Barack Obama and "The New Yorker."

June 18, 2010 at 2:54 P.M. a letter was deleted from a single word. I have corrected that inserted "error" -- until next time. Keep the war going, "girls." ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!")

April 8, 2010 at 3:55 P.M. Another "error" was inserted in this text demonstrating America's -- or The New Yorker's -- respect for free expression and opposition to censorship, that is, they're against censorship of themselves, apparently, since they may not mind censoring others. I wonder whether David Remnick can identify "Daniel Mendelsohn"? "Elizabeth Drew?" ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" then "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review" and "David Denby is Not Amused.")

March 16, 2010 at 6:40 P.M. Once more with gusto. "Errors" inserted and corrected. I received a number of crank calls today for some reason. I wonder whether Managing Editor for News at The New York Times, Jill Abramson, can identify Manohla Dargis and Ginger Thompson, Larissa MacFarquahr or Elizabeth Kolbert, or perhaps Helene Cooper and Patricia Cohen, or Daniel Mendelsohn? Shake up at the Times? Has Ms. Abramson visited my sites? If so, at whose request has she visited my sites? Has Ms. Abramson participated (in any way) in censorship, alteration, or suppression of my copyright-protected writings? Is Ms. Abramson aware of who has done such things? Is censorship something that a journalist should help to accomplish? Does The New York Times wish to be associated with such tactics of silencing a tortured dissident? Is America's media silence concerning these matters orchestrated by politicians or public officials despite our claims to have a free and independent media? ("What is it like to be censored?")

March 16, 2010 at 8:13 A.M. Since late last night, new "errors" have been inserted and corrected once again. I am sad to say that this process is likely to continue with the cooperation of New Jersey's bribed government officials.

March 15, 2010 at 10:59 P.M. "Errors" inserted twice today as part of the frustration-inducement campaign and continuing censorship efforts from New Jersey. It is a federal crime to conspire to violate civil rights. This offense is aggravated by abuse of government power. Please copy this essay after each set of corrections to inserted "errors." Trouble, Alex Booth? Terry Tuchin? Has Alex Booth been disbarred? ("America's Unethical Medical Torturers" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?")

During the Summer of 2008, a controversy arose over the New Yorker cover discussed in this essay. The issues touched upon in that all-too brief debate (from which journalists recoiled in horror) merit a more substantial discussion. We are a divided nation today facing a colossal challenge in this century. Ignoring these painful and sensitive fissures in the collective subconscious is unwise. America's wounds will not heal without exposure to the sunlight and fresh air. Forget whether someone calls you "sexist" or "racist." Let's get real.

The struggle against censorship and efforts to destroy these writings continues every day, probably with the assistance or to the indifference of so-called "journalists" -- journalists whose cowardice and ethical lapses or corruption makes them the equals of lawyers and doctors engaged in America's "torture adventure." Melissa Hayes at the Jersey Journal is a "journalist" who may have visited my sites. Lesbian brigade, Melissa? Is this a pseudonym, "Melissa Hayes"? Manohla Dargis? Soon you will see these ideas plagiarized by alleged "mainstream" journalists writing for major publications. I wonder whether Melissa Hayes is a New Jersey lawyer? (Again: "What is it like to be plagiarized?")

Pictured above is Editor in Chief and "Maximum Leader for Life" at The New Yorker, David Remnick. Friends call him "Fidel." We both like Zabar's and H&H Bagels on the Upper West Side. This guy can't be all bad. Pictures may be blocked, spacing may be affected, and other harassment is always possible from champions of free speech in New York media. America's PEN Center should be aware of these crimes. Tell your friends about this situation.

For my devastating critiques of two recent articles in the New Yorker, see "The Mind/Body Problem and Freedom" and "G.K. Chesterton's Heresy is Orthodoxy." However, you may feel about this article and controversial cover dealing with Barack Obama, there are two other articles in this so-called offensive issue that are worth the cost of the magazine. Benjamin Wallace-Wells discusses the ideas of scientist Garett Lisi ("John Searle and David Chalmers on Consciousness") and David Denby redeems himself after the questionable review of "The Matrix: Reloaded" with a good discussion of "The Dark Knight." You may wish to examine my dissection of James Wood's memorable analysis of religious belief in his always sterling prose in "Incoherence in 'The New Yorker.'" ("'Inception': A Movie Review.")

I don't care if you are "offended" by something that you read. I care that you read a newspaper or magazine every day. Be smart. Make it difficult for politicians to screw you. They will screw you anyway, but at least let them know that you're aware of it. I like David Denby, whose reliving of the "Great Books" course at Columbia University is a must if you are a college student or just someone who slept through a similar course when you were a college student. If you discover what appears to be a version of this essay with slight differences surfacing under someone else's name in one of these publications, don't be surprised.

I wonder whether David Denby writes under other names? If so, what are those other names? Has someone altered the content of Mr. Denby's writings? How can New Yorker writers put up with being made to look stupid by someone inserting paragraphs in their essays? Writers should make themselves look stupid. That's what I've done, you say? Fine. ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")

July 24, 2008 at 4:06 P.M. "errors" were reinserted into this essay to maximize frustration resulting from making identical corrections many times. Persons doing this censoring are aware of my history of torture and years of coping with such attacks on my work. I am blocking:

http://view.atdmt.com/MON/iview/106630511/direct;wi.728;hi.90/01/571556167 (NJ, Cuban American National Foundation?)

I plan to discuss soon the notorious article concerning then "Senator" Obama appearing in The New Yorker. Read Ryan Lizza's article, "The Political Scene: Making It -- Where Barack Obama Learned to be a Pol," in The New Yorker, July 21, 2008, at p. 48. Before discussing the issues raised in that piece, however, there are some controversies to be dealt with concerning not only the cover, but (more importantly) free speech values and the fate of this hallowed publication in recent years. Think of this discussion as a "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" to my analysis of Mr. Lizza's article, which is "forthcoming at some future date" -- as they say at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The following essay is best described as "Kierkegaard Meets Woody Allen." Kierkegaard's famous postscript usually appears independently of the book it sought to comment upon, a book which was shorter than its own postscript. I have been described as "Chilli Palmer with a Ph.D.," but I suppose "Kierkegaard meets Woody Allen" will do for some people as a description of me. I am sure that there are more -- shall we say -- "colorful" descriptions of me? Knock yourselves out.

I did not like or "approve" of this unknowingly revealing cover. The cover drawing or watercolor in this New Yorker depicts Barack Obama in Muslim attire, with a portrait of Ossama bin Laden over the fireplace where an American flag is burning. Michelle Obama is depicted in a parody of late sixties' revolutionary attire, as an Angela Davis-like figure, out of a comic Operetta. Ms. Obama is carrying a machine gun, wearing boots, and the couple's colliding fists ridicule African-American mores and gestures. Do you agree "Pamela" a.k.a. "Paula" Dow?

March 15, 2010 at 11:06 P.M. "Errors" inserted in the foregoing paragraph since this afternoon when I last reviewed this essay. I expect reinsertions of "errors" overnight making use of N.J. government computers.

This cover is RACIST, catering to "middle class American" (white) prejudices and nastiness, envy and anti-intellectualism, as well as "upper-middle-class" (more white) insularity. The cover reveals an idiotic pride in unsophistication which people everywhere today, unfairly, associate with Americans. To say that the cover is unfortunate is an understatement. New Jersey is saturated with proudly unsophisticated and moronic criminals. These criminals are found mostly in Trenton politics and the Garden State's legal profession. The rest of the country must be better than this N.J. level of discourse and activity. Mr. Ginarte? How's Atlantic City, Jose? Has Mr. Ginarte been disbarred? Edgar, dipping into the trust account?

I am deliberately painting with a broad brush and deploying archaic stereotypes to illustrate the level of discourse in which persons, like me, are placed by America's media pundits and others. If you are offended, then I have succeeded in my efforts at behaviorist consciousness-raising. The long awaited discussion by Mr. Remnick of the so-called Israeli Right-wing hostility to Obama is something of a disappointment. A bit too cautious, Mr. Editor-in-Chief. "Fidel" would have been more forthright. ("Illegal Payments to Bob Menendez" and "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

For saying exactly this -- that racism at such publications is hateful -- "errors" will continue to be inserted in my writings with impunity by persons who have violated my rights and yours in such ways for years, publicly, to the indifference of legal authorities who are sworn to prevent such crimes, authorities who are aware of the commission of these crimes and of which persons in New Jersey are responsible for them. The goal is to bring about the collapse of a tortured dissident coping with the after-effects of rape, theft, slanders, economic and professional harm, also much worse in an effort to control the content and expression of his opinions. I will continue to write. You must decide whether you will remain passive to these tortures. ("What is it like to be tortured?")

It must be admitted, however, that this artwork appearing on the New Yorker cover is certainly protected political speech, well within the boundaries of protest and expression in a free society. The cover is a dozen roses compared to the obscene and vicious political cartoons along with other expressions that have appeared in the nation's history, including some drawings that were far more vicious about the founding fathers of the Republic. Jefferson would have regarded this cover as a compliment compared to some of the criticism he had to deal with during his second term. During the Watergate era, Nixon would have sent the editor of the New Yorker a "thank you note" and flowers in response to this cover.

I just saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that said: "I never thought that I would miss Nixon." These words were written during the final days of the Bush/Cheney juggernaut.

If Obama will be President of the United States of America, then he will have to get used to this kind of critique. Incidentally, I think Obama has a good chance of becoming the next U.S. Chief Executive. (I was prescient.) I do not envy him that job. This cover will not hurt him all that much. Jessee Jackson's comments actually helped Obama. Remnick said during an interview that, after all, everyone would be discussing the cover and article, which would benefit Obama. Thus far -- in April of 2010 -- it must be admitted that Obama's administration has been treated fairly by the press.

No, David, media attention really benefits the New Yorker magazine -- which is David's job. Smile, David. All the way to the bank. By the way, there's a sale at Filene's Basement. I'll be there. I saw and nodded to David Remnick on the upper West Side where he seemed to have child care duties assigned to him that day. I sympathize, David. Obviously, it is not David Remnick who is "Editor-in-Chief" in his own home.

Americans should never ban or burn publications or books. We should not silence dissidents. We don't suppress speech in this country. We don't alter the writings of others. We must be willing to fight to protect the speech we dislike and disagree with, if we are to protect our freedoms. We respond to what we find objectionable by means of arguments, not violence. That policy of debate is called "democracy" and "freedom." I invite you to send me an e-mail if you disagree with me. I will post your comment. I may or may not respond to what you say. I will not seek to silence or censor nor to destroy your speech provided that I am also allowed to speak freely. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey" and "Is Paul Bergrin, Esq. an Ethical New Jersey Lawyer?" and "One of New Jersey's Highly Ethical Attorneys Has a Problem," then "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House.")

By the way, a magazine cover that makes you angry or curious is a success. That is what covers are designed to do. Ideas and opinions should provoke you. You should feel angry about some things that you read, also you ought to respond to ideas or discussions that engage your critical faculties or emotions by writing your own comments. However, you must not commit crimes against people with whom you disagree. Censorship using public resources, cybercrime, harassment -- these are crimes which should be prosecuted like any other crimes no matter who is responsible for them.

A news media or publication that does favors for politicians or inserts their statements in newscopy (for a small fee?) is a corrupt and biased media. Since when are illiterates -- like Manohla Dargis -- allowed to publish their hate-filled drivel in The New York Times? (''The Reader': A Movie Review" and "An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli.") Elizabeth Drew, "In the Bitter New Washington," in The New York Review of Books, December 23, 2010, at p. 92.

Here is a good example of something that should make you angry: Jamie Schram & John Doyle, "Nurse in Bar-Beat Nightmare," in The New York Post, March 12, 2010, at p. 5. (A woman was brutally beaten after rejecting a man's advances in a Manhattan bar.)

The man beating a woman with the good taste and judgment to reject his invitation to dance is probably one of the morons hacking into my computer and seeking to alter or destroy these writings, no doubt out of envy. I plan to write a separate essay dealing with this topic because it is important. I have known men like this creep who assaulted a young woman from Connecticut. I fervently hope that this culprit gets the maximum allowable under the law after being convicted of these offenses. Inmates do not take kindly to this sort of offender. It is very likely that, if this guy goes to prison, there will be some inmate justice meeted out to him. Getting nervous, Diana? ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!" and "Diana's Friend Goes to Prison.")

Attacks against legal officials (regardless of gender) assuming public responsibility in a state ruled by the mob, where my own family members have been insulted in vicious terms, a state which consistently violates the rights of its people -- such media attacks against legal officials who are fair game seem most appropriate. (Again: "An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" as well as "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

This understanding of free debate is enshrined -- "enshrined" is the right word! -- in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I struggle to defend my freedom of speech every day. Censorship will not begin with The New Yorker. It will always be easier to begin by suppressing the speech of powerless dissidents, like me, just as it is easiest to deny the civil or human rights of accused criminals or "detainees," like the "Ice Man." Loss of anyone's freedom is the loss of YOUR freedom as an American. How much do you want to bet that Remnick and I agree on that issue? ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

Like many nations in the world, as an individual, I am powerless to prevent criminal attacks on my life and creative works from envious mediocrities serving time in America's most hypocritical and corrupt institutions, like N.J.'s judiciary. Under the circumstances and in light of what you are seeing at these blogs, you must decide how sincere is America's commitment to freedom of speech and human rights in the world. ("Sartre or Guevara?" and "Havana Nights and C.I.A. Tapes.")

Now let's deal with the real controversy surrounding this tempest in a teapot. The street argument on all of this begins with a question: "Was Senator Hillary Clinton -- or were her people -- really behind this attack at one of the 'holy shrines' of liberalism, the New Yorker?" If you are a liberal, then the Village Voice, Nation, New York Times and New Yorker are places of worship and pilgrimage. Who really came up with this cover?

This attack against Obama is coming from within Democrat ranks. Disgruntled Femi-Nazis and the "we're-skinnier-and-dressed-in-better-black-than-you" brigade resent people's presumption in thinking for themselves by rejecting fashionistas' anointed and appointed one (who I admire and, as an independent, I hoped she'd win) -- "Holy Hillary" -- who was getting everybody a job after she was elected.

The scoop is that Hillary's people want to undermine Barack to let us know that the nomenklatura of the Democratic party, female division, still calls the shots. Well, you don't. Too bad. That's a big part of what Obama's candidacy is about -- a changing of the guard. Some people can handle that, others can't. Do these tensions explain the decision to go after Sharpe James, Ms. Milgram? Maybe Ms. Kagan's appointment is an attempt to appease the feministas. Are Democrats as loyal to the Obama reelection effort as they were to Mr. Clinton's campaign? If not, why not? ("Presidential Debates" and "Now, a Word From Our Sponsor ...")

I admire Jonathan Franzen's prose, but is it really accurate to say that Mr. Franzen is America's current great novelist when Toni Morrison and Philip Roth are still doing outstanding work? Who makes these decisions? Shouldn't Morrison and Roth get the cover of Time over Franzen? Who wants to accuse me of "anti-semitism"? I hope someone will offer that accusation? Only one of these novelists has actually won the Nobel prize, Ms. Morrison.

Hey, one more "error" inserted since my previous review! ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest.")

The tension within Democrat ranks mirrors some of the "fissures" in society of which I spoke. Let's deal with the nitty-gritty issues. Some white Americans feel threatened by the success and increased power of minorities -- especially many white females -- because they are sure that, say, white women are getting passed over in favor of underqualified minority males when it comes to jobs and other opportunities for "success" which means "more money" in America.

I have rarely met an American white woman of any social class or economic level who did not assume (this is almost always quite visible in their eyes) that I am far less intelligent than they are. This opinion often changes when people speak to me for a little while. Intelligence in men -- notably, minority males in urban settings -- is perceived as threatening, especially by white women of all ethnicities. Such women do not object to urban males in hip-hop gear attending sports events or engaging in obnoxious and violent behavior among "themselves." We all have to cut through the nonsense we've absorbed from popular culture when meeting new people in order to know them as persons, or individuals. ("Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Unconstitutionality of the Death Penalty" and "Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal.")

I find another "error" inserted in this paragraph after my tenth reading of this essay. I seem to have struck a nerve. This is the kind of hostile and violative response that a white female author published in magazines like the New Yorker is unlikely to experience. I wonder how they would like such experiences? Not pleasant, is it? Many such persons feel and sometimes express hatred for men like me. This hatred increases with the intelligence of the man subjected to it. I believe that it is highly likely that one person using the name "Daniel Mendelsohn" is a female and an attorney in New Jersey. Perhaps a gay man residing in Manhattan. Payola, Daniel? ("Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Anyone who has read earlier versions of this essay today knows that these "errors" were deliberately inserted in the text to deface the work and upset me. Think about the level of malice or ENVY involved in a person doing such evil, which is like beating up a person and walking away. The emotions and harm suffered by others have no meaning for the persons inserting these "errors" and getting away with it for years. ("Is this America?" and "Another Mafia Sweep in New Jersey and Anne Milgram is Clueless" then "Anne Milgram Does it Again.")

Women from Scarsdale, who have taken ballet classes and visit the theater, are troubled to find an urban male able to discuss these subjects who is not gay and has no desire to commit crimes against them. This irregularity in male behavior upsets rich white women's view of an orderly universe. It is interesting to see the assumptions made about the ethnicity of this (as yet) unidentified attacker in Manhattan. I am including Italian-American men in the urban male category. Italian-American women must be listed with upper-middle class white women because, as one Italianista explained, "we can pass for white." Jews of all stripes and hues are, by definition, "rich people" in urban lore -- unless they are first generation immigrants from Russia or Poland who own a small Deli or newsstand, like to munch on cigars, regardless of gender, curse in Yiddish and argue about the Yankees. These cultural tensions were expressed in the conflict between Obama and Clinton, together with their various minions and lesser demons. Al Baker & Anahad O'Connor, "Suspect Arrested in Attack In Midtown Bar's Restroom," in The New York Times, March 13, 2010, at p. A15. ("Mbarek Lafrem," an Israeli immigrant, allegedly, was arrested for this crime.)

The food fight about the Convention and whether Hillary is stealing the podium from Obama is about the various factions drawing a line in the sand. The Feministas are banking on undercutting Obama in subtle and devious ways that will result in the loss by Obama of the general election or the failure of his administration if Obama is elected. Hence, this New Yorker cover and other items like it. Perhaps, like me, Mr. Obama is seen as a sub-human for whom fairness does not matter. The denial of fairness is an option for the feministas, not necessarily for the media in general. The result may be the election of an opponent of abortion rights who will criminalize procreative choice for women. Not too smart, "ladies." ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?")

Such a loss or failure will pave the way for Hillary's run next time around. The message is that racism will preclude any African-American's election to the U.S. Presidency (nonsense). Worse, if an African-American is elected, he or she will not be up to the job.

We are the only persons who should be entrusted with running your little life because we live on the Upper West Side. We get to decide what movies are good or who is intelligent, not people like you. "Latinos are not smart enough to be philosophers," I was told. Accordingly, your best bet if you are a brown or black person, who has not attended Yale University, is to back Clinton's sly take-over of the party. "We will do the thinking for you," say the former majors in Women's Studies and Government at Harvard, now gainfully employed in "polling" and political advocacy. Feministing, forever! Zig Hail! ("America's Holocaust.")

Only a few "errors" have been inserted in this essay by the dirty-tricks brigade. I will do my best to revise the essay after each alteration. I think these inserted "errors" are proving much of what I am saying. The hatred that seems to accompany the discovery that someone like me is intelligent, together with the desire to destroy, suppress, or plagiarize what is recognized as good writing, still seems pathological to me. What is even more puzzling is the continuing inability or unconcern of my society to abide by or enforce the law even when laws are broken publicly. A society that reaches such levels of incompetence or corruption is in a sad state of decline. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and, again, "Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

With the acceptance of the position as Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton has been identified with the Obama administration and its fate. This is fortunate for the nation, but it makes it difficult for the "we-are-more-female-than-you" brigade to upset things for the White House. There is frustration in estrogen country. Mydol? The more you undermine Obama, the more you hurt Hillary. The thing about stereotypes is that they cut two ways. Get it? Imagine giving a conga drum to someone who is Latino. Who would do such a thing? (Again: "What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "How Censorship Works in America.")

These angry persons of the female persuasion have formed an unholy alliance with a lot of guys named "Cheech" from the old political machines and clubhouses in places like ... well, Bayonne, New Jersey and North Potato, Illinois (or Chicago, for that matter) where the idea of a "negro" in the White House is still a tad disturbing. These persons may be designated by the term: "The Badda-Bing Brigade." As usual, women will make use of men for their sinister purposes, then they will discard us. Fortunately, unlike many insects, human females do not devour the men with whom they fornicate -- usually. Much depends on male performance.

Both factions of the party are irrelevant to most people's lives. They do not know it. The Democrat aristocracy and their ilk (Naomi Wolf, Hendrik Hertzbeg, Naomi Klein, David Denby, "Elizabeth Kolbert," Jeffrey Toobin, "Larissa MacFarquhar," etc.) is responsible for the loss of two presidential elections by Democrats. They cost both Al Gore and John Kerry the Presidency. These people are determined to do the same for Clinton and Obama. The best thing Obama can do is to put some distance between himself and these journalists and pundits, while smiling when he bumps into them at Steven Spielberg's party in Long Island this summer. We're not invited to Steve's party this summer, boys and girls. What a shame. Don't worry, we'll open a fire hydrant with one of those caps we got from the NYPD. Is Susan Faludi also "Larissa MacFarquahr"? Elizabeth Wurtzel? Anne Milgram? Is it permissible for a public official to write for the media while in office? Have New Jersey officials done such things despite the blatant conflict of interest for all involved? Do you speak to me of "ethics," Ms. Milgram and Mr. Rabner? Hypocrisy? Frauds? Mafia Whores? Do you people plan to crawl out from beneath your rocks to face me? Or do we continue to play these games forever? (Da Capo e Fortissimo! "David Denby is Not Amused.")

Should public officials hire journalists by means of under the table cash payments to "insert" favorable items in media accounts of their own exploits, Senator Bob? Senator Bob, can you shed any light on these mysteries? As a member of the N.J. bar, Senator Bob was and is obligated to bring unethical conduct by lawyers victimizing me to the attention of the OAE as soon as he became aware of it. Has Senator Bob done all he can to bring these matters concerning me (1988-today) to the attention of the authorities, while notifying all attorneys involved of his actions from day one? David, interested in this situation for your magazine? ("Senator Bob Struggles to Find His Conscience" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")

These people ("We went to Smith College!") want to explain the world to us. They get interviewed on Charlie Rose's t.v. show. They do secret "favors" or write speeches for elected officials, who are sometimes very bright, well-read, even intellectually curious. Politicians are also sometimes just the opposite. What such political insiders fail to appreciate is that they display a group-think mentality that is acceptable -- indeed, essential in chi-chi circles in D.C., N.Y., L.A., and elsewhere -- even as this same mentality is (rightly) deemed moronic in most other places. This hostile attitude to the politically-anointed exists both in America and throughout the world. Most people in most places are convinced that America's privileged class is deluded about the realities of life for the vast majority of persons on the planet. Most people think that such "media elites" in America are "assholes." ("What a man's gotta do.")

You getting this, Naomi Wolf? David Remnick? Fellas in Trenton, New Jersey? "We" drink designer water. We use biodegradable toilet paper. We insist that the dolphins that we save from extinction convert to atheism. We are virtuous. We are "for" the planet. Aren't we just wonderful? Aren't we just divine? Of course we are. Entrust your future to us.

Republican counterparts to these people wish to torture "detainees," steal your oil if you are a little brown person in the Middle East, then force you to convert to fundamentalist Christianity. Liz Cheney? Sarah Palin? Dick Cheney? Did I say something about hypocrisy? Insulting me is a little ridiculous at this point, but you're more than welcome to do so. Most people in America also regard these so-called elites as "assholes." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

There is little room for genuine meeting among such polarized caricatures. I know what it is like to be seen as a bizarre cartoon version of myself. Such encounters with distorted images of themselves must be experienced by many celebrities. I am sure that the reactions of persons demonized in these ways will be extreme and intense, even violent in many cases. I recall an interview with a British actress who had appeared in several celebrated costume films who was dismayed to learn that Americans refused to believe that she existed in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, many Americans seemed affronted to discover that she did not dress in muslin and crinoline or carry a parasol. Frustrating people's stereotypical expectations of us seems to infuriate bigots which is exactly what we should do. I like upsetting bigots and racists by being who I am and not what they want me to be. You will not control or enslave me. It is bizarre to find people struggling for years to fit me into their categories even as it is overwhelmingly clear that I will not fit into those categories. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

I may sit down and write a speech for the Democratic nominee's acceptance of his party's nomination. I guarantee you that my text will be different from what the "Democrat soldiers" will "plop" on the page. I am sure that my draft will have greater resonance for listeners in many parts of the world at this moment in history. That's not because I am foolish enough to believe that I can write well. It has been made painfully clear to me that I am "retarded" right before I am plagiarized. However, I am in a position to appreciate concerns of ordinary intelligent people (from all over the world) who are unlikely to exchange thoughts with David Remnick. Will this essay or my draft of a speech be suppressed, censored, vandalized again? I hope not. ("For America to Lead Again": A Speech for President Barack Obama" and "A Commencement Address for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton.")

What concerns the Upper West Side media figures is rarely what keeps people awake in other places. I would like to ask Mr. Remnick whether he has experienced hunger, life-threatening, stomach-churning hunger? What is it like not to eat for ten days? Do you know what it is like for a child to wonder whether he or she will see a parent again? What is it like to guess about whether you will have a place to live next month? How do you explain not eating to pay for books in order to study for a big test? Destruction of your life's goals and permanent injury through crimes committed against you by others, who then presume to comment on your "ethics" can only be understood by being lived or experienced? How does one live every day with rage -- no, FURY -- at social injustice? What is it like to be raped? How does it feel to be stolen from by people who disapprove of a victim's character? How does one "accept" the destruction of lives, rewards to hypocrites and frauds regarded as "deserving people," when more deserving others suffer? How can one "adjust" to the exploitation and violation of gifted women whose lives are thrown away? This is distinct from women mortified at purchasing or receiving -- as a small "gift" -- the wrong color Mercedes Benz? Have you been to Barney's this summer? ("Carla's and Corzine's Soap Opera in New Jersey" and "What a man's gotta do.")

Are these stereotypes that I am deploying? I hope so. Now take another look at that New Yorker cover. Clear enough for you? These are not the issues "everyone's discussing" concerning Obama. We know he is a Christian. The issues are: How and when are we getting out of Iraq? Or Afghanistan? The reduction in troop numbers in September, 2010 has not resolved this issue of exiting Iraq? How can I survive in this economy? What happens to my kid if I get sick? Why is Obama (Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, McCain, or anyone else) in favor of the death penalty when they know it is racist and will have negligible effect on crime? Popularity? Why is Mumia Abu-Jamal still in prison? How many African-American children will survive in America? One out of three? How do we stop the tortures in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo and put people in prison who are responsible for those tortures? How can I destroy -- legally -- the lives of those censoring and altering my writings? Persistence, perhaps? ("More Democrats Arrested in New Jersey" and "Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison.")

The response to that question about our children often heard from the people inserting "errors" in these essays is that it is "good that only one out of three African-American children survive in America." Marco Rubio? I have heard persons who are now judges make such statements -- and worse -- about African-Americans. I will be more than happy to name hypocrites and frauds in the judiciary, federal and state, who are aware of crimes committed against me who have the nerve to speak of my "ethics."

How do I respond to this racist attitude from persons protected by public officials in America? These are the people who disapprove of me. I disapprove of them. You decide who is more ethical. I am sure that the most disgustingly "slimy" lowlifes I have ever met were, and still are, New Jersey lawyers and judges, even state Supreme Court justices. They make me sick. A word was deleted from the foregoing sentence since my previous review of this work. You can smell many of these N.J. lawyers from a block away. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security.")

Find the article in this week's New Yorker dealing with any of these matters in a thriving, angry, powerful voice. It isn't there? I am shocked! I wonder why not? Whose "New York" is the New Yorker really about? Not mine. A lot of New York lives will not be found in this magazine. (Compare "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey" with "Driving While Black [DWB] in New Jersey.")

Is your response to remove a letter from one of my words or insert some other "error" in order to frustrate me? Is that the best you can do? I am sometimes asked why I support Reverend Sharpton in New York. My answer is how many other public figures are examining these life and death issues for middle class people or older persons of modest means? Iraq War veterans returning to a country disdainful of them as "idiots" for serving in a military action now regarded as stupid, which was hunky-dory when most Democrats voted for it -- including then Senators Clinton and John Kerry -- can't get medical attention or money for school. There is not a lot of outrage at these horrors in America's "most prestigious periodical of ideas and opinions." (These former soldiers can now receive treatment and so can many poor people who would not have been covered without Obama Care.)

I fail to understand the media's lack of interest in the continuing state censorship and suppressions of speech on display at these blogs or (worse) at the indifference and callousness of public officials in an American jurisdiction ostensibly governed by the same Constitution accepted by the rest of America.

Does the media give itself a free pass from criticism? This level of corruption and criminality must be unacceptable even in New Jersey. Ms. Pelosi, do you agree that criminals should be prosecuted even if they are lesbians who vote for women candidates? ("New Jersey is the Home of Child Molesters" and "Law is Dead in New Jersey.")

Bill Clinton understands that anger. Bill can walk down the street in my neighborhood and be mobbed, like Muhammad Ali. Hillary is also liked, for herself, not for the pundits hovering around her holding up resumes. Impoverished ex-soldiers often have not attended Smith College. We did not know them at Yale University's Drama Department. Their books are not about who got laid last summer in a Fire Island resort. Their books won't be published in America.

Cops and firefighters in New York deserve a raise. Teachers do, too. Few of them are disturbed about their investment portfolios now that the market is "puking." Let's chat about how the economy and this government is ignoring and screwing them. Many more of the "simple folks" are or soon will be unemployed. They will be unemployed for many years to come in an economy being overtaken by others with fewer military burdens. We are fighting among ourselves for the crumbs as other nations are about to eat our lunch at recess. No, I won't unmix my metaphors. Are we more or less secure as a result of the Bush/Cheney policies and war against civil liberties? I think we're less secure than ever. Is the answer government by Bain Capital? JP Morgan? I doubt it.

When politics in America becomes the disgusting and evil spectacle of recent attacks on Senator John Edwards, who is not a candidate for any office at the moment and whose wife is a living tribute to the human spirit -- both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards and their family members are injured, UNNECESSARILY, by these cruel personal attacks -- something has gone seriously wrong with U.S. politics. Mr. Edwards, obviously, is a good and honorable, flawed (like the rest of us) human being, whose personal life is his business. When relationships are more than personal, when they're about stealing public money, then ethics and criminal law should be at issue. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?")

Leave the Edwards family alone! That's what many Americans feel, myself among them. Your problems with me should not involve any of my family members. I will make it my business to take on New Jersey's "family" members until people realize that. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Lately, the quality of the writing in the New Yorker magazine is so-so, at best. Ideas and opinions are dull and (often) second-hand. You get better thoughts and more poetry on the streets of this city. Just walk around. Listen to what people are saying. Energetic writing is found in street corner poetry slams, also in conversations overheard at Starbucks or in a thrift shop, even on the Internet. African-American writers are self-published and frequently ignored by the mainstream media. Maybe their writings are also defaced or altered by computer hackers. I will make it a point to review some of these writers who are fighting to be read without the support of big publishing houses. Any day now magazines and opinion-makers will catch up with us "simple folks." The books we simple people write will not be sent to on-line booksellers. I wonder why? I'll have to post my "Ode" (what's that?) for legendary New York street poet "Bingo Gazingo." ("Mark C. Lilla and Maturity in Discussions of Science and Religion" and "How Censorship Works in America.")

Don't give up, "keep fighting." To paraphrase Mr. Obama -- I bought a great Obama t-shirt at Urban Outfitters on the Upper West Side (enemy territory!) that was confiscated by my daughter -- "Maybe, soon, we can hope once more." Any more "errors" you want to insert in this essay, boys and girls?