"God is New Each Moment."

November 7, 2010 at 1:49 P.M. "Errors" inserted and corrected since my previous review.

September 13, 2010 at 8:07 P.M. At approximately 7:15 P.M. the cable signal to my computer was blocked, shutting down my computer and causing me to reboot the computer. I will try to run a full scan of my computer tomorrow. I surmise that my references to Mr. McGill's stupidity were not appreciated at the OAE. I will make it a goal to describe, in detail, examples of McGill's stupidity and possible criminal misconduct in future posts. Deliberate misuse of governmental power for purposes of censorship or suppression of speech is unethical John McGill, Esq., as are conspiracies to violate civil rights. Shame on you, OAE. ("John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")

September 13, 2010 at 10:54 A.M. A telephone call from my mother was disrupted by static interference. I am sure that this is only a coincidence. Similar interference caused me to return a cable box to my service provider. I am sure that this is a further coincidence. Obstructions of my cable signal to my computer are still a regular feature of my writing experience. This is probably coincidental. ("How Censorship Works in America" and "I affirm this single moment of rebellion.")

Matt Bai, "In Obama Economic Stance, Risk of Confusion," in The New York Times, September 9, 2010, at p. A1. (Is the confusion even greater in our human rights policies?)
Charlie Savage, "Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by the C.I.A.," in The New York Times, September 9, 2010, at p. A1. (Victims of C.I.A. torture cannot sue because our torture policies at home and abroad are "secret," says the Ninth Circuit.)
Frederick N. Rasmussen, "M. Dannenberg, 94; Found Nazi Papers: Copy of Nuremberg Laws Was in a Bank," in The Record, August 29, 2010, at p. L-8. (Two American Jews found Nuremberg Laws that defined Jews in Nazi Germany as sub-human "objects" for experimentation and destruction based on social need while the methods of executing these laws were to be "secrets" of the Nazi state.)
Lisa Fleischer, "State Reviews Help on Grants: Consultant in Failed Bid Cost $500,000," in The Record, September 8, 2010, at p. A-1. (" ... officials said they still could not identify the source of a crucial [inserted] error that helped sink the state's chances for funding ... " foul play and political sabotage suspected on the part of anti-Christie forces in New Jersey. Obamacare?)
Richard Cowen, "Christie Targets Public Perks: Wants Cuts in Pensions, Health Care," in The Record, September 8, 2010, at p. A-3. (Mr. Codey and Mr. Sweeney are "livid" over suggestions that multiple jobs for the Jersey Boys must be eliminated. Deceased government workers are protesting new ethics rules. "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
"Pope to Youth: Spurn 'Spiritual Desert,'" in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25754069/print/1/displaymode/1098/ 7/20/2008
David Miller, Trans., Schillebeeckx: God is New Each Moment (New York & London: Continuum, 1983). (In conversation with Huub Oosterhuis and Piet Hoorgveen. Father Schillebeeckx's name has been spelled in English with one and/or two "x's" and also with one or two "e's.")
"Detaining Mr. Marri," (Editorial) The New York Times, Sunday, July 20, 2008, "Week in Review," p. 10.

What is homeland security? I believe that what is really threatened after 9/11 -- what must now be protected in America -- is a Constitutional system that once guaranteed civil liberties to all as well as subordination of government power to the rule of law. Abandonment of that system and those values for the sake of an illusory security from terrorist threats is not only to throw out the baby with the bathwater, it is to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.

The former Soviet Union was eminently secure, as are many nations today (North Korea) that are not known for their protection of human rights. Few of us are tempted to emigrate to such destinations. Secrecy, torture, violations of fundamental rights do not (and can not) make us more safe or secure. These tactics make us a visibly frightened people abandoning crucial commitments to fundamental values that we ask the world to accept. Freedom is worth a little risk of insecurity.

Government criminality -- as in New Jersey! -- usually replaces a system of legality with unaccountable and unrestrained State power. This unchecked power is dangerous -- much more dangerous, in fact, for the vast majority of people than any isolated terrorist incident could ever be. Insults, threats, anxiety-inducement and further computer harassment aimed at me will not change my mind on this matter. ("More Censorship and Cybercrime.")

"The Bush administration" -- now emulated by one-time critic, Mr. Obama -- "has been waging a fierce battle for the power to lock people up indefinitely simply on the president's say-so. It scored a disturbing victory last week when a federal appeals court ruled that it could continue to detain Ali al-Marri, who has been held for more than five years as an enemy combatant. The decision gives the president sweeping power to deprive anyone -- citizens as well as noncitizens -- of their freedom [and lives]. The Supreme Court should reverse this terrible ruling."

Adoption of the Nuremberg Laws allowed Adolf Hitler to bypass due process of law by incarcerating any "potentially dangerous enemy" of the Reich. That category of "potentially dangerous" persons certainly would have included me if I had been there. I am not suggesting that Bush or Obama is Hitler. However, "imprisonment without due process of law" -- regardless of who is responsible for it -- is always a totalitarian policy. Everybody (or anybody) is potentially dangerous.

Any Chief Executive becomes an enemy of the Constitution and civil liberties through the adoption of such dictatorial tactics aimed at enhancing something nebulous called "security" and something not-so nebulous called "presidential power." Like Mr. Jefferson, I believe that power is a dangerous property belonging exclusively to the people in a Republic or democracy, not something to be wielded irresponsibly or without the "public's sanction" in convenient secrecy, allegedly, "for the people's good." ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

"If the President does it," Richard Nixon explained, "that means that it is not illegal." I disagree with this notion of an "imperial presidency." Secrecy makes things worse. One cannot respond to accusations made behind one's back. Without confrontation or cross examination, under conditions of secrecy, allegations that are mere conjectures or slanders are easily mistaken for truth. Ms. De La Cruz, say it to my face. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")

Actions upon a person's life by government agents must be explicit and public, affording citizens the opportunity to test the legality of such actions by measuring them against legal protections. A government official's opinion of my character -- usually based on ignorance or stupidity, i.e., John McGill of the OAE -- should never provide the basis for government actions against me, much less for slander and surreptitious economic harm or censorship, without accountability.

You don't have to like me. I probably can't stand you. All you have to do, as a government official, is respect my human rights. Why didn't you, New Jersey? Solicitation of grievances by the OAE against a politically targeted attorney is cause for disbarment. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

"Mr. Marri, a citizen of Qatar legally residing in the United States, was initially arrested in his home in Peoria, Ill., on ordinary criminal charges, then seized and imprisoned by military authorities. The government, which says he has ties to Al Qaeda, designated him an enemy combatant, even though it never alleged that he was in an army or carried arms on a battlefield. He was held on the basis of extremely thin hearsay evidence." ("Rendition.")

Extremely thin hearsay evidence suggesting that anyone may be an enemy of "political correctness" will soon be grounds for execution in Manhattan -- or at least, in Long Island during vacation season. Otherwise, it is generally recognized that due process allows for cross examination, testing possible evidence for credibility and reliability. Anonymity allows people to ventilate hostility, usually based on everything from envy to greed, against a feared or hated adversary, usually while smiling to his face or accepting favors from him. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")

Lack of accountability provides the additional ingredient that will guarantee expressions of malice and vindictiveness against a targeted person. The victim of such tactics is almost always either a very gifted or bizarre person. Sometimes (as in my case, perhaps) someone who is both weird and clever in an unusual -- if charming! -- sort of a way. America must always be made safe for so-called "weirdness," especially the weirdness associated with intellectual and artistic creativity or originality. Naturally, unusual persons with exceptional intellectual interests will always be beyond the grasp of a person like McGill or "CIA psychiatrist," Terry Tuchin, to say nothing La Strega Nera Diana Lisa Riccioli. ("'Inception': A Movie Review.")

The Fourth Circuit has recently upheld "the government's right to hold Mr. Marri indefinitely. The court ruled that Mr. Marri must be given greater rights to challenge his detention. But this part of the decision is weak, and he is unlikely to get the sort of procedural protections necessary to ensure that justice is done."

Are plans to burn the Koran in a Florida church still in the works? What material resources can this man, Mr. Marri, or so many others have that will allow for a successful challenge of governmental detention in federal appellate tribunals or the U.S. Supreme Court? Appointed counsel will find it difficult to devote sufficient resources to investigation and fact-finding calculated to refute unknown and unspecified charges.

"You must've done something!" This is usually not a sufficiently specific accusation to survive a Constitutional challenge on due process grounds. One of the sad discoveries of middle age, for me, is how much of America's Constitutional legal structure has become a "pious myth" (or lie) for the masses. ("On Bullshit" and "What is memory?")

We pretend to adhere to laws that we disobey when it suits our interests, like international laws that we ask others to obey and yet disregard when necessary to accomplish policy objectives. I am still coping with public censorship that is content-based and emanates from New Jersey government sources, I believe, or from persons protected by N.J. cops and/or officials. This PUBLIC criminality continues to be ignored by the American authorities. How very curious? ("Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?")

Legally, what I know to be true in my life is said to be impossible in America. Yet it has certainly taken place. Moreover, there are people witnessing this censorship and computer crime, every day. The criminals committing these heinous actions label me "unethical." I stopped taking this farce seriously a long time ago. I suspect that China, Cuba, and most other places stopped listening to U.S. human rights protests because they are, deemed, "hypocritical." We must live by and not only anounce our so-called principles. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")

If someone accuses you of doing "something" or just being "something" illicit or impermissible, where your very identity is an offense, how do you respond to the accusation? What accusation? Who is making the accusation and why is it being made? Corruption? Bribery? Political opposition? Envy? Anything can motivate anonymous attacks against a controversial figure. ("Is there a gay marriage right?")

How can you address or answer the distancing and horror-struck stares of persons told, in your absence, that you are a "monster" for reasons not explained to you -- reasons which may be false or deliberately fabricated by unspecified antagonists, like Ms. De La Cruz? Such experiences are worthy of the writings of Kafka, Orwell and Huxley as well as George W. Bush's America. Mr. Obama, continuation of such failed and totalitarian Bush policies is not why I voted for you. ("'For America to Lead Again': A Speech for Barack Obama.")

These Kafka-like horrors are routine aspects of life in the malodorous and odious neighborhoods of New Jersey. How do you explain the frustration resulting from alteration or destruction of creative work that I deal with, every day -- destruction of creative work at the hands of the kind of people found in New Jersey law and politics? ("New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead" and "We don't know from nothing.")

My unwillingness to accept such illegality makes me "unethical." Fine. Concerning the "ethics" of my accusers, see again: "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System." Justice William J. Brennan's pictures were blocked in my essay examining his Constitutional theory at Critique.

Was Justice Brennan a "Communist"? A member of Al-Qaeda, perhaps? Maybe Justice William J. Brennan was Ossama bin Laden's "driver"?

My reactions to New Jersey decisions are not merely based on the faulty reasoning and wrong conclusions for which these decisions are famous, but result from the hypocrisy associated with digusting lowlife judges "connected" to mob families presuming to judge the "ethics" of their victims. ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" and "Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics" then "New Jersey's Politically-Connected Lawyers On the Tit.")

Nothing will restore or repair anyone's deliberately broken familial relationships or friendships, even if it is clear (eventually) that a person is the victim of an injustice. Nothing compensates for the loss of freedom, identity, community, or even property. There is no way to make a torture victim whole. ("America's Legal Ethics Today" and "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" then "Jennifer Velez is a Dyke Magnet!")

There is also no way to make a legal system that tortures and rapes, secretly, worthy of respect by the international community or anyone. France and a number of other countries now refuse to extradict persons to a U.S. legal system that executes people based on racist practices, and which is otherwise deservedly regarded as "barbaric." ("Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meanings of Prison" and "So Black and So Blue in Prison.")

What happened to the U.S. Constitution? No one knows.

Are you proud of that unflattering international opinion of the American legal system? I'm not. Torture creates a barrier between civilization and societies that torture. Worse are societies that torture, secretly or hypocritically, for unspecified reasons of status -- not for what you have done, but for what or who you are "thought to be" as a victim of power: "He is weird" is not a justification for crimes committed against a secretly designated victim by paid-off friends and family members of that victim acting for the state. ("Larry Peterson Cleared by DNA" and "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey.")

Under such circumstances, in a legal system that is responsible for the pointless destruction of many lives and violations of its own announced core principles, judgments concerning the ethics of opponents of torture or as to the merits of rival legal systems are suspect at best. Hatred, disgust, and resistance are the only proper response to New Jersey's continuing smear tactics and computer crimes. (Again: "Jennifer Velez is a 'Dyke Magnet!'" and "Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!")

We may have lost the right to judge or comment on the ethical and legal failures of other societies in light of our own catastrophic performance on the world's juridical stage. Each day that this cover up continues, Mr. Rabner, is a renewal of years of torture for many victims of Garden State corruption and evil -- corruption and evil that is now symbolized by your tainted office as Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court presiding over a mafia-controlled and failed legal system. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and, again, "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!'" then "Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner!")

"The designation 'enemy combatant,' which should apply only to people captured on a battlefield, can now be applied to people detained inside the United States. Even though Mr. Marri is not an American citizen" -- many American citizens have faced comparable barbarism and may now be subject to government assassination without due process of law -- "the court's reasoning appears to apply equally to citizens." ("This is my first torture," "What is it like to be tortured?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

"... 'the president can order the military to seize from his home and indefinitely detain ANYONE in this country -- including an American citizen -- even though he [or she] has never [been] affiliated with an enemy nation, fought alongside any nation's armed forces, or borne arms against the United States anywhere in the world,' wrote Judge Diana Gibbon Motz." (emphasis added)

"Equally troubling, the ruling supports President Bush's ludicrous argument that when Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, it gave the president essentially unlimited powers. If a president ever wants to round up Americans on vague charges" -- something which is already routine in Democrat-controlled New Jersey where so-called "physicians" lend themselves to this hideous practice of torture -- "and detain them indefinitely, this ruling gives him a dangerous green light."

The U.S. Supreme Court should review and reverse both frightening and poorly reasoned decisions threatening everyone's liberties. Secrecy is the enemy of freedom and democracy. Why must we respect the rights of persons? Are persons animals or material objects no different from a shoe or an armadillo? ("Not One More Victim" and "The Wanderer and His Shadow" then "Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that persons enjoyed a unique ontological and moral status that entitles them to something called "rights" against the State. Justice William Brennan spoke of "human dignity" as essential to the vision of the Constitution, defining the relationship between government and persons by prescribing what the government cannot do to you. Censorship is one of the violations that should be prohibited in America. Violations of privacy and slavery -- to say nothing of rape -- were once outlawed in America. ("Is there a gay marriage right?")

Pope Benedict "urged young people Sunday to reject what he said was the 'spiritual desert' spreading throughout the world and to embrace Christianity to build a new age free from greed and materialism."

A point on which all of the great faiths agree -- something which is part of the Church's continuing ecumenical movement -- is insistence on the dignity of persons that precludes reduction of the human being to the status of a mere animal or "object." No person may be tortured, exploited, violated, starved, or thrown away. No person is a slave. No one is collateral damage. Desperate poverty afflicting billions of human beings in this world, including forms of spiritual poverty in wealthy societies, must be opposed by Christians. David Smith, trans., Schillebeeckx: God is New Each Moment (New York & London: Continuum, 1983), pp. 95-105. ("The Liberation of the Poor.")

America's obsession with money and things threatens fundamental human dignity, as does misery and poverty, or the hunger and deprivation of millions (or billions) of persons resulting from destitution created by greed. Fidel Castro said: "To abandon the poor is to abandon Christ." Forget who made the statement. Ask yourself whether the sentence is true. I think it is one of the truest sentences ever spoken. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution" and "R.D. Laing and Evil.")

Echoing, unconsciously, themes from America's presidential election, the Pope spoke of "a new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deadens our souls and poisons our relationships." (emphasis added)

We must live in a society that refuses to torture, declines to imprison or damage anyone without trial, or to exploit and impoverish millions for the benefit of a few. The hunger and pain of any person must be shared. We must continue to struggle and hope. These are my hopes and wishes for America, Cuba, Iraq and/or any other country. This hope and its expression make me "unethical" and subject to censorship in New Jersey. I argue that continuing violations of human rights by my society are unethical. You decide what is unethical and illegal everywhere. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")