Trouble with the OAE, Jose?
" ... the former judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., may have had close ties to a reputed mobster at the heart of the defamation case and ... the award should be reviewed in light of the corruption to which Mr. Ciavarella has now admitted."
Unlike Milgram and Rabner, Mr. Ciavarella has at least admitted committing "errors."
" ... the list of possible conspirators continues to grow in the kickback case, one of the worst episodes of judicial misconduct ... in history. In that case, Mr. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, a judge with whom he worked in the court system of Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty last week in a federal court in Scranton to wire fraud and conspiracy."
These men were "selling" (mostly African-American defendants) to institutions sending a kickback, allegedly, under the table. This is similar to what New Jersey does, also allegedly, in sending victims to "sub-contractors" who extract information through psychological tortures. Cubanazos? Who was paying Tuchin and for what services? How much, if anything, was Tuchin kicking back to Poritz and others? How much did you steal from my office, Diana? How many lawyers were sharing in the loot or stolen clients from my office? Who was cooperating with Tuchin? What did the OAE or New Jersey Supreme Court know and when did they know it? I want all of the records and reports, 1988-2010 and beyond.
This blatant and obvious corruption is neither admitted nor denied by the Garden State, or the so-called OAE, which is among the most corrupt and politically-tainted agencies in state government, allegedly. No wonder OAE lawyers are called, "walking turds."
A number of New Jersey public officials are rumored to have an intense "interest" in attracting businesses that can be stolen from New York and other states to the putrid and poisonous Cranberry Fields of the Garden State. I wonder what that interest might be? Fruit baskets?
"Earlier this month the New Jersey Economic Development Authority granted tentative approval for a 10-year grant to Depository Trust, worth an estimated $74.6 MILLION, under the state's business employment incentive program."
How lovely? I wonder whether businesses considering the Garden State are aware of the nefarious elements wielding power in Trenton and mafia saturation of incompetent courts? I doubt it. Businesses accepting such grants will move back to Manhattan when the New Jersey money runs out, after they share some of it with Trenton's generous public officials.
"The grant would be based on a rebate of state income taxes should the company move to New Jersey, according to GlEN J. PHILIPS, a spokesman for New Jersey's development authority."
Allegations of kickbacks to New Jersey officials as a result of this deal can neither be confirmed nor denied, at this time, as there is insufficient information from which to draw a conclusion. No allegation of corruption surprises residents of New Jersey. 1/3 of the $74.6 MILLION, allegedly, comes back to people like Codey and Menendez. Or is it more than that, "BobbyM"? ("Senator Bob Loves Xanadu!")
What of the American legal profession's laughable so-called "ethics"? Where's the ABA in all of this? NJSBA is consumed with the burning issue of whether they can schedule a golf outing this year.
"The Justice Department's ethics office is in the final stages of a report that sharply criticizes Bush administration lawyers who wrote legal opinions JUSTIFYING waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, [Terry Tuchin probably approves of such torments for gentiles and Muslims, of course!] according to department and Congressional officials."
"The report, by H. Marshall Jarrett, who leads the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, would be the first accounting for legal advice that endorsed interrogation techniques historically considered by the United States and other Western countries to be ILLEGAL TORTURE. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., will have to decide whether to approve the findings and whether to make them public." (emphasis added)
Have you no shame, Ms. Milgram, about the actions (as well as inactions) of the OAE? It is a "real job" being Attorney General, isn't it?
"The report is expected to focus on three former officials of the Justice Department office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that advises the executive branch on the interpretation of the law. They are John Yoo, a Berkely law professor, now a visiting professor at Chapman University, who was the primary author of opinions on torture while at the counsel's office in 2002; Jay S. Bybee, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who as head of the office signed the 2002 opinions, which were later withdrawn; and Steven G. Bradbury, who wrote three more still-secret opinions on interrogation in 2005, when he was the top lawyer in the counsel's office."
According to two U.S. Senators, these attorneys gave "legal advice so misguided that it damages America's image around the world and the Justice Department is forced to repudiate it." ("Senator Bob Says: 'Xanadu and You -- Perfect Together!'")
Senator Robert "Big Bob" Menendez said that he "favors the rule of law, usually." This reported statement by Mr. Menendez can neither be confirmed nor denied -- not even by Mr. Menendez. Don't forget to visit your local county courthouse in New Jersey. ("More Problems for Menendez -- Tapes!")
U.S. Senator Robert ("Big Pappa") Menendez (D) is said to be looking for his "cut" on the Xanadu deal. ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)