"Elysium": (Tri-Star, 2013). WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: Neil Blomkamp; DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY: Trent Opaloch; EDITED: Julian Clarke and Lee Smith; MUSIC: Ryan Amon; PRODUCTION DESIGN: Philip Ivey; VISUAL EFFECTS: Peter Muyzers; COSTUMES: April Ferry; RUNNING TIME: 1 hour, 42 minutes.
STARRING: Matt Damon (Max); Jodie Foster (Delacourt); Sharlto Copley (Kruger); Alice Braga (Frey); Diego Luna (Julio); Wagner Mora (Spider); and William Fichtner (John Carlyle).
Periodicals:
Manohla Dargis, "The Worst is Yet to Come," The New York Times, August 9, 2013, p. C1. ("Manohla" misses all of the major themes of the film.)
"Forum: Human Enhancement -- Rational Evolution," The Philosopher's Magazine, 3rd Quarter, 2013, p. 66. (October/December, 2013.)
Commenting on: P.W. Singer, Silicon Carnage: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (London: Penguin, 2013).
Films referenced in "Elysium":
1. Johnny Mnemonic/Existenz.
2. Code 46.
3. Equilibrium.
4. Metropolis.
5. In Time/Logan's Run.
6. 1984.
7. Brave New World.
8. I am Legend/Omega Man/Gattaca.
9. Soylent Green/Blade Runner.
10. Terminator Films.
11. Predator.
12. Dr. Strangelove.
13. Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.
14. Robocop.
15. Gladiator.
Books: The ideas dramatized in "Elysium" may be further explored in the following selective list of books.
1. Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (New York: Ballantine, 1962) and Anthony Burgess, The Wanting Seed (London: W.W. Norton, 1966). (Parallel dystopian themes concerning the horrors of behaviorism and over-population, respectively, together with the corruptions of language.)
2. David Braine, The Human Person: Animal & Spirit (Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1992).
3. Ernest Breisach, Introduction to Modern Existentialism (New York: Grove Press, 1962), pp. 189-204. ("The 'No' to the So-Called Scientific Image of Man.")
4. Omar Calabrese, Neo-Baroque: A Sign of the Times (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 91-118.
5. Philip K. Dick, "The Android and the Human," in Lawrence Sutin, ed., The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick (New York: Pantheon, 1993), esp. pp. 183-211. ("Do androids dream of electric sleep?")
6. Umberto Eco, "The City of Robots," in Thomas Doherty, ed., Postmodernism: A Reader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 200.
7. Umberto Eco, Travels In Hyperreality (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1983), esp. pp. 135-145. ("Semiological Guerilla Warfare.")
8. Carlos Fuentes, "A Harvard Commencement," in Reading Myself With Others (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981).
9. Kenneth J. Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991).
10. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York: William Morrow, 1988).
11. Donna J. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), esp. pp. 127-149. ("A Cyborg Manifesto.")
12. Douglas Knellner, Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), esp. pp. 153-186.
13. Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964).
14. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955).
15. Herbert Marcuse, An Essay On Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967).
16. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Consciousness and the Acquisition of Language (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970), pp. 63-79 (Hugh J. Silverman, translation). ("Elysium" offers a fusion of Spanish-English for the proles; French-English for the upper-crust residents of "Elysium." The fusion of languages theme is found in a number of recent sci-fi films capturing an increasingly common reality in the world. See "Code 46.")
17. Ashley Montague & Floyd Matson, The Dehumanization of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).
18. Christopher Norris, What's Wrong With Postmodernism?: Critical Theory at the Ends of Philosophy (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1990), esp. pp. 164-194.
19. Arkady Plotinsky, Complementarity (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1994). (Will we have sex someday with our flat-screen t.v. sets?)
20. David Rasmussen, Reading Habermas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
21. Richard Rorty, Contigency, Irony, Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), esp. pp. 141-199.
22. Paul Roubisek, Existentialism: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), pp. 161-185. ("The Irrational in Science and Religion.")
23. Johanno Strasser, "The Decade of the Experts," in Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism In Our Century (New York: Harper-Perennial, 1983), pp. 149-166.
24. Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe (New York: Harper-Perennial, 1991).
25. Leslie Paul Thiele, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of the Soul: A Study of Heroic Individualism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991).
26. Mary Warnock, Existentialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).
I.
As I sank back in my plush leather chair and put my feet up at the newly revamped AMC Theaters on the Upper West Side to enjoy the Summer blockbuster experience of "Elysium," I was struck by the urgency of the themes explored in the movie.
Directly ahead of me a man was playing video games on a hand-held device as he interrupted himself, periodically, to respond to texts received on what appeared to be a Blackberry or new fancy cell phone. I have seen persons who think of themselves as "lovers" sitting next to one another on a park bench or subway train, each enthralled by a hand-held electronic device or "Nook," and/or "Kindle," and/or lap-top, while remaining totally oblivious to the equally alienated "person" with whom they are ostensibly "madly in love."
This is to say nothing of the presence of other human beings in the area of such lovers, persons who are antiquated enough to exist in a state of unattachment to an electrical device of some kind for more than a minute. Such "disconnected" persons are deemed fitting targets for drones in today's Manhattan. I may be one of the few persons to have entered a coffee shop and asked to "plug-in" my paperback book. ("'Oblivion': A Movie Review" and "'The Matrix': A Movie Review.")
Persons stroll through New York city seemingly talking to themselves in animated or passionate terms. About half of the time these persons have a listening device in their ears and appear to be involved in personal or business calls; the other half of such animated talkers are insane and do not require the assistance of technology to chat with aliens or whomever they talk to, often "God."
Mind/machine interfaces and symbiosis/complementarity are dialectical pairs subjected to timely dramatizations as well as interrogation in "Elysium." The etymology and definition as well as recent expansions of this word ("Elysium") are relevant to my argument. I will explain what I mean by this later in my essay.
Equally powerful, however, is the continuing sense of the mythological/religious need of a generation reared in an antiseptic environment that is hostile to meaning and speculative or moral theology to say nothing of "old time" religion.
Alienation produces a less than flattering image of American law and dealings with the state in the form of a mechanical parole official and robotic police officers. Judges in today's America are equally mechanical and their batteries are usually running low. ("The Critical Legal Studies Movement" and "Ronald Dworkin On Law as Interpretation.")
The primary concern of the film captured in a single master symbol is the question of Maximizing ("Max") Freedom ("Frey") in Community ("Circle/Sun") in situations of mechanical control and denial of freedom through grotesque inequalities.
The sun seen by the child-versions of "Max" and "Frey" is Plato's symbol of the Good. The tattoo on Max's body is a representation of the "dialectic" in Western thought from Plato to Hegel and Marx and beyond. ("Immanuel Kant and the Narrative of Freedom" then "The Allegory of the Cave.")
This message tattooed on the "skin" of the protagonist/hero, gesturing at our origins as "star-stuff," makes the point obvious even as this same symbol serves to underscore the enduring relevance of the fundamental myth of our civilization Judeo-Christianity to the moral and political idea of sacrifice and the "other-regarding" essence of justice at least since Aristotle's ethics and politics. ("John Rawls and Justice.")
I will organize my comments on this movie in terms of three primary narrative threads in the work. All of these threads come together in the resolution offered to viewers at the conclusion of the story. It should be clear, however, that there are far more than these three themes in the movie and other readings of this complex work are certainly possible:
First, there is the question of the alteration of the human being in relation to technology. Mechanical "enhancements" of human capacities and powers may have altered persons to an extent where technologically "rich" persons come to achieve obscene disparities of privilege (or power) in their very persons, in terms of quality of life, food, living conditions as well as medical care and education, not merely as concerns the things they have. This situation creates a political, jurisprudential, and moral dilemma for all of the people of the world; second, there is the biting political satire commenting on America's social tragedy/comedy under the Obama presidency in the form of a National Security State (NSS) in which military and intelligence agencies, by way of a palace coup, have rendered the Chief Executive a mere "fundraiser" ("President Patel") who is irrelevant to true power in the state; third, themes of love as self-sacrifice or self-giving "for" the other are illustrated with a definition of heroism that engages with Niezschean-Heideggerian themes of self-becoming in the presence of death in favor of "moral realization," as in an ethics of self-transcendence understood in the tradition of idealism or existentialism.
" ... Our electronic constructs are becoming so complex that to comprehend them we must now reverse the analogizing of cybernetics [Norbert Weiner] and try to reason from our own mentation and behavior to theirs -- although, I suppose, to assign motive or purpose to them would be to enter the realm of paranoia; what machines do may resemble what we do, but they certainly do not have intent in the sense that we have; they have tropisms, they have purpose in the sense that we build them to accomplish certain ends and to react to certain stimuli. ..." (Dick, p. 186.)
As more human parts and functions are replaced by mechanical or computational simulacra, in order to enhance organic lifespans or capacities, as humans come to possess synthetic livers, mechanical hearts, artificial intelligence systems for brains someday -- do they (or we), at some point, stop being humans or persons in order to become "constructs" or artificial devices? Have we become artificial devices already? Do we live inside Anthony Burgess's "Clockwork Orange"? Does the "Matrix" have us in its grasp? Are we in "Elysium"?
This film suggests that we are already living in a cinematic afterlife as our world crumbles.
"Have a good one!" the robot at Dunkin Donuts said this morning with a glassy stare in her eyes.
II.
Matt Damon plays "Max," a resident of a devastated landscape meant to be Los Angeles in 2154. The director's powerful sense of irony and black humor may be seen in the interweaving of images from Mexico City -- from which it seems that residents of this future Los Angeles are almost exclusively drawn -- with the unavoidably harsh conditions of the 99% in this sci-fi California and world, as compared with the privileged few (or 1%), whose obscene wealth makes very different lives possible off-planet, on "Elysium."
The 99% are actually asked or told to accept and witness the deaths of their children from starvation and curable illnesses, but never to seek to go to the highly secure "Elysium" without permission. This grim reality is already the situation of many persons in our world. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")
Max is obviously a Mexican-American in a context and time when this no longer matters. He is the counterpart of the blue collar Irish kids from Boston's tough neighborhoods that Mr. Damon has played, brilliantly, in other movies.
This performance by Mr. Damon in "Elysium" is even more brilliant -- also braver because it is far riskier -- for Mr. Damon's now well-established global stardom. Oscar nomination for Matt Damon? (''The Adjustment Bureau': A Movie Review.")
Mr. Damon has understood that "Max" is an American very much like his character in "Good Will Hunting," but for his ethnicity. The common humanity between those characters -- and, indeed, Mr. Damon's own status as a mere mortal substantially identical to other young men in his nation and the world -- serves to underline the solution to the mystery of humanity in a technological age that is offered to viewers at the conclusion of the movie for no extra charge: our capacity for empathy, concern for and sharing in the plight of others, through love, is the essence of our humanity that is untouched (so far) by our devices. This capacity should guide us in the future use of our technology and military power. Kudos to Mr. Blomkamp. ("Is it rational to believe in God?")
"The Internet and computing are just external forms of cognitive enhancement. Biomedical interventions promise to internally enhance cognition. Whether, for example, MEMORY resides in a computer or in the brain makes no morally (or socioeconomically) relevant difference." (J. Savulescu, "The Philosopher's Magazine," pp. 69-70.) ("What is memory?")
"Frey" (played with sensitivity and gentleness by Alice Braga) is Max's childhood and life-long love. She is the only person to have escaped the neighborhood by "making something of her life."
People living in ghettos always hope that somebody gets out of the hell they are in, especially when it comes to the mental prisons created by ghetto life through denials of education and surroundings lacking in beauty, but also through drug use and other addictions, crime and indiscriminate sexual activity.
Frey has become a nurse. She cares for her sick child, whose illness might be cured, instantly, in devices that rearrange the "being" of persons at a molecular or atomic level to eliminate disease, but which are only available in "Elysium."
"Elysium" is both a heaven for heros who die in battle, according to standard definitions, and a place in this movie of exclusion and self-indulgence. Perhaps Mr. Damon's character is the only one who truly "makes it" out of this hellish future to a "heaven" made possible by his altruistic love, but only at the cost of his life. ("The Soldier and the Ballerina" and "Pieta.")
The orbiting dwelling that is "above" hunger, pain, poverty and stifling heat along with the dust that fills the screen-version of "L.A." is certainly "Beverly Hills America," a "lifestyles of the rich and famous" space of greed and cold insensitivity where the media asumes we all want to be today.
The movie comments on America as a gated community of structural injustices based on wealth, paranoid at the moment, frightened, flirting with fascism, defensive against the unwashed masses beating a path to its door. However, the same criticism is made and APPLIES against all First World elites in the UK, France, Germany, Latin America, or Asia. No one escapes whipping by Mr. Blomkamp.
The wealth of a tiny elite in the First World is based on exploitative economic relations with the global masses -- including "our" own fellow citizens (the film makers include themselves in this criticism) -- whose presence and pains the rich few wish to forget when they retire to their technological caves and resorts.
Technology has reached a point when the "human essence" may be altered out of all recognition by, say, nutrition, education, advanced medical care, synthetic or prosthetic devices, cosmetic surgery, access to information, even capacity or power to create world culture. Not every society can spend $200 million to make a single movie.
This scientific "power" is also the power to define the reality that all of us must live. Rich persons often become -- or see themselves as -- a "superior" species. This alleged "superiority" justifies in their eyes the cruelties, sadism, inequalities that ensure the continuation of their privileges. It is difficult to imagine how they could not see themselves in such terms. ("Oblivion': A Movie Review.")
Max, by contrast, recognizes the "entanglement" of his destiny with "Frey's" fate and her child's recovery, but also with the fate of all others in his world. The little girl's parable of the hippo and cat delivers the wisdom of the film as the urgent need for cooperation and mutuality of effort in order to achieve fairness that makes sense for everyone or even survival. America and the powerful few are the "hippo"; the vast bulk of humanity is the "cat."
Will we learn to share and play nicely with others before it is too late? It does not look good right now. ("Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory" and, again, "John Rawls and Justice.")
Max struggles to avoid returning to prison. His encounter with a robot parole officer and cops (who are also robots) is a critique of America's currently dominant legal positivism contrasting rules against justice (justices loses!), law against equity, or the conscience of the court (we have no consciences) with convenient results. ("What is Law?" and "Richard A. Posner On Voluntary Actions and Criminal Responsibility.")
Max is made to accept insane risks with his life in a low-paid factory job creating the instruments of his own oppression. This may be the plight of many Mexicans in America. An indifferent boss -- who is more of a robot than the machines -- gleefully forces Max to be exposed to lethal levels of radiation. Max's injuries are handled pretty much the way American workers' compensation courts work today: Max gets two copies of a piece of paper informing him that he will die in five days.
Max, the existential hero, is awakened to his human predicament by the sudden arrival of death. Max's friend "Julio" (Diego Luna in a role usually played by Casey Affleck or his more obscure brother last seen in a Batman costume) will die through sharing in Max's adventures and out of loyalty to a friend.
Jodie Foster's "Delacourt" is a combination of Mr. Boehner, Senator Graham, and Hillary Clinton in a pant suit. She is definitely scary, but also slightly satirical and a more nuanced plot ingredient than a cartoon villain. You sense that this character is utterly sincere, that she sees herself as defending the gates against the barbarians rather than becoming the barbarian threatening civilization. Delacourt is appalled by "Kruger" (Sharlton Copley), for instance, even as she makes use of him when necessary. Is this how we feel about "drones," Mr. Obama? NSA surveillance? ("America's Drone Murders.")
Do Americans really want to know about intelligence wars and special ops or surveillance? Delacourt suggests that we leave the thinking to her. This includes President Patel ("Yes, we can!") who must not be kept from his "fundraisers."
Wagner Moura (Spider), like any enterprising criminal or his billionaire counterpart in the movie, displays the single-mindedness of such persons in pursuit of illicit gains even at the risk of his life. Spider wants the access codes and status designations of "citizens" for "Elysium" which Max must download into his brain.
For this criminal purpose, Max receives some amazing bio-mechanical "aps" from Spider. Is Max still human? The capacity for love and heroism are not affected by these "enhancements" suggesting where the essence of humanity may be found. ("John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism" then "The Galatea Scenario and the Mind/Body Problem.")
Kruger's bizarre antics as an NSA or special forces operative, whose mind and morals are casualties of his adventures, is a warning concerning what we may become in our pursuit of safety in the National Security State. Is Kruger still human? I doubt it.
Max achieves his "beautiful death" through the supreme act of loving sacrifice for others (loved-ones and strangers). "Everyone is a citizen." The subtle music borrowed from Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" underlines the point for audience members who are brain-damaged, like the "Times" reviewer who missed it anyway: Love and compassion is what makes us human. Let us pause to be clear on this issue. By the way, I think that Mr. Blomkamp is right:
"The image of man which behavioristic psychology suggests and which it transmits to the social sciences is based on the Darwinistic theory with its shaping and re-shaping of organisms and their tools of adjustment according to the demands of a changing environment, and Pavlov's experiments with dogs which led to the formulation of the concept of the 'conditioned reflex.' According to it a certain stimulus will through proper conditioning of the organism evoke a particular and desired response. Far from being accepted as merely a valid insight into one aspect of organic, including human, behavior, the whole idea of MECHANICAL conditioning soon came to be considered the fundamental theory of learning. As far as behavioristic psychology is concerned, all further development in knowledge about man will be more and more detailed illustrations of these basic insights achieved by an ever-increasing refinement of the methods and tools of observation. Man is thus seen as an organism with specific and highly favorable abilities for his survival. Although these make man the crowning achievement of nature, ["the paragon of animals,"] they in no way lift him out of the realm of nature. Actually all the human capacities and creations are merely refined instruments of adjustment. Everything from art to religion, from philosophy to the most intricate scientific theory, is understood as a tool of survival under given conditions. Consequently the supreme aim of man's life, like that of any other organism, is the mere satisfaction of all his wants [let's go shopping!] and drives, [let's have sex!] of which the physiological are the basic ones. All the ideals of man expressed in various customs, whether monogamy or the democratic form of life, are viewed as habits, which have proved to be successful means of need gratification and, thus, survival. Their value is purely temporary since it depends on the changing environment." (Breisach, pp. 188-189.)
The humanistic response to this behavioristic ideology, that is dominant in America and Europe today, is total rejection and denial of the reduction of persons to their animal natures precisely because of the human need for and creation of meanings as well as systems of meanings (including this deflationary ideology with quasi-scientific pretensions called "behaviorism" that is largely a response to the Holocaust).
Meanings are not exclusively empirical phenomena, but created by interpretations, very much like ourselves, as evidenced by this movie, "Elysium."
III.
A final thought about "Elysium's" political satire which is a rare element in cinema today.
It is highly dangerous to have security people make political judgments and decisions about what citizens can know. Everything will be declared a "secret" very quickly if military or intelligence people decide such matters.
The Framers of the American Constitution did not want ultimate legal or political power in the hands of people with guns, but hoped for "reason-governed proceedings" unfolding exclusively in the civil branches of government. They feared secret courts or Star Chambers, torture for any reason, and undeclared wars. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
The goal of the nation's founding documents was to protect human dignity and autonomy. If we no longer believe in these values, then let us acknowledge this fact frankly and honestly. We must not and cannot continue to do -- secretly and yet visibly -- what we claim not to do or believe in, because our contradictions have become absurd and obvious to the world.
Similarly, it is too late for New Jersey to change the subject by commenting on my "ethics" or character: "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House" then "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!"
Surveillance, monitoring, loss of privacy, holding persons without charges or trials, undeclared wars against abstract nouns, interventions in multiple countries, drone killings of thousands of innocents, targeted assassinations of thousands of persons (including Americans afforded NO due process) makes us a different people than what we have been for two centuries.
"Elysium" is forcing us to ask some of these difficult questions in the context of a work of art that is also commercially successful. For this reason alone -- to say nothing of Mr. Damon's stellar performance -- the movie deserves Oscar consideration.
"Elysium" may be the best movie (so far) of 2013. Congratulations to everyone involved in the film and thank you for a fun experience.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
NSA Spying Is Illegal.
August 30, 2013 at 1:57 P.M. Senator Menendez has called for "limited strikes" against Syrian targets without awaiting the UN Weapons Inspectors' reports. As Chairperson of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee this irresponsible declaration has called into question the N.J. Senator's commitment to international law: Jordan will not allow its territory to be used for any attack; Iran will close its airspace and uphold its military alliance with Syria; Hezbollah will retaliate against Israeli targets; Al Qaeda and other forces in the so-called Syrian "opposition" may be responsible for an incediary bomb dropped today on a schoolyard in Damascus, allegedly, to draw foreign powers into the conflict. Al Jazeera is still blocked on Time/Warner systems.
The debate in Britain concerning possible strikes was excellent and was broadcast live early this morning. Mr. Milliband was especially persuasive for Labour. The foreseeable consequences of strikes may be quite adverse for Western interests.
Herb Jackson, "Jersey Leaders Divided On Syria," The Record, August 29, 2013, p. A-1. (Senator Menendez offers a "mischaracterization.")
Steven Castle, et als., "Britain to Wait On UN Weapons Report and Parliament Vote Before Syria Strikes," The New York Times, August 29, 2013, p. A11. (Mr. Cameron correctly stated that, whatever Britain ultimately decides based on the nation's interest, he will "not apologize to Mr. Obama." I cannot understand why it was thought that he should apologize or do anything different from what he is doing.)
In the midst of all of this "war talk," New Jersey officials have posted a number of bogus orders and/or "ethics" judgments, based on now admittedly fraudulent evidence, aimed at smearing me. I am amused and undeterred, but deeply flattered by their attentions. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Today's news articles:
Scott Shane, "Data Collection Is Illegal, A.C.L.U. Says in Filing," The New York Times, August 27, 2013, p. A14. ("Americans' privacy is a plot by Al Qaeda," according to the U.S. government.)
Manohla Dargis, "In London, the Walls Have Eyes," The New York Times, August 28, 2013, p. C1. (Manohla Dargis says it all in "her" best sentence in this memorable review: "A lot -- especially through the ubiquitous closed-circuit television cameras that dot London like neighborhood constables or plague sores, depending on your view of life in the surveillance state." I have no idea what this sentence means. Ms. Abramson, why is this person, or persons, writing movie reviews for the Times?)
Tom Shanker, et als., "Obama Weighing 'Limited' Strikes On Syrian Forces," The New York Times, August 28, 2013, p. A1. (What is a "limited strike"? If a child is killed in such a strike is it a "limited death"?)
Books exploring themes in these articles:
Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (New York: Ballantine, 1962).
Anthony Burgess, Tremor of Intent: An Eschatological Spy Novel (London & New York: W.W. Norton, 1966). (Take another look at Ms. Dargis' review of a movie entitled "Closed Circuit.")
Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959).
John Marks, The Search For the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind/Control (New York: Dell, 1979).
George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1949).
Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: New American Library, 1983).
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (New York: Harper & Row, 1932).
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958).
Philosophical Exploration:
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York & London: Viking, 1979).
I am beginning to feel less lonely as a target of U.S. government surveillance. Apparently, EVERYBODY is now a subject of American government surveillance and monitoring, except for foreign terrorists:
" ... the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] argued in court papers filed Monday that the sweeping data gathering [by the NSA] violates the Constitution and should be halted."
The suit may be a Quixotic gesture by the ACLU that fully expects the complaint to be dismissed or made impossible to litigate by government claims of "secrecy" or "national security" concerns.
If a lawsuit is filed concerning the quality of the food in the Congressional cafeteria, these days, no doubt the government's response (perhaps an accurate one) would be "non-disclosure" based on "secrecy and national security issues."
Will responsive pleadings addressing the merits of this ACLU suit be filed by government? I doubt it:
"The A.C.L.U. cited the writings of George Orwell and the comprehensive East German surveillance portrayed in the film 'The Lives of Others' in warning of the dangers of large-scale government intrusion into private lives. The new motion, elaborating on the A.C.L.U.'s arguments against data collection, come in a federal law suit challenging the N.S.A. program that the group filed in June."
George Orwell's works -- even more the scientifically-informed writings of Aldous Huxley! -- focus on the threats to personal autonomy posed not only by surveillance, but also by biology and technology in the twentieth century and beyond. ("The Allegory of the Cave.")
These British gentlemen -- Orwell and Huxley -- would be delighted to find themselves cited as legal authorities in an American law suit even as they are quoted by courts throughout the land for "representing" our moment in history accurately. This is the power of ideas in literature.
Persons all over the world feel powerless and baffled at the insanity of powerful countries devastating Third World societies governed by even worse maniacs exterminating their own people. The result of all the recent saber rattling and posturing regarding Syria will probably be the deaths of many innocent persons, often children and old people who run less quickly than young men when the bombs are falling. Obama's poll numbers may rise, but there will be little advantage beyond this for the White House and none for the Syrians.
It is ordinary people in America -- like the innocents dying in Syria -- who are subjected to monitoring and control as opposed to the sort of persons whose training permits them to avoid the technological speed-traps set by intelligence agencies and police in order to communicate, successfully, with their colleagues.
This communication can often be accomplished even with intercepted messages that usually cannot be read until it is too late. Terrorists and international criminals know how to get around NSA surveillance; the rest of us do not.
Much of this "ubiquitous" monitoring can be made totally irrelevant by encrypted communications and so-called "field intelligence," as Mr. Snowden's recent adventures have taught us.
I suspect that the true motivation for much of the absurd spying on Americans today is political. "Data gathering" has nothing to do with concerns about crime or terrorism. Ideas are not crimes. Beliefs and values held by individuals in a free society are not the province of the state, according to that famous alleged terrorist Thomas Jefferson.
My inner-life is not a neighborhood subject to policing by any government. My thoughts, passions, creative work are (and should be) my business:
"Calling patterns can reveal when we are awake or asleep; our religion, if a person regularly makes no calls on the Sabbath or makes a large number of calls on Christmas Day; our work habits and our social aptitude; the number of friends we have, and even our civil and political affiliations."
The NSA has realized Herbert Hoover's wet dream of information gathering on those who think "differently," like me, and they are now only awaiting the call to round us up so as to ship us off to Guantanamo.
Will I be able to write my essays from a torture cell in Guantanamo prison?
The debate in Britain concerning possible strikes was excellent and was broadcast live early this morning. Mr. Milliband was especially persuasive for Labour. The foreseeable consequences of strikes may be quite adverse for Western interests.
Herb Jackson, "Jersey Leaders Divided On Syria," The Record, August 29, 2013, p. A-1. (Senator Menendez offers a "mischaracterization.")
Steven Castle, et als., "Britain to Wait On UN Weapons Report and Parliament Vote Before Syria Strikes," The New York Times, August 29, 2013, p. A11. (Mr. Cameron correctly stated that, whatever Britain ultimately decides based on the nation's interest, he will "not apologize to Mr. Obama." I cannot understand why it was thought that he should apologize or do anything different from what he is doing.)
In the midst of all of this "war talk," New Jersey officials have posted a number of bogus orders and/or "ethics" judgments, based on now admittedly fraudulent evidence, aimed at smearing me. I am amused and undeterred, but deeply flattered by their attentions. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Today's news articles:
Scott Shane, "Data Collection Is Illegal, A.C.L.U. Says in Filing," The New York Times, August 27, 2013, p. A14. ("Americans' privacy is a plot by Al Qaeda," according to the U.S. government.)
Manohla Dargis, "In London, the Walls Have Eyes," The New York Times, August 28, 2013, p. C1. (Manohla Dargis says it all in "her" best sentence in this memorable review: "A lot -- especially through the ubiquitous closed-circuit television cameras that dot London like neighborhood constables or plague sores, depending on your view of life in the surveillance state." I have no idea what this sentence means. Ms. Abramson, why is this person, or persons, writing movie reviews for the Times?)
Tom Shanker, et als., "Obama Weighing 'Limited' Strikes On Syrian Forces," The New York Times, August 28, 2013, p. A1. (What is a "limited strike"? If a child is killed in such a strike is it a "limited death"?)
Books exploring themes in these articles:
Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (New York: Ballantine, 1962).
Anthony Burgess, Tremor of Intent: An Eschatological Spy Novel (London & New York: W.W. Norton, 1966). (Take another look at Ms. Dargis' review of a movie entitled "Closed Circuit.")
Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959).
John Marks, The Search For the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind/Control (New York: Dell, 1979).
George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1949).
Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: New American Library, 1983).
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (New York: Harper & Row, 1932).
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958).
Philosophical Exploration:
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York & London: Viking, 1979).
I am beginning to feel less lonely as a target of U.S. government surveillance. Apparently, EVERYBODY is now a subject of American government surveillance and monitoring, except for foreign terrorists:
" ... the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] argued in court papers filed Monday that the sweeping data gathering [by the NSA] violates the Constitution and should be halted."
The suit may be a Quixotic gesture by the ACLU that fully expects the complaint to be dismissed or made impossible to litigate by government claims of "secrecy" or "national security" concerns.
If a lawsuit is filed concerning the quality of the food in the Congressional cafeteria, these days, no doubt the government's response (perhaps an accurate one) would be "non-disclosure" based on "secrecy and national security issues."
Will responsive pleadings addressing the merits of this ACLU suit be filed by government? I doubt it:
"The A.C.L.U. cited the writings of George Orwell and the comprehensive East German surveillance portrayed in the film 'The Lives of Others' in warning of the dangers of large-scale government intrusion into private lives. The new motion, elaborating on the A.C.L.U.'s arguments against data collection, come in a federal law suit challenging the N.S.A. program that the group filed in June."
George Orwell's works -- even more the scientifically-informed writings of Aldous Huxley! -- focus on the threats to personal autonomy posed not only by surveillance, but also by biology and technology in the twentieth century and beyond. ("The Allegory of the Cave.")
These British gentlemen -- Orwell and Huxley -- would be delighted to find themselves cited as legal authorities in an American law suit even as they are quoted by courts throughout the land for "representing" our moment in history accurately. This is the power of ideas in literature.
Persons all over the world feel powerless and baffled at the insanity of powerful countries devastating Third World societies governed by even worse maniacs exterminating their own people. The result of all the recent saber rattling and posturing regarding Syria will probably be the deaths of many innocent persons, often children and old people who run less quickly than young men when the bombs are falling. Obama's poll numbers may rise, but there will be little advantage beyond this for the White House and none for the Syrians.
It is ordinary people in America -- like the innocents dying in Syria -- who are subjected to monitoring and control as opposed to the sort of persons whose training permits them to avoid the technological speed-traps set by intelligence agencies and police in order to communicate, successfully, with their colleagues.
This communication can often be accomplished even with intercepted messages that usually cannot be read until it is too late. Terrorists and international criminals know how to get around NSA surveillance; the rest of us do not.
Much of this "ubiquitous" monitoring can be made totally irrelevant by encrypted communications and so-called "field intelligence," as Mr. Snowden's recent adventures have taught us.
I suspect that the true motivation for much of the absurd spying on Americans today is political. "Data gathering" has nothing to do with concerns about crime or terrorism. Ideas are not crimes. Beliefs and values held by individuals in a free society are not the province of the state, according to that famous alleged terrorist Thomas Jefferson.
My inner-life is not a neighborhood subject to policing by any government. My thoughts, passions, creative work are (and should be) my business:
"Calling patterns can reveal when we are awake or asleep; our religion, if a person regularly makes no calls on the Sabbath or makes a large number of calls on Christmas Day; our work habits and our social aptitude; the number of friends we have, and even our civil and political affiliations."
The NSA has realized Herbert Hoover's wet dream of information gathering on those who think "differently," like me, and they are now only awaiting the call to round us up so as to ship us off to Guantanamo.
Will I be able to write my essays from a torture cell in Guantanamo prison?
Monday, August 26, 2013
14 Year-Old Girl Goes For $500 in New Jersey.
August 27, 2013 at 1:29 P.M. The "new" Google sign-in sheet had been tampered with as I signed-in at NYPL, #1: "How censorship works in America" and "More Censorship and Cybercrime."
There is always a danger that I will be prevented from continuing to write at these blogs. Perhaps my comments concerning Senator Sessions have generated today's difficulties with (or alteration of) the sign-in page. It may be someone's sick sense of humor expressing itself, again, in such sabotage or little games.
August 20, 2013 at 1:20 P.M. Al Jazeera was suddenly unavailable this weekend on my Time/Warner service. On what purports to be that international news channel there are now endless re-runs of classic television shows, like Carol Burnett's old comedy hour.
I wonder whether this is unique to my home? Censorship? Would this not be the time when Al Jazeera would be most useful for American officials to learn from, and be exposed to, in order to determine what is happening on the ground in Egypt or Syria?
Scott Shane & Ben Hubbard, "Confident Syria Used Chemicals, U.S. Mulls Action: A Pentagon Target List," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A1. (Will cruise missiles be launched?)
Allison Smale, "Surveillance Revelations Shake U.S. -- German Ties," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A4. (Germany joins Brazil and several other nations -- including Bolivia -- taking disputes to international legal forums.)
AP, "Dozens Killed in Attacks Across Iraq," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A6. (Iraq continues to fall apart.)
Haley Yeager, "Justice Department Sues Texas Over New Voter ID Measures," The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A1. (U.S. electoral rights battle is escalating. Powerful forces in American society do not want another African-American president. Some politicians are doing their best to prevent minorities from voting in any future elections.)
"More NSA Deceptions," (Editorial) The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A19. (U.S. government has made "substantial misrepresentations" concerning the extent of illegal spying on Americans and others throughout the world. Lying? Like the OAE and Mr. Rabner, allegedly, lying about little-old me?)
Eric Holder, "A Crisis for Public Defense: Budget Cuts Have Undermined Federal Defendants' Rights to Adequate Counsel," The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A17. (Without adequate funding there can be no meaningful representation for indigent defendants in the federal system. This means there will be more innocent persons convicted. For some American politicians this will be a welcome development. Senator Sessions, perhaps? I believe that I saw Senator Sessions wearing an unusual sport coat in New York some time ago while looking directly at me. I wonder whether Senator Sessions is "close" to Iliana Ros-Leghtinen or Mr. Rubio and/or has done any "favors" for the Congresswoman or Florida Senator lately? Perhaps Senator Sessions has been of assistance to Bob Menendez? Does Senator Sessions know my name? Or anything about me? If so, when did Senator Sessions first learn about me and from whom did he learn of my little "situation," as they say at the Jersey shore? "Louis C. Taylor Serves 42 Years For a Crime He Did Not Commit.")
John Paul Stevens, "The Court & the Right to Vote: A Dissent," The New York Review of Books, August 15, 2013, p. 37. (Justice Stevens disagrees with the recent voting rights decision handed down by his "brethren." I concur in Justice Stevens' dissent.)
"The Corpses in Syria," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 23, 2013, p. A26. (T.V. audiences are numb to atrocities. No one wants another war in the Middle East, except Repubicans seeking to criticize Mr. Obama as not "tough enough.")
Continuing cyber-warfare at my NYPL computer makes writing difficult today. Sometimes the keyboard sticks or fails to register a letter due to sabotage. I may have to post this text in stages.
Charlie Savage, "N.S.A. Said to Have Paid E-Mail Providers Millions to Cover Costs From Court Ruling," The New York Times, August 24, 2013, p. A16. (Google, MSN, Yahoo were "paid-off" to "cooperate" with NSA illegal surveillance efforts. No wonder I can't send or receive e-mails, nor can I post images on-line.)
K. Lynn, et als., "Hertz Exit Take 550 Jobs From Region: Move to Florida Blamed On Jersey's Cost of Living," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. A-1. (I will show the progressive decline since May, 2013 in Jersey's employment and economic situation in the days ahead. "We're stronger than the storm!")
Rebecca D. O'Brien, "N.J.Searching For Solutions to Rampant Heroin Problem," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. A-1. (In August, 2013 new investigations are focusing on CORRUPTION that allows for a flourishing heroin trade in suburbia. Are N.J. police departments still paid off in drugs? Or is it cash these days, allegedly? Child porn? Are the gambling machines still found in West New York and Union City, New Jersey? "La Bolita"? I hear Bob plays number 7 every week.)
Zach Patberg, "Haledon Man, 20, Accused of Luring Attempt: Went to Girl's School to Meet Her, Police Say," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. L-1. (In the days ahead you will see a partial number of similar incidents only in the northern portion of the state that exceeds occurrences of similar incidents in any single other state, including much larger jurisdictions than New Jersey, allegedly. Perhaps New Jersey is simply "unlucky" when it comes to child molestation; alternatively, it may be that a corrupt power-structure makes it safe and easy to engage in this activity in New Jersey.)
Kibret Marcos, "Jury Selection is Under way For Rabbi Facing Sex Charges," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. L-3. (Conviction for this child molesting rabbi may be followed by additional accusations for others that are quite similar. Mysteriously, the very same persons concerned about child abuse by priests are undisturbed by these accusations involving rabbis? Is police curiosity about child abusing rabbis a statement concerning New York media fascination with child molesting priests?)
"A Haledon man was arrested Tuesday and charged with trying to lure a 13-year-old girl from her school to have sex with him, police said."
It is impossible to believe that the level of child-abuse and child-porn in New Jersey could exist without the "cooperation" of the authorities. ("New Jersey's New Child Sex Crisis.")
Under these circumstances of disgusting proliferation of such filth, to devote police or OAE resources to harassing me (when there is a desperate need to deal with these serious threats to New Jersey's children and rampant drug problems), is grotesque and pervasive incompetence. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Rather than blaming me for pointing out that N.J.'s corruption and incompetence have made the state a failed jurisdiction, where residents are stolen from every day by their own public officials, police may wish to focus their efforts on crime and criminals, even as the OAE may wish to stop obstructing justice, lying, and covering-up in order to tell the truth about my matters. Do you speak to me of ethics, ladies and gentlemen of the bar in New Jersey? ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"Authorities say AHMET ISLAM, 20, befriended the [13-year-old] student through phone and Internet conversations -- including discussions about meeting to have sex -- before arriving on April 30, to pick her up at ... Christian Academy on Belmont Avenue in Haledon." ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")
Internet searches in New Jersey allow those interested in children for sex to obtain the services of what purport to be child prostitutes "on demand," like a pizza or a movie from Netflix. ("Is Menendez For Sale?" and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes" then "New Jersey's Child Sex Industry.")
I am afraid that north Jersey -- Bergen, Hudson, Passaic Counties -- are among the WORST territories in the country for child sexual exploitation. This is to say nothing of the situation in Atlantic County or Camden that may be just as bad or worse. ("New Jersey Welcomes Child Molesters" and, again, "Marilyn Straus Was Right!" then "Diana's Friend Goes to Prison.")
Children in parts of New Jersey today may be in greater danger than their counterparts in Syria. How do you live with this reality, Mr. Christie? Ms. Buono? ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!" and "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!")
How about military aid to control New Jersey's corruption, incompetence, drug, gambling, child-porn and -prostitution problems, Mr. Obama? ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
New Jersey police and other public officials seem to be far more worried about one individual writing about the state's mess than they are concerned about dealing with the mess. ("How censorship works in America.")
I wonder why New Jersey politicians are still trying to silence me? Guilty consciences? Ass covering? ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" and "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" then "North Bergen, New Jersey is the Home of La Cosa Nostra.")
The state's problems will not go away if you silence one critic. In a state where the CHIEF JUSTICE can get away with receiving cash "consultation fees" from Solomon Dwek; Senator Menendez is alleged to enjoy the favors of young prostitutes; other public officials are linked to organized crime figures -- can we expect anything different than this new child abuse crisis? I doubt it. Where is the OAE on these matters? ("Sexual Favors For New Jersey Judges" and "New Jersey Supreme Court's Implosion.")
"Rabbi UZI RIVLIN, 65, was arrested ... and charged with fondling two 13-year-old Israeli boys who were staying at his home during an exchange scholarship program that Rivlin had set up. ..."
Two new investigations focusing on alleged misconduct by New Jersey rabbis are said to be in the works in August, 2013. Let us see whether these rabbis soon to be charged, allegedly, and others will speak to us of "ethics." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" then "Legal Ethics Today" and "American Doctors and Torture" finally "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
There is always a danger that I will be prevented from continuing to write at these blogs. Perhaps my comments concerning Senator Sessions have generated today's difficulties with (or alteration of) the sign-in page. It may be someone's sick sense of humor expressing itself, again, in such sabotage or little games.
August 20, 2013 at 1:20 P.M. Al Jazeera was suddenly unavailable this weekend on my Time/Warner service. On what purports to be that international news channel there are now endless re-runs of classic television shows, like Carol Burnett's old comedy hour.
I wonder whether this is unique to my home? Censorship? Would this not be the time when Al Jazeera would be most useful for American officials to learn from, and be exposed to, in order to determine what is happening on the ground in Egypt or Syria?
Scott Shane & Ben Hubbard, "Confident Syria Used Chemicals, U.S. Mulls Action: A Pentagon Target List," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A1. (Will cruise missiles be launched?)
Allison Smale, "Surveillance Revelations Shake U.S. -- German Ties," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A4. (Germany joins Brazil and several other nations -- including Bolivia -- taking disputes to international legal forums.)
AP, "Dozens Killed in Attacks Across Iraq," The New York Times, August 26, 2013, p. A6. (Iraq continues to fall apart.)
Haley Yeager, "Justice Department Sues Texas Over New Voter ID Measures," The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A1. (U.S. electoral rights battle is escalating. Powerful forces in American society do not want another African-American president. Some politicians are doing their best to prevent minorities from voting in any future elections.)
"More NSA Deceptions," (Editorial) The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A19. (U.S. government has made "substantial misrepresentations" concerning the extent of illegal spying on Americans and others throughout the world. Lying? Like the OAE and Mr. Rabner, allegedly, lying about little-old me?)
Eric Holder, "A Crisis for Public Defense: Budget Cuts Have Undermined Federal Defendants' Rights to Adequate Counsel," The Washington Post, August 23, 2013, p. A17. (Without adequate funding there can be no meaningful representation for indigent defendants in the federal system. This means there will be more innocent persons convicted. For some American politicians this will be a welcome development. Senator Sessions, perhaps? I believe that I saw Senator Sessions wearing an unusual sport coat in New York some time ago while looking directly at me. I wonder whether Senator Sessions is "close" to Iliana Ros-Leghtinen or Mr. Rubio and/or has done any "favors" for the Congresswoman or Florida Senator lately? Perhaps Senator Sessions has been of assistance to Bob Menendez? Does Senator Sessions know my name? Or anything about me? If so, when did Senator Sessions first learn about me and from whom did he learn of my little "situation," as they say at the Jersey shore? "Louis C. Taylor Serves 42 Years For a Crime He Did Not Commit.")
John Paul Stevens, "The Court & the Right to Vote: A Dissent," The New York Review of Books, August 15, 2013, p. 37. (Justice Stevens disagrees with the recent voting rights decision handed down by his "brethren." I concur in Justice Stevens' dissent.)
"The Corpses in Syria," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 23, 2013, p. A26. (T.V. audiences are numb to atrocities. No one wants another war in the Middle East, except Repubicans seeking to criticize Mr. Obama as not "tough enough.")
Continuing cyber-warfare at my NYPL computer makes writing difficult today. Sometimes the keyboard sticks or fails to register a letter due to sabotage. I may have to post this text in stages.
Charlie Savage, "N.S.A. Said to Have Paid E-Mail Providers Millions to Cover Costs From Court Ruling," The New York Times, August 24, 2013, p. A16. (Google, MSN, Yahoo were "paid-off" to "cooperate" with NSA illegal surveillance efforts. No wonder I can't send or receive e-mails, nor can I post images on-line.)
K. Lynn, et als., "Hertz Exit Take 550 Jobs From Region: Move to Florida Blamed On Jersey's Cost of Living," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. A-1. (I will show the progressive decline since May, 2013 in Jersey's employment and economic situation in the days ahead. "We're stronger than the storm!")
Rebecca D. O'Brien, "N.J.Searching For Solutions to Rampant Heroin Problem," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. A-1. (In August, 2013 new investigations are focusing on CORRUPTION that allows for a flourishing heroin trade in suburbia. Are N.J. police departments still paid off in drugs? Or is it cash these days, allegedly? Child porn? Are the gambling machines still found in West New York and Union City, New Jersey? "La Bolita"? I hear Bob plays number 7 every week.)
Zach Patberg, "Haledon Man, 20, Accused of Luring Attempt: Went to Girl's School to Meet Her, Police Say," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. L-1. (In the days ahead you will see a partial number of similar incidents only in the northern portion of the state that exceeds occurrences of similar incidents in any single other state, including much larger jurisdictions than New Jersey, allegedly. Perhaps New Jersey is simply "unlucky" when it comes to child molestation; alternatively, it may be that a corrupt power-structure makes it safe and easy to engage in this activity in New Jersey.)
Kibret Marcos, "Jury Selection is Under way For Rabbi Facing Sex Charges," The Record, May 8, 2013, p. L-3. (Conviction for this child molesting rabbi may be followed by additional accusations for others that are quite similar. Mysteriously, the very same persons concerned about child abuse by priests are undisturbed by these accusations involving rabbis? Is police curiosity about child abusing rabbis a statement concerning New York media fascination with child molesting priests?)
"A Haledon man was arrested Tuesday and charged with trying to lure a 13-year-old girl from her school to have sex with him, police said."
It is impossible to believe that the level of child-abuse and child-porn in New Jersey could exist without the "cooperation" of the authorities. ("New Jersey's New Child Sex Crisis.")
Under these circumstances of disgusting proliferation of such filth, to devote police or OAE resources to harassing me (when there is a desperate need to deal with these serious threats to New Jersey's children and rampant drug problems), is grotesque and pervasive incompetence. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Rather than blaming me for pointing out that N.J.'s corruption and incompetence have made the state a failed jurisdiction, where residents are stolen from every day by their own public officials, police may wish to focus their efforts on crime and criminals, even as the OAE may wish to stop obstructing justice, lying, and covering-up in order to tell the truth about my matters. Do you speak to me of ethics, ladies and gentlemen of the bar in New Jersey? ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"Authorities say AHMET ISLAM, 20, befriended the [13-year-old] student through phone and Internet conversations -- including discussions about meeting to have sex -- before arriving on April 30, to pick her up at ... Christian Academy on Belmont Avenue in Haledon." ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")
Internet searches in New Jersey allow those interested in children for sex to obtain the services of what purport to be child prostitutes "on demand," like a pizza or a movie from Netflix. ("Is Menendez For Sale?" and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes" then "New Jersey's Child Sex Industry.")
I am afraid that north Jersey -- Bergen, Hudson, Passaic Counties -- are among the WORST territories in the country for child sexual exploitation. This is to say nothing of the situation in Atlantic County or Camden that may be just as bad or worse. ("New Jersey Welcomes Child Molesters" and, again, "Marilyn Straus Was Right!" then "Diana's Friend Goes to Prison.")
Children in parts of New Jersey today may be in greater danger than their counterparts in Syria. How do you live with this reality, Mr. Christie? Ms. Buono? ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!" and "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!")
How about military aid to control New Jersey's corruption, incompetence, drug, gambling, child-porn and -prostitution problems, Mr. Obama? ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
New Jersey police and other public officials seem to be far more worried about one individual writing about the state's mess than they are concerned about dealing with the mess. ("How censorship works in America.")
I wonder why New Jersey politicians are still trying to silence me? Guilty consciences? Ass covering? ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" and "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?" and "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" then "North Bergen, New Jersey is the Home of La Cosa Nostra.")
The state's problems will not go away if you silence one critic. In a state where the CHIEF JUSTICE can get away with receiving cash "consultation fees" from Solomon Dwek; Senator Menendez is alleged to enjoy the favors of young prostitutes; other public officials are linked to organized crime figures -- can we expect anything different than this new child abuse crisis? I doubt it. Where is the OAE on these matters? ("Sexual Favors For New Jersey Judges" and "New Jersey Supreme Court's Implosion.")
"Rabbi UZI RIVLIN, 65, was arrested ... and charged with fondling two 13-year-old Israeli boys who were staying at his home during an exchange scholarship program that Rivlin had set up. ..."
Two new investigations focusing on alleged misconduct by New Jersey rabbis are said to be in the works in August, 2013. Let us see whether these rabbis soon to be charged, allegedly, and others will speak to us of "ethics." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" then "Legal Ethics Today" and "American Doctors and Torture" finally "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
Friday, August 23, 2013
Manning's Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Charlie Savage & Scott Shane, "Top-Secret Court Castigated NSA On Surveillance: E-Mail From Americans," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A1. (I cannot send or receive e-mail, no images can be posted by me at these blogs, my calls are monitored and my television signal is periodically interfered with for no reason that is made known to me. This alleged "castigation" of the NSA is intended to convey the message that there is real monitoring. In fact, the suspect NSA surveillance was allowed to continue. No one was punished for violations of Americans' privacy.)
Charlie Savage & Emmarie Hutteman, [Julian Assange?] "Manning Sentenced to 35 Years For a Pivotal Leak of U.S. Files," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A1. (Bradley Manning revealed heinous U.S. war crimes for which action he received a harsher sentence than most murderers in military courts. The average convicted murderer serves 15 years in prison before release. Manning was sentenced to 30 years and will almost certainly serve all of that time.)
Melissa Eddy, "At Dachau, Merkel Warns of Extremism," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A11. (The rise of Right-wing fanaticism in Europe compares to U.S. phenomena.)
Jack Healy, "Defense Tries to Soften Image of Soldier Who Killed 16," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A13. (Staff Sgt. Robert Bales killed many innocent persons, but is not a homosexual nor a transgendered person. As a result, the Defense Department -- and not only his lawyers -- is seeking to "minimize" Mr. Bale's "peccadillos." What the hell? Boys will be boys. Bradley -- a.k.a. "Chelsea" -- Manning is not so fortunate as to receive Defense Department protection after revealing irrefutable evidence of U.S. war crimes. Mr. Bales has received a 30 years to life sentence which will allow for parole after 30 years. This amounts to slightly more than 2 years per person killed.)
"Bradley Manning's Sentence is Excessive," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A26.
"The 35-year sentence a military judge imposed [upon] Pfc. Bradley Manning Wednesday morning is in some sense a vindication of his defense: following his conviction last month on charges of violating the Espionage Act, Private Manning faced up to 90 years in prison. He had previously pleaded guilty to lesser versions of those crimes that exposed him to 20 years behind bars. For a defense lawyer, [who doesn't have to do the time!] not a bad outcome. But from where we sit, it is still too much, given his stated desire not to betray his country[,] but to encourage debate on American aims and shed light on the 'day-to-day' realities of the American war effort."
Private Manning's sentence is harsh and excessive, cruel and unusual so as to be violative of the Constitution. More worrisome, however, than the length of the sentence is the disproportion and, hence, inequality of treatment suggesting bias based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation in violation of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. _____ (2013). (The so-called "gay marriage" case.)
At page 25 of the slip opinion and elsewhere in Windsor, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that, where the state "demeans" a person because of same-sexual orientation and ignores his or her human "dignity," the "equal protection" of the laws is OFFENDED and the victim's "liberty" under the due process clause is VIOLATED. These are powerful words with wide scope in American Supreme Court jurisprudence. ("Is there a gay marriage right?" and "Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
One reason for the excessive sentence for Pfc. Bradley Manning is his identity: not something that he has done, but what he is. This basis for sentencing decisions is clearly unconstitutional in addition to the "cruel and unusual" aspect of the sentence. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
There is an even more disturbing aspect to this sentence, however, because the anger of the U.S. government is motivated by the content of the revelations to Wikileaks (which were first offered to, and rejected by, the Times and The Washington Post). There are First Amendment issues as well. Will Mr. Manning's experiences "chill" First Amendment rights for all others? I suspect so.
The videos and other materials released to the world clearly "depict" U.S. war crimes. A good soldier is enjoined by the military code of conduct not simply to refrain from committing war crimes, but to report such crimes and, if necessary, to make them public. Please remember the Mai Lay massacre and Pentagon Papers cases.
The grainy quality of computer game-like videos of U.S. pilots shooting unarmed civilians were duplicated in the hit film "Elysium." (''Elysium': A Movie Review.")
" ... much of what Private Manning released was of public value, including a video of a military helicopter shooting at two vans and killing civilians, including two Reuters journalists."
Soldiers MURDERING innocent Iraquis and Afghans, soldiers who are not gay and do not embarrass officers and politicians, get a slap on the wrist. Bradley Manning is looking at an effective life sentence for telling the truth about U.S. war crimes.
Providing irrefutable evidence of indifference to human life and crimes against humanity, based on racism, by entire branches of the military, lies, cover-ups, incompetence and stupidity is treated much more harshly by military courts than murder of innocent civilians. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
I have established, conclusively, the existence of unethical conduct by N.J.'s legal establishment and judiciary which is why efforts to cover-up the crimes committed against me persist along with hypocritical pronouncements by Garden State officials about my "ethics." These pronouncements have become "laughable" in the world, thanks to the Internet. ("New Jersey's Unethical Judiciary" and "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit" then "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics.")
"In their attempt to put Private Manning away for most of the rest of his life, prosecutors were also trying to DISCOURAGE other potential leakers, but as the continuing release of classified documents by Edward Snowden shows, even the threat of significant prison time is not a deterrent when people believe their government keeps too many [convenient] secrets." (emphasis added!)
Is the disclosure of criminal conduct committed by persons in authority something prosecutors should "discourage"?
Charlie Savage & Emmarie Hutteman, [Julian Assange?] "Manning Sentenced to 35 Years For a Pivotal Leak of U.S. Files," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A1. (Bradley Manning revealed heinous U.S. war crimes for which action he received a harsher sentence than most murderers in military courts. The average convicted murderer serves 15 years in prison before release. Manning was sentenced to 30 years and will almost certainly serve all of that time.)
Melissa Eddy, "At Dachau, Merkel Warns of Extremism," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A11. (The rise of Right-wing fanaticism in Europe compares to U.S. phenomena.)
Jack Healy, "Defense Tries to Soften Image of Soldier Who Killed 16," The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A13. (Staff Sgt. Robert Bales killed many innocent persons, but is not a homosexual nor a transgendered person. As a result, the Defense Department -- and not only his lawyers -- is seeking to "minimize" Mr. Bale's "peccadillos." What the hell? Boys will be boys. Bradley -- a.k.a. "Chelsea" -- Manning is not so fortunate as to receive Defense Department protection after revealing irrefutable evidence of U.S. war crimes. Mr. Bales has received a 30 years to life sentence which will allow for parole after 30 years. This amounts to slightly more than 2 years per person killed.)
"Bradley Manning's Sentence is Excessive," (Editorial) The New York Times, August 22, 2013, p. A26.
"The 35-year sentence a military judge imposed [upon] Pfc. Bradley Manning Wednesday morning is in some sense a vindication of his defense: following his conviction last month on charges of violating the Espionage Act, Private Manning faced up to 90 years in prison. He had previously pleaded guilty to lesser versions of those crimes that exposed him to 20 years behind bars. For a defense lawyer, [who doesn't have to do the time!] not a bad outcome. But from where we sit, it is still too much, given his stated desire not to betray his country[,] but to encourage debate on American aims and shed light on the 'day-to-day' realities of the American war effort."
Private Manning's sentence is harsh and excessive, cruel and unusual so as to be violative of the Constitution. More worrisome, however, than the length of the sentence is the disproportion and, hence, inequality of treatment suggesting bias based on gender-identity and sexual-orientation in violation of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. _____ (2013). (The so-called "gay marriage" case.)
At page 25 of the slip opinion and elsewhere in Windsor, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that, where the state "demeans" a person because of same-sexual orientation and ignores his or her human "dignity," the "equal protection" of the laws is OFFENDED and the victim's "liberty" under the due process clause is VIOLATED. These are powerful words with wide scope in American Supreme Court jurisprudence. ("Is there a gay marriage right?" and "Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution.")
One reason for the excessive sentence for Pfc. Bradley Manning is his identity: not something that he has done, but what he is. This basis for sentencing decisions is clearly unconstitutional in addition to the "cruel and unusual" aspect of the sentence. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
There is an even more disturbing aspect to this sentence, however, because the anger of the U.S. government is motivated by the content of the revelations to Wikileaks (which were first offered to, and rejected by, the Times and The Washington Post). There are First Amendment issues as well. Will Mr. Manning's experiences "chill" First Amendment rights for all others? I suspect so.
The videos and other materials released to the world clearly "depict" U.S. war crimes. A good soldier is enjoined by the military code of conduct not simply to refrain from committing war crimes, but to report such crimes and, if necessary, to make them public. Please remember the Mai Lay massacre and Pentagon Papers cases.
The grainy quality of computer game-like videos of U.S. pilots shooting unarmed civilians were duplicated in the hit film "Elysium." (''Elysium': A Movie Review.")
" ... much of what Private Manning released was of public value, including a video of a military helicopter shooting at two vans and killing civilians, including two Reuters journalists."
Soldiers MURDERING innocent Iraquis and Afghans, soldiers who are not gay and do not embarrass officers and politicians, get a slap on the wrist. Bradley Manning is looking at an effective life sentence for telling the truth about U.S. war crimes.
Providing irrefutable evidence of indifference to human life and crimes against humanity, based on racism, by entire branches of the military, lies, cover-ups, incompetence and stupidity is treated much more harshly by military courts than murder of innocent civilians. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
I have established, conclusively, the existence of unethical conduct by N.J.'s legal establishment and judiciary which is why efforts to cover-up the crimes committed against me persist along with hypocritical pronouncements by Garden State officials about my "ethics." These pronouncements have become "laughable" in the world, thanks to the Internet. ("New Jersey's Unethical Judiciary" and "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit" then "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics.")
"In their attempt to put Private Manning away for most of the rest of his life, prosecutors were also trying to DISCOURAGE other potential leakers, but as the continuing release of classified documents by Edward Snowden shows, even the threat of significant prison time is not a deterrent when people believe their government keeps too many [convenient] secrets." (emphasis added!)
Is the disclosure of criminal conduct committed by persons in authority something prosecutors should "discourage"?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Glen Greenwald's Partner Detained.
August 22, 2013 at 9:17 A.M. Despite great obstacles I was able to post this text from a public computer yesterday. I expected far worse, but only a single line was altered in terms of the size of the lettering of this text. I expect additional and continuing defacements of this essay in the days ahead. I also anticipate further censorship and cybercrime efforts directed against me or anything that I write. I regret that due to all the interference and obstacles to my writing, my review of "Elysium" is proceeding slowly. I will do my best to repair the harm done to this work.
August 21, 2013 at 8:45 A.M. I attempted to sign-in this morning at my lap-top computer in order to continue working on my review of "Elysium." My Internet connection was blocked -- despite the fact that I purchased and installed new equipment from Time/Warner that should preclude these experiences.
This is, of course, unless the service provider is required to "cooperate" (as the Guardian newspaper was required to "cooperate" with destruction of their hard drives) with those obstructing my connection for some reason. These obstructions reveal government involvement in crimes committed against me. ("How censorship works in America.")
I can only surmise that obstructions such as I experienced this morning -- this is censorship that affects others beside myself -- is based on the content of my opinions and ideas. The First Amendment's core notion that political and philosophical speech should be immune from government suppression or control seems to be a casualty of the "War on Terror." The loss of my fundamental Constitutional and moral rights is the potential loss of all other persons' rights in America.
Disdain and disregard for my family members and ALL recipients of these texts, the use of my concern for their pain and suffering or welfare as a means of pressuring or intimidating me, is worthy of Stalin. For as long as I am able to do so, I will continue to write from some location in this city. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Psychological torture and government use of terror tactics has come to define America today as a frightened and, therefore, oppressive state in flight from its core principles of law. U.S. intolerance of intelligence and dissent is something new under the sun. Anyone with a child must be frightened for the future. Persons subjected to psychological and other tortures in our world are terrified about what may come next.
I will struggle to continue writing. Please beware that, at any time, my essays may simply fail to appear or will be destroyed. They have already been stolen on more than one occasion. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Chris Buckley, "China Takes Aim at Western Ideas," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A1. (The explicitly voiced concern with Western "Nihilism" is very interesting. The philosophical appeal of forms of hermeneutic theory in China is fascinating.)
Erin Banco, "Suicides Worry Experts at Big Jail in Capitol," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A11. (Growing numbers of suicides in response to conditions that can only be described as forms of psychological torture akin to concentration camp status: "Foucault, Rose, Davis, and the Meanings of Prison" and "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
Steven Erlanger, "Britons Question Whether Detention of Reporter's Partner Was Terror-Related," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A6. (Article featured a subtle anti-gay slur in a "confusion of gender" terminology by which Mr. Greenwald, perhaps, was referred to, first, as "he"; second, as "she." This point has not been noticed by commentators on the controversy: " ... Mr. Greenwald said that he needed material from Ms. Poitras for articles he was working on related to the N.S.A., and that he had things she needed." The ambiguities in this sentence -- does "he" refer to Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald, Ms. Poitras, or does "she" refer to any or all of these persons -- may be read as an insult to Mr. Greenwald and to all gay men. I believe the ambiguity is deliberate.)
Charlie Savage, "N.S.A. Calls Violations of Privacy 'Miniscule,'" The New York Times, August 17, 2013, p. A12. (Gathering personal information about persons from all over the world is "miniscule.")
Charlie Savage & Michael Schuritz, "Britain Detains the Partner Of a Reporter Tied to Links," The New York Times, August 19, 2013, p. A4. (U.S. asks Britain to detain and harass a dissident journalist's partner.)
Charlie Savage, "Facial Scanning Is Making Gains In Surveillance," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A1. (Facial recognition spyware, which is subject to much inaccuracy, will be used to scan crowds for "suspicious" faces, few of which will be caucasian.)
Steven Erlanger, "British Newspaper Has Advantages in Battle With Government Over Secrets," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A6. (The Guardian forced to destroy hard drives with DUPLICATED Snowden-provided information.)
Yesterday evening on Anderson Cooper's program on CNN (a show appropriately entitled "Anderson Cooper"), Mr. Jeffrey Toobin (a spokesperson for America's legal establishment whose prose sometimes appears in The New Yorker), commented that Mr. Miranda was a possible "mule." Hence, the British government's actions could be reasonable or justifiable.
This statement by Mr. Toobin is false on its face in terms of he applicable British law. I was shocked that this word "mule," which is associated with drug curriers for the major cartels, was allowed to go unchallenged by other participants in this conversation.
A mule is an expendable member of a criminal organization "used" to carry something dangerous. As a criminal once said to me, there are people who will carry a live grenade -- with the pin pulled -- for a small fee, or out of fear.
However, a "mule" is also an anti-gay slur to describe a man who enjoys anal penetration. I doubt that Mr. Toobin was fully aware of this connotation, but whoever supplied the talking point to him (I am sure that someone did) is likely to have been quite well aware of what Mr. Toobin was being made to say.
Like every Latino in the audience, I was appallled at the insult of Mr. Miranda. I am also doubtful that, if Mr. Greenwald's partner were named, say, John Roberts, he would have been dismissed so casually as a "mule."
Mr. Toobin used the word "mule" about ten times in a conversation that lasted a few minutes. Perhaps the term was supplied to Mr. Toobin by a friend from South Beach, Miami, or in Florida's G.O.P. circles. The terminology is common in criminal courtrooms in states with major drug problems, like Florida, but less easily recognized elsewhere. What is all of this about?
"David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian citizen and partner of the American journalist [and attorney] Glen Greenwald, who lives in Brazil was held Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport for nine hours; the maximum allowed by law, before being released without charge. He said Monday that all of his electronic equipment, including his lap-top computer and cellphone, had been confiscated."
Confiscated for what reason? On the basis of what crime or charge was the property seized as evidence? Was Mr. Miranda COMPENSATED financially for his material property loss and emotional suffering, for the loss of liberty or effects of what amounts to a kidnapping by the police, since he was not asked about terrorism, which is the only basis under British law for such a detention? Was the American government, despite its denials, behind this brutal and offensive incident aimed at intimidating or "paying back" Mr. Greenwald for his reporting?
Along with most British people questioned about this matter, I believe that this detention, far from being a mistake or sound police work based on a suspicion of Mr. Miranda being a "mule" for the drug cartels (which would be irrelevant under the terrorism law), or an agent of Chinese intelligence, is a blatant attempt to intimidate a dissident.
Much the same may be said, for example, of attempts to harm the daughter of a man writing Internet essays detailing corruption in an American jurisdiction and the criminality of the tortures at Guantanamo. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System" then "American Doctors and Torture.")
This ugly episode in London may also be an attempt to shape future journalism by Mr. Greenwald in order to make future writings "friendlier" to the U.S. government. The effect on Mr. Greenwald may be the opposite of what the government intends.
Mr. Greenwald must take care NOT to allow understandable anger, outrage, and disgust at this treatment of his loved-one who is an innocent person, not a British or U.S. citizen, to affect Mr. Greenwald's public statements (which may have been another goal here for the forces of darkness) because the U.S. government will seek to dismiss any subsequent journalism that "he" produces, whatever evidence supports "his" contentions, by claiming that the journalist is "biased" or a "hothead."
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald will be dismissed as "delusional" or "alcoholic." Objectivity in journalistic accounts of events is reserved for "Manohla Dargis" or "Jennifer Shuessler" (or other fictitious names) at the "Times," or for Mr. O'Reilly on something called: "FOX News."
A society that finds it necessary to frighten or harm innocent people, to alter or deform written texts, obstruct Internet connections in order to silence critics -- such a society has lost the moral high ground in the so-called "War on Terror" by using terror against its own people, including children and old people. By creating categories of "unpersons" (George Orwell), for all dissidents, America has diminished its once unique moral status and worth in the community of nations.
"The police said in a statement that Mr. Miranda, 28, had been lawfully detained under schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000, which allows them to stop and question people traveling through airports to determine whether they are involved in planning terrorist acts."
No one asked Mr. Miranda about "terrorist" acts. The length of the questioning may have -- and probably did -- allow for "suggestion" under hypnosis which Mr. Miranda would not necessarily realize or remember.
I suggest to this young man, Mr. Miranda, that he be on the look-out for telltale signs of "interrogational hypnosis" or "interrogational drugging" (especially if he was given food or drink during his nine hours) that may emerge over the next few days or weeks. (See the sources listed in the introduction to "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Mr. Greenwald has probably been subjected to monitoring of various kinds and will experience much worse in the weeks and months ahead. Like Mr. Greenwald, I am sure, I prefer to endure attacks myself rather than to see innocent loved-ones suffer or be subjected to torture. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "Legal Ethics Today.")
I fear that Mr. Greenwald may face legal ethics charges soon if he is not already dealing with an ethics investigation by the American Bar Association.
August 21, 2013 at 8:45 A.M. I attempted to sign-in this morning at my lap-top computer in order to continue working on my review of "Elysium." My Internet connection was blocked -- despite the fact that I purchased and installed new equipment from Time/Warner that should preclude these experiences.
This is, of course, unless the service provider is required to "cooperate" (as the Guardian newspaper was required to "cooperate" with destruction of their hard drives) with those obstructing my connection for some reason. These obstructions reveal government involvement in crimes committed against me. ("How censorship works in America.")
I can only surmise that obstructions such as I experienced this morning -- this is censorship that affects others beside myself -- is based on the content of my opinions and ideas. The First Amendment's core notion that political and philosophical speech should be immune from government suppression or control seems to be a casualty of the "War on Terror." The loss of my fundamental Constitutional and moral rights is the potential loss of all other persons' rights in America.
Disdain and disregard for my family members and ALL recipients of these texts, the use of my concern for their pain and suffering or welfare as a means of pressuring or intimidating me, is worthy of Stalin. For as long as I am able to do so, I will continue to write from some location in this city. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Psychological torture and government use of terror tactics has come to define America today as a frightened and, therefore, oppressive state in flight from its core principles of law. U.S. intolerance of intelligence and dissent is something new under the sun. Anyone with a child must be frightened for the future. Persons subjected to psychological and other tortures in our world are terrified about what may come next.
I will struggle to continue writing. Please beware that, at any time, my essays may simply fail to appear or will be destroyed. They have already been stolen on more than one occasion. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Chris Buckley, "China Takes Aim at Western Ideas," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A1. (The explicitly voiced concern with Western "Nihilism" is very interesting. The philosophical appeal of forms of hermeneutic theory in China is fascinating.)
Erin Banco, "Suicides Worry Experts at Big Jail in Capitol," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A11. (Growing numbers of suicides in response to conditions that can only be described as forms of psychological torture akin to concentration camp status: "Foucault, Rose, Davis, and the Meanings of Prison" and "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
Steven Erlanger, "Britons Question Whether Detention of Reporter's Partner Was Terror-Related," The New York Times, August 20, 2013, p. A6. (Article featured a subtle anti-gay slur in a "confusion of gender" terminology by which Mr. Greenwald, perhaps, was referred to, first, as "he"; second, as "she." This point has not been noticed by commentators on the controversy: " ... Mr. Greenwald said that he needed material from Ms. Poitras for articles he was working on related to the N.S.A., and that he had things she needed." The ambiguities in this sentence -- does "he" refer to Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald, Ms. Poitras, or does "she" refer to any or all of these persons -- may be read as an insult to Mr. Greenwald and to all gay men. I believe the ambiguity is deliberate.)
Charlie Savage, "N.S.A. Calls Violations of Privacy 'Miniscule,'" The New York Times, August 17, 2013, p. A12. (Gathering personal information about persons from all over the world is "miniscule.")
Charlie Savage & Michael Schuritz, "Britain Detains the Partner Of a Reporter Tied to Links," The New York Times, August 19, 2013, p. A4. (U.S. asks Britain to detain and harass a dissident journalist's partner.)
Charlie Savage, "Facial Scanning Is Making Gains In Surveillance," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A1. (Facial recognition spyware, which is subject to much inaccuracy, will be used to scan crowds for "suspicious" faces, few of which will be caucasian.)
Steven Erlanger, "British Newspaper Has Advantages in Battle With Government Over Secrets," The New York Times, August 21, 2013, p. A6. (The Guardian forced to destroy hard drives with DUPLICATED Snowden-provided information.)
Yesterday evening on Anderson Cooper's program on CNN (a show appropriately entitled "Anderson Cooper"), Mr. Jeffrey Toobin (a spokesperson for America's legal establishment whose prose sometimes appears in The New Yorker), commented that Mr. Miranda was a possible "mule." Hence, the British government's actions could be reasonable or justifiable.
This statement by Mr. Toobin is false on its face in terms of he applicable British law. I was shocked that this word "mule," which is associated with drug curriers for the major cartels, was allowed to go unchallenged by other participants in this conversation.
A mule is an expendable member of a criminal organization "used" to carry something dangerous. As a criminal once said to me, there are people who will carry a live grenade -- with the pin pulled -- for a small fee, or out of fear.
However, a "mule" is also an anti-gay slur to describe a man who enjoys anal penetration. I doubt that Mr. Toobin was fully aware of this connotation, but whoever supplied the talking point to him (I am sure that someone did) is likely to have been quite well aware of what Mr. Toobin was being made to say.
Like every Latino in the audience, I was appallled at the insult of Mr. Miranda. I am also doubtful that, if Mr. Greenwald's partner were named, say, John Roberts, he would have been dismissed so casually as a "mule."
Mr. Toobin used the word "mule" about ten times in a conversation that lasted a few minutes. Perhaps the term was supplied to Mr. Toobin by a friend from South Beach, Miami, or in Florida's G.O.P. circles. The terminology is common in criminal courtrooms in states with major drug problems, like Florida, but less easily recognized elsewhere. What is all of this about?
"David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian citizen and partner of the American journalist [and attorney] Glen Greenwald, who lives in Brazil was held Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport for nine hours; the maximum allowed by law, before being released without charge. He said Monday that all of his electronic equipment, including his lap-top computer and cellphone, had been confiscated."
Confiscated for what reason? On the basis of what crime or charge was the property seized as evidence? Was Mr. Miranda COMPENSATED financially for his material property loss and emotional suffering, for the loss of liberty or effects of what amounts to a kidnapping by the police, since he was not asked about terrorism, which is the only basis under British law for such a detention? Was the American government, despite its denials, behind this brutal and offensive incident aimed at intimidating or "paying back" Mr. Greenwald for his reporting?
Along with most British people questioned about this matter, I believe that this detention, far from being a mistake or sound police work based on a suspicion of Mr. Miranda being a "mule" for the drug cartels (which would be irrelevant under the terrorism law), or an agent of Chinese intelligence, is a blatant attempt to intimidate a dissident.
Much the same may be said, for example, of attempts to harm the daughter of a man writing Internet essays detailing corruption in an American jurisdiction and the criminality of the tortures at Guantanamo. ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System" then "American Doctors and Torture.")
This ugly episode in London may also be an attempt to shape future journalism by Mr. Greenwald in order to make future writings "friendlier" to the U.S. government. The effect on Mr. Greenwald may be the opposite of what the government intends.
Mr. Greenwald must take care NOT to allow understandable anger, outrage, and disgust at this treatment of his loved-one who is an innocent person, not a British or U.S. citizen, to affect Mr. Greenwald's public statements (which may have been another goal here for the forces of darkness) because the U.S. government will seek to dismiss any subsequent journalism that "he" produces, whatever evidence supports "his" contentions, by claiming that the journalist is "biased" or a "hothead."
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald will be dismissed as "delusional" or "alcoholic." Objectivity in journalistic accounts of events is reserved for "Manohla Dargis" or "Jennifer Shuessler" (or other fictitious names) at the "Times," or for Mr. O'Reilly on something called: "FOX News."
A society that finds it necessary to frighten or harm innocent people, to alter or deform written texts, obstruct Internet connections in order to silence critics -- such a society has lost the moral high ground in the so-called "War on Terror" by using terror against its own people, including children and old people. By creating categories of "unpersons" (George Orwell), for all dissidents, America has diminished its once unique moral status and worth in the community of nations.
"The police said in a statement that Mr. Miranda, 28, had been lawfully detained under schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000, which allows them to stop and question people traveling through airports to determine whether they are involved in planning terrorist acts."
No one asked Mr. Miranda about "terrorist" acts. The length of the questioning may have -- and probably did -- allow for "suggestion" under hypnosis which Mr. Miranda would not necessarily realize or remember.
I suggest to this young man, Mr. Miranda, that he be on the look-out for telltale signs of "interrogational hypnosis" or "interrogational drugging" (especially if he was given food or drink during his nine hours) that may emerge over the next few days or weeks. (See the sources listed in the introduction to "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
Mr. Greenwald has probably been subjected to monitoring of various kinds and will experience much worse in the weeks and months ahead. Like Mr. Greenwald, I am sure, I prefer to endure attacks myself rather than to see innocent loved-ones suffer or be subjected to torture. ("Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "Legal Ethics Today.")
I fear that Mr. Greenwald may face legal ethics charges soon if he is not already dealing with an ethics investigation by the American Bar Association.
Friday, August 16, 2013
"Before I know myself seek not to know me."
August 19, 2013 at 1:23 P.M. A new practice in Manhattan is to hire young women as waitresses (or hostesses) in order to slip a little something into their drinks. Told that "they have to" participate in this ritual because "everyone does it," young women are placed in great danger, exploited, damaged in so many ways. Some of these young women do not make it home or to safety.
Please direct all hostilities to me, New Jersey, not to any members of my family. ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")
Ben Protess & Jessica Silver Greenberg, "Charges Against 2 Traders Fault JP Morgan for Lack of Oversight," The New York Times, August 15, 2013, p. A1. (If you believe that the JP Morgan story and the Wall Street crisis it symbolizes comes down to 2 middle-level London traders, you are sadly mistaken. These "two-bit players" did not write our play, entitled: "The Financial Crisis in Wall Street and the World.")
Jessica Shuessler, "Much Ado About Who: Is it Really Shakespeare?," The New York Times, August 13, 2013, p. A1. ("Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question" and "Shakespeare's Black Prince.")
Peter Ackroyd, Shakespeare: The Biography (New York: Random House, 2005).
Anthony Burgess, Nothing Like the Sun: A Story of Shakespeare's Love Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 1964).
Anthony Burgess, Shakespeare (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1970).
John Banville, The Sea (New York & London: Vintage International-Penguin, 2005). (Along with Iris Murdoch's original, this tribute novel to Shakespeare's "Tempest" and to Ms. Murdoch's masterpiece -- listed below -- won the Booker Prize. "John Banville's 'The Newton Letter'" and "Martha Nussbaum, Iris Murdoch, and the Philosophy of Love.")
John Banville, Ancient Light (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012).
Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare: After All (New York: Pantheon, 2004).
Colin McGinn, Shakespeare's Philosophy (New York & London: Harper-Perennial, 2006), pp. 134-156, pp. 199-205.
David Mikics, Who Was Jacques Derrida?: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2009).
Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea (London: Penguin, 1978). (Genius.)
A.L. Rowse, Shakespeare: The Man (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 175, et passim.
Adam Shatz, "Not in the Mood," The London Review of Books, 22 November, 2012, p. 11. (Reviewing Benoit Peeters, Derrida: A Biography (London: Polity, 2012), 629 pages.)
Rene Weiss, Shakespeare Unbound: Decoding a Hidden Life (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2007), entirety.
"To tell thee plain, I aim to lie with thee ..."
Genius disconcerts us. We are baffled -- or infuriated in some strange cases -- by persons who see the world differently from the rest of us. The sheer dazzle of the authorial intelligence that glosses a passage of text rendering it infinitely more meaningful than we thought possible, the ability to twist a tired phrase into an original aphorism, unique gifts of empathy and imagination remake the world for everyone.
Genius is the fire of the gods stolen by Prometheus and bestowed upon a (sometimes) grateful humanity that, nevertheless, continues to seek understanding of what will always transcend all understanding. ("Why philosophy is for everybody.")
We are so enraptured by this gift that we seek it everywhere and, when we find it in some unexpected person, we struggle to possess or imprison that person in order to own this special magic.
Much the same is true of beauty's intoxicating and dangerous power for some envious observers -- notably, many women. "Mirror, mirror on the wall ..." ("'Diamonds Are Forever': A Movie Review.")
We feel that genius cannot belong to the powerless and poor, to those strange persons who do not share our world view in the centers of privilege of society, never to those "slovenly" persons who are "not normal." Genius, by definition, is NOT NORMAL.
We cannot accept this simple truth. The perspective of genius is ultimately "other" than, or different from, the norm.
The search for Shakespeare's hand in everything from Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy to plays written several centuries after the Stratford Man's death is, partly, the result of the mystery and fascination that gathers around that magic name associated with the richest texts in our language, "Shakespeare."
In commenting on Shakespeare's final play that contains the poet's admonition to posterity concerning these very issues, Colin McGinn notes:
"It is sometimes wondered why Shakespeare called his play 'The Tempest,' when the storm that begins the play is such a small part of its content. I would suggest that the term refers to the storm of speech that constitutes the play -- which, indeed, constitutes so much of human life. We live surrounded by a storm of human words, assailed and buffeted by language. Words can be menacing and dangerous, oppressive and noisy, as well as suspiciously seductive. And we as much need relief and protection from the tempest of language as we do from a literal tempest -- we need the silence that is the absence of both." (McGinn, p. 136.)
Shakespeare has broken his staff and drowned his books. He is no longer among us in fleshly form. We cannot interview him with a tape recorder, he will not chat for an hour with "Oprah," whereas so many others -- who are far from interesting or unusual -- do so every day, sometimes repeating their performances for someone called, "Melissa Harris-Perry."
As a result, because we need to know so much more about him, we must find or create Shakespeare's shadow, often in the least likely places, including controversies surrounding the authorship of lesser works he may have glanced at and touched-up for a friend, or for a bob or two, or in exchange for a pint at a local tavern, or some more salacious motive:
" ... 'The arguments for The Spanish Tragedy are better than for most putative Shakespeare collaborations,' Mr. Stern said. 'But I think we're going a bit Shakespeare-attribution crazy and shoving a lot of stuff in that maybe shouldn't be there.' ..."
"Stay, Go, My Love, Do What You Will."
Undefined in the Times article is the notion of "authorship," and whether the concept of authorship used in literary studies conflicts with the concept as it is defined in intellectual property law, historical scholarship, or for that matter in hermeneutic theory as distinct from anthropology. ("Michael Foucault and the Authorship Question.")
Whether Shakespeare "contributed" a line or two to Master Kyd's tragedy (it is debatable whether they actually "met") is irrelevant to the authorship question. Significantly, this scratching out of a few pence to improve someone else's writing is hardly the sort of thing one can imagine the Earl of Oxford doing.
His "Lorship" (the Earl of Oxford) had the equivalent of a million dollars a year and was not likely to sigh over being "in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes."
Everybody kissed the aristocratic ass of the Earl of Oxford even as they were quite prepared to kick William Shakespeare in his unroyal and even middle class behind that lacked an Oxbridge degree. In the words of Mr. Greene: "This 'Shakescene'" -- obviously, a pun on Shakespeare's name! -- "who thinks himself our equal," meaning the "equal" of university educated "gentlemen," was initially seen as an "upstart." (Rowse, pp. 11, 38, 40, 59-61, 118, 168, 176, 245.)
This is to say nothing of the inconvenient fact that several of Shakespeare's late tragedies were composed AFTER the death of the Earl of Oxford. So much for the Oxfordians.
No doubt Shakespeare "knew" many players (actors) and writers (Marlowe, Johnson) -- who were often the same persons -- as a result of putting on plays in London's West End, hoping to avoid the Plague, occasional fires, the crown's displeasure (never mention Catholics if your dad may be one!), to say nothing of "greasing" (bribing) the possible critics and rival poets as well as taking care to avoid a strong dose of the clap -- which Shakespeare caught with alarming regularity from his friends in the brothels -- while still managing to charm the occasional Dark Lady that wandered before "the orbit of the poet's eye."
"I Shall Abjure Magic."
A friend comes along with a play that needs a little "fixing-up." This slight service by Shakespeare will be remembered and commemorated with a hearty meal and, possibly, introductions to several ladies with a fondness for poetry (and poets!), if only the golden pen of the Globe Theater can be persuaded to dip, as it were, into sparkling ink and improve this crappy play before it opens.
Maybe Will can do something with Act III? Throw in something sexy, maybe? Whatta-ya say, pal?
I am sure that Shakespeare succumbed to such entreaties, especially when made by a lady in a low-cut gown, perhaps, hired to bow very low when she made her plea for "rescuing." ("Serendipity, III" and "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Author.")
I have always suspected that Shakespeare helped Ben Johnson during some dry periods in Johnson's life -- perhaps during one of Johnson's numerous stays in Her Majesty's various prisons -- to complete writings that kept food on the table for his closest friend and those dependent on Johnson's genuine talent.
Does Falstaff bear some resemblance to good Ben Johnson? Is William Shakespeare (more than with most of his characters) also Prince Hal/Henry V?
The issue concerning the notorious "Spanish Tragedy" dates from centuries back. Close analysis of the text using forensic methods is also nothing new: Oscar Wilde's tracing of the dedication of the Sonnets to "Mr. W.H." -- identified by Wilde as a "boy actor" and probable "whore" who served Shakespeare as well as analogizing to some ladies of the night -- is a late nineteenth century product of what is now a vast industry devoted to uncovering clues, puzzles, tricks, blind alleys and labyrinths deliberately placed in his writings by Shakespeare who knew we would try to "find" him. (See Wilde's "The Portrait of Mr. W.H.")
Shakespeare did (and did not) wish to be found. If you can read, if you are not an idiot, he is waiting for you in those glorious texts, laughing and offering you a pint and a great story by the fire. If you are an idiot, he does not wish to know you and you will never find him. For this reason, as Borges said, he "is everyone and no one." Aren't we all?
There is no doubt that Shakespeare wrote plenty of unacknowledged texts for friends or money -- usually money -- including erotic verse for himself and others. Many of these writings are lost forever, tragically, some because Shakespeare intended them to be lost:
"The idea that Shakespeare may have written the additional passages -- which include a 'Hamlet-like scene of a grief-maddened father discoursing on the death of his son' -- was first broached in 1833 by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. But the claim remained a distinctly minority position well into the 20th century, even as scholars began using sophisticated computer software to detect subtle linguistic patterns that seemed to link the passages to Shakespeare's other work."
In every meaningful sense of the word, Shakespeare is not the "author" of "The Spanish Tragedy." However, he may have jazzed the play up a bit for a small fee. ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz.")
Perhaps what Shakespeare would say to us today is that his work was completed long ago and now belongs to all of us who love his words and, therefore, love him. I suspect that love from us, posterity, is what he really wanted -- and lots of money together with a "Gentleman's Coat of Arms" as well as some choice property in Stratford:
Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint. Now 'tis true
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got,
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;
And my ending is despair
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Please direct all hostilities to me, New Jersey, not to any members of my family. ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")
Ben Protess & Jessica Silver Greenberg, "Charges Against 2 Traders Fault JP Morgan for Lack of Oversight," The New York Times, August 15, 2013, p. A1. (If you believe that the JP Morgan story and the Wall Street crisis it symbolizes comes down to 2 middle-level London traders, you are sadly mistaken. These "two-bit players" did not write our play, entitled: "The Financial Crisis in Wall Street and the World.")
Jessica Shuessler, "Much Ado About Who: Is it Really Shakespeare?," The New York Times, August 13, 2013, p. A1. ("Michel Foucault and the Authorship Question" and "Shakespeare's Black Prince.")
Peter Ackroyd, Shakespeare: The Biography (New York: Random House, 2005).
Anthony Burgess, Nothing Like the Sun: A Story of Shakespeare's Love Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 1964).
Anthony Burgess, Shakespeare (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1970).
John Banville, The Sea (New York & London: Vintage International-Penguin, 2005). (Along with Iris Murdoch's original, this tribute novel to Shakespeare's "Tempest" and to Ms. Murdoch's masterpiece -- listed below -- won the Booker Prize. "John Banville's 'The Newton Letter'" and "Martha Nussbaum, Iris Murdoch, and the Philosophy of Love.")
John Banville, Ancient Light (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012).
Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare: After All (New York: Pantheon, 2004).
Colin McGinn, Shakespeare's Philosophy (New York & London: Harper-Perennial, 2006), pp. 134-156, pp. 199-205.
David Mikics, Who Was Jacques Derrida?: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2009).
Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea (London: Penguin, 1978). (Genius.)
A.L. Rowse, Shakespeare: The Man (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 175, et passim.
Adam Shatz, "Not in the Mood," The London Review of Books, 22 November, 2012, p. 11. (Reviewing Benoit Peeters, Derrida: A Biography (London: Polity, 2012), 629 pages.)
Rene Weiss, Shakespeare Unbound: Decoding a Hidden Life (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2007), entirety.
"To tell thee plain, I aim to lie with thee ..."
Genius disconcerts us. We are baffled -- or infuriated in some strange cases -- by persons who see the world differently from the rest of us. The sheer dazzle of the authorial intelligence that glosses a passage of text rendering it infinitely more meaningful than we thought possible, the ability to twist a tired phrase into an original aphorism, unique gifts of empathy and imagination remake the world for everyone.
Genius is the fire of the gods stolen by Prometheus and bestowed upon a (sometimes) grateful humanity that, nevertheless, continues to seek understanding of what will always transcend all understanding. ("Why philosophy is for everybody.")
We are so enraptured by this gift that we seek it everywhere and, when we find it in some unexpected person, we struggle to possess or imprison that person in order to own this special magic.
Much the same is true of beauty's intoxicating and dangerous power for some envious observers -- notably, many women. "Mirror, mirror on the wall ..." ("'Diamonds Are Forever': A Movie Review.")
We feel that genius cannot belong to the powerless and poor, to those strange persons who do not share our world view in the centers of privilege of society, never to those "slovenly" persons who are "not normal." Genius, by definition, is NOT NORMAL.
We cannot accept this simple truth. The perspective of genius is ultimately "other" than, or different from, the norm.
The search for Shakespeare's hand in everything from Thomas Kyd's Spanish Tragedy to plays written several centuries after the Stratford Man's death is, partly, the result of the mystery and fascination that gathers around that magic name associated with the richest texts in our language, "Shakespeare."
In commenting on Shakespeare's final play that contains the poet's admonition to posterity concerning these very issues, Colin McGinn notes:
"It is sometimes wondered why Shakespeare called his play 'The Tempest,' when the storm that begins the play is such a small part of its content. I would suggest that the term refers to the storm of speech that constitutes the play -- which, indeed, constitutes so much of human life. We live surrounded by a storm of human words, assailed and buffeted by language. Words can be menacing and dangerous, oppressive and noisy, as well as suspiciously seductive. And we as much need relief and protection from the tempest of language as we do from a literal tempest -- we need the silence that is the absence of both." (McGinn, p. 136.)
Shakespeare has broken his staff and drowned his books. He is no longer among us in fleshly form. We cannot interview him with a tape recorder, he will not chat for an hour with "Oprah," whereas so many others -- who are far from interesting or unusual -- do so every day, sometimes repeating their performances for someone called, "Melissa Harris-Perry."
As a result, because we need to know so much more about him, we must find or create Shakespeare's shadow, often in the least likely places, including controversies surrounding the authorship of lesser works he may have glanced at and touched-up for a friend, or for a bob or two, or in exchange for a pint at a local tavern, or some more salacious motive:
" ... 'The arguments for The Spanish Tragedy are better than for most putative Shakespeare collaborations,' Mr. Stern said. 'But I think we're going a bit Shakespeare-attribution crazy and shoving a lot of stuff in that maybe shouldn't be there.' ..."
"Stay, Go, My Love, Do What You Will."
Undefined in the Times article is the notion of "authorship," and whether the concept of authorship used in literary studies conflicts with the concept as it is defined in intellectual property law, historical scholarship, or for that matter in hermeneutic theory as distinct from anthropology. ("Michael Foucault and the Authorship Question.")
Whether Shakespeare "contributed" a line or two to Master Kyd's tragedy (it is debatable whether they actually "met") is irrelevant to the authorship question. Significantly, this scratching out of a few pence to improve someone else's writing is hardly the sort of thing one can imagine the Earl of Oxford doing.
His "Lorship" (the Earl of Oxford) had the equivalent of a million dollars a year and was not likely to sigh over being "in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes."
Everybody kissed the aristocratic ass of the Earl of Oxford even as they were quite prepared to kick William Shakespeare in his unroyal and even middle class behind that lacked an Oxbridge degree. In the words of Mr. Greene: "This 'Shakescene'" -- obviously, a pun on Shakespeare's name! -- "who thinks himself our equal," meaning the "equal" of university educated "gentlemen," was initially seen as an "upstart." (Rowse, pp. 11, 38, 40, 59-61, 118, 168, 176, 245.)
This is to say nothing of the inconvenient fact that several of Shakespeare's late tragedies were composed AFTER the death of the Earl of Oxford. So much for the Oxfordians.
No doubt Shakespeare "knew" many players (actors) and writers (Marlowe, Johnson) -- who were often the same persons -- as a result of putting on plays in London's West End, hoping to avoid the Plague, occasional fires, the crown's displeasure (never mention Catholics if your dad may be one!), to say nothing of "greasing" (bribing) the possible critics and rival poets as well as taking care to avoid a strong dose of the clap -- which Shakespeare caught with alarming regularity from his friends in the brothels -- while still managing to charm the occasional Dark Lady that wandered before "the orbit of the poet's eye."
"I Shall Abjure Magic."
A friend comes along with a play that needs a little "fixing-up." This slight service by Shakespeare will be remembered and commemorated with a hearty meal and, possibly, introductions to several ladies with a fondness for poetry (and poets!), if only the golden pen of the Globe Theater can be persuaded to dip, as it were, into sparkling ink and improve this crappy play before it opens.
Maybe Will can do something with Act III? Throw in something sexy, maybe? Whatta-ya say, pal?
I am sure that Shakespeare succumbed to such entreaties, especially when made by a lady in a low-cut gown, perhaps, hired to bow very low when she made her plea for "rescuing." ("Serendipity, III" and "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Author.")
I have always suspected that Shakespeare helped Ben Johnson during some dry periods in Johnson's life -- perhaps during one of Johnson's numerous stays in Her Majesty's various prisons -- to complete writings that kept food on the table for his closest friend and those dependent on Johnson's genuine talent.
Does Falstaff bear some resemblance to good Ben Johnson? Is William Shakespeare (more than with most of his characters) also Prince Hal/Henry V?
The issue concerning the notorious "Spanish Tragedy" dates from centuries back. Close analysis of the text using forensic methods is also nothing new: Oscar Wilde's tracing of the dedication of the Sonnets to "Mr. W.H." -- identified by Wilde as a "boy actor" and probable "whore" who served Shakespeare as well as analogizing to some ladies of the night -- is a late nineteenth century product of what is now a vast industry devoted to uncovering clues, puzzles, tricks, blind alleys and labyrinths deliberately placed in his writings by Shakespeare who knew we would try to "find" him. (See Wilde's "The Portrait of Mr. W.H.")
Shakespeare did (and did not) wish to be found. If you can read, if you are not an idiot, he is waiting for you in those glorious texts, laughing and offering you a pint and a great story by the fire. If you are an idiot, he does not wish to know you and you will never find him. For this reason, as Borges said, he "is everyone and no one." Aren't we all?
There is no doubt that Shakespeare wrote plenty of unacknowledged texts for friends or money -- usually money -- including erotic verse for himself and others. Many of these writings are lost forever, tragically, some because Shakespeare intended them to be lost:
"The idea that Shakespeare may have written the additional passages -- which include a 'Hamlet-like scene of a grief-maddened father discoursing on the death of his son' -- was first broached in 1833 by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. But the claim remained a distinctly minority position well into the 20th century, even as scholars began using sophisticated computer software to detect subtle linguistic patterns that seemed to link the passages to Shakespeare's other work."
In every meaningful sense of the word, Shakespeare is not the "author" of "The Spanish Tragedy." However, he may have jazzed the play up a bit for a small fee. ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz.")
Perhaps what Shakespeare would say to us today is that his work was completed long ago and now belongs to all of us who love his words and, therefore, love him. I suspect that love from us, posterity, is what he really wanted -- and lots of money together with a "Gentleman's Coat of Arms" as well as some choice property in Stratford:
Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint. Now 'tis true
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got,
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant;
And my ending is despair
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)