Today, I touch on these topics:

• The vampire, Rahm Emanuel
• Barack Obama
• The vampire movie: Let the Right One in

The vampire, Rahm Emanuel

I call Rahm Emanuel a vampire for only one reason: He is a major league malefactor who will end up sucking the life out of this country. In his new role as White House Chief of Staff, Rahm will work his mischief in one of two ways:

• As an effective blocker, preventing undesirables from gaining access to the president - especially those with views not in alignment with Israel's. [And I was hoping to get close enough to Barack to try to convert him to Buddhism. I hear he's in search of a new faith option as a result of the Rev. Wright fiasco. I doubt, however, that Rahm would let anyone like me anywhere near Obama. Too bad, that would be a great loss for our new president.]

• As a virtual puppet master - an agent of the real Powers-that-Be, serving to pass on to Barack Obama his marching orders. ["Okay, Mr. President, here's what you're going to do."]

I strongly urge all political analysts - especially amateur bloggers (maybe the only honest ones left) - to keep a very watchful eye on Count Emanuel. There is way too much about this man that doesn't add up, in spite of spinmeisters pushing the concept of a mellower, less-combative Rahm. Those are the same people who hadn't asked Obama any tough questions before we cast our ballots; who'd chosen instead to hype him as The Second Coming. They're also the same ones who won't be the least bit critical of Obama's performance as president; they will simply massage any episodes of bad judgment.

Barack Obama

I cannot emphasize how strongly I am disappointed that Obama isn't keeping Rahm Israel [yes, that's really his middle name] Emanuel at arm's length. And I don't buy that bit about Obama and Emanuel being "close friends," as claimed by Jackie Calmes writing for the New York Times. Their life paths had few places, or reasons, to intersect - so such a claim sounds exaggerated. Rahm is the very epitome of forces that want nothing to do with progressive change.

Come to think of it, that goes for Barack Obama as well.

I have frequently argued that Obama isn't capable of offering anything new - that he's hopelessly tied to Old Think. Witness his choices for his team of economic advisors. To me, they're nothing more than a collection of "the usual suspects" - you know, the guys who cops routinely round up for questioning after a crime has been committed. The media, however, designates them as "experienced" (puh-leeze) and as brilliant men who had made their share of mistakes which helped create our current mess but are also capable of learning from their mistakes. [Come again?!]

Every member of this team has been tied to past government involvement and/or is a card-carrying member of the Wall Street establishment. Not one alternative thinker among them. Can you imagine what would happen to the stock market if Obama were to tap someone like Ron Paul (who wants to get rid of the Fed) as even a Devil's Advocate for this team?

There is a certain value to tapping mainstream talent, though. After our economy sinks deeper into the quagmire, Obama can claim (in effect): "The best and the brightest, which had been endorsed by both sides of the aisle, couldn't arrive at a consensus. They offered me several sets of options, each with disclaimers in the form of minority opinions, expressed or implied. But they couldn't actually guarantee the effectiveness of any one of these options. If they couldn't arrive at a solution, nobody could have; but I stand by my team and thank them for their efforts. I had to choose to go with one of their grand plans, which failed due to circumstances not entirely under our control. Now we'll really have to roll up our sleeves and get to work." [By the way, his next words won't be for the faint of heart.]

As for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State: I can only conclude that, after all was said and done, experience doesn't matter. Maybe it will come to pass that Clinton played the role of an inert actor following a pre-determined script. If the events which will comprise our near (and maybe distant) future turn out to be so irreversible, then experience will prove to have been, like, totally unimportant. Just as well, I suppose, since Hillary Clinton really has no background to justify this promotion.

The vampire movie: Let the Right One In

I saw Let the Right One In last week - twice: once on Friday and again the following day. Yes, I liked it - a lot.

Basically, Right One is a boy-meets-girl movie set in Sweden in the early ‘80s, about two twelve-year olds - Oskar and Eli. Oskar is a boy who is one of us (I'm assuming you, dear reader, are not a vampire), while Eli isn't really a girl (though looking like one, Eli is a castrated boy), is a vampire, has been twelve-years old "for a long time," and is a lot stronger than "she" looks.

The dialog (in Swedish, with English subtitles) is minimalist to the point of being terse. Yet somehow it inspired a lot of thought (well, at least in my mind). For one thing, imagine coexisting with a species more intelligent than our own, yet one which needs our blood to live. I started rethinking some of PETA's arguments.

It was only later (delayed reaction?) that I realized the true horror implied by the movie's ending. Quite simply, if Eli and Oskar (who had run off together) were to have any kind of life together, Oskar would have to become a vampire himself. Or else he would age, while Eli remained perpetually young, which would put Oskar in much the same place as Eli's "father." This person was not Eli's real father, but was utterly devoted to her and must have an interesting story of his own which (I hope) the novel reveals. [Just yesterday, I started reading that novel (same name as the movie) by John Ajvide Lindqvist.]

I also thought about the kind of buttons a movie like this might be pushing with its audience. There's an awesome scene in a swimming pool where skinny, frail-to-the-eye Eli metes out punishment to three bullies who were about to harm Oskar. She even tears one's head off - while Oskar is being held under water. I know a lot of guys are out there who would appreciate a kick ass girlfriend like that. Maybe that's got something to do with the pressure we feel from society: Always be strong, never show weakness, and we're always better than women who are always inferior.

There's a lot to recommend Let the Right One In, including the music. So even though most of you didn't vote for me for US president in 2008, I hope you'll listen to me on this score: Check this movie out.

Steven Searle

Losing candidate for US President in 2008

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Peopling as a form of waving

When causes and conditions are right, the great oceans of our earth manifest waves.

When causes and conditions are right, the great Ocean of Life Force manifests people. This ocean permeates the entire universe, and is the "place" where our life forces go after we die.

To put it more succinctly: When causes and conditions are right, the great oceans of water wave, and the Life Force Ocean peoples.

I cannot remember where I'd first heard this comparison. Nor can I recall having ever read it anywhere. But it's always rung true to me, so I offer for your benefit what I've heard - adding a little of my own.

The Wave Aspect of our Lives

Each of our individual lives can be thought of as a single wave on a body of water. When causes and conditions are right, a wave rises above the surface of the water. In other words, a birth takes place - the birth of an entity similar to other such entities but not entirely identical to them. Just as a wave is born and keeps growing then later declines and dies (as part of its life cycle), so do each of us. We, like that wave, are born, grow, decline, and die.

In the case of the wave, we simply see that it is no more. But by that, we can only mean we no longer see it above the surface of the water. However, even though that unique wave no longer towers above the surface as a unique "body," that wave still exists under the surface in some diluted form. It's true that some of that deceased wave will give up some of its water to the ocean; it's also true that some of that wave's water will re-wave (that is, it will reincarnate when causes and conditions are right). In its newly-manifested, visible form, it will contain water it didn't have in its previous incarnation as well as water it did have.

We are like that watery wave. We are born, we grow, decline, and die. But what happens to us when we die - when our life force loses its body and disappears from view? We are simply under the surface in a manner of speaking - in a dormant, potential state of being. When causes and conditions are right, we rise once again to distinguish ourselves and enter plain view - this time with a different body. We lost a little to the great ocean of life, yet we gained a little too.

Not only are our lives and deaths comparable to the visible and sub-surface parts of a wave, so too are all of our waking and sleeping periods. When we wake up in the morning, that's like being reborn - like a wave first starting to appear. As our day wears on, we become more active, as does a wave as it rises and increases in strength. Then we tire and pass into sleep, as does a wave which crashes to the surface and is no longer visible while it sleeps below the surface. It will gather strength and reappear, just as we do when we sleep then awaken in the morning.

Those Born for the First Time

Maybe some of what we lose ends up animating "water" from the deep - so far from the surface, it never had a chance to become part of a wave or, to continue our metaphor, to ever be born. This wrinkle occurred to me after my 85^th oral recitation of the Lotus Sutra*, which speaks of those "born for the first time." This must have something to do with the concept that inanimate objects can attain enlightenment. Since even rocks are imbued with Life Force (but not consciousness), they too can eventually attain Buddhahood (but not in their rocky form).

What would it be like to meet someone who had never had a prior existence as a human being - someone who was born for the first time as a human being? Someone who had never had a prior incarnation as a person? Don't suppose for a moment that they would only have the capacity of a retard. Consider children. I'm amazed at how quickly the very young catch on. Perhaps those born for the first time are like these very young who catch on so quickly. Of course, there are others among the very young who are not so bright.

I suppose it all boils down to what kind of karmic stuff these First-time Humans brought with them into this world. Some of their karma was acquired while they existed in an inanimate state. But that could be said of all of us, First-time Human or not (even those born without bodies, having only consciousness).

The Consciousness of "Mere" Water

Is it at all accurate to compare the human life wave to a watery wave? Water is not conscious and cannot control its own destiny. In fact, it only rises to become a visible wave due to forces outside itself: wind, temperature, earth's rotation, and the moon's tidal effects (to name a few).

Before we become too smug as to how superior we are to the water in the ocean, we should consider Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. Written in 1951, it's about a planet of that name in another solar system which is inhabited by only one intelligent living being. That being is an ocean which almost completely covers Solaris. But this ocean has not only intelligence but power. It can move things - for example, it can "adjust" (by mental telepathy, for lack of a better term) Solaris's orbital path around its twin suns.

This ocean can even probe the minds of the human beings from Earth who are manning a space station trying to communicate with the Solarian Ocean (but the ocean won't comply). More than probe their minds, this Ocean can conjure into being walking, talking copies of people these astronauts had known on earth (or who'd existed only in their imaginations). When one astronaut meets a copy of his wife who'd died ten years earlier...well that's when this book becomes more human, so to speak.

NOTE: Don't bother with the movie version of Solaris, starring George Clooney - the Russian version directed by Tarkovsky is far superior.

Do nations and societies have karma?

Do families and nations have a group karma? That might sound like: "Can my stomach have its own karma, separate from that of the rest of me?" If my stomach developed cancer, then it would seem to be manifesting its own destiny. If my stomach's karma were too strongly connected to the rest of me, I would die. In a sense, my stomach would take me with it. If it weren't too strongly connected, I would continue to live - though my poor stomach might cease to exist by being cut out of me.

So the answer is yes, and I'll continue with this example: I am a citizen of the USA. I was born here and was influenced by that. But I was influenced by other things as well. Each of us is part of many bodies, some being more influential than others.

Think of a truly huge wave in the Pacific Ocean, perhaps a 40-footer. If you look closely, on the surface of that wave are smaller waves. That huge one is the USA; one of those tiny ones is me (another tiny one is you). Though we are part of that huge wave and have our roots in it, other waves in our immediate vicinity will influence us. Some of these other waves are as small as we are, while others are larger in varying degrees. All of these influence us relatively powerless, tiny individuals. Not to mention the influence of the howling wind and the driving rain from above (which isn't part of the American wave you and I live on).

Though each of us lives on the American wave and were born from it, not all of us are equally affected by various causes and conditions external to the American wave. How we're affected depends on where it is on that wave we happen to live.

When causes and conditions arise...

Shakyamuni Buddha, being a sage, would sometimes be asked: "How did this happen? What caused this, that, or the other thing to happen?" I've met several people who are obsessed with having to know the blow-by-blow leading up to all outcomes. The Buddha, however, did not meticulously identify the links in the chains of cause and effect in describing phenomena - all he would say is, "This happens when causes and conditions are right."

In the Lotus Sutra*, widely considered to contain the Buddha's highest teachings, the Buddha says:

"Do not try to apprehend phenomena, to understand or to see them" - [page 200].

Please notice, all he said is "do not try." I think he meant that such understanding will come as a result of Buddhist practice (as detailed in the Lotus Sutra* itself). By trying "to apprehend phenomena," we run the risk of obsessing on and becoming overly-attached to them and won't end up seeing the forest for the trees (or the ocean for the waves).

In the Lotus Sutra*, the Buddha declares that each of us can become a Buddha exactly equal to himself. In addition, on page 98 he says (note especially the last sentence):

"Those who have not yet crossed over I will cause to cross over, those not yet freed I will free, those not yet at rest I will put at rest, those not yet in nirvana I will cause to attain nirvana. Of this existence and future existences I understand the true circumstances. I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

In that last sentence, the Buddha declared that he "knows all things" - but he didn't say "I am the only one who knows all things." He said "I am one [that is, one among many] who knows all things." That's a result of his attainment of Enlightenment (of his becoming a Buddha), which you too may become. Then you will "know all things," even though he'd warned us not to "try to apprehend phenomena, to understand or to see them."

In order to attain Buddhahood, we all have to try - but the key lies in understanding just what it is we are to try. [And the key to that is in practicing according to the Buddha's instructions in the Lotus Sutra.]

Does Buddhism deny the existence of the soul?

Oddly enough, in the Lotus Sutra's* translator's introduction, it says [page xi]: "Buddhism vehemently denied that there is any individual soul or personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next - to suppose there is is simply to open the way for further craving - but it did accept the idea of rebirth or transmigration, and taught that the circumstances or realm into which a being is reborn are determined by the good or bad acts done by that being in previous existences."

Many people from a Christian background are uncomfortable with such denials. They feel that they were uniquely created by God, and don't like it when they feel their individuality and uniqueness are called into question.

I can reassure the Wordians (and other Christians) on this point, but first a digression. What is a Wordian? This is simply a word I coined to describe those who think it's blasphemous to refer to Him as "Jesus Christ," preferring instead to call Him "The Word." If His name is "The Word," as it states in the Bible, then those who embrace Him by that name must be Wordians.

Back to that translator's note...I will divide it into three parts with commentary:

"Buddhism vehemently denied that there is any individual soul or personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next..." I don't care what you call it, but it seems obvious to me that something passes from one existence to the next. The best example is the Buddha himself, as well as many of his most advanced disciples who were actually able to remember their past existences.

So why do Buddhists (and presumably the Buddha himself, somewhere in his earlier teachings) deny the existence of a "personal identity that passes over from one existence to the next?" That's answered in the next part of the quote:

" - to suppose there is is simply to open the way for further craving." That's why the Buddha denied the soul. Our "craving" (always grasping for more and more for ourselves) only causes suffering and leads us ever further from the goal of attaining Enlightenment.

Chapter Two of the Lotus Sutra* is entitled Expedient Means. In it, Buddha speaks of intentionally teaching provisional doctrines in order to prepare his disciples for higher teachings. He knew how arrogant we are, how much we love ourselves and think not of others, how narcissistic we are. Buddha wanted us to give him (and us!) the benefit of the doubt - that is, to give him an opening to teach us by encouraging us to doubt our own overblown self-images to which we so fiercely cling to the exclusion of all else. By failing to embrace this "all else," we fail to attain Buddhahood.

Reincarnation

And now for the last part of that quote:

"- but it did accept the idea of rebirth or transmigration, and taught that the circumstances or realm into which a being is reborn are determined by the good or bad acts done by that being in previous existences."

To me, this end piece is part of a classic strategy of denying something (for the sake of argument), then giving a reason why this denial is made for a practical purpose but is false, and then denying the original denial. If Buddhism accepts "the idea of rebirth," then it should be fairly obvious to ask: "Just what exactly is it that's being reborn?"

Sad to say, though, this is not such an obvious question to ask. Over five years ago, I was introduced to a famous Buddhist teacher from Thailand. [No names, please.] I was introduced to him by a friend who was a disciple of this man. I couldn't help but notice how attached this monk was to the concept of teacher, though the Buddha had taught of "wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom."

I was told by my friend that I was fortunate to have a one-on-one with this monk, since that was a rare privilege. And you know what? I did feel fortunate - he was a very likable fellow who radiated genuine compassion, and that moved me tremendously. That's why I was disappointed when he said, "In Buddhism, we don't speak much about reincarnation." That was his response to a question I had asked about an incident in one of the Buddha's prior lifetimes.

It's true that some people obsess about reincarnation, as in "I would really like to remember who I was in a past life and what I did." Maybe he was trying to steer me away from such an obsession. Maybe he was trying to urge me into contemplating the power of now. It seemed to me at the time, though, that he just didn't want to answer my question. Buddhists can be very human that way.

Coming Attraction

Soon, I'll try to provide a Buddhist's answer to the age-old question: What is the purpose of our existence?

Steven Searle

Losing candidate for US President in 2008

Founder of The Best Party Available

* The Lotus Sutra: All references I've made (above) to The Lotus Sutra are to the Burton Watson translation of this sutra © 1993

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Why Barack Obama resigned from the senate so prematurely. It might turn out that his vote as a senator would have been enough to pass (for example) the auto bailout bill. But his absence, on the other hand, might mean...

Depends on who you ask...

Christians

If you ask a Christian about the purpose of our lives, he'd say, "To live as sinlessly as possible, to ask for forgiveness when we sin, and to accept the Savior into our lives in order to gain entrance to heaven." Ah, heaven. So that's it, eh? The purpose of our lives is to seek some type of reward which is payable after our lives are over. Our lives are a means to an end, which can only be obtained when we're dead? Are we so desperate to be rid of our aches, pains, and uncertainties (especially our uncertainties) that we build a place in our minds called "heaven" and aim for that?

Is there a downside to Heaven itself, once we make it that far? I don't think the holy rollers have thought this one out very carefully: What would it be like once we're There. For one thing, the structure of our consciousness would have to change. Once we've lived a life based on a 24-hour "day," which is the basis of a 70-year succession of such days, we'd go nuts once we're thrust, with no preparation whatsoever, into an infinite existence where such days are meaningless. I mean, what could occupy our minds - and this I especially ask of those whose minds are forever occupied with petty, trivial things.

After a few millions years of playing harps, singing celestial songs, walking streets of gold, and hanging around with boring, straight-laced goody-goodies, we might long for the stimulation of the Lake of Fire. In short, I think we'd become bored of heaven.

Buddhists

I'm not going to pretend that I know how Buddhists define life's purpose. But...I will tell you what this Buddhist thinks.

In a nutshell, the purpose of our lives is to become fully-enlightened Buddhas, who in turn have a purpose of helping others become fully-enlightened Buddhas. This might sound like nothing more than a glorified pyramid scheme, but maybe that's what reality is. [Note: In a closed system, pyramid schemes can't work; but in an open system...that's another story.]

The critical question becomes: If everybody in the universe becomes a Buddha, would that mean that life would no longer have any purpose?

Exactly, but to understand that calls for a bit of background.

A bit of background

In the earlier teachings of Shakymuni Buddha, it was believed that being reincarnated was a bad thing. The purpose of religious practice was to atone for the sins of past lives, thereby making it unnecessary to be reborn into this physical world of hardship. The Buddha himself didn't have to be reborn, but he chose to out of his great compassion to lead others to Enlightenment. If there were no others to lead (that is, if everyone was already a Buddha), it would not be necessary to be reborn into the physical world.

What other world is there? There was an Enlightened One named Void King Buddha, whose name helps answer that question. The ultimate goal of Buddhist practice is to become Nothing (King of the Void) - or (put another way) to become extinguished. I'll put this in modern terms: "The universe consists mostly of empty space, which even pervades and makes up most of physical entities. If one can become nothing and, by virtue of that becoming, become part of the great pervasive universal nothingness, then one can be everywhere at once. Then we would no longer be confined to a mere existence in one physical location, having only one physical body."

There is far more of nothingness (void) than of everything else. But here we have to be careful with what we mean by void. I can only hint at that by recalling wise words I'd once heard: "One of the biggest mistakes we make as human beings is to assume that what we mean by ‘mind' is encompassed only within the confines of our craniums."

Why we need not worry

We don't have to worry about becoming Buddhas only to find out we don't have anyone left to lead to Enlightenment. All Buddhas have the power to create an infinite number of emanations of themselves, in order to be able to preach salvation (simultaneously) on any of the infinite worlds in the 10 directions. These emanation Buddhas are constantly hard at work throughout the universe, yet they still have so much work of conversion and teaching on their hands. So we don't have to worry about running out of souls to save once we've attained Buddhahood.

The attainment of Buddhahood is both a path and a final destination. And it is the joy of the law which sustains our efforts, and in fact propels them, as we tread this path and finally arrive at our destination.

Though Shakyamuni Buddha has a life span which far exceeds the known age of the universe (so much for the Big Bang theory), he did not tire of his pursuit nor become bored once attaining his goal. It is inherent in the nature of the law of enlightenment that we don't tire, but instead are energized by our practice. That's fortunate, in light of what the Buddha said [page 231, Lotus Sutra, the Burton Watson translation]:

"This life span of countless kalpas I gained as the result of lengthy practice. You who are possessed of wisdom, entertain no doubts on this point! Cast them off, end them forever..."

To me, those are among the strictest words he used in the entire teaching called the Lotus Sutra.

However, he quickly follows with these words of encouragement:

"Though in fact alive, he [the Buddha] gives out word he is dead, yet no one can say he speaks falsely. I am the father of this world, saving those who suffer and are afflicted. Because of the befuddlement of ordinary people, though I live, I give out word I have entered extinction. For if they see me constantly, arrogance and selfishness arise in their minds. Abandoning restraint, they give themselves up to the five desires, and fall into the evil paths of existence.

"Always I am aware of which living beings practice the way, and which do not, and in response to their needs for salvation I preach various doctrines for them. At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"

In Refutation of the Abrahamists

I think we Buddhists have been too circumspect in our attempts at refuting Western religions. Maybe some of us think the Abrahamists have to work it out themselves. Maybe...but that hasn't happened. They just get deeper into the muck and their own self-righteousness.

We can disagree without being disagreeable - but we mustn't be shy about voicing our disagreements.

For instance # 1

I was once told that we should appreciate God for giving us our lives.

My response: "And what did we have (what were we) before God gave us life? What was it that God gave life to when he gave it to each of us before (obviously) we were alive to appreciate this gift? And why are we better off having this thing called life? What were we - before being granted life - that could have appreciated the difference?"

No one "gave" us life - we've always had it and always will. Each of us is alive (actually, "is alive again") because it was time for us to wake up (be reborn) from the sleep (dormancy) we were in after our previous life ended.

For instance # 2

I was once told that proof of God's existence is inferable, being based on the complexity of creation itself. "Only a Supreme Creator could have crafted such a mysterious and unfathomable work."

To which I would ask: "And what was It that, in turn, had created such a Supreme Creator? For surely such an awesome Supreme Creator must have, in turn, been created by Something even awesomer."

What too many people fail to appreciate is the fundamental Is-ness of the Universe. Put another way: It is what it is. If something appears complex to us, we don't have to jump to any conclusion that a Superior Craftsman must have created it. All we have to realize is, we don't understand or see the underlying mechanisms which brought it about. It's okay - really it is - to say, "I don't understand."

It is written: The greatest power of God must be to create other Gods. In effect, that's the essence of Buddhism, which I'll restate: "The greatest power of a Buddha must be to create other Buddhas."

For instance # 3

You don't have to look too hard to see how tightly the Abrahamists embrace the secular state. In fact, more than embrace statism, they worship it. The Zionist Jews sought safety in the creation of their own nation because they didn't feel protected while living as communities in other nations. There are Muslims who long for the re-establishment of a Caliphate as a breeding ground for the ideal Islamic society, as well as for protection against the imperialism of the infidels.

Then there are Bible Belt Americans - specifically the kind who refer to theirs as a Christian nation. The kind who don't have much use for diversity - at least, not religious diversity.

The Buddhist have a role model, on the other hand, which refutes all of the arguments of the statists. Shakyamuni Buddha was a prince who gave up his throne - who gave up his country - in order to reach out to as many as possible to preach his message. The true state exists within, and the sooner we get rid of the sovereign state, the more security each of us will have.

Imagine, for one thing, not having to flush trillions of dollars down the toilet by not having to maintain standing armies.

Imagine that.

Steven Searle

Losing candidate for US President in 2008

"The sovereign state is the greatest enemy of Enlightenment. It seeks only its own perpetuation at the expense of everything else - even of life on earth if necessary" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

TO: Those familiar with the case

If Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich should ever go on trial based on wiretap evidence, he should employ the April Fool's defense. Blago could say to the jury:

"Look, it was common knowledge for several years that the feds were investigating me. Of course I knew that. What? You don't think I read the funny papers?

"Since I'm a lawyer by profession, I also knew it was highly likely that my phones would be tapped. I would have been amazed if they hadn't been. So I'm saying, I knew the feds were listening in when I said all that stuff. Who on this jury could possibly believe I had thought they weren't listening?

"The only thing I didn't say, for the benefit of the eavesdropping feds, was ‘April Fool!' But I might as well have, since in context it was clear that that was my intent. That's what I was saying all that stuff for - as a big April Fool's joke. I was just jerking their chains, those f***ing toilets!

"My way of saying, ‘I know you're out there!'

"Who could believe I was speaking without being fully aware that I was being wiretapped?"

There it is: The April Fool's Defense (in other words, I didn't mean what I'd said and no reasonable person could possibly think otherwise).

Tell you what: If I was sitting on that jury and the feds had no other evidence to present, I would vote to acquit the man. And I would morally support his follow-up lawsuit charging false arrest and defamation of character.

Brief Background

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been charged by the feds with a litany of wrongdoing, based on wiretap evidence. He hasn't (yet) been indicted. Nor has he been brought up on any state charges. And he hasn't tried to explain anything (at least, not publicly), which is wise since those words might end up being used against him in a court of law.

Innocent until proven guilty

In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, President-elect Blacque Obammer didn't care whether Blago was guilty or innocent, waiting only one day after his arrest to urge him to resign. Obammer was apparently concerned about Illinois' ability to govern itself with a chief executive under fire. I wonder if Mr. Change You Can Believe In will offer his opinion should other governors from other states also come under fire.

That's what presidents do, right? They pass pre-judgments on governors. [hmm...]

[Blago hasn't even been indicted yet.]

A BO mouthpiece (one Robert Gibbs) was quite right when he said, "...it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois." However, that is not sufficient reason to urge him to resign. Frankly, that's none of Obammer's business. Our new president seems to be like so many before him, who want to put messy situations behind them (especially those from his own home state).

[What, no indictment?]

Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General seems to also want to expedite this matter so that we can move on (they love to move on, don't they?). Lisa has asked the Illinois State Supreme Court to undo the results of the election which put Blago in power. According to the Chicago Tribune (12/12/08):

"Madigan said she is asking the court to intervene because it would be quicker than impeachment."

Ah, so that's it, eh? It's the speed of the matter which is paramount, yes?

[Again, no indictment.]

Madigan herself, according to widely held belief, covets election to the governorship someday. So she could find it quite convenient if the Illinois high court got rid of Blago for her. Small problem: According to page 9 of her motion before the court:

QUOTE:

This Court should declare that Mr. Blagojevich is currently disabled from serving as Governor. Under the Illinois Constitution, the Governor shall be replaced by a successor if he "is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability."

:UNQUOTE.

Madigan conveniently overlooks the fact that Blago is quite able to serve, unless she's trying to sell the court this bill of goods:

"He's unable to serve because the Illinois lawmakers he has to deal with would hold allegations against people to be factual (especially, allegations without indictments). Blago is unable to serve because those low lifes would accept at face value unproven charges (libel? slander?) as truth, and will choose to ostracize the governor instead of granting him his day in court, or the benefit of an impeachment trial."

The high court should strictly reprimand Madigan for wasting taxpayer's money on trying to foist off such a frivolous, meritless motion on the court.

Shame!

But the court won't publicly embarrass Lisa Madigan because she's the daughter of Michael Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. How do you think Lisa attained her political prominence? Connections! And yet she thinks not only to pass judgment on Rod Blagojevich, but to use her position to get the Illinois Supreme Court involved. [Talk about using one's position for one's own personal gain!]

[And still, no indictment.]

Conclusion:

Just because we have the best democracy that money can buy, that doesn't mean we have the best possible democracy - or really any democracy at all.

Steven Searle

Losing candidate for US President in 2008

"Maybe with the heat on Blagojevich, the feds can get Tony Rezko (or others) to rat out Chicago's mayor Richard M. Daley. I would love to see duh mare being forced to do the perp walk" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Back in 2004, Osama bin Laden said the goal of al Qaeda is to force America into bankruptcy.

I want to be very clear about two points: If the US ends up collapsing into bankruptcy:

• al Qaeda will claim at least partial credit (and rightly so)

• the majority of the blame, however, will reside within our own borders: We did it to ourselves.

How we did it to ourselves:

By being on auto pilot and refusing to think things through.

By allowing ourselves to be distracted by chicken hawks squawking about terrorists hiding under every bed.

By assuming our government regulators were on the job, carefully watching the foxes.

By refusing to elect independents to office, always robotically "choosing" between the Dems and the Pubs ["Will you choose fries or onion rings with your burger, sir?" - either way, you still get a burger.]

By voting for Change You Can Believe In, without asking for specifics (sorry, too late now).

By thinking we can print more paper money and spend our way out of any economic crisis.

By means of dubious appointments by the president-elect which are meant to please the financial industry, as in this case:

QUOTE:

Nine years ago, Gary Gensler played a central role in fending off tough regulation for exotic financial instruments for hedging against risk. On Thursday, President-elect Barack Obama picked him for a central role in cleaning up the wreckage that some of those instruments caused....

...Mr. Gensler could not be reached for comment about how his views about financial regulation have evolved.

:UNQUOTE [source: New York Times, 12/19/08]

Who knows? Maybe Mr. Gensler learned his lesson, changed his evil ways, or conned his way into this job. In any event, I find it fascinating that he "could not be reached for comment," given that our new president had just elevated him to this critical position: Head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Introducing the New, Improved Military Draft

President-elect Blacque* Obammer's team is preparing a $1 trillion economic recovery package. Of course, this will please al Qaeda immensely. They know the age-old rule: "The quickest way to bankruptcy is to pile on as much debt as possible."

Though that's bad enough, don't be distracted. Take time out to pay careful attention to what he'll say and do concerning our military preparedness. [And what he'll be trying to lead up to.] Without a doubt, he'll ramp up military spending to keep the generals and contractors happy. But worse than that: I believe he will (within six months) make a shocking announcement proposing that mandatory military conscription once again be the law of the land. And this time, there won't be any deferments for those who are enrolled in college nor will females be exempt except perhaps from combat duty.

Obammer will say something like, "After careful consideration and lengthy conferral with our top military leaders, I am forced to conclude that a reinstitution of universal compulsory military service is in the vital national interest." [Hey, better to hear bad news from a friend, right?]

Of course, many of Blacque's supporters at MoveOn and Daily Kos will gnash their teeth and wail, but what can they possibly do? Support Obammer's GOP opponent in the next election? That aint gonna happen. So once again, the progressives will be left out in the cold, once their darling consolidates his power and seeks to broaden his base. [To their credit, though, some among them actually saw this coming.]

The sad thing: A broad cross-section of the country will go along with a draft because of a belief that conscripting young people in a time of economic downturn is a convenient way to thin out the labor pool.

The sadder thing: Once we have a draft, some people will remember me and this promise I'd made before the election:

EIGHT:          There will be no military draft during my presidency. If Congress enacts a draft, however, I will encourage all draftees to be inducted. Immediately after induction, though, they will be subject to this blanket order: Do not follow any orders from any member of the military except this order from me, your Commander in Chief: "Carry on with your civilian lives as if you had never been drafted."

source:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

The context of EIGHT (above): this was the 8^th in a list of 47 promises I guaranteed to keep "if elected." I was the only candidate for the presidency in 2008 who had even mentioned the draft during the campaign. [Though, to be sure, it was very much on the minds of all of my opponents.]

In fact, I was the only presidential candidate to ever offer a written contract as an inducement for votes. So it could be said: While Blacque Obammer made history in one way, I made history in quite another. And since history is still being written, I have no doubt as to my contribution eventually being seen as the more profound.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

* "There is a reason I'm calling him Blacque Obammer, which I'll address fairly soon"  - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

From now on, I will refer to our new president as Blacque Obammer. My strategic reason: People might react negatively, but (hopefully) they'll read on, even if only for a sentence or two.

And that's all I'll need to stimulate thought and to propose my own counter-measures.

What's in a name: Genesis of Blacque Obammer

As for the first name:

When creating this pun, I was going to go with Black, since I wanted to focus on his race. Front and center: his race. Why? Well, ask the question another way: Why did such large numbers of voters focus on precisely that aspect during the Democratic primary? This is exactly what they did, for can you imagine a similarly unknown white man with such a thin resume and lack of experience having won the nomination?

So, admit it or not, race was an important factor among his supporters. So I decided to keep that focus there, more or less as a reminder as to what it is about BO that had attracted national attention in the first place.

But...I didn't go with Black (too simple, too obvious). I wanted something a bit more elegant, while still connecting to race. Our new president is elegant, perhaps even a bit aristocratic in his bearing. Which is good, since that beats the hell out of the Neanderthals we've suffered with for the last eight years. So I decided: "Blacque it is!"

I wanted to infuse extra meaning, so I created an acronym:

B is for "Barack-ratic" - a pun on the word "bureaucratic" as a reference to what will prove to be Obammer's preferred style of governance - by bureaucracy. This is an improvement over Bush's style, but I believe Blacque will carry it to an extreme.

L is for "Leader:" I put the word leader in quotation marks. If our new president actually leads, rather than panders or postures, then I'll remove the quotes.

A is for artful...and not in the good sense of that word.

C is for co-opter (of)

Q is for Qualified

U is for underlings'

E is for expertise

All together, Blacque makes for an interesting, perhaps prophetic description of our new president:

Barack-ratic Leader: Artful co-opter of qualified underlings' expertise

As for the last name:

The bammer (that is, the one who bams) I had in mind was Rahm Emanuel. Bam has several definitions* which I feel apply quite well to Rahm-bo:

• "an imposition; a cheat; a hoax" - derived from bamboozle

• "to cheat; to wheedle"

• "imitative of the sound of a hard hit" [Rahm could easily be considered a hard hitter.]

When our new president needs a hard hitter, I can see Blacque calling out to Rahm: "Oh, Bammer! I could use your discreet touch here." Therefore, I dub the one who would call out "Oh, Bammer!" to be none other than Blacque Obammer himself.

Why bother?

Did I just now waste a lot of effort just to create an elaborate pun? Not really, for I feel that words have great power. And these two words - Blacque Obammer -  might actually lead people to think (many for the first time): "What have we gotten ourselves into?" If I can do that much, then I will consider my efforts to have been worthwhile.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

"What's in a name? Well, that all depends on the name, the context, and how carefully it's contemplated. But please, make no mistake: There can be much in a name"  - Steve.

The Best Party Available

* source of bam definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Thesis:

High tech gadgetry doesn't seem to matter to Buddhists. And for good reason.

A most curious matter:

My source for what follows is the highest of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, The Lotus Sutra*. The Lotus is replete with references appropriate to ancient times, especially to a non-mechanized, agrarian society. I wondered, though, if the Lotus (which is supposed to be older than the known age of the universe) has any references to high tech. Since it speaks of other countries far beyond earth having existed for millions of years, it would seem to make sense that these lands had at least acquired our level of machination.

Yet the Lotus says almost nothing of these technologies.

I said, "almost nothing." Consider this, from the Lotus's Chapter 7:

QUOTE [page 122]:

[Shakyamuni] Buddha announced to the monks: "When the Buddha Great Universal Wisdom Excellence [GUWE] attained [Enlightenment], five hundred ten thousand million Buddha worlds in each of the ten directions trembled and shook in six different ways...

"...a great light shone everywhere, completely filling the worlds and surpassing the light of the heavens...At that time in five hundred ten thousand millions lands in the eastern direction the Brahma palaces shone with a brilliant light that was twice its ordinary brightness, and the Brahma kings each thought to himself, Now the brilliance of the palace is greater than ever in the past...

At that time [these] Brahma kings... accompanied by their palaces [my emphasis - Steve] ...journeyed together to the western region .... They saw the Great Universal Wisdom Excellence Thus Come One in the place of practice...

"...each [king] took his palace and presented it to the Buddha, speaking these words [in unison!]: ‘...We beg you to accept and occupy these palaces that we present.'"

:UNQUOTE.

My interpretation

I believe these kings used their (mobile) palaces as traveling machines to visit that Buddha (GUWE Thus Come One). Furthermore, considering how far these kings had to travel, there's no doubt in my mind that these traveling machines operated using the highest principles of technology. They were able to convey these kings quickly and without regard to the kinds of limitations which we endure - for instance, that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light.
[Well, it isn't possible to travel faster, but it is possible to travel better.]

I believe that such a high technology exists, though it had no attraction to those who'd possessed it. This is evident by the fact that these kings were offering their palaces to the BUWE Buddha, which would leave them no way to get home! Correction: "...with no tech vehicle to get home!"). They had no intention of going home, at least not right away. They implored the Buddha to enlighten them by means of what is (ironically enough) called the Great Vehicle Law.

Once they were to attain Buddhahood by practicing this Law, then they would be able to travel back home - without means of their palatial vehicles. One of the powers of a Buddha is to be able to travel anywhere - at will. More than that: To be in several distant places at the same time.

With that kind of Enlightened power, who needs technology?

Steven Searle (was) candidate for U.S. President in 2008

"Technology is way overrated. I mean, did the proliferation of word processors make people better writers?"  - Steve.

The Best Party Available

* The Lotus Sutra, as translated by Burton Watson.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.