Ex-Governor Blagojevich shines an interesting light on the matter of revenge-seeking, spiteful senators.

First, a Bit of Fiction

After Rod Blagojevich (hereinafter, referred to as "Blago") was removed from office upon impeachment, I was inspired to write a bit of fiction, which goes something like this:

In a fiction fief in a fictional country, a local strongman contemplates appointing himself to the nation's House of the Lordly Ones. This would be to replace the Lord anointed to become Top Dawg. Strongman would be completely within his rights doing this and is sorely tempted.

Hoping to someday get himself elected as the country's Top Dawg, he knows he has to rehab his image. He is not well-liked in his fief, which is a well-known wellspring of corruption. So he thinks about chucking his Strongmanship, going to the nation's PowerSeat, and forging a new reputation based on his work as a Lord.

He likes the idea of being far-removed from the cesspool of local intrigues, which he feels is dragging down his chances for greater glory on a larger stage. However, his phones are tapped by political opponents who fear his plan, and decide to strike him down with the only tool at their disposal: pre-mature arrest on corruption charges before the legal case against him is full developed.

They have to move quickly, though, for fear that the nation's new Top Dawg (same political gang as the local strongman) might decide to pull the plug on their investigation.

Now for something completely different

Forgive me for indulging in the above fantasy. Now I'll move on to reality, which may well prove stranger than fiction in this case.

When Blago was thrown out of office, convicted by Illinois senators of impeachable offenses, I was a bit surprised that two separate votes were taken:

• the unanimous vote to convict him on impeachment charges and remove him from office

• the unanimous vote to permanently bar him from ever again holding public office in Illinois

The good senators didn't have to take that second vote. And perhaps they shouldn't have, since Blago might end up being completely exonerated in a court of law thereby deserving at least the chance to run for statewide elective office.

The good senators could have decided their quarry was so obviously loathsome (even if exonerated in a court of law), no Illinoisan would ever consider electing him to even the lowliest state office. They could have expressed their confidence in the wisdom of the voters to keep Blago forever out of office.

But they didn't do that.

They decided to leave nothing to chance (God knows what We-the-Sheeple might do, if given the chance). Or to Mayor Daley who might decide to run Blago as an alderman, in which case he would easily win.

What about pardoning Blago?

Governor Quinn, or some future Illinois governor, might decide to pardon Blagojevich in the interests of justice, especially if he's exonerated in a court of law. According to Article V, Section 12 of the Illinois State Constitution: "The Governor may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all [my emphasis] offenses on such terms as he thinks proper."

Compare that to the language in the US Constitution:

Article II, Section 2: "...and he [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment [my emphasis]."

So there it is: The Illinois Constitution has a loophole which could allow Blago to once again hold public office: The provision allowing Quinn to reverse the effects of Blago's impeachment. [Leave it to Illinois to indulge in such an "oversight."]

Afterthought

Actually, I'd feel a whole lot better about this whole impeachment business if the Illinois state senate was only permitted to determine guilt or innocence of impeachment charges, which would then trigger a special election to allow voters the chance to decide to strip the "guilty" of their offices.

Just a thought.

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

"The worst Blago might have done will pale in comparison to what's in store for Governor Quinn - at the hands of those same pols who so self-righteously railed against Blago" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me:  bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Question: Why did Blacque Obammer* nominate Leon Panetta to head the CIA?

Answer: Leon Panetta has a great smile and seems to be the kind of guy who would give We-the-Sheeple warm fuzzies. Believe it or not, that's the reason.

Seriously: Yes, I'm serious. My answer is not a joke. First of all, Panetta doesn't have any experience in the field of intelligence operations. [Note: Experience is not important any more - Obammer* as president more than proves that.]

Second, elevating a naïve political careerist like Panetta reaffirms something known by serious analysts all along: Nobody appointed by a president actually runs the CIA.

Third, choosing Panetta was an example of elevating style over substance. After being exposed to GOP neo-con Nazis for 8 long years, the public yearns for an avuncular type to represent the CIA.

My reaction? Don't be too disarmed by Panetta's smile, since he could very well be just like the mafia enforcer who smiles at you saying, "Nothing personal, this is just business," just before he whacks your knees with a baseball bat.

The alternative explanation?

If you disagree with my assessment of Panetta, then I must ask you this: "What other explanation is there for Obammer* picking this guy?"

Looking at Leon Panetta's positions

The following Points are from an article by Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer, Friday, Feb. 6, 2009. The corresponding Counterpoints are my responses:

Points

The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.

Counterpoint

Why is Panetta saying the president  "will not prosecute?" I'd kind of like to hear that directly from Obammer* himself.

Wouldn't it be amazing (the stuff of good fiction) if a private US citizen performed a citizen's arrest of one such CIA officer, hauling him off to the Hague in the Netherlands to stand trial for war crimes before the International Criminal Court? [NOTE: Such a "hauling off" could be considered a noble form of extraordinary rendition.]

By the way, I'm introducing a new twist on the concept of citizen's arrest, by stressing that any citizen of the world has the moral authority to make such an arrest.

Point

CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies.

Counterpoint

Just because those orders (approving, for example, waterboarding) came from the Bush administration doesn't make them "legal orders." The content of orders, rather than their source, is what makes them legal or not. If only the source is to be considered, how are CIA torturers any different from Nazi war criminals who claimed they were "only following orders?"

Why is it we have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again?

Point

"...we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department" they could be in danger of prosecution, [Panetta] said.

Counterpoint

I'm afraid Panetta's got it wrong here. We can't operate if people are expected to mindlessly assume that any opinion coming from the Justice Department is lawful. We have to emphasize, there's a world of difference between a "legal opinion" and a "lawful opinion."

Point

Panetta demurred on saying whether the Obama administration would take legal action against those who authorized or wrote the legal opinions...

"I'll leave that for others," Panetta said.

Counterpoint

Panetta can demur all he wants. Fact is, Obammer* won't move against these white collar policy wonk perps. After all, when the Democrats took control of the House after the 2006 elections, what happened to all of the investigations we expected once the Dems had the power to initiate?

Once Obammer* became the Establishment, he lost any interest he might have had in challenging it. Not that he ever had that much interest in the first place.

As for "change you can believe in," the more things "change" the more they remain the same. Sad but true.

Obammer* should read the Leahy letter

So we are told that Panetta will "leave that for others" to decide whether to move against high officials who'd authorized (for example) waterboarding. There's actually only one "other" I care about, and that's Obammer* himself. Our president should make it abundantly clear those officials will be prosecuted.

Obammer* couldn't decide otherwise, especially if he bothers to read this letter written on November 2, 2007:

QUOTE:

We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings.... In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding...waterboarding. [They] unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law...

Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance.

:UNQUOTE:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200711/110207RetGeneralsOnMukasey.pdf

Translation: All four of the highest-ranking military jurists agreed with this letter's conclusion.

Two questions:

What part of "nor legal in any circumstance" does Panetta not understand?

What part of "nor legal in any circumstance" does Obammer* not understand?

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

"We can't win the war against terror unless we stop practicing it ourselves" - 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

The word "quickly" - as used by Barack Obama and others who should know better - to describe how best to deal with our current economic crisis. As in "We must move quickly," which I've heard being chanted by all of the usual suspects with ever-increasing frequency. Kind of reminds me of shady deal makers who'd want us to sign on the dotted line, saying stuff like "He who hesitates is lost" and "You've got to strike while the iron's hot." I would counter with, "Don't throw good money after bad." Making decisions "quickly" isn't as good as making them "intelligently."

Theme: Here's one solution to our current economic challenges: Do nothing!

Refinements: When I say "do nothing," I make two exceptions, which the feds can easily accommodate:

• No one is allowed to go hungry
• No one is allowed to become homeless

Assuming worst case scenario, this will come to mean a joint federal/state program to create and maintain basic dining facilities (yes, we'll need something a bit grander than soup kitchens). Also, it will become necessary to open government buildings to house the homeless.

When I say "do nothing," that means no stimulus package or bailout of any kind.

Let the chips fall where they may?

Yes, we should let the chips fall where they may. If we don't, then it will come to pass that we'll wish we had.

If a company has been badly run or if a bank indulged in risky loans, let them fail. Buyers will materialize to purchase these enterprises for whatever the market will offer. Which would mean "fire sale" prices in many cases. [Truism: There's always a buyer out there, but the seller might not like what's offered.]

Failure of some companies (extinction of the unfittest) would also create openings for new companies to seek market share lost by the fallen. I've heard the expression, "Corporation XYZ is too big to fail." However, unless failure is an option, there can't be any lasting, meaningful success. Also, this "too big" argument ignores anti-trust laws.

It's also true that massive unemployment would result. But I hasten to add: Now that Obammer's* stimulus/bailout package has all-but-passed, we will end up having massive unemployment anyway and we'll still have to repay whatever was borrowed to make this package "work."

My bottom line: It's far better to let market forces (and our own ingenuity) reshape American business than to rely on government bailout. The only role government should play is to redefine the rules of the game - in other words, to legislate a more level playing field that doesn't favor politically-connected big business and banking interests (or big unions, for that matter).

Which leads me to re-emphasize my bottom-most, bottom line: We cannot restructure our business environment if we have a Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans. Only independents can do the job. Unless Americans wake up and start voting the Dem/Pubs out of office, we will never get the fundamental reforms that are desperately needed.

This is where Obammer* made his fundamental error - thinking it was only necessary to elect Democrats to office in order to obtain greater financial stability.

We must move quickly

There's a particular word being bandied about by the usual suspects regarding fixing our economy. That word is quickly, as in "we must move quickly to stave off disaster."

Caution: Whenever someone is trying to sell you a bill of goods, he will urge you to "move quickly" or "strike while the iron is hot" (used in various investment pitches). Or he'll say something like "he who hesitates is lost." The obvious reason: To create a sense of urgency so as to discourage "thinking about it."

What we must do quickly is find out why the SEC regulators allowed Bernie Madoff to run his gigantic Ponzi scheme for so long.

What we must do quickly is fire those regulators who didn't do their jobs, having ignored whistleblower Markopolos for three years.

What we must do quickly is find out how many more such scams are being overlooked by the SEC (and other) regulators.

What we must do quickly is abandon the kind of thinking which concludes that massive road-building and infrastructure upgrading will save the economy. Who does Obammer* think he is, FDR? [Is it possible for someone to think he's both FDR and Lincoln?]

Last but not least, we have to quickly make efforts to keep those less fortunate in mind. I'm referring to Third World economies which might suffer disproportionately as we try to save ourselves.

Will Blacque Obammer* be up to any of this or would he prefer not to move so quickly?

Moving away from entitlement

Too many of my fellow Americans are victims - victims of a sense of entitlement. Too many of us have been listening to preachers like Creflo A. Dollar urging us to believe that God wants us to be rich. Actually, we would profit more by appreciating the humor Dollar's initials provide: c - a - d (a "cad" is a lowbred, presuming person, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary).

Instead of constantly seeking more for ourselves, we should go the other way. Instead of playing "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" in our minds, we should pause to think of Shakyamuni Buddha. He had everything, being born a prince. But he gave it all up to live in the forest, subsist on alms, and seek enlightenment.

And he considered this to be a good trade. [Scot Trade, is any of this sinking in?]

There is much we can learn from the Buddha's example, and I'm not speaking of pie in the sky here. The Buddha's highest teaching - The Lotus Sutra - tells us how to obtain practical benefit from our spiritual seeking. As a direct payback for our efforts, we will become enhanced human beings.

Example (page 258, Burton Watson's translation of the Lotus Sutra, chapter entitled Benefits of the Teacher of the Law):

QUOTE:

...if good men or good women accept and uphold this sutra, if they read it, recite it, explain and preach it, or transcribe it, they will gain twelve hundred tongue benefits. Whether something is good tasting or vile, whether it is flavorful or not, and even things that are bitter or astringent, when encountered by the faculties of this person's tongue will all be changed into superb flavors as fine as the sweet dew of heaven, and there will be none that are not pleasing.

:UNQUOTE.

Tell me, how can that which is offered by Creflo Dollar whom, pun intended, I find distasteful in the extreme, be even remotely comparable to such a benefit?

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

"We need to quickly rethink those things we've been urged, lately, to do quickly by those who have an awful lot to gain by our ill-considered haste" - 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.

Today's featured cartoon shows a chimp which Al Sharpton thinks people will mistake for Blacque Obammer*:

http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2009/02/02182009.jpg

This cartoon shows two police officers standing over the body of a chimp which one had just shot dead. The caption reads: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." [BTW, I don't think the chimp looks at all like Obammer* - for whatever that's worth.]

I can understand why the Rev. Al Sharpton thinks the chimp looks like Obammer* - Al isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. But Benjamin Todd Jealous, President of the NAACP? I hoped he would have been cut from nobler cloth. But no, he ended up calling for a boycott of the paper which published the cartoon. [Maybe he jumped into the fray because he was jealous of all the attention Sharpton was getting. (Sorry, I just can't resist punning.)]

Some joker even claimed (something like): "It's against the law to threaten the president's life." Uh huh...right. Of course he's correct, but he's wrong in concluding that this cartoon was a threat against the president.

This joker duly noted the caption: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." Then he asked, "Who do you think wrote the last stimulus bill?" [And we're supposed to answer, "Obammer* wrote it, so the chimp must be Obammer*." Which means we're racists for drawing such a conclusion.]

This sad sack is overlooking something very fundamental: Obammer* didn't write the last stimulus bill, though of course he approved it once it passed muster with his brain trust. It would, therefore, be more accurate to say, "The chimp is a personification - as it were - of that brain trust as a collective, which is actually very whitely complected."

Note: There are still plenty of fools out there who actually think presidents write legislation.

Obammer's* safety

I can guarantee you this: The most rabid anti-Obammer* fanatic would absolutely not want anything bad to happen to our president.

Instead, such an opponent would want to see Obammer* live long enough to fail miserably - which he will. He'll want to see how our president will face an extremely disappointed public, while he seeks election to a second term. Obammer's* handlers will try mightily to portray their candidate as a victim of circumstances way beyond his control. They'll talk about how hard BO tried - who knows, maybe he'll even write another bestseller to rally the troops (many of whom will still be in Iraq).

But as Obammer* campaigns in 2012, what will people see? Those with rose-colored glasses will see a tragic, heroic figure gamely fighting for one more chance to stave off catastrophe.

What will I see? I will see a pathetic, dishonest little man twisting slowly in the wind. And frankly (this is to Al Sharpton as well as to the Jealous one), I don't care if my choice of words might remind you of black men being lynched. To be sure, no one would even dream of lynching Obammer* when they contemplate this:

What will happen to our president will be a direct result of his own doings and will, therefore, be much more satisfying, even to a lynch mob.

His weaker detractors will derive some degree of grim satisfaction in witnessing Obammer's* public humiliation. Though they will know, deep down inside, that he will indeed succeed in getting re-elected.

Conclusion

I remember praying that Bush II would get reelected, thinking: "We need four more years of this guy to drive this country so far into the ground that people will wake up and vote for new, independent leadership." Well, I got my wish: Bush II was reelected. And he did succeed in driving the US pretty far into the ground - but not far enough, I guess.

However, I am confident that Obammer* will finish the job Bush II started. Not that our new president is a "bad" man, purposely working to destroy this country. Instead, he will exemplify the old saying, "With friends like him, you don't need enemies."

People will look back, years from now, and say, "Obammer* really didn't have enough experience - and experience really would have helped." Worse than "no experience," though, was his inability to think outside the box. What's the first thing a grossly inexperienced leader does? He surrounds himself with experienced staffers, which is another way of saying, "staffers experienced in the ways of doing things as they've always been done."

It will come to pass, though, that people will realize: The United States needed far more than innovations from laboratories to rehab our economic engine; we needed innovations to replace our counterproductive political system.

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

"Obammer* used this slogan to great effect: Change you can believe in. I wonder what he'll use next time. How about this: Trust me, I'm not the GOP? Or, Give me a four-more-years' surge of your trust?" - 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.

Did you ever wonder why China developed a family of languages which, to all appearances, looks like constructions of twigs? Off and on, over the years, I've wondered.

Then It hit me. Or maybe not It but only it: merely a speculative possibility.

Once upon a time, Siddhartha Gautama was sitting under the Bodhi tree, under which he was to sit for 49 days before attaining Enlightenment. Many times, he would glance up and notice gentle breezes moving the leaves and branches around.

Then he did more than just notice. He realized that the breezes were trying to communicate with him, by moving the branches about in different ways - using those branches to form characters similar to what we would later come to know as "Chinese" (broadly speaking). The wind was teaching him by using a "language" which all of us have always known, since time immemorial.

Siddhartha had an awareness of this language, though its fluency was buried deeply in his subconscious. But this apparent limitation didn't matter to someone who had more contact with his subconscious than average. What mattered was: The wind had a way to communicate its truth to the man who would become known as Buddha, World-honored One.

As I've pursued my own Buddhist practice, I've learned that the teachers of profound wisdom can take many forms - and not always in the forms of people. Maybe this is why the Buddha spoke of "teacherless wisdom," "wisdom that comes of itself." Of course it would appear that wisdom conveyed by the movement of the wind through tree branches would be "teacherless wisdom." Few people would suspect that the wind could be a teacher - such a thing could not possibly be.

Or could it?

Maybe that's why the Siddhartha, immediately after attaining Enlightenment, "spent a whole week in front of the tree, standing with unblinking eyes, gazing at it with gratitude."* Some people claim, it was gratitude for having provided him shelter. As you can tell, from my speculation above, I have a somewhat different view.

The state of China today

I don't worry much about China being a communist country. Or a totalitarian state, for that matter. I am comforted by knowing that Buddhist teachings once had a profound and widespread impact on ancient Chinese society. I can't help but smile when I look at the twiggy appearance of Chinese calligraphy, while knowing how truly ancient that appearance is.

I am extremely confident that China will find its way back to its Buddhist roots.

Palmian - the language of the palm

Twenty years ago, I came up with something rather silly, which goes something like this:

If you accept the idea that palms can be read (by - guess what? - palm readers), maybe we can learn to read our own futures (by being self-taught, in a manner of speaking). I thought it would be interesting to construct a bed with a unique sleeping surface: It would consist of an enlarged relief version of my own palm prints, with the various ridges being nothing more than mildly heated electric cables.

By sleeping on such a bed (ideally, naked), I would be in touch with symbols representing a language expressing my unique truths. Even though untrained in interpreting this language, I though it possible to penetrate its meaning by means of my subconscious being exposed to it (via heating elements) as I slept.

Maybe it would be possible that I, deep down inside, already knew the language represented by my palm print. Maybe all I had to do was give my subconscious sufficient time to decode these symbols and bring them to the attention of my conscious mind.

Isn't this the silliest thing you've ever heard of?

I never tried this experiment myself. Being a man of modest means, I had no money to spend on such things. So all I could do was use my imagination.

And you know what? That turned out to be more than sufficient.

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

"The truest way out of our current economic crisis is to use our imaginations. But please don't use this profound tool merely to conjure up a financial solution. The best things in life truly are free, or are at least free from having to buy them" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_tree

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.