Gaia Community: Cinc's Blog

Judge Phlegm-ing messes up

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:44:51 GMT

Just the facts, ma'm

Earlier this month, Anthony Abbate was convicted of aggravated battery by Judge John Fleming (pronounced Phlegm-ing) after a bench trial. More recently, that same judge handed down this sentence:

no jail time
two years probation
mandatory attendance at anger management classes
home curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.
130 hours of community service

Abbate (250 lbs.) was convicted of beating a female bartender (Karolina Obrycka at 125 lbs.) because he fell down. That's the reason - because he fell down. That's really what this assault boils down to. He was where he wasn't supposed to be - behind the bar - and embarrassed himself. Bartender had even told him not to go to this area.

But he did it anyway and this link shows what happened next:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kgG0s7lVk

Sure, she was "touching" him - though no one could say she was striking him, though she did make physical contact. More accurately, she was leaning on him or trying to maneuver him from behind the bar. But he fell - and then he reacted. Falling was probably a blow to his dignity, though he probably slipped due to being very drunk and/or because the floor might have been slippery.

If you watch this video, you'll see that Obrycka was not tossing Abbate around (in the words of his lawyer), "like a rag doll." If Abbate looked ragged at all, that's because he was a bit stumbly-bumbly on his feet - because he was drunk.

About that judge

We'll miss you, Neda Soltani

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:04:06 GMT

Neda Soltani is dead. She was killed by a single bullet during a protest in Tehran. By now, untold millions of people have seen the video clip of her dying moments on the internet. And many of them, like me, have watched that clip over and over.

I also read comments on-line, most of which ranged from sadness to outrage. But at least one guy thought Neda was intentionally set up by her companions to be killed by an anti-government sniper in order to make the Iranian government look bad. That's possible, I suppose. And it must be asked of bloggers who claim that a Basij militiaman killed her - "And how do you know this?"

My best guess is her death was accidental. For example, police might have been firing shots in the air attempting to disperse demonstrators but weren't mindful of: Whatever goes up, must come down - including bullets.

Who really killed Neda Soltani isn't as important as how the government reacted to that killing:

QUOTE:

The authorities are acutely aware of the threat posed to them by her killing. They only agreed to release her body on condition that her family agreed to a quick burial on Sunday in the sprawling Behesht-e Zahra cemetery on the outskirts of Tehran.

A memorial service planned for the Nilufar mosque in the capital's Abbasabad neighbourhood was called off after officials expressly forbade it. All other mosques in the Tehran area have been warned against holding services in her memory.

:UNQUOTE [

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/neda-soltani-death-iran ]

After things settle down a bit

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in as president and things will settle down - at least in terms of outside appearances. Some of his supporters will try to persuade their countrymen that Neda Soltani never really existed; that the video clips we saw were manufactured in Britain or Israel. They will claim that Western agents had infiltrated the demonstrations and were responsible for any deaths that occurred. And even though there were beatings - that much is undeniable - they will remind us that the US itself has had its share of riots, both racially and politically inspired.

However, as time marches on, the common people of Iran will sift through the wreckage and form their own opinion of what happened and why. Personally, I wonder how many of them will ask their local clerics for guidance in identifying those at fault. As for what they can do, should a majority of them decide that regime change is in order, is a good question to which the answer might be: "There's nothing you can do but hope for divine intervention."

Faced with that as an answer, I can understand why some people in search of options give up and become renunciates. Some will even deny any importance at all to whatever transpires in our daily lives - calling it illusion or that which is to be ignored or transcended. I understand this quite well as a US citizen who advocates for spiritual and political changes in my own country, but find avenues for meaningful change choked off or compromised - as if anybody really cares.

Yet, I urge the Iranians to keep the faith. One of my favorite expressions is: There's always a Plan B. If you think long enough, pray hard enough, and stay alert to possibilities, that Plan B will present itself. And it will have macro and micro features - and you will figure out what those are and then you will act accordingly.

Meanwhile, talk to your fellow citizens, even those you don't agree with - even if it's only about soccer. My sense of Iran is that a siege mentality is responsible for the overreaction on the part of the authorities. Part of that stems from the minority status of the Iranian form of Islam within the larger, worldwide Islamic community. Another part, as a result of past foreign intrigues against their country. And yet another part, the result of continuing US-inspired sanctions against Iran.

What Obammer* could have done...but didn't and won't

There were charges of a stolen election in Iran, and then ensuing protests. Obammer* could have made one of his glorious speeches, including these lines:

"I won't throw in my two cents concerning what's going on in Iran right now. But I will offer this: With no strings attached, this country will lift all forms of embargo and sanctions against Iran. This is not done in order to support one faction or another nor to encourage certain behaviors. It is done simply to welcome Iran into the family of nations with no more talk of Axis-of-Evil rogue nations."

Had I been elected US president instead of Obammer*, that is exactly what I would have said...and done. We gain nothing by shunning a nation and trying to gang up the world against it. We only end up radicalizing that nation. As for the level of extremism that already exists, there's a great deal we can do to soften that. And that has everything to do with removing ourselves from this area of the world so as to allow for self-determination.

And that includes telling Israel: "You are no longer under our military protection and will no longer receive our foreign aid. Make peace with your neighbors. You can do this. You must do this. You will do this."

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

"Some of my countrymen worry about what a (so-called) crazed Islamo-Fascist state would to with a nuclear bomb. To them I say: "You should worry more about what we might do with one. After all, the United States was the first nuclear terrorist state" - 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: Iran, Iranian election 2009, Neda Soltani, rogue nations, politics, Axis of Evil

When whimsical particles of light collide

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:28:15 GMT

My question of the day:

Off and on over the decades, I've wondered what happens when photons collide - which of course they do all the time, but humor me on this one : -)

Some definitions (keep these in mind as I expound my whimsy):

According to Wikipedia*:

"...a photon is an elementary particle..the basic "unit" of light...[and] the photon has no rest mass"

[Comment: No "rest mass," eh? No problem: Since photons (that is, particles of light) don't even exist at rest, the whole concept of rest mass doesn't seem to apply to light, for light is never at rest.]

According to answerbag**:

"...a photon is at least a Billion-Trillion times lighter [than an electron]! (most likely its mass is exactly zero)"

[Comment: What you mean by "most likely," White Man?]

According to many sources: Light is a phenomenon that exhibits the properties of waves and particles - this is known as the wave-particle duality.

Increasing the mass of particles is the key

The machines crudely known as atom smashers (more to the point: particle accelerators) do just that. After streams of particles within an atom smasher (for instance, electrons) have been accelerated to near the speed of light, they've substantially increased in mass. These extra-massive electrons are then bombarded into target atoms, thereby disintegrating them into their component parts.

The extra mass which is gained by the process of acceleration is the key. In fact, acceleration is the key. The reason why nothing can travel faster than (or even as fast as) the speed of light has to do with the upper limit this increase-of-mass phenomenon imposes on physical reality.

When an object starts to accelerate - even slowly at first - it gains mass (by the way, never understood how that worked). The faster an object can be made to move, the more massive it becomes. If you could accelerate an object so that it actually reached the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass (which is more mass than that of the entire universe).

Which of course means, no object could ever hit light speed due to this upper limit.

But...photons (which are particles, right?) are already moving at the speed of light, so if they have any mass at all, that mass must be infinite (unless it's special mass - I jest). [I know, I know...this sentence must stand as proof that photons have absolutely no mass when in motion, which adds to what we already know: photons have no rest mass.]

However, in order to assert that light is in some way a "particle," yet has no mass, invites us to the realm where it's possible for particles (other types, above and beyond photons) to "exist" without mass (or, to put it crudely, stuffness). If that can be possible, then one is forced to ask: "Just what exactly is something that has no mass? Can anything without mass be said to have any is-ness whatsoever?"

My crude experiment

I took two flashlights and aimed them at each other, turning them on. I thought about all those photons smacking into each other at the speed of light, each one having all the mass that speed implies. Since accelerated electrons moving near light speed can actually disintegrate atoms, shouldn't these photons disintegrate each other if they suffer head-on-collisions at this highest-possible-speed?

Guess not....turning my two flashlights on didn't smash photons and vaporize me. There was no sudden release of a tremendous amount of energy similar to the kind of energy rush you get when atoms are smashed (as in a nuclear weapon).

But I thought, "Wait a minute. What if we aimed two laser canons at each other and opened fire?" Of course, the timing would have to be exquisite. But what if?

Just thinking...

Light holds a very special place in my heart. In a literal sense, a photon of light "pops" into existence when an atom is excited to a higher energy level. First it doesn't exist, then it does exist. Also special because God said, "Let there be light." First there was no light, then there was. Interesting, in and of itself.

As for any wave-particle duality, maybe a photon "shuttles" back and forth between these two identities and does so so rapidly, even if two photons collided, there wouldn't be any tremendous release of energy due to photon-smashing unless both happened to be in particle mode. If you talk about the odds of that happening, I suppose far greater within a star than in the void of space or even here on earth.

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

"My real interest in light lies in how it enables us to know each other, not in trying to figure out how to use it to obtain more energy. We already have all the energy we need for what's really important to be done. It's just a matter of focusing it and using it wisely" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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

** http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/97627

Tags: speed of light, photon, wave-particle duality, photon smashing, metaphysics, speculation

The Abner Mikva Function vs. the Unknowns

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:50:36 GMT

THESIS:

Today I zero in on what I call the Abner Mikva Function. This makes a distinction between the particular individual known as Abner Mikva and the archetype which that old lion of liberalism represents.

Background:

I saw a photo in the June 11, 2009 issue of the Chicago Tribune, bearing this caption:

"Abner Mikva's integrity is unquestioned."

Whenever I read descriptions like this, I feel like I'm being challenged. So today, I will question Mikva's integrity, though not just to set the record straight. I have a larger reason with which I'll conclude this blog.

I've heard the name Abner Mikva before, since he's a favorite son of my home state of Illinois. So out of curiosity, I read the editorial accompanying his photo. Title of editorial: "U. of I. won't come clean."

With these words, this editorial started me thinking about the larger concept of the Abner Mikva Function, which I'll define in a bit.

QUOTE:

Mikva will chair a blue-ribbon panel exploring the shadow admissions process at the [University of Illinois] revealed in the Tribune series "Clout Goes to College." The Tribune reported that hundreds of well-connected applicants got preferential treatment because of interference from university trustees, lawmakers and other state officials.

:UNQUOTE.

Why I question Mikva's integrity

I started feeling uneasy when I saw the caption under Mikva's photo repeated in the text of the editorial itself: "His integrity is unquestioned." [Side note: Maybe we should start by questioning the integrity/motives of those who claim that certain others have unquestioned integrity.]

Then it hit me. I remember having seen Mikva's name on a motion before the Illinois Supreme Court back in December. His name was among 8 or 9 others (including Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's), listed on a motion attempting to unseat then-Governor Rod Blagojevich. Apparently Madigan and Mikva didn't think the Illinois legislature was moving fast enough to impeach the governor. So they decided to initiate this frivolous lawsuit - one completely without merit - to move things along more quickly.

Mikva says so himself:

QUOTE [article by Mary Wisniewski in Chicago Sun Times, 12/13/08]:

Madigan is being advised by Abner Mikva, White House counsel under President Bill Clinton and a confidant of President-elect Barack Obama. Mikva said Friday he thinks the appeal to the [Illinois] Supreme Court is the "least invasive way" to solve the problem. "It does not try to take over the legislative function," Mikva said. "It invites the Legislature to proceed as rapidly as they can."

:UNQUOTE.

So there it is: Mikva thinks it's proper to file a frivolous lawsuit in order to "invite" the Legislature to move quickly against a sitting governor. And the reason is obvious: The longer the scandal-tainted governor remained in office, the greater the potential damage to President Obammer*. And this is something Mikva wished to avoid, especially after having said:

"If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president." [Note: For the record, Mikva is Jewish. But of course this is irrelevant.]

Mikva undoubtedly, in his heart of hearts (and considering the fact he was a federal judge for 15 years), knew that the Illinois Supreme Court would see through the flimsy arguments he himself had helped draft. In fact, the Illinois high court rejected this lawsuit without comment. That's code for, "this suit is so substantially without merit, it is beneath the dignity of the court to issue any kind of written opinion in response to any of the arguments in the suit itself."

So what exactly did Mikva do wrong?

What did he do wrong? He lent his name to a dishonest enterprise.

He should have responded: "It is a waste of the taxpayers' money for Madigan and her lawyers to be paid to research and prepare a brief for this lawsuit. Their time and talents should be spent pursuing actions which would benefit the state of Illinois's citizens, rather than further the political ambitions of Lisa Madigan. I, for one, refuse to participate in such an unscrupulous venture."

But Mikva didn't say any of that. Instead, he more than participated - he helped lead this doomed lawsuit against Blagojevich, which undoubtedly helped accelerate the governor's impeachment process. Mikva didn't care that he was abusing the court for political purposes. Oh well, stuff happens!

Attorney General Lisa Madigan wants to be the next governor of Illinois, so she had no problem filing a flimsy lawsuit. Even she must have known it would fail, but not before garnering the attention of the press. Press that's all too ready to popularize a grandstanding politician. [Lapdog press. Good press. Roll over and play dead, press.]

But why did Mikva imprint his name on such a shabby effort? Mikva may have been many things in his life, but one thing stands out in my mind: He was an Illinois politician, and they are famously used to dealing in favors and influence peddling. Even though seen as an anti-machine, anti Mayor Daley Democrat, I'm sure he's had his moments of (shall we say) compromise. As a lifelong resident of Illinois, I can make the following unequivocal claim:

"It is impossible to be a veteran Illinois politician without giving up one's integrity." [Too bad, Abner, but you invited this on yourself.]

In fact, if anyone dares to claim that any of our two-party system politicians has unquestionable integrity, I submit that person isn't looking very carefully.

What difference does it make?

Why should I care if an 83-year-old liberal lion sells out - even a little bit? I care because there's more than just one old man at stake. Every state - every political community - has its own version of Abner Mikva (which I collectively refer to as The Abner Mikva Function): An unimpeachable pillar of the community who is trotted out whenever a blue ribbon panel is created. People are reassured by such men, though I say, "Reject them all if they wear a party label."

When the time comes when the new politics starts to gain traction, I dare say we'll be seeing an occasional Abner Mikva come out of the woodwork. They will roll up their sleeves, extend their hands to shake yours, and say, "Let me help you." But I beg you to reject that self-serving, sabotaging hand.

The problem with the Abner Mikvas of the world: They are too much a part of the old politics, men who never objected to occasionally lowering their ethical standards when the greater good demanded it. [Read: the greater good of their party or of their political allies or of Israel or of ... I could go on and on.] These men were molded by the old politics and have it so ingrained in them, they cannot even see how deeply it possesses them.

It does not allow them to envision an alternate universe.

Of course, the alternate universe I'm talking about will be a direct result of the alternative politics I've been blogging about for the past (nearly) three years. Characterized by:

Throwing all Dem/Pubs out of office and replacing them with Independents - preferably those with self-imposed term limits.

Reigning in our politicians by means of voters demanding that any office-seeker run under the terms of a legally-enforceable contract. I did this when I ran against McCain and Obammer* in '08. Link to my contract: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

Replacing the US Constitution, which is beyond mere amendability, with a new Law of the Land based on Cross-Sectional Representation. Link: http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2006/11/replace_the_u_s_constitution

A system of justice which is available to all, and not just to those who can afford it.

Unprecedented transparency and a more level playing field. How can we have a genuine democracy with such a high level of governmental and corporate secrecy? How can we dare to pretend that we have "equal treatment under the law" when our government follows the marching orders of special interests?

The Abner Mikva Function vs. the Unknowns

The biggest problem in moving Non-Partisan Politics forward:

People crave familiarity, but the New Politics will have to be birthed by Davids who are completely unknown. These patient and persistent movers and shakers will not be leading scholars, lawyers (please), philanthropists, elected officials, or the other types of people who populate Blue Ribbon panels. Nor will they be famous. They will come from the ranks of ordinary Americans - the kind of people who read my blog and after a long internal struggle say:

"Why not? We've got to do something. How can I help?"

My answer to that question: Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Our task is difficult but not impossible. Look at it this way:

Blacque Obammer* and Abner Mikva both came from nowhere, but due to the magic that is the state of Illinois, "somehow" they managed to gain prominence. I'm from the state of Illinois, so I'd like to stand as living proof that more than Black Magic is possible here.

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

"The kind of supporters I'm looking for know what is meant by, Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. To the meek I say, When are you going to start to claim your inheritance?" - 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: Abner Mikva, Rod Blagojevich, Illinois politics, politics, Best Party Available, Steven Searle

Obammer* wows 'em in Cairo

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:34:40 GMT

Introduction:

President Blacque Obammer's* speech in Cairo has been highly praised, mostly by people who haven't actually read it.

Today, I will analyze some of Obammer's* text. For over three years, my contention has been: "All we have to do is ignore the hype of fawning media and simply read what Obammer* has to say. It doesn't take long to realize: He's just spouting rhetoric."

Preliminary comments:

Location, location, location: These three hallowed words are taken to heart by businessmen the world over. In this case, Obammer* would have done his cause far greater good by giving his speech in Iran. And by apologizing to the Iranians. Just after he said "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," he should have said, "and for that I wish to extend my profound personal apologies."

But he didn't do that.

There are those who believe: "Being President of the United States means never having to say you're sorry." And others who believe: "Being the United States means never having to say you're sorry." These sentiments are based on arrogance and lead our presidents (Obammer* among them) to avoid atoning for past wrongs but (instead) urging that we move on.

They overlook: The power of a heart-felt apology, uttered at the right moment, can equal the power of (oh, I don't know, say) the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

The Egyptian man in the street: Let's say you're the Egyptian man in the street, listening to Obammer's purty words. What might you be thinking? Something along these lines?

"Yeah, right. The US President has a lot of nerve to speak in my country where the US government has - each year for decades - routinely provided billions of dollars of military aid. This money has been well-spent by President Mubarak to suppress his own people and maintain power for 30 years. Mubarak may well be one of Obammer's* staunchest allies in the war against terror, but Mubarak is no enlightened Muslim leader.

"Just as the Saudi King, to whom Obammer* recently bowed, is not such a leader."

Point vs. Counterpoint: Obammer* vs. Searle

In my usual manner, I will quote from the text of Obammer's* speech (the following "Points"), then follow with my comments (the following "Counterpoints"):

Point:

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

Counterpoint:

Don't forget: I ran against this guy for the presidency and lost (obviously). Which is why this speech didn't contain these (my) words:

"The first issue that we have to confront is the lack of justice which in turn gives rise to violent extremism."

Quite a difference, eh? My view is: Ramp up the level of justice and then the level of violence by extremists will decrease. Obammer's* view is: The level of violence has to be tamped down, then we'll get around to dealing with just solutions (or at least talking about them).

Point:

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* is trying the old "divide and conquer" strategy. He's saying, "I'm trying to talk Muslim governments into siding with me against a ‘small but potent minority of Muslims' who have had their tensions exploited by violent extremists."

He tipped his hand when he said, "...we will do so [defend ourselves] in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened." Actually, Obammer* used the word "partner" or its variants ten times within his speech. And this was no accident. "Partner" is code for "the US seeks to infiltrate and then dominate Muslim institutions, so as to work with complicit Muslim governments against the best interests of their own people."

Obammer*, like most elitists, prefers to work with other elitists - that is, with those who are members of established power structures. I'm sure, though, that the Muslim elite realizes that it is simply not possible to enter into a partnership with the US government in which both sides have equal say. Funny, but things don't tend to work out that way.

I dare say, most Muslims are not interested in "partnering" with the United States at all. They'd rather have us get out of town. They want now what they've always wanted: Non-Muslims to leave Muslim lands.

Point (revisited):

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.

Counterpoint:

Did we respect the sovereignty of Iraq before invading that country under false pretenses?

Did we respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan by seizing on the events of 9/11 to justify destabilizing its government, while intending to do just that well before 9/11? It's been almost 8 years and we still haven't caught bin Laden. That was the reason we went there, right? To smoke out bin Laden?

As for being respectful of "the rule of law," I wish Obammer* had added "when it's convenient." For that is what he surely meant. This in particular sticks in my mind: Our president decided it wasn't very convenient to prosecute Bush Era torturers - not when he's trying to reach out to the other side of the aisle.

Point:

We were born out of revolution against an empire.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* proudly boasts, "[The US was] born out of revolution against an empire." And much later in his speech, he piously claims, "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Obviously, "violence and killing" do succeed, when you can't get what you want from the British Empire by asking nicely.

Then Obammer* had the audacity to claim, "But it was not violence that won full and equal rights [for American blacks]. It was a peaceful and determined insistence..." I assure you, Mr. President, if there had been no race riots, or violent demonstrations, or talk of Black Power revolution, White America would not have been so quick to move on Black grievances. And furthermore, sir, you are being disrespectful of the martyrs who'd died in that violence by pretending that only "peaceful and determined insistence" won the day.

Point:

We did not go by choice [to Afghanistan], we went because of necessity.

Counterpoint:

Bull shit, Mr. President! You slyly understated our history with your choice of verbs - when you said "we did not go by choice..." Go?! What the hell is go supposed to mean? For we did not (just) go to that country, we invaded and occupied for over 7 years.

So let's please not say go, shall we? Let's call it what it was - "invade and occupy" - for I believe in calling a spade a spade. It was not necessary in the first place to invade Afghanistan. We went for two reasons:

We had preordained, before 9/11, that the Taliban government had to go (something to do with an oil pipeline).

We invaded Afghanistan to satisfy the emotional needs of a weak, insecure President to appear as a strong man seeking his right of revenge; the same man who did everything he could to undermine the work of the 9/11 Commission.

Since when is it "necessary" to invade a country (not to mention occupying it for eight years) in order to protect our citizens, when they would have been quite adequately protected had our intelligence services been doing their jobs? And our Air Force not been ordered to "stand down" instead of following normal protocols regarding hijacked airliners?

Point:

I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody

Counterpoint:

I, for one, question the events of 9/11: Here's one question: Why isn't the Obammer* administration reopening the investigation into the causes behind the 9/11 attacks?

Let's be clear about this, Mr. President: Democrats and Republicans alike seemed awfully quick to downplay any possibility that actors within our own military/security forces and their leaders aided and abetted those attacks. I know that 3,000 people died on that day, but I'm not convinced that al Qaeda was the only party responsible.

And as for those 3,000 being "innocent," now comes the part that's hard for me to say (only because I know it's hard for non-Buddhists to hear, but hear it they must):

"There is no such thing as an innocent death. People die when they do and under particular circumstances for reasons; karmic reasons which can extend back myriad lifetimes."

The easiest way to look at this: Most, if not all, of the Trade Center employees who died that day paid taxes. Those taxes went to pay for wars and covert actions which are harmful to brown people the world over. Many of them were employed in the financial services industry and had routinely (all in a day's work) utilized their corporate leverage to expand our power at the expense of...it's always at the expense of someone else whom we never lay eyes on. So those people were not entirely "innocent," were they?

It could be argued that even those who had escaped from the WTC towers that day had also paid their taxes. And maybe they lived more sinful lives than those who'd perished. What of that? That's where due consideration has to be given to the kind of life lived in previous existences. But only a Buddha is capable of that kind of consideration.

It is improper for a Buddhist to speak of "innocent" lives being taken. There is no innocence. We all have a variety of merits and demerits accrued to us, even as we wait in the womb to be born. But ... Obammer* isn't a Buddhist; perhaps that will come to weigh against him very heavily. And against us.

Point:

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home [from Afghanistan] if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

Counterpoint:

Again, bull shit, Mr. President. Who are you kidding? [Well, not me, for one; for I had you figured out fairly early on.]

For one thing, I'm sure there are "violent extremists" in Iran who would dearly love to "kill as many Americans as they possibly can." But of course, they can't. Because they are over there and we are over here. And they can't get here from there. But maybe you'll want to invade and occupy Iran, Mr. President, just to (you know) be sure the bad guys can't ever find a way to get at us.

And it goes without saying, Mr. President, that you would not bring every single one of our troops home if doing so would mean the Taliban would seize power (again).

Point:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.

Counterpoint:

What?! Didn't you know? Iraq was a war of necessity, since "everybody" honestly, really, truly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to manifest mushroom clouds over our cities.

Point:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people ...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Counterpoint:

They have endured the pain of "dislocation?" Dislocation?! How about using these words instead: "...the pain of having their land and homes seized from them at the hands of a self-righteous and self-absorbed people?"

Palestinians endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation? How about telling it this way: "They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come at the hands of an Israeli aggressor that has no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state to come into existence." What part of "ever" don't you understand?

Point:

That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.

Counterpoint:

Ah, that magic word "patience." Yes, siree, Bob. We all know that progress in the Middle East - justice for the Palestinians - won't come overnight. Got to have patience - lots of it (which is code for "don't hold your breath"). Tell that to those who have lived their entire lives in a refugee camp. No wonder you gave that speech in a university with a carefully selected audience. Spewing that crap on the streets of Gaza City would have gotten you stoned.

Point:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Counterpoint:

Notice that Obammer* didn't say, "It is time for these settlements to stop and to be transferred to the sovereign control of the Palestinians who might or might not decide to allow Jews to continue living in their country."

Obammer* can say anything he wants about the settlements or about a Two State solution. But he won't do squat. In fact, if the Israeli leadership tells him to jump, he'll ask "How high?" as he continues writing annual, multi-billion dollar checks as our leaders have done for 30 years. [No, Jimmy Carter, all that Camp David money didn't buy us peace after all, now did it?]

Point:

To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Counterpoint:

All of this talk of recognizing Israel's right to exist is premature, isn't it? I mean, aren't we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? If so, then that's only a status that can be granted by one country to another. So if Palestine is not yet an independent nation, why are we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? Again, "all of this talk" is premature.

Point:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.

Counterpoint:

Very interesting. "Each nation" does this? Does that include North Korea? China? Myanmar? Any of the petty little dictatorships we've routinely propped up? Do they give "life to this principle?"

Point:

... all of us [in America] share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.

Counterpoint:

Hold on thar, pardner! What do you mean "and our God?" You're supposed to be the President of the United States, so why are you talking God talk while acting in your official capacity?

I, for one, am a Buddhist who does not believe in this "our God" (of the Abrahamic faiths) to whom you refer. As a matter of fact, I believe the Middle East will remain in a permanent state of siege precisely because of this devotion to the Abrahamic God. Unless this false faith is abandoned, and replaced by compassionate Buddhist practice, the Middle East will remain what it is now:

A desert realm so destitute of greenery and the milk of human kindness that calling it a Holy Land makes a mockery of that term.

Closing Comments

I don't know - maybe it's just me. But every time I hear Obammer* speak, I think of that old tune by the Chiffons called Sweet Talkin' Guy. The first two lines go like this:

Sweet talkin' guy, talking sweet kinda lies

Don't you believe in him, if you do he'll make you cry.

If you think that sounds like a warning...well, that's exactly what it is.

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

"My friends consider me to be a reasonably charitable guy. Believe me, I would love to be more charitable to our president. But reading his words rapidly drains me of that impulse" - 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, Buddhism, Palestine, Obama speech Cairo, Israeli settlements

President Searle vs. the Torture Mongers

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:41:19 GMT

Executive Order (had I been elected president):

Effective immediately, all prisoners in the custody of any agency of the US government, including CIA and military, shall be treated by their captors in accordance with the following rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...unless you happen to be a sadist, in which case: Do the opposite.

Refuting the culture of the legalizing enabler

When I wrote "Do the opposite" (above), I was being a bit whimsical. Unfortunately, there are people who believe such addenda are necessary. These same people read credit card agreements for enjoyment - the more fine print, the better. It won't be easy to turn back the influence of the overly-legalistic. But had I been elected president instead of Blacque Obammer*, I would have made a start by laying down this law in exactly these words:

The United States will never torture again.

All** whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

It's not good enough to (merely) say we will no longer torture or abuse prisoners of war. It's not good enough to declare what we won't do. We must assert what we will do - and then live by those words.

The Torture Mongers

Today, I mention only two of them by name: Senator (surprise!) John McCain and Charles Krauthammer, the latter of whom had written:

QUOTE:

This month, I wrote a column outlining two exceptions to the no-torture rule: the ticking time bomb scenario and its less extreme variant in which a high-value terrorist refuses to divulge crucial information that could save innocent lives....Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable.

:UNQUOTE [Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2009: "Few signs of torture debate losing steam"]

The no-torture principle is not inviolable - so these Mongers would have you believe. But what about the no-torture laws - do they define situations where torture is permissible? [Answer: No] If the dynamic duo of McCain and Krauthamer don't like our no-torture laws, then I respectfully suggest they change them. Ignoring these laws (or "creatively" interpreting them), thereby allowing torture, is not an option.

John McCain, you of all people should know better.

All lawbreakers are equal in my eyes

Commander in Chief Steven Searle would have already ordered the arrest of all US agents who had engaged in torture during the Dubya Era and thrown the entire resources of the Justice Department at them in prosecution. I reject this defense: "But White House legal counsel said it was okay."

My response: "White House counsel was so obviously wrong, no reasonable man could possibly have expected to use their legal opinion as a shield. Our anti-torture laws clearly prohibit torture. Sorry, guys...you chose to break the law, so you're going down."

Perhaps a court or a jury would "choose" not to convict Dubya Era torturers, but I would not let them go so easily. Though they might escape conviction, I wouldn't let that stop me from firing them. I can hear the hue and cry now: "What!? How could you prosecute these heroes? The information they got thwarted terrorist attacks and saved lives."

Okay, let's talk about heroes, shall we?

Let's get this out of the way first: Frankly, I don't think it takes much of a hero to torture a helpless prisoner.

However, many might think it heroic to torture a prisoner if the torturer knew he'd be prosecuted for his illegal activity. Or that he'd lose his job, even though not necessarily convicted in court. Or that this president would not grant him a pardon, even if his torturing led to information which saved lives.

I will state in no uncertain terms what I would think of such a torturer: A phony, self-glorifying, patriot-in-mind-only who decided to take the law into his own hands. Someone who decided not to follow orders, simply because his intentions were good and he thought he knew better. I am aware that there are so-called "independent" operators within our military and our CIA, who think they know better and therefore decide to operate outside the chain of command. They are far more dangerous to our democracy than any sleeper cells awaiting orders from Osama bin Laden.

My policy would be to forbid any of our forces to take any action based on intelligence obtained by torture. Translation? Here, I'll put it in plain English:

"Even if a tortured suspect revealed the exact location within Washington DC at which a terrorist organization's nuclear explosive was hidden, my inviolable order would be: Our forces would be forbidden from acting upon this information in any attempt to neutralize this weapon. And by ‘acting upon,' I mean: Tell no one, not even local law enforcement or the general public."

Also, in plain English: "If I happened to be in Washington DC at this time, I would not leave upon being informed of scheduled detonation - imminent or otherwise. I would stay put and make no effort to seek shelter."

Tell me, would that make me a hero? [This is not a rhetorical question, but it is one that only a Buddhist could answer correctly.]

What's the meaning of this outrageous policy?

Of course I have an underlying reason for tenaciously insisting: "The United States will never torture again." And backing that up by forbidding response to any information gained by means of torture. That's my way of saying: "I know you'll want to torture just this once, but forget it. Nothing you gain by such means will be used...period. So just put such thoughts out of your head."

When I say, "The United States will never torture again," I don't say so in the manner of Bush the Elder when he'd famously declared, "Read my lips: no new taxes." Make no mistake about this: In no way, shape, or form am I anything like Bush the Elder. My role model is Shakyamuni Buddha; if he were head of state, he would never say "Let's do torture!"

I say this to those who would consider doing us harm:

"I don't buy into the Axis of Evil thinking promoted by some of our pandering leaders. The suicide bomber is not the devil incarnate. Desperation pushes people into such a role. I am convinced that my other policies*** will reduce that level of desperation and will make the entire world, not just the United States, a safer place in which to live.

"When I say ‘The United States will never torture again,' I am hoping you will believe those words; that you will accept my olive branch; that you will accept my offer to work with you but not dictate terms to you. I hope my orders to immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan persuade you of my intentions to honor the principle of self-determination. If not, then I hope my other policies*** will persuade you."

Beware of overrated threat scenarios:

Tell me, how many suicide bombings have taken place on American soil since 9/11? How many acts of sabotage have been committed by Muslims living in this country over these last eight years? And don't tell me, "None, because our police and intelligence communities have done such a great job."

Most people who live here like it here - and want to prosper and see their children benefit in this land of opportunity. That's the overwhelming reason for the non-existent level of terrorist activity in the United States.

As for any malevolents who would attack, for instance, the Sears Tower:

If they were connected to Al Qaida et al, they would only end up severely damaging their cause, perhaps fatally, in the name of spiting my overtures;

If they weren't connected to Al Qaida et al, they would probably be False Flag operators within our own military.

In closing

Concerning the "all" which I'd double-asterisked above (to repeat):

All** whom we encounter will be treated with

the utmost respect and dignity.

I suppose "ah ha, gotcha" types will sniff: "You can't possibly mean all whom we'd encounter. What about armed soldiers our troops meet on the battlefield? Huh, huh, huh? Bet you didn't think about that."

Actually, I have thought about that. If one soldier kills another on the field of battle, I can view that as a form of treatment "with the utmost respect and dignity." But this would have to mean not killing him slowly just to "make a point" and not mutilating his corpse. It also means not killing a village of 100 civilians in order to get at 20 insurgents - and then piously calling that "collateral damage." Viewing in this manner is what leads civilized nations to develop Rules of Warfare and equitable treatment of prisoners.

Believe it or not: It is possible to be a soldier who goes about killing his counterparts - without actually hating them. Hate is a sign of weakness and - truth be told - makes for a bad soldier.

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

Would I be impractical, as US president, in being so extreme in opposing torture? Quite the opposite, I dare say. The United States is being most impractical, working in opposition to its own best interests, by continuing its policy of waffling on torture. To President Obammer* I ask, Is any of this sinking 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

*** The "policies" referred to are listed in my Electoral Contract:

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

Tags: torture, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer, terrorism

Kathleen Parker: Apologist for Torture

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:05:55 GMT

Who is Kathleen Parker and why should we care?

I only know Ms. Parker by having on occasion read her widely-syndicated newspaper columns. Apparently she's quite famous and well-regarded - especially in more conservative circles - having won the H.L. Mencken Writing Award back in 1993.

Opinion-shapers like her, with an audience of millions of fans, are especially dangerous when they express ideas which ought to be (and can easily be) decisively refuted, but aren't. Hence my effort today: To repudiate one of her recent columns.

Introductory Comment

All quotes appearing below, minus those specifically attributed to someone else, are from Parker's column which appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 18, 2009:

Title: "Torture memos" as legal interpretation

Quotes and Comments

Quote:

Yet, there we were, an attorney and I, poring over memos about waterboarding as if they were weekend real estate ads.

Comment:

I'm going out on a limb here, since nowhere in her pitiful little essay does she identify this "attorney:" I believe this "attorney" is her husband. I also believe she kept this fact to herself for two good reasons:

To lend gravitas to her words: It sounds better to say "an attorney," than to say "I ran this by my husband, who happens to be an attorney." Sounds to me like she was too lazy to be bothered with trying to obtain more than one opinion (kind of like Dubya himself).

If I were this unnamed attorney, there's no way I'd want my good name and reputation attached to this column if, for no other reason, its brevity. Way too short, at less than 800 words, to allow for any in-depth analysis.

QUOTE:

It is easy now to declare that waterboarding is torture.

COMMENT:

And it was just as easy then, when Bybee et al [rubber-stampingly] approved waterboarding as a legal option.

Of course, Parker is trying to say that the emotional climate now makes it easier "to declare that waterboarding is torture," compared to the time when Bybee & Co. wrote their memo. Back then, of course, we "had" to give the CIA any and every imaginable tool to coerce their prisoners into revealing when and where the next hijacked airliner was going to crash into a famous American landmark.

But...there's a problem with this emotional climate argument. Bybee et al had been asked to render a legal opinion, not an emotional one. They were asked "to interpret whether 10 interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, would violate the 1994 statute prohibiting torture." All Team Bybee had to do was interpret the law; I don't recall that they had been subjected to torture or had been so emotionally traumatized as to pervert their judgment.

If so, whatever happened to the cool, aloof, "just-the-facts ma'am" legal professional?

QUOTE:

Keep in mind: Terrorist chatter at the time was comparable to pre-Sept. 11 levels. And the CIA had determined that Zubaida had crucial information about another attack.

COMMENT:

So, there it is - the underpinning of her entire essay: Ms. Parker is telling us to "Keep [certain factors] in mind." That's what makes the difference in certain actions being legal, when ordinarily not so. Again, what has the situation on the ground have to do with whether or not that 1994 statute was meant to forbid (among other techniques) waterboarding? The last time I checked, statutes don't include language like this:

"Certain practical matters must be kept in mind when determining whether or not an interrogation technique qualifies as torture."

That smacks too much of the moral relativism which conservatives are supposed to oppose. [Kathleen, is any of this getting through to you?]

QUOTE:

It [the 1994 statute prohibiting torture] defines torture as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

COMMENT:

Torture may be defined as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" [I'd say it's difficult to endure the sensation of drowning; the sensation you're about to lose your life] and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury..."

Ah, "serious physical injury," you say? Does that mean it's okay for our agents to shove bamboo splinters under a prisoner's fingernails? That surely must be okay, since there's no "serious physical injury," certainly not even remotely approaching actual organ failure or impairment of bodily function.

As for "impairment of bodily function": Wouldn't you agree that it's an "impairment of bodily function" to interfere with breathing? How about not allowing a prisoner to take a crap? No one's talked about that, but you may be very sure that our guards weren't always very quick to allow a shackled prisoner to defecate when needed. Of course such a guard could always claim: "Hey, I never touched him." [Yeah, right!]

I have to ask a crucial question here: Why should any agent of the US be permitted to inflict any kind or degree of pain on any prisoner under his control? Don't forget: A prisoner is a helpless human being totally at the mercy of his guards.

As soon as we allow for even the possibility of inflicting pain on the helpless, then we open ugly doors: How much pain and under what circumstances?

Why don't we extend this permission to inflict pain to those who are guarding felons in county jails all over the country? As long as it's not severe enough to be called torture, why not allow for the systematic infliction of pain? That would certainly deter any criminal from ever wanting to return to prison. Of course, such a criminal might kill someone to avoid returning to prison, knowing that a daily dose of [what, in someone else's opinion, is] reasonably tolerable pain awaits him.

Such a killing would be seen simply as one prisoner's over-reaction, now wouldn't it? But then, it's not unusual to overreact, is it? When are we going to start being better people by not overreacting and not condoning overreaction?

QUOTE:

The Japanese forced water into the prisoner's nose and mouth. In our own version, the prisoner's mouth and nose are covered with a cloth that is saturated with water for no more than 20-40 seconds in a controlled manner. No water enters the lungs.

COMMENT:

It seems Parker is now talking about degrees of abusing prisoners, which (in her view) fall short of torture.

"20-40 seconds," you say? But who's counting and how? Stopwatch, anyone? Naw, let's just count it out: one (pause), two (pause), three (yawn and yawn again), four (time to take a drag out of my cigarette), fiiiiivvvvveeeee...(well, you get the idea).

"In a controlled manner," you say? Are we talking about the rate of water flow? Or the angle at which the waterboard is tilted? Is it okay to punch the guy in the stomach first? Ooph..out goes all the air. Okay, start pouring the water.

How thick is the cloth being used? Or could that be so thin there might as well not even be a cloth?

"No water enters the lungs." Says who? Or maybe Parker meant to say, "No appreciable amount of water enters the lungs." [The Buddha warned about people who cheat others with measures and scales. Could those be the scales of perverted justice?]

QUOTE:

Moreover, the same technique [waterboarding] is used to train our own military personnel, who do not suffer severe physical pain or prolonged mental harm.

COMMENT:

And how, Kathleen Parker, do you know this? Of course, when you say "the same technique," you don't say anything about frequency. Ah, yes. Nothing in your sorry essay says anything about frequency, and I doubt Bybee addressed that in his memo either. How could he, for then he might have to conclude that "too often" constitutes torture? And he didn't want to go there.

I wonder how Bybee might answer this question: Would you consider Chinese Water Torture to be barred under the 1994 statute? [In that case, "too often" (drip, drip, drip) is exactly the point.]

As events have revealed, frequency was indeed an important consideration - at least in the field:

QUOTE [from: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects]:

The CIA officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum.

The 2005 memo also says that the CIA used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo released Thursday said waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted.

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times, 4/19/09, Scott Shane]

The hell, you say: "...used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted"...??? So much for the "controlled manner" praised by Ms. Parker. And since CIA rules were violated, I'm sure Kathleen Parker would be the first in line to insist that these violators be punished. [Yeah, right!]

QUOTE:

Even if Bybee and Yoo were wrong, their error doesn't rise to the level of an ethical offense, much less a war crime. Under the Justice Department's own standards, an ethical issue would arise only if their opinion was so obviously wrong that no reasonable lawyer could possibly reach the same conclusion.

COMMENT:

So that's the standard, eh? All Kathleen Parker has to do is find one single solitary "reasonable" lawyer to go along with Bybee's nonsense in order to exonerate his abuse of the public's trust? Maybe she's found one: her husband, attorney-at-law. I wonder how he stands versus the opinion of the following gentleman:

"Yale law school Dean...Harold Koh called [Bybee's memo] ‘perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read'"...[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo#Criticism ]

Bybee and Yoo were wrong and they surely knew this when setting pen to paper. They both worked for a White House which was quite intolerant of dissent, so they knew exactly what kind of opinion they were expected to render.

In Bybee's case, he was richly rewarded by President Bush with a lifetime appointment to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I call that "corruption" at best, fruits of a "war crime" at worst. [Yes, I'll call it a war crime.] The cynical, though, would wink and nod and say, "Not a bad day's pay indeed."

Yes, I think Bybee should be impeached and imprisoned, for he enabled torture. Guys out in the field could use his legal opinion as a shield against criminal prosecution, which was the whole idea in the first place. An idea which Blaque Obammer* is sustaining by disallowing prosecutions of those who thought they were "just following [lawful] orders." [Ignorance of the law is now a permissible excuse, especially when the torturer can say he had a lawyer's permission to proceed.]

QUOTE:

In testimony before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, law professor Michael Paulsen predicted that "presidents and administrations of both parties will not obtain candid, vigorous legal advice reflecting the full range of views, on sensitive matters of war, foreign affairs and national security."

COMMENT:

The only kind of legal advice that's important is accurate legal advice. Advice cannot be "candid," when it is requested by a President who expects certain answers. As for advice being "vigorous," what the hell could that possibly mean? I will accept accurate over vigorous any time.

QUOTE:

America's enemies could hope for no more.

COMMENT:

No, Kathleen Parker, I'll tell you what America's enemies could hope for more of:

Presidents who intimidate their legal counselors into rendering indefensible, inaccurate, and politically expedient opinions.

Syndicated columnists who don't rise up and say, "America must stop torturing."

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

"Frankly, it was a tortuous experience for me to ponder the import of Kathleen Parker's hideous, small-minded essay. Worst of all? Realizing there are untold thousands of yahoos out in Numb-Numb land who are applauding her, not realizing what it's doing to the country they pretend to love" - 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: Torture Memo, waterboarding, Bybee, Dubya, Kathleen Parker, criminal justice, torture

Just who is the G-20 trying to kid?

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:56:46 GMT

INTRO

"US President Obama's negotiation skills surprised many leaders" - a caption appearing under Blacque Obammer's* photo, which appeared in an April 3, 2009 article from MercoPress: South Atlantic News Agency.

The "set up"

I wasn't surprised when hearing of Obammer's* previously unsuspected "negotiation skills." How could anybody be surprised, after taking a moment to think about the circumstances? The G-20 conference was about to end and Obammer* makes a dramatic overture which leads to an agreement between Hu of China and Sarkozy of France.

QUOTE:

Heading into the summit's final hours, however, it appeared that the group would fail to reach a consensus, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed to have the G-20 spotlight offending tax havens based on a list published Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and China objected, largely because it doesn't belong to the OECD.

That was when Obama, long a champion of ending or curbing tax havens, decided to float a compromise and pulled Sarkozy aside ....

Obama proposed that the G-20 merely "take note" of the OECD list, thus opening the door to implicit but not direct endorsement of that list...

Obama then met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Sarkozy in a corner of the summit meeting room, as the other world leaders waited.

Upon the trio's reaching agreement, the G-20 summit then agreed to note the list of tax havens.

Sarkozy, who'd threatened days earlier to walk out of the summit if he didn't get his way, said the final agreement represented "great progress."

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 1]

My contention

I contend Sarkozy never had any intention of walking out of the summit. He merely postured so as to provide Obammer* with a chance to look good. Even though we Americans are stuck with an inexperienced and naïve president, the summit realized:

"For better or worse, we're also stuck with this guy, so we'd better make him look as good as possible."

And why not? The richest economies in the world wanted to project an aura of unity with a suave, masterful, unifying force at the helm. The name of the game is con: As in building up the confidence of the major financial players and markets of the world. But I mean con in another way: As in conning the common citizens of the G-20 into thinking, "These guys know what they're doing - you'll see, everything will be coming up roses. They look so confident!"

No doubt about it: The whole game plan was to make Obammer* look good and to fool the masses of simpletons who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.

The need for transparency - now more than ever

QUOTE:

The list on the OECD site is obviously the result of a lot of political horsetrading - would you believe for example, after all the recent hype, that the OECD does not list Luxembourg and Switzerland as tax havens? And how on earth did Chile get on the list - did you ever hear anything about offshore banking in Chile? While Hong Kong, a major offshore financial hub, escaped listing altogether, for fears of upsetting the Chinese.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2]

Ah, that last sentence: "...for fears of upsetting the Chinese." I wonder if Chinese President Hu Jintao has any of his personal fortune socked away in Hong Kong. Perhaps that's why he objected as he did during the summit.

The nations of the OECD and the G-20 don't care about the financial well being of the planet. Like all monopolistic trusts, they care only about strengthening their market position. Especially if their posturings and policies provide max benefit for their political elites. This agenda does not bode well for anyone who isn't a member of the club - which is most of us.

Insist on transparency

I envision a world in which there are no secret bank accounts (sorry Switzerland) - where all financial information is mandated to be open, transparent, and accessible to any member of the public, foreign or domestic. This even extends to making all personal and business tax returns public.

Some will claim, "How much I make, how I spend my money, and where I put it is none of your business."

As things stand right now, that's true - but only as far as the general public is concerned. You can't tell a bank "none of your business" if you want a loan and your creditworthiness must be verified. We should put all the cards on the table - face up. That is, I advocate total economic disclosure starting with anyone who aspires for (or currently holds) political office. But - I do mean "total" and that would eventually include everybody.

The easy way to defend this: Consider such disclosure to be the cost of doing business. That is, in order to benefit from the economic web, disclosure and transparency should be considered the price that must be paid. But this is a price which, if paid, benefits everybody. For only with all the cards on the table can we get a handle on the overall health of the economy so as to better regulate and stimulate it. [How many times have professional economists been surprised when their projections are undermined by the unknown and hidden?]

I'm a very private person. But by that I mean, "in regard to my thoughts and feelings." I don't care who knows the extent of my "vast" holdings. The government, for sure, knows and I don't even like them. So why should I care if my neighbor (who I do like) knows? To those who would object to this kind of openness, I can only suggest that they weigh the alternative: We're running out of time and don't have the luxury of waiting and hoping for miracles that will make the debt bomb(s) go away and keep hidden all of our (sometimes dirty) little secrets.

I know my proposal won't win me many friends. Quite frankly, though, I don't see any other way.

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

"Not always, but quite often, it's been my experience: When someone asserts, "None of your business," he's hiding something; even if only insecurity and mistrust" - 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

Footnote 1: "G-20 reaches accord after Obama steps in to broker a deal" = title of article by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspaper, dated 4/2/09: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65353.html

Footnote 2: "The Complete OECD Tax Haven Blacklist," by Peter Macfarlane, Offshore Banking expert for The Q Wealth Report.

Tags: Sarkozy, G-20, OECD, off-shore tax havens, Obama, politics, Best Party Available, Steven Searle

Israel's loyalty oath: Our brother's "keeper"

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:46:42 GMT

QUESTION: Are we not our brother's keeper?

ANSWER: If your name is Avigdor Lieberman, then you will answer "no" to this question - especially if the "brother" in question is an Arab Israeli citizen.

BACKGROUND (going way back):

The question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - goes way back to the time of Cain and Abel. Maybe Lieberman would consider answering that question in the affirmative - but only after duly noting that Arabs and Jews are not brothers, but are instead half-brothers. Same father (Abraham) but two different mothers. Hagar (a slave) was the mother of the first-born Ishmael, who became the founding patriarch of the Arab people. Sarah (Abraham's wife) was the mother of the second-born Isaac, who became the founding patriarch of the Jewish people.

By the way, it was Sarah's idea that Abraham (er) beget via Hagar.

Lieberman contemplates enacting sinful legislation

Right-wing Israeli Jews, loyal to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's "Israel is our Home" party, are contemplating a means of humiliating Israel's Arab citizens. The "means" is a proposed loyalty oath for all Israeli citizens to be taken upon reaching age 18. "Those who refuse to take this oath will become ‘residents' of Israel and lose their status as citizens," according to Abraham Foxman, National Director of the (U.S.) Anti-Defamation League.

QUOTE [referring to Lieberman]:

His loyalty oath would require all Israelis to vow allegiance to Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, to accept its symbols, flag and anthem, and to commit to military service or some alternative service. Those who declined to sign such a pledge would be permitted to live here as residents but not as voting citizens...

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times' article by Ethan Bronner, published 2/8/09: "A Hard-Liner Gains Ground in Israel"].

Why a Jew might not want to take such an oath

Lieberman is attempting to force the will of a majority on a minority. That should send shudders down the spines of Jews who remember what it was like to be in the minority while living in other countries. American Jews (and other Americans) who lived in the US during the McCarthy Era know full well that loyalty oaths are meant to be repressive.

At one extreme, mandating the swearing of such an oath is simply a matter of one group (the majority who passes such knee-jerk laws) telling another group (a minority) what it must swear or affirm. Basically, nobody likes to be told what to do or say, nor should they be as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

At the other extreme, we have badly-conceived loyalty oaths, which contain language like this:

"I am not now nor have I ever been a member of an organization which advocates the violent overthrow of the US government."

Although, on the surface, this seems reasonable, there is a powerful retort:

"But sir, my organization does advocate the violent overthrow of the US government in the event that government violently and unconstitutionally attempts to suppress the basic human rights of the American people. The Founding Fathers themselves could not honor the loyalty oath you're proposing."

Another consideration: Suppose I am an Israeli Jew who converts to Buddhism. Am I supposed to swear an oath which, at its core, insists that Israel forever remain a Jewish state? As a Jew, I wouldn't dare try to force such an oath on a fellow Jew. Actually, this ties in to one of my earlier themes: Peace will not be realized in the Middle East until its peoples - Muslims and Jews alike - convert to Buddhism. For it's painfully obvious that people of the Abrahamic faiths - even though they be brothers (alright, half-brothers, if you prefer) - can't get along and will always hate each other, especially if they happen to be neighbors.

What about the Constitution: Any Israeli citizen should be concerned about enacting any law that would strip any Israeli of his citizenship. Not sure such a law would even be constitutional.

Why an Arab Israeli citizen would not want to take such an oath

Let's look at the Israeli national anthem, which this oath would make incumbent on all Israeli citizens:

QUOTE [English translation of The Hope]:

As long as in the heart, within,

A Jewish soul still yearns,

And onward, towards the ends of the east,

An eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope of two thousand years,

To be a free people in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

:UNQUOTE.

This "national" anthem presupposes that Arab Israeli citizens have Jewish souls? No, not really: More likely, it's a crude attempt to rub their half-brother's noses in it. And of course there's that last line: "the land of Zion and [here it comes] Jerusalem." Last time I checked, Muslims didn't seem too keen on ceding all of Jerusalem to Israel.

Become a Light Unto all Nations

I've lived my entire life in the United States, hearing these claims oft repeated:

The Jews are a Chosen People, and Israel is supposed to be a light unto all nations.

Quotes and my Responses

QUOTE [see Footnote 1]:

The Torah teaches us that the opposite is true:

"Learn and observe [the Torah] for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear of all these laws and proclaim that this is truly a great, wise and understanding nation." (Deut. 4:6)

It is clear that the Torah attaches importance to the respect given us by the nations of the world.

RESPONSE:

The "eyes of the nations" of the world do not see Israel as having "wisdom and understanding." Many of the "nations of the world" (or at least their governments) respect Israel - at least begrudgingly. Most of the peoples of the world, however, do not respect Israeli "wisdom and understanding." A casual observer might reflect: "Just as a son abused by his father can grow up to be a father abusive of his own son, so it is that people who are oppressed can become oppressors."

My question is: When do the formerly abused rise above their memories of the past?

QUOTE [see Footnote 1 - again]:

We, the Nation of Priests, represent God to the world by our exemplary lifestyle, and imbue the world with knowledge of His existence:

"We are a light unto the nations." (Isaiah 42:6)

RESPONSE:

Where is your "exemplary lifestyle?" You have so much, yet your fellow citizen (not to mention your other half-brothers who are Palestinian) have so little. And you want even more? You are not a Nation of Priests but of fearful, greedy little men who (really) worship your nuclear weapons. God does not dwell among you - He could not stand the lack of brotherly love.

In all fairness, though, there are Muslims who have been and continue to be abusive to Jews. I won't quantify and compare here, though, since I think it's unbecoming for anyone to say: "My neighbor's bad conduct toward me justifies my bad conduct toward him." Personally, I try my damnedest to avoid allowing anything my neighbor does to poison my view of the world or to make me lash out. Doing so would simply give any such malevolent way too much power.

QUOTE [see footnote 2]:

In a novel interpretation of the name [Ishmael] - which literally means ‘God will [in the future] hear' - he explains that "God will hear the cries of the people arising from the oppression which the children of [Ishmael] will bring about in the land [of Israel] in the end of days."

RESPONSE:

Could my eyes be deceiving me? Is this quote asserting that Muslims will be oppressing Jews in Israel just before the end of the world? Will this be yet another case of an oppressed group becoming oppressors? I certainly hope this vicious cycle will end - way before the End of Days (which, by the way, I don't happen to believe in).

Far more interesting to me, though, is the name Ishmael and its meaning: "God will [in the future] hear." Pray tell, just what is it that God will be hearing?

Final Thought on Abraham Himself

I hate to say it, but somebody must, simply because it's too obvious:

Abraham seems to have been a real dick who didn't love his first born and didn't have balls enough to stand up to his wife and say: "I won't banish my son Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. You're going to have to simply learn to get along." [Personal feeling? I think that's what God was hoping Abraham would say.]

But because he didn't say that, we're all paying a heavy price to this very day - for a continuing failure to get along.

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

"It's a good thing Avigdor Lieberman isn't the Defense Minister. Then he might have to deal with certain Arab Israeli citizens who would be more than willing to take his oath for the sole purpose of insisting that they be allowed to "serve" in Israel's army. Avigdor, have you thought this thing out very carefully?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Footnote 1: http://www.aish.com/torahportion/outlooksandinsights/Light_Unto_the_Nations.asp ]

Footnote 2: God Regrets Four Things by Mois Navon, pg. 183

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: religion, Abrahamic faith, Abraham, faith, Buddhism in the Middle East, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel, Israeli politics, Arab Israeli citziens

Opening a can of whoop ass

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:43:02 GMT

Key question: "Why didn't you tell them you were cops?"

The "whoop ass" quote:

Purists would point out: The word is pronounced whup, not whoooop. This is from Judge Gainer's recent opinion, in which he ignored the blatantly illegal conduct of three Chicago police officers, setting them free:

QUOTE:

[The Prosecutor]: Judge, he [Officer Paul Powers] wants to open a can of whoop ass on our victims and their friends.

:UNQUOTE.

So that's what it's come to, eh?

In a court of law, a public prosecutor uses language like that and the judge says...nothing? Actually, a lot of people who should have said a lot more, didn't. Members of the press, that is.

The only reason I'm writing about this case is because no one else has...but should have.

Themes:

A local judge supports local law enforcement by means of a highly-suspect acquittal. I've lived in Chicago most of my life, so I am not surprised at this. I reserve my greater criticism for local media for failing miserably in their coverage of certain aspects of this trial. As far as the victims are concerned, all I can say is: I'm happy to learn they'd initiated a federal lawsuit against these officers.

One of the saddest truisms concerning our legal system: "It's far easier to get justice at the federal rather than at the local level."

The Acquittal

QUOTE:

A Chicago police sergeant and two officers were acquitted today in connection with the off-duty beating of several patrons at a West Loop bar in December 2006.

Following a bench trial several weeks ago, Circuit Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr. found Sgt. Jeffery Planey and Officers Gregory Barnes and Paul Powers not guilty of aggravated battery charges in the attack at the Jefferson Tap and Grille.

:UNQUOTE [ article by April 28, 2009, Matthew Walberg, Chicago Tribune ]

Background:

On Dec. 15, 2006, after 3:30 a.m., there was the beginning of a physical confrontation between two groups in a bar. The first group: four young businessmen playing pool. The second group: six off-duty police officers, not in uniform, in another area of this bar. There were 10 video cameras on premises (inside and outside the bar), tapes from which were brought into evidence during this trial.

[NOTE: These cameras did not record any audio.]

The cops say they were verbally taunted, claiming one of the pool players called officer Powers a "pussy." Powers had been crying over the death of his father three months earlier. This name-calling did not, however, immediately lead to an exchange of blows. Pushing and shoving ensued when another officer (who, by the way, had a gun in his hand) took it upon himself to interfere with the on-going pool game. He took balls from the table and deposited them into the table's pockets.

[As any pool player will tell you, that alone can cause a brawl.]

The pushing and shoving escalated to the point where the officers were taking some of the pool players down to the floor. Interestingly enough, none of this rough stuff led to any charges. The escalated physical activity (assault, leading to a pool player's broken nose) occurred in the vestibule, where there were no cameras, and on the front sidewalk.

[Side note: Did the cops, who were regular patrons of this bar, know where the cameras were and where they could get away with an unmonitored assault?]

The four businessmen claimed they were assaulted by these officers without any provocation or hint of an impending eruption. Prosecutor claimed these officers were looking for trouble and, without warning and not based on any prior interaction with the victims, decided to [as quoted above] "open a can of whoop ass."

Glaring omission in Judge's 30-page opinion

I read all 30 pages of Judge Gainer's opinion in this case, and was struck by one glaring oversight:

At no time during this gradually escalating encounter did any of the assailants identify himself as a cop.

If, as one of these plain clothes officers claimed, he was trying to defuse the rising tension between the two groups, he could have immediately chilled the situation by declaring himself (and his colleagues) to be cops while openly displaying his badge.

I'm especially amazed that the judge didn't ask: "Why didn't you simply tell the pool players you were cops?" This was a bench trial, not a jury trial, and the judge had latitude to bring this up himself. In fact, not declaring themselves as officers strongly supports the victims' claims that the cops were looking for trouble.

NOTE: Most of the officers looked big and burly, compared to the rather slightly built pool players. As a general rule, little guys don't go around taunting big guys - especially in a bar and especially not calling one of them a pussy.

The prosecution didn't jump on this issue - for instance, "Why were you trying to hide the fact that you were cops?" Perhaps prosecution did so during the trial, but I don't have those transcripts. Since this was a high profile case with news media in attendance, I'm confused by their silence on two counts:

If this issue had been raised by prosecution or by anyone else during the trial, why was this fact not published?

If this issue hadn't been raised at all, why was that oversight not included in any of the news stories?

In either event, this oversight is just another example of media not thinking. I'm sure H.L. Mencken would be spinning in his grave at the general incompetence displayed by members of the Fourth Estate these days.

More from the judge's decision

Some quotes and my responses:

QUOTE: The actions of the off-duty officers were in response to the fighting words, defined above, uttered by, more probably than not, [pool player] Adam Mastrucci.

RESPONSE: Couple of problems here:

Even if the officers' claim were true [that the pool players called one of them a "pussy," with a gradually-increasing tirade of taunts and foul language following], it was clear from the testimony and videotaped evidence that these "fighting words" only gradually led to a brawl. Maybe there are "fighting words" that have a delayed-reaction aspect to them; just wondering. [Hmm...new legal concept here: delayed-reaction fighting words.]

I thought police officers (especially veteran cops like these) had received extensive training on how to control themselves in the face of verbal abuse. If these cops engaged in what the Judge called "mutual combat" as a result of verbal abuse, then I highly question their professionalism (and, come to think of it, that of the Judge himself).

"...more probably than not"??? The Judge needed something to justify cops acting badly, so he read something into the videotaped evidence (remember: no audio) to conclude that Mastrucci had uttered fighting words. However, none of the witnesses in the bar heard any such language from the pool players.

The Fighting Words Doctrine: The Judge invoked this doctrine to protect the defendants, though he should have known that cops are expected to have a higher tolerance of verbal abuse. Also consider: "Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the [US] Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky [v. New Hampshire (1942)." http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

QUOTE: [Sgt.] Planey was trying to calm the situation.

RESPONSE: Judge Gainer made much of Sgt. Planey's numerous efforts at being a peacemaker. However - a little reemphasis here - neither Planey nor any of the other cops had identified themselves as police officers at any time during this encounter. Also, the Judge totally ignored this bar's outside camera clearly showing Planey exiting the bar and storming up to one of the pool players (about 20 feet away), grabbing him, and then pushing him up against a wall. Maybe Planey didn't know about the street cam, therefore encouraging this extra bit of violence. I'm sure this particular footage will be played prominently at the upcoming federal trial.

QUOTE: He [Aaron Gilfand, having suffered a broken nose] is heard making a call about a lawyer the night of the incident. He contacted lawyers and refused to cooperate with OPS [Office of Professional Standards of the Chicago Police Department]. When he did cooperate, he only did so with his lawyers present. He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another.

RESPONSE: Gilfand had sued this bar and settled out of court. That apparently bothered Judge Gainer. Tell me, how is it that a judge allows himself to be influenced by the outcome of another lawsuit? Gainer is virtually accusatory in these remarks (for example): "He contacted lawyers" [How dare he!] "He refused to cooperate" [No crime in that, Judge.] "He only [cooperated] with his lawyers present." [Oh, that awful man!] "He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another." [If Gilfand wins his federal lawsuit, I hope that presiding judge will appropriately blast Judge Gainer for issuing such a flawed verdict.]

Aftermath of the trial

Judge Gainer should have found all three officers guilty of aggravated battery - and, in Sgt. Planey's case, of obstructing justice. However, conviction of this felony would have meant these three men would be ineligible to remain on the police force. Gainer, having been a prosecutor in the Cook County State's Attorneys office for 10 years, was undeniably sympathetic.

The Chicago Police Department wasted no time in reinstating these three officers. However, Top Cop Jody Weis had other options. He could have kept these men at a desk job for (say) a year, pending completion of anger management and sensitivity training. And as a form of cooling-off punishment. Weis should also have dressed them down for:

carrying a gun (at least one officer in that bar had a gun in hand, as caught on tape) while drinking;

failing to identify themselves as police officers, when the escalating situation clearly warranted such revelation;

conduct unbecoming law enforcement officers

One consequence of this brawl will undoubtedly be an out-of-court settlement of the lawsuit pending in federal court. Chicago taxpayers will once again bear the cost of police brutality. [What? You don't think this case will actually go to trial, do you? Mayor Daley wants to avoid the additional publicity of a prolonged airing of these events before a far more neutral tribunal.]

This entire episode can and should become the subject of a made-for-TV dramatic reenactment. I'm especially interested in what the ten video cameras caught on tape. Sadly, only a few minutes of this footage is on line, though I'm sure more would help flesh out the scenario. This is about all I could find, though you should scroll down and watch both video clips: http://chicagocopwatch.org/tag/police-brutality/

Judge Gainer's 30-page written decision is at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-090428-tap-decision-pdf,0,3828680.htmlpage

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

"If you truly believe in the rule of law, then cops who break the law should be convicted as easily as any other criminal" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr, police brutality, Jefferson Tap and Grille, bar brawl, 3 cops acquitted

Edward Scissorhands "verses" Wolverine

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:10:58 GMT

I saw a trailer for the upcoming movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Which made me think of the old Johnny Depp movie Edward Scissorhands. Oddly enough.

So I'll propose an odd fusion here - someone should make a movie entitled Scissorhands "verses" Wolverine. Both title roles to be played by Johnny Depp!

Seriously, now

These two characters are polar opposites, hands down (pun intended). For one thing, Edward doesn't have any superpowers, which causes Wolverine to scoff at their first meeting. But that lack turns out to be unimportant. As the original movie's tagline declares, Edward Scissorhands is "the story of an uncommonly gentle man." Which is where the "verses" part of the title comes in - that wasn't a typo; I did not mean to say "versus."

In my vision of how Edward turns out, he learns how to express himself in a consistently poetic manner, much as do all of the characters (all of the time) in a 2004 movie called Yes, directed by Sally Potter. The poetic format in that brilliant film being iambic pentameter.

The unlikely alliance

"Don't always fight your enemy - convert him, so that he may fight alongside you or...dwell in peace with you" - spoken by Edward to Wolverine.

These two are a study in contrasts - one being a hyperviolent with memory and revenge problems; the other, a very vulnerable man who remembers too much, inspired to develop a way with words with which to "handle" people which compensates for his scissorhands which can't handle people at all.

The idea of having Depp play both roles is to emphasize the underlying theme: Man is at war, or at best only peacefully coexists, with his feminine side. My sense of Depp, based on his androgynous portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow (in Pirates of the Caribbean), is that he's perfectly suited to play both characters, which are "really" both aspects of one man (and, therefore, of men in general).

Although it will be a real actor's challenge for Depp to portray Wolverine, I think he's up to it.

The story

The basic plot revolves around a chance meeting of these two, as Wolverine makes a (pun alert) stab at recovering his memory. This scene could take place in an "Asian bar drinking shots and trying to remember who he is."* In this bar is also Scissorhands, who is not there to lose himself (find himself?) in drink but simply to observe, only ever revealing his hands when he feels this to be beneficial.

The action takes place when Wolverine is attacked by forces and for reasons unknown to him. Edward basically tags along as a sympathetic ear, though definitely not as a coequal warrior.

Key line of dialogue, said by Edward to Wolverine: "Both of us were made, manufactured, or manipulated by others. To a large degree, that's true of all men. But your greatest power is the ability to change yourself, not necessarily in defeating others."

Coup de grace

There are two definitions of coup de grace, which illustrate the opposite ways each character could personify the literal translation, which is "blow of mercy."

a death blow, especially one delivered mercifully to end the suffering of a wounded creature.

the last of a series of events which brings about the end of some entity (in this case, the entity is the mindless violence shaped into the form of a human being).

The end-scene shows that "last of a series of events" as our two heroes talk, after having another narrow escape.

Wolverine: "Is that it, then? We're just put here to survive, even though we don't know why or who our tormentors are?"

Edward: "Yes, in part, but also to find out who we really are. And to help you with that, I give you this bouquet of roses. Take a good, long, hard, patient look. We've got all day."

Edward then hands Wolverine a bouquet of paper shapes which his scissor hands exquisitely crafted, saying, "This really is just for you, only you can understand it and learn from it. No...keep looking."

The context of the bouquet

As these two get to know each other, a recurring action is Edward giving Wolverine a sculpted cutting and asking, "Does this mean anything to you?" ("How about this?" "Or this?") To which he's usually interrupted by enemies attacking or rudely dismissed by Wolverine, "You've got to be kidding."

Each bouquet is a form of mandala which, when stared at in a meditative trance, is supposed to help us reach our inner self, which is far more important than any efforts to conjure up mere memories.

Conclusion

If, in all "seriousness," Sean Penn can be cast as Larry in a remake of The Three Stooges, then casting Depp in the roles I'm proposing can be taken as seriously.

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

"Go ahead, make a movie of verses, if you can. As always, I waive all intellectual property rights (see Open Invitation, below). Don't know who said this, but it resonates with me: "Show me a man who says ‘This is mine,' and I'll show you a thief" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458525/synopsis

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Wolverine, X-Men Origins, Edward Scissorhands, Johnny Depp

Obammer's* first 90 days vs. mine

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:39:45 GMT

Today is April 20, which is Blacque Obammer's* 90^th day in office. Here's how my first 90 days would have compared to his:

Unlike our current president, I would have been obligated to follow certain courses of action. That's because I was the only candidate who had (ever!) run under the terms of a legally-enforceable contract**. If I'd violate any of its 47 points, I'd lose my office.

90 days: Two Contrasts

Point # 2 of my contract states: "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.'" Oh, that's right. We're still in Iraq, with more forces on their way to Afghanistan. ["No end in sight," did I hear someone say?]

Point # 21 reads: "Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right." Obammer's* much-ballyhooed Executive Order only closes certain detention facilities at Guantanamo - within a year. My Executive Order would have returned all of Gitmo to the Cubans - again, within 90 days.

Hopium sounds too much like OPM

I have to tip my hat to Chicago Tribune's columnist John Kass, for his political use of the word hopium. The root word is hope, which blossoms into the "drug" most clamored for by blind-faith supporters of Blacque Obammer*. Hopium is addictive, causing users to sacrifice commonsense on the altar of Hope.

This sentiment nicely captures the essence of hopium: "Barack will save us - you've got to have faith and you've got to give him a chance - even though it looks like he's making things up as he goes along. And please don't look too closely at the company he keeps. Actually, please don't look too closely at anything he does."

OPM, on the other hand, is a nifty little term used by W. Clement Stone. It stands for "Other People's Money," as in "Why invest by risking your own money if you can use Other People's Money instead?"

And isn't that what President Obammer* is doing? He's using OPM to try to jerk this country out of its financial crisis. And who are the "other people" whose money he's using? Your children and your grandchildren! That's right: He's financing our economic recovery by borrowing so heavily, they will bear this burden.

Obammer* is hoping you won't realize that you will become one of those "other people," unless you're too old to be around when the piper demands his payments.

My approach: Just say no! to OPM and Hopium

President Steven Searle would not have used OPM. My contract has two specific provisions which would have (thank God) tied my hands:

"I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government borrowing" - point # 17.

"I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes ... a Single Payer health care reform package...[and implements] a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%" - point # 5.

The practical effect of these two provisions: Congress, dominated by the Democratic Party, could have tried to pass an Economic Stimulus Package, but this effort would not have succeeded. The GOP would not have cooperated to the extent necessary to provide the two-thirds vote needed to override my veto.

My approach would have been: no bailouts, no stimulus, let badly run businesses fail, and let market forces themselves determine equilibrium...but...nobody starves and nobody lacks for shelter. Some will say, "Thank God Searle wasn't elected or we'd be in a genuine Depression right now." I admit we'd be in a bad way, but nowhere near as bad as it's going to get once Obammer's* policies manifest their long-term weaknesses.

Of course, Obammer knows he can't win in the long-term unless he opts for a distracting military adventure. But hacks like Obammer don't think "long term" - all he cares about (primarily) is getting reelected in 2012 and (secondarily) doing whatever it takes to block any kind of GOP resurgence.

Meanwhile, Obammer's supporters, hooked on hopium and thinking OPM won't involve their money, will keep chanting:

"Chains you can believe in! Chains you can believe in!" - Oops, I meant, "Change you can believe in!" [My bad!]

One small indicator (and there will be others)

Recently in the news, there was a heart-warming story about how US Navy SEAL snipers freed a civilian American sea captain being held hostage by Somali pirates.

There was, however, a rather disturbing element to this story: This operation was personally approved by our president. I sincerely hope Obammer won't find it necessary to similarly micromanage future events. That's what field commanders are for. That's what professional staff is for. It was once said of General Dwight Eisenhower: He found capable men and surrounded himself with them, gave them a great deal of latitude in decision-making, but stood by them if things didn't go well.

But so far, I haven't heard anyone liken Obammer* to Eisenhower. And I don't think I will.

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

"Really, it's okay to hope. But, please, keep your wits about you; your children will respect you more if you do. Hell, you'll respect yourself more if you do" - 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

** see "The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President" at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

Tags: hopium, Blacque Obammer, Barack Obama, 100 days, politics, Navy SEAL, Stimulus Package, Guantanamo

Death Penalty for a Blow Job?

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:28:30 GMT

Scene: Paris, Texas - in the courtroom of Judge Eric Clifford.

Date: April 8, 2009

Judge Clifford rules:

An 18-year-old kid's death sentence* was reaffirmed for the crime of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy. The teenager (Aaron Hart) confessed to the cops that he was on the receiving end of a blow job.

Details, details

These details are worthy of note:

Hart is mentally retarded - having an IQ of 47. So, basically, Judge Clifford condemned one of the 6-year-old "kids," who happened to be in the body of an 18-year-old "man."

The 6-year-old boy "abused" by Aaron Hart is a neighbor and is also mentally retarded.

What is meant by "sexually assaulting?" Be careful here, since the legal definition of this term might not mean what you think it means. [Note: A lot of legal terms don't mean what their common sense definitions would lead us to believe.]

Judge Clifford didn't think it mattered whether Hart understood his Miranda rights, since [in his own words]: "...the evidence I have seen is overwhelming that he committed the offense." What evidence is the judge referring to? The confession made by Hart after hearing his Miranda rights, which the judge didn't think important enough to be actually be understood by the defendant? Or was the judge thinking of other evidence - "overwhelming evidence," mind you?

Aaron Hart has been sitting in jail since September, 2008 and has been repeatedly raped while in custody - according to Hart's parents. You don't have to believe Hart's parents, though, for "everybody" knows what goes on in the Big House - especially to accused child molesters who haven't yet been convicted. Not to mention: Competent medical personnel could corroborate the bodily damage of these rapes to Mr. Hart's (er) "person" - unless perhaps they are prison doctors paid by the state to look the other way.

That's right: Aaron was not released to his parents pending trial with the stipulation he wear an electronic tracking device to assure he not leave his home. I guess such amenities are only for the Bernie Madoffs of this world, who are accused of raping investors out of their hard-earned assets.

What's this about a *death sentence?

Judge Clifford decided to sentence Aaron to a total of 100 years in prison. There were five felony counts being considered (Five? For one BJ?). Guilty on all five counts: 30 years for each of 3 counts, and 5 years for each of 2 additional counts. Oh yeah, the judge decided to stack these, rather than run them concurrently.

As for probation? Nope.

As for committing to a state facility for the mentally disabled? Texas doesn't have such an option.

By sentencing Hart to prison - for life - this Judge has decided to execute this man. How do I figure? Simple: Just ask yourself this question: How many times will Aaron Hart be raped by fellow inmates (courtesy of this judge) before he contracts AIDS? Or this question: How much abuse will Hart suffer before he decides to commit suicide?

No matter how you slice and dice it, this judge sentenced a retarded man to death.

In the words of the judge:

QUOTE:

"It was a sad situation. I was about to cry. The jury was crying," Clifford said. "Everybody looked at everybody like, 'What the hell do we do?' The only option we were presented was prison. We don't have any facilities in the state of Texas for any type of care for somebody like that. That's the problem. It's a terrible problem. I don't know what you do with him other than what we did."

:UNQUOTE [article by Howard Witt, Tribune correspondent, 4/6/2009]

Not so fast, Judge Clifford. You didn't have to stack the sentences. You could have even let him go - that is, given him probation. You said, "We don't have any facilities ...for somebody like that." There are several reasons for that:

Texas lawmakers have severely cut back programs and facilities for people "like that."

Texas is one of only 7 states that doesn't impose a state income tax, even though it should - to help people "like that" (among other reasons).

If you, Judge Clifford, had let this young man go, the Right Wing Wing-Nuts would have surely howled. But surely you are a bigger man than those Lilliputians. You could have lit a fire under those derelict legislators. They'd be thinking: "My God, Clifford let a retarded molester loose because he had no option other than jail. We'd better cough up some options!"

Wrongful death suit

If Aaron Hart dies in prison, Judge Clifford should be charged in a wrongful death suit. Or, if Hart doesn't die, charges of malicious mischief should be considered. I am aware that the law, as currently interpreted, would not allow for a judge to be subjected to either of these actions. However, the words "as currently interpreted" should be carefully reevaluated.

Judges make a lot of noise about their job being only to interpret the law and not to create any "rights" where none had existed before. The basic idea: "If Congress has not codified certain expectations into the form of written law, and if common law doesn't address a given area of concern, then judges have no business being activist judges by creating new ‘law.'"

However, these judges conveniently overlook the US Constitution's ninth and tenth amendments (these, sadly enough, are never emphasized in legal briefs, though they could profoundly empower We-the-People, if we made enough noise):

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Comment on IX: One of these rights "retained by the people" is that of "reasonable expectation that the scope and nature of our body of rights will evolve as we evolve as a people and as times change, without any formal recognition by Congress being necessary." Such an evolution would have brought us to this point: "No citizen should be railroaded to jail simply because the state is too cheap to provide an alternative."

The irony of this is, the state cannot argue against providing special education services to retarded school children due to inconvenient expense. Remember: Aaron is retarded.

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Comment on X: Whereas IX talks about "rights," X talks about powers. We-the-People must never forget that we actually have powers. However, we have to claim them; we have to at least cite them in our lawsuits. We should insist that our lawyers who represent us in court insert such citations and claims as parts of legal briefs filed on our behalf.

And then there's the Fourteenth Amendment...

Ah, yes...the Fourteenth!

Amendment XIV [Section 1]: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Comment on XIV: Judge Clifford definitely abridged the "immunities" of US citizen Aaron Hart. Don't you think Hart should have been "immune" against a punishment (that is, the death penalty) that did not fit the crime? A punishment which a judge was "forced" to make because the state of Texas was derelict in its duties to mentally-impaired citizens, by failing to provide alternatives to prison?

The power of one person to make a difference...

I am inviting all of you to become that one person who will make a difference. If enough of us cherish that thought, that will be enough to really bring about change we can believe in. If you keep that thought in mind, continually nurturing it, you will know what to do when the time comes. And "what to do" will be entirely within your power and that will end up making a difference we can all believe in.

Our problem is, we too readily believe authority figures in black robes who tell us what our rights are - or, in reality, what crumbs we should get after the elite gets its lion's share.

Keep in mind the fine example of one of our former presidents. John Tyler insisted that he was the president of the United States, and his insistence silenced all opposition. Each of us should have the attitude that we too can conjure such results due to sheer force of will.

Consider (especially the part I bold-faced):

QUOTE:

Since a strict adherence to either of the two sections of the Constitution could yield opposing interpretations, there was, naturally, much disagreement when the matter was first put to the test. Any question regarding the Vice President succeeding to the Presidency was for all intents and purposes resolved in April 1841 when John Tyler succeeded William Henry Harrison upon Harrison's death. Tyler made it clear that he was the President rather than the Vice President acting as such, thus establishing precedent in accordance with the Article I interpretation.

:UNQUOTE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_President_of_the_United_States#Origin_of_the_position:_Constitution_.281787.29]

As to letting Aaron Hart go...

If Hart were freed, does anyone really believe he'd be a danger to the community? With his name and deed splashed all over by the media, local parents would surely be on extra high alert and watch their children even more closely than usual. Come on, people, this is a no brainer. I'd rather have Aaron Hart on the loose than someone like Judge Eric Clifford, who is a far greater menace to the community.

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

"We have to reach a point where any one of us can protest in a court of law against an injustice done to one of our fellow citizens - without some judge dismissing us because we lack standing. I am my brother's keeper; therefore, I have all the standing I need" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Aaron Hart, Paris Texas, Judge Eric Clifford, crime and punishment, politics

More on "Knowing," starring Nicholas Cage

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:09:05 GMT

I have more to say regarding Knowing. Only if you've seen this movie will you fully appreciate what follows.

To whet your appetite: The Whisper People

I believe the Whisper People are not angels of the Lord God, who is (for the most part) the Protector of G-20 Values and Privileges (truth be told). Two reasons:

The world is not supposed to end as depicted in the movie - that is, without a Tribulation or a Second Coming of Jesus.

Angels would not need a space ship which utilizes a magnetic propulsion system. More likely, their vessel would move by divine power and instantly.

When the ship rises into the sky, we see a large number of small, smooth black pebbles also rising - but only for a distance of about 10 feet. Koestler is standing in an area, just below the rising ship, which is heavily blanketed with these pebbles. They rise up and then stop, as if frozen in place.

I believe they had a heavy iron content which was attracted by the magnetic field of the rising ship. Then they reached a point where the earth's gravitational pull on their mass exactly matched the strength of the ship's magnetic field - which is why they appeared to be frozen in place. Then as the ship rose further, its magnetic field's effect on the pebbles decreased to the point where the pebbles simply fell back to earth.

Seeing those pebbles rise made me realize the spaceships weren't "divinely" propelled or moved by the Will of God. A technology which generated a magnetic field was involved. Therefore, I had to dismiss the Whisper People as Angels of the Lord.

So who uses ships like that?

To merely claim that aliens use ships like that isn't specific enough. For mere aliens would not have known Diana Weyland's status after she died in a traffic accident. As a Buddhist, my knee-jerk answer would have been "Bodhisattvas." But that covers a lot of territory - I'm a Bodhisattva but I don't fly around in space ships.

However, since there are 52 stages of Bodhisattva practice, I suppose those in the upper stages would have ready access to that kind of flying technology. And those in the highest stages wouldn't need ships at all but would be capable of traveling from point A to point B without traversing any of the points in between. [Presumably, they would be capable of using such transcendental powers to take Caleb and Abby with them - that is, without using a ship.]

Chapter Seven of the Lotus Sutra tells us who uses ships like that:

QUOTE:

At that time the five hundred ten thousand million brahma kings, accompanied by their palaces...journeyed together to the northwestern region [of the universe]...

:UNQUOTE.

A Brahma king is the highly spiritually-evolved ruler of a sizable segment of a galaxy - a shape shifter capable of manifesting himself in more than one body. That is, those four Whisper People in the movie were really four manifestations of one Brahma king. More to the point: All of the Whisper People in the numerous "space ships" (that is, palaces) which we saw leaving earth were manifestations on one Brahma king - the One that rules our particular portion of the galaxy.

The story

In the autumn of 2009, Professor Koestler comes into possession of a sheet of paper. This is completely covered with row after row of apparently patternless," hand-written digits which aren't punctuated or grouped in any way; they're more like one huge run-on sentence. This sheet had been prepared 50 years earlier by a girl, to whom these numbers had been channeled, then buried in a time capsule during the dedication ceremony of her new elementary school.

Koestler transcribed these numbers onto a white board at his home and, by hunch and trial and error, learned their significance by circling arbitrary groups of them with a magic marker and then punching into his computer those numbers in each group which he assumed to represent a date. His computer search showed that on each date in his circled strings of numbers, somewhere on earth there was a disaster with the number of fatalities being equal to the remaining numbers in that circled string.

Koestler noticed, however, that an appreciable number of digits on his white board couldn't be included in a circle assuming only dates and fatalities being represented. Only later does it hit him, those remaining digits represent the GPS coordinates of the disaster sites. Before this realization, he noticed three groups of numbers at the bottom of the sheet which show dates within the upcoming week during which three more disasters are to occur.

The last three disasters were to be:

A jetliner crash which Dr. Koestler was intended to witness (and did, through no conscious decision of his own to be at the predicted location). In fact, it's only when he actually arrives at that location that it hits him: Each group of digits, when properly grouped into a circled series, predicts not only date and number of fatalities but also lists location by latitude and longitude (expressed in decimals).

A subway train derailment, of which he was almost a victim. Though he intentionally went to the general vicinity of this event (now knowing its lat and long) just before it happened, he ended up being in the midst of that accident only after being chased from street level by the police.

The end of the world, which he ended up learning the cause of but lamented, "What good does it do to know of impending disaster but not be able to do anything about it?" [The "good" of knowing was a present to Dr. Koester, which would benefit him in this life and in other lives to follow.]

Dr. Koestler's son Caleb had been chosen, with a handful of other children around the world, to be saved and to start over again. They are whisked away to an earth-like planet in palaces by the Whisper People before a giant solar flare destroys all life on earth.

It's interesting to note that Caleb and Abby weren't perfect - Abby was mildly dyslexic and Caleb wore (though didn't "need") a hearing aid to compensate for a mild case of aphasia. They were not chosen for their perfection but for their karmic attraction to each other and to the others in the group of the saved (my best guess, about 100). This attraction, which could be perceived by a Brahma king, would ensure the cooperation needed to make the best go of it in the new world.

Of those who weren't saved

What about the billions of people who were incinerated in the solar flare? Was their extinction due to their bad karma or sinfulness? As Diana Weyland pointed out: "What difference does it make, we all die in the end anyway?"

Exactly! And that includes stars and planets. It was earth's karma to have the life scorched off of it by the sun, "whose" karma it was to spit out that killer flare. As for the people of earth who died, it was their karma to be there but not necessarily as punishment. Even the good can die horrible deaths, but in a Buddhist context that simply means they had to be here to do what they had to do and the merciful suddenness of their "premature" deaths served to expiate a huge portion of their karmic debt.

But there were those who didn't die in the fire [nobody ever really dies]:

QUOTE:

When living beings witness the end of a kalpa

and all is consumed in a great fire,

this, my land, remains safe and tranquil,

constantly filled with heavenly and human beings...

where living beings enjoy themselves at ease.

:UNQUOTE *

The "land" referred to is the realm superimposed on our physical landscape which is where the Buddha dwells and teaches. And which is where all practicing Buddhists aspire to be, minus those who intentionally wish to end up in hell in order to preach to and save the unenlightened and long-suffering hell-dwellers.

Final comments

I was highly sensitized in advance to what Knowing had to say. Twenty years of Buddhist practice and reading the Lotus Sutra aloud over 80 times will do that. I'll say more about Knowing at some future date, hopefully before October 19, 2009 (the date the world is supposed to end, remember?).

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

"Maybe I'm guilty of reading too much into what many reviewers claim is at best a mediocre film. Or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. But...I don't think so" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

* Lotus Sutra, 16^th chapter, translated by Burton Watson

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Nicholas Cage, Knowing the movie, Knowing, Buddhism, Lotus Sutra, religion, End of Days

Knowing, the movie: Some "knowing" comments

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:43:08 GMT

My words today are for viewers who have seen Knowing, starring Nicholas Cage.

Nothing to do with Jesus

All life on earth is to be destroyed by means of a massive solar flare - all except the lives of a small number of children (and at least two rabbits!) who are whisked away to an earth-like planet to "start over."

Though some critics say Knowing is "Christian," that cannot be the case. There is no Antichrist, no Tribulation, and no Second Coming of Jesus followed by the end of the world. Knowing depicts nothing extraordinary between now and October 19, 2009, which is the date the world is to end.

The Name Game

In 1959, a young girl named Lucinda Embry channels a prophecy. She eventually gets married - to someone named Wayland - and becomes hyphenated (that is, becomes Embry-Wayland).

The name Embry-Wayland has three elements:

Embry means "ember or smoldering fire," which is how the earth ends in this movie - by becoming engulfed by fire.

Wayland derives its meaning from the Dutch word Weiland, which means "pasture-ground or meadow-land." Which is, of course, where the chosen children end up on New Earth.

The third element is the hyphen in the name. I see the hyphen as a "bridge" connecting the "ember or smoldering fire" (of the past) to a beautiful future as indicated by the "meadow-land" on New Earth. Eerily enough, I had written about the bridge aspect of a name's hyphen in my blog entitled, What's in a name, BuddhAllah-Christine?, which I'd posted on March 3, 2009 at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2009/3/whats_in_a_name_buddhallah-christine .

Freaks me out just thinking about that.

The names of virtually all of the major characters in Knowing can be interpreted by means of the Name Game I've just played. I'll take a shot at that in a future blog.

More about Wayland

I offer another possible meaning of Wayland. If you divide the word, you get Way Land, which I embrace as the Land of the Way (specifically, Land of the Buddha Way). The Buddha Way consists of the lifestyle and teachings which lead one to become a Buddha.

That exquisitely beautiful tree which is framed in the movie's last shot is the Bodhi Tree, similar to that under which the Buddha attained enlightenment. It is not the (Christian) Tree of Life as supposed by many. As any Buddhist would know, one doesn't merely eat magical fruit and thereby attain immortality. The Buddha makes a very clear point on how to do that when he admonishes (in the Lotus Sutra):

QUOTE:

This life span of countless kalpas*

I gained as the result of lengthy practice [of the Buddha Way].

You who are possessed of wisdom,

Entertain no doubts on this point!

Cast them off, end them forever...

:UNQUOTE.

* "countless kalpas" - This time period is many times longer than the known age of the universe. Though when that life span ends, the Buddha still doesn't die. He lives on in the all-pervasive, omnipresent Void from which he could - if he'd choose - re-manifest himself among ordinary mortals.

That last shot did not show Jesus or God standing under that tree - it just showed the tree itself, which is what Abby and Caleb were joyfully running toward. These children didn't even know why in any way words could convey. Deep down inside, though, I think all of us have seen that Bodhi tree and the Buddha preaching under it. Or at least have "heard tell." This kind of knowledge has been accrued over many lifetimes and is a visceral part of all of us.

The Buddha had spoken of monks giving alms to the Bodhi tree, in appreciation and reverence. He himself was moved by it. To this day, there are monks who ordain trees as monks. These things are all done for reasons which are very real and have a tremendous pull in our lives.

Background

I've seen Knowing three times. That's right: I paid three times for the privilege of seeing (beholding!) Knowing as part of a movie theater audience on three separate days.

The first time, I enjoyed it. The very next day, I scrutinized it. The third time, after contemplating it for a week, I saw it again just to be very sure.

"Very sure" of what? I'll go out on a limb here, but I think Knowing is profound and worthy of any time spent pondering it. Which I've done for most of the last 10 days or so.

I know, you're thinking: "Dude, this is a Nicholas Cage movie. The words ‘profound' and ‘Nicholas Cage' don't go together."

I know what you mean: I have very mixed reactions to Cage's work, thinking him to be at times too lulling (for lack of a better word). But not this time - he managed to rise above (transcend?) himself but not to get in the way of the message.

Well worth seeing.

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

"I was very much smitten by Knowing and intend to post more of my impressions - including how I view the Whisper People as Bodhisattvas (and not as angels of the Lord)" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Tree of Life, Bodhi tree, Knowing the movie, Nicholas Cage, End of Days, religion, Buddhism

The good General answers my e-mail

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:08:52 GMT

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

QUOTE:

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

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

Your reaction is exactly what we want: dialogue.

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

Yours sincerely

Dieter Farwick

Global Editor

www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

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

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

QUOTE:

Dear Editor,

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

....

QUOTE [from McIntosh's article]:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

My reaction

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

QUOTE:

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

Would that not "upset" you?

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

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

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

:UNQUOTE.

UPSHOT

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

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

And what might that way be?

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

You don't say:

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

Daddy Warbucks' "safer world"

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

Sounds innocent enough, but I have a few questions:

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

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

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

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

I've got a bad feeling about this.

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

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

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: politics, Realpolitik, Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann, Best Party Available, Gaia, One World Government, NGO

EnlightenNext Magazine goes porno

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:57:02 GMT

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

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

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

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

The cover also lists some of the topics contained within:

David Deida: The Quentin Tarantino of the spiritual world?

Transcendent Sex

Is sex a path to God?

None of the above

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

Winning in Afghanistan - An Integral Strategy for Peace

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

Winning In Afghanistan - An Innovative Strategy for Peace

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

On to the pornographic part

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

His article opens rather innocently with:

QUOTE**:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

QUOTE:

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

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

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

Two questions:

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

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

So what's McIntosh got against this border?

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

Therefore?

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

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

Steve McIntosh, just leave them alone

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

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

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

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

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

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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

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

Tags: Steve McIntosh, Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, Integral Philosophy, EnlightenNext magazine

Obammer* and his earmarks

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:50:42 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our fearless leader defends earmarks

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why did he sign this bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperventilating

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE**

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

QUOTE:

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

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

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

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

:UNQUOTE.

President Obammer* vs. President Searle

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

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

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

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

QUOTE (Point #5):

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

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

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

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

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

Tags: Obama, Barack Obama, earmarks, omnibus, $410 billion, politics, Best Party Available, Steven Searle

The God of "Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:57:32 GMT

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

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

"Fast Eddie" Vrdolyak:

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

Answer (a partial answer):

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

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

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

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

Answer (a more complete answer):

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

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

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

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

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

If appealed, Fast Eddie will still end up walking.

The gist of the matter

QUOTE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Brief Bio of Ed Vrdolyak

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

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

About Vrdolyak's recent legal encounter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satan? The hell you say!

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

According to one Buddhist scripture:

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

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

Fortunately, that view is false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founder of The Best Party Available

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

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: religion, Buddhism, Ed Vrdolyak, Satan, Milton Shadur

What's in a name, BuddhAllah-Christine?

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:23:05 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemplations on the meaning of BuddhAllah

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

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

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

Splitting:

Bud: the first 3 letters of this name

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

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

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

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

Associating meanings:

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

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

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

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

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

Some concerns and resolutions:

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

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

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

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

About this second possible interpretation:

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

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

A Lesson for my Daughter

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

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

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

The meaning of BuddhAllah-Christine

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

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

This name's audio dynamic flow goes like this:

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

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

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

And ends in a sigh: ah.

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

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

Another lesson for this daughter

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

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

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

As for Buddha and Allah being "male" figures:

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

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

As for Allah

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

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

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

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

What a wonderful ideal to try to emulate!

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

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

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: Buddhism, baby names, nature of God, Islam, religion