Swan-diving into the Lake of Fire

I listened patiently as the street preacher spoke of Hell. After he finished talking, I closed my eyes tightly, trying to envision myself swan-diving into the Lake of Fire. And then surfacing amidst the flames and joyfully gargling a mouthful of lava. And (here’s the hard part) doing all this with the same grace and dignity shown by this swan-diver:

http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/11 [Lovely photo, don’t you think?]

Then I had another thought: While treading lava, I chanced to look up and what did I behold?

I saw at first only a few, but then more followed – thousands more, millions more. More who were also swan-diving into the Lake of Fire. But, unlike me, they had launched themselves from Heaven above. Why? Even though they themselves had made it to Heaven, they could not bear the thought of their loved ones being in Hell. They were boldly giving up Heaven for the sake of love.

I thought, “With that kind of love, even Hell can be transformed.” All Hells can be transformed by the power of love alone, so let’s do it. Let’s start loving and transforming the Hell that is this three-fold world (forgive me for employing a Buddhist expression, but I think by now you know where I’m coming from).

I have heard tales of Buddhas purposely going to Hell in order to save the suffering and lead them to Enlightenment. Perhaps I shall have that honor some day.

Street Preacher was a fundamentalist calling himself a Christian; I was (and still am) a Buddhist, calling myself a good listener. I am a good listener, but only up to a point; then I brace myself by thinking “Okay, now it’s my turn, so I hope you turn out to be as good a listener as I’ve been.” By the way, I’m usually disappointed to find that most people aren’t very good listeners at all.

Preacher carried on about this Lake of Fire, making several interesting claims: “Those who reject Christ as Savior will be cast into a Lake of Fire, to be tormented for Eternity. The pain will be so intense that sinners would pass out except: God revives them to endure even more suffering. Everlasting suffering. Suffering without end.”

So I asked Street Preacher: “Why does God punish so severely?”

“God hates sin and the unrepentant sinner can never enter Heaven” – him.

“But why torment for Eternity? I mean, why doesn’t God just dis-create the sinner?” – me.

“Dis-create?”

“Dis-create? Un-create? I’m not sure which is the better word. But my point is: If God created man in an instant, couldn’t He simply take each dead sinner and immediately Un-do him, so to speak? I mean, if God means to threaten sinners with eternal suffering, wouldn’t that make Him the ultimate terrorist?”

“God’s ways are mysterious, so I can’t say I understand. But Heaven and Hell are the only choices He offers.”

“I do not accept Christ as my Savior. Nobody died for my sins. It’s simply not possible. It’s like…well, it’s like some guy walking up to me and claiming, ‘Let me make love to your girlfriend for you. Actually, in place of you. It will be exactly the same as if you’d made love to her.’”

“Are you mocking God’s gift to man?”

“I don’t know anything about any alleged gift God made to man, so I cannot mock what I do not know. God is not standing before me now, but you are. So I can respond only to your words. Surely you would not let some stranger have at your girlfriend, not even to test his claim: That when he’s done the deed, you will feel like you’ve just had sex.”

“You have no excuse for not knowing of God’s gifts, for you have the Bible which is the word of God.”

“Yes, you’re right, I have it. But I reject it as not possibly being even remotely believable. But more than that: I reject it as my way of standing side-by-side in brotherhood with the many ‘sinners’ of the world who couldn’t accept Christ simply because they’ve never even hear of Him.”

“You mean, like savages from some remote jungle?”

“Not just them, but I include them and proudly count them as my brothers and sisters.”

“Those who have not heard the word of God come from accursed and condemned bloodlines. That is why they’re so far removed from civilization that they have not even heard of the Bible. It’s best not to stand too close to them, for they are unholy.”

“You mention ‘condemned bloodlines.’ Is God condemning the ignorant because of sins of their fathers?”

Street Preacher basically answered “yes” to that question. I tried to speak of reincarnation and attempts to “get it right” over many life times. I didn’t get far before he made a suggestion:

“Read the Bible and then pray and fast for understanding.”

I replied: “I’m as likely to do that as you are to read Buddhist scripture, meditate, and practice the six paramitas.”

He looked at me silently. I looked at him. I walked away, entered a nearby Starbucks and bought him a sandwich. He looked hungry for at least that. It was the least I could do, so I did. And I thanked him for his time, which is really the only thing of value any of us have to give to each other.

Flash forward to the future

When I become the next President of the United States in 2012, I will commission three paintings to cover the ceilings of three rooms in the White House:

The first will be a reproduction of The Potato Eaters by Vincent van Gogh (a personal favorite of mine).

The second will be based on a painting entitled Unemployment.  Sorry, but for the life of me I can’t find this anywhere on the internet. But I remember seeing it years ago: A portrait of a family of four, looking very thin and edgy – on the verge of starvation.

The third shall be an original work showing me swan-diving into the Lake of Fire.

Some people accuse Barack Obama of having too much style and not enough substance. Nobody could accuse me of not having enough substance – my internet postings amply testify to that. But I wish, by means of these three paintings and through other gestures, to show that I believe firmly in the importance of style as well.

Art, in the best sense of the word, is important in a president. And that kind of art is long overdue. Lord knows, we’ve had too much art, in the worst sense of the word, in that office for far too long.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors Party

The wind writes in Chinese

Intro: The first of today’s essays is entitled The Wind Writes in Chinese, and the second: Palmian – the language of the palm. Please, don’t bother to ask if any of this is tongue-in-cheek. That would spoil the fun.

The Wind Writes in Chinese

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

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

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

Then he did more than just notice. He realized that the breezes were trying to communicate with him, by moving the branches about in different ways – using those branches to form characters similar to what we would later come to know as “Chinese” (broadly speaking). The wind was teaching him by using a “language” which all of us have always known, since well before the universe was created (at least in its current incarnation).

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

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

Or could it?

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

The state of China today

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

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

Palmian – the language of the palm

Twenty years ago, I came up with something rather silly:

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

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

Maybe it would be possible that I, deep down inside, already know the language represented by my palm print. Maybe all I have to do is give my subconscious sufficient time to decode these symbols and bring them to the attention of my conscious mind. Direct and prolonged contact with these symbols would be the key.

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

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

And you know what? That almost always turns out to be more than sufficient.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012:

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

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

Weighing in on Light

Today I offer two small essays concerning light. The first – In the Beginning – weighs in at 315 words. The second, a bit more ambitious at 761, is entitled:

When whimsical particles of light collide.

In the Beginning

To begin with:  Imagine that the universe gradually stops expanding and eventually collapses to what it was before the Big Bang. The universe will, in this imagining, return to its point of origin - - which I’ll call Point Zero. What will happen to that vast amount of light which has been radiated by all those stars for all this time? Think about the light which we’re now detecting from the (most?) far-flung edges of the universe. Did the objects which radiated that light also send light in the opposite direction – send it away from the center of the universe? Of course.

As far as it is possible to be from the center of the universe, light has travelled that far. Light and nothing else.

Consider this: After the entire mass of the universe collapses back to Point Zero, all of that far-flung light will bend back and head straight for Point Zero. Why? I’m not sure. It could be gravitationally-inspired or even divinely inspired.

Suppose all the matter in the universe returns to a single point and just waits. Let’s also say that this single point of matter can’t re-explode into another Big Bang. Why not? Since we’re not sure how the first(?) Big Bang happened, who can be assured that a second(?) One is possible?

Meanwhile, all that light (all that far-flung, distantly-radiated light) races back through the Void and bombards that single point of matter sitting at Point Zero. This bombardment will be from every direction: wave after wave after wave … assaulting Point Zero. Do you suppose all that light will have enough energy to re-explode that single point of matter into another Big Bang?

There’s a hidden meaning behind the expression “Let There Be Light.” This expression is incomplete. It should read: “Let there be light cast upon that single point called home, for only light can set us free.”

When whimsical particles of light collide

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, I 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 further verifies 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 this 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 for US President in 2012

“When the sages spoke of ‘the lightness of being,’ maybe they weren’t referring to the aftermath of a diet or a lightheaded giddiness.”

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

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

Date with Destiny: Part II

I really thought I’d be in jail by this time instead of writing this blog. My last post speculated how I might have ended up being cited for Contempt of Court three days ago.

Yes, I stood before the judge. But…the whole purpose of this day in court was to meet my credit card’s attorney to see if we could negotiate a settlement. I didn’t know that – I was prepared to channel Perry Mason and defend as best I could.

We met out in the hall, out of earshot of the judge who was tending to other matters. The attorney was a young, energetic black man dressed in a suit straight out of GQ. He was sharp as a tack but very nice. Our meeting was brief and I ended up telling him, “I would rather go to jail than pay Discover Card even one thin dime. In fact, my current situation with the Internal Revenue Service (as confessed in writing before this court) could well serve to make that happen.”

So we shook hands and I went back into the courtroom. My name was announced about 10 minutes later, so I (acting as my own lawyer) walked up to the judge. Next to me stood another attorney for Discover Card – an attractive young woman in her mid-thirties. The judge said my legal brief was the most unusual and interesting she’d read in a while. And the attractive and (as it turned out) pleasant attorney said, “I couldn’t put it down.”

Our meeting at the bench was brief, with a trial date set for April 5. The judge offered an observation concerning one of my arguments, saying [in effect]: “If you try to argue that you (as a first party) paying a third party, to whom a second party owes money, is effectively the same as paying a debt you owe that second party, that argument won’t wash.”

Of course that was a reference to me donating money to the United Negro College Fund, instead of paying my monthly credit card payment. My claim is that Discover Card (as well as other financials) owes payments in the form of Reparations for having benefitted from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Discover owes and isn’t paying, so I decided to redirect my monthly payments to the UNCF on behalf of Discover Card (without their authorization to do so, by the way).

I basically told the judge, “I’ll take my chances.”

While sitting in the gallery awaiting my turn…

When I arrived outside courtroom 1106, I was amazed to see a printout taped to the wall listing well over 100 cases to be heard on this date. I thought, “OMG, I’ll be here all day!”

But, lo and behold, each case was being processed in rapid fire succession. A few words were mumbled at the bench and then the clerk date-stamped documents to indicate closure. I thought, “So what’s going on here? Is this a rubberstamping operation?”

In one case, the judge explained to a defendant:

“If I borrow money to buy a $100,000 house, I don’t get to pay back just $100,000. It’s more like $300,000.”

I thought: “Usury. Too bad these defendants, and millions more like them, didn’t have any say-so in setting upper limits to interest rates. Their lawmakers were bought off by the banks long ago.”

I hung around for a bit after my session with the judge ended. I was kind of hoping two people would show up: Representatives from two local weekly newspapers – the Chicago Reader (mostly for young liberals, with a focus on night life) and the Chicago Defender (an institution in the Black community for decades). Two weeks prior to my court date, I’d sent them a detailed e-mail (which neither bothered to answer) with this subject line:

Black Reparations lawsuit going to court

That was an attention-grabber, I supposed. But maybe a deal-killer (for nobody showed up) was how I closed my transmission:

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“For those who’d supported (and been sold out by) Barack Obama, the game is over. I ask for your help in getting elected and in electing true independents to Congress. There is no other way.”

Ah, I had dissed Obama. As if I wasn’t aware that all he needs is more time. Not to mention more Congressmen who will vote with him.

“I’ll take my chances”

So why did I tell the judge “I’ll take my chances?” Why do I want to present my case in court for a full and open hearing? There are at least two good reasons:

·       I’ll have four more months to increase and fortify my written arguments;

·       I’ll have four more months to seek allies, spread the word, and try to create backlash against Discover Card which, I have discovered, isn’t beloved by all.

There is a lot of debate as to what the law is and what it isn’t. There are accusations, from time to time, leveled against activist judges who try to create law on their own. My own feeling is: The law is whatever We-the-People decide it should be, pretty much on a case-by-case basis, if We’d so decide. My personal challenge is to raise awareness among We-the-People, telling them we no longer have to tolerate credit card companies abusing us or usurious interest rates.

That’ll take some doing, since people have been cowed into submission for so long. But I believe there’s still some fight left in us. My basic argument boils down to a process of elimination:

If our [Black] President won’t lift a finger against usury or in support of Reparations;

If our Congress has been bought out by special interest groups who want to maintain the status quo;

If issues before courts are so often decided by 5-4 ideologically-driven majorities rather than by consensus arrived at by logical argumentation;

If there are no institutional forces within our country to redress the wrongs wrought by the Slave Trade and ensuing institutionalized discrimination;

If no one else is left standing to say, “Let’s do the right thing;”

Then it’s up to one man who sees what’s right and is willing to take a stand.

And if that one man can’t get a fair hearing based on the merits of his case, then who will be to blame for a ripple effect which seeks to overthrow an unfair and unresponsive system? You know the old saying about the straw that broke the camel’s back.

It would be too easy for a court of law to rule against me on narrow grounds by claiming the issues I raise are “political” and are therefore best addressed by legislators. I intend to argue that it’s quite alright for courts to be “political” if that means the interests of justice are being served. Especially, since the state and federal legislatures aren’t being “political” enough (though that’s their job) and are, instead, being evasive.

I would love for a judge to rule in my favor, just for the hell of it, even if that judge didn’t necessarily buy my arguments. [Why not? I’m sure this happens, since judges aren’t penalized for “incorrect” decisions.] This would force my opponent (Discover Card) to decide if they’d like to appeal. Right now, as things stand, mine isn’t a class action lawsuit. In fact, I’m the one being sued. However, an appeal presents several risks:

·       The risk of blowback against the corporate bottom line from negative publicity;

·       The risk that well-heeled organizations or individuals might publicize this cause or actively ally themselves with it;

·       The risk that other debtors might get uppity and decide to follow in my footsteps or perhaps even become politically active against the Big Financials;

·       The risk that Discover Card might actually lose on appeal – sometimes it’s better to cut one’s losses than to pursue further legal action.

Miscellanea from my earlier blog…

Contrary to my last blog, Judge E. Kenneth Wright, Jr. (a Black man) was not present in my courtroom. Instead, a white woman named Sheryl A. Pethers was on the bench.

None of us were asked to rise when the judge entered the courtroom, so I didn’t have to risk remaining seated.

Yes, the words “In God We Trust” decorated one of the courtroom’s walls. And I was prepared to ask the judge for permission to tape my sign (bearing one word: Buddha) over the word God. I had even stopped in Walgreen’s on the way to court to buy a tape dispenser for this purpose. But I thought better of it. I saw I’d have to stand on furniture to do this, which would give the judge a reason to say “no.” But I thought it would be too distractive to the main reason I was there.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“[Sigh] It’s hard to decide which battles to pick; I want to fight them all. Which is a lot more than I can say for our current President.”

Date with Destiny: Contempt of Court?

My personal zero-hour approaches: Tomorrow (Nov. 23, 2010), 9 AM, courtroom # 1106, Daley Center at 50 W. Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois.

I am the defendant in a case I’ve blogged about on this site thrice before. The word “reparation” (or a derivative) appears in their titles.

So, what’s the worst thing the judge could do to me? Brrr…I hate asking such questions, but one must be prepared.

Contempt of Court

The most immediate danger would be a Contempt of Court citation which, in the worst case, plants me behind bars. “Isn’t that rather extreme,” you might ask? The judge might feign fairness by offering me the option of paying a fine or sitting in the can. But that’s not really an option at all, since I have no money to pay a fine. And I wouldn’t pay, even if I could. A citizen’s life in America is full of such “options,” but don’t get me started on that. I want to keep today’s posting brief.

How to be contemptuous…let me count the ways:

·         Years ago, when in court as a Plaintiff, I saw the wall to my left dominated with huge stainless steel letters spelling out: “In God We Trust.” If the same words are there tomorrow, I want to issue an objection to that. You know the drill: If you disagree with an aspect of the proceedings, you get to say, “I object.” My objection:  “These words taint the proceedings by attempting to establish, within a purely secular realm [this courtroom], an unmistakable message:  The Judeo-Christian version of justice rules here. Of course, I (as a Buddhist) wish to advocate a superior version of justice: That of karmic law.”

·         If the bailiff announces, upon the entrance of the judge, “Hear ye, hear ye…..All rise….” I shall remain seated. If, again, the bailiff (this time glaring at me, maybe even patting the gun on his hip) says, “ALL rise,” I will say, “I object for two reasons: To insist that I rise would be a violation of my religious beliefs and of the spirit of the US Declaration of Independence: ‘All men are created equal…” I neither bow before kings nor rise before judges.” [NOTE: If President Obama were to enter my presence, I wouldn’t bow before him  or call him ‘sir’ or any of that. My lack of deference, in his case, wouldn’t land me in jail. Why should failure to rise before a judge do so?]

·         About that “Your Honor” business: My google search shows this entity to be the judge hearing my case: Honorable E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.  I have no problem calling him judge; I have every problem calling him “Your Honor.” I doubt this will come up but, hey, it’s a courtroom…a Chicago courtroom to boot…so anything’s possible. My only honorable answer: “I can call you ‘judge’ because it’s obvious that’s what you are. I can’t call you ‘Your Honor’ since it’s not obvious  at all that you are honorable.” [NOTE: US Senators and Representatives are addressed as the “Honorable” so-and-so. Hmm…maybe the word “honorable” has been stripped of its ancient and righteous meaning.]

But Judge Wright is Black, therefore…

Therefore?  Therefore, what?  Therefore…nothing.

No advantage to me. You might think my attempt to represent myself as paying money as Reparations to the United Negro College Fund, instead of to my credit card company Discover, would resonate with such a judge. And what a judge! A true rags-to-riches story. A flesh-and-blood personification of the American Dream.  Judge Wright is one of 12 children, born to the father of a sharecropper. Judge Wright, from 2008-2009, had the distinction of becoming President of the Chicago Bar Association – the first time a sitting judge ever held that post. [And only the fifth Black man to do so.]

His brief bio, courtesy of Northwestern University Law School, is impressive to say the least:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=3741&WT.mc_id=200807

But…Barack Obama also had an impressive resume. But…that didn’t stop President Obama from ordering US non-participation in the Durban Review Conference in 2009. That’s the Conference that was, among other things, going to address the issue of Reparations to those (descendants) of those directly injured by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Our President had his “reasons” but Naomi Klein’s article blew his reasons out of the water:

TITLE: Minority Death Match: Jews, blacks, and the “Post-Racial” Presidency”

Appearing In: Harper’s Magazine, September 2009

Bottom Line? In my life, I have encountered a fair number of Blacks who labored mightily to align themselves with Whitey. A few were people I thought could be allies – people with whom I might find common cause. I guess there’s an irony here:

Just because someone is Black doesn’t automatically mean they support Black causes; just because someone is White (that would be me) doesn’t automatically mean they support White causes.

Go figure.

About the “In God We Trust” Signage

I might object to the presence, in the courtroom, of “In God We Trust” boldly  emblazoned on the wall. The judge might well ask, “Do you suggest we take it down?”

“Not at all, judge. For now, all I’d like is token recognition of a minority viewpoint.” At which time I would pull out a piece of paper with the word “Buddha” scrawled on it, saying, “While I’m here, I ask that this paper be taped over the word ‘God.’”

I suppose a cynic might sneer: “Your edited sign would then read – In Buddha We Trust. Isn’t it rather pretentious that you suppose to speak for all of us? For most of us would not endorse ‘In Buddha WE trust.’”

But…the majority has no problem imposing its view on the minority – one of whom proposes this change only for this one session of court.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The money it cost to install this In God We Trust signage could have fed a hungry child. Makes me angry just thinking about that.”

Radical Reform of the U.S. Legal System

My thesis: Nothing less than a fundamental reformation of the U.S. legal system will usher in a New Age of Justice. I intend to initiate this reformation upon being elected as next President of the United States.

Opening salvo

There are a lot of patriotic, well-intended Americans who genuinely believe: "The USA is a nation of laws, not men." Meaning: The rule of law is paramount here, while in many other places much depends on who you are and who you know.

Increasingly, however, the USA is becoming more and more a nation of influential men who can bend the law to their advantage, leaving We-the-People shorn of our rights like sheep shorn of their wool.

My inspiration

Someone actually bothered to post a response to my blog entitled "Kosovo and US Presidential Power." That someone, calling himself "Polrick," posted this: "Diplomatic Recognition of Kosovo Revisited - A Reply to Steven Searle" - an essay of 1360 words at http://www.onevotematters.com/diplomatic-recognition-of-kosovo-revisited-a-reply-to-steven-searle/

I will respond to some of Polrick's points below. After that, I will make a recommendation to improve the wretched state of our legal system.

Analysis of Polrick's Essay

Point/Counterpoint: The Points below are from Polrick's essay (see link above). The Counterpoints which follow are my responses.

Point

...the propensity of legal scholarship and historical practice support my claim that the President does have the sole power of extending or canceling diplomatic recognition...

Counterpoint

But the actual wording of the Constitution itself does not support Polrick's claim.

Point

Like any text, the US Constitution is open to interpretation ... But the weight of the evidence indicates that Mr. Searle's interpretation of Article 2, Section 3 [of the US Constitution] has not been dominant in US history.

Counterpoint

Polrick is absolutely right about "the weight of the evidence." I admitted as much when I wrote: "Nobody on the planet (except me) is arguing: Bush doesn't have this power" and "I cannot dispute that our president has traditionally wielded this power."

However, it might be useful to ponder how the literal words of the Constitution came, in practice, to acquire their opposite meanings. Expressed another way: "How did our Constitution get hijacked?" Answer: It got hijacked by clever people who redefine words away from their generally accepted meanings.

A good example follows.

Point

The word "shall" in "shall receive ambassadors..." does not require the President to receive anyone who claims to be an ambassador. It simply gives the President the discretion to decide.

Counterpoint

Consider the use of the word "shall" in the First of the Ten Commandments: "You shall have no other gods before Me." To be consistent, Polrick would have to say (using his style of wording, employed above): "The word ‘shall' in ‘You shall have no other gods before Me" does not require you to have no other gods. It simply gives you the discretion to decide."

Bull shit!

Point

As early as 1793, it was widely recognized that the President has the sole power to extend diplomatic recognition.

Counterpoint

Uh huh...and there were people running around then who didn't quite understand the precept that "all men are created equal" - people who wanted to call President George Washington "Your Excellency." Some people are slow to get it. That's what we're here for: To help them get it.

These "slow people" totally buy into what one man (King Louis XIV) said: "I am the state."

It's interesting to me that the President (one man) is claimed to be endowed with the sole right of determining our foreign policy - including the right to grant diplomatic recognition to countries and to recognize Ambassadors. If the Constitution really bestows this power on "His Excellency, the President," then why does Article IV, Section 3 say: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union...?"

It doesn't say: "New states [which, prior to admission, are - of course - foreign entities] may be admitted by the Congress into this union - only with the approval of the President?" We seem to have an instance here, where the President has no power concerning this type of foreign affair. [UPDATE (7/19/12): Here I confess to not having been aware, until recently, that Congress and the President decide whether to admit new states.]

Point

In 1798, the US Congress passed the Logan Act (which is still officially on the books). This law made it illegal for any private US citizen to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign government. According to its official description, this law was "an Act to prevent usurpation of Executive functions."

Counterpoint

The Logan Act does not use either word ("diplomatic" or "negotiations") even once. Which is just as well, since only diplomats can carry on diplomatic negotiations. See for yourself: Here's the entire 136-word Act:

QUOTE [Text of the Logan Act: 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)]:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

:UNQUOTE.

This Act [allegedly] seeks to prevent activity by unauthorized, private US citizens "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States..." I could see the point if the Act specifically punished Americans who tried to pass themselves off as diplomats or falsely claim they represent our government.

However, suppose the following: If I were to send a letter to the British government, making it clear I was just a private US citizen, which persuaded them to remove their forces in support of an American military adventure, I could be arrested and imprisoned under the Logan Act. It wouldn’t even matter if my letter failed to persuade the British, as long as it was my intent (which it obviously would be) to influence that foreign government’s policy in support of the US.

Polrick writes: "According to its official description, this law was "an Act to prevent usurpation of Executive functions." I disagree - this Act was not intended to "prevent usurpation of Executive functions." It was intended to intimidate the common man, to lessen his freedom of speech, to gather more and more power unto one man so as to make him like a god (though we call him Mr. President).

We have to worry about this Act being so broad in its prohibitions. Even ex-Presidents, like Jimmy Carter, could be caught in its net. He could have been arrested for going to Syria to speak to a man he knew well - that country's president Bashar al-Assad. [As "fate" would have it, though, Carter was, in his own words, "ordered by the White House not to go" to Syria.]

I shudder to think what would have happened if he had met al-Assad (not in Syria but, for example) in France...assuming the State Department would have decided to let Carter travel at all. Which is another thing: I'm greatly opposed to limiting the right to free speech by controlling the ability of our citizens to travel.

As your next President, I shall have a great deal to say about that.

The fact that the Logan Act is still on the books says a lot about how the ruling elite feels about the common man. Here's how I, as your next President, would feel about the common man:

QUOTE:

By Executive Order, I hereby "abolish" the unconstitutional Logan Act, which is an affront to our basic rights as American citizens to participate in the marketplace of ideas. I "abolish" this Act by [key word follows] authorizing every U.S. citizen to share their ideas with anyone they please, as long as they make it clear they are acting as private citizens and not in the role of U.S. diplomats.

:UNQUOTE.

I know that the President cannot unilaterally declare federal statutes null and void. However, the entire Logan Act can be virtually voided by me if I focus on these six words in that Act: "without authority of the United States." The entire Establishment believes that only the President has power to conduct foreign affairs, and that this power is absolute.

In other words, in this case, the entire Establishment buys into the King Louis XIV doctrine: "I am the state." At least as far as the President and the conduct of foreign policy are concerned.

I will take advantage of this exclusive power (and my possession of it) to "deputize" all of my fellow citizens, sharing this power with them. Actually, I'd only be "giving" them rights they already had all along. Which the Establishment tries so hard, on a daily basis, to reduce.

There! That takes care of the odious Logan Act...but only if you elect me as your next President!

Point

He [James Madison, fourth US President and slave holder - yes, I count that as a black mark against him] believed that the President not only had the sole power of diplomatic recognition, but that he also authenticates - that is, judges - the true status of the foreign representative.

[NOTE 1: I inserted these words above: "James Madison ... him" - Steve Searle]

[NOTE 2: The following Counterpoint goes to the character of James Madison; this shows that we shouldn’t necessarily give a damn what Madison believed or wished.]

Counterpoint

James Madison wrote, "Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves." [See: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_James_Madison's_view_on_slavery]

Maybe he meant to say, "Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves - unless of course such magnanimity on my part would serve to reduce in any degree my personal wealth."

In either case, I would respond, "That's mighty White of you, Mr. President."

This same link states:

"James Madison was strongly opposed to slavery, and believed that it was bad for both the slave and the slave-holder. However, even though he had this view, Madison kept his slaves for his whole life." There's a special word to describe people like this: hypocrite. [NOTE: Madison also did not arrange to free his slaves upon his death.]

When Polrick wrote (above) "he also authenticates - that is, judges - the true status of the foreign representative," I have to ask: Who is the President (as one man) to judge anybody, even if supported by the likes of James Madison? As to the "true status of (a) foreign representative," I believe that foreign governments are best suited for determining the "true status" of their diplomats, by virtue of having appointed them in the first place.

Point

Edmond Genet arrived in the US from France. He presented his diplomatic credentials, addressed to the US Congress. President Washington would not receive Genet until he returned with diplomatic credentials addressed to the President.

Counterpoint

I think it was rather noble of France to grant credentials addressed to the US Congress, instead of to the President. That was France's way of acknowledging the underlying theme of the American Revolution by, in effect, saying: "We appreciate that your country is blazing a new trail, away from bowing to kings and treating kings as if they were the state. We therefore make this gesture of granting diplomatic credentials, not to a solitary kingly figure but instead to the body [Congress] which represents We-the-People."

George Washington was wrong to not have received Genet, since the Constitution (in plain English) says, "...he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers..." For this reason alone, George Washington should have been impeached by the Congress [no, I'm not kidding].

The Case of Boehner vs. McDermott:

An Illuminator of our Justice System's Faults

"A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner more than $1 million in legal fees in a decade-long dispute over an illegally taped telephone call" - April 1, 2008, Matthew Daly, Associated Press.

Background

QUOTE:

In December of 2004, Rep. McDermott came under investigation by the House Ethics Committee when they had to determine whether he violated standards of conduct for leaking an illegally recorded telephone conversation during a committee investigation in 1997. At that time the committee was investigating the conduct of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The [sic] illegal telephone conversation was recorded by a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who overheard a conversation between Rep. Gingrich and top Republicans, on their police scanner inside their car. After listening to the conversation for several minutes they decided to record it, at first for posterity's sake and after listening further decided that it might be important for the Ethics Committee to hear.

It was at that time that they delivered the tape to McDermott, the senior Democrat on the committee at that time, and who was in town for a swearing-in ceremony.

Shortly afterward, Congressman McDermott leaked the tape to several media outlets, including the New York Times.

:UNQUOTE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDermott#Recorded_telephone_conversations ]

A couple of observations and additional info

·       Boehner really pulled a boner by having been so stupid as to use a cell phone to make this call.

·       Boehner supports President Bush's warrantless wiretapping efforts, though he was miffed that his own call was illegally wiretapped (though I don't see any "wires" here).

·       I believe that the right of the people to know, to the greatest extent possible, about the conspiracies of their elected government leaders must outweigh those leaders' "rights" to privacy.

·       At least McDermott was in a position to fight Boehner's lawsuit - including the ability to use funds from his own campaign war chest. Could the average American survive such expensive and lengthy litigation?

·       In April of 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals [one of the courts to hear this case] ruled against McDermott in a 5-4 split decision.

The kind of changes I'd like to see

For one thing, I am bothered by 5-4 split decisions in high courts. That would seem to indicate a system so byzantine that equally intelligent judges can easily arrive at opposite conclusions.

I remember reading, decades ago, about a man who had been appointed Chief Justice of the Swiss Supreme Court, who had no legal training whatsoever. In fact, he was a watchmaker by trade. The Swiss attitude was: Law should be simple enough that the average skilled workman should not only be able to understand it but should be able to render judicial decisions based on it.

In keeping with this Swiss doctrine, I support the idea of allowing "Juries" (with a capital "J") of common citizens to decide as many types of cases as possible, specifically disallowing the "services" of lawyers. Sounds outrageous? Perhaps, but there are compelling arguments.

Legal costs and the time it takes for cases to wend their way through the system are outrageous. We-the-People have allowed a monstrous edifice to dominate our lives, which dispenses legal opinions but not much in the way of justice.

Opponents would argue that we would run the risk of different Juries issuing inconsistent opinions in similar cases. Others might claim that litigants would be putting themselves at the mercy of the whims of such Juries. I have to wonder, though, if such whims might be preferable to the (sometimes rather thinly disguised) whims of professional judges. [Yes, I've been a victim of this.]

Inconsistencies could be handled by means of appeal. But not the kind of appeal we're familiar with. As I indicated in my writings on Cross-Sectional Representation, all decisions rendered by such Juries should be overturnable by Congress.

In addition, judges should be reduced to serving only in the role of moderator, with Juries being allowed to make rulings and determine punishments. I would also broaden what may be introduced into evidence and verbally expressed during a trial - completely broaden. This would include the right of any Juror to ask questions during the course of a trial. To me, this seems to be a justifiable expansion on the right of free speech.

Some might argue that such broadening would impinge on the defendant's right to a fair trial. This is a good point, which allows me to close this essay with my conclusion:

Conclusion

We cannot have a better system of justice until we become better people. I call upon all men and women of good conscience to work with me on this. Contribute your thoughts and actions toward the worthy goal of totally revamping our legal system. This includes efforts to uplift and enlighten our society. You (and you know who you are) can do this.

This important work must include helping me to replace all of our elected officials with independents. Democratic and Republican legislators - overwhelmingly lawyers themselves - will fight any attempt to reform our legal system tooth and nail. Quite simply, they've got to go.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"If you elect me as your next President, I promise to work with you to add profound meaning to the last three words of the Pledge of Allegiance" - Steve.

The Independent Contractors’ Party