New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.

Due to continuing attacks and viruses directed against my computer, I cannot be certain that I will be able to continue posting essays. However, I will struggle to do so. Hackers still alter and deface these texts on an almost daily basis. November 29, at 9:50 A.M., the following web site was blocked: http://iview.adtmt.com/iview/msnnkhac001728x90x (NJ, Attorney General?)

"University Sued By Ex-Employee Amid Scandal," in The New York Times, METRO, November 19, 2006, at p. 45. Many obstructions today from something called: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/bn/1091-43545-2060-7 ? I wonder why? I was unable to access my book or make a purchase at lulu. I find this so puzzling. Do you think that someone's mad at me? I can't imagine why. I certainly find it upsetting that efforts are made to destroy these writings.

"NEWARK, Nov. 18 (AP) -- A former project coordinator at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey has sued the embattled medical school over her termination this year."

"The former employee, Carol Caparola, claims that she was fired in May after warning university officials that they were engaged in illegal conduct involving political contributions. The termination occurred after she testified before a federal grand jury and after a critical memo she wrote was published in The Star Ledger of Newark."

If Ms. Caparola is an attorney, then she may expect that -- in addition to being fired -- her honesty or unwillingness to conspire to violate federal criminal laws will result in ethics charges being brought against her by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), probably after the OAE gets a call from a politician or one of their friends in "other" industries.

These corrupt bureaucrats will then solicit grievances against Ms. Caparola, in violation of their own ethics rules or make use of corrupt shrinks, like Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli, to get dirt to use against Ms. Caparola. It's a "means and ends" thing. No big deal. The rules are for other people. I hope they explain that to the people they use as unwilling informers against family members, who will have to live with the consequences of the OAE's questionable practices for the rest of their lives. What does that "E" stand for again?

Hey, Terry ... Are you still a Jew? Do you attend services in Ridgewood with a straight face? How do you do it? "We can learn from you," Terry. "I'll go to bat for you." "It's no big deal." It is a big deal, Terry. It is going to get bigger. The American Psychiatric Association is next. Oh, boy. How does a Jew become Mengele, Terry?

" ... 'U.M.D.N.J. hired political hacks" -- there are political hacks in New Jersey?! -- "who viewed the public's resources as a political slush fund,' Ms. Caparola's attorney, Charles Sciarra, told The Star Ledger for Saturday's editions. 'Carol wrote an unambiguous memorandum warning against funding political campaigns with U.M.D.N.J. money. She later assisted the federal government's probe. For her efforts, she was terminated.' ..." ("The Politics of Corruption and Waste in New Jersey.")

"According to documents obtained [by the newspaper,] the university contributed nearly $60,000 to state and local political officials from a 'community events fund.' The largest checks went to the Democratic Senate Majority, the political action committee that funds Democratic campaigns in the Senate." ("More Democrats Arrested in New Jersey.")

I wonder how much of this loot went to good old Bob Menendez? No comment from New Jersey's Attorney General Stuart Rabner? No comment from the state's Supreme Court justices? No comment from the OAE? Not even an "anonymous" comment/smear from the OAE? Is the OAE "not cooperating" in efforts to get to the bottom of these disgusting actions? How shocking. I am appalled to learn this news.

"Ms. Caparola's suit alleges that she was fired only after she warned officials that they were engaging in illegal conduct. The suit also claims that she was asked to develop a plan to finance political donations, and that she did so but advised caution." ("Law is Dead in New Jersey.")

This person sounds like a good candidate for a surreptitious Tuchin/Riccioli torture and interrogation session to extract information from her, preferably while she is drugged or under hypnosis. Maybe she will be raped. Perhaps her family members will be asked to inform, secretly, on her casual statements over dinner. I urge Ms. Caparola to be cautious and stay away from the "Jersey Boys" until after this suit is settled or decided. ("More Mafia Figures Arrested in N.J. and N.Y.")

New Jersey's ethics enforcement system is a well-known cruel joke. Part of the problem and not the solution, responsive to organized crime and corrupt politicians, many of whom wear judicial robes in that aromatic jurisdiction, where the Constitution and criminal laws are regarded as only vague suggestions and where every hack on the bench has a hand out for a "tip." (An "error" was inserted in this last sentence since my most recent reading of this essay.) No doubt the same hand where bribes are placed is then used to wipe things, probably with the very laws that judges are sworn to uphold. ("More Figures Busted in New Jersey" and "Kickbacks and Theft in New Jersey.")

In New Jersey, ethics officials only go after minor offenders (especially if they are honest and cooperate with feds and, ideally, are minority group members). Heavy duty criminals and serious offenders get away with their crimes, provided that they have political "juice." ("More on the Jersey Gangs and Corrupt Courts.")

Next time you throw up, think of New Jersey's legal system and those who wield power in the Garden State's feces-covered courts.

"New Jersey -- Come and See for Yourself!"

Surprise, surprise ...

David Kocieniewski, "Corruption is Charged Over a Common Practice," in The New York Times, November 22, 2006, at p. B2:

"Vowing to pursue political corruption 'no matter how large or small,' [irony?] New Jersey's new Attorney General [Stuart Rabner] anounced on Tuesday the indictment of the mayor of a small Salem County community on charges of offering a political opponent two municipal jobs if he drops out of this month's race."

My estimate is that this arrest was a signal to "others" to play it cool for a while. ("New jersey Court Clerk Charged in Bribery case" and "Law is Dead in New Jersey.")

These kinds of bribes are a way of life in New Jersey politics. What is significant about this story is: 1) "an increase in the number of corruption prosecutors to 20 from 7, and ... double the organized crime detective unit that investigates official misconduct, which now consists of 16 detectives" some of whom are probably honest; 2) a grudging admission that "since Christopher Christie became United States Attorney, his office has won convictions or guilty pleas from nearly 200 elected officials and other corrupt political operatives" and when those involved in criminal conspiracies with such officials -- notably contractors -- are added to the list the number of federal corruption-related convictions of New Jersey's political whores (a category that includes many judges) soars to MORE than 200, so far.

Maybe outraged citizens now have Mr. Rabner's attention. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

I will not be prevented from purchasing a copy of my book, eventually, and putting it out there. I will not stop writing. I will not be prevented from expressing my opinions. All of the harassment is a great motivator. Face-to-face is next. There is much more coming. ("U.S. Attorney Battles New jersey's Culture of Corruption.")

On Bullshit.

Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), $9.95.



We live in the age of bullshit. America's true maxim dates from the nineteenth century and is attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There is a sucker born every minute."

These are words to live by in America, the land of the huckster, where politicians and lawyers confirm this wisdom every day. The point is recognized by Harry G. Frankfurt.

The realms of advertising and public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept. And in these realms there are exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen [and women] who -- with the help of advanced and demanding techniques of market research, of public opinion, of psychological testing, and so forth -- dedicate themselves to getting every word and image they produce right.

There was a time in my life when I could fling the bull with the best of them. My concerns these days are antithetical to this joyful enterprise which engages the interest of so many of my fellow citizens. I am now officially retired. I leave the bullshitting to New Jersey lawyers, politicians like Bob Menendez and corrupt or incompetent judges, like Debbie Poritz and Stuart Rabner, along with many others like Donald J. Trump and the talking heads at Fox News.

Writing is almost a religious obligation to be as accurate as one can be to one's vision of the truth. Nowhere is this more so than in crafting literary fiction. Contrary to popular mythology, writing well and bullshitting (I think that I can do both reasonably well) are mutually exclusive. Only one of those activities interests me now or will concern me for the rest of my life, writing -- writing as well as I can about issues that interest me by attempting to create "literature."

The best bullshitters I know were (and still are) N.J. government officials, together with political hacks and their paid acolytes or sycophants. Poritz, Rabner, Moses, Milgram and equally loathsome colleagues are experts in this art form.

The world of lawyers and politicians, but also of advertising and big business, is the kingdom of bullshit. It is very different from the writer's world of truth communicated through fantasy or in a literal way for journalists.

If you enjoy bullshitting competitions, then you'll love electoral politics and the legal profession in America.

I destroyed a witness once and prevailed in a case -- earning an extra fee because of it -- and until the day I die I will regret doing well exactly what I was required to do by my professional obligations.

What is legal ethics all about?

The very concept of legal ethics is a joke in New Jersey.

Among the unexplored aspects of our lives in this bizarre or asylum-like setting where we are bombarded with bullshit by people trying to sell things (or worse) is what happens not merely to the categories of truth and falsehood, but to ourselves, as "performances," or social presentations, "for" others?

Writing is the most difficult thing that I have ever done -- especially writing philosophy -- because the effort of concentration is so intense that no distraction is permitted. I mean that writing is an effort to set oneself down on the page, as truthfully and as well as one can. It is a kind of purification by fire and ordeal:

"My books," Nietzsche said, "are written in blood."

Maybe this explains all of the efforts to frustrate my communication efforts by preventing me from writing. The goal of New Jersey's minions must be to inflict harm (or intimidate me) in order to control my opinions or try to force my acceptance of what must never be accepted -- decisions made by corrupt institutions and persons are never worthy of respect. Acceptance will never be extracted from me.

My professional interest now (to the extent that I have one) and for the rest of my life is, exclusively, as I say, writing as well as I can for political and personal reasons. In particular, one novel that I must write, obsesses me. I will not be deterred from this vocation by anyone. No threats or attempts at censorship will prevent me from speaking my mind, freely, which is the only reason to write anything. I will publish the books on my own, if I have to, though it now appears that this will not be necessary, which is a relief.

In testifying under oath, it is also wise to be literal and direct, as accurate and truthful as you can be. If you are ever in that position, speak what you believe to be the truth as simply as you can, so that you cannot be misunderstood, assume that your listeners are -- as Bertrand Russell suggested in a different context -- a group of unusually stupid twelve year-olds.

This is not an insult to others, but a way of being guided in the effort to testify under oath. Assume that anything you say will be twisted to make it appear that you are lying, even if you are not. Stay with simple declarative sentences, avoid all displays of irony or humor. Answer with a single word whenever possible.

Lawyers and judges, congressmen and -women conducting a hearing do not swear to tell the truth, only witnesses do that. So speak the truth, for yourself and out of respect for the process, whatever the consequences. You will then have the satisfaction of "flipping 'em the bird," as they haul you off to the guillotine. And if you speak enough truth to power then you can be sure that they will do exactly that.

Professor Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit is a bestseller. This is rare for any work by a philosopher, which displays -- as this book does -- care and elegance in reasoning. The author provides a useful conceptual mapping, at a very general level, of the "bullshit territory." Wear your high boots.

I will discuss my areas of disagreement. There is no point in discussing what I find useful or unproblematic. I recommend this work because mendacity and bullshit make up the fabric of our lives in the age of media and commerce as politics and law have become branches of show business. (See the musical Chicago.)

We do well to come to terms with the "b.s." phenomenon, if we can: "If we accept that George Washington could not tell a lie," Germaine Greer said, in today's world, "he had better learn."

According to the 1996 book, The Day America Told the Truth, the overwhelming majority of Americans (93%) lie every day, both at work and in their personal lives. Politicians and lawyers are no different than anyone else. The number of daily liars is probably higher today. (96% by some estimates.)

We hold legal professionals and politicians to a more ethical standard only as a way of assuaging our collective guilt at our own foibles. People who like to accuse others of "lying" are usually the worst liars, projecting their own self-loathing on to others, probably someone secretly admired or envied. Garcia? Booth? Kriko?

I seem to recall a notorious presidential statement: "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Of course, much depends on how you define "sex." This is a word which few of us find troubling to understand, normally. Despite the hue and cry surrounding the Clinton/Lewinsky case, most of us have lied about sex at some point in our lives, usually when we are not getting any.

The claims of outrage at President Clinton's statements were not accepted by the public because most people have lied about sex. Most people correctly concluded that President Clinton and Ms. Lewisnky are probably as moral, or more moral, than most of us. And this was true before, during and after the political scandal. It still seems true to me. For Professor Frankfurt, bullshit is ...

... not germane to the enterprise of describing reality.

And again:

[Bullshit is] a statement grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of a concern with truth -- this indifference to how things are -- that I regard as the essence of bullshit.

I guess what bullshit is, depends on what "is" is. Yes, I know about the difference between the "is" of identification and the "is" of predication. (Look it up.)

My questions and challenges to Professor Frankfurt's formulation focus on the words "reality" and "how things are" in this statement. The key concepts in this area are intentionality, communicative intent, the resources of language, the figurative and allusive, ironic as distinguished from literal speech. ("Metaphor is Mystery.")

People who are very good readers know that each kind of literary communication invites a special form of attention. There are unique ways of getting the message in, say, a passage of the tax code or a police report. In reading such texts, my attention is entirely different from how I listen to a joke or view a skit in Monty Python's Flying Circus. 

Oscar Wilde says: "The first duty in life is to be as artificial as possible."

What does he mean by this? Is he "sincere"? If so, what is he sincere about in this statement? Perhaps he is merely "artificial" in this statement? If so, then what is he really recommending? ("What is Law?")

I am sure that Professor Frankfurt, in a highly sophisticated way, and the average accountant or literal-minded lawyer in a much less sophisticated way, would say: "that's just bullshit."

To which Wilde would probably respond: "Precisely."

Think of how differently you listen when the first words spoken by someone are -- "Once upon a time ..."

My point is that you must always listen to what is being said, but even more to how it is being said, especially when communicating across a cultural divide. This is especially good advice for therapists and proponents of the so-called "Turing" test. ("Mind and Machine.")

Reading Montogomerry-Hyde's account of Wilde's trial, or Frank Harris's recollections of Wilde's conversations, one cannot help feeling the lack of comprehension of Wilde in his day. Somehow, this does not surprise me. Aside from some highly exceptional persons who were his friends, people detested the man because of his imaginative forms of expression and flamboyance. The English simply did not understand his Irish genius.

Happily, in our day, the gift of "blarney" is much more universal and democratic. It is not unknown, even among the English. I have not said a word about Mr. Blair. Tony Blair is described by Simon Blackburn as a "flower-arranger" of the truth. Surely this is only another way of describing a politician -- or any lawyer -- especially a politician or lawyer who writes a "memoir." Luckily, I am not a politician or any kind of lawyer, nor do I plan to write a memoir.

Think of how Muhammad Ali was demonized by white America during the sixties. Were his poems serious? Or were they bullshit? To quote the champ: We can't be "as dumb as we look" around him. And maybe that was his point. It is certainly why he disconcerts us. Ali made people nervous. He forced men, especially (and some women, too), to consider the differences in what they were or are, as compared with the champ. Ali was a reminder of mediocrity for most of us.

The one thing mediocre people will not forgive a person, is his or her visible lack of mediocrity. Mr. Coviello? John McGill of the OAE?

All it takes not to be mediocre, by the way, is to stop worrying about what others think and become that unique, extraordinary, fascinating human being that you are. "Yourself" is the one person who cannot be duplicated, and no one can be better at being you, than you. So be you. This is easier said than done when obstacles have to be overcome: childhood deprivations, trauma, social stigma and so on.

Unfortunately, an identity (like one's virginity) can be lost. Fortunately, in my own case, my virginity was simply misplaced and eventually recovered. I suppose much the same is true of my identity. Bullshit? Wit? Philosophy? A little of all three?

Hatred for, and attempts to silence, men and women (like Wilde) will always be common. Perhaps such persons remind us, through their exaggerations and wit, of something false in us. This is unforgivable for those who take themselves very seriously and/or who lack a sense of humor. Debbie Poritz? Stuart Rabner? Bob Menendez? All three of these persons seem to fit that bill.

It is evil in the eyes of those who "evade themselves," becoming what Nietzsche describes as "an empty bag of clothes," for anyone to opt for authenticity, rather than selling his or her soul for worldly "success." And yes, "worldy success" tends to be purchased at the cost of one's soul. Hence, The Portrait of Dorian Gray and see Vidal's play, The Best Man.

According to Wilde, the punishment for those who seek to become something external to themselves -- a bank president or office holder, for example, a U.S. Senator or a N.J. Supreme Court Justice -- is that they will receive exactly what they hope for, becoming only that external thing at the cost of themselves. Senator Bob? ("Menendez Charged With Selling His Office.")

Notice that this says nothing about the person who wishes to become him- or herself through work as a judge, banker, or physician. This insight is among the themes explored in Wilde's great essay, De Profundis. ("'The American': A Movie Review.")

A reminder to become the persons we are is highly valuable in a democracy. We need our gadflies and wits. It is also true that genius is always disconcerting for the majority of us, even a source of dread and envy. For a few people it is cause for hatred. Individualists are rarely conformists, for this we often destroy them. I think I can attest to this hatred of -- mixed with desire for -- unusually gifted people in a very direct way. Alina Fallat? ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")

I have a bit of blarney in me, an Irish corner of my soul, where I sit chatting amiably with all who enter that mental pub where -- along with my chum John Banville -- I spin out yarns with all labels and Surgeon General's warnings attached.

The Irish once were among the world's best bullshitters. There is much competition these days with most nationalities surpassing the Irish in the gift for b.s. I also spell out the uncomfortable and literal truth when necessary with (I hope) brutal directness, especially in writing. (See "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")

We appreciate Wilde much more today than did his Victorian contemporaries who were suffocating in hypocrisy and prudishness. Anyway, some of us appreciate Wilde.

When Wilde arrived in the United States and was asked whether he had anything to declare, he answered: "Only my genius."

I am sure that the average American customs clerk would then have said: "In which suitcase do you have your genius, sir?"

He or she would say this in all seriousness, literally. The frustrations that can result when someone like Wilde, or any ironist, is forced into a dialogue with literal-minded persons is beyond my power to communicate.

"Aha!," says the middle-brow, "so you think you're as smart as Wilde."

No, only that I understand him. Wilde would have to explain to the literal-minded plodder that he was not being literal in his statement. I would not wish to suggest, as Professor Frankfurt seems to, that the best way of understanding this exchange is to conclude that Wilde intended to deceive, that he was misrepresenting reality, or not concerned to describe reality or his state of mind. I suggest that such questions about this quip misunderstand Wilde's communicative mission. They are irrelevant and pointless. Equally moronic questions are posed by some scholars today (not Daniel Dennett) about religious stories: "Did those things in the Bible really happen?"

Gore Vidal's reception in the United States is another case in point. Vidal is dismissed when he writes about politics by some people in Washington, D.C., mostly because he is, allegedly, not serious. Vidal insists that "seriousness does not require solemnity" while a careful attention to facts is often a useful way of deceiving others, even as metaphors often serve to communicate truth. No discussion of bullshit will be very useful if it fails to delve into the mysteries of language and metaphysics. Language always creates a reality between speaker and listener, between writer and reader. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "What you will ...")

Whether something is bullshit depends on the intentionality revealed in the communication and upon the acceptance or rejection of the meaning (or invitation) borne by the words used. This meaning is not just literal, so that the issue becomes whether the recipient has entered into the correct linguistic world created by the utterance which invites him or her into a text or language-game. ("A Philosophical Investigation of Ludwig Wittgenstein.")

Hamlet and Polonius are always in different linguistic worlds, though each of them may be found in Shakespeare's Elsinore. They never succeed in communicating. They never inhabit a shared psychic space. Why?

Examine the language used by each character, then ask yourself how each of them is defined and/or defining the other through the use of those words. How does your professional -- as opposed to your "personal" -- language construct your identity and relationships? Take your time answering that last question. (Lawyers may wish to examine the writings of James B. White, especially The Legal Imagination.)

Wittgenstein was almost insanely literal-minded, finding it fascinating that persons construct "language games" in which direct reports of literal truths are not primary concerns or may be entirely irrelevant. Jokes, obscene gestures, and other communicative moves mystified him. Hence, his talk of "language games." ("Magician's Choice.")

Sometimes a communicative gesture is an invitation to play. It is a way of saying exactly that, "let's play." Listen to the way children speak to one another. Attend to a conversation between men and women in a New York nightclub. Is literal communication of "facts" the purpose of every utterance? I doubt it. Or just think of the meaning of the word "attend." Frankfurt's objection that bullshit is not "for real," fails to ask the question" "What kind of real do you mean?"

For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up to suit his purpose.

And again:

... there are very few people to whom it would often (or ever) occur to lie from a love of falsity or of deception.

I wonder whether Professor Frankfurt has been to a good movie or to the theater lately. Has he seen a political spokesperson in a press conference? I doubt it. He clearly has not been to a singles bar in a while. His very American narrowness of concern when it comes to language use (a relic of Puritanism, German Lutheranism, or Old Testament severity?), infuriates or amuses many Europeans, especially Latins:

"The only people who do not lie," Italians say, charmingly, "are those who have no imagination -- and Americans." ("Jacques Derrida's Philosophy as Jazz.")

This Italian maxim has nothing to do with dishonesty. When called upon to speak seriously about matters, Italians or Spaniards, French persons or Latin Americans are as truthful as anyone else, but language is on holiday more often in such cultures than in America. Notice that the unimaginative and Americans are overlapping categories in this maxim. Yet I am sure that this assumption does not refer to people in movies or Italy's most famous American resident, Ravello's own Gore Vidal. We must bow our heads when mentioning his name, the magic name "Gore Vidal."

My concern at this point is humanitarian. Professor Frankfurt's students who accept his instruction on this matter will find themselves greatly disadvantaged when trying to get laid.

We must distinguish between malignant and aesthetic bullshit. Context is everything. As a mere hint of what is really going on when we "drop" a load of bullshit, I will quote from a recent New Yorker profile of Philip Pullman:

You could say that, for Pullman, stories are elementary particles of meaning, without which we'd be less than fully human. In his Carnegie Medal speech he said, "We need stories so much that we're even willing to read bad books to get them, if the good books don't supply them. We all need stories, but children are more frank about it." What angers Pullman most about theocracy, in the end, is that it blinds people to the true purpose of narrative. Fundamentalists don't know how to read stories -- including those in the Bible -- metaphorically ...

Allow yourself to imagine, make use of figurative language, visit the Forest of Arden (the magical territory created by language), at least once in a while. Enjoy the stories, then figure out what they mean. If it hurts too much to stay in this world that contains such horrors as accountants and the IRS, not to mention State torturers (Tuchin and Riccioli), then don't drink or take drugs, avoid all violence, and simply dream, play ... with words.

The torturers of this world are unimaginative literalists (like wicked lawyers), who will never be able to follow you to the kingdom of dreams where you will always be safe.

Don't be a linguistic fundamentalist.

Between Hope and Despair.

My feelings about the great social issues of my times shift, periodically, between hope and despair. I sometimes think that, Mark Twain was right, a species as idiotic and selfish as ours deserves the shitty government that it gets. "If there were any other intelligent species in the universe," Mark Twain said, "I would join it." Those are the dark days on which to read Shopenhauer.

On other days, however, I say "no." We must not despair. I have a child. I cannot look in her eyes and admit that life is shit and always will be. So we hope and we fight on. Maybe sometimes -- very rarely -- something good happens. I have a lottery ticket somewhere. Purchasing that ticket suggests that I still have some optimism. We must hope, then, that things will be better. We can make them better.

What worries me today is not so much the familiar problems of judicial and political corruption and ineptitude. These problems have become old friends by now. What is especially worrisome today is something that the framers of the Constitution hoped to eliminate all-together: Star Chamber-like secrecy -- slithering, behind-the-back efforts by government officials to hurt critics, dissidents of all sorts, and/or those who refuse to "play ball" with the powers that be.

Yes, folks, that stuff happens in America. People get destroyed, framed for something, fired, ridiculed, trivialized in the media, and so on. These are among the defense mechanisms evolved by powerful interests in our political system for suppressing or marginalizing dissent and the ways that corrupt government officials -- who are guilty of overreaching -- cover their asses, collectively and individually. They are illegal methods, of course, and when the system is confronted with them in a manner that does not allow for denial -- in other words, when there is actual proof of government illegality -- then officials (usually) do the right thing and stop the harassment.

Proof is difficult to obtain. When it is found, it may amount to the proverbial "tip" of the iceberg. There is a whole lot of illegal stuff going all the time -- especially post-9/11 -- thanks to government agents, most of which is utterly pointless and worthless in terms of the "information yield," though it hurts people. It hurts them a lot, especially over long periods of time.

The illegality of these tactics is not a problem for governmental agents, because they are rarely discovered or "provable," as I have indicated. This includes everything from the armies of party loyalists used to generate dirty tricks against the opposition in political elections, to the various forms of skullduggery, illegal snooping, "corporate" theft of documents and data that are used to "control" competitors and/or anti-social forces in a large and heterogeneous society. Many of these efforts were directed at African-American dissidents in the past. Maybe dissidents still are targets.

Much material that has emerged with the passage of "sunshine" laws in the seventies and eighties, suggests that the FBI and other government agencies routinely keep "tabs" on politically controversial and prominent persons: phone taps are allowed secretly, photographs at a distance, Internet monitoring, acquisition of personal data, "observation" and "long-term surveillance" are terms that are sometimes used to describe this sort of thing. I am sure that the illegal computer monitoring and harassment I deal with falls into this category.

In my case, of course, no illegality (by the FBI) is required. I make it a point to post my opinions on-line, including what I think of them. I must admit that I like Scully and Moulder, but as to all others, I am skeptical. New Jersey government is a collection of criminals from organized crime "families" dedicated to stealing and ruthlessness against all critics. Nothing they do in Trenton surprises me.

Privacy and autonomy are threatened as never before, in other words, by all of this post-"Patriot Act" monitoring, which does not make you any safer from terrorism, since the people with false social security information and credit cards tend to be terrorists, whereas those of us who are on the "up-and-up" (whatever that may be) are the most convenient targets for government spooks and shrinks, not to mention terrorists with false papers. How you doing in Ridgewood, Tuchin? How's the "family," Diana? Still up to no good?

In the interests of full employment for America's spooks and snoops, I have decided to invent a conspiracy by a non-existent secret organization to be known as "The American Knights of the Order of Advarks." It is the mission of this organization to restore the monarchy in America. Not the British monarchy, mind you, but a new monarchy and religion based on the bloodline of Elvis Presley. I plan to write a book to be called, The "Elvis" Code. We even have a secret handshake and are led, fearlessly, by Woody Allen in America and by Mel Brooks globally. Eventually, there will be armies of government agents monitoring all three of us.

I can almost hear the computers in Washington, D.C. humming away as the buzz words are picked up: "conspiracy, terrorists, Elvis Presley." Meanwhile back at the ranch:

Because Democracy is noble it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than Democracy. To assume blithely that we can export Democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad. Democracy is a state of grace attained only by those countries that have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it. [Norman Mailer]

I am asking you to ponder the risk that we may lose our freedoms and our Democracy -- if we have not done so already -- not to Islamic or other terrorists, but to the fear of terrorists and the loss of our own moral standards. ("It's all relative," people say.)

Yes, there is a risk of terrorism and we must guard against it, but we must not give up our Constitutional rights or make them something that we only pretend to believe in and respect, while secretly violating them with impunity on the grounds that we are government officials involved in the "war on terrorism."

I am demanding that government officials respect my dignity and privacy, treat me as a subject with ends of my own and not as a means to your ends, as a person and not an object. I ask anyone reading these words to refuse to participate in torture or illegal spying, for any political party or public official, no matter what rationale is offered for the practice and regardless of who may be the proposed victim. I am asking you to consider both what you are and what you may be in danger of becoming. Fight to remain free and fully human ... while you still can.

Thomas Jefferson and America's Hope.

Images -- like the portrait that appears above -- may be blocked at any time by N.J. legally-protected hackers.

Adrienne Koch, Power, Morals, and the Founding Fathers (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1961), $7.95.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (New York: Bantam, 1998), $2.95.


Yesterday I spoke of the need for an articulation of basic values for us. We contemporary Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity, gender or economic status, need to say what beliefs we share and why. We also must be clear-eyed in describing the less than ideal reality we see all around us. If we are now incapable of articulating a foundational and communal set of values or ideals, then we are no longer a nation or a people, even if we share the same geographical space and purchasing habits.

I think that it is possible to state such a set of values. I have tried to offer a hint of what those values may be in "Civilization and Terrorism" and "Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution."

In trying to define those values, I will say simply that the United States is an experiment. It is a fragile hope that people can govern themselves, in accordance with a set of principles of moral and political philosophy that will require interpretation by each new generation of Americans, fashioning a structure of government in which power is shared and limited by law.

The purpose of this effort is to guarantee freedom and equality to each citizen as against the power of the State. Given the realities of human nature, this must have seemed a childish dream to the men who drafted the Constitution and put it into practice. Every form of skepticism about whether power can really be limited by law was expressed by the framers. They were not foolish "idealists" or "dreamers." They were not "evil racists," though they were products of their times, limited by the blindness and stupidity of the era in which they lived, while struggling for emancipation from every form of superstition. They were certainly not creating a revolution in order to get rich. They were rich already. The revolution, along with the creation of this nation, cost most of them a great deal, including the lives of family members and friends, or their own lives in some cases.

The authors of the Constitution were flawed human beings, certainly, but at a time when it was still possible to hold lofty ideals without embarassment and to be optimistic about the possibilities of humanity, they insisted that people might be made better by good government. Today the use of these words alone results in laughter and dismissals, as I can attest. We are all too cynical for such beliefs in the post-Watergate and post-Monica era. We must return to an appreciation of the foundational values of American society in order to move forward and decide what those values require today.

In a time that celebrated progress and reason -- despite the horrors of war and rigors of life -- there was still a confidence in the future of a free people that is difficult to imagine today. Despite my moments of despair, I share in that confidence about America. Words like freedom, equal protection and due process were designations of values held to be real and true under the new Constitutional structure. This is because they were and are real and true. Today, I am often saddened and angered at the laughter with which they are greeted. To use such words means that one is called a "fool" or a "child." If so, then I accept the labels. ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")

One meaning of the term "postmodern" is an "incredulity toward all metanarratives." (Lyotard) Another attempt to establish a definition of this intellectual orientation ("postmodernist"), however, comes from theology (Paul Ricoeur) and is concerned with the challenge of hanging on to humanism and the universal in the aftermath of the Holocaust, as a hope for humanity.

By this theological-philosophical understanding, to be "postmoderns" is to find a way of living between contradictions in an effort to resolve them. At least in one reading or interpretation of Paul Ricoeur's work, this holding on to freedom and humanism -- as embodied in symbols -- is still possible, as a kind of "hermeneutics of freedom" that allows for social justice. Think of a crucifix or other great symbols, so as to decide what they mean for us today.

The United States of America is based on a hope that people can live freely. "People" is a word that the framers understood more narrowly than we do now. We have learned -- partly from their own principles -- that freedom and equality means that all or none of us must be "equally" free. And yes, the attempt to achieve freedom with equality is an on-going one. The struggle will never be finished. The American Revolution will never be only an episode in history books. ("John Rawls and Justice.")

Perhaps our revolution should never be finished or achieved definitively, because there will be new challenges for every generation of Americans posed by the enemies of freedom, who will always be around. These challenges force us to reconsider our commitments to the foundational values that I am describing. Most importantly, we must be on guard not to become, unwittingly, one of those challenges to legality and freedom ourselves, as we surrender to a fashionable cynicism. Be skeptical, by all means, but believe something. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, who is NOT my favorite president: "trust but verify."

Freedom is a scary thing. Many people prefer to be told what to believe or how to behave. They want someone else, an authority figure of some sort, to tell them what is true and what commands to obey. "Most people want to be told what to believe," a torturer once said that to me. If this is true and if you can get away with your crimes by telling people that "it never happened," Terry, then you will not get away with your crimes against me because I know what happened. Furthermore, I have obtained empirical evidence of these sordid events. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

The American Constitution prevents the government from doing exactly that prescribing of moral opinions. It leaves decisions concerning what gods to believe in, or whether to believe in God at all, what to say, how to dress, what party to vote for, or whether to vote at all -- all of these things and many more (like who to love) are for the individual rights-bearer to determine, without interference from anyone. This is true no matter who that person is, or how much money he or she has, or what political friends he or she may have, or what family the person is born into. ("Is there a gay marriage right?")

The Constitution provides government for grownups. Yet what the Constitution tells us makes us mature (moral intelligence and freedom) are things labelled as "childish" in today's intellectual culture.

The American media that looks chaotic and disrespectful of our leaders to other nations is actually performing exactly the role that the framers envisioned and desired: keeping our governors honest -- or as honest as possible when it comes to politicians -- by preserving a climate in which the free expression of ideas often results in the creation of new ideas.

Attempts to censor or destroy my writings make it clear that such efforts are always endangered. One reason for making movies like, say, "Michael Clayton," "Wall Street," or the Paul Newman classic "The Verdict" is that they are mirrors turned on powerful sectors of American society. Great art always tells us who we are. We do not always approve of the reflections of ourselves on screen.

American irreverence and suspicion of pomposity is one of the greatest aspects of our political culture. Commentators like Al Franken, Jon Stewart, or even the much-dreaded Mr. O'Reilly on Fox -- whatever their politics -- are always good for the nation. I love it that Americans refuse to be impressed by politicians. We tend to revere them only after they have left office, which really pisses them off. We must not forget that such freedom to criticize is what the Constitution protects and makes possible.

No system of government or laws will change the reality of human nature, but in America we can confront institutions and powerful politicians with our professed national values and force them to act, to do the right thing. We can ask that they live up to the values found in the Constitution. In general, they will. If they don't do the right thing, then we get new ones who will. ("Presidential Debates.")

The Constitution is about you. It is about what the government cannot do to infringe on your rights. You, the citizen, are most important under the vision of the Constitution, especially under the Bill of Rights. Not some abstraction like the State, or the "collectivity," but you. That's right. The guy or gal who gets on the bus, who goes to the Yankee game once in a while, who discusses politics with his friends in the summer time, while playing Dominos on the steps of his or her building. You are what the Constitution and the legal system are about, ultimately, and you matter more, much more, than ideologies. The State, Constitution, the law are, primarily, instantiated in your relationship with the government and with other citizens.

It is true that rich people and corporations have lobbyists. But then, you also have a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you've got the best possible lobbyist. The Constitution is your lobbyist. You can show up any time and hold it up for the politicians to see. Don't let them forget that they work for you. It still amazes people who become citizens that they can go and protest in front of the White House. Well, you can. The President may even come out and try to get your vote.

Each time an "error" is inserted in this essay is a further desecration of the documents for which men and women have given their lives in every generation of American history. I consider the continuing ability of minor criminals from New Jersey's corrupt political structure to disgrace American law the most overwhelming evidence of America's decline. If you have children in the United States, this spectacle should frighten you.

This idea of freedom works everywhere in the world. People, individuals with rights, come before the power of the State, which must serve their interests to be legitimate. How can I believe this, given some of my own experiences in America, and all of the corruption that exists in many jurisdictions?

I believe it because it is what allows me to protest the injustices that I have experienced and seen (including defacements of this very essay), while criticizing (publicly) practices that I find objectionable. It is still true that there are not many places in the world where this is possible for a single poor person. I am still alive (so far!) after expressing my opinions. Most places in the world, this would not be true. My daily war against censorship should be visible to the American people. This is when New Jersey should try to block my computer's cable signal, again.

Many political leaders from different parts of the world are beginning to accept this premise of inviolable human dignity. This valuing of the individual leads to an ideal of community. It is not a "heartless individualism for greedy capitalists." There is an ethic of community at the heart of the American experiment. I think it is best articulated, at the outset, by Thomas Jefferson and a few others:

Jefferson offered an incisive criticism of ... egoism and took issue with the attitude of Helvetius that self-love is the root of even our seemingly altruistic behavior. [Mr. Posner?] Jefferson's objections were drawn from his view of [the person] as a social creature rather than from the isolated individual that some eighteenth-century theorists envisioned.

But HOW can virtue be a guide to the pursuit of happiness? Jefferson's answer here moved beyond the ancient philosophers to the inspiration of Jesus, for he considered that the ancients failed to recognize the reality of love and of duties towards others. Jefferson went to considerable trouble twice in his life to collect "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" from the books of the New Testament. He believed it was Jesus who had set the world on a more humane moral level by teaching the "most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has been offered to man."

Notice that Jefferson's point is about a secular ethics of love leading to liberal or "diverse" political community. This has a lot to do with his choice of the word "happiness," together with "life" and "liberty," in the Declaration of Independence.

Terrorism is a denial of these beliefs. It reduces persons to objects to be destroyed in order to dramatize a political point. You have to make a decision today, at the most fundamental level, about what you believe and where you stand in this global struggle in which we find ourselves placed by history. The people inserting "errors" into these writings are terrorists.

I know where I stand. And I will continue to try to explain what I believe and why it is important. I have that right under the Constitution. So does George W. Bush. Whoever the next President of the United States will be, he (or she) will agree with Thomas Jefferson on this much:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man [or woman]." The life of reason involves the free use of mind or body -- it is the life fitting for man [or woman,] in view of the natural capacities of human nature.

George Santayana was so moved by this text that his systematic philosophical theory in four volumes was entitled: "The Life of Reason." ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli" then "Is America's Legal Ethics a Lie?" and "America's Torture Lawyers.")

Americans will not allow anyone to deny us these rights to life as reasonable and dignified persons. ("Is there a gay marriage right?")

No one will threaten us into abandoning our rights nor prevent us, as individuals and (I hope) as a government, from advocating the same rights for ALL other persons, wherever they may be and whatever their condition in this world.