Ushering in an Age of Wisdom

THESIS:  There are fanatics who believe that prayer not only has a place in the public schools, but that it should have a dominant place. That is, an appreciable block of time should be set aside for teacher- or administrator-led prayer before a congregation of students. My thesis: What is really needed is to set aside time for discussion on, What it Means to Be Human.

Someone once said:  “There is no such thing as a Jewish child, or a Catholic child, or a Buddhist child; there are only children of parents who are Jewish, Catholic, or Buddhist.”

I don’t have anything against religious instruction for the young, but I abhor indoctrination. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is the best possible countermeasure against the “good” intentions of parents and religious communities. I would include here atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists since, in a manner of speaking, they can comprise their own “religious” communities.

One class period, once per week isn’t too much to devote to an open dialogue within the classroom concerning…(ah) what to call it? Even calling it “spirituality” might be too much for atheists and materialists. My personal preference: “What it means to be human” or (simply) “humanity.” For not even an atheist would deny that we’re human. What that means, however, that’s the rub.

Society has too much to lose by disallowing such open dialogue. Many social ills – including alienation, xenophobia, neurosis, and anti-social behavior – arise from what are basically questions of humanity that had never been fully explored when persons were young. In fact, the entire pseudo issue of school prayer is an excellent example of a tribal mentality at work. Advocates and opponents alike draw lines in the sand and quickly develop Us-vs-Them attitudes.

Case in Point: Illinois’ “School Prayer” Law

Much can be gleaned by careful reflection on this case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided this law did not violate the US Constitution: Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.  It would be worth our while to quote the section of that Act, which was contested before the court:

QUOTE:  In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.:UNQUOTE.

Oh, one more thing: The title of the Act was changed from:

Silent Reflection Act to Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.

An objective observer might well ask: “Why was the word ‘prayer’ added to the Act’s name?”

One of the three deciding judges (Daniel A. Manion) responded: "It was important to note that prayer is a permissible option to negate any impression that teachers or students may have that students were not allowed to pray (silently) during the period of silence." Why, pray tell, was it “important to note?” The right of students to pray in school, in a non-disruptive manner, had already been long established. So why was it “important” to “negate any impression” that prayer was now to be disallowed?

Perhaps the answer lies in the motives of the legislators who passed these changes. We cannot, of course, know the motives of all of them, but a few of them were observed singing these words when the issue came up for a vote. To the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s Sounds of Silence, we were treated to a public display of:

Hello, school prayer, our old friend

It’s time to vote on you again

In our school house without warning

You seek a moment in the morning.

Judge Manion also defended this Act by writing: “[Illinois] has offered a secular purpose [for this law] – establishing a period of silence for all school children in Illinois to calm the students and prepare them for a day of learning." If that was so, why wasn’t the Act simply entitled The Moment of Silence Act? And why was this “moment of silence” mandated?  The language of the Act, before it was amended, stated that “the teacher in charge may observe a brief period of silence…” The revision included changing “may” to “shall.”

So there we have it: The legislators (and two of the three judges) decided they knew best how teachers must prepare their students for a day of learning. It didn’t occur to them that some teachers might have solid, practical reasons for an alternate approach. If students in a classroom are boisterous and talkative, instead of trying to “settle them down,” a teacher might try to channel that energy by rising to their level of boisterousness and either redirecting it or gradually diminishing it. But, no…lawmakers decided to stick their noses into an area of professional concern best left to the discretion of individual teachers.

Problematic text:

Take another look at the wording of the challenged portion of the Act:

QUOTE:  In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.:UNQUOTE.

A couple of concerns:

·         Define “brief.” Is ten seconds too short? Is 15 minutes too long? Should the duration of silence be uniform within a given school?  Within the state?  Who’s to judge?  The word “brief” renders the Act vague and unenforceable.

·         Define “at the opening of every school day.” As a practical matter, students might not have yet taken their seats when the 9 AM bell rings, so “at the opening” then becomes “somewhat later than 9 AM, but reasonably close to it.” What, then, is “reasonably close?”

·         Suppose the school principal has to interrupt a particular classroom in the middle of its moment of silence. Is he breaking the law or does the teacher have to start that moment all over again after the principal leaves?

·         Of course, there can’t be a fire drill at the beginning of the school day. So if the fire alarm rings while students are praying/reflecting, they must reasonably assume it’s because of a real fire. They might, therefore, panic which could cause a real public safety problem.

·         This period is meant to provide “an opportunity” for two distinct types of (silent) activity. So we have a case where lawmakers are not only are telling students what to think but failing to provide any way to determine (and punish) those who think otherwise. Basically, this law, for that reason, is unenforceable.

·         Are teachers to be obligated to explain to their students why they’re to engage in a moment of silence? If not, then how are students supposed to know what their lawmakers expect them to be thinking? Is the school expected to inform parents of these reasons, so they can do their part by prepping their children for this task?

·         Will teachers be expected to explain to their very young students what “prayer” and “silent reflection” are – both as literal concepts and in terms of expected outcomes?

·         After meditating silently, students will then be led to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which is an indulgence in idol worship (check it out: “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” that, is “I pledge allegiance to this idol, to this piece of cloth). Perhaps the truly devout will sense this glaring contradiction and, therefore, refuse to recite the Pledge. Is that the intent of the legislators and the court – to undermine patriotism?

Ushering in an Age of Wisdom

Kids aren’t stupid. As they grow older and progress through high school, they’ll talk to each other. It won’t take them long to realize how dishonest was Judge Daniel A. Manion in his reasoning. Nor how dishonest were their state legislators. Kids will encounter many reasons to become cynical. Why add something so stupid as this to the mix?

One of the saddest things is to see otherwise religious and upstanding people “bend the rules” in the name of faith. In some misguided attempt to lead/mislead the public “for their own good.” If one cannot be honest, then one’s religion or ethical framework means little. But this problem even extends to my particular community of believers – Buddhists. This is one reason why I no longer associate with that community. That’s why (among other reasons) I refer to myself as a member of a sect that has only one member – me. And why is that, pray tell?

As far as I can determine, I am the only Buddhist who calls Shakyamuni Buddha a liar – knowing that the Buddha himself expects this. Within the text of his highest teaching, The Lotus Sutra (in the sixteen chapter), the Buddha relates a parable to his disciples and then asks, “"Good men, what is your opinion? Can anyone say that this skilled physician is guilty of lying?" They give an answer they thought the Buddha wanted to hear and which he affirms as correct; they say, “No.” However, it’s obvious in the parable itself that the physician did lie.

This is no small point and is not the only place in the Sutra where a lie is told. My contention, however, is that the Buddha did lie and expected/hoped his disciples would have called him on it. To which, I’m sure, he would have responded with something like, “Very good, and you are to be praised for offering an answer in opposition to what you thought I wanted to hear. Only when a disciple can rise in opposition to his teacher can he be truly said to be making progress.”

There is also another reason I stand alone, separate from my fellow Buddhists. The Buddha himself claimed the Lotus Sutra to be his highest teaching and within that text, defines proper Buddhist practice. Which is to “read, recite, embrace, ponder, and propagate this Lotus Sutra.” And this I do, even though the likes of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh do not – which makes them heretics who behave contrary to the Buddha’s expectations.

[Please stop gasping…just because a religious figure is famous and has a following, doesn’t make him right.]

To be sure, in many walks of life, among many well-intentioned people are those who do not or will not see what is before their very eyes. And there are others who are blatantly dishonest, thinking they serve higher ends with such behavior. We cannot usher in an Age of Wisdom when such attitudes are so prevalent. Any movement toward this Age can only start with initiatives such as open-ended dialogue among the young, addressing the question: What does it mean to be human?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I’m sure their moms thought highly of them, but the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh are heretics, nonetheless.”

Why I quit drinking

Today’s posting features:

·         Why I quit drinking – including a Buddhist’s perspective, as revealed by a Christian

·         Laughing at Love is in the Air

·         The Genesis of Guinness

Why I quit drinking

I quit drinking on July 17, 2010. What I hope will become remarkable about that? From that date on, I will drink no more – not ever again, for the rest of eternity.

My roommate got me to thinking about this, even though she’s a Christian and I’m a Buddhist. She asked, “If you’re trying to attain enlightenment, then how can you practice Buddhism while you continue to drink?”

That got me to thinking: There was a time when Shakyamuni Buddha sinned; then after a given point in time, he no longer sinned. His last sin was committed untold trillions of years ago. But I came to be intrigued, wondering how he must have felt having just recently committed his last sin.

It must have been quite something to have committed that last sin, but still having it fresh in mind.  Did that, somehow, count as a sin – that is, if he’d fondly keep it in mind though no longer indulging in it physically? One never truly forgets the things one did, so I suppose the important thing is not to indulge in replaying it as a joyful fantasy.

So I thought I’d give it a shot. I want to experience, first-hand, what it’s like to have the memory of a sin grow dimmer over time, proceeding down the road to Buddhahod.

But is it a sin?

I never considered myself a problem drinker, though my best friend and my father both passed away at the age of 48 due to alcohol. I drank for three reasons: As a social lubricant, to stimulate creativity, and as a connoisseur.

Beer...that was my drink of choice. But not just any beer – by the way, Miller Lite is NOT a beer. Micro brews were favorites, as were imports and specialty brews. Pete’s Wicked Ale, Guinness, Bourbon County Stout, Xingu Black Beer, He Brew (with a name like that, how could I resist?), Cane and Ebel (by Two Brothers Brewing), and Chimay Red Ale were among my favorites.

I won’t pass judgment on whether drinking is a sin, but I make due note that the Buddha didn’t drink. And that’s all I need to know. But before that sank in, the cost bothered me. Off and on, it would bother me that I’d spend $30 per week drinking. And then “off and on” started turning into more “on” than “off.” So I made a personal decision to “on” it forever.

But, in honor of my fellow drinkers out there, I don’t condemn the practice. All I can do is recommend that you be mindful about it. There! How’s that for a venerable Buddhist term?

Laughing at love-is-in-the-air

I want to share a drinking anecdote, to share an upside to this universal indulgence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Genesis of Guinness

Before you read the following story, keep in mind that I have nothing against Guinness. In fact, for a few years, it was my brew of choice. Once I enjoyed three pints while killing a few hours watching a ball game. I was about to pay up and leave when the bar maid slid yet a fourth my way.

I said, “I didn’t order that.” She gestured to a nearby table of about four or five twenty-somethings who were staring at me. One guy got up, walked over, and explained, “You looked like you were enjoying those so much, we wanted to bless you with one more.”

What could I say? What could I do?

I was so full – of beer and Shepherd’s Pie – I doubted I could hold any more. Besides, the room was starting to sway. But I didn’t want to be rude. So I thanked the young man, sat down, raised my glass to my benefactors and … sipped. About 15 minutes later, I’d made only a slight dent in the foamy blackness. I thought: “Maybe I could walk to the men’s room and dump it.”  But since I hate wasting anything, I just toughed it out and (eventually) finished it.

To say the least, the walk home was very interesting. Now, on to my story: The Genesis of Guinness:

Once upon a time there was a farmer who owned a small cottage in the Irish countryside. He collected water which drained from his rainspout into a small wooden bucket. The wood was fairly rotten, though, so it made the water taste woody. Then the farmer got an idea – some say he was moved by mischievous spirits to do what he did next. Which was: He picked up a handful of black top soil and threw it into the bucket. He added another handful of peat moss and a few rusty nails. In one more bit of perverse inspiration, he added a handful of manure.

“Then he let this concoction sit for a couple of days in the hot sun – to age as it were. Then he strained this sewage, so as remove all particulate matter. And then, again moved by mischievous spirits - for no sane man would do what he was about to do - he drank this unlikely brew.

What I’ve just described is pretty close to what Guinness actually tastes like. Wouldn’t you say?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“It’s true: To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. It’s also true: Seasons end, giving way to other seasons.”

EMP threat: Our latest bogeyman

Today’s blog will focus on the novel One Second After and the “threat” of terrorist attack by means of EMP: Electromagnetic Pulse. Also, I will have some unkind-but-wholly-accurate words for the author of One Second After (William R. Forstchen, Ph.D.) and that shameless snake oil salesman who wrote its foreword, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (also a Ph.D. – believe it or not).

“One Second After is a 2009 novel by American writer William R. Forstchen. The novel deals with an unexpected electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States as it affects the people living in and around the town of Black Mountain, North Carolina.” – From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After

Basically, this novel details the struggle for survival which starts one second after a nuclear weapon is detonated at high altitude over each of three different states: Utah, Kansas, and Ohio. One second after these detonations, the entire continental United States no longer has access to its electrical power grid or any devices with EMP-sensitive circuits which were “fried” by the sudden surge of energy released by these weapons.

I want to be very clear about this: We’re being lead to believe that three low-yield nuclear weapons could serve to knock out the technological underpinnings of our modern way of life. No computers. No phones. Few operable automobiles and trucks. No planes, no refrigeration or heating units. No manufacturing, dependent on electrical power. Even portable power generators are rendered useless by this attack.

So of course my bullshit detector went into high alert.

Hidden Agenda?

I believe there is a hidden agenda motivating people who seek to terrorize (really, there is no better word) their fellow Americans by speculating about what nastiness our numerous enemies wish to inflict upon us. These native-born terrorists are basically insecure weaklings who are terrified of every possible doomsday scenario they can dream up. They would if they could engage in pre-emptive strikes against the entire gamut of bad guys out there.

Or try their damnedest to convince the US government to do so.

Neither the author nor Gingrich has any military experience whatsoever (nada, zero, zip). Neither of them served in our nation’s armed forces in any capacity. Yet, they have collaborated in writing several novels of military fiction. How strange!

My own experience in the military (USAF) was limited, but I can tell you this: “There’s a derogatory term which soldiers use when speaking of such long-distance ‘warriors’ – of people who find it so easy to speak of valor and combat without themselves ever having been in harm’s way. That derogatory term is maggot.”

[To be sure, maggot covers a lot of territory, but would easily include such authors.]

The novel itself gives a clue as to motive

Back to the notion of pre-emptive strike. I quote from page 201 of One Second After, from Chapter 7: DAY 18.

QUOTE:

9. WAR NEWS!  This same resident reports that the attack is now believed to have been three missiles, fired from a containership in the Gulf of Mexico. Our forces overseas are engaged in heavy combat in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Korea. There is progress on all fronts. Responsibility for the attack rests upon an alliance of forces in the Middle East and North Korea ….

…widespread outages in Japan, South Korea*, and Taiwan …similar missiles over Eastern Europe.

  * Observation by Steven Searle: South Korea? North Korea is just over the border and would therefore be affected by any EMP attack against its southern neighbor. So (apparently!) North Korea, as one of the parties responsible for this attack, decided to attack itself(?)

:UNQUOTE.

So there we have it. Eighteen days after the US has been rendered paralyzed), not only has our government been able to determine who was responsible, but had also managed to engage our forces in heavy combat in five countries (four of which do not currently have US forces present on their soil). And (we are assured), “There is progress on all fronts.” All this in 18 days!

I swear, whoever writes stuff like this must be taking stupid pills (or assumes their readers are). The only way it would be even remotely possible for there to be “progress on all fronts” is for the United States to have instantly decided to take off the kid gloves and use nuclear weapons and massive WWII style assaults on these nations. Oh…I get it…no one’s been taking stupid pills. It appears that Fortschen and Gingrich, in their sly way, are urging the United States to stop being soft on our opponents – that we must strike now, with no holds barred (up to and including the use of nukes) before it’s too late.

And check out that list of opponent nations, which includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are currently allies in our global war on terror. Unless…by DAY 18, we were able to determine that the Saudi and Pakistani governments were linked to this EMP assault. Has anyone who praises this novel even noticed that Saudi Arabia is included on this shit list?

Saudi Arabia? Hello! [Sounds like a bald-faced oil grab to me.]

Let’s do the math

The novel itself makes categorical assertions about what would happen if the US were to be attacked by an EMP weapon, but (am I surprised by this?) nowhere in the novel itself (or in an Appendix or Foreword or Afterword) is any number-crunching done.

So allow me!

The basic assertion is that even a relatively low-yield atomic bomb detonated up to several hundred miles above ground level would generate an EMP with sufficient energy to knock out sensitive electronic components everywhere within line-of-sight of the explosion. Anything “over the horizon” wouldn’t be affected, which is the reason why a high-altitude detonation would be preferred by our enemies.

First, there are some practical factors which would limit the damage inflicted:

·         Not all of the energy in a nuclear blast ends up in the form of EMP. For example, there is a tremendous amount of heat, light, and sound generated as well – none of which would harm ground-based circuits from such a distance.

·         Energy dissipates as it moves away from a central point. That is, the blast’s energy would be most highly-concentrated within the first few miles from the source. [In my calculations, though, I assume that all of this energy is uniformly distributed within a 100-mile blast radius.]

·         A great deal of energy (even that composing the EMP itself) would radiate away from ground level – harmlessly into outer space.

·         Any EMP would surely be weakened by collisions with the molecules which make up our atmosphere.

I’ll add two other considerations detrimental to Forstchen’s argument:

·         There were serious scientists who had urged that we not test our first atomic bomb out of fear that a chain reaction could ignite the entire atmosphere of the planet. Didn’t happen but their calculations suggested such a possibility. The point? Not all calculations are created equal.

·         When the most powerful hydrogen bomb of all time was detonated by the USSR, the plane that dropped this 50 megaton behemoth wasn’t knocked out of the sky by an EMP (unless those dastardly Rooskies figured out a way to shield that aircraft’s electrical systems – ah, one more thing for us to be afraid of, though we should keep in mind: “Surely the US must have developed similar shielding technology since the Tsar Bomba exploded on the scene in 1961.”)

·         The foreword of this novel states: “My friend Captain William Sanders, USN, one of our nation’s leading experts on this particular weapon, will provide the afterword for this book explaining in greater detail, using unclassified documents, as to how such a weapon works.” No offense, but I’m not exactly thrilled that a Captain is considered “one of our nation’s leading experts.” I would expect that someone a little more highly-credentialed be cited. Or that someone so knowledgeable had been rewarded with a higher rank. [Again, no offense but…please…]

For the sake of my analysis, I will assume that an EMP weapon is detonated 100 miles above my home town of Chicago, Illinois. I will also assume that all of the energy is contained and uniformly-distributed within a sphere 100 miles in radius, though of course that wouldn’t literally be the case. However, this assumption makes my argument even more powerful, as you will see. The weapon in question will be assumed to be equivalent in energy to that of the Castle Bravo device, the most powerful ever tested by the United States.

Castle Bravo, detonated in 1954, released 84,000 TJ of energy – 84K TeraJoules. My analysis will show, this is the equivalent amount of energy (if evenly distributed within a sphere with a radius of 100 miles) released from one 100-watt light bulb being turned on for one second in a volume of space consisting of 722 cubic feet. In other words, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each side. [Can you feel the burn?]

[Note: For my step-by-step analysis, see Appendix 1 at the very end of this blog.]

Let’s use a little common sense here

If three low-yield nukes could bring the USA to its knees after being secretly launched from a barge in the Gulf of Mexico, our enemies would have done so long before now. Since numerous nations currently own nukes, we could never be sure who actually used these particular three against us. But Newt Gingrich and company assure us that, indeed, we are in mortal danger of such an attack. And, by gum, we’d better spend whatever it takes to EMP-proof our infrastructure.

Don’t forget: Whatever gets added to our ever-increasing mountain of debt will serve only to drive us more deeply and more quickly into a servitude from which we can never recover. But…maybe that’s precisely the point.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012:

"Hell, I used to think the Newt in Newt Gingrich’s name stood for Newton. Now I think it stands for Newtron Bomb" - Steve.

Founder of The Independent Contractors Party

Appendix 1

To recap:  Castle Bravo, detonated in 1954, released 84,000 TJ of energy – 84K TeraJoules. The following analysis will show, this is the equivalent amount of energy (if evenly distributed within a sphere with a radius of 100 miles) released from one 100-watt light bulb being turned on for one second in a volume of space consisting of 722 cubic feet. In other words, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each side.

All of the energy output generated by a nuclear explosion can be calculated by using Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc². Even though this energy consists of different forms, I will not differentiate here as to how much ends up in the form of an EMP, though (obviously) it must be less than the total amount of energy generated.

My chain of logic proceeds as follows:

·         The volume of a sphere is determined by this equation: V = (4/3) π r³.

·         The volume in question, being determined by the bomb detonating 100 miles above the earth, is 4 million cubic miles.

·         Assuming that all blast energy is contained within this volume, that gives us 84,000 TeraJoules of energy per 4 million cubic miles.

·         That’s equal to 21 billion joules per cubic mile.

·         Next, convert 21 billion joules to its equivalent in Kilowatt Hours of energy, a unit most Americans are more familiar with.

·         3.6 million joules of energy might sound like a lot, but that’s equal to one kilowatt hour. Translation? That’s the amount of energy needed to keep a 1,000 watt light bulb burning for an hour or, put another way, enough to keep ten 100-watt bulbs burning for an hour.

·         Therefore, 21 billion joules is equal to 5,800 kilowatt hours. Again, this is the amount of energy contained within each cubic mile within 100 miles of detonation.

·         5,800 kilowatt hours is the amount of energy used by 5,800 light bulbs burning for an hour, if each bulb is rated at 1,000 watts. Or, put another way, the same as 58,000 100-watt bulbs.

·         One cubic mile is equal to 150 billion cubic feet. Therefore, if 58,000 100-watt bulbs are burning for an hour within a 150 billion cubic foot volume, that’s equal to one bulb burning for an hour within a volume of 2.6 million cubic feet.

·         If that one bulb is burning for an hour, that’s equal to 3,600 seconds. Or, put another way, to 3,600 bulbs burning for one second.

·         That reduces down to one 100-watt bulb burning for one second within a volume comprising 722 cubic feet. Or, put another way, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each edge.

·         Considering these calculations, it doesn’t seem like we’re talking about a lot of energy here, especially since I’ve taken into consideration what happens within a 100-mile radius. Our authors are saying this one single bomb could blackout an area covering more than a dozen states, if exploded at an altitude much greater than 100 miles. But of course, the further away the detonation, the less energy would be contained per cubic mile. So that single, solitary light bulb would burn for one second within a volume much greater than 722 cubic feet.

END OF POST

On Newt Gingrich, Goldberg, and Rosenberg

Today, I offer a brief reflection on three authors – Jeffrey Goldberg, Joel C. Rosenberg, and Newt Gingrich. In the first case, we have a de facto lobbyist trying to finesse the US into doing a very dirty deed for Israel. In the second case, we have a de facto Jew for Jesus trying to paint a picture of how dangerous would be a nuclear Iran under a charismatic leader (the Twelfth Imam or at least an imposter). Case three: A shameless self-promoter aiming to become US President someday.

Jeffrey Goldberg

“Israel is getting ready to bomb Iran” – so claims the cover story in the September 2010 issue of The Atlantic. However, this lengthy article by Jeffrey Goldberg doesn’t mention Russia even once. As in: What might Russia do if Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuke sites?

You remember Russia, don’t you? Former superpower, which has nukes of its own. Don’t be too surprised if the Russians were to hit the Israeli nuke facility at Dimona in retaliation. Russia would be lionized throughout the entire Muslim world for doing this, and what could the US do? Really, what?

Goldberg’s article is good for a laugh for a number of reasons, that is – if you can laugh at intellectual dishonesty. For instance, he tries to tell us:

QUOTE: (One of Netanyahu’s Knesset allies told me, indelicately, though perhaps not inaccurately, that the chance for movement toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state will come only after Ben-Zion’s death. “Bibi could not withdraw from more of Judea and Samaria”—the biblical names for the West Bank—“and still look into his father’s eyes.”): UNQUOTE.

So, that’s it? Goldberg is trying to say, that only after Netanyahu’s father dies would he move toward Palestinian independence? He’s saying, Netanyahu is such a hypocrite and coward, he fears the wrath/disapproval of his living father – but would spit on the old man’s grave by so radically reversing Israeli policy?

Goldberg must think we’re pretty stupid but…you know what they say about telling a Big Lie.

Joel C. Rosenberg

True confession: I did not read Rosenberg’s novel, The Twelfth Imam, which came out in 2010.

Truer confession: I won’t read it – I absolutely refuse to waste my time on this type of crap. I happened to leaf through this novel while in a local bookstore, as I was drinking a coffee which I did pay for. This book, I would not pay for.

We’re supposed to believe the following (page 210): “And he [US President Jackson] has signed an Executive Order declaring that the U.S. will never use nuclear weapons against any other nation – even if attacked first.” Why didn’t Rosenberg write this instead: “… – not even in response to a nuclear strike against the U.S.” [sigh] I hate sloppy writing, though Rosenberg’s defenders will surely insist that his meaning was “… – under any circumstances.”

Now that interpretation would even bar US testing of nuclear weapons, for a “test” could be considered an act of intimidation (that is, in effect, a using of “nuclear weapons against”). For why would we test, if we never intend to use such weapons? The most cynical among us would point out, “But the Executive Order, as offered by Rosenberg, would not prevent the US from ‘loaning’ some of its nukes to an ally, who would launch them on our behalf.”

So, given all this, why wouldn’t I be intrigued to read this book so as to understand the rhyme or reason POTUS would issue such an Order? It’s simple (though there are other reasons): POTUS would never issue such an Order, for there could conceivably arise situations in which tactical nukes could be (reasonably) used.

I can’t imagine this novel would go on to say that, in light of this order, the US would proceed to dismantle all of its nukes. If the US won’t use these weapons, then why keep them stockpiled? Why not scrap them? If POTUS tried to scrap or had even issued such a Rosenbergian Executive Order, he would have been impeached. That is, we’re expected to believe POTUS would knowingly commit political suicide.

Since there could be no conceivable reason for POTUS to behave so oddly, not even in a mediocre novel, why would I want to read a bad one?

My other reasons: I did say there were “other reasons” why I won’t read this book.

·       Rush Limbaugh’s glowing review appears on the dust jacket.

·       Fundamental Christians are falling over themselves, going gaga over this guy.

·       Rosenberg is the toast of the town, being praised and highly sought after for interviews by a wide variety of media. That alone makes me highly suspicious.

·       Rosenberg became an Evangelical Christian, though his father came from an Orthodox Jewish background. He paints a plausible picture on his website as to how his conversion started and his faith deepened (at http://www.joelrosenberg.com/). However, all I see is a man immersed/drowning in the Abrahamic tradition – who knows nothing about Buddhism. For if he had such knowledge, he could never (as he did on his site) make this claim: “…He is who He says He is: the only way to heaven.”  Any good Buddhist knows that his own path to Enlightenment (“heaven,” if you must call it that) is based on the strength of his own personal commitment to spiritual practice, and not on any need for a Savior.

·       “Even though a U.S. News & World Report did a story dubbing me a ‘modern Nostradamus’” – according to his website – we should definitely take Rosenberg at his own word when he writes (on that same site): “I concede it’s uncanny that my novels have a way of seeming to come true in some way, shape, or form. But I’m not a psychic. I’m not a clairvoyant.” As far as I’m concerned, that ends the matter.

·       People who fervently believe in the End of Days are dangerous, simply because their actions could lead to a cataclysm, perhaps even to an end of life on this planet. But…the rest of the universe would carry on quite nicely without us, by which I mean to include the untold trillions of beings on untold billions of planets. Only our own arrogance makes us think the universe must end, simply because all life on earth gets wiped out in anticipation of some Savior (who Himself is working diligently on His own enlightenment/salvation).

On to Newt Gingrich

I will soon post an essay I’d written about another doomsayer, Newt Gingrich, who wrote the foreword to a book by William Forstchen called One Second After. I leave you with this quote from that essay:

QUOTE:

Basically, this novel details the struggle for survival which starts one second after a nuclear weapon is detonated at high altitude over each of three different states: Utah, Kansas, and Ohio. One second after these detonations, the entire continental United States no longer has access to its electrical power grid or any devices with EMP-sensitive circuits which were “fried” by the sudden surge of energy released by these weapons.

I want to be very clear about this: We’re being lead to believe that three low-yield nuclear weapons could serve to knock out the technological underpinnings of our modern way of life. No computers. No phones. Few operable automobiles and trucks. No planes, no refrigeration or heating units. No manufacturing, dependent on electrical power. Even portable power generators are rendered useless by this attack.

So of course my bullshit detector went into high alert.

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I very much judge men by the company they keep, and by those who embrace them.”

Internet Censorship and CIA Collaboration

The long title of this article is:

Internet Censorship and CIA Collaboration: Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook, and Daily Kos?

CIA Collaboration

I was rather amused when I heard about Facebook’s violations of user privacy (all quite “unintended” – wink, wink). However, I’m sure the problem runs deeper than merely selling our personal info to advertisers. I have absolutely no doubt that Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook, etc. funnel all of our posts to the CIA, complete with our real names. I don’t have any proof of this, but keeping in mind the history of our intel agencies, I have to ask: How could they pass up the opportunity to lean on these web sites to sell us out?

I wasn’t surprised to learn that Daily Kos founder (and “owner” – let’s call a spade a spade, here) Markos Moulitsas had all kinds of good things to say about the CIA. He had even applied to become an agent but claims he decided instead to “kinda join the Howard Dean campaign.” Thesis: It’s entirely possible that Moulitsas was able to set up and finance the Daily Kos website with the support of the CIA. Of course, that kind of support doesn’t come free. There’s a price to pay [words to this effect]: “We’ll make you a very wealthy man, but we want the names of your subscribers.”

I took due note when Daily Kos blocked me from continuing to post on their site. They were not alone in this: MySpace also blocked me (also without notification). An amazing thought occurred to me: Both sites wanted to eliminate any possible threat to the Obama candidacy. Barack preached “change.” I did more than preach; I posted a written contract saying what I’d do if elected. My threat was slim to non-existent but I’m sure the Obama campaign decided to leave nothing to chance. I mean, what if major media caught wind of what I was posting and decided to run an “underdog candidate” human interest story?

Translation? There was no way the Obama campaign or complicit media would allow for anything to detract from the Obama “phenomenon.” [Early in the primary season, I had even e-mailed candidate Obama (and Clinton and Edwards) suggesting they follow my lead by posting at least some of  their campaign promises in the form of a written contract, stipulating loss of office should they violate those promises.]

On to Yahoo!

I have posted comments to various news articles on Yahoo! But I’ve noticed they exercise a degree of censorship. I mean, if I tried to post, as many people do, “Obama sucks” or “f**k Obama” [fully spelling out the F-word], no problem. Yahoo permits this type of posting. But I’ve noticed they seem to have a sensitivity to postings critical of the Tea Party. Again, are we seeing media trying to protect a source of good copy or even engage in unethical promotion?

Here’s an example of what I tried to post today:

QUOTE:

Dear Archie,

It's the rank and file of [Tea Party] supporters who don't understand the TP. Just like it was the rank and file Obamaniacs who didn't really understand he'd just dig us deeper in Afghanistan. The rank and file is always the last to wake up and smell the coffee.

The fat cats who have been financing and promoting the TP don't care about:

·       American history (BTW, we have a lot of innocent blood on our historical hands)

·       our Constitution (which, BTW, is only selectively interpreted by backers of various agenda AND desperately needs to be replaced)

·       our forefathers (“the dead you’ve left behind, they will not follow you” – Bob Dylan)

·       our Christian roots (the flinty old bastards who underwrite the TP are really atheistic, self-worshippers to the max).

The TP is about private business, alright – the private business of Daddy Warbucks types who want to deregulate everything so they can make all the rules.

The TP isn’t about the republic – it’s about protecting the interests of GOP types (another kind of “Republican”).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“A lot of people confuse socialism with fascism. Maybe the confusion started when Hitler called his movement 'National Socialism' instead of the more accurate 'National Fascism.'"

:UNQUOTE.

A Closing Comment concerning the Gaia website:

For over four years, I was able to post to a blog, which was part of the Gaia website. That blog was the main vehicle of my campaign for the US presidency. But even after the 2008 campaign was over, I kept posting – mostly to compare Obama’s performance to what I would have done if elected in his place. My first post was dated 9/28/06; my last, 3/22/10. In other words, my 4.5 years of posting was only a bit shorter than Gaia’s entire lifespan.

I couldn’t help wondering why Gaia went out of business. The owner didn’t sell the website – she simply closed it down after about a month’s notice. So of course all of my posted material, critical of Obama, is no longer available on the internet. Those postings would have been equal to a 500-page book, if published in hard cover. That was a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. Lost forever to the general web surfer.

I can’t help but wonder.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“After a while, you have to stop using the word coincidence.”