The Hangover Part II (the movie)

Looks like the Hangover Part II smashed all kinds of attendance records. For the record, I’ll pass on seeing this since I had quite enough of the first installment of this series. Back on July 6, 2009, I posted this on the Gaia site. These words are as true now as they were then:

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I see movies like The Hangover for one reason only: To get a sense of what turns on We-the-People.

So I ended up seeing this flick about two weeks ago, and the theater was packed. This audience was stoked - they were rarin' to go. And this film did have some funny moments. But I had problems with it, so I'd have to disagree with film critic Roger Ebert when he wrote:

QUOTE:

Now this is what I'm talkin' about. The Hangover is a funny movie, flat out, all the way through. Its setup is funny. Every situation is funny. Most of the dialogue is funny almost line by line....There is never an explanation for the chicken.

:UNQUOTE.

I guess I'll start with the chicken

The chicken appeared early in the movie. Three guys wake up in their $4,200 per night Las Vegas suite, after an evening of bachelor-partying. They wake up and see their suite is trashed and they can't remember what happened last night and...there's a chicken strutting around the living room. Frankly, I found the presence of the chicken to be scarier than the tiger in the bathroom (Mike Tyson's tiger, no less).

I really hope Roger Ebert wasn't expecting "an explanation for the chicken." And, no, Roger, it wasn't so the guys could have a nice fresh omelet after an evening of debauchery. The chicken was there for sexual purposes. Frat boys and soldiers have joked about this type of thing for decades. So I think Ebert was being cute by noting a lack of explanation.

Yeah, I know: Sex with a chicken. That's downright revolting. But other aspects of this movie vied with the chicken for that honor.

The Basic Selling Point

Here's what turned on the audiences, nationwide I dare say:

These three guys weren't responsible for their actions, or at least two of them weren't. The third had spiked their drinks (and his own) with the date rape drug which, as everybody "knows," can lead to involuntary and irresponsible behavior. How cool is that? [I'll get to that in a moment.]

So they got to do all this cool, immoral stuff without being responsible or intentional. Problem is, they couldn't remember any of it. And they couldn't find their buddy - yes, there had actually been four of them; the one missing in action was the bridegroom (this was his bachelor party).

But what about before and after the spiking?

For the sake of argument, let's suppose it was way cool for these guys to be so doped up they could be (er) forgiven for going wild for one night. Let's even say it was okay for one of them to marry a stripper he and the guys picked up. [A quickie Vegas-style marriage and, yeah, she was cute - which makes it even more okay I guess.]

It wasn't okay that she had left her baby with these three passed-out clowns while she went home to her motel room. It wasn't okay that her husband, after getting an equally-quickie annulment from their marriage, decides he wants to see this woman again on a serious date. Is he out of his fricking mind!?

It wasn't okay that the guy who spiked the drinks wasn't severely chastised for doing so. If someone had slipped street drugs into my drink, I'd be majorly pissed. And this dude really thought Caesar lived in Caesar's Palace. I'm far from perfect, but (believe me) I wouldn't want a guy like that in my inner circle. Or even my outermost circle.

At the end of the movie, when these guys looked at pictures of their forgotten evening, the audience I was with was a hootin' and a hollerin'. I mean, strippers, man! These guys must have had one wild time, and the audience was vicariously getting off on their photos. If I had been one of these guys, I would have broken out in a sweat while feverishly trying to recall if I'd had unprotected sex with any of these babes. But, of course, not to worry ... right? Everybody knows Las Vegas hookers carry condoms everywhere they go. Goes without saying ...right?

I'd also worry if any of my buddies might have caught any weird diseases from being too intimate with that chicken. Lord knows, I'd never do any such thing - not even when roofied up. I mean, I eat chicken - but only in the most conventional way. But I suppose my buddies are thinking the same thing. But...fact is, we all woke up to see that chicken strutting. Strutting! - as if mocking us. And it was someone's bright idea to bring that chicken into our lair.

And that's another thing - that lair. Maybe it's my austere nature asserting itself here, but I can't imagine spending $4,200 for one evening's stay. But wait ... sure I can imagine - I can more than imagine. For the spectacle we got treated to was of four guys who had such low self-esteem, they simply had to spend their way out of it. Even if it was for only one night in their miserable lives.

Woud'a, could'a, should'a

If they wanted a truly memorable experience - one they couldn't possibly forget - they could have taken a much cheaper room and donated the difference to Smile Train. That's right, folks, step right up. Each $250 donation to Smile Train will repair a destitute child's cleft palate. There are some really sobering pix at http://www.smiletrain.org/  : These are the before-pictures.

So come on, you way cool guys, you can step up to the plate on this one. The after-pictures will burn a smile into your hearts you'll never forget.

As for Roger Ebert and similar socially-sanctioned icons

Ah, Roger [Ebert] and Me go back a ways - back to Aug. 28, 2007, when I blogged on his review of September Dawn. One of these days, I might repost that blog on this site, my prior site having gone out of business a year or so ago. I will strongly consider reposting if Mitt Romney or any other Mormon looks like he might snag the GOP nomination for president.

Roger had given Dawn zero stars, for which I properly blasted him. And he gave The Hangover three-and-a-half stars. And people listen to this guy! Why, I ask myself, is this so?

Roger is just one among many authority figures which corporate media find useful to foist on us. They're called opinion-shapers. I could never figure out why so many people buy into whatever it is that (say) a Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Steve Kroft ad nauseum have to say.

The first step in any meaningful revolution (oops, I meant to say "change we can believe in") is to make a conscious effort to repudiate these people. They speak not the truth and they aren't harmless. There are voices out there far worthier of your attention. But you do have to look for them. But guess what - you won't have to look really far at all.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"After a while you should realize - it's not just a movie, it's not just a movie." - Steve.

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Buddha in the eyedropper

QUESTION:  How can an eyedropper help explain the difference between what happens when a Buddha dies and when an ordinary mortal dies?

DISCLAIMER:  (sigh) I’m about to use an analogy, knowing full well that some are better than others. This one might be particularly weak but I hope it contains enough to make the point.

What death means:

Imagine someone holding an eyedropper full of water, leaning over a ship’s railing while far out at sea. He extends his hand and squeezes the dropper so all its water falls into the ocean. Now compare that eyedropper with one individual’s physical body, and think of the water in that dropper as that one individual’s life-force. You can call it soul if you wish, since even within a Buddhist’s analogy that term will do.

For this analogy to work, think of water in that eyedropper in these two ways:

·       as ordinary molecules of water;

·       each molecule possessing the soul/spirit of that individual.

Once that dropper has been emptied, that person has “died.” His life-force joins the life-force of the greater living entity known as the ocean, which is the birthplace of all such uniquely individual life-forces. As time passes, all of those molecules will spread out and (given enough time) be thoroughly integrated into all the oceans of the world.

The deaths of an ordinary mortal and a Buddha can be described in such a way. However, the Buddha, faced with the prospect of his loss of identity (his unique water contained in that unique eyedropper being evenly dispersed throughout a greater whole) is not afraid because he’s done this before. The common mortal, facing such an unknown prospect, is terrified by thinking he’ll be spread out, diffused, and mixed with others.

What rebirth means:

The common mortal’s water molecules will eventually leave the ocean, evaporating to the sky above. Then they will fall as rain, mixed with other water molecules from sources other than his eyedropper. That water could go through a large variety of paths before it, once again, fills another eyedropper…only to be discharged again into the ocean. A long time will pass before that ordinary mortal’s water finds its way into an eyedropper, and a longer time before such an eyedropper gets emptied into the ocean.

To be sure, that second eyedropper will not contain much more than one or two molecules from that original eyedropper. Which is why the spirit of the thing matters. Just imagine that spirit was able to be conveyed to whatever alien water molecules that one original molecule was able to come in contact with, eventually ending up in that second eyedropper with them.

Of course, that would mean the other molecules from that original eyedropper would still be in the ocean or might have found other destinies. That’s one reason why, either common mortal or Buddha, there’s a little of each of us in everything – though that “little” is not always consciously aware of its former source or identity.

The common mortal is a slave to this never-ending cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. A Buddha is not. Because of his enlightened condition, he could remain forever in that ocean and never reenter mundane reality. He could but he never does. Because of his great compassion for others, he wills himself to be reborn and does so with great precision.

In fact, he could be reborn immediately. As soon as his water, released from its original eyedropper, hits the ocean, it could immediately reverse its path and reoccupy that same eyedropper! Or could enter another eyedropper which had just been emptied overboard from another ship.

Even harder to believe? Suppose there were 1,000 such ships and eyedroppers scattered all over the earth’s oceans, which all at the same time had emptied their individual eyedroppers. One Buddha, from one eyedropper, could immediately reoccupy all of those eyedroppers after their original occupants’ molecules had been dumped overboard.

Now you might think that would be impossible, for how could the molecules in one eyedropper disperse themselves in all directions and travel so quickly as to be in position to reenter those 1,000 remote eyedroppers at the same time? The key is to consider the spirit of the matter. Of course, the numerous molecules from that one eyedropper could not travel that fast. But the spirit of those molecules could be instantaneously relayed to other molecules in the vicinity of those other ships.

The scripture states that a Buddha has the power to manifest an infinite number of bodies (to make an infinite number of copies of himself), so that he can be in many places at once. If that’s what it takes to reach the people who need to hear his teachings.

Transmission of a Buddha’s life-force

That Buddha’s life-force happened to be in that one eyedropper, though we won’t consider for now where else his spirit might also be. We’ll just consider that one source – that one eyedropper. Once that emptied dropper’s water hits the ocean, the spirit of a Buddha could instantaneously be passed from molecule to molecule, even to molecules of rock in the center of the earth, if the Buddha chose to pass through the center of the earth in order to reach someone on the other side of the earth.

That person might end up with one of that Buddha’s molecules in his body, as part of his body, as the molecule does its indirect preaching within that common mortal’s body. That Buddha molecule could take any form – as a water molecule flowing in that mortal’s bloodstream. Or as a calcium atom absorbed into his bone tissue. Or even as part of his brain, which would start to make sense for most people (within the confines of this analogy). The form it takes is irrelevant. The fact that it’s there and can convey, in even the most indirect way, the Buddha’s teaching will bestow many blessing on that common mortal.

In closing:

This analogy is entirely mine, not coming from any of the Buddhist scriptures. Nor does it come from my teacher – since I don’t have one, except Shakyamuni Buddha himself. And, no, it didn’t come from him.

I am a Buddhist who is a member of a sect that contains only one member – me. My primary practice is to recite the English-language translation of the Lotus Sutra for an hour every day – though I often fall short of that goal. So far, I’ve read the entire 324-page volume of the Burton Watson translation over 130 times during the last five years. If you took only 120 copies of that book and stacked them up, that would make a pile ten-feet in height.

Now that doesn’t make me particularly enlightened, except I will claim such a constant recitation is the Buddha’s will. I can only take what I think I’ve learned and try to pass it on to somebody else. That “passing on” is important, for that will in turn refine my understanding.

As time passes and my practice deepens, I might conclude that this eyedropper analogy is profoundly faulty and unworthy of anyone’s consideration. That might well come to pass, but for now I offer it because I think it has value.

After all is said and done, that’s the best anyone can offer.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The basic difference between a Buddhist and an Abrahamist (Jew, Christian, Muslim, et al): It’s not a matter of life-and-death; it’s a matter of lives-and-deaths.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Saving the world, Chicago style

Introduction: Today, I will touch on:

·       A revolutionary new system of government I invented back in 1976 – which the world wasn’t ready for;

·       Chicago, Illinois as an example of how my system could work;

·       How the European Union, especially, could directly benefit from this system, as well as the entire world in a trickle-down kind of way;

·       Miscellaneous comments concerning Chicago, not directly relevant to this new system I’m proposing.

THESIS:  I will use the example of my hometown Chicago to demonstrate how Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR) can save the United States, the European Union, and (indirectly) the entire world. I invented CSR over 35 years ago, though I was unable to generate any interest. Much has happened since then, which I hope will inspire the grassroots interest needed for implementation. CSR, as it might be adopted at the national level is described here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

Sidebar: Many of us identify with our hometowns. We understand them with far more intimacy than larger entities such as counties, cantons, provinces, nations, and regional unions. For this reason, perhaps more people will come to appreciate the vast potential of CSR by considering the case of one city – Chicago. Though my hometown might differ greatly from yours, I’m hoping there are enough similarities for you to conclude CSR could work in your town, country, or alliance of states.

I hasten to add, though, that CSR cannot work as a One-World basic form of government, though certain trickle-down benefits would make themselves broadly felt – more on that later.

Basic description of Chicago

My town has a strong mayor, weak Council type of government. Though we now have a new mayor, it remains to be seen if Rahm Emanuel will try to become the strongman dictatorial-type embodied by the two mayors named Daley. Chicago is divided into 50 units called wards, with each electing an alderman to serve in the City Council. However, the Council has been so weak throughout city history, that it basically served as a rubberstamp to approve the mayors’ various projects, policies, and budgets.

Chicago is a one political party town – that being the Democratic Party. For this reason, we suffer the same disadvantages of one-party domains the world over. Cronyism, corruption, inefficiency, and an arrogance which has landed us in a vast ocean of red ink. Given the state of the nation’s and Illinois’ economies, Chicago might have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. That’s an extreme assessment, but I mention it to paint a very grave fiscal picture indeed.

Chicago is also the most racially-segregated city in the United States. Currently, about 42% are white, 37% are black, and 26% are Hispanic of any race.* Also, Chicago isn’t what it once was – for example, its current population (at 2,700,000*) hasn’t been that low since prior to 1920. In 1950, 3.6 million people lived here*.

As is usual in any case of diminishing local wealth, every lobbyist, interest group, and ethnicity fights to maintain its share or increase it. Of course, this does not help maintain the health of the greater unit – the city itself as a whole. [As if anybody really cares!]

My solution involving CSR

The Basic Set-Up

We don’t need a mayor and we don’t need 50 rubberstamping, part-time aldermen. Instead, we should elect a governing board of seven full-time directors. There would not be any need for a Chairman of the Board, which I’ll explain later (see Chairman of the Board, below).

Here’s where the concept of cross-sectioning comes in:

Instead of electing the directors from geographically-based units such as wards, each director would be elected by a new unit called a Cross-Section. To make this change, the names of every registered voter in Chicago would be entered into a computer which would randomly assign them to one of seven Cross-Sections. And those seven lists would be published. My name might end up on list # 4, making me a constituent of the director elected by Cross-Section #4.

My duly-elected director would know that the demographics of his constituents would roughly match those in any of the other six Cross-Sections. They would:

·       Have the same average income;

·       Be of the same mix of races and religions;

·       Be equal in number of voters;

·       Live evenly distributed throughout the city.

That last is especially important. Right now, aldermen cast their votes for one of two major reasons:

·       The mayor is able to exert enough pressure to influence that vote;

·       Each alderman tries to insure that legislation favors his ward or at least doesn’t work to its detriment.

However, a Director representing my Cross-Section #4 won’t have to worry about trying to (especially) please Hispanic voters, since they won’t make up more than 26% of his constituents. There are as many Hispanics in Cross-Section #4 as there are in any of the other Cross-Sections. For the same reason (that is, due to random assignment of voters to Cross-Sections), none of the Directors will have to worry about displeasing some local (in the past, ward-based) interest group. They will be free to vote for whatever is good for the city as a whole.

Campaigning for office – how to become a Director

The only way to campaign for office will be on-line, after campaign fund-raising and spending are banned. But this is strictly regulated and formatted. Each candidate must maintain one – and only one – campaign website. On it, he can list his biographical info – including his accomplishments, legislative and otherwise. Also posted will be a list of endorsers – those groups and individuals who support him. Each candidate is free to list those who oppose his opponents.

Also included are campaign statements, promises, self-promotions, and “analyses” of opponents. However, to be sure, there are many voters who will not care to analyze on-line policy content. They will opt instead to see who is endorsing which particular candidate along these lines: “Hey, my _______ says this guy deserves my vote, so that’s good enough for me.” [Fill in the blank with: union, rabbi, favorite academic association, professional association, etc.]

And why not? Whatever informs a voter’s decision is good enough for me if it’s good enough for him.

As for the primaries: If someone wants to run for Director, they pay a modest application fee which allows his name to be listed on the website of the Cross-Section he wishes to represent. He will be allowed folder space on that website to make his pitch, and then a primary is held with constituents of that Cross-Section going on-line and making a choice. The top five choices in each Cross-Section appear on the ballot two months later, with voters instructed to make two choices: If your first choice doesn’t win, who would you switch your vote to? Simple majority wins with this automatic run-off system.

Chairman of the Board:

Once the seven Directors are elected, it would not be necessary to have a Chairman of the Board. These seven won’t even have to meet in person since they could conduct their business via secure on-line link with read-only access for the public. Any Director could post a proposed piece of legislation on that link, allowing for comments and dry-run votes from the other Directors. If a point is reached when four out of the seven Directors approves, that bill becomes law.

No more Chairman of the Board means no more Big Boss. No more vying for permission to speak at a meeting. No more following the agenda of one man. The shock of this Control by Committee might be too much for the residents of Chicago. But I think they can handle it. Moreover, they’ll welcome this new venue as a breath of fresh air.

Concluding items of interest

Miscellaneous items concerning Chicago:

These items aren’t all relevant to my Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR) model, but I include these to further stimulate thinking about the reform of governance in general:

·       When citizens have complaints or need services, they won’t have to call their local alderman (who notoriously looks up their voting record before deciding how much assistance to render). They can have input on-line or directly with relevant city agencies or ombudsmen.

·       Chicagoans won’t be encumbered with a mayor like Richard M. Daley, who in my opinion must have received a kickback for his efforts, having had the nerve to sell the rights to parking meter revenues for 75 years. This was done with investors (some of whom are foreign and/or anonymous) in order to obtain an immediate, one-time-only windfall payment of $1 billion to the city’s coffers – which has mostly been spent already. This was done with only a few days notice given to aldermen who “had to” quickly vote on this measure, after the mayor had had an entire year at his disposal to cobble together this deal.

For a change, we’ll have a Board of Directors working on such issues as a team, with each member having equal access to all pertinent info and analysis.

·       Chicagoans won’t have to worry about equal protection provided by their police forces. Right now, wealthier and more politically-connected wards get better protection. A Board of Directors would be far more inclined to protect the whole city – not just special enclaves.

·       We won’t have to worry about lobbyists trying to influence lawmakers to, for instance, dole out public money to upgrade private sports teams’ facilities – yes, Chicago Cubs, I’m talking about you. Those kinds of deals don’t benefit the city as a whole.

·       We can rethink basic services from the point of view of what’s good for the public rather than what’s good for powerful unions – for instance, the Chicago Teachers’ Union. Or even teachers’ unions in general.

As for public education, why not finance the best possible teacher-provided education for all kids from grades K thru 8? After that? Modular programs providing on-line instruction without mandating physical attendance in a school with a teacher. Also, why on earth do our public colleges – especially community colleges – insist on classroom contact as the primary means of instruction? Much can be conveyed on-line with support from peer tutors paid to provide assistance.

·       TIF districts can be designed and properly managed for their original purpose – to help eliminate economic blight. However, a CSR Board of Directors would also be likelier to compensate those public agencies which usually suffer from loss of tax revenue under TIF set-ups. No more TIF’s for the purpose of creating a slush fund controlled by the mayor.

·       We will move away from the model of a city which has large sections which have been wastelands for decades, languishing simply because these areas are in a ward lacking political clout. The new theme will be: We’re in this together.

The European Union and the Rest of the World

I understand the EU is basically governed by political parties tightly integrated into a bureaucracy which is very elite and insulated from the effects of popular backlash. Notably, the banking community and mega businesses have way too much power, with little direct popular accountability. The EU still has a long way to go in terms of becoming a single integrated political entity, with power firmly in the hands of the average citizen, regardless of where in the EU he happens to live.

I will repeat the link I’d cited above for the benefit of those who might want to ponder how Cross-Sectional Representation could truly level the European playing field:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

As for the “Rest of the World,” CSR can’t be directly applied to create a One-World government. National sovereignties and their armies would stand in the way of any international Board of Directors trying to implement locally unpopular policies. However, the rest of the world would benefit from CSR, since CSR-based entities would be freer of the types of elitist control and exploitation from which lesser-developed nations currently suffer.

CSR isn’t perfect by any means, nor will it be easily implemented – traditional power brokers will fight this tooth and nail. But that doesn’t mean they will win. I direct your attention to a link which describes the ideal weapon to use against these opponents:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/general-strike-declared-by-steven.html

* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Now is the time to act – before the elites are able to consolidate their power past the point of no return.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

General Strike Declared by Steven Searle

A General Strike in support of a new Constitution:

I tried to initiate a General Strike in the US back in 2007 as a response to those who think the average US citizen can’t really influence his political environment. After rereading my words (below), I still believe the unique idea of a General-yet-Incremental Strike is a good one. In fact, this might be our only real club, given how the Dem/Pubs have such a stranglehold on our daily affairs. They dictate the issues; they control the debate; they effectively screen out potentially dangerous reformers; they control the media.

The only thing I would change are the goals, since the original goals were too narrow in scope. Now I am pushing for the convening of a Constitutional Convention with the power to replace – not merely amend – the US Constitution. This replacement would take effect when ratified by two-thirds of all eligible US voters who cast ballots on this issue. I realize the current Constitution only allows amendments by means of ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states. However, since I am not talking about “amendments,” why should We-the-People be held to that three-fourths standard (which, really, applies only to amendments and not to a complete replacement)?

Since the current Constitution is silent on how to enact a replacement, I argue that two-thirds of We-the-People favoring replacement should suffice. After all, a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress can overrule a presidential veto. That should serve as a reasonable standard in this case. What isn’t reasonable is to insist on a three-fourths vote, especially three-fourths of the states. If our 13 least populous states (in which live less than 4.4% of the total US population) voted against the new Constitution, that would serve to thwart the will of supporters living in the other 37 states.

To put a finer point on the matter – if the 2.2% of voters living in those 13 states opposed, it wouldn’t matter if everybody else in the remaining 37 states wanted this change. That 2.2% would be enough to thwart Real Change You Can Believe In.

What we have to ask ourselves is simply this: Should consideration of how the states feel, as if a state could feel, override how We-the-People feel? These two facts should weigh against the states vs. the People:

·       The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population. Should one-sixth be allowed to impose its will on the other five-sixths?

·       For a state to successfully oppose a Constitutional amendment, under the current rules, only 50% plus one of its participating voters would have to vote “No.” If a state can oppose or support with 50% plus one, how is it unreasonable to require for passage the support of two-thirds of all registered voters who vote on this issue?

As I’d written four years ago

Opening salvo:

I hereby declare that a General-yet-Incremental Strike against the top seven U.S. banks will commence on November 1, 2007.

Simple Statement of Strike’s Action Plan

If you have a personal checking or savings account in one of the banks listed below, close your account. Then put that money in a bank not listed below, ideally a much smaller bank.

Targeted banks:

·   Bank of America

·   J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

·   Citibank

·   Wachovia Bank

·   Wells Fargo Bank

·   U.S. Bancorp

·   Suntrust Banks

Goals of the strike:

This strike shall be considered successful when:

·   Bush and Cheney resign from office (or are impeached and convicted);

·   The United States withdraws all forces from Iraq – not just all combat forces.

Evaluation of Strike Goals:

The removal of Bush and Cheney is the primary goal and the strike may be considered sufficiently successful for that reason alone. However, individual strikers might decide to keep their deposits in their new banks until the second goal is also fulfilled.

Detailed Statement of Strike’s Action Plan

This strike is not meant to deal a crippling blow to the US economy – and it won’t. It is meant to consist of a gradual application of pressure as follows:

On November 1, 2007, all depositors in the Top Seven whose last names begin with the letter A will abandon the Top Seven. On November 2, those with surnames beginning with B will follow suit; on Nov. 3 those with letter C will join in, etc. After November 26, there shall commence a waiting period until December 1, when the cycle will re-commence. The first day of each following month will re-start this cycle.

The Top Seven’s depositors should follow this strategy until we win. Establishing this schedule will make it easy to remember when we are supposed to act. For example, if it’s the 10^th day of the month, that’s the trigger date for those with last names beginning with J, which is the 10^th letter of the alphabet.

By the way, if your trigger date happens to fall on a Sunday, or if you can’t make it to the bank on that day to close out your account, it would be perfectly fine to act shortly thereafter.

Scheduling a waiting period after the 26^th of each month will give the Powers-That-Be, as well as We-the-People, a chance to gauge the effectiveness of this strategy and reconsider how much pressure we’d care to continue applying (or any adjustments we’d care to make). Those decisions, of course, would be up to each individual.

By the way, I invite all Top Seven depositors to participate in this Strike – including foreigners. Some of you bitterly complain that you can’t vote in US elections to influence our policies. But this you can do: Vote with your deposits. Which is what I say to each American who believes his vote for president wasn’t properly counted in 2000 or 2004.

Immediate Actions

The most important single action you can take right now is to spread the word. We are, in effect, declaring war against the banks by targeting the banking system’s most successful members. And why not? Don’t they wage war against us on a daily basis?

Some strikers might want to act above and beyond the strategy I’ve declared. For instance, during the month of November 2007, Mr. Z might not want to wait until November 26 to act; he might want to jump in right away. In that first month, Mr. Z’s haste won’t unduly upset the applecart – obviously. The strike will be relatively unknown at that point, with few participants.

In the case of Mr. Z and others like him, I bow down to the wisdom of We-the-People. I say, “You’re a loyal American who wouldn’t do anything to harm this country, so I leave it to your good judgment as to exactly when and how you’d choose to act. My proposal is simply meant to serve as a guideline.”

If you, dear reader, decide to participate in this strike, you might make an additional impact by telling your bank (for instance, Bank of America) why you’re doing this. Merely withdrawing your money won’t make as big a statement as, say, giving BoA’s Customer Service agent a copy of this blog post. And, even better, sending a copy to your local lapdog mainstream media outlet and your lapdog Dem/Pub Congressman.

Additional Actions

Until this strike action becomes widely supported, early supporters might decide to supplement my basic strategy. These additional actions could even be undertaken by people who don’t have deposits in any of the Top Seven Banks.

For instance:

·   Buy silver or gold coins, keeping those in storage (and out of the banks) instead of holding paper currency.

·   Exchange (on a temporary basis) your excess dollars for foreign currency.

·   Resolve to take an affordable amount of currency out of circulation for “a while” – by storing it in a safe deposit box.

·   Decide to severely limit your traditional Christmas purchases (except for the very young children in your life who wouldn’t understand).

·   Avoid purchasing heavily advertised, brand name products.

Who am I to declare a General Strike?

Who am I to initiate this great undertaking?

To which I answer: If not me, then who? If not now, then when?

I am doing this, simply because nobody else is, and I believe this is an action long overdue.

However, my biggest reason is: I hope this action demonstrates that I have enough leadership to become the next US president. I have had quite enough of the knavery which has become commonplace in that office, and I will stop that.

If the U.S. Congress won’t impeach Bush because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declares such an option “off the table”…

If the U.S. Congress won’t impeach Bush because it knows that the Senate absolutely will not convict….

or because it “knows” it can’t also bring down Cheney and, therefore, fears a Cheney regime or (for that matter) a Pelosi regime…

then it’s up to We-the-People to impeach Bush/Cheney.

You didn’t know We could do that, did you? Well, the outcome of this General Strike should put that question to rest by (hopefully) carving out more power for the little guy than he ever dreamed possible. Of course, my simple declaration of a General Strike means nothing without your support. So I offer this as encouragement: If you want to fight the power of concentrated wealth, you must concentrate your efforts by joining them with those of millions of others.

Thanks, of sorts, to Garret Keizer

I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Garret Keizer who wrote this article in Harper’s Magazine’s October 2007 issue: “Specific Suggestion: General Strike.”

I thank Mr. Keizer for inspiring me to take action against Bush/Cheney. However, I fault him for being rather circuitous and passive in his voice. For instance, he writes:

“If someone were to suggest [a General Strike]…” [My God, man, take a bold stand, why don’t you?] and

“No one person…has the prerogative to call or set the date for a general strike.”

I emphatically disagree with that last. “No one person?” Indeed! If the Ship of State is sinking, each of us has that prerogative. The profound difference here is: I’ve decided to exercise it.

                          * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATE: Words of encouragement:

The only way a General Strike can work is for us to convince people there’s no other way – and that sticking by our current set of rules and rulers will lead us to ruin. Of course, a lot of people will fear the unknown, saying in effect: “It’s better to stick with our flawed system because it’s a known quantity. Why risk holding a Constitutional Convention the results of which would be unknown until after the fact as well as perhaps downright bad?”

The only way to counter such passive, sit-on-our-hands, and do nothing thinking is to educate people. Democracy can’t work anyway without education and participation – which might explain our current dysfunctionality. So it is up to us to point out what’s bad and how we might fix it.

I will close with a few questions meant to stimulate those who have been on autopilot for so long:

·   Why cling to the Second Amendment, when its original and practical purpose was to oppose slave revolts? Protecting our liberty these days can’t boil down to armed minutemen taking to the streets – only to be crushed by tanks. If we remember to use the device of the General Strike, it won’t be necessary to fire a shot.

·   Why should federal judges be given appointments for life?

·   Why not consider banning political parties as currently structured – that is, in their role of massive fundraisers and pressure groups? Why not at least make them pay for services they currently get free of charge – like primaries run at state expense?

·   Why not attempt to streamline a legal system which is prohibitively expensive for the little guy?

·   Why continue to allow churches to avoid paying taxes?

·    Why allow for a Senate filibuster which thwarts the will of the majority?

·   Why allow a large number of relatively underpopulated states to wield disproportionate power?

·   Why continue to allow corporations to have the same rights as human beings, with little or no accountability for the largest and most powerful of them?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“By the way, don’t let anybody tell you we don’t have the right to replace the Constitution.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com