Gaia Community: Cinc's Blog

Keeping Fort Hood in Perspective

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:41:23 GMT

Most important to keep in mind:

The recent killings at the Fort Hood military base were the work of one man, who only might have been motivated by his religion. For all we know, he simply might have had what is crudely referred to as a nervous breakdown. This man - Nidal Malik Hasan - is a Muslim, a Major in our armed forces, and a military psychiatrist. He is also still alive and might therefore tell his side of this story.

This incident, taking place on US soil, is an extreme rarity. The vast majority of acts of domestic terrorism in the last ten years (emphatically, few in number) had nothing to do with US involvement in the Middle Eastern wars.

The United States isn't a country in which such acts occur on a daily basis. Far from it. I saw a movie back in 2005 - The Interpreter - which featured the bombing of a crowded bus in New York City. This occurred to me at the time: "What makes this act most notable and shocking to the moviegoer, is its sheer impossibility of occurrence. There hasn't been any such bombing at all - though the 9/11 attacks had taken place more than three years ago." Nor, might I add, since the time this film came out.

Even Europe, with a substantial Muslim population of its own and being closer to the Middle East, has suffered surprisingly few acts of domestic terrorism - though some of these were real headline-grabbers. This shows, the vast majority of Muslims living in Western countries are just trying to live ordinary lives with dignity - like the rest of us who aren't radicalized by politics or religion.

A lonely, anonymous death in the cold mountains

The 13 who died in Fort Hood will have their faces all over the internet, not to mention in the more traditional media. Their names will become household words - at least for a while - and their stories will be told. So-and-so wanted to serve his country. Another wanted to see the world. He left a dead-end job for a more promising career. She wanted a way to finance a college education. It will be said of most of them, "They look so young and innocent."

Of course, there are others of our soldiers who also looked young and innocent at one time. Until combat hardened them. After that point, it doesn't matter why they enlisted. It doesn't matter at all that they once looked so young and innocent. None of that matters at all to the guys on the receiving end of our seemingly endless supply of bullets. Those guys have just one thought in their minds: "They're trying to kill me."

Many of those guys will not die in what would be considered a fair fight. Carpet bombings, massive artillery barrages, and drone aircraft will exact their toll, after which embedded newsmen will report: "X number of terrorists were reported as killed by coalition authorities as a result of a heavy bombing campaign in such-and-such a valley." Pictures of those dead are rare and will never reach a mass audience. Many will remain anonymous to the rest of the world, mourned specifically and by name - only by their families, friends, and tribesmen. The vast majority of mourners, however, will not grieve for the fallen by name and as individuals but instead as part of a large and mostly nameless group of resisters of foreign occupation.

A few questions:

The female police officer who shot Major Hassan would add an interesting dimension to this emerging story if it turns out she's a Muslim. Or, even more interesting, if she ends up converting to Islam.

Did Hasan truly believe he was like a trapped animal, with no other option than to lash out?

Even if Hasan had to go to prison rather than be deployed to Afghanistan, could that have been worse than killing his fellow soldiers? Didn't he even give one thought to possible resulting retaliation against his fellow Muslims who are in the military or are just ordinary US citizens?

What kind of conspiracy theories will emerge to support the notion that Hassan was some kind of fall guy?

How is it that the first responders were two civilian cops? Where were the MPs?

Why were two other soldiers arrested at the time of the shootings, only to be quickly released?

What details will emerge of what Hassan said when he himself received counseling? Or will doctors remain silent, claiming doctor/patient confidentiality?

What kind of horror stories did Hasan hear in his role of counselor to returning war zone soldiers? Just how horrible is it over there?

The irony of Gordon Brown's speech:

About two months ago, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech on Afghanistan, which included this bit:

QUOTE [ My own comments are inserted in the following text.]:

It is on this basis that I made clear in the Spring - as did President Obama - that preventing terrorism coming to the streets of Britain, America and other countries depends on strengthening the authorities in both Pakistan and Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, and also the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban.

[Terrorism coming to our streets?! I thought the original mission was to eliminate the possibility of any more 9/11-style attacks. You know, spectacular and of huge propaganda value.]

For if in either country, the Taliban are allowed to undermine legitimate government...

[I won't even finish quoting that sentence. What's important to remember is that the Taliban were once the legitimate government of Afghanistan before we "undermined" them. While it's true that the US never recognized that regime diplomatically, our ally Saudi Arabia did and, furthermore, we "recognized" them to the extent of trying to negotiate a deal to allow construction of an oil pipeline through their country.]

:UNQUOTE [For full text of Brown's speech, go to: http://page.politicshome.com/uk/brown_speech_text.html?page_num=1] .

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

"I would love to see our President go to Hasan's hospital bedside - once he's well enough to talk - and ask: What's your side of this story?" - 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.

Tags: politics, Fort Hood killings, Nidal Malik Hasan, Gordon Brown, Afghanistan

Osama bin Polanski

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:34:44 GMT

I found it fascinating, when reading about the Roman Polanski case, that France does not extradite its citizens to the US to face trial. Not even if the guilty party would happen to admit his deed. Not even if the guilty party would decide to boast in the public square.

Suppose Osama bin Laden had been a French citizen holing up in that country after masterminding the 9/11 attacks. The US, of course, would have demanded that France surrender bin Laden. But...since France does not extradite its citizens to the US, they would have refused our demand.

And of course the US would have invaded and done to France what it's trying to do to Afghanistan, right? Right?!

Oh, wait a minute...the French are white and the Afghans aren't...as white. I don't know, maybe that's it.

Oh, before I forget, as far as Polanski is concerned: He should serve time in jail for he had done to that poor child.

Even though CBS News had this to say on Nov. 3, '09:

"Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who got a civil settlement from the director, has asked for dismissal of the charges against Polanski, saying the re-emergence of the case is causing her stress and health problems" - http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2009/11/03/roman-polanski.html

There are several considerations here:

Even though Samantha Geimer was an injured party, she wasn't the only one. The state of California, which suffered an indignity in its administration of justice - not to mention the countless young girls since then who have been abused by powerful, well-connected men. And anyway, I think once Polanski ends up in the can, Ms. Geimer will come to feel an inexplicable lightness of being.

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

"Come to think of it, no wonder France worries about its Islamic citizens who might travel to the US and..." - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Osama bin Laden, Roman Polanski, extradition

Afghanistan's 17% mandate

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:19:57 GMT

The 17% Mandate

During Afghanistan's Aug. 20 election, one-third of the registered voters turned out and, of those, roughly half cast their ballots for Hamid Karzai, the incumbent and recently declared winner.

Let's do the math: Half of one-third yields about 17%. [That's democracy?]

This means, 17% of registered voters cast their ballots for Karzai, which of course doesn't count those who were not registered. But, I suppose, in any democratic country, those who don't register are assumed by analysts to be too lazy to vote, too busy to vote, or (too?) willing to accept the mandate of their voting peers.

But that "analysis" doesn't take into account the use of indelible purple ink. Interesting story, that. In its infinite wisdom, the Afghan election authorities (chosen by - guess who? - Karzai) mandated that those who vote have to have a finger dipped in (supposedly) indelible purple ink to prevent them from voting twice.

Doesn't that sound a little strange to you? I mean, if the Taliban was trying to discourage voting, why mark these voters for their convenience?

I can see two possible reasons:

If voters in areas controlled by Taliban wouldn't turn out to vote, due to having to be marked so conspicuously, Karzai supporters manning those polling stations could stuff the ballot boxes without running the risk of overstuffing (that is, having more Karzai votes cast than voters eligible to vote at those stations).

Not all "indelible" inks are created equal. Ground observers report that in certain areas, ink was provided which was easily washed off, allowing voters to cast multiple ballots. All Karzai had to do was provide the truly-indelible ink in his opponents' strongholds.

President Obammer* congratulates this cheater

We are treated to the spectacle of President Obammer* saying, "I congratulated [my emphasis] him on his election for a second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan."

However, I must hasten to add: Obammer* and Karzai are comparable in at least one way, as discernible by this clue:

"Karzai promises reform - but without specifics" - title of article posted by the Associated Press today.

Karzai and Obammer* are weak on specifics: Karzai promises reform without specifics, while Obammer* promised change you can believe in - also without specifics. Such similarities are not mere coincidence but are manifestations of the law of karma. Too bad. It didn't have to be this way. There was an alternative:

We would have been out of Afghanistan by now had I been elected US President. Actually, we would have been completely out before the end of April 2009. According to Point TWO of my legally-enforceable, 47-point contract:

QUOTE:

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.

[My entire contract is at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle-for-us-president ]

:UNQUOTE.

Too much democracy

Maybe the United States and the rest of the civilized world community (the part that counts) can gloat about a 17% mandate. Maybe Hillary Clinton can spin, as a good thing, an election handed to an incumbent resulting from a personal decision made by the chief opponent. This conveniently overlooks that opponent's charge that the runoff election could not be fairly run.

I wonder, though, how much pressure President Karzai could possibly feel from his base in the future. He still has in place the mechanism to cheat and will have, without doubt, the continued blessing of the United States and allies to use this mechanism. Who's going to stop him? Especially with our troops there to enforce his will?

Oh well, we're not too keen on democracy ourselves. Not really. Or at least, our elites aren't. Why else do you think the institution of the US Senate was created? Answer: To thwart the will of the people. Though our quaint history books tell us: "...to prevent an emotional public from getting carried away." Right...

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

"We have too much work which needs to be done at home to be farting around in Afghanistan. And we'd be healthy enough to do it had my Single Payer health insurance plan passed, financed in large part by our cessation of war games in the Middle East. What's that, you say? Hot off the presses: US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't commit to passing a US health-care overhaul this year. Oh, well. As they say in politics, "stuff happens" or doesn't, as the case may be - which isn't exactly change, but you can definitely believe in it" - 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

Tags: politics, Karzai, Afghanistan election, Blacque Obammer

If you had to found a museum, what would it be about?

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:08:31 GMT

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.

Tags: Q&R, museum, history, preservation

Why we fear Muslims...really!

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:20 GMT

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/Counterpoint

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

Tags: Andrew J. Bacevich, Bacevich, Harper's Magazine, caliphate, Muslims, politics

It pays to Discover - NOT

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:58:33 GMT

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

Tags: reparations, usury, credit card, credit card abuse, politics, United Negro College Fund

Obammer's* Nobel Peace Prize

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:24:59 GMT

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

Tags: Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, Blacque Obammer, politics, US president

The Dalai Lama's affair with monsters

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:24:58 GMT

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.]

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?

I am on my one-hundredth oral recitation (which is my daily practice) of the Burton Watson translation of The Lotus Sutra. When you consider that its 324-pages comprise a volume one inch thick, that would "translate" to a stack over eight feet in height were 100 such volumes to be piled up. Or put another way - 32,400 pages. This is the largest part of my Buddhist practice; the other part being my attempts to share what I've learned along the way.

Each time I read this book, I pick up something I had missed in prior readings. You can easily see why I focus on this particular sutra when you consider:

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

Tags: Dalai Lama, Lotus Sutra, Burton Watson, SGI, Soka Gakkai International, Tibetan Buddhism

Crude: The Real Price of Oil

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:53:02 GMT

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

Tags: Chevron oil, Amazon Chernobyl, Joe Berlinger, Ecuador, pollution

UPDATE: Just say NO to Visa Card

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:01:53 GMT

On September 8, I posted a blog on Gaia, quoting the entire text of a letter I'd sent to my Visa card holding company (Barclays Bank). My letter opened with this statement:

QUOTE:

I am canceling my credit card with you and will no longer be making payments on my outstanding balance of $4,413.23. My next scheduled payment of $100.42, which is due on Sept. 11, 2009, will not be payable to Barclays but instead to the United Negro College Fund.

:UNQUOTE.

The UNCF has received my payment, and (per my instructions) sent an acknowledgement notice to Barclays.

Since then, Barclays Bank reps called me twice soliciting payment. I told the second caller why I would "no longer be making payments on my outstanding balance." Which, as my Sept. 8 blog explains, has to do with the issue of reparations to the black community.

Without missing a beat, the rep asked me, "Do you think that's fair to deny payment to us?"

I explained that the word "fair" covers a lot of territory: For example, how "fair" was it of Barclays to have benefited from exploitation of the black community in order to "earn" its billions? [Not that Barclays was alone in this effort.] Needless to say, this rep was not authorized to negotiate such a fine point with me. I feel that, if the US Senate and President Obama won't move on the issue of reparations, I will. Though I failed in my bid for the presidency, I hope to prove my actions to be far more presidential than his.

And I'm not asking anyone to be a witness to "change you can believe in," but instead to be a witness to what one common citizen is actually doing to bring change about. I ask no one to "believe in" anything. Just watch what I'm doing.

So where do things stand now?

I sent a couple of e-mails to Barclays telling them not to call me anymore; that they would be violating the law by continuing to call me though I specifically order them not to.

Barclays e-mailed to say: "Unfortunately, if you wish to dispute this issue further we would need for you to mail a letter to our Executive Office."

I will not be mailing such a letter because I am not disputing anything. I simply told them what I was doing and why. Barclays already knows, thanks to my e-mail and snail mail, exactly what I have in mind. So since I do not "wish to dispute this issue further" [because there's nothing to dispute], I won't bother sending them any such letter.

As for legal action? I suppose they might take me to court, but I told Barclays to think twice about that, as I am sure they will not prevail. Oh, I'm sure the judge will be on their side, but I'm thinking more along the lines of winning in the court of public opinion. A lot of Americans are pretty fed up with these plastic pirates and their legalized usury and exploitative ways. A court case (if publicized properly) might get a lot of people riled up. Especially after they realize, more and more as each day passes, that their President and Congress will continue supporting plastic piracy.

As for legal action, I will represent myself in court, though of course I would welcome any suggestions from any and all sources. [Sorry, can't afford to pay anybody for this.]

What about my other credit card?

Ah, yes, the good folks at Discover Card, to whom I actually owe more than Barclays Visa: $6K vs. $4.4K.

I intend to keep paying Discover unless they decide to jack up my interest rates, which they might since stiffing Barclays will sink my credit rating: SFW, by the way.

If Discover ups my rates, I will immediately divert payments from them to the United Negro College Fund, but I'll give them another chance, saying:

"If you lower my interest rates to the previous level, I will resume payments to Discover. I await your response, though the UNCF will receive payments in the mean time."

This may or may not work. I have no idea if any credit card company would negotiate under such circumstances. If it doesn't work, well the UNCF will have yet another source of donations, thanks to Discover.

I want to pay my just and honorable debts, but I also want to do what's "fair."

Publicity

I've notified a variety of black activists and their organizations of this act of economic warfare, especially those devoted to the reparations issue. I will also contact some media outlets, though I think too many of them are on the same team as the plastic pirates.

I also ask you, out there in Gaia land, to spread the word about what I'm trying to do. As always, I appreciate your support and kind words.

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

"The Buddha said, there is no safety in the three-fold world. Which means, none of us is ever guaranteed our next breath. So it's up to each of us to do the right thing, without worrying - Oh me, oh my, whatever will I do without the security blanket provided by being a dues-paying, law-abiding citizen under the thumb of the plastic pirates?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: credit card, usury, Barclays Bank, black reparations

On Self-Hating/Self-Loving Jews

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:27:48 GMT

Briefly: On Self-Lovers and Self-Haters

Definition: A "self-hating Jew" is someone so uncomfortable with his Jewishness that he holds that against himself and lashes out at all things Jewish, especially (according to hard-line definers of the term) the policies of the state of Israel.

Definition: A "self-loving Jew" [a term which I coined] is someone so much in love with this tribal identity that he'll embrace, without a moment's hesitation, anything that his gut tells him advances the interests of that tribe or works against its detractors. He becomes greater than himself by not having to work too hard to become a unique self.

Both individuals lack the self-confident personality that allows one to think of himself, first and foremost, as part of the larger human family. Both lack objectivity.

To the Self-Hater: "Come on. It's not like you were born into a black skin which you can't shake off. Ask yourself just what it is about having been born Jewish that really bothers you, and then be a man and deal with it. There's a wide variety within the Jewish community; perhaps your particular variety bothers you. Maybe you were a victim of brutality which you felt powerless against. Find ways to be strong and to help the weak, but don't merely idolize the strong. Under the right circumstances, even an Arnold Schwarzenegger can be forced to beg for mercy."

To the Self-Lover: "You can be your own man - and a great one at that - without having to kowtow to soulless secularist demagogues who are vying to be The Voice of Judaism. Truth be told, they can't hold a candle to the sages of the past. You would do well to follow their examples."

Jonah Goldberg

Question: What can you say about a panderer who writes a book entitled Liberal Fascism?

Answer: He's a very successful panderer indeed, since this oxymoronic volume managed to hit #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list. Go figure...

Bottom line: "I hate to break it to you, Jonah, but there's no such thing as a liberal fascist nor (if you'd prefer) is there any such thing as a fascistic liberal" - Steve Searle.

More Goldbergian silliness:

Jonah had this to say in his article entitled Hunting Nazis, in the September 7, 2009 issue of National Review:

QUOTE:

Indeed, while I don't think it is remotely right or fair to call Obama a crypto-Nazi ... the real problem with all of this loose Nazi talk is that it slanders the American people.

:UNQUOTE.

Okay, that being said, Jonah proceeds to slander the German people in his very next sentence, while indulging in some pretty loose talk of his own.

QUOTE:

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen may have overstated his case in Hitler's Willing Executioners, but he was certainly right that the German people were Hitler's willing enablers. The overwhelming majority of the American people - in their history, culture, bones, hearts, souls, DNA, and carbon molecules - are not like that. That goes for American liberals and leftists too. ... American liberals are still Americans, and Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period.

:UNQUOTE.

Is Goldberg really touting the superiority of American DNA over Germanic DNA? Sounds kind of racist to me.

So why would this sham artist immediately follow up this one bit of stupidity with another in the very next sentence: "...Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period?"

I'll tell you exactly why: Jonah Goldberg is indulging in a form of wishful thinking, of whistling-in-the-dark. He is making such a statement in order to kiss ass, by saying, "Yea, Americans! I know you could never be goose-steppers. You're genetically superior to that once-and-always evil race." Of course, JG can write anything he wants, while at the same time winking to his fellow Self-Loving Jews: "Hey, we've got to occasionally stroke the American goys' ego in the name of survival."

And Goldberg closes Hunting Nazis with one last pandering shot:

"But, by that point, this would be America in name only, if even that ("U.N. District 12" has a nice ring to it)."

Our wannabe propagandist is speaking directly to Americans who fear loss of their imperial sovereignty, who fear becoming just like everybody else and no longer being special. But Jonah deals in such fear-stoking, not because he loves America. But simply (or so he perceives) because only a strong and unfettered America can defend Israel.

And that's all he cares about, period.

Charles Krauthammer

At first I thought: "His last name is really Krauthammer? No way! Must be some kind of joke-name, meaning: One who hammers Krauts [a derogatory term for Germans]. But, no, his last name really is Krauthammer, though as a columnist he really lives up to the joke-name. For instance, when writing on Van Jones in The Chicago Tribune (9-14-09):

According to the Hammer, Van Jones is no longer in the White House, no longer part of the Obama team because:

QUOTE:

You can't sign a petition demanding not one but four investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Sept. 11, 2001 ... and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House.

:UNQUOTE.

"You can't sign a petition...and be permitted in polite society..." Is that so? The Hammer seems to be implying that members of polite society don't ask questions and don't call for investigations. Polite Societers are more than content with narrowly-focused, bum's rush investigations; they want to believe in their leaders, want to "move on," want to "put all that behind us," and will brook no doubters.

Hammer must also want to exclude from "polite society" the (more than) 48 family members of 9/11 victims who had also signed that petition. Not to mention these signers:

Daniel Ellsberg, a real American hero who released the top-secret Pentagon Papers.

Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine

Edward L. Peck, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism [Reagan administration]

[NOTE: "Careful, Charles. If you exclude too many people from ‘polite society,' you'll end up being a very lonely man indeed. Ah, perhaps that's the crux of the matter, yes?"]

The Hammer includes this in that same 9/14/09 article:

"You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier..."

Personal note from Steve Searle to the Hammer:

QUOTE:

[sigh!] All roads lead to (or should I say "from" or does that really matter?) the Holocaust, eh? Whenever you disagree with someone, for any reason, you have to invoke the Holocaust? Oh, before you get your undies in a knot, here's my pre-emptive strike: "I firmly believe the Holocaust happened, to the magnitude which you believe it happened." So there!

And: You're right: A Holocaust Denier does not belong in the White House. So there, again.

But a truther does belong in the White House, but only in the sense of this definition:

A 9/11 truther is simply one of a large and diverse number of common-sense Americans who believe the prior investigations were a sham and who want an impartial, properly-funded, open-ended, unrushed, widely-sweeping investigation to determine exactly what happened and who was responsible, hopefully to decisively exclude the possibility that agents (rogue or otherwise) of the US government played any role in planning or supporting these attacks.

It doesn't really get any simpler than this, Charles: A truther is simply someone who seeks the truth. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?

:UNQUOTE.

By the way...

The average concerned layman should actually read the text of this petition signed by Van Jones. It's only 637 words in length and can be seen at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633 .

After having read it myself, all I can say regarding Van Jones is: "I feel sorry that he lacked the courage of his original conviction, saying now (falsely, I believe) that he didn't carefully read this petition before signing it."

This petition is the soul of tact, not containing the screaming rhetoric of the bomb-throwing anarchist. Oh, and before I let the Hammer get away with it, I will truthify his comment (indeed, his indignation) that petitioners were "demanding not one but four investigations..."

First of all, they weren't "demanding," they were "asking." Second, the magnitude of the events of 9/11 begged for inquiries from multiple levels, which magnitude alone can justify. Frankly, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with asking for four investigations, identifying possible investigators, and (hoping beyond hope) that at least one of these sources rises to the occasion.

Krauthammer comes across as a thinly-veiled propagandist, which you can readily conclude on your own after considering this part of the petition:

QUOTE:

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

:UNQUOTE followed by my supportive observations:

Since the crime occurred within the state of New York, Spitzer should have investigated.
Of course Congress should have held its own hearings, since that body would not have been constricted by the limits imposed on the (so-called) "independent" 9/11 Commission.
I don't see how the Hammer could possibly object to the media being asked to do its job. Once upon a time in America, there actually was such a thing as investigative journalism - now only a shadow of its former self.
A "citizens-based inquiry" would have been infinitely preferable to the one comprised of Dem/Pubs intended to be chaired by Henry Kissinger. [Remember: Kissinger was appointed by Bush but declined since he would have had to disclose his firm's client list - heaven forbid! Surely we could have counted on a guy like that for a through, no-holds-barred investigation - NOT!]

Reflections on Jewish Scholarship: Benay Lappe

Whenever I read the drivel poured out by the likes of a Krauthammer or a Goldberg, I feel that the Hun (read: the barbarian) is storming the gates of a grand citadel - that of the vast Jewish tradition of great writers on ethical matters. I am afraid too many people will believe these two imposters represent that vital and ongoing establishment.

And this is a very real danger, since they are famous and Rabbi Benay Lappe is not.

Ah, so who is Benay Lappe?

It would be too easy to simply think of Rabbi Lappe as "the first openly lesbian Conservative rabbi," as claimed on the SVARA website. She seemed to me like someone who was literally kissed by God. Which makes me wonder out loud:

"Why are people like Krauthammer and Goldberg so overwhelmingly embraced as voices of Jewish wisdom, when they are in fact neither very wise nor very Jewish? Justice cries out that someone like Benay Lappe should be more universally acknowledged as one of those voices."

About 8 years ago, I attended a class led by Rabbi Lappe during the month of Elul to learn about teshuva. I was one of the few non-Jews among her dozen or so students, and I remember being extremely impressed with her genuine love of scripture. Her belief was that God could be found within the pages of a book, and she was living proof of that belief. She was not a fire-and-brimstone preacher; she was kind and patient with her students.

She was not arrogant in her learning, though many scholars stumble into that trap. In fact, I had asked her a question to which she answered, unembarrassedly, "I don't know." The question was: "When was the last time God spoke to man - as a man would speak to another man (that is, in words orally rendered) - and what was said and to whom?"

I really wanted to know and I felt that she could tell me.

Rabbi Lappe's demeanor was that of a teacher who tried to process what her students were saying and to understand them on their own terms. Too many scholars try to twist questions to fit the pat answers they are comfortable giving. Not so, the good Rabbi.

From http://www.svara.org/ , we learn that SVARA is "a traditionally radical yeshiva" and:

QUOTE [ http://www.svara.org/ ]:

SVARA's name comes from the 2,000-year-old Jewish concept that one's internal ethical impulse informed by serious Jewish learning-together called svara-is not only a legitimate source of Jewish law, but can even "trump" Torah. Svara has been central to the philosophy and evolution of the Jewish tradition for these two millennia and underlies the unique nature of Jewish thinking itself, but has been, until now, a "secret" guarded by Talmudic scholars and rabbis.

:UNQUOTE.

In closing

I would be honored to close today's essay with this bio from the SVARA website:

QUOTE:

Executive Director and Rosh Yeshiva [of SVARA] Rabbi Lappe was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York in 1997 and was the first openly lesbian Conservative rabbi. She is an award-winning teacher and is nationally known for her unique approach to the Talmud, which she has taught at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia, the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, and The Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where she is a Visiting Professor of Talmud. Rabbi Lappe is an Associate at CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, a cutting-edge Jewish think tank in New York City, and is the Resident Rabbinic Scholar at Aitz Hayim Center for Jewish Living in Highland Park, IL. Benay's greatest joy is learning Talmud with other queer folk, and shabbos and Talmud study are her primary ways of doing Jewish.

:UNQUOTE.

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

"I have the strangest feeling that if Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer were to publish pop-up books, they would easily top the New York Times Best Seller List" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, SVARA, Benay Lappe, Self-Hating Jew, Self-Loving Jew, Van Jones

Reflections in bars: Love is in the air

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:05:21 GMT

Laughing at love-is-in-the-air

Isn't it funny what makes you bust out laughing for no reason at all? Well...for apparently no reason at all. And I guess I'll speak only of myself here, since I can't speak for you.

I was sitting in one of my favorite watering holes on a warm summer night last year. It was early in the evening at the Daily Bar and Grill (Chicago, IL, corner of Wilson and Lincoln), so the usual crush of bodies and din of loud music and conversation was yet to get underway. Frankly, I like it this way: eating my jambalaya in relative peace and quiet. But as grating as the crush and din can be, that too has a place in my heart. But only in small doses.

I had just finished the Sudoku puzzle in my daily newspaper (level 2 out of 4), when I heard this lovely tune pouring out of the plasma monitor above the bar - one of several, as is usually the case at even the lowliest of dives these days. Love is in the air by John Paul Young (late 1970's) was playing as part of a commercial showing night clubbers dancing in front of a neon sign flashing (you guessed it): Love is in the air.

That's when I busted out laughing, just after this thought hit me:

"Of course love (quite literally) is in the air, if taken this way: The light forming the word love on that neon sign travelled from the monitor to my eyes, so from the time that light left the monitor till it reached my eyes, you could say ‘love' was in the air, that is, in the intervening space."

Maybe it doesn't take much to tickle my funny bone or maybe having had my second beer of the night (on top of that very spicy jambalaya) sensitized me. That beer: Something called Dogfish Head 90, which has the drinkability of paint thinner. That is, until you get used to it - what is called "an acquired taste," I believe. But I know better that to blame such episodes on beer; I mean, other people drink way more than I do and they weren't seeing what I was seeing.

But I suppose that would make us even: For I wasn't seeing what they were seeing.

On another night, same bar

About a month ago, I was eating my evening meal at Daily Bar and Grill. This time it was later, so the crush and the din had firmly established themselves. But that's life and that's a good thing. I was people watching, just enjoying the vicinity of young people having a good time, enjoying each other's company.

I was sitting at an island which seated 15-20 people comfortably, and noticed a group of young sports freaks passionately arguing the pros and cons of famous baseball teams of the last 10 years or so. Five or six young men, with two doing most of the talking and the others interjecting a thing or two. And all those bottles! It must have been really busy or else the wait staff would have been removing those bottles before they had a chance to accumulate.

I have the impression that bottles are quickly removed so that customers don't ever have the chance to look at "all those bottles" and think "Wow, look at all the money I'm pissing away." Or will soon piss away, as it were.

It was a lovely evening, graced by a very light drizzle of warm rain - just a shade above misting. Looking outside the huge windows, I chanced to see a Streetwise vendor selling his papers by the entrance to Starbucks across the street. I kept staring at this vendor, since he wasn't the type I'd come to expect: Mostly black and older and life-worn. This guy was white and young but still life-worn - maybe in his early 30's. And he was holding an umbrella in one hand as he held up a copy of Streetwise in another, trying to drum up some sales.

And then a beautiful thought hit me:

Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful if, one by one, my fellow patrons chanced to follow my gaze, wondering what I was looking at, with the whole room becoming silent in contemplation. And (now here's the good part) all of them set their drinks down, excused themselves, and crossed the street to buy a paper from this vendor, and then returned to join their companions. Streetwise only costs $2.00 and each of us spends so much more in such places on any given night.

And for some of these patrons, there are a lot of such given nights.

My waking dream had me in a starring role as being the first to walk out and make that purchase. But I didn't move, which made me feel guilty later. For I felt there was a faint chance others would have followed me, waving their $2.00 in hand. By the time I left Daily's, the Streetwise vendor was gone, but I consoled myself by remembering, "Well, I bought his paper a few days ago."

But still I felt somewhat of an ache considering what could have been - even though by only the remotest of chances.

Gaspars/Schubas Tavern (3159 N. Southport, Chicago)

Now it's called Schubas, though I'd known its previous incarnation as Gaspars. Ah, Gaspars, 20 years ago, when I still drank the hard stuff, mostly Jim Beam and only once a month with a best friend (now deceased - alcoholism). Died of the same cause and at the same age as my dad - 48 freaking years young. At the age of 58, it's hard for me to think of being older than my dad.

I was with my best friend on a Wednesday night, I believe. Not many patrons, so of course my gaze drifted toward a near-by table of four. Two young men, one young woman, and one "older" woman - older by about 5 years or so but noticeably older compared to the baby-faced young pretty in their group. Couldn't hear what they were saying, but I picked up on this much:

The two young men were lavishing all their attention on the baby-face as the older woman was grinning and bearing it. But I could see her pain at being ignored. Men can be such pigs. Sometimes I am so ashamed of my male tribesmen.

Duke of Perth

Another Chicago bar, but this is probably the only Scottish bar in town. They don't serve haggis, thank God. I think if people saw haggis on the menu, they would freak out and not even think of giving it a chance - that is, if they had any idea of what it is. Not that something like that deserves much of a chance, in my opinion.

I must have passed by Duke's hundreds of times in the last ten years, barely noticing its presence since it sits at the corner of Clark Street and an alley. With a rather small facade and smallish looking dining area (long and narrow), it doesn't exactly scream out at you.

After seeing a movie at my favorite palace (the nearby Landmark Century Theater complex), I was feeling especially hungry. So much so, I wanted to eat immediately and, as fate would have it, I was passing the Duke's entrance and saw very few patrons. Which is about right for a mid-afternoon Sunday, so I went in. And that was two years ago.

I don't go in often but one time was notable. The Scotch whiskey menu is huge and runs from reasonable to over $70 for one shot. As I was eating their wonderful Robert the Bruce burger, washing it down with an Alba - a Scotch pine Ale - I couldn't help but notice all of those bottles of Scotch behind the bar. Maybe they were more noticeable because the bar is so small, but the sheer variety was amazing just the same.

You know? I must be something of a wet blanket because thoughts like this pop into my head:

"I wonder how many bushels of grain it takes to make one liter of Scotch?"

Then I closed my eyes and imagined all of those Scottish farmers selling their harvest to the local distiller - harvest which could have been redirected to the starving. But redirection can't ever happen unless there's market or politics for it. That is a problem, for sure, but I still couldn't help wondering how much of Scotland's grain goes into the making of whiskey and how much into the making of healthy minds and bodies via foodstuffs.

"Water of life" indeed!

Reflections like the one above occurring at Duke's must draw me toward writers like George Orwell, who had written in his essay Marrakech:

QUOTE:

I was feeding one of the gazelles in the public gardens.

Gazelles are almost the only animals that look good to eat when they are still alive, in fact, one can hardly look at their hindquarters without thinking of mint sauce. The gazelle I was feeding seemed to know that this thought was in my mind, for though it took the piece of bread I was holding out it obviously did not like me. It nibbled rapidly at the bread, then lowered its head and tried to butt me, then took another nibble and then butted again. Probably its idea was that if it could drive me away the bread would somehow remain hanging in mid-air.

An Arab navvy working on the path nearby lowered his heavy hoe and sidled towards us. He looked from the gazelle to the bread and from the bread to the gazelle, with a sort of quiet amazement, as though he had never seen anything quite like this before. Finally he said shyly in French:

‘I could eat some of that bread.'

I tore off a piece and he stowed it gratefully in some secret place under his rags. This man is an employee of the Municipality.

:UNQUOTE.

If you want to indulge me, or indulge your own native curiosity, you might want to read the entire (brief) essay at:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/marrakech/english/e_mar

If you read this essay, and if you're occasional drinker, you might want to (at least) hoist a glass in memory of George Orwell, who had done a lot more than just write Animal Farm. For those of you of impressionable and sentimental heart like me, it might interest you to read Homage to Catalonia. Homage is a stirring account of a man of letters who became a man of action - which Orwell did by enlisting in the war against Franco. And ending his enlistment by taking a bullet in the neck.

But that didn't kill him. And perhaps there's something to be said for that.

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

"Never stop thinking, which I say using its broadest meaning. And that covers all places, including bars" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: bars, taverns, watering holes, night life, reflections

Say NO to Visa Card; say YES to Reparations

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:40:49 GMT

The Bottom Line:

I decided to stop making payments on one of my credit cards. This letter, which I sent to Barclays Bank today, explains why:

The Letter

Gentlemen:

I will continue to make monthly payments of at least $100.42 to the UNCF until I have "donated" the entire $4,413.23, which I owe you, to their cause. You may consider this to be a payment of reparations to the black community which I am making on your behalf.

I am also disavowing any interest yet-to-be-calculated on my outstanding balance. I will regard the amount of that interest, in effect, to be a payment of my aggravation fee. Since I'm extremely confident your organization will attempt to aggravate the hell out of me to force payment of all principal plus interest, I feel entitled to withhold this interest and consider it to be payment for what I am about to endure at your hands.

I received your recent notice which states, "We are increasing the Annual Percentage Rates ("APRs") on your account ... [to] 30.24%..." That's an increase of 20%, which is absolutely outrageous, especially given my outstanding credit history. This unconscionable greed on your part inspired me to take action based on a recent article by Naomi Klein:

"Minority Death Match: Jews, blacks, and the ‘post-racial' presidency," appearing in Harper's Magazine, Sept. 2009.

Someone has to take action to atone for the wrongs resulting from the institution of slavery in the United States. And it looks like that "someone" will be me, acting as your agent by making payments to the black community on your behalf. When our government and major corporations won't Do the Right Thing, that leaves it up to We-the-People.

Sincerely, Steven Searle

Why?

I was appalled that our President had decided to boycott the United Nations conference on racism. Officially called the United Nations Durban Review Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, opening day was April 20, 2009.

And he wasn't there.

Not only wasn't Obammer* there, the United States as a nation wasn't there - at the insistence of the President himself. Claimed it would have had an anti-Israeli bias. Which is bullshit as clearly shown in the article by Naomi Klein cited above.

But I would have been there, if I had been elected instead of Obammer*.

And next to me (should he have accepted my invitation) would have been Rabbi Michael Lerner, who wants to talk about undertaking a Global Marshall Plan to eradicate poverty. I would have wanted to talk about Reparations - the R-word. And as the US president, I would have owned up to US participation in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade as being a crime against humanity. A crime for which we have to atone.

Atone, yes, and not as Obammer* would undoubtedly say, "Let's not look at the past; it's time to put that behind us and move on." I say, the sooner we move on from this president, the better.

I will never tire of telling you: You elected the wrong man as your president.

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

"There are times when being color blind isn't a good thing. Are you listening to any of this, Mr. President? - 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

Tags: reparations, civil rights, Naomi Klein, Harpers Magazine, United Negro College Fund, credit card, Visa

Open letter to Iranian idealists

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:03:32 GMT

I want to encourage you, and urge that you be patient. But also to remind you of something you probably already know: You are not entirely helpless.

Obviously, I can't tell you to "take it to the streets," since you know you'll be beaten, arrested, or killed. But I urge you to remember the fallen and support the injured and their families. And, above all, not to give up. Sometimes, during our darkest hours, it's awfully tempting to do just that. But please don't. If nothing else, you can at least whisper a word of encouragement and friendship to the people you know, love, and trust. They need to hear the sound of your voice - even if all you can offer is one small word warmly tendered.

And you need to hear the sound of your own voice making such an offering.

Remember: Nothing lasts forever. The Berlin Wall fell and apartheid is no more in South Africa, though that revolution has been compromised. But then, I'm sure you know all about compromised revolutions. Even I have heard of your super wealthy fourth president Rafsanjani, who is (also) ... a cleric of all things. An ayatollah, no less. Forgive me for being so bold, in that I don't really know Iranian cultural expectations, but I find the very idea of a wealthy religious figure to be personally repulsive.

But that's just me, I suppose. Perhaps what matters more to you is the veil of repression that is descending upon Iranian society. Or the twisting of your faith. Or perhaps the economy which operates efficiently ... but only for the few at the top, and that it's a shadowy and corrupt economy at that.

The men who are repressing you are hate-filled and fearful. They lust after worldly power and are afraid their personal empires might come crashing down. I look at the balance of power in the world in terms of energy. It takes a lot of energy to hate and to be fearful, which depletes the reserves of those who indulge in hate and fearfulness, which in turn ultimately wastes them. They'll start turning on each other (haven't they already?), so be ready to pick up the pieces when (their idea of) the Islamic state starts collapsing on their heads.

Especially, if Israel decides to knock out Iran's nuclear capability. The way Iranian leadership is behaving, the world community (common people and governments alike) will have absolutely no sympathy for the Iranian cause should such a strike take place. In fact, they will probably be dancing in the streets as Tehran's mullahcrats bluster and fume and swear vengeance. But who will be the weapons of their wrath? Certainly not you, but please pray for those who become persuaded to be the tools of an avenging theocracy; they will need your love and compassion.

But what else can you do?

I've already mentioned patience and support for each other. However, there is more that you can do. Consider: Your former president Rafsanjani is considered by Forbes magazine to be among the wealthiest men in the world. You know what he owns - simply boycott his enterprises whenever possible. Same goes for the others who own so much and have profited so handsomely while wearing religious robes.

Exert religious pressure:

That's harder, but if it can be done, you can figure out amongst yourselves how best to go about it. I know very little about Shia Islam, though there must be ways to make your presence felt. An important guiding principle, in religion as well as politics, is the consent of the governed. I cannot believe that Islam, which so profoundly stresses the importance of community, can allow for the disproportionate influence of a handful of clerics to so thoroughly dominate your lives.

I understand that Muslims donate money as a form of almsgiving (Zakat). Instead of donating to the local mosque, is it possible for individuals to (for instance) seek out the poor and donate directly to them? This cuts out the middle man, and maybe that's the kind of action that will cause religious "leaders" to sit up and take notice. I understand that many of those who have beaten you are simply poor men who are under the pay of the unscrupulous. Give your Zakat to them and tell them why you do so - privately, one-on-one, of course, so as not to embarrass or enrage them.

You might even reduce your attendance at the mosque, especially avoiding large gatherings. You can pray on your own. After all, didn't Muhammad meditate in a cave by himself, which is where he received his first revelations from Allah? I'm not urging anyone to adopt the practice of sitting in caves, but who knows? Maybe in such a pure and honest setting, the voice of Allah might surround you.

Avoid the temptation to invite foreign intervention:

There are foreign enemies of the Islamic state who would love nothing better than to destroy your revolution. Don't find common cause with such people. The Islamic state can work, but it is up to Muslims of pure heart (that is, the majority of your countrymen) to make it work. And urging foreigners to, for example, impose punitive trade sanctions won't succeed. Quite the opposite is what will succeed: Eliminate such barriers so that your more sensitive countrymen don't feel like they're living in a state of siege.

I have come to admire how well Iranians of good conscience communicate with each other, sharing their ideas and strategies, as well as their sufferings. Keep it up and know that, sooner rather than later, you will succeed.

Love,

Steven Searle

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

"In keeping with my love of puns, I hope you'll indulge me in this one: I hereby dub this particular profit of misery, Riffraff-sanjani - for rather obvious reasons" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Iran, Iranian dissidents, Rafsanjani, Islam

Ted Kennedy

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:04:54 GMT

Mary Jo Kopechne

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

"In 3 years of blogging on Gaia, this is my shortest post. These three words say it all: Mary Jo Kopechne. Was Ted Kennedy the great liberal lion? No, he was just another oligarch - same as brothers John and Bobby. What we need are real lions, not the lionized. To see a real lion, look in the mirror" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Ted Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne, Chappaquiddick

Inglourious Basterds

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:18:06 GMT

I can understand why Quentin Tarantino didn't see Defiance (released in 2008) - or at least why he says he didn't. For if he had seen it, he wouldn't have made Inglourious Basterds - or at least he would have felt rather silly doing so.

If Tarantino had wanted to make a movie about Jews fighting back, he couldn't have done better than Defiance or The Grey Zone (released in 2001). [No, really, he couldn't have done better.] I suspect, though, that Tarantino wanted to make the kind of movie that indulged his fantasies and served as a vehicle for his over-wrought (though well-written) dialogues, but (ultimately) which thoroughly disrespected its audience.

Yes, it was well-shot, and the performance of Christoph Waltz as the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa was incredible. But these considerations couldn't overcome the outlandish backdrop of the movie itself. For instance:

We're led to believe, in the opening scene, that only someone like the clever "Jew Hunter" Landa would have thought to look under the floorboards of a simple farmhouse for hiding Jews. Previous searches by other Germans had apparently overlooked this clever hiding place.

Hitler and the top three members of the German High Command are going to attend the premier screening of a film - in Paris? - after the Normandy invasion??

Security was so lax in the theater, after the screening was underway, that someone as inconspicuous as a black man would be able to move freely throughout the theater in order to lock the exits thereby sealing the Nazis in the soon-to-be-ignited inferno.

We're led to believe that the (now traitorous) Colonel Landa would actually be allowed to live while being transported to allied lines by the Brad Pitt character Lieutenant Aldo Raine. [Hey, "accidents" do happen.] This alternate universe proposed by Tarantino worships the rebellious odd-ball who, when push comes to shove, generally follows orders but indulges his sense of justice with a little extracurricular swastika carving (into the foreheads of his prisoners).

In the world of Quentin Tarantino...

In the world of QT, there's no problem with rewriting history simply because reality is somehow found wanting? Or there's a need to create heroes simply because there weren't enough of the right kind at the time? Or there's a need to show that, under some circumstances, torture is not only justified but it's called for and it works like a charm?

I was relieved that the film didn't claim to be "based on actual events." Some filmmakers make that kind of claim while thinking, "My film is only very remotely based on actual events." Since Tarantino's film wasn't even "very remotely based," I'd have to conclude that it was only done as a personal indulgence - and nothing more.

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

"Quentin Tarantino owes us a good movie - for IG was certainly a bastard of a flick. Synonyms of bastard: fake, false, imperfect, inferior, sham, ungenuine." - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino

Obammer* violates his oath of office

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:23:32 GMT

Thesis:

The US President missed (another) opportunity to show that he can think outside the box. He could have done so by simply (and ironically!) invoking his oath of office.

Background:

This concerns Blacque Obammer's* reaction to the United States being sued by a same-sex couple (Smelt vs. USA) over the constitutionality of DOMA: The Defense of Marriage Act. Obammer* reacted in an uncreative, knee-jerk way by allowing his Department of Justice attorneys to respond to this lawsuit.

A recent Associated Press article contains these pertinent points:

QUOTE:

President Obama insisted Monday he still wants to scrap what he calls a discriminatory federal marriage law, even as his administration angered gay rights activists by defending it in court.

The president said his administration's stance in [Smelt vs. USA] is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.

...

[Department of Justice] lawyers are defending the law "as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged," Obama said in a statement.

:UNQUOTE.

What President Searle would have done

I would have ordered the Justice Department to stay away from this case, barring DOJ lawyers from responding in any way. Whenever the United States is sued, it is (as Obammer* correctly noted) traditional for DOJ lawyers to respond. However, I would have started a new tradition by invoking my presidential oath of office in a non-traditional way. Is that thinking outside the box or what?

QUOTE:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

:UNQUOTE [Art. II, Section 1, US Constitution]

In short, I would claim:

"I am being faithful to my presidential oath of office - the part that says I will ‘defend the Constitution of the United States' - by prohibiting US government lawyers from defending an unconstitutional law." I know Bill Clinton didn't think DOMA was unconstitutional when he signed it into law, but as far as I'm concerned: He's no longer president, I am.

Just because I, as US president, would order US government lawyers not to respond to this suit, doesn't mean DOMA loses by default. Nor would it mean that the pro-DOMA views wouldn't be considered by the judge. I'm sure legions of DOMA supporters will file friend-of-the-court briefs amply defending their point of view. We don't need to waste taxpayer dollars by paying DOJ lawyers to defend an unconstitutional law in court.

Traditionalists would claim that I would not be doing my job as president (an impeachable offense) were I to prevent government lawyers from defending a federal law in court. Actually, there would be a lot of people out there wanting to impeach me for one reason or another. Or for no (real) reason at all, for didn't John Kerry (remember him?) once famously claim, "An impeachable offense is whatever the Congress deems it to be." [Way to go John, but...of course he's right.]

And it is surely an "impeachable" offense for a duly-elected US president to be removed from office simply because he's not a Democrat or a Pubber and because he is the only President to have ever served on the basis of a legally-enforceable contract with We-the-People.

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

"So there it is - President Obammer* is the defender of the way things are traditionally done. Tell me, is that change you can believe in?" - 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

Tags: DOMA, impeachable offense, politics, Smelt v. USA

The Astrology of Blacque Obammer*

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:32:44 GMT

Thesis:

Historians will look back, trying to answer this question:

Was there a critical event, a single defining moment, when the power of American Empire started its gradual (at first) though increasingly accelerated pace of decline toward oblivion?

Many will object to my question by saying:

"Historians would not ask such a question, for there was no single event - it was a combination of factors fueled mostly by hubris."

I will stand my ground by insisting that, at least in this particular case, there was indeed a defining moment. Though I will admit that historians will not be the ones asking that question. I am extremely interested, though, in how astrologers would view the position of the stars in the heavens at the exact moment when Senator Blacque Obammer* uttered these fateful words:

QUOTE [look for my emphases, below]:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday. "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course...I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage." ... Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said.

UNQUOTE [Source: Associate Press, Mike Glover]

The significance of Obammer's* words

Obammer*

told

bald-faced lie

when he said

no lawmaker "wants

to play chicken with our troops."

For that wasn't the issue at all and Obammer (then a US Senator, no less) knew it and could have stood up and loudly refuted the war hawks. They were busy painting a picture of our troops being overwhelmed by the barbarians if continued war funding had been denied. There were even scenarios being conjured of our soldiers running out of bullets in the middle of a firefight because evil Congressmen had cut their funding.

If Congress had cut the funding, then Bush would have had no choice but to yield to a Congress which had wanted a funding bill with a withdrawal timetable. If Congress had cut the funding, the ball would have been in Bush's court and he would have had ample time to change course in the name of, if nothing else, the safety of our troops. It would have been up to him to either provide a timetable for withdrawal (which is what Congress/We-the-People wanted) or find another way to finance/run this war (maybe by "taxing" our allies).

But, no. Instead, Obammer* allowed Bush to deny the will of the representatives of the people that this war be terminated in the foreseeable future.

That defining moment in time

I'll repeat the last part of the Obammer* quote:

"Given that Bush is determined to veto a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Congress has little realistic choice but to approve money for the war, Obama said."

This was the moment in time that marked the beginning of our decline. This was when the future president of the United States claimed that Congress did not have the power of the purse. Oh, to be sure, what he had said was, "Congress has little realistic choice," but actually that's another bald-faced lie. Congress was in a position to define "reality" to the Bush administration:

"You either give us a funding bill with a deadline for withdrawal or you get no funding. What part of no funding don't you understand?" [Yes, I would speak that frankly to the US President - even publicly, mind you - my God, someone has to.]

The power of the Congress to control the purse strings: That's reality. That was always reality, in terms of checks-and-balances.

And yet, at that critical time in our history, Blacque Obammer* lied about what was and what wasn't Congress's "realistic choice."

What difference does it make now?

What difference does it make to bring up this subject now, since it's been over two years since Obammer* had uttered these words? [Back when it seemed he was the anti-war candidate.] After all, it's now abundantly clear that we're "winning" in Iraq and the insurgency has been reduced to "tolerable" levels. There's no longer any public pressure to remove our forces from Iraq. Indeed, any pressure from any source comes in reaction to Obammer's* spastic efforts at health care reform and his spendaholic attempts to obtain prosperity by sinking us further into debt.

[I've heard of "spending our way to the poor house," but I've never heard of "spending our way to prosperity." Come again??]

No one even talks much about the war in Iraq any more, except the few leftist demonstrators (like those in my neighborhood) who (now) denounce our war-monger president. But that's more in terms of objecting to his widening the war to Afghanistan and (let's be honest here) to Pakistan and (even more honest) to Iran (folks, we've already got troops in that country).

So what difference does it make now? Why should I even ask such a question? Personally, I happen to think there's something to astrology and I think it would be interesting to see what an astrologer (the real deal type, not the celebrity hype) thinks of the astrological significance of the exact time when Obammer* uttered those words. So the "difference" it makes is to me - to satisfy my own curiosity.

As for "winning" the war on terror

As for "winning" in Iraq, I will say the same thing now that I've blogged about for the last three years: We cannot succeed by trying to remake other societies in our own image. There is no exit plan, there never was one, and there never even could have been one.

It only looks like the level of violence in Iraq has tamped down, but in reality it is only regrouping - silently and behind the scenes. But the US attempt to remake Iraq into a democracy (that is, a nominal democracy which will not oppose US interests) can be likened to attempts to contain a plasma by means of a magnetic field. That explosive energy will always seek a way to "leak" out of the magnetic containment bottle. And it will take eternal vigilance on our part to guard against leaks. And if that will turn out to even be possible, it will turn out to also be very expensive.

Better get used to the "very expensive" part - you're going to be hearing much more of that.

And multiply that effort of containment in Iraq by similar efforts to tame the explosive energy of the Taliban and Al Qaida in the other (we call them) "lawless" areas of the world.

I was amused by Senator Graham (GOP, S.C.), who said:

QUOTE:

"Let's not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let's don't do this thing on the cheap. Let's have enough combat power and engagement across the board to make sure we're successful. And quite frankly, we all have got a lot of ground to make up," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "You cannot have political reconciliation, economic progress, the rule of law, when the judges and the economy is under siege by the enemy. ... When I'm saying 'Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan,' don't resist the idea that we're going to need more, because we are."

:UNQUOTE [Foxnews.com, Sunday August 09, 2009]

"Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan..." Are you kidding me? The Bush White House gained significant Congressional support precisely because it was saying: "I know you're worried about your constituents objecting to the cost of our venture in Iraq. But don't worry, we can do this thing on the cheap."

That's what they said. That was the general consensus at the time.

One of the biggest selling points was that Iraq wouldn't cost much and, to boot, that freely flowing Iraqi oil would help those balance sheets look even better.

So when I hear a Republican saying "Don't Rumsfeld Afghanistan," what I'm really hearing him say is, "Don't GOP Afghanistan" (but it's always easier to pick a scapegoat who no longer has a future in the party).

There was a time when South Carolina tried to secede from the union along with the other states of the Confederacy. Even though secession didn't work out, I think we should seriously consider kicking a state out of the union. Especially a state which can't do any better than elect the likes of a man like Lindsey Graham to the US Senate, for saying something as stupid as this.

But, alas, if we went around kicking states out of the union for the stupidity of their senators, we wouldn't have many states left, now would we?

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

"Sometimes there really are defining moments which herald great rises or falls - but don't count on our media to even notice, let alone actually report on these" - 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

Tags: Barack Obama, Blacque Obammer, astrology, politics

Unmistaken Child, the movie

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:55:48 GMT

Opening Statement:

I had problems with the film Unmistaken Child, especially since I happen to view Tibetan Buddhism as a serious hindrance to the worldwide attainment of enlightenment. For what the Dalai Lama preaches is not Buddhism but, indeed, is (only) Political Tibetanism.

The movie's basic premise:

A monk searches for his recently-deceased master, and finds him in the form of an 18-month-old child. There was a Q&A after the screening I'd attended which was hosted by a gentleman who mentioned something quite interesting. I didn't catch his name, but he was from a local Tibetan cultural society and was not an official spokesman for the film. [In fact, he made a pitch for donations for his local society.]

He said there are dozens of such young people in each of the Tibetan monasteries, who had been (basically) taken from their families after being declared reincarnated masters. My gut reaction upon hearing that: "Well, that's one way to ward off depletion of the ranks of monks."

Ty Burr, movie critic, had this to say in his July 17, 2009 review:

QUOTE:

We [the film's viewers] simply are present from 2001, when the 84-year-old Geshe Lama Konchog died, to 2005, when the toddler recognized as his reincarnation was presented to the Buddhist community of Nepal and beyond....The film's central character, actually, is Tenzin Zopa, the tenderhearted young acolyte whose life, since the age of 7, has been devoted to serving Geshe Lama. Upon his master's death, the grieving Zopa is instructed by the Dalai Lama himself to seek out the reincarnated boy, a task he feels unsuited for.

:UNQUOTE.

Some of the problems I had with this movie:

"Existence after existence these living beings are reborn in company with that Bodhisattva, hear the Law from him, and all have faith in and understand it" - Lotus Sutra, Chapter 7. I understand the concept of living beings being reborn in company with their teachers. I'm not clear at all on the (apparently Tibetan) concept of teachers being reborn in the company of their disciples, especially so soon after they pass away. And even murkier to me is the idea that monks have to go scouring through the countryside to find their former masters in the form of newborn babes. My view? If he's truly any kind of master, he'll find his disciples (not the other way around)!

The film shows 27-year-old Tenzin Zopa telling us how "lost" he felt after the death of his master, to whom he was faithful servant for 20 years. Zopa tells us, while lamenting his personal disorientation, "I didn't know what to do." If Zopa's master was truly worthy of the title "master," then he would have better prepared his young servant for the eventuality of his passing.

I was amazed by the palatial residence of the Dalai Lama, and the huge throng of monks who live with him in Dharamsala. I couldn't help thinking: "Wow, where's all the money coming from to support this group?" I personally tend to be wary of worldly and wealthy monks, especially those who are international celebrities. And especially those who had accepted money from the CIA.

Moviegoers were treated to the sight of a child crying (the Unmistaken Child, that is) as his hair is being shaved off with a razor. I might not be an enlightened Tibetan lama and never even went to barber school but I know this much: It causes a lot less pain to first give the initiate a haircut with an ordinary pair of scissors and then shave off what's left over. That's loving kindness! When the child wouldn't stop fussing and crying out "Please don't cut off my hair," at the half-way point of his tonsorial he was conveniently taken off camera to a private room to finish the job.

The child's parents were asked to permanently give up their child to the monastery. The mother had trouble with this, but I was wondering if she really had the option of saying no. [You know, cultural pressure and all that; people, that's what theocracy looks like.] Also, the movie didn't make clear (didn't even bother to ask) whether the parents would have any visitations rights. My heart went out to the mother, who was "asked" by a benevolent kidnapper to give up the fruit of her womb.

Unmistaken Child is really a terrible movie. I might not be a famous film critic like Ty Burr (quoted above), but I am absolutely amazed that any professional critic can fawn over such flawed minimalism when, indeed, a more in-depth treatment of this search-for-reincarnated-masters theme is called for. For instance, Ty might have started by looking at this movie's protagonist's website. That's right, the simple, unassuming disciple in search of his master is, upon closer inspection, quite a sophisticated fellow - which I suspected right away upon hearing how well he spoke English in the movie (an ability unnoticed by Ty). Anyway, for the curious, here's Tenzin Zopa's website: http://geshezopa.blogspot.com/

The larger issue of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism

Make no mistake about this: The Dalai Lama is a Pope. I have trouble with Popes. Don't much like them. They take too much and give so little in return. I've seen footage of Dalai Lama's supporters calling him a "god" or a Buddha. But I would ask them a few questions:

"Why does your God need to refer to an oracle [Nechung - the State Oracle of Tibet]?"

"Why was your God not able to protect Tibet from the Chinese?"

"Why is the Dalai Lama afraid of the deity Dorje Shugden, going so far as to forcibly suppress his worship among Tibetan Buddhists? I understand that one who is a Buddha is totally without fear. So if the Dalai Lama is a Buddha, why is he afraid of Dorje Shugden? [Apparently, the Lama fears for his life and his followers believe this.]

"The Dalai Lama admitted he himself once worshipped Dorje Shugden (whom he now refers to as ‘evil'), but now says that was a mistake. Let me see if I'm understanding this: Our Dalai Lama (the God King or, as some claim, a Living Buddha) actually admits to having made a mistake of this magnitude?"

"How did it come to pass that the United States, back in the 1950's, allowed China to march into Tibet unopposed? Tibet must have had some terrible karma for it to have fallen so easily - at a time when the US possessed nuclear weapons and China did not."

"How much money does the Dalai Lama call ‘mine' - what is the extent of his personal wealth? No one seems to talk about that at all."

"Why does your Buddha lament the loss of Tibet's sovereignty, the loss of his country? Shakyamuni Buddha voluntarily gave up his kingdom, and lived to see it conquered by a foreign army. Perhaps the Dalai Lama should more deeply contemplate the notion of impermanence."

During my campaign against Blacque Obammer* for the US presidency, I had blogged frequently on my beliefs of the evils of national sovereignty. And I pledged to work for the elimination of nationalism and the concept of national borders. However, the Dalai Lama seeks to restore his old fiefdom. Maybe he should redirect his efforts toward making all land on earth an enlightened Buddha land. Nations come and go - that is the way of impermanence. Only the Buddhist path to enlightenment is worthy of any kind of serious attention as a global goal.

End note

This link is a fascinating view of what might be motivating the strange behavior of the Dalai Lama in his efforts to suppress Dorje Shugden's followers. Written by a westerner who had served on numerous occasions as the Dalai Lama's translator: http://www.dorjeshugden.com/articles/HelmutGassner01.pdf

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

"The Dalai Lama is the head of the Yellow Hat Sect, while I myself (tongue in cheek) wear a paisley hat which is invisible - so what's the point, one might ask? As for the Dalai himself, as long as Shakyamuni Buddha is alive, we don't need a Dalai to play with. As for all these Tibetan masters flying around, well, the world really is full of magicians though one should carefully ponder the source of their magic" - Steve.

Contact Steve Searle, founder of The Best Party Available, at: 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

Tags: Dalai Lama, Dorje Shugden, religion, Unmistaken Child

President Obammer* vs. the Birthers

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:28:46 GMT

Who are the Birthers?

You might remember the Birthers. They made a lot of noise before the election claiming that Blacque Obammer* was not really a US citizen. Or at least not what the US Constitution would call a "natural born citizen." Their upshot: If Obammer* is anything other than a "natural born citizen," then he is ineligible to be our president - according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

There had been a number lawsuits by private individuals attempting to force Hawaii to issue, for public inspection, a certified copy of Obammer's* original birth certificate - a version referred to as a "long form." The Birthers claim this document would show that Blacque* had been born in a foreign country, which would not make him [or so they claim] a "natural born citizen."

It seems the Birthers have re-emerged after a period of dormancy, pouring out a great deal of detailed argument on a variety of websites. They've even taken to haranguing Congressmen at town hall meetings. And of course the media is salivating over this.

Do the Birthers have a point?

I am absolutely:

not going to burden you with a long summary of their arguments;

sparing you the refutations of their detractors;

refusing to weigh in on whether the Birthers have a point.

I spent much of yesterday on the web wading through the pros and cons of these arguments. Not only concerning BO's birth certificate but also whether he really registered for the Selective Service, which all male citizens had to do back then. Most of you have gone through the tedious task of following various internet threads only to conclude: "OMG, there's an awful lot of text to wade through." So I'm on your side here, in not wanting to dump on you.

I personally happen to enjoy occasionally wading through reams of tedious, lawyerly point/counterpoint. But that's usually just for my entertainment. To those who want to win people over, though, I urge them to embrace the KISS strategy: Keep It Simple Stupid.

A few simple things to keep in mind:

Before the election, neither the GOP nor the McCain campaign made any effort to turn Obammer's* citizenship into an issue. Not even after the election, though before he had been sworn in.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court personally administered the oath of office to Obammer*, knowing full well that his citizenship was being challenged in a variety of lawsuits.

Before we had cast our ballots, We-the-People knew there were doubts concerning his citizenship - yet there was no massive hue and cry of protest over this issue.

Last week, both the U.S. House and the Senate passed a Resolution entitled: "Recognizing and celebrating the 50^th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50^th State." This was passed unanimously - that is, without one single Rep or Senator voting against it.

Question: Why is the preceding point relevant? Answer: There's a clause in the Resolution that reads: "Whereas the 44^th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." Upshot: Not one of our Congressmen could muster enough courage to state in the Congressional Record that this clause lacks proof, after which they could have voted present on the Resolution itself. [There weren't any nay votes nor any present votes, though 35 Democrats and 20 Pubbers are listed as not voting - which meant they were not in chambers at that time. For all we know, they might have been in another chamber - taking a crap.]

The Birthers are making a lot of noise, mostly trying to cast doubt upon the President [Is he really an illegal alien? Is he really an alien from the planet Nibiru?]. They don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution - not really. For if they do, they should be insisting - equally loudly - that Maine and West Virginia had been granted statehood unconstitutionally**. They should be demanding these "states" revert to their former status and that all flags show only 48 stars. But...they're not going to do that, since it's not really the Constitution they care about.

It's interesting that Obammer* has consistently resisted efforts to reveal his official Hawaiian birth certificate, though apparently he has the legal right to do so. There are a lot of conservatives out there who would resist any similar invasion of privacy. Hell, I remember back in the day (way back) that conservatives were worried about the proposed issuance of Social Security Numbers, since these might be used by Big Government for tracking purposes. [Remember when Conservatives didn't like the idea of BG intruding into the lives of private citizens? How things have changed, eh?]

It seems there is not any existing legal mechanism for voters to challenge candidate eligibility for the presidency. Philip Berg's lawsuit was dismissed in federal court because (get this) he lacks standing. In the words of the judge [R. Barclay Surrick]: "...voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring." This is just another example of how this whole concept of standing (or lack thereof) is nothing more than an attempt by an arrogant judiciary to deny citizens due process of law. Suppose this Plaintiff had attempted to bring (what I call) a virtual class action lawsuit, presenting the judge with the names of one million voters on a petition demanding that Obammer* verify his citizenship. The judge would have still ruled the same: voters don't have standing.

About those who disrupt townhall meetings:

If I were a Congressman about to enter a townhall meeting, I would have the police present to remove any loudmouth who tried to take over my meeting. Then I would address the remaining members of the audience:

"Every single member of Congress has endorsed the President's lawful status as a natural born citizen, who is therefore eligible to be president [per the Resolution mentioned above]. Anyone who wishes to contest the president's status may do so through the courts of law or perhaps by holding their own meetings or through various media outlets. Nobody has a right to usurp a gathering where other citizens believe they have far more pressing issues to discuss.

"Since I believe in the rule of law, I will insist that disorderly conduct charges be pressed against those who attempted to disrupt this public meeting."

That's how to deal with the rowdy. Congressmen, please, this is really a no-brainer.

As for Clarence Page:

I take extreme issue with this statement by a senior member of The Chicago Tribune's editorial board:

QUOTE:

The "birther" nickname is half-adapted from the 9/11 "truthers" who hounded the previous administration, blaming shadowy homegrown conspiracies for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

I have a different nickname for both groups: sore losers.

:UNQUOTE [Clarence Page, in a recent editorial]

Clarence, Clarence, how can you disrespect yourself and your readers by this lame attempt to equate the 9/11 Truth Movement to the Birthers? There are still a lot of dedicated patriots out there who refuse to accept the official story of what happened on 9/11. Many of them are well-respected authorities from a wide variety of backgrounds. I proudly include myself among their number.

Not to worry though:

The Chicago Tribune is dying. It seems that each issue is skimpier than the preceding. The coin-operated newspaper boxes in my town are degenerating into a state of rust and abandonment. The Tribune's content lacks not only volume but also any vestige of quality. So when the day comes that it finally bites the dust - and all of its Clarence Pages are forced to find more honest employment - I will not mourn.

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

"Suppose there's proof that Obammer* is in fact constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. Suppose this proof comes out now and shows that Obammer* had lied about his background. I can see it now: Congressmen would be scurrying around, like cockroaches at midnight when the lights suddenly come on, trying to figure out what the hell to do. Now that would be entertainment!" - Steve.

Contact Steve Searle, founder of The Best Party Available, at: 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

** http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/5/constitutional_convention_definitely_needed

Tags: Birthers, Blacque Obammer, Obama's birth certificate, politics