June 22, 2013 at 11:34 A.M. I am in receipt of a letter that purports to come from William de Blasio's Office of the Public Advocate in New York, signed by "Mr. Nicholas Gatto." I suspect that Mr. Gatto is also "Kimberly Zalazar" of the New York Consumer Protection Agency. The letter was addressed by hand, bearing Postage Meter #041L11236097. I do not know and cannot say why the Public Advocate would use a Law Department or N.J. Office of Attorney Ethics Postage Meter number. The postmark is June 19, 2013, zone 10001.
New Jersey's hackers have taken to altering the typeface in these posts in an effort to deface the texts in violation of copyright laws and the Constitution. The effect has been to emphasize, helpfully, a number of points that I am making. Thank you, New Jersey's OAE. Keep up the good work. You are proving my point.
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Mr. Nicholas Gatto
c/o William de Blasio, Public Advocate
Office of the Public Advocate
1 Centre Street
New York, N.Y. 10007
tel. 212-669-7200
Dear Mr. "Gatto":
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 18, 2013. You state that you have received my request for assistance, but "due to incorrect contact information, we [the Public Advocate] have not been able to pursue it."
This is puzzling since your office was able to contact me, successfully, at my home address by means of this very letter signed by "Nicholas Gatto." Also, a number of other government agencies, state and federal, are successfully pursuing this matter against CCA-EOS.
My address and telephone number are already in your possession and appear below. Furthermore, you have used this information to contact me and will now receive my response.
In the event that political interference of any kind is generating these difficulties, I will post on-line my letter responding to your request for information.
My matter cannot be closed since your office is bound by statute to investigate matters "in good faith." A resolution on the merits is called for in this investigation.
Please note that it is a criminal offense to impersonate a public official and a federal offense to use the U.S. mail to perpetuate the fraud.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Juan Galis-Menendez
cc: Cyrus R. Vance, District Attorney (w/encl. certif.).
Federal Bureau of Investigation (w/encl. certif.).
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Brave New World Revisited.
June 19, 2013 at 5:36 P.M. The printer at NYPL, Morningside Heights branch, was disabled. The usual harassments accompany my writing efforts today. Regrettably, many library patrons lost money and were unable to print their items. New Jersey, please note that I am not the only person using the library.
Charlie Savage & Scott Shane, "N.S.A. Leaker Denies Giving Secrets to China," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A5. (Mr. Snowden may have been stage-managed by Chinese intelligence agents without his realizing it.)
Michael Powell, "After Sexual Abuse, An Abuser is Silenced, Even Indicted," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A17. (Sam Knellner, 50, spoke out about Hasidic rabbi's abuse of his 16 year-old son, then tried to extort money from the abusers.)
Katherine Q. Seelye, "At Trial, Hit Man Says 'It Broke My Heart' to Learn Bulger Was an FBI Informer," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A11. (Joe Martorano, mass-murderer, does not approve of "informer" on criminals revealed by another informer on police activities for the mafia.)
Rebecca Baker, "Leonia Teen Charged in Sex Assault on Child, 3; Suspect in Firehouse Case Has Disabilities," The Record, June 17, 2013, p. A-1. (D.E. Levine engaged in molestation of 3 year-old boy: "So Black and So Blue in Prison" and "N.J. Rabbi Arrested For Child Molesting.")
Gina Kolata, "Poking Holes in Genetic Privacy; Research is Steadily Eroding Scientists' Faith That DNA Can be Held Anonymously," The New York Times, Science Times, June 18, 2013, p. D3. (Don't worry about your privacy.)
Lindy Washburn, "Doctor's Long Fight Brings Win From Justices: Ruling OKs Class Suits on Insurers," The Record, June 17, 2013, p. L-1. (" ... insurance company that wouldn't approve a $20.00 test for a toddler [doctor] feared might have a life-threatening disease" was sued, successfully, by an entire class of affected customers.)
Ariel Kaminski & Alain Delaquierre, "N.Y.U. Gives Its Stars Loans For Summer Homes," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A1. (I see why and how NYU people can be bribed to admit or reject candidates for graduate schools.)
Revelations during recent days of U.S. surveillance and data mining on-line are only the latest indication of the extent to which privacy rights have become a casualty of our post-9/11 National Security State and of the "progress" of technology.
Our communications are monitored, our medical histories and all other records of our lives become the illegal property of the state. The word "illegal" may simply not mean much any more.
Our preferences, tastes, values are tested and (sometimes) manufactured by marketers and advertisers. Some of us are subjected to drugging, hypnosis, and other forms of interrogational torture -- a fate that may well await Mr. Snowden! -- in the interest of something called "security."
Others are sheltered from criminal liability. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
I am far less worried about the potential threat from so-called "terror" than about government overreaching.
It is the fear of power concentrated in the hands of state officials -- often stupid and ignorant as well as corrupt officials (as in N.J.) -- that motivated the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to enshrine protections of individual dignity in a Bill of Rights. These rights have become a quaint reminder of a more innocent time in America and are today more honored in the breach than in the observance.
We are negligible statistics in the eyes of government officials in the post-9/11 age. Our rights, concerns, feelings, or our very lives may be sacrificed to a generalized fear of ostensible "terror" threats.
Little thought is given to what motivates the hostility to the U.S. in the world or to the consequences of abandoning so many American Constitutional liberties.
Sinclair Lewis, in a novel entitled It Can't Happen Here, imagined the arrival of totalitarianism in America "with a friendly smile." Our drift into fascism is based on the absurd desire for total safety from "foreign" threats and complete control over our environment. Neither of these desires -- or fantasies -- will ever be fully realized.
We are also unwilling to take a good look at the role that America plays in the world: How are we seen by other people? What do we do to ensure control of so many of the world's resources? Can our "lifestyles" be sustained in a world of limited resources and increasing populations?
To avoid confronting these uncomfortable questions, we resort to the "war" metaphor and perpetual development of new weapons.
New Jersey is unable or unwilling to face systemic responsibility for crimes committed against me and others, probably, having devised a variety of strategies of displacement, changing the subject, lies, obfuscations, distractions in order not to acknowledge basic human rights violations, cover-ups, and continuing cybercrimes as well as censorship. This is unethical and criminal.
Cognitive dissonance allows Stuart Rabner to comment on the "ethics" of colleagues and others while ignoring his own responsibilities for these crimes, or the failure to prosecute the guilty, or to punish unethical professionals involved in my matters, not even to tell the truth to victims. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
How do we live with such contradictions that are seen by the world?
" ... liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war-footing, or even near-war footing. Permanent crises justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government. And permanent crises is what we have to expect in a world in which over-population is producing a state of things under which dictatorship ... becomes almost inevitable."
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p. 14.
Charlie Savage & Scott Shane, "N.S.A. Leaker Denies Giving Secrets to China," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A5. (Mr. Snowden may have been stage-managed by Chinese intelligence agents without his realizing it.)
Michael Powell, "After Sexual Abuse, An Abuser is Silenced, Even Indicted," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A17. (Sam Knellner, 50, spoke out about Hasidic rabbi's abuse of his 16 year-old son, then tried to extort money from the abusers.)
Katherine Q. Seelye, "At Trial, Hit Man Says 'It Broke My Heart' to Learn Bulger Was an FBI Informer," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A11. (Joe Martorano, mass-murderer, does not approve of "informer" on criminals revealed by another informer on police activities for the mafia.)
Rebecca Baker, "Leonia Teen Charged in Sex Assault on Child, 3; Suspect in Firehouse Case Has Disabilities," The Record, June 17, 2013, p. A-1. (D.E. Levine engaged in molestation of 3 year-old boy: "So Black and So Blue in Prison" and "N.J. Rabbi Arrested For Child Molesting.")
Gina Kolata, "Poking Holes in Genetic Privacy; Research is Steadily Eroding Scientists' Faith That DNA Can be Held Anonymously," The New York Times, Science Times, June 18, 2013, p. D3. (Don't worry about your privacy.)
Lindy Washburn, "Doctor's Long Fight Brings Win From Justices: Ruling OKs Class Suits on Insurers," The Record, June 17, 2013, p. L-1. (" ... insurance company that wouldn't approve a $20.00 test for a toddler [doctor] feared might have a life-threatening disease" was sued, successfully, by an entire class of affected customers.)
Ariel Kaminski & Alain Delaquierre, "N.Y.U. Gives Its Stars Loans For Summer Homes," The New York Times, June 18, 2013, p. A1. (I see why and how NYU people can be bribed to admit or reject candidates for graduate schools.)
Revelations during recent days of U.S. surveillance and data mining on-line are only the latest indication of the extent to which privacy rights have become a casualty of our post-9/11 National Security State and of the "progress" of technology.
Our communications are monitored, our medical histories and all other records of our lives become the illegal property of the state. The word "illegal" may simply not mean much any more.
Our preferences, tastes, values are tested and (sometimes) manufactured by marketers and advertisers. Some of us are subjected to drugging, hypnosis, and other forms of interrogational torture -- a fate that may well await Mr. Snowden! -- in the interest of something called "security."
Others are sheltered from criminal liability. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
I am far less worried about the potential threat from so-called "terror" than about government overreaching.
It is the fear of power concentrated in the hands of state officials -- often stupid and ignorant as well as corrupt officials (as in N.J.) -- that motivated the Framers of the U.S. Constitution to enshrine protections of individual dignity in a Bill of Rights. These rights have become a quaint reminder of a more innocent time in America and are today more honored in the breach than in the observance.
We are negligible statistics in the eyes of government officials in the post-9/11 age. Our rights, concerns, feelings, or our very lives may be sacrificed to a generalized fear of ostensible "terror" threats.
Little thought is given to what motivates the hostility to the U.S. in the world or to the consequences of abandoning so many American Constitutional liberties.
Sinclair Lewis, in a novel entitled It Can't Happen Here, imagined the arrival of totalitarianism in America "with a friendly smile." Our drift into fascism is based on the absurd desire for total safety from "foreign" threats and complete control over our environment. Neither of these desires -- or fantasies -- will ever be fully realized.
We are also unwilling to take a good look at the role that America plays in the world: How are we seen by other people? What do we do to ensure control of so many of the world's resources? Can our "lifestyles" be sustained in a world of limited resources and increasing populations?
To avoid confronting these uncomfortable questions, we resort to the "war" metaphor and perpetual development of new weapons.
New Jersey is unable or unwilling to face systemic responsibility for crimes committed against me and others, probably, having devised a variety of strategies of displacement, changing the subject, lies, obfuscations, distractions in order not to acknowledge basic human rights violations, cover-ups, and continuing cybercrimes as well as censorship. This is unethical and criminal.
Cognitive dissonance allows Stuart Rabner to comment on the "ethics" of colleagues and others while ignoring his own responsibilities for these crimes, or the failure to prosecute the guilty, or to punish unethical professionals involved in my matters, not even to tell the truth to victims. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
How do we live with such contradictions that are seen by the world?
" ... liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war-footing, or even near-war footing. Permanent crises justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government. And permanent crises is what we have to expect in a world in which over-population is producing a state of things under which dictatorship ... becomes almost inevitable."
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p. 14.
Friday, June 14, 2013
U.S. Accused of Hacking China's Computers.
June 16, 2013 at 1:15 P.M. Attempts are still being made to deny me access to these blogs. I will try to go to public computers and use my lap top at public wi-fi connections. If two days pass without a new alteration of these blogs, it means that I am prevented from accessing my dashboard and unable to write.
June 14, 2013 at 1:05 P.M. My Internet connection was blocked this morning. I will be moving to public computers later today.
Noam Cohn, "Player in Leaks Case, Out From Behind Camera," The New York Times, June 15, 2013, p. A1. (Loira Poitras, possible intelligence operative on "watch list," may be either accomplice or informer, or just a good old-fashioned "journalist." I wonder how many persons are holding intelligence files stolen by Mr. Snowden? Are such persons, if any, located in different countries? How many parties are negotiating with Mr. Snowden at this time?)
Joseph Goldstein, "Police Agencies Are Assembling Records of DNA: Concerns Over Privacy," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A1. (Does your DNA belong to the state?)
Frances Robles, "In Confessions Detective Took, Shared Phrases," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A1. (Like Terry Tuchin, hypnotist and interrogational-torturer, LUIS SCARCELLA, "obtained" so-called "confessions" under mysterious circumstances.)
David E. Sanger, et als., "N.S.A. Chief Says Phone Records Logs Halted Terror Threats," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A18. (Name them.)
Keith Bradser, "N.S.A. Leaker to Fight Extradition in Hong Kong," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A18. (Edward J. Snowden told a Hong Kong newspaper that the U.S. has "hacked into computers in China" even as the U.S. has complained of China's data mining on-line.)
Morsi Secret, "District Attorney Subject to Testing in a Misconduct Suit," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A24. (Jabbar Collins, after serving 16 years for a crime he did not commit, alleges criminal misconduct by Mr. Hynes and the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office. "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
Edward J. Snowden said the "United States' surveillance programs had gained access to hundreds of computers in Hong Kong and China since 2009. 'We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one,' the newspapers quoted him as saying."
In addition to the mining of our private computer files and data, we can now count on local police to gather DNA, often illegally, in order to "identify" potential suspects -- which could be anyone or everyone -- while determining what medical information about specific persons merit public concern.
Mr. Snowden's decisions (they are plural) to visit Hong Kong may be more intelligent than it appears to many observers. For one thing, despite the extradition treaty with the U.S., Mr. Snowden may delay matters by applying for asylum. The asylum process could take years to be decided, permitting Mr. Snowden to negotiate for safety from American authorities in exchange for the transfer of intelligence files held by accomplices.
Any number of countries, including China or Cuba, may be interested in these files and information -- perhaps other information we know nothing about -- so as to trade asylum for the information. Moreover, China (by not interfering in Hong Kong proceedings, publicly), could achieve its objectives, privately, through behind-the-scenes negotiations with the U.S., Hong Kong, and Mr. Snowden.
It is even possible that China's intelligence services had something to do with Mr. Snowden's choice of a Hong Kong destination.
"A big question is what will become of the intelligence files Mr. Snowden brought here, and whether China's intelligence agencies would benefit if they get the chance to copy the data."
The intelligence revealed discredits U.S. claims against China's cybercrimes and data mining efforts since American security agencies are much worse offenders (on a world level) than the Chinese.
I wonder whether there are intelligence files Mr. Snowden did not bring to Hong Kong and, if so, who has custody of them. Mr. Greenwald?
Certainly, the timing of these revelations is suspiciously convenient for China during Xi Jinping's visit with Mr. Obama. This Snowden situation could be yet another brilliant operation by China's intelligence services.
Cuba and others -- notably North Korea and Iran -- will be following the story closely, especially regarding the specific techniques of hacking used by the NSA. They may also wish to learn of the form of interrogational hypnosis used by, say, Terry Tuchin and others claiming affiliation with the F.B.I./C.I.A. and Israel's Mossad. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
China's military is saying: " ... the U.S. is supposed to be the most free country in the world, but they still monitor the Internet" -- also torture and censor dissidents, like me -- "and tap every phone."
Why should any country do less to protect its security?
June 14, 2013 at 1:05 P.M. My Internet connection was blocked this morning. I will be moving to public computers later today.
Noam Cohn, "Player in Leaks Case, Out From Behind Camera," The New York Times, June 15, 2013, p. A1. (Loira Poitras, possible intelligence operative on "watch list," may be either accomplice or informer, or just a good old-fashioned "journalist." I wonder how many persons are holding intelligence files stolen by Mr. Snowden? Are such persons, if any, located in different countries? How many parties are negotiating with Mr. Snowden at this time?)
Joseph Goldstein, "Police Agencies Are Assembling Records of DNA: Concerns Over Privacy," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A1. (Does your DNA belong to the state?)
Frances Robles, "In Confessions Detective Took, Shared Phrases," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A1. (Like Terry Tuchin, hypnotist and interrogational-torturer, LUIS SCARCELLA, "obtained" so-called "confessions" under mysterious circumstances.)
David E. Sanger, et als., "N.S.A. Chief Says Phone Records Logs Halted Terror Threats," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A18. (Name them.)
Keith Bradser, "N.S.A. Leaker to Fight Extradition in Hong Kong," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A18. (Edward J. Snowden told a Hong Kong newspaper that the U.S. has "hacked into computers in China" even as the U.S. has complained of China's data mining on-line.)
Morsi Secret, "District Attorney Subject to Testing in a Misconduct Suit," The New York Times, June 13, 2013, p. A24. (Jabbar Collins, after serving 16 years for a crime he did not commit, alleges criminal misconduct by Mr. Hynes and the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office. "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
Edward J. Snowden said the "United States' surveillance programs had gained access to hundreds of computers in Hong Kong and China since 2009. 'We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one,' the newspapers quoted him as saying."
In addition to the mining of our private computer files and data, we can now count on local police to gather DNA, often illegally, in order to "identify" potential suspects -- which could be anyone or everyone -- while determining what medical information about specific persons merit public concern.
Mr. Snowden's decisions (they are plural) to visit Hong Kong may be more intelligent than it appears to many observers. For one thing, despite the extradition treaty with the U.S., Mr. Snowden may delay matters by applying for asylum. The asylum process could take years to be decided, permitting Mr. Snowden to negotiate for safety from American authorities in exchange for the transfer of intelligence files held by accomplices.
Any number of countries, including China or Cuba, may be interested in these files and information -- perhaps other information we know nothing about -- so as to trade asylum for the information. Moreover, China (by not interfering in Hong Kong proceedings, publicly), could achieve its objectives, privately, through behind-the-scenes negotiations with the U.S., Hong Kong, and Mr. Snowden.
It is even possible that China's intelligence services had something to do with Mr. Snowden's choice of a Hong Kong destination.
"A big question is what will become of the intelligence files Mr. Snowden brought here, and whether China's intelligence agencies would benefit if they get the chance to copy the data."
The intelligence revealed discredits U.S. claims against China's cybercrimes and data mining efforts since American security agencies are much worse offenders (on a world level) than the Chinese.
I wonder whether there are intelligence files Mr. Snowden did not bring to Hong Kong and, if so, who has custody of them. Mr. Greenwald?
Certainly, the timing of these revelations is suspiciously convenient for China during Xi Jinping's visit with Mr. Obama. This Snowden situation could be yet another brilliant operation by China's intelligence services.
Cuba and others -- notably North Korea and Iran -- will be following the story closely, especially regarding the specific techniques of hacking used by the NSA. They may also wish to learn of the form of interrogational hypnosis used by, say, Terry Tuchin and others claiming affiliation with the F.B.I./C.I.A. and Israel's Mossad. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
China's military is saying: " ... the U.S. is supposed to be the most free country in the world, but they still monitor the Internet" -- also torture and censor dissidents, like me -- "and tap every phone."
Why should any country do less to protect its security?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
NSA Surveillance and Your Rights.
June 12, 2013 at 7:24 P.M. Spacing following a double quotation was altered and cannot be corrected at this time.
Scott Shane & Jonathan Weisman, "Debate on Secret Data Looks Unlikely, Partly Due to Secrecy," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A1.
Jessica Silver-Greenberg, "Banks Faulted As Taking Part in Web Fraud," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A1. (More Wall Street scams.)
Stephen Castle, "Accused of Scheming With U.S., Britain Says It Follows the Law [sic.] in Gathering Intelligence," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A12. (Al Jazeera was right. Mr. Cameron has offered a correction: "Britain obeys or abides by the law.")
Michael S. Schmidt, et als., "U.S. Prepares Charges Against Leakers of Data," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A12.
"A Real Debate On Surveillance: Congress should hold hearings on the laws that made rampant spying possible," (Editorial) The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A22.
The controversy surrounding the disclosures by Edward Snowden will not go away.
The U.S. government -- allegedly, under the questionable legitimacy afforded by the Patriot Act -- has been collecting massive amounts of data on virtually EVERY person with a cellphone, computer, bank account, or credit card in our world.
Lies about not focusing on the contents of conversations aside, we know that our "private" lives have become the property of the state. I do not regard my inner-life as subject to government regulation nor even invasion by unwelcome guests. I can not accept that any government has the right to control what or how I may think, speak, feel, or dream. These aspects of my life must remain private or autonomous from state control.
The madness of all of this "surveillance and control" is not only illustrative of Foucault's and Baudrillard's worst fears and warnings about government power, but symbolizes the sheer stupidity and self-neutralizing nature of indiscriminate and massive amounts of raw data that simply cannot be interpreted adequately for its meaning by any "program."
No mechanical filter will be adequate to decipher subtle shades of meaning, or the nuances of linguistic form necessary to "read" encoded or indirect significations. The hermeneutic challenge is particularly powerful in light of the massive amounts of information at issue. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "Mind and Machine" then "Consciousness and Computers.")
Please notice that the legitimacy of this information-gathering, in secrecy, is based on a secret interpretation of a crucial section of the Patriot Act, within the Executive Branch, which has not been "shared" with the Senate, nor with the House of Representatives, nor (indeed) has this cryptic interpretation been tested before the United States Supreme Court. What is not secret today?
How can this "Obama reading" of the most controversial law in the nation be tested for constitutionality since it is "secret"? Is placing such interpretations beyond the scope of review the reason for making them "secret"?
Any number of presidential decisions have been determined to be unconstitutional in our history, notably Watergate: "If the president does it," Mr. Nixon said to David Frost, "that means it is legal."
Mr. Obama reminds me -- as one of his supporters who voted for him twice! -- of Mr. Nixon. It was then President Nixon who argued against Archibald Cox (Glen Greenwald?) that gross violations of Americans' civil rights are hunky-dory when the president (Mr. Obama rather than G.W. or Nixon this time) commits them.
Regardless of who is president, any violation of the Constitution is illegal and invalid action by the Executive, even if we happen to have voted for a particular occupant of the White House.
The injury done to the Constitution and to Americans' freedoms lies in the mere collection of the data outside the boundaries of our Constitution even if it is ostensibly "legal." This remains true even if the data is never "used" or "read" at all. Non-use of the data leads me to wonder why it was collected in the first place.
With the invasion of your conversations, expressions of your thoughts, reading and purchasing choices -- your freedoms are already diminished or destroyed. Saying "don't worry about it" will not help. Worry about it.
The purpose of reasoned decision-making and published decisions justifying invasive government actions is to allow for informed public examination, debate, criticisms, and (where logic and laws indicate) REVERSALS of flawed decisions based on faulty reasoning that must be made known to victims. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
Secrecy defeats all of those purposes conducive to due process of law and democracy. Secrecy remains popular because it often allows officials to escape responsibility for their blunders and the suffering they cause to innocent people. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
"While they're at it, some of the opinions of the foreign intelligence court that made these collection programs possible could be released. Ms. Feinstein was rebuffed when she asked the court for redacted summaries of its opinions; as chairwoman, she should use her power to demand that the administration find ways to make the court even slightly more transparent."
The Times is correct to point out:
"For years, members of Congress ignored evidence [emphasis added] that domestic intelligence-gathering had grown beyond their control, and, even now, few seem disturbed to learn that every detail about the public's calling and texting habits now reside in a N.S.A. database."
American legislators seem content to bring about their own irrelevance as well as a quasi-military take-over of the government's security responsibilities.
We are drifting towards an ever-more complete form of "fascism with a friendly smile," a Disney version of reality is offered to a child-like and docile population ("Superman," the movie experience, opens this week) even as the iron hand of "our" National Security State tightens about "our" throats. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld" then "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System.")
"I worry about comprehending the effective mechanisms of domination; and I do it so that those who are inserted in certain relations of POWER, who are implicated in them, might escape through their actions of resistance and rebellion, might transform them in order not to be subjugated any longer. And if I don't ever say what must be done, it isn't because I believe that there is nothing to be done; on the contrary, it is because I think that there are a thousand things to do, to invent, to forge, on the part of those who, recognizing the relations of power in which they are implicated, [emphasis added] have decided to resist or escape them. [Or to die trying to be free -- if necessary -- rather than remain a slave.] From this point of view all of my investigations rest on absolute optimism. [Revolutionary?] I do not conduct my analyses in order to say: this is how things are, look how trapped you are. I say certain things only to the extent to which I see them as capable of permitting the transformation of reality."
Michel Foucault, "Dicourse On Power," in Remarks On Marx: Conversations With Duccio Trombadore (Paris & New York: SEMIOTEXT(E), 1991), pp. 173-174.
Scott Shane & Jonathan Weisman, "Debate on Secret Data Looks Unlikely, Partly Due to Secrecy," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A1.
Jessica Silver-Greenberg, "Banks Faulted As Taking Part in Web Fraud," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A1. (More Wall Street scams.)
Stephen Castle, "Accused of Scheming With U.S., Britain Says It Follows the Law [sic.] in Gathering Intelligence," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A12. (Al Jazeera was right. Mr. Cameron has offered a correction: "Britain obeys or abides by the law.")
Michael S. Schmidt, et als., "U.S. Prepares Charges Against Leakers of Data," The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A12.
"A Real Debate On Surveillance: Congress should hold hearings on the laws that made rampant spying possible," (Editorial) The New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A22.
The controversy surrounding the disclosures by Edward Snowden will not go away.
The U.S. government -- allegedly, under the questionable legitimacy afforded by the Patriot Act -- has been collecting massive amounts of data on virtually EVERY person with a cellphone, computer, bank account, or credit card in our world.
Lies about not focusing on the contents of conversations aside, we know that our "private" lives have become the property of the state. I do not regard my inner-life as subject to government regulation nor even invasion by unwelcome guests. I can not accept that any government has the right to control what or how I may think, speak, feel, or dream. These aspects of my life must remain private or autonomous from state control.
The madness of all of this "surveillance and control" is not only illustrative of Foucault's and Baudrillard's worst fears and warnings about government power, but symbolizes the sheer stupidity and self-neutralizing nature of indiscriminate and massive amounts of raw data that simply cannot be interpreted adequately for its meaning by any "program."
No mechanical filter will be adequate to decipher subtle shades of meaning, or the nuances of linguistic form necessary to "read" encoded or indirect significations. The hermeneutic challenge is particularly powerful in light of the massive amounts of information at issue. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "Mind and Machine" then "Consciousness and Computers.")
Please notice that the legitimacy of this information-gathering, in secrecy, is based on a secret interpretation of a crucial section of the Patriot Act, within the Executive Branch, which has not been "shared" with the Senate, nor with the House of Representatives, nor (indeed) has this cryptic interpretation been tested before the United States Supreme Court. What is not secret today?
How can this "Obama reading" of the most controversial law in the nation be tested for constitutionality since it is "secret"? Is placing such interpretations beyond the scope of review the reason for making them "secret"?
Any number of presidential decisions have been determined to be unconstitutional in our history, notably Watergate: "If the president does it," Mr. Nixon said to David Frost, "that means it is legal."
Mr. Obama reminds me -- as one of his supporters who voted for him twice! -- of Mr. Nixon. It was then President Nixon who argued against Archibald Cox (Glen Greenwald?) that gross violations of Americans' civil rights are hunky-dory when the president (Mr. Obama rather than G.W. or Nixon this time) commits them.
Regardless of who is president, any violation of the Constitution is illegal and invalid action by the Executive, even if we happen to have voted for a particular occupant of the White House.
The injury done to the Constitution and to Americans' freedoms lies in the mere collection of the data outside the boundaries of our Constitution even if it is ostensibly "legal." This remains true even if the data is never "used" or "read" at all. Non-use of the data leads me to wonder why it was collected in the first place.
With the invasion of your conversations, expressions of your thoughts, reading and purchasing choices -- your freedoms are already diminished or destroyed. Saying "don't worry about it" will not help. Worry about it.
The purpose of reasoned decision-making and published decisions justifying invasive government actions is to allow for informed public examination, debate, criticisms, and (where logic and laws indicate) REVERSALS of flawed decisions based on faulty reasoning that must be made known to victims. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
Secrecy defeats all of those purposes conducive to due process of law and democracy. Secrecy remains popular because it often allows officials to escape responsibility for their blunders and the suffering they cause to innocent people. ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
"While they're at it, some of the opinions of the foreign intelligence court that made these collection programs possible could be released. Ms. Feinstein was rebuffed when she asked the court for redacted summaries of its opinions; as chairwoman, she should use her power to demand that the administration find ways to make the court even slightly more transparent."
The Times is correct to point out:
"For years, members of Congress ignored evidence [emphasis added] that domestic intelligence-gathering had grown beyond their control, and, even now, few seem disturbed to learn that every detail about the public's calling and texting habits now reside in a N.S.A. database."
American legislators seem content to bring about their own irrelevance as well as a quasi-military take-over of the government's security responsibilities.
We are drifting towards an ever-more complete form of "fascism with a friendly smile," a Disney version of reality is offered to a child-like and docile population ("Superman," the movie experience, opens this week) even as the iron hand of "our" National Security State tightens about "our" throats. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld" then "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System.")
"I worry about comprehending the effective mechanisms of domination; and I do it so that those who are inserted in certain relations of POWER, who are implicated in them, might escape through their actions of resistance and rebellion, might transform them in order not to be subjugated any longer. And if I don't ever say what must be done, it isn't because I believe that there is nothing to be done; on the contrary, it is because I think that there are a thousand things to do, to invent, to forge, on the part of those who, recognizing the relations of power in which they are implicated, [emphasis added] have decided to resist or escape them. [Or to die trying to be free -- if necessary -- rather than remain a slave.] From this point of view all of my investigations rest on absolute optimism. [Revolutionary?] I do not conduct my analyses in order to say: this is how things are, look how trapped you are. I say certain things only to the extent to which I see them as capable of permitting the transformation of reality."
Michel Foucault, "Dicourse On Power," in Remarks On Marx: Conversations With Duccio Trombadore (Paris & New York: SEMIOTEXT(E), 1991), pp. 173-174.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Glen Greenwald, First Amendment Rights, and Surveillance.
June 11, 2013 at 4:35 P.M. I was assigned to NYPL, Inwood branch, #03. Obstructions prevented me from signing-in. I wonder whether "Raymond Hernandez" of the New York Times can shed any light on this mystery? Is "Raymond Hernandez" also "Manohla Dargis"? What other names does this person use as bylines at any (or all) periodicals for which he/she writes? Does Mr. Hernandez do "favors" for Albio Sires? Bob Menendez? For some reason, a number of television channels are blocked or blacked-out, including Time/Warner's New York 1. I wonder why this is happening? Cybercrime? Am I the only Time/Warner customer affected by this? Is this about "Verizon"?
June 10, 2013 at 8:15 A.M. My discussion is based on the listed sources. Interviews with "Edward Snowden" (alleged source for Mr. Greenwald) appeared at "Democracy Now," June 10, 2013 at 8:18 A.M. then were discussed on Al Jazeera which claims the British government is involved in the spying.
Attempts to create links at these blogs are obstructed. I cannot access any e-mail account, no images can be posted here. I suspect that my calls may be monitored. I am not now nor have I ever been charged with a crime.
Mark Landler, "Obama Appoints Rice to Key Post On U.S. Security," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A1.
Edward Wong & Didi Kirsten Tarlton, [Manohla Dargis?] "Wide China Push is Seen to Obtain Industry Secrets," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A1. (China is engaging in illicit intelligence gathering on-line.)
Declan Walsh & Salman Masood, "Pakistan's New Premier Calls For Drone Strike Halt," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A6. (No more drones.)
Salman Masood, "U.S. Drone Strike Kills at Least 7 in Pakistan as New Prime Minister Announces His Cabinet," The New York Times, June 8, 2013, p. A6. (U.S. humiliates Pakistan's new Prime Minister.)
Charlie Savage, et als., "U.S. Confirms Gathering of Web Data Overseas: Officials Defend Surveillance Programs," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A1. (The U.S. is the world's leader in illicit on-line intelligence gathering, including from China.)
Mark Landler & Allison Kopicki, "Skepticism Over U.S. Involvement in Foreign Conflicts," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A16. ("Wars against terror may take 20 to 40 years," the Defense Department said.)
Eric Schmidt, et als., "Mining of Data Is Called Crucial to Fight Terror: Obama Sees a Trade Off," (Editorial) The New York Times, June 8, 2013, p. A6.
"President Obama's Dragnet: Scooping up all our phone records is an abuse of power that demands a real explanation," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A26.
Noam Cohen & Leslie Kaufman, "Blogger With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of Debate," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A18.
A wise writer once explained that there are people in America whose rights are taken seriously and many more who don't matter, whose rights may be ignored or violated by powerful officials with impunity.
I am in the category of people who do not matter to the U.S. government -- like Pakistanis killed by drone weapons, a billion Chinese persons (including hundreds of thousands who may have visited these sites), and most of the planet's black and brown populations. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?" then "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" and "How censorship works in America" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Recently, some of the people whose rights are not usually violated in America are experiencing what the rest of us have come to know all too well:
" ... Mr. Greenwald, a lawyer and longtime blogger, published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [sic.] about the existence of a top-secret court order allowing the National Security Agency to monitor millions of telephone logs. The article, which included a link to the order, is expected to attract an investigation from the Justice Department which aggressively pursued leaks."
Mr. Obama's policies are having a chilling effect on First Amendment rights of journalists, writers, philosophers and intellectuals in America. As a lawyer, Mr. Greenwald is especially vulnerable and is, already, facing "pressures" which may include ethics charges from the New York Bar Association. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
To my knowledge, unlike me, Mr. Greenwald has not yet been subjected to interrogational hypnosis/torture, drugging, rapes or other assaults. I cannot say whether there have been illicit entries into his home. It is more likely that Mr. Greenwald will experience such things when the media spotlight "moves on." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
With EWAN MACASKILL, Mr. Greenwald exposed "an NSA program, Prism, that has gathered information from the nation's largest Internet companies [Google] going back nearly six years."
Your life on-line -- purchases, websites visited, books purchased or borrowed from libraries -- is being monitored by one "James Clapper" of the NSA and his minions.
Apart from how we may "feel" about the NSA, there is no secure information. Any number of other agencies or entities may gain access to what is collected by the NSA, including foreign intelligence agencies.
Too much information may be as worthless as too little information. Ironically, the code-name of the NSA operation for secret spying on Americans is "Boundless Information."
In order to be meaningful, information must be bounded by logical and evidentiary constraints to say nothing of Constitutional protections.
Officials never think in terms of "less is more." The recent Boston bombings may lead them to accept limits on the unfettered power to spy along with a bit of humility. For now, Mr. Greenwald's troubles should worry every writer and thinker in America:
"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue" -- of concern for civil or human rights as it fights a "war on terror," according to The New York Times Editorialist -- "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks[,] by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignments of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers."
The NSA is also able to gather Internet communications directly from the seven major servers. This may explain some of what I deal with every day and why I cannot -- it is important to repeat this -- send or receive e-mails nor can I post images on-line. This is a form of censorship and violation of privacy not only for me, but also for persons from all over the world who may wish to communicate with me. ("How censorship works in America.")
The defacements of my writings, prevention of editing efforts, violations of copyright, thefts, plagiarism may be traced to out-of-control censors and monitors.
"To casually permit this surveillance -- with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power -- fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and it repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy."
Surveillance, monitoring continues (secretly) for reasons and based on criteria never examined in a court of law as millions of Americans are spied upon. This will not make us safer or more secure, it makes us less safe and a more frightened people.
"From Palestine through Iraq to Iran, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with a more emollient rhetoric. In Afghanistan, he has gone further, widening the front of imperial aggression with a major escalation of violence, both technological and territorial. ... Simultaneously, a massive intensification of aerial terror over Pakistan is under way. As The New York Times informed its readers, delicately describing the statistic as one that 'the White House has not advertised': 'since Mr. Obama came to office, the Central Intelligence Agency has mounted more Predator drone strikes than during Mr. Bush's eight years in office.' These [drone strikes] were justified in March 2009 by Harold Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School [ethical?] and a former director of the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center For Human Rights, and now a senior lawyer attached to the State Department. The unmanned drone strikes supposedly targeting terrorists were lawful, he argued, because they were necessary to defend U.S. national security. Most of those killed have been civilians, including men, women, and children."
Tariq Ali, "President of Cant," in The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad (London: Verso, 2010), pp. 56-57 and Tariq Ali, "Capitalism and Socialism in the Twenty-First Century," International Socialist Review, May-June, 2013, at p. 15. http://www.isreview.org (Government monitoring may prevent creation of a link to this publication.)
June 10, 2013 at 8:15 A.M. My discussion is based on the listed sources. Interviews with "Edward Snowden" (alleged source for Mr. Greenwald) appeared at "Democracy Now," June 10, 2013 at 8:18 A.M. then were discussed on Al Jazeera which claims the British government is involved in the spying.
Attempts to create links at these blogs are obstructed. I cannot access any e-mail account, no images can be posted here. I suspect that my calls may be monitored. I am not now nor have I ever been charged with a crime.
Mark Landler, "Obama Appoints Rice to Key Post On U.S. Security," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A1.
Edward Wong & Didi Kirsten Tarlton, [Manohla Dargis?] "Wide China Push is Seen to Obtain Industry Secrets," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A1. (China is engaging in illicit intelligence gathering on-line.)
Declan Walsh & Salman Masood, "Pakistan's New Premier Calls For Drone Strike Halt," The New York Times, June 6, 2013, p. A6. (No more drones.)
Salman Masood, "U.S. Drone Strike Kills at Least 7 in Pakistan as New Prime Minister Announces His Cabinet," The New York Times, June 8, 2013, p. A6. (U.S. humiliates Pakistan's new Prime Minister.)
Charlie Savage, et als., "U.S. Confirms Gathering of Web Data Overseas: Officials Defend Surveillance Programs," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A1. (The U.S. is the world's leader in illicit on-line intelligence gathering, including from China.)
Mark Landler & Allison Kopicki, "Skepticism Over U.S. Involvement in Foreign Conflicts," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A16. ("Wars against terror may take 20 to 40 years," the Defense Department said.)
Eric Schmidt, et als., "Mining of Data Is Called Crucial to Fight Terror: Obama Sees a Trade Off," (Editorial) The New York Times, June 8, 2013, p. A6.
"President Obama's Dragnet: Scooping up all our phone records is an abuse of power that demands a real explanation," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A26.
Noam Cohen & Leslie Kaufman, "Blogger With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of Debate," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A18.
A wise writer once explained that there are people in America whose rights are taken seriously and many more who don't matter, whose rights may be ignored or violated by powerful officials with impunity.
I am in the category of people who do not matter to the U.S. government -- like Pakistanis killed by drone weapons, a billion Chinese persons (including hundreds of thousands who may have visited these sites), and most of the planet's black and brown populations. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?" then "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" and "How censorship works in America" and "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Recently, some of the people whose rights are not usually violated in America are experiencing what the rest of us have come to know all too well:
" ... Mr. Greenwald, a lawyer and longtime blogger, published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [sic.] about the existence of a top-secret court order allowing the National Security Agency to monitor millions of telephone logs. The article, which included a link to the order, is expected to attract an investigation from the Justice Department which aggressively pursued leaks."
Mr. Obama's policies are having a chilling effect on First Amendment rights of journalists, writers, philosophers and intellectuals in America. As a lawyer, Mr. Greenwald is especially vulnerable and is, already, facing "pressures" which may include ethics charges from the New York Bar Association. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
To my knowledge, unlike me, Mr. Greenwald has not yet been subjected to interrogational hypnosis/torture, drugging, rapes or other assaults. I cannot say whether there have been illicit entries into his home. It is more likely that Mr. Greenwald will experience such things when the media spotlight "moves on." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
With EWAN MACASKILL, Mr. Greenwald exposed "an NSA program, Prism, that has gathered information from the nation's largest Internet companies [Google] going back nearly six years."
Your life on-line -- purchases, websites visited, books purchased or borrowed from libraries -- is being monitored by one "James Clapper" of the NSA and his minions.
Apart from how we may "feel" about the NSA, there is no secure information. Any number of other agencies or entities may gain access to what is collected by the NSA, including foreign intelligence agencies.
Too much information may be as worthless as too little information. Ironically, the code-name of the NSA operation for secret spying on Americans is "Boundless Information."
In order to be meaningful, information must be bounded by logical and evidentiary constraints to say nothing of Constitutional protections.
Officials never think in terms of "less is more." The recent Boston bombings may lead them to accept limits on the unfettered power to spy along with a bit of humility. For now, Mr. Greenwald's troubles should worry every writer and thinker in America:
"The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue" -- of concern for civil or human rights as it fights a "war on terror," according to The New York Times Editorialist -- "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after Sept. 11, 2001 attacks[,] by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignments of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers."
The NSA is also able to gather Internet communications directly from the seven major servers. This may explain some of what I deal with every day and why I cannot -- it is important to repeat this -- send or receive e-mails nor can I post images on-line. This is a form of censorship and violation of privacy not only for me, but also for persons from all over the world who may wish to communicate with me. ("How censorship works in America.")
The defacements of my writings, prevention of editing efforts, violations of copyright, thefts, plagiarism may be traced to out-of-control censors and monitors.
"To casually permit this surveillance -- with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power -- fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and it repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy."
Surveillance, monitoring continues (secretly) for reasons and based on criteria never examined in a court of law as millions of Americans are spied upon. This will not make us safer or more secure, it makes us less safe and a more frightened people.
"From Palestine through Iraq to Iran, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with a more emollient rhetoric. In Afghanistan, he has gone further, widening the front of imperial aggression with a major escalation of violence, both technological and territorial. ... Simultaneously, a massive intensification of aerial terror over Pakistan is under way. As The New York Times informed its readers, delicately describing the statistic as one that 'the White House has not advertised': 'since Mr. Obama came to office, the Central Intelligence Agency has mounted more Predator drone strikes than during Mr. Bush's eight years in office.' These [drone strikes] were justified in March 2009 by Harold Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School [ethical?] and a former director of the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center For Human Rights, and now a senior lawyer attached to the State Department. The unmanned drone strikes supposedly targeting terrorists were lawful, he argued, because they were necessary to defend U.S. national security. Most of those killed have been civilians, including men, women, and children."
Tariq Ali, "President of Cant," in The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad (London: Verso, 2010), pp. 56-57 and Tariq Ali, "Capitalism and Socialism in the Twenty-First Century," International Socialist Review, May-June, 2013, at p. 15. http://www.isreview.org (Government monitoring may prevent creation of a link to this publication.)
Thursday, June 6, 2013
N.J. Police Chief and Mayor Seek Mutual Monitoring.
June 7, 2013 at 8:40 P.M. Regrettably, I was unable to edit "Website Denies Link to Menendez Case" from my home computer. I will continue to try to do so from public computers. I cannot imagine who would object to that essay. I am alaways concerned about being prevented from writing. Hence, I remind the reader that, if more than two days pass without alteration at these blogs, it means that I am prevented from writing against my will. ("How censorship works in America.")
June 6, 2013 at 6:11 P.M. I was denied access to my blogs and my home Internet connection was obstructed, yet again. I find it difficult to believe that these constant obstructions are coincidental.
Please note that I am not the only person using my home Internet connection, Mr. Menendez. I can never be sure of regaining access to my blogs. Censorship is a daily experience for me. ("How censorship works in America.")
June 6, 2013 at 1:11 P.M. I am writing at NYPL, Morningside Heights, computer #06, which is missing the key for colons and semi-colons: I will have to make do as best I can.
Christopher Baxter, "Christie Sets Off Mad Dash for Senate: Democrats Criticize Decision to Hold Separate Election for Lautenberg Seat," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 1. (There were "no political motives for this decision," Mr. Christie said. That's not lying, OAE? Mr. Christie is losing weight, but his nose is getting bigger.)
Seth Augenstein & James Queally, "Blacks Arrested at Higher Rates for Marijuana Use, ACLU Report Finds," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 1. ("Blacks are nearly three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in New Jersey" -- and more likely to go to prison for it! -- "and roughly four times as likely [to be arrested] nationwide." Compare "So Black and So Blue in Prison" with "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
Mark Mueller, "Police Chief Seeks Outside Monitoring of Mayor: Top Edison Cop Makes Rare Request of County," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 13.
New Jersey public officials PAY police and prosecutors for "protection," allegedly, in order to possess private sources of information about forthcoming investigations aimed either at themselves or their friends.
These filthy alliances are developed outside the boundaries of law. Any number of local politicians -- usually attorneys -- made it clear that they would get a "heads-up" if there were any state or county investigations that concerned them. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey is Lucky Luciano's Havana.")
A new level of corruption has been reached in recent years with public figures interfering with the legally-prescribed duties of colleagues; judges spying on one another; cops monitoring other cops for various political factions struggling for control of the many "municipalities" in America's "Mafia jurisdiction." ("Cement is Gold" and "Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics.")
"In a renewed eruption of tensions over control of the Edison police force, Chief Thomas Bryan has asked the Middlesex County prosecutor to appoint a monitor in the department to help him fend off [sic.] what he termed 'rampant political interference' from Mayor [and attorney] Antonia Ricigliano." (emphasis added!)
Mayor Ricigliano, who has been linked to DIANA LISA RICCIOLI, denies organized crime affiliations, but may be a "person of interest" to the F.B.I.'s organized crime investigation unit.
If the Chief's allegations are true, Ms. Ricigliano should be facing an OAE complaint -- but such things will no doubt be "fixed" for her. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest" and "More Mafia Arrests in New Jersey.")
The police in a number of "municipalities" need outside help to cope with political interference from groups with elected officials in their pockets. Cops may be bribed by Republicans; while Democrats usually prefer to pay-off judges and politicians. ("Bribery in Union City, New Jersey" then "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!" and "New Jersey's Child Sex Industry.")
Much the same is true of judges and officials at the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) who are "responsive" to requests for favors or investigations made by political "bosses" of one kind or another. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" then "Sexual Favors For New Jersey Judges.")
Some judges exchange "favors" from the bench for sexual "gifts" in the form of persons "provided" by major mob players in the Garden State, allegedly. ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" then "Another Mafia Sweep in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless.")
Police Chief Thomas Bryan said: "[The Mayor] has repeatedly and vehemently obstructed my ability to implement reform initiatives." ("New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit.")
Ms. Ricigliano in her own letter to the prosecutor contends that there is a "failure of leadership in the Edison Police Department."
The Mayor indicated, furthermore, that she would like to "wet her beak" with a few last minute promotions before the November elections. Ms. Ricigliano sounds like Chris Christie in her fondness for scheduling matters with electoral convenience in mind. ("Voting in North Bergen, New Jersey" and "North Bergen, New Jersey is the Home of La Cosa Nostra.")
Perhaps the Jersey Shore's famous "Snookie" will agree to serve as Municipal Court Judge in Edison. It was usually a zoo when I visited that court on a regular basis. ("Celeste Carpiano Likes the Shore" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")
As for the morale and ethics of local police:
"Michael Dotro, a 10-year veteran [cop,] was charged with five counts of attempted murder May 23 on accusations that he set fire to the home of Edison Police Captain Mark Anderko."
Officer Anderko probably supports the Democrats and his would-be killer may have been promised a promotion by the opposition if they are elected. Officer Anderko's family would only be "collateral damage." ("More Trouble for Ridgewood, New Jersey.")
It cannot be confirmed whether either of these officers was "working for" Mayor Ricigliano "off the books." ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
Police Chief Thomas Bryan will neither confirm nor deny that he received a dead fish wrapped in newspapers at his home.
June 6, 2013 at 6:11 P.M. I was denied access to my blogs and my home Internet connection was obstructed, yet again. I find it difficult to believe that these constant obstructions are coincidental.
Please note that I am not the only person using my home Internet connection, Mr. Menendez. I can never be sure of regaining access to my blogs. Censorship is a daily experience for me. ("How censorship works in America.")
June 6, 2013 at 1:11 P.M. I am writing at NYPL, Morningside Heights, computer #06, which is missing the key for colons and semi-colons: I will have to make do as best I can.
Christopher Baxter, "Christie Sets Off Mad Dash for Senate: Democrats Criticize Decision to Hold Separate Election for Lautenberg Seat," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 1. (There were "no political motives for this decision," Mr. Christie said. That's not lying, OAE? Mr. Christie is losing weight, but his nose is getting bigger.)
Seth Augenstein & James Queally, "Blacks Arrested at Higher Rates for Marijuana Use, ACLU Report Finds," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 1. ("Blacks are nearly three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in New Jersey" -- and more likely to go to prison for it! -- "and roughly four times as likely [to be arrested] nationwide." Compare "So Black and So Blue in Prison" with "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")
Mark Mueller, "Police Chief Seeks Outside Monitoring of Mayor: Top Edison Cop Makes Rare Request of County," The Star Ledger, June 5, 2013, p. 13.
New Jersey public officials PAY police and prosecutors for "protection," allegedly, in order to possess private sources of information about forthcoming investigations aimed either at themselves or their friends.
These filthy alliances are developed outside the boundaries of law. Any number of local politicians -- usually attorneys -- made it clear that they would get a "heads-up" if there were any state or county investigations that concerned them. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey is Lucky Luciano's Havana.")
A new level of corruption has been reached in recent years with public figures interfering with the legally-prescribed duties of colleagues; judges spying on one another; cops monitoring other cops for various political factions struggling for control of the many "municipalities" in America's "Mafia jurisdiction." ("Cement is Gold" and "Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics.")
"In a renewed eruption of tensions over control of the Edison police force, Chief Thomas Bryan has asked the Middlesex County prosecutor to appoint a monitor in the department to help him fend off [sic.] what he termed 'rampant political interference' from Mayor [and attorney] Antonia Ricigliano." (emphasis added!)
Mayor Ricigliano, who has been linked to DIANA LISA RICCIOLI, denies organized crime affiliations, but may be a "person of interest" to the F.B.I.'s organized crime investigation unit.
If the Chief's allegations are true, Ms. Ricigliano should be facing an OAE complaint -- but such things will no doubt be "fixed" for her. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest" and "More Mafia Arrests in New Jersey.")
The police in a number of "municipalities" need outside help to cope with political interference from groups with elected officials in their pockets. Cops may be bribed by Republicans; while Democrats usually prefer to pay-off judges and politicians. ("Bribery in Union City, New Jersey" then "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!" and "New Jersey's Child Sex Industry.")
Much the same is true of judges and officials at the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) who are "responsive" to requests for favors or investigations made by political "bosses" of one kind or another. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" then "Sexual Favors For New Jersey Judges.")
Some judges exchange "favors" from the bench for sexual "gifts" in the form of persons "provided" by major mob players in the Garden State, allegedly. ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" then "Another Mafia Sweep in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless.")
Police Chief Thomas Bryan said: "[The Mayor] has repeatedly and vehemently obstructed my ability to implement reform initiatives." ("New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit.")
Ms. Ricigliano in her own letter to the prosecutor contends that there is a "failure of leadership in the Edison Police Department."
The Mayor indicated, furthermore, that she would like to "wet her beak" with a few last minute promotions before the November elections. Ms. Ricigliano sounds like Chris Christie in her fondness for scheduling matters with electoral convenience in mind. ("Voting in North Bergen, New Jersey" and "North Bergen, New Jersey is the Home of La Cosa Nostra.")
Perhaps the Jersey Shore's famous "Snookie" will agree to serve as Municipal Court Judge in Edison. It was usually a zoo when I visited that court on a regular basis. ("Celeste Carpiano Likes the Shore" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "Does Senator Menendez have mafia friends?")
As for the morale and ethics of local police:
"Michael Dotro, a 10-year veteran [cop,] was charged with five counts of attempted murder May 23 on accusations that he set fire to the home of Edison Police Captain Mark Anderko."
Officer Anderko probably supports the Democrats and his would-be killer may have been promised a promotion by the opposition if they are elected. Officer Anderko's family would only be "collateral damage." ("More Trouble for Ridgewood, New Jersey.")
It cannot be confirmed whether either of these officers was "working for" Mayor Ricigliano "off the books." ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
Police Chief Thomas Bryan will neither confirm nor deny that he received a dead fish wrapped in newspapers at his home.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Julian Assange and the Future of the Internet.
June 4, 2013 at 5:53 P.M. My home Internet connection was blocked. I have rebooted my connection. The essay that appears below was posted from a NYPL, Morningside Heights, lap-top computer. I will continue to use multiple public and private computers.
The size of words in the text has been altered and I have no control of these and other defacements of the text which must come from New Jersey government officials and technology.
Gregory Currie, "Does Fiction Civilize Us?," The New York Times, June 2, 2013, p. 12. ("Sunday Review.")
Julian Assange, "The Banality of 'Don't Be Evil,'" The New York Times, June 2, 2013, at p. 4. ("Sunday Review.")
Charlie Savage, et als., "U.S. Confirms Gathering of Web Data Overseas: Officials Defend 2 Surveillance Programs," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, at p. A1. (U.S. acknowledges stealing information from the global net community as America calls on China to control cybercrimes.)
Noam Cohen & Leslie Kaufman, "Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A18. (I will be writing more about this matter. America has called on China and Cuba to protect the rights of dissidents.)
"We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks," (Focus Films, 2013) Angelika Movie Theater, Houston Street, New York, N.Y. http://www.itunes.com/westealsecrets
"The White Geek's Burden."
Should the Internet create a world culture that mirrors American values as distinct from promoting quirky individualism for "little brown persons"? Is there a difference between American values and the much-vaunted independence of "other voices in other rooms" on-line?
Should global communications culture be designed to make the world safe for the Disney Corporation and the policies of the U.S. State Department? Are these different entities today -- massive corporations and the U.S. government -- generating different levels of respect? Or is the Internet primarily a tool of empowerment and connection among very different persons of unequal power and education expressing their opinions, ideas, values and feelings, freely, against the constraints and/or impositions of power?
Electronic communications and debates have become our "public square" in the "Age of I-Phones" and lap-top computers -- a public square to which all are invited at the risk of offending the C.I.A. and State Department as well as other powerful forces in the world concerned with "obedience to authority."
In terms of the values of this sometimes rowdy public "space" of encounter and ideological confrontation, there are two competing visions of what should motivate U.S. actions and expressions:
First, some contend that this electronic "Agora" is a setting only made possible by American technological imagination and scientific achievement which, therefore, should not only celebrate but also promote and defend national values -- especially democracy, freedom, equality as understood in American terms -- the very values, again, making the Internet possible.
Second, others contend that pluralism and individual creativity as well as intelligence, true democratic values, are not limited to any one country nor can "anything be defined in only one way" -- a way that happens to be convenient for a few powerful countries. American values are only one of many competing value systems on display in our electronic public square.
Are all values created equal so as to be worthy of identical attention and respect? ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")
Power expressed in attempts to control the Internet is the opposite of a democratic celebration of individualism and/or freedom. It may well be that the tensions we struggle against are in our value system, not merely a matter of the limitations of the net or ourselves. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution" then "John Rawls and Justice.")
Advocates for the Americanization of the human species by way of the Internet include Eric Schmidt of Google and former advisor to Condoleeza Rice, Jared Cohen. The first of these gentlemen is a Democrat; the second is no doubt a Republican.
Together these men symbolize and embody the "marriage" of government power with Sillicon Valley wizardry that is so frightening to everyone in the world subject to the jurisdiction of "Apple Computers" and the Google "experience."
Against the union of these dark forces of technological power and the world's dominant military machine there are only a handful of independent and dispersed, philosophically- as well as scientifically-minded "Jedhi Knights" from many parts of the world with intelligence and learning as their only "light sabers." May the force be with you!
China has opted out of the Google Empire because, curiously, they do not want the U.S. government controlling Chinese Internet activity. The good folks in Beijing have figured out that Google (translated into Chinese) means "the National Security Agency" (NSA).
Before quoting Mr. Assange (who is basically correct in his observations) and without offering a personal assessment of his argument, I will provide a statement of the Google/Blogger position and State Department dogma, even as I expect to be denied access to the Internet shortly, as I endure a number of distractions aimed at preventing me from expressing my opinions, fearlessly, at a library computer. Perhaps this censorship is merely a coincidence. ("How censorship works in America" and "Censorship and Cybercrime" then "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Schmidt and Cohen "proselytize the role of technology in reshaping the world's people and nations into likenesses of the dominant Superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not."
Cuba says, "No, thank you!"
"The prose is terse, [in The New Digital Age,] the argument is confident, and the wisdom -- banal."
Essentially, the "boys" argue that progress and freedom means the spread of U.S. commercial technology and capitalism all over the world.
Disparities in wealth and resources, billions who are illiterate and have never seen a telephone, television, or computers versus an elite in First World societies sporting wearable computers and micro-thin media devices is fine. Whatever.
This indifference to grotesque injustice is to reinvent Orwell's nightmare in 1984 in order to allow Homer Simpson to become "Big Brother." Mr. Assange spells it out for us simple folks :
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google glasses strapped on to vacant human faces -- forever." ("Whatever" and "Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
"I have sworn eternal vigilance against all forms of tyrany over the mind of man [and woman.]" -- Thomas Jefferson.
Julian Assange is among a handful of media experts and crusaders fighting to democratize information as a form of struggle against any government colonizing and/or controlling minds. Mr. Assange argues, persuasively:
"The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world towards authoritarianism. ... the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuse inevitable moving the 'good' societies closer to the 'bad' ones." (emphasis added!)
When it comes to silencing dissidents and behind-the-back destruction of lives sanctioned by government officials, secretly, the so-called "good" societies are already no different from the allegedly "bad" societies. ("What is it like to be censored in America?" then "What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Aside from targeting Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the fusion of Google with the National Security State has contributed to the destruction of many young lives, literally and figuratively, like the much-regretted destruction of Aaron Schwartz. ("Aaron Schwartz, Freedom, and American Law.")
This is to say nothing of any number of Internet revolutionaries also facing harassment and personal attacks. Perhaps this intolerance may explain new pressures on Assata Shakur, Noam Chomsky, the demonizing and torture of Mumia Abu-Jamal -- together with the daily cyberwar against persons, like me, struggling (however modestly) to speak truth to power. ("America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison" then "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
In a nation where 800 persons per week, according to Ralph Nader, still die of curable diseases because they can not afford quality medical care, the Panglossian suggestion that we "live in the best of all possible worlds" or that philosophical issues should only be resolved in accordance with the wishes of powerful U.S. officials -- a claim usually followed by the contradictory assertion that "it is all relative!" -- makes no sense at all. ("Nihilism Against Memory" and "What is Enlightenment?" then "Derek Parfit's Ethics.")
My prescription for tolerance is as old as John Locke's "Letter On Toleration" and Spinoza's essay "On the Emendation of the Intellect" or John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and Mr. Jefferson's allegedly "unpatriotic" Declaration of Independence: Let truth emerge in a FREE and EQUAL exchange in the marketplace of ideas, without manipulations, control, illicit attempts at domination, or further hypocrisy and mendacity from minor state officials. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
If we are genuinely "for" freedom of speech, then we must be prepared to accept that many persons will not agree with our views. It is never appropriate to silence dissidents. (See again: "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" then "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Understanding the point of view of others requires gifts of empathy and identification best cultivated through literature and the arts, which are currently endangered disciplines. To imagine or share in and/or assist in the plight of others (sometimes "others" who are very different from ourselves) philosophical lightning is the most powerful weapon of the powerless masses.
" ... individual human beings can break free of the structures into which they are born," writes Andrew Delbanco of Columbia University, "by reimagining the world, they can change it."
This is the genuine American idea that the NSA and State Department may fear for it is not easily limited to a safe "Google search" or trendy political slogan:
"The politics implicit in classic American writings are those of liberal democracy [or democratic socialism] -- a society of [EQUAL] individuals ... within a culture of mutual responsibility -- but free to pursue happiness by refusing the designated status of their parents, race, sex, or any other limiting accident of birth."
Required Reading: Why Our American Classics Matter Now (New York: Noonday Press/ Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1997), pp. ix-xi.
The size of words in the text has been altered and I have no control of these and other defacements of the text which must come from New Jersey government officials and technology.
Gregory Currie, "Does Fiction Civilize Us?," The New York Times, June 2, 2013, p. 12. ("Sunday Review.")
Julian Assange, "The Banality of 'Don't Be Evil,'" The New York Times, June 2, 2013, at p. 4. ("Sunday Review.")
Charlie Savage, et als., "U.S. Confirms Gathering of Web Data Overseas: Officials Defend 2 Surveillance Programs," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, at p. A1. (U.S. acknowledges stealing information from the global net community as America calls on China to control cybercrimes.)
Noam Cohen & Leslie Kaufman, "Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate," The New York Times, June 7, 2013, p. A18. (I will be writing more about this matter. America has called on China and Cuba to protect the rights of dissidents.)
"We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks," (Focus Films, 2013) Angelika Movie Theater, Houston Street, New York, N.Y. http://www.itunes.com/westealsecrets
"The White Geek's Burden."
Should the Internet create a world culture that mirrors American values as distinct from promoting quirky individualism for "little brown persons"? Is there a difference between American values and the much-vaunted independence of "other voices in other rooms" on-line?
Should global communications culture be designed to make the world safe for the Disney Corporation and the policies of the U.S. State Department? Are these different entities today -- massive corporations and the U.S. government -- generating different levels of respect? Or is the Internet primarily a tool of empowerment and connection among very different persons of unequal power and education expressing their opinions, ideas, values and feelings, freely, against the constraints and/or impositions of power?
Electronic communications and debates have become our "public square" in the "Age of I-Phones" and lap-top computers -- a public square to which all are invited at the risk of offending the C.I.A. and State Department as well as other powerful forces in the world concerned with "obedience to authority."
In terms of the values of this sometimes rowdy public "space" of encounter and ideological confrontation, there are two competing visions of what should motivate U.S. actions and expressions:
First, some contend that this electronic "Agora" is a setting only made possible by American technological imagination and scientific achievement which, therefore, should not only celebrate but also promote and defend national values -- especially democracy, freedom, equality as understood in American terms -- the very values, again, making the Internet possible.
Second, others contend that pluralism and individual creativity as well as intelligence, true democratic values, are not limited to any one country nor can "anything be defined in only one way" -- a way that happens to be convenient for a few powerful countries. American values are only one of many competing value systems on display in our electronic public square.
Are all values created equal so as to be worthy of identical attention and respect? ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")
Power expressed in attempts to control the Internet is the opposite of a democratic celebration of individualism and/or freedom. It may well be that the tensions we struggle against are in our value system, not merely a matter of the limitations of the net or ourselves. ("Manifesto For the Unfinished American Revolution" then "John Rawls and Justice.")
Advocates for the Americanization of the human species by way of the Internet include Eric Schmidt of Google and former advisor to Condoleeza Rice, Jared Cohen. The first of these gentlemen is a Democrat; the second is no doubt a Republican.
Together these men symbolize and embody the "marriage" of government power with Sillicon Valley wizardry that is so frightening to everyone in the world subject to the jurisdiction of "Apple Computers" and the Google "experience."
Against the union of these dark forces of technological power and the world's dominant military machine there are only a handful of independent and dispersed, philosophically- as well as scientifically-minded "Jedhi Knights" from many parts of the world with intelligence and learning as their only "light sabers." May the force be with you!
China has opted out of the Google Empire because, curiously, they do not want the U.S. government controlling Chinese Internet activity. The good folks in Beijing have figured out that Google (translated into Chinese) means "the National Security Agency" (NSA).
Before quoting Mr. Assange (who is basically correct in his observations) and without offering a personal assessment of his argument, I will provide a statement of the Google/Blogger position and State Department dogma, even as I expect to be denied access to the Internet shortly, as I endure a number of distractions aimed at preventing me from expressing my opinions, fearlessly, at a library computer. Perhaps this censorship is merely a coincidence. ("How censorship works in America" and "Censorship and Cybercrime" then "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")
Schmidt and Cohen "proselytize the role of technology in reshaping the world's people and nations into likenesses of the dominant Superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not."
Cuba says, "No, thank you!"
"The prose is terse, [in The New Digital Age,] the argument is confident, and the wisdom -- banal."
Essentially, the "boys" argue that progress and freedom means the spread of U.S. commercial technology and capitalism all over the world.
Disparities in wealth and resources, billions who are illiterate and have never seen a telephone, television, or computers versus an elite in First World societies sporting wearable computers and micro-thin media devices is fine. Whatever.
This indifference to grotesque injustice is to reinvent Orwell's nightmare in 1984 in order to allow Homer Simpson to become "Big Brother." Mr. Assange spells it out for us simple folks :
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google glasses strapped on to vacant human faces -- forever." ("Whatever" and "Nihilists in Disneyworld.")
"I have sworn eternal vigilance against all forms of tyrany over the mind of man [and woman.]" -- Thomas Jefferson.
Julian Assange is among a handful of media experts and crusaders fighting to democratize information as a form of struggle against any government colonizing and/or controlling minds. Mr. Assange argues, persuasively:
"The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world towards authoritarianism. ... the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuse inevitable moving the 'good' societies closer to the 'bad' ones." (emphasis added!)
When it comes to silencing dissidents and behind-the-back destruction of lives sanctioned by government officials, secretly, the so-called "good" societies are already no different from the allegedly "bad" societies. ("What is it like to be censored in America?" then "What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
Aside from targeting Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the fusion of Google with the National Security State has contributed to the destruction of many young lives, literally and figuratively, like the much-regretted destruction of Aaron Schwartz. ("Aaron Schwartz, Freedom, and American Law.")
This is to say nothing of any number of Internet revolutionaries also facing harassment and personal attacks. Perhaps this intolerance may explain new pressures on Assata Shakur, Noam Chomsky, the demonizing and torture of Mumia Abu-Jamal -- together with the daily cyberwar against persons, like me, struggling (however modestly) to speak truth to power. ("America's Holocaust" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison" then "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")
In a nation where 800 persons per week, according to Ralph Nader, still die of curable diseases because they can not afford quality medical care, the Panglossian suggestion that we "live in the best of all possible worlds" or that philosophical issues should only be resolved in accordance with the wishes of powerful U.S. officials -- a claim usually followed by the contradictory assertion that "it is all relative!" -- makes no sense at all. ("Nihilism Against Memory" and "What is Enlightenment?" then "Derek Parfit's Ethics.")
My prescription for tolerance is as old as John Locke's "Letter On Toleration" and Spinoza's essay "On the Emendation of the Intellect" or John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and Mr. Jefferson's allegedly "unpatriotic" Declaration of Independence: Let truth emerge in a FREE and EQUAL exchange in the marketplace of ideas, without manipulations, control, illicit attempts at domination, or further hypocrisy and mendacity from minor state officials. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
If we are genuinely "for" freedom of speech, then we must be prepared to accept that many persons will not agree with our views. It is never appropriate to silence dissidents. (See again: "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?" then "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")
Understanding the point of view of others requires gifts of empathy and identification best cultivated through literature and the arts, which are currently endangered disciplines. To imagine or share in and/or assist in the plight of others (sometimes "others" who are very different from ourselves) philosophical lightning is the most powerful weapon of the powerless masses.
" ... individual human beings can break free of the structures into which they are born," writes Andrew Delbanco of Columbia University, "by reimagining the world, they can change it."
This is the genuine American idea that the NSA and State Department may fear for it is not easily limited to a safe "Google search" or trendy political slogan:
"The politics implicit in classic American writings are those of liberal democracy [or democratic socialism] -- a society of [EQUAL] individuals ... within a culture of mutual responsibility -- but free to pursue happiness by refusing the designated status of their parents, race, sex, or any other limiting accident of birth."
Required Reading: Why Our American Classics Matter Now (New York: Noonday Press/ Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1997), pp. ix-xi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)