How's this for a girl's name: BuddhAllah-Christine? That first part is pronounced "Boo-doll-uh."

Note: The uh sound in this name is used to indicate, according to Dictionary.com: "hesitation, doubt, or a pause." All three of these are encountered before crossing the bridge (the hyphen in the name), which leads to Christine (which literally means "follower of Christ").

BuddhAllah-Christine popped into my mind when I saw this sign in my local bookstore:

"Megan ________ will soon give birth to a baby girl. What names do you suggest?"

So I picked up the magic marker, and thought for a moment while quickly glancing at the names listed by other customers: Alice, Julie, Amber, Melissa...etc. I thought: "My God, can't anyone be a bit more original than that?"

That's when BuddhAllah-Christine occurred to me, and that's what I wrote on the sign as my suggestion.

All of this happened very quickly, much in the manner of lightning-induced inspiration. And that was a few days ago, but I kept thinking over and over since then: "Why exactly did that particular name come to mind?"

While trying to answer that question, I came up with:

• BuddhAllah-Christine is one of those names like "Henrietta." It's too long to use in casual conversation and sounds too unusual - which invites nicknames (which of course is okay).

• So what would her parents or friends call her for short? Boo? I like "Boo" since this name implies some scary things (more on that in a bit, though what I mean is "scarier to some than to others"). On the more positive side, "Boo" is also used as a "term of affection or endearment for any close friend or family member"[http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/boo ]

• "BC" as a nickname should be agreeable to those of the Judaic persuasion. Buddha lived "BC" (Before Christ). Most Jews I've known would have no problem with Buddha, since they feel a resonance with the Buddhists they have come to know and love. Or at least they wouldn't feel threatened when hearing "BC" called out. What Jews do have problems with are certain personalities and movements which came after BC.

• It's a stretch, but even this nickname might work: "B-Christine." Since Christine means "follower of Christ," when called out, we would hear "be Christine" (that is, "be a follower of Christ"). I have no problem with that, since I consider Christ (and Allah, for that matter) to be followers of Buddha. So it's easy for me to think of the truest Christine (the truest "follower of Christ") to be a follower of a Follower (that is, to be a follower of Christ who, in turn, is a Follower of Buddha).

Contemplations on the meaning of BuddhAllah

If you say it: To the ear, it sounds like "Boo-doll-ah." Joining that, hyphenetically, to Christine, the name could be one way of considering Megan's daughter as a "Boo Doll... ah*, (who is a) follower of Christ." [* ah is, among other things, "an exclamation of joy," according to Dictionary.com]

Of course, much depends on the meaning of "Boo Doll." In developing this meaning, I favor these particular definitions of doll from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doll : "an attractive person; a helpful or obliging person." Therefore, a Boo Doll is a "helpful, attractive person [that is, a person who attracts others to the truth] by means of the twin meanings of boo: to be endearing and (when the occasion calls for it) to startle or frighten someone into realizing a truth which can be scary at first."

If you look at it: Look at this name carefully: BuddhAllah. Now, let's split the letters and associate some meanings:

Splitting:

Bud: the first 3 letters of this name

d: The 4^th letter of this name, to which I assign a special significance when considered as part of a sequence including the 5^th and 6^th letters.

h: the h is silent, which (as you'll see) is important.

a: the lower case a, which doesn't appear in this name, but which is part of the title Buddha and which I designate as the 6^th (though invisible) letter mentioned above.

A: this is the 7^th letter of this name - the upper-case A, which is the first letter in the name Allah, which is formed by the 7^th thru 11^th letters of this name.

Associating meanings:

Bud refers to the flowering of the seed of Buddhahood, which is in all of us.

d, h, and the invisible lower-case a, which comprise the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th letters, have a special meaning when their contextual implications are considered:

The 4^th letter represents redundancy or repetition, since the 4^th letter is the same as (or a repetition of) the 3^rd letter. In the Buddhist teachings, there are many instances of repetitious teachings which are meant to reinforce key doctrines, and redundancies which (upon more careful reflection) aren't really redundant at all but serve as gateways to more subtle truths.

The 5^th letter - h - is silent, which represents the void as well as silent meditation.

The 6^th letter - the invisible letter a. It's there but you can't see it - kind of like the protuberance on the top of the Buddha's head which is a symbol of his wisdom but which is invisible to the common mortal.

Some concerns and resolutions:

The 7^th thru the 11^th letters (A-l-l-a-h) allow for two interpretations, Allah (worshipped by the Muslims) being the first I'll consider:

I was at first a bit concerned about incorporating the personal name of God as part of a broader concept. In the Islamic world, you will encounter many men named Mohammed, just as you will encounter many Christians named Jesus. But you will never encounter anyone named Allah (I can guarantee that).

And I can doubly assure you that you will never find any female named Allah.

I am taking advantage of the fact that, in English, the letters A-l-l-a-h can be grouped as "All ah," which I claim to be my intended meaning. The fact that it also happens to spell Allah I consider to be beneficial (and is not meant to be blasphemous), though not as important as the philosophy behind All ah.

About this second possible interpretation:

The 7^th thru the 11^th letters (A-l-l-a-h) allow for a second interpretation, when arranged as: All ah.

Some people think of all as being equivalent to "the universe" - that is, "all" equals "everything." What I'm doing here is capitalizing the A in All, in order to refer to a god concept. If BuddhAllah-Christine were my daughter, I would use her name to teach her a great deal. For instance:

A Lesson for my Daughter

In the name of humoring the Abrahamic worldview, before the (alleged) Creation, the only Thing that existed was God. Not only was God All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Encompassing, God was All there was! That's why I designate the pre-Creation God as All.

However, after the Creation, God no longer was All. There was something other than God, and (frankly) I think that frightened Him. Mankind sensed this fear/insecurity, so man worshipped God as a way of reassuring Him that even though God was no longer All there was, He had nothing to fear from the beings He'd created. God especially appreciated efforts made by a wide-variety of humans (in a wide variety of ways) to get "close" to God. That closeness was important so that God would not anxiously dwell on the fact that He was no longer All there is.

The ah of All ah is a bold assertion on our part, as in "ah, what a relief is this thing called Enlightenment, which comes after contemplating the All of which we are a part. And which comes after we realize we never had anything to fear from any kind of All which was misidentified as a Creational God."

The meaning of BuddhAllah-Christine

The literal meaning: "The bud that flowers, by means of repetition and redundancy and the silent contemplation of things not visible [as represented by that invisible lower-case letter a] which lead to an understanding of All, who sighs ah in appreciation, after being connected by a bridge [the hyphen in the name is a bridge] to a follower of Christ."

Christ, in this context, I choose to mean "the anointed" in a broad sense rather than meaning Jesus Christ in particular. The anointed One or Ones are the spiritual teachers or forces this daughter encounters in her lifetime, after being introduced by "followers" (lesser teachers).

This name's audio dynamic flow goes like this:

Start with Bud. Even with an emphasizing capital B, Bud sounds flat and dull (like dud).

Then it fades progressively from redundant (lulling?) sound to silence and then to invisibility, utilizing the meanings assigned (above) to the next three letters (d, h, and the invisible lower-case a).

Then it grandly and emphatically proceeds from nothingness to everything as pronounced by the next three letters: A-l-l, which spells the word All.

And ends in a sigh: ah.

Then it crosses a bridge (the hyphen), which leads to a means to an end, though itself is non-judgmental.

That "means to an end" is Christine, the sound of which produces a smile:)

Another lesson for this daughter

It bothered me somewhat to offer this name to a girl. I mean, Buddha and Allah are names of male figures and the sound "doll" in that name could be seen as derogatory to females (as in male society's view of females as objects or playthings).

However, this name can be used by a skillful parent to help move this girl past certain stereotypes. While young, she might appreciate being called a "doll" or nicknamed boo. As she gets older, though, she could be weaned away from doll (in particular) by being told, "Yes, the sound of doll is in your name, but that's the least important consideration and shouldn't be a major focus. I mean, when you think of fireman, do you think of a man made out of fire?"

As for boo: "Yes, it's a term of affection, but there's a scary meaning - actually, several scary meanings. Someone can say boo like Casper the Friendly Ghost and make people laugh. Or they can boo and be terrifying. Sometimes in your life, you'll have to be firm with people - even those you love - and they might find that scary. But if you are firm and they know what a caring, kind, compassionate person you are, your firmness will not be as scary to them. Or at least, not for long."

As for Buddha and Allah being "male" figures:

Buddha was not always male (in prior incarnations) and even in his earthly life, he "stopped" being male in the usual sense after he left his wife (who also "stopped" being female in the usual sense after she became a Homeless Sister). And Allah is very far from being considered a man in the usual sense.

The common theme here is, usual sense. I like expanding that to indicate that none of us has to be (merely) human in the usual sense.

As for Allah

I think Islam is going to be around for a very long time. Indeed, I believe Islam will undergo a Reformation (with a capital R). Now that's a bit ironic since the Prophet Mohammed is held by Muslims to be the last prophet in an historic succession of prophets. So it will be interesting to see how a unifying, global Islamic Reformation comes into being - especially if espoused by one particular individual. Especially if that individual happens to be female.

I duly noted this bit of info from http://www.allah.org/ : "Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender." However, this very same webpage refers to Allah as "God Himself." Last time I checked, the word "himself" was male. And yet, as claimed above, "The term has no ... gender."

As for "nothing else can be called Allah," that may well be so, but I don't see why those five letters can't appear in the context of a name chock full of meanings. I suppose, though, that someone somewhere will offer to explain why they can't.

As for Allah as "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection" that is, the Being Who is perfect in every way," according to http://www.muslim.org/islam/allah.htm :

What a wonderful ideal to try to emulate!

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

"So what's in a name, BuddhAllah-Christine? After all is said and done, the only things in a name are the things we decide to put there" - 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.

Question: Which God was "Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak referring to in this quote:

QUOTE: On exiting the courthouse, Vrdolyak was asked if he had dodged a bullet. "I feel great, thank you," he said. "God is great." :UNQUOTE [article by Jeff Coen, Feb. 26, 2009]

"Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak:

If you're from my home town (Chicago, Illinois), then you've heard of Ed Vrdolyak, dealmaker extraordinaire. If  not, the following will still be of interest because (in a manner of speaking) "Fast Eddie" is everywhere.

Answer (a partial answer):

I was stunned when Eddie V said, "God is great." I was even more stunned that local newspaper columnists took absolutely no notice of those three words.

The former alderman and mayoral candidate has never been noted as being a religious man - quite the opposite, I dare say. Yet, the babblemouths of the airwaves and the inhabitors of the Fourth Estate took absolutely no notice of such a contextually odd utterance.

But I took notice. How could I not? I meditated long and hard on "God is great" coming from Fast Eddie's mouth. Also thinking of why our lapdog media so obviously ignored it.

So why did Ed Vrdolyak say "God is great?" What was he thinking of? My answer lies here: "It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." [I'll properly cite the source of this quote a bit later.]

Answer (a more complete answer):

I think Fast Eddie was viewed by an inner-circle as being too self-centered, too arrogant, and not sufficiently beholden to (shall we say) a Higher Power. So he was forced to endure as punishment a bit of public humiliation in the form of an indictment by a grand jury and an appearance before a federal judge. Eddie had to be knocked down a couple of notches.

He was forced to proclaim, "God is great," which could only have one meaning coming from someone like Eddie.

I also believe that the judge who decided to punish so lightly (not even a single symbolic day in jail) was part of this scheme. The intention was to humble Eddie, not destroy him. And to show others that even such a towering figure as this could be made to heel. Of course, the "hurt" could have come later if Eddie had a change of heart, refusing to declare publicly that "God is great."

So I'm going to bet, since Eddie was a good boy and uttered those three deadly words, that one of two things will happen:

• The prosecutor's office will not appeal his embarrassingly light sentence or

• If appealed, Fast Eddie will still end up walking.

The gist of the matter

QUOTE:

One of the most hidden secrets involves the so-called fall of Angels. Satan and his rebellious host will thus prove to have become the direct Saviours and Creators of divine man. Thus Satan, once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious spirit of the church, grows into the grandiose image. It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God [my emphasis - Steve]. Satan (or Lucifer) represents the Centrifugal Energy of the Universe, this ever-living symbol of self-sacrifice for the intellectual independence of humanity.
...attributed to Sister H.P. Blavatsky, a founder of Theosophy

:UNQUOTE:  http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/luciferquotes.html

I draw your attention to the words divine man in the above quote. There are a lot of Eddie Vrdolyaks out there who think they're better than everybody else. That they belong to a species known as divine men, who are vastly superior to the common herd. Their attitude shows it, their behavior shows it, and their swagger shows it.

According to Wikipedia: "Vrdolyak, born to Croatian immigrant parents, entered a Catholic seminary at age 13, but decided against joining the priesthood."

I believe Eddie found a Higher Power than the Catholic Church; higher than the Pope; even higher (some claim) than the I AM spoken of in the Bible. This particular Higher Power entices people by saying, "Really! You are better than everybody else. Why follow like a sheep when you can join me and have others envy you?"

And there are a lot of Fast Eddies out there who believe this and join the club. But...there's a price to be paid. That Higher Power expects His ring to be kissed and He must be given His due. Or else there will be Hell (on Earth) to pay.

A Brief Bio of Ed Vrdolyak

As a lifelong resident of Chicago, I've seen a lot of newspaper coverage of Mr. V for decades. A recurring theme is that he has a knack for making profitable backroom deals. As a lawyer and politician, those skills could come in very handy indeed.

My sense of Eddie is, he's been a very capable self-promoter. He doesn't really stand for anything, except self-advancement. Case in point: He dumped the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party when it became obvious he couldn't advance himself any further among the ranks of the party of the ass.

About Vrdolyak's recent legal encounter

In a Plea Bargain with the US Department of Justice, Mr. V. pleaded guilty to one charge:

"conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, US  Code, Section 317."

This stands in stark contrast to the Grand Jury indictment which included a charge of bribery, citing violations of five sections (not just one, as in the Plea Bargain) of the US Code.

In a nutshell, Vrdolyak admitted to being in league with an insider to "participate in a scheme to defraud The Finch University of Health Sciences/Chicago Medical School ("CMS") of money, property, and the intangible right to the honest services of Levine [the aforementioned insider]..." [from the Plea Bargain].

CMS had property it wanted to sell, which the insider (Levine) wanted sold through Vrdolyak, who in turn would cut him in on a lucrative "finder's fee" ($1.5 million). Once a purchaser was found, Levine was to use his influence as Chair of the seller's Board of Trustee's Real Estate Committee to assure sale to Vrdolyak's client.

The judge's verdict: Judge Milton Shadur sentenced Fast Eddie to five years of probation (instead of the 41 months in jail requested by the prosecution), a $50,000 fine, and 2,500 hours of community service. Here in Chicago, this was widely interpreted as a sham sentence, with some commentators wondering "What's up with this judge?" - an ancient jurist who has an overall sterling reputation. [My verdict? Even those with sterling reputations have rings they have to kiss.]

The lightness of sentence: Judge Shadur decided not to jail Fast Eddie because he felt that Eddie's actions didn't cost CMS any money. This contention is dubious, given that fair market value of the property in question was much higher than the price Eddie V obtained (not to mention the $1.5 million dollar Eddie V stood to gain had he not been caught). Also, no one has ventured to define how quickly and in what manner the 2,500 hours of community service has to be rendered by the defendant. [Oh, one local columnist suggested that would be time well spent working on Eddie's tan...and he was serious!]

Further action: Yes, the prosecutor's office cited the possibility of pursuing an appeal of this light sentence. And it's true that the State of Illinois, and also CMS which was the victim of this conspiracy, could initiate their own legal actions, regardless of how the federal prosecutors might wish to proceed. However, I won't be terribly surprised by either of these two:

• No further legal action will ensue, thereby closing the book on this case.

• If there is additional legal activity, nothing will come of it.

Of course, it would be interesting (in either case) to learn which parties would become the behind-the-scenes operators in support of Fast Eddie and whose ring they'd be kissing. But such identities rarely become known, since working in darkness is the preferred MO.

Satan? The hell you say!

I am a Buddhist, so it might surprise you when I say, "I believe Higher Power devil types exist and even walk among us." But I don't believe in the Devil (as in, there's only One), just as I don't believe in the God (as in, there's only One, who also happens to be the Creator of the Universe).

According to one Buddhist scripture:

"There will be no workings of the devil [in the land ruled by the Buddha named Light Bright], and although the devil and the devil's people will be there, they will all protect the Law of the Buddha." [Page 108, Burton Watson's Lotus Sutra].

In the world of Buddhism, all Gods and all Devils aspire to the same thing all other beings aspire to: the attainment of Buddhahood. That's in sharp contrast to a Western tradition that believes in an ironclad polarity: An Ultimately Evil Being vs. An Ultimately Good Being. That polarity is a representation of what Western man has always been searching for: "Who's # 1? Who's in charge?" Hierarchy, and where we fit within it, being of utmost concern.

Fortunately, that view is false.

People like Eddie Vrdolyak have a deluded sense of wealth, without which they wouldn't so easily sell their souls. Instead of greedily seeking to attract more wealth to themselves, they should follow another example (from page 246 of Watson's Lotus Sutra):

"And imagine that, among all this vast number of living beings [numbering in the trillions], a person should come who is seeking blessings [my emphasis - Steve] and, responding to their various desires, dispenses [great quantities of treasure like gold, silver, etc.] for a full 80 years [to each of them]."

The lesson is: A person who genuinely wishes to seek blessings (for himself) would do well to bestow treasures unto others. Such a person is encouraged by Buddhist teachers to bestow other types of treasures as well, such as acts of loving kindness. Unfortunately, there are too many like Fast Eddie who could not even imagine such generosity being to their own advantage.

But I suppose everything hinges on how one defines that which is to one's own advantage.

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

"Hmm, let's see. Both John McCain and Blacque Obammer* have urged their fellow Americans to serve a cause higher than themselves. I wonder who gets to decide Who or What that cause is" - Steve

Founder of The Best Party Available

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

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.

Blacque Obammer* missed a golden opportunity: He could have just thrown down the gauntlet and said No to earmarks.

If BO had really meant what he said about "change you can believe in," then he should have looked Congress square in the eye and said:

"I am vetoing this $410 billion omnibus spending bill, since it's overloaded with earmarks. Starting immediately, if you want money to be spent on miscellaneous items, you will have to submit those items to me as separate pieces of legislation.

"I invite you to rewrite this current omnibus bill as two separate bills: One to be in its current form but having absolutely no earmarks; the other to consist solely of earmarks (in effect, an Omnibus Earmark Bill). Furthermore, I will tell you in advance: I'll sign the first bill, but I won't even consider signing the other unless its price tag is reduced by 50%."

[Side note: Should Congress have presented an Omnibus Earmark Bill (with the 50% reduction requested), Obammer's* team could have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb and sent it back to Congress with (in effect) his line-item veto. Remember: My suggested Obammer* response (above) used these words: "I won't even consider signing ...unless its price tag is reduced by 50%." I didn't suggest that Obammer* should have promised to sign it.]

If Congress wanted (at some future date, after the Omnibus Earmark Bill was signed into law by the president) to advocate on behalf of the deleted earmarks, it could have picked one of them (just to make a point) and taken to the Bully Pulpit on its behalf. It's true Obammer* might have responded by digging in and saying, "I said 50% and I meant it." In that case, Congress could have attempted to pressure BO by extolling loudly and publicly the virtues of this particular earmark.

Of course, it's doubtful that a Democratic Congress would choose to embarrass a Democratic president. So Obammer* really had nothing to fear had he employed my strategy. So what stopped him?

Our fearless leader defends earmarks

QUOTE:

"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," [BO] said.

:UNQUOTE**

Those words speak volumes. For instance, what does your president mean by "done right?" In my opinion, doing right by earmarks means that the president insist that they not be attached to any other bill.

BO could have stayed true to his word - "I've opposed their outright elimination" - and still have taken a significant step toward their eventual elimination. With 7,991 earmarks in the current bill (which Obammer* signed), I see a lot of room for improvement by reducing their sheer volume.

Closer scrutiny: I quoted Obammer* above as saying, "...earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts."

First of all, not all legislators are created equal in their ability to weasel earmarks into legislative packages. The more senior among them (committee heads and other super incumbents) have more leverage in this area.

Second, there is no mechanism in place to determine which projects are "worthy."

Third, why should Congressmen be empowered to "direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts?" Shouldn't federal money be appropriated for the benefit of all Americans, and not just for those who happen to be Senator Blowhard's constituents?

If these earmarks are so obviously good for the country as a whole, they should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. They shouldn't be crammed into a larger bill and forced on a weak-willed president - yes, that's what Obammer* is turning out be - who feels mystically compelled to sign quickly in order to access the non-earmarked dollars (around 99% of its total). This weak-willed president wanted to put this current bill behind him, call it "imperfect," call it last year's business and not really his concern since he wasn't president when it should have been passed in the first place.

So why did he sign this bill?

But...he is the president now, isn't he? And it was his decision to sign or to veto, wasn't it? If the answer is Yes to both questions, then why was he being such a wuss about this? After all, even if BO had refused to sign the Omnibus, Congress could have done one of two things (and quickly, I might add, since that seems to be the new Barack-ratic buzz word):

• Congress could have immediately stripped away all earmarks and re-submitted this bill for Obammer's* signature. This could have been done very quickly - far more quickly than the time needed to pass the Patriot Act (which, in the view of certain skeptics - me among them, was enacted conspiratorially quickly).

• Congress could have bought a little time by submitting for signature an emergency appropriation measure - enough to finance government operations for (say) a month - while it feverishly worked on preparing another Omnibus with (only) a token number of earmarks deleted. Or with more deleted, if Congress wanted to risk the appearance of buckling under to the president.

What Congress could not have done: Pass the vetoed Omnibus by a two-thirds majority in both houses. This majority would have required bipartisan support, which would not have materialized if Obammer* were to have put the matter in this light:

"I made a promise to the American people to scrutinize the budget line by line. While it's true that the president does not have line item veto power, he can refuse to sign a bill laden with pork. I am being reasonable with Congress, saying that earmarks can no longer be attached to larger bills. Earmarks must stand or fall on their own merits, either by each being submitted to me as a separate piece of legislation (if that is Congress's wish) or by being bundled together in an Omnibus Earmark Package.

"Please note: I am not saying No to earmarks. I am just saying No to attaching them to larger bills. That's change you can believe in."

Hyperventilating

QUOTE:

... David Obey, D-Wis., hinted at irritation with the public's focus. "With all of the hyperventilating over the 1 percent of the omnibus appropriations bill that is made up of earmarks," he said, "Washington has mostly glossed over the important results it has achieved with the other 99 percent of the bill."

:UNQUOTE**

David Obey needs a thrashing, so I'll do that right now:

QUOTE:

Mr. Obey, times are tough, so can you really blame people for trying to insist that their government either save or redirect that 1%? We're supposed to be trying to be more frugal these days - or at least wise in spending what we've got.

The reason we're "hyperventilating" is that We-the-Sheeple cannot understand why our so-called Change President did not insist on Congress removing all earmarks from the Omnibus Bill and resubmitting them as a separate bill or bills. This was entirely and easily within his power. This was not hard, was good for brownie points, wouldn't have cost him anything, nor would even have caused him to break out in a mild sweat.

And, while I'm at it, why don't we call it by its real name? Yes, it's 1% (actually, 1.3%) but that means we're talking about $5.5 billion. Why didn't we take that $5.5 billion and use it to improve the ability of the SEC and other regulatory agencies, as well as the Department of Justice, to more aggressively enforce the law? Maybe if SEC had been more adequately funded, Bernie Madoff would have been caught long ago. And that would have benefited all of us, not just Senator Porky's people.

And that's another thing: Why aren't Obammer* and his fellow Democrats raising high holy hell about SEC's role as a virtual unindicted co-conspirator in the Madoff case, since SEC chose to ignore key whistleblower evidence?

:UNQUOTE.

President Obammer* vs. President Searle

Barack Obama won the presidency and I didn't - granted.

But just to be speculative for a moment, consider this question: What would a President Searle have done when presented by Congress with a spending bill so laden with earmarks?

A quick look at Point # 5 of my 47-point Electoral Contract will easily answer that question. Remember: I was the only candidate who ran against McCain and Obammer* on the basis of a contract containing my campaign promises, to be enforced with this provision:

If I violate any of my promises, I forfeit the presidency: See http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

QUOTE (Point #5):

I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

• a Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge - that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

• a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

:UNQUOTE.

I would have vetoed Obammer's* Pork Bill (it's safe to call it Obammer's* Pork Bill now, since he did absolutely nothing to stop it). And concerning something else BO did absolutely nothing to stop, see Point #2 of my Electoral Contract:

QUOTE:

Point #2: Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

:UNQUOTE.

I think we can safely call the Iraqi Occupation by another, more appropriate name now: Obammer's Occupation. Not to mention Operation Subjugate Afghanistan - that's his, too. Then there's the upcoming (be sure of it) Operation Destabilize Iran for the Benefit of Israel.

If I had won this election, all of this militaristic nonsense would have been stopped dead in its tracks, with our forces completely removed from Iraq and Afghanistan by my deadline of April 20 - and I'm talking about April 20 of this year.

So I invite you to mark your calendar for April 20, 2009 and to remind yourself on that date:

"If Steven Searle had been elected president, we'd be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now."

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

"Obammer* mishandled the earmark issue very badly - missing a slam dunk if ever there was one. Tell me, do you think he'll do much better with Health Care Reform?  - 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

**article by Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer, Mar. 11, 2009.

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 seen the cover of the latest issue of EnlightenNext Magazine (issue 43 / March-May 2009)? Take a look: http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/current/

The cover looks like a scene from a pulp fiction graphic novel, and entices us to read on with these lures:

• A "seal" which reads "parental advisory, explicit content"

• A caption: SEX: the good, the strange, & the sacred

The cover also lists some of the topics contained within:

• David Deida: The Quentin Tarantino of the spiritual world?

• Transcendent Sex

• Is sex a path to God?

None of the above

I consider "none of the above" to be pornographic. However, this particular article by Steve McIntosh (on page 34) most definitely is:

Winning in Afghanistan - An Integral Strategy for Peace

Winning covers two pages and is an adaptation of his article on a German website* under a somewhat different title:

Winning In Afghanistan - An Innovative Strategy for Peace

Actually, these two titles differ by exactly one word: Integral vs. Innovative. And there's a very good reason for this: integral is a buzzword held in high esteem by followers of EnlightenNext's editor Andrew Cohen and his cohort Ken Wilber, Integralist and Self-Idolizer Extraordinaire.

On to the pornographic part

I accuse Steve McIntosh of being nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the guise of a New Age spiritual leader, he is nothing more than a neo-colonial fascist. And that's sufficient basis for a charge of pornography.

His article opens rather innocently with:

QUOTE**:

...I advocated for a future goal of an integrally informed, integrally structured world federation.

:UNQUOTE.

Sidenote: I break McIntosh's narrative here to point out his use of the word integrally, twice in one sentence. Scammers like this are knowledgeable enough to be able to hijack the buzzwords of New Ageism, while having quite a different agenda in mind. An agenda, which has nothing to do with hastening the dawn of a New Age, but (rather) has everything to do with maneuvering for more power for the "developed world" (please note carefully the last words in the following):

QUOTE:

In other words, democratic global law will become desirable, achievable, and inevitable only when the integral [that word again - Steve Searle] worldview is adopted by approximately ten percent of the population of the [and here are those two words I promised you - Steve] developed world.

:UNQUOTE.

I don't think McIntosh cares much what the undeveloped world might think of "democratic" global law. In fact, after I finished reading Winning in Afghanistan, it was painfully obvious he doesn't give a damn what they think.

QUOTE:

If we want to win in Afghanistan and bring lasting peace to the region, we need to eliminate the artificial, colonial relic that is the border with Pakistan. This could be done by ceding Afghanistan to Pakistan in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military under which temporary, yet direct, military access to the tribal areas could be had by NATO forces.

:UNQUOTE.

Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with this picture? McIntosh is advocating the elimination of the Afghan nation. He writes (toward the end of his essay), "Thus, if we want to bring lasting peace to this region, we must face the fact that the ‘nation' of Afghanistan is not a sacrosanct entity." Suppose Guru-Faker McIntosh had written this instead [replacing just three words]:

"Thus, if we want to bring lasting peace to the Middle East, we must face the fact that the ‘nation' of Israel is not a sacrosanct entity."

This would make perfect sense to those who believe that a Jewish state should have been carved out of Germany immediately after World War II as punishment for the Holocaust. But no, that didn't happen. The victorious Allies, under the banner of the United Nations, decided to insert the Jews back into the Middle East, from which they had been absent for centuries, against the wishes of the Arab/Muslim world.

But hey, the "developed world" thought it knew better - thought it knew what was best for the sand niggers of the defunct caliphate. Hey, why not? It's so easy to make decisions from afar as to what should be the fate of the lands of third-world, dark-skinned foreigners. [You know, "pip pip" and all that rot.]

And our Guru-Faker McIntosh wants to continue this noble tradition of carrying the White Man's burden, while wearing the mantle of an altruistic visionary. Why? Just exactly what is this particular White Man's game?

QUOTE:

This could be done by ceding Afghanistan to Pakistan in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military...

:UNQUOTE.

Two questions:

• Who would doing the "ceding?" I doubt Afghanistan's duly-elected president or government would want to do this. Maybe we'll do the "ceding" for them, since they're obviously too stupid to know this should be done.

• And what's this bit about "in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military...?" I thought such agreements were made between governments and not between outsiders and the military of a nation. McIntosh refers to Pakistan as a "homegrown Islamic democracy" elsewhere in his article. So why isn't he suggesting a joint security agreement with the duly-elected Pakistani government (instead of military)? [NOTE: I think McIntosh made a bit of a Freudian slip here, which betrays his real philosophy: The ends justify the means.]

So what's McIntosh got against this border?

QUOTE:

Like the North Vietnamese before them, the Mujahideen effectively used the protection of an international border to defeat a more technologically advanced enemy. This is the same situation we face today; the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is proving to be as reliable a weapon in this century as it was in the last.

:UNQUOTE.

He adds, "We need to learn from the lessons of Vietnam and not allow ourselves to be defeated by a border that we must recognize but which our enemies may ignore." [Looks like McIntosh is another sore loser who can't get over the US loss of prestige in the Vietnam War.]

McIntosh even deals with why NATO doesn't ignore the border and conduct cross-border raids into Pakistan: "If we accelerate the war by attacking the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan, we could trigger a civil war in Pakistan and destabilize the entire region." He even states that Pakistan finds it desirable to have a militarily-viable Taliban as a buffer against Afghanistan, given the friendly relations between Afghan President Karzai's government and Pakistan's mortal enemy India.

Therefore?

The upshot of McIntosh's thesis is: Karzai and his India-friendly government has got to go. And the easiest way to do that is to incorporate Afghanistan into a greater Pakistan, while allowing a "degree" of autonomy to (the former Afghanistan's) tribal regions. ["allowing?" That's mighty White of you, Big Mac.]

McIntosh ties up his thesis by concluding: "...with the two countries consolidated into one federal region, the Taliban's role of buffer force for Pakistan would become unnecessary." Especially after an Afghanistan with an India-friendly (and therefore threatening) government ceased to exist.

Steve McIntosh, just leave them alone

Big Mac is nothing but a busybody wanting to stick his nose in other people's business. As he says, "...I fear that until national borders are adjusted to better correspond to the natural borders of consciousness, this war will continue."

No, you Mac Faker, this war will continue until we finally "get it." We have no more right to tinker with borders (or with the destinies of our fellow man) than our forefathers did. Our best bet is to show these people some respect by completely removing all NATO and US forces from the region. I have great faith that the so-called undeveloped peoples of the world can work out their own solutions.

The more we try to micromanage, the worse we'll make things.

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

"Let me make one thing perfectly clear: As soon as the Powers-that-Be finish micromanaging the Undeveloped World, we'll be next" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=16863

 ** All quoted material I've cited is from Winning in Afghanistan, as published in issue 43 of EnlightenNext magazine.

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 couldn't believe it. The former Director of Germany's Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office actually replied to my email. Here's what the good General had to say:

QUOTE:

Hello Steve! Thank you. Why are you that upset?

With our platform we want to offer different views - whether you like them or not.

Your reaction is exactly what we want: dialogue.

In a democracy we have to live with controversial views published.

Yours sincerely

Dieter Farwick

Global Editor

www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

:UNQUOTE [Dieter Farwick, Brig. Gen. (retired)]

Now, here's my original email to General Farwick, which had inspired his response (above):

QUOTE:

Dear Editor,

This is my response to the insane piece of drivel by Steve McIntosh which you'd posted (quite accidentally, I hope) on your website at https://outlookweb.neiu.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=16863

....

QUOTE [from McIntosh's article]:

If we want to win in Afghanistan and bring lasting peace to the region, we need to eliminate the artificial, colonial relic that is the border with Pakistan. This could be done by ceding Afghanistan to Pakistan in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military under which temporary, yet direct, military access to the tribal areas could be had by NATO forces.

:UNQUOTE.

Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with this picture? McIntosh is advocating the elimination of the Afghan nation. He writes (toward the end of his essay), "Thus, if we want to bring lasting peace to this region, we must face the fact that the ‘nation' of Afghanistan is not a sacrosanct entity."

:UNQUOTE.

[NOTE: The preceding is only a partial quote, though my complete text contains the basic points which I'd made in my Gaia blog at https://outlookweb.neiu.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2009/3/enlightennext_magazine_goes_porno ]

My reaction

General Farwick couldn't understand why I was "that upset." So I told him (via e-mail reply):

QUOTE:

Frankly, I don't see how anybody wouldn't be upset. How would you like it if someone suggested wiping your country off the map by "ceding" it to a neighbor?

Would that not "upset" you?

I invite you to post my email to your website. I invite you to show the world, per my analysis, what a class A jerk this self-styled world-saver McIntosh is.

Why am I "that upset?" You must be joking or else didn't read my text as carefully as an editor (like you) should.

I respectfully suggest you re-read my text. And, again, I invite you to post it.

:UNQUOTE.

UPSHOT

General Farwick has not replied to this last email, which I'd sent on 3/26 during my lunch hour. Frankly, I don't think he'll bother. I also don't think Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann will reply at all, though I'd sent him the same e-mail as I'd initially sent the General.

By the way, who is Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann? He's the Founder and President of the World Security Network [WSN] Foundation. His isn't exactly a household name in the US, though I suppose it might well be in Germany. Perhaps, someday, his name will be more universally known - especially if we fall under the sway of his way of thinking.

And what might that way be?

From the WSN website, in Dr. Hoffmann's own words:

QUOTE:

• we are the largest global-elite action network for foreign and defense affairs - focusing on the young, new elite of the world
• [WSN] promotes a realistic and credible balance of Realpolitik and Idealpolitik, of power and diplomacy, of necessary military actions and reconciliation...
• ...we are creative and action-oriented, like businessmen.
• Our knowledge base is deep on the hard military aspects....our Advisory Board contains 16 generals.

:UNQUOTE.

You don't say:

• "largest...network?" - How did that happen?
• "necessary military actions?" - Who defines "necessary?"
• "creative...like businessmen?" - That's funny - I think of businessmen as being status quo types who ultimately depend on military force to "stabilize" their markets. Haven't we had enough of businessmen?
• "16 generals?" - Haven't we had enough of generals (which, by the way, are a dime a dozen)?

Daddy Warbucks' "safer world"

On WSN's homepage, it says: "World Security Network: Networking a safer world"

Sounds innocent enough, but I have a few questions:

"Safer" for whom? For Germans? For the European Union? In other words, "for the people who count?" Safety is emphasized, though I wonder if this particular group of One World Government promoters is zealously seeking safety and ignoring justice. Are these the kind of folks who rail against "the terrorists" while blithely ignoring the lack of justice which (in many cases) gives rise to terrorism?

I asked myself these questions while staring at a photo of Dr. Hoffmann, self-styled entrepreneur and geostrategist, posted on the WSN website. Though a youngish - yes, vigorous - looking man of 54, he reminded me of someone else. Mostly because of his baldness, I suppose.

As I squinted at his photo, it occurred to me: He looks an awful lot like Daddy Warbucks

I suppose it's alright to look like Daddy Warbucks. But then again, I wouldn't want anyone who behaved like Daddy Warbucks to have anything to do with setting up a One World Government.

I've got a bad feeling about this.

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

"In the name of promoting world peace, the Haves will enforce their will and their legal system upon the Have Nots. And the Haves will find foundations like the World Security Network to be quite useful toward this end" - 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.