Crude (2009) a documentary film directed and produced by Joe Berlinger.

I saw this fascinating movie recently, and was moved but not entirely convinced as to what is the right thing to do.

From the two websites:

QUOTE [http://www.crudethemovie.com/ ] :

Three years in the making, this ... feature from acclaimed filmmaker Joe Berlinger ... is the epic story of one of the largest and most controversial environmental lawsuits on the planet. The inside story of the infamous "Amazon Chernobyl" case, Crude is a real-life high stakes legal drama, set against a backdrop of the environmental movement, global politics, celebrity activism, human rights advocacy, the media, multinational corporate power, and rapidly-disappearing indigenous cultures.

[and]

The landmark case takes place in the Amazon jungle of Ecuador, pitting 30,000 indigenous ... rainforest dwellers against the U.S. oil giant Chevron. The plaintiffs claim that Texaco - which merged with Chevron in 2001 - spent three decades systematically contaminating one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, poisoning the water, air and land. The plaintiffs allege that the pollution has created a "death zone" in an area the size of the Rhode Island, resulting in increased rates of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, and a multiplicity of other health ailments. They further allege that the oil operations in the region contributed to the destruction of indigenous peoples and irrevocably impacted their traditional way of life. Chevron vociferously fights the claims, charging that the case is a complete fabrication, perpetrated by "environmental con men" who are seeking to line their pockets with the company's billions.

:UNQUOTE.

At the end of the movie, additional information was provided if (for example) viewers wanted more information on the oil company's side of the story. It would only make sense that Chevron would want to post its views for the benefit of its shareholders. This is a source I came up with after a brief google search: www.chevron.com/ecuador

Mixed emotions

One scene in particular was gut wrenching: It was hard to watch a baby, only a few months only, suffering from a severe skin rash allegedly caused by the oil-tainted environment. I thought, "Who will do something for this poor child? Will anybody step up to the plate for this poor victim?"

But then I thought: "Victim, yes. But of whom?"

Yes, Chevron had been extracting oil for about 20 years (since the early ‘70s), but claims it is being unfairly singled out as being the only responsible party in the lawsuit. Chevron asks why Ecuador's national oil company Petroecuador isn't also being challenged, since that company has been managing oil extraction operations since 1990.

According to Wikipedia: "In 1995, amid litigation, Texaco agreed to clean a number of waste pits in proportion to its interest in the consortium, at a cost of $40 million. In exchange, the government released Texaco from further liability. Chevron has used this agreement as its primary defense against the ongoing legal claim." [Footnote 1, below]

Interesting, indeed.

On one hand, one could claim that the sovereign government of Ecuador should have been responsible all along for safeguarding its own people and land against contamination. However, maybe local officials didn't know the long-term effects of the extraction process at the time. Or maybe they were bribed or had chosen to look the other way.

On the other hand, maybe indigenous peoples can claim redress of grievances by claiming they were victims of a crime against humanity. That's a stretch, perhaps, but that could be one way of bypassing the notion that a sovereign government is the only entity that should be held responsible for operations undertaken on its territory.

So, who will answer?

It was nice of a foreign foundation to supply containers for collecting rainwater, so the natives would have unpolluted water to drink. And it was nice that a wide variety of international allies have stepped forward to advance this David vs. Goliath lawsuit, now in its 16^th year.

Sixteen years? Don't they say, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Oh, maybe "they" say it but don't always mean it: Remember the infamous and quite meaningless declaration by the US Supreme Court, in Brown vs. The Board of Education, that schools be desegregated with "all deliberate speed?"

After watching Crude, I was convinced that indigenous peoples are suffering from the consequences of these toxic wastes. But I was also amazed at the huge volume of amassed evidence in written form. Can an Ecuadorean court be expected to competently rule on highly-sophisticated claims of damages and their refutations? Can that country be expected to have the resident experts and testing facilities to do justice in this case? [Yes, this case is wending its way through an Ecuadorean court.]

Should Chevron be held responsible, simply because it can pay the $27 billion at stake?

Should the US government generously offer to send in and pay for expert crews to repair the environmental damage? Not to mention also paying for medical care?

Should we dream of a day when an international court can decide such matters?

Should we take up a collection?

Almsgiving

Ah, that...almsgiving, as an answer to the question: Should we take up a collection?

Caring for the poor and disadvantaged is considered a virtue by all of the world's religions. And yet, too many don't. The Me First materialistic creed seems to outweigh the directives of ancient, dusty religious texts.

This much is certain: There's no way our Congress and President will step up to the plate on this one. Which is one reason why We-the-People have to take matters into our own hands. Each and every one of us. One by one. After personally making a silent resolution to Do the Right Thing.

But it's hard to reach out all the way to those suffering in the rain forest. Wouldn't most of our donations end up being siphoned off by corrupt officials, or as part of suppliers' inflated profit margins? Does a "yes" to this question mean we should do nothing?

We can wish all we want that we could affect distant events, alleviate distant suffering. But think about this: If we had had laws in effect, in the first place, which severely limited oil companies from polluting foreign lands, the Ecuadoreans of the Amazon wouldn't have suffered so greatly. But such laws will not come from an American President or Congress - unless we elect Independents to office.

Maybe that's the true meaning of "Think globally, act locally." [Hint, hint.]

If so, we've got our work cut out for us, for I hear that President Obammer* won't even see the Dalai Lama who is currently in Washington DC, since he wants to pay an official visit to China first (in November). Hmm...that's "change you can believe in" alright - or at least, that's change the Chinese can believe in and exploit. I thought "Change you can believe in" meant something else. So did a lot of people.

But we can put all that behind us, and should - in preparation for the 2006 national elections. If we don't, our idea of foreign aid will (still) consist of Megabucks for Israel and more intensive "efforts" in Afghanistan.

I cannot begin to tell you how much I actually detest President Blacque Obammer* - for the worst sin of all: peddling hope which he didn't even faintly believe in.

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

"At the risk of sounding tedious and tiring, one more time - who's going to help that baby?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

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.

Have you ever seen pictures of the protective deities embraced by Tibetan Buddhists? Some of them look like scary monsters. Pretty scary, indeed. And attempting to visualize these deities is part of the Dalai Lama's practice - part of what every Tibetan Buddhist practices.

Another part is dedication to a guru (teacher). And frankly, I don't get it. The Buddhism I know teaches this:

QUOTE:

Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said:

"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teachings."

[and]

"After my death, the Dharma [Buddhist Law] shall be your teacher. Follow the Dharma and you will be true to me."

[and]

"During the last forty-five years of my life, I have withheld nothing from my teachings. There is no secret teaching, no hidden meaning; everything has been taught openly and clearly." [Sorry, guys, but this means there are no esoteric teachings - Steve.]

:UNQUOTE:  The Teaching of Buddha, copyright 1966 by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai.

But I know why Dalai thinks so

There is a reason for everything. So even though, as one commentator expressed it, the Buddha meant, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law [Dharma]," the worship of protective deities has legitimate roots. For instance, the Buddha's highest teaching, The Lotus Sutra, assures great benefit for those who are "holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds."

But the Buddha encourages us to "hold fast" to a particular Bodhisattva for one very good reason: The purpose is to give (in this example) Perceiver of the World's Sounds a chance to fulfill his vow to protect practitioners of the Way and thereby more quickly attain Buddhahood himself.

In other words, our devotion to a particular bodhisattva is not only meant to help us, but it's meant to help that bodhisattva attain Buddhahood.

There are 52 stages of bodhisattva practice, and those at the very highest stages (such as Perceiver) have god-like supernatural power, which they have sworn to the Buddhas to use in order to protect common, ordinary Buddhists including laymen living and working in society. However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow [I'll explain that a bit later].

Meanwhile, consider what Shakyamuni Buddha has to say about Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds:

QUOTE [quotes from the Buddha in The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation]:

"If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, should enter a great fire, the fire could not burn him. This would come about because of this bodhisattva's authority and supernatural power. If one were washed away by a great flood and called upon his name, one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." [Page 299]

[and]

"If a person who faces imminent threat of attack should call the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds, then the swords and staves wielded by his attackers would instantly shatter into so many pieces and he would be delivered." [Page 299]

[and on page 301]

 "Suppose also that there is a person who accepts and upholds the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the World's Sounds and even just once offers him obeisance and alms. The good fortune gained by these two persons would be exactly equal and without difference." NOTE: That second person the Buddha is referring to is referred to in an immediately preceding passage:

"...suppose there is a person who accepts and upholds the names of as many bodhisattvas as there are sands in sixty-two million Ganges, and ...he offers them alms...What is your opinion? Would this good man or good woman gain many benefits, or would he not?"

:UNQUOTE.

But - and this is a big BUT...

The Buddha encourages us to "hold fast to" and give alms to various Bodhisattvas. For instance, he says on page 323: "And I will employ my transcendental powers to guard and protect those who can accept and uphold the name of Bodhisattva Universal Worthy."

BUT... the Buddha puts things in perspective with this key passage:

QUOTE:

"Even if a person were to fill the whole thousand-million fold world with the seven treasures as an offering to the Buddha and the great bodhisattvas..., the benefits gained by such a person cannot match those gained by accepting and upholding this Lotus Sutra, even just one four-line verse of it! The latter brings the most numerous blessings of all."

:UNQUOTE: [The Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson translation, page 285]

So even though The Lotus Sutra shows us the Buddha praising and encouraging devotion to the great Bodhisattvas, he is very keen to reinforce that it is the Lotus Sutra that is most praiseworthy and beneficial of all.

When vows aren't upheld

I had a particular incident in mind when I had written above: "However, these profoundly accomplished bodhisattvas sometimes fail in their vow."

It was over 5 years ago when my local Buddhist congregation learned that a long-time practicing laywoman member had not only been murdered, but her body had been hacked into pieces, placed into garbage bags, and ended up in a dumpster. During the memorial services, I kept waiting for the senior layperson to answer a question surely on the minds of many:

"If practicing SGI Buddhism is supposed to protect you from evil, why didn't it save this poor woman?"

While it's true that various entities have sworn to protect followers of the Way, it's also true that sometimes they f**k up. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are not gods with omnipotent powers to protect; they themselves are limited by and subject to the law of karma - even though the Buddha claimed: "I am free to do what I will with the Law." [Still trying to figure out exactly what that means!]

Too many within the Western traditions think of them (erroneously) as being Christian God-like, though The Lotus Sutra does have this interesting statement from the Buddha:

"I am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way."

This is a bit subtle, but notice that he didn't say, "I am the one who..." For "the one" would describe a Western God. When Buddha says "I am one," in effect he's saying "I am one among many - including you who aspire to become Buddhas (once you reach that point) - who knows all things..."

Concerning this woman's violent death: There are other possibilities. The great Bodhisattvas - protectors of Buddhists worldwide - could have protected her but chose not to or perhaps that she herself had declined their protection! In the world of Buddhism, timing is important. Maybe she had to die when she did so that she could be reborn where - and when - she was most needed. And that wouldn't necessarily be here on planet earth.

As for the violence of her murder: That could well have been an exaggerated compression effect, which would serve to expiate huge chunks of her past negative karma. Wiping the slate clean in one stroke, as it were.

Why the Lotus Sutra?

Key Quotes from The Lotus Sutra

QUOTE [Page 98]:

"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 existence 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."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 164]:

"The sutras I have preached number immeasurable thousands, ten thousands, millions. Among the sutras I have preached, now preach, and will preach, this Lotus Sutra is the most difficult to believe and the most difficult to understand. Medicine King, this sutra is the storehouse of the secret crux of the Buddhas."

:UNQUOTE.

QUOTE [Page 165]:

"The way of the bodhisattva is the same as this. As long as a person has not yet heard, not yet understood, and not yet been able to practice this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that that person is still far away from anuttara-samyak-sambodhi [the supreme enlightenment of a Buddha]. But if the person is able to hear, understand, ponder and practice the sutra, then you should know that he can draw near to anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra."

:UNQUOTE.

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

"That last part is worth repeating: "Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra." And yet, I don't hear the Dalai Lama spending oceans of time praising and teaching the Lotus Sutra. Instead, he speaks of Tibetan autonomy and plays with monsters." - 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.

Our President isn't sure he'd done enough to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. Well I, for one, am very sure: He hasn't done enough. And for that reason, he should have rejected this honor. But that wouldn't have been playing ball. And I want to be very clear about this: That's exactly what Obammer* the Truly Unknown One is doing - playing ball. [And has been doing so all along.]

A lot of vested interests are bending over backwards, especially within the media, to make Blacque* Obammer* look good. I'd even blogged on this theme, accusing the G-20 of manufacturing an incident for the sole purpose of making him look good before the cameras. [See http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2009/5/just_who_is_the_g-20_trying_to_kid ] We might want to start asking, "Why all this effort to enNobel [pun intended] Obammer*?"

Am I saying the Nobel Peace Prize committee has been corrupted? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obammer's* award was scripted - a foregone (and unanimous) conclusion - from the moment he was nominated in February. How do I know this? The unanimous decision and the committee's rare display of defensiveness pretty much give the game away. Plus the fact that he hasn't really done anything. [Hello! The emperor has no clothes.]

The chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, told the Associated Press: "Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year" and then asked "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?" [source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama ]

Let's define "done," shall we?

Exactly what has Blacque* done, except speechify? He's still persisting in Iraq and speaks of a continued commitment-without-end in Afghanistan. He has no problem snubbing the Dalai Lama (though I'm no fan of that false prophet), simply to curry favor with the Chinese. [That's going to backfire, big time!]

I wonder if I would have been awarded the Peace Prize, had I become President instead of Obammer*. By this time in my presidency, in accordance with my Electoral Contract at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle-for-us-president :

• All US personnel would have been completely removed from Iraq and Afghanistan. [Hmm..ending wars should be enough to earn a Peace Prize, yes?]

• "There will be no military draft during my presidency" - quote from Points EIGHT and NINE of my Electoral Contract.

• In my post entitled "Nuclear Disarmament: 1,000 points of light," I'd written: "My ultimatum to the US Congress: After I am elected US President, I will present to the US Congress a mandate: On August 6, 2012, our total nuclear stockpile will be no greater than 1,000 warheads or else:" - for details, see http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/8/nuclear_disarmament_1_000_points_of_light . [Hmm, getting rid of most of our nukes, instead of merely talking about a bit of unspecified trimming. How about that?]

• I had also promised, within 90 days of my inauguration, to order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - thereby allowing Cuba to reclaim its rightful territory. [Tell me, wouldn't this simple and token step to repudiate our past imperialism have been received like a breath of fresh air in all countries south of the border?] [Hmm...building good will among ordinary citizens of the world - sounds like a winner to me.]

Any one of these items would have done far more to advance the cause of peace than any speech Obammer* has made. But had I been awarded the Peace Prize, I would have gone to Oslo to receive the prize alright. But I would have taken Greg Mortenson with me. And immediately after the award ceremony, I would have escorted Greg to the steps outside the award hall and given the Peace Prize to him. In front of all those reporters, that's exactly what I would have done.

I have no patience for fools and that's my estimation of the Prize Committee - for their efforts, in accordance with a preordained agenda, to further glorify the US strongman Blacque* Obammer*. Don't they know? World peace has a lot more to do with the efforts of a lot of unsung heroes like Mortenson than it does with speeches made by the highly propagandized Leader of the Free World.

Consider:

QUOTE: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson ]:

In the process of building schools, Mortenson has survived an eight-day armed 1996 kidnapping in the tribal areas of Waziristan, in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province; escaped a 2003 firefight between Afghan opium warlords; endured two fatwās by angry Islamic clerics for educating girls; and received hate mail and threats from fellow Americans for helping educate Muslim children.

[and]

Mortenson believes that education and literacy for girls globally is the most important investment all countries can make to create stability, bring socio-economic reform, decrease infant mortality, decrease the population explosion, and improve health, hygiene, and sanitation standards globally.  Mortenson believes that 'fighting terrorism' only perpetuates a cycle of violence, and that there should be a global priority to 'promote peace' through education and literacy, with an emphasis on girls' education. "You can drop bombs, hand out condoms, build roads or put in electricity, but unless the girls are educated, a society won't change", is an often quoted statement made by Mortenson.

:UNQUOTE.

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

"I also have no patience with the likes of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and the owner of a major munitions factory, who tried to buy his way into heaven by funding a peace prize. It doesn't work like that, Alfred" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

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.

I just informed my other credit card company - Discover - that I will no longer be making monthly payments to eliminate my balance of $6,300. Instead, I will be diverting their monthly payments to the United Negro College Fund, as I'd already started doing in the case of my Visa card.

I mailed my first payment to the UNCF, as Discover Card's unduly authorized representative, today. I've already made two monthly payments, which "should" have gone to Visa, to the UNCF. I suppose this means that I am now a man without credit - much to my credit, I believe.

This is the text of my email just now sent to Discover:

QUOTE:

This is to inform you that I will no longer be making payments directly to Discover. Instead, I will be paying you indirectly by donating at least $125.25 per month to the United Negro College Fund. This will be done until my outstanding balance of $6,329.94, plus whatever interest I deem appropriate, is in the hands of the UNCF. Please consider this action I'm making on your behalf to be a payment of reparations to the black community in this country, from whom US banks have derived much undeserved wealth.

:UNQUOTE.

My message to Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun Magazine

I also just now responded to an appeal from Rabbi Michael Lerner for a donation to either Tikkun Magazine or the Network of Spiritual Progressives. I e-mailed to say, "Someone has to start. Someone has to take a stand on this issue of overdue reparations, which is inspired by the same sentiment as your Global Marshall Plan. President Obama won't move, Congress won't move, so I'll move. Anyway, though I cannot help your cause directly with a donation, my prayers and my actions are with you."

I am a little, powerless man, without influential family, background, or backers. But I am pleased to say that I've been quite happy with the less-than-$40,000 per year I earn as a civil servant after 28 years on the job. [Yes, this allegation is true: The best things in life are free.]

Needless to say, I can't do much. But rest assured, I will move whatever mountains I can, however I can, if that just might inspire movement which the powerful are paralyzed from making.

In closing, to my fellow Gaians

I ask your prayers in support.

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

"I like their slogan - It pays to Discover. I hope it comes to mean: It paid Discover et al huge dividends shortly after they started paying the reparations they'd owed for too long" - 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.

Three reasons why the West fears Muslims: The real reasons

• Ramadan and all that implies

• A non-consumerist ethic

• An empire to compete with those of the Americans, Europeans, Russians (hanging on to what's left), and Chinese (grasping and consolidating to become preeminent).

Ramadan

Western elites look at Ramadan with worried eyes. They see 100s of millions of people who, for 30 days out of the year, fast from sun up to sunset. That includes not even drinking water. And this is a practice taken up routinely, well before a Muslim is 20 years old.

Translation? These people are tough. We, who deny ourselves so little, ask, "Could we even go one single solitary day without a daylight drink of water or a bite to eat without becoming cranky as hell?"

Or even more telling: "Would we even be willing to try this for one day?"

Then our ever-alert elites start thinking: "How many of our young people would be willing to fight a superior army for years, lacking our customary luxury of air support, by taking to the hills in guerilla fashion?" And when our leaders and generals speak of such things amongst themselves, not liking the answers that are so obvious, the fear sets in. That's when the opponent is seen, not as some mystical and phantom force hidden in distant mountains, but instead as ... ourselves and our own deficiencies as human beings.

Non-consumerist ethic

I don't know about you, but I have severe doubts as to how many more trillions of dollars of debt we can assume before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Economists will tell you, though not as plainly as I: "As long as people keep expanding their appetites for more and more, it doesn't matter how much debt we pile up." Of course, that means our current system depends on stoking greed. Everybody wants to be a millionaire, right?

Oh, wait a minute. There's a fly in the ointment. Not everybody wants to be a millionaire. There are tens of millions of Muslims worldwide who think being closer to God and to their fellow Muslims, and doing charitable work for the poor, is more important. What if this non-consumerist ethic caught on in the West? There goes the economic recovery. Why, people might even start thinking, "Warren Buffet has too much." And, worse yet, they might even think of trying to do something about that.

That's what our fearless leaders are afraid of, most of all.

Establishment of an empire

They fear this, but not as much as their own masses living simpler, cheaper, and more spiritually-fulfilling lives (at the expense of economic growth): A new caliphate. Like most monopolists, empires don't like competition. Which is why we've labored so mightily for so long to sabotage any possibility of Islamic political unity.

My personal opinion? Competition among the great world powers will come to a head in Africa. And those powers fear any alignment of African nations (many of them Islamic) with any kind of emerging Islamic empire. Frankly, I'd like to see how devout Muslims work to establish a just Islamic culture. Even though Mohammed is regarded as the last of God's prophets, even Muslims will acknowledge that others have contributed a lot in answer to the question: "What is the ideal Islamic state?"

We in the West tend to see only the worst of possibilities emerging, like the Ayatollah Khomeni's regime in Iran. And we easily denounce mobs of penitents engaged in self-flagellation to the point of drawing blood. But the story of Islam has not been completely told yet. It is very much a work in progress. It would be useful to keep in mind Lord Acton's bit about "Absolute power corrupting absolutely," and to remember that the Iranian form of Islam is viewed as heretical by the vast majority of other Muslims.

How they reconcile - if indeed they ever do - will make very interesting history indeed.

I believe in calling a fool a fool

My fool for today is one Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich, Sr., former military man and currently a professor at Boston University. It did not escape my notice that this gentleman, though in the military for about 22 years, did not manage to make General. He'd retired at the rank of Colonel. Nothing wrong with that in itself, though it would have excluded him from any direct knowledge of inner-circle workings. That alone might explain his rather lofty manner of writing.

Dr. Bacevich wrote a rather stilted piece in the Aug. 14 2009 issue of Commonweal, which is free on-line. Or if you'd rather pay for it, buy the current issue of Harper's Magazine (Nov/2009). Title: The War We Can't Win: Afghanistan & the Limits of American Power.

That's a favorite topic in some circles these days: The idea of the limits of American power. Isn't it sad, though, that Bacevich and others don't say "Limits of American Military Power?" Personally, I'd like to think of American power as potentially far more profound and not limited to the military aspect. But "thinkers" like Bacevich - a dime a dozen - would not even think there could really be any other kind of power.

Point: Bacevich writes:

"The misguided and mismanaged global war on terror reduced Bush's presidency to ruin."

Counterpoint:

No, Dr. Bacevich, it didn't matter that Bush "misguided" and "mismanaged" the GWOT. What mattered is that he even declared this war. I disagree with Noam Chomsky on many fronts, but he got it right when he said: "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

Point: Bacevich writes:

... the primary reason why the 9/11 conspiracy succeeded: federal, state, and local agencies responsible for basic security fell down on the job... The national-security apparatus wasn't paying attention...

[followed almost immediately by this]

Averting a recurrence of that awful day [9/11] does not require the semipermanent occupation and pacification of distant countries like Afghanistan. Rather, it requires that the United States erect and maintain robust defenses.

Counterpoint

Is this guy on drugs or something? First he says security agencies "fell down on the job," and then he says preventing more 9/11's is a matter of erecting and maintaining robust defenses. Does Professor Bacevich even bother to proofread his own work, or at least have the decency to avoid placing such contradictions so close to each other?

Maybe I've been wrong (like all my life?), but I thought the US had erected and maintained robust defenses starting with the Cold War. Isn't that how we beat the Rooskies? What part of "robust defenses" am I not understanding? Or more to the point, what part is Bacevich not understanding?

Point: Bacevich writes (my underscore added):

...the people out there, rather than requiring our ministrations, may well be capable of managing their own affairs relying on their own methods...

[followed by this bit of contradiction]

It would be much better to let local authorities do the heavy lifting. Provided appropriate incentives, the tribal chiefs who actually run Afghanistan are best positioned to prevent terrorist networks from establishing a large-scale presence. As a backup, intensive surveillance complemented with precision punitive strikes (assuming we can manage to kill the right people) will suffice to disrupt Al Qaeda's plans.

Counterpoint:

What does our never-made-General mean by "let" when he writes "let local authorities do the heavy lifting?" He gives the game away in the very next sentence: "Provided appropriate incentives..." Ah, so that's it. We "let" them by providing "appropriate incentives" for them to do our will. And what if they don't care to accept our "appropriate incentives?" What if they just want our White (mostly) Christian Asses out of their country and say "Screw your incentives?"

Bacevich nobly admits that the Afghans "may well be capable of managing their own affairs relying on their own methods.." But of course he meant to add this bit: "but only upon American approval."

Bacevich speaks blithely of the "tribal chiefs who actually run Afghanistan," but seems to overlook that it was the Taliban that ran Afghanistan until the US decided to oust them.

Point: Bacevich writes:

As for the putatively existential challenge posed by Islamic radicalism, that project will prove ultimately to be a self-defeating one. What violent Islamists have on offer - a rejection of modernity that aims to restore the caliphate and unify the ummah [community]-doesn't sell.

Counterpoint:

Here, Bacevich is whistling in the dark, while attempting to write (not rewrite, but write) history. Later in this article, he pooh-poohs the Iranian attempt at theocracy as the one that (at first) frightened the West. But we all know that attempt failed, right? Just like Communism failed, yes? Or at least writers like Bacevich would love to equate the two. And we all know that the Iranian form of Islam represents Islamic thought the world over, yes?

And of course our good scholar just had to find a way to put the word "violent" in front of "Islamists" at least once in his article. Of course he doesn't say, but really means, "We must isolate and demonize the violent ones, since we can easily cow the pacifists." [Good strategizing, "General."]

As for rejecting modernity, I'm not so sure that what we call modern is all it's cracked up to be. Anyway, maybe this so-called rejection of modernity is nothing more than a plea not to be overwhelmed by the crass over-consumption, self-indulgence, and materialistic agendas of others. Maybe there's nothing wrong with a plea to slow down.

The history of the Islamic struggle on the world stage is still unfolding and is, relative to any possible renaissance, in quite an early stage of development.

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

"I sincerely hope Harper's Magazine will stop recycling articles by puffed up militarists bringing nothing but pretention to the table. Please, Harper's, a little more originality, if you would" - 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.

Torture...The world is in desperate need of an in-your-face museum dedicated to torture. We benefit so handsomely from it, why not put it front and center for the whole world to see? This museum should be cylindrical, with the different degrees of torture arranged in concentric circles like Dante's Circles of Hell. Upon entering this place, visitors would see displays of mild torture in the first Circle of Hell. Not only "see," but "hear" as well - for torture cannot be fully appreciated without (shall we say) sound-effects.

If they've got the stomach for it, guests could enter the inner circles and proceed from viewing acts of torture abstractly rendered all the way to realistic, holographically-rendered torture sessions of increasing brutality. Maybe some "friendly" government that does our dirty work for us (say "extraordinary rendition") could be prevailed upon to furnish DVDs of actual torture sessions. Or why not go all the way and, in the innermost Circle of this Hell, show us actual torture sessions? Surely there must be some wretched criminals we could purchase from some 3^rd world hellhole for whom no one would cry out for justice.

Maybe tourists could subject themselves to a waterboarding session or two or, after signing the appropriate waivers, something a bit more severe - just to see what it's like to wear those shoes. I could go on but dare not, since some poor soul out there might think this is a good idea. Neither such a museum nor terror itself can, under any stretch (bad pun), be considered a good idea.