You heard something once,
or part of something you felt was profound.
Crowded sidewalk on a breezy, beautiful, sunny day in the city,
when you heard him say it to a friend.
You stopped in your tracks, focused and saw his face briefly.
Briefly but clearly.
That face you'd never forget over the decades.
You saw him turn a corner and ran to catch up.
You turned that corner and he was...
gone...
forever.
Handsome young man about your age - 20-something.
You wiped away a tear from the corner of your eye,
and you mumbled to yourself so
you'd remember what you were able to hear.
"This is important," you said in dedication under your breath.
"I would give anything to hear the rest and to
ask him some questions."
True enough...it's rare to hear anything profound these days.
Or those days, I should say.
Or on any day - past or present.
Forty years ago...could it have been so long?
Many times you walked where you'd last seen him, hoping
to see him again.
But, no, he never presented himself.
Today you walk with me and tell me about these words from
that distant prophet. For the millionth time, it seems. I admit,
like I've always done,
that I too would have liked to have heard
the whole thing.
We pass a park filled with small audiences for a few public speakers.
Yet another breezy, beautiful, sunny day.
This is a well known spot for such goings-on.
"It's okay," you reassure. "The police don't bother anyone here
like they used to. Not even undercover."
"Right," I agree. "They've got things under control, more than anyone
dreamed possible."
Why do you stop so suddenly? "It's him!" you whisper, pointing to
one young man on a soapbox.
"Can't be," I said. "Look at him - he's way too young - in his 20's, I'd say."
I follow as you walk over, squinting your eyes to take him in.
"Sure looks like him," you caution. "And sounds like him. But...he's too young."
And yet, he speaks to the small group of strangers, using those words you'd
told me about all these years.
But of course it can't be him. Too young...unless.
"Say, do you believe in miracles,
like someone can stay young
forever?"
You ask me, sounding so hopeful.
Then you freeze again as your gaze drifts behind
the young speaker to a man who must surely be
his father. He aged just like you thought he would.
He looks so poor, though: Shabby, unkempt, old suit.
Life didn't mark him as a man of wealth.
But he looks so happy, like he managed to learn a
few more secrets above and beyond what you'd heard
once upon a time.
It's okay - go ahead and cry.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
In the News - Feb. 26, 2014 edition
The following are my reactions to a variety of news stories I've recently read on-line. Any quotations below are not cited as to source, but did appear in the original news stories.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
RE: 22nd Amendment placing term-limits on the President: This amendment was a terrible idea, for it assumes that Americans are too stupid to know what to do at the ballot box.TWO:
"A broad-based group of Israelis plan to lobby the Knesset to declare the country, for the first time, a Jewish state by law." You mean to tell me that, not once since 1947 and the waging of several wars, did anyone in Israel think to do this? That's one massive oversight, in my opinion.
I have no problem thinking of Israel as a country, the majority of which consists of Jewish tribalists. Fine, that doesn't mean we have to actually drag religion into this. Suppose, someday, a majority of those who were born Jewish (tribalists, who may or may not know much about their own faith) decide to convert to Buddhism. Would their secular law bar such conversions or even jail those who try to propagate any new faith?
THREE:
"The [US] Army is not standing still. The Army is doing many, many, many [THINGS] in order for us to [SHAPE] the future environment...” - Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff.
This is a very telling statement. Tell me, since when was it ever the Army's mission to “shape” environments? Also, please define “things.” Does that include small scale secret wars (oops, I meant to say “interventions”) such as the mission to neutralize Africa's Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army? [We're just using that as an excuse to insert our forces into as many African nations as possible. Slick move to have a black US President push this agenda!] If the American people knew how many such secret little actions we've got going on around the world (costing tens of billions of unaccounted money from secret bank accounts and sales of heroin from Afghanistan), they would stop believing in things like “fiscal cliffs.”
The only reason Defense Dept (what a misnomer) wants a “nimble” Army is to be able to quickly insert ourselves (ideally, secretly) into as many pre-major conficts as possible in the belief: If we stamp them out early enough, they won't get too dangerous.
We could still have the greatest defense in the world with HALF of our current budget by, for instance, getting rid of the F-35 and reducing to 1,000 our nuclear arsenal. [We said we'd de-nuke decades ago when we signed the NPT.] As for having enough boots available, we've got to insist that others' boots do the job (not with us, but instead of us) – such as German boots, French boots (yea, Mali), Italian and Spanish boots (good cure for their high unemployment rates). But...sadly...what's going to happen is a reintroduction of our military draft, which Rahm Emanuel favors (but not too loudly), when it is “revealed” in future, heated Senate committee hearings that our reduced, volunteer Army has left us dangerously exposed.
The only such exposure going on is being experienced by the American voter to military-industrial complex lies.
FOUR:
Take a good look at that Mexican marine with his hand on [the recently-captured drug cartel boss] Guzman's neck. He's whispering, "Don't worry about a thing. Meanwhile, I hope you like the neck massage I'm giving you."
FIVE:
By way of contrast, just try to sell political literature on a street corner in Chicago, Illinois without a "speech peddlers' license." As for jailing people for hanging street posters in Egypt, this is just a measure of La-Sissie's cowardice. You do know he is a general who never saw a day of combat, so the degree of his cowardice sure picked a great time to show itself. Cut off all US aid to this wannabe Pharaoh who has only the autocrat's love of democracy.
SIX:
La-Sissie looks mighty pleased with himself. Being lionized makes him dream of his image appearing on the Greatest Sphinx. But Egyptian politics can be fickle. Those who support him today might well come to think of him as a piece of something that just emerged from a Great Sphincter.
SEVEN:
RE: Pending Arizona law allowing, under the guise of “religious freedom,” discrimination by shop owners against gays: "Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty..." OK, let's have that discussion. Suppose one of the descendants of Ham (you know, a black person) entered the shop of such a religious zealot. This shop owner should be able to deny service to this customer because the Bible teaches that blacks are inferior, right? I mean, we don't cotton to dealing with Hamsters. If a man establishes a business, he's expanded the so-called public space to which any and all citizens have a right of access - unless, say, it's a members' only private club. If this man doesn't like what walks in his door, he should get out of business and establish a monastery instead.
EIGHT:
RE: Dingell from Michigan, longest-serving US Congressman to retire: So this seat, passed from father to son decades ago, might pass to Dingell's wife who just recently announced her candidacy? How touching! It seems everybody's in favor of term limits except when it comes to "our" guy or his family.
NINE:
"This is not the time for personal interests. The nation is above everybody." Fine – then I'm sure La-Sissie won't mind fully disclosing his personal assets and those of his generals. We all know how important transparency is to democracy, so I'm sure the Field Marshall (who never once participated in a war) would approve. But if he doesn't, perhaps Edward Snowden has files that could shed some light on the matter. Or perhaps a publicly spirited hacker could enlighten us. I'm surprised that countries like Saudi Arabia would give these leeches a dime without insisting on full disclosure.
Oh...wait a minute...that's right...the last thing the sheikhs want is people knowing who owns what. So I'm sure they cut La-Sissie some slack, since he's keeping the Brotherhood under control. But they won't stay under control for long. They might end up paying a visit to the royal House of Saud to share their “opinions” about what is the right thing to do.
TEN:
"[Louisiana senator] Landrieu's growing ability to help Louisiana's oil and gas industry through her recent promotion to chairwoman of..." As long as voters keep voting in support of their own narrow, local interests - and as long as our system rewards promotions to chairmanships that nurse this trend - we'll never have leadership that cares and works effectively for the country as a whole.
ELEVEN:
What is not widely known is that the Dalai Lama is absolutely terrified of [Tibetan deity] Dorje Shugden. That's a rather interesting reaction from someone claimed by many to be a Living Buddha. For my part, I saw Dalai as a very unprofound, silly, giggling, old man who allowed himself to be used as a Cold War pawn.
TWELVE:
On the opulent life style of the former president of Ukraine: This reminds me of an old story I heard about Chicago's first Mayor Daley. Whenever the subject of money came up - that is, top officials wanting raises - the parroted party line was "nobody gets to make more than the mayor." When the old bastard kicked the bucket, it was revealed that he was paid a secret salary by the Democratic party. Yes, we have our own homegrown thieves and liars.
THIRTEEN:
RE: Egypt police officers acquitted in 2011 killings: The next time an Egyptian policeman is killed by a terrorist's bomb, don't be too surprised if the Egyptian man in the street isn't all that sympathetic.
FOURTEEN:
RE: Cossack photographed in uniform whipping members of Pussy Riot: "This Cossack" was held accountable? Does that mean he was given a medal "on account" of his meritorious service to the state? The word "accountable" is too vague here. As for "this Cossack" was "fined" - does that mean he was told he did a "fine" job? Does "this Cossack" have a name?
FIFTEEN:
Ah, yes, lack of “standing” - the old fall-back of our legally-challenged judiciary. The judge thinks “their injuries” [RE: Muslims spied on by New York's finest] were caused by the news establishment, which was effective in doing its job by revealing this information. Of course, this worthless POS judge didn't want to consider that any such injuries wouldn't have occurred at all if NYPD hadn't set up this program. Even if this operation had remained secret, parties could claim injury by its mere existence since it promoted a mind-set among law enforcement that it's OK to target Muslims which, in turn, has a very good chance of tainting the cops' overall attitude of Muslims in general.
It could be argued, “But without the news expose, defendants wouldn't have ever known surveillance existed and therefore wouldn't have sued.” Ahem, perhaps so, but surely the judge had to take into consideration that we can't keep secrets very well, so it was only a matter of time until this program became known.
SIXTEEN:
If you really want to "occupy the GOP," just vote in their primaries en masse. Yes, I'm talking to independents with a lower-case "i". Even if you're the kind of i who doesn't feel warm fuzzies for the GOP, if enough of you flooded their primaries, the corn pones wouldn't have such a lock on the party. Sometimes, the best answers are the easiest ones - and they're right under our noses.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Bruce Rauner for Illinois governor...really?
Thesis:
Bruce Rauner is a faux candidate for Illinois governor. He's going through the motions of running in the primary for the GOP nomination, scheduled for March 18. But his secret mission is to sink the candidacies of his three GOP opponents. These are current officeholders in Illinois state government, while he is a businessman with no prior public office experience.
But how...and why?
Right now, Rauner leads in the polls but has far less than half of likely GOP voters on his side. He's donated over $2,000,000 of his own money toward his campaign. But that's nothing compared to the several hundreds of millions of dollars of his net worth. In fact, his self donations should be considered an investment. His mission is to knock off his GOP opponents or, should he not win his party's nod, sufficiently sully them into irrelevancy by the time one of them might face Pat Quinn in November.
Then, soon enough, he will be rewarded for his service to the status quo. In Illinois, that will translate into favorable treatment for Rauner's business interests. And both Democratic and Republican politicians will be giving him this favorable treatment.
The GOP doesn't really want the governorship. They're perfectly satisfied to allow the incumbent (Quinn) to serve as a lightning rod for criticism regarding Illinois's fiscal crisis. They know that a Republican governor won't really be able to do anything to solve this crisis. They just want things to get so much worse here, that voters (or so they hope) will be in a mood to throw the Democratic bums out of office, hoping the Republican bums will be able to do "something."
Rauner is in a position, with his money and his willingness to air a barrage of commercials, to suck all the oxygen out of the room. His hapless GOP opponents will perish for lack of attention paid to their candidacies. His own candidacy has already planted the seeds of its programmed destruction by means of his stand on term limits.
Term Limits
This is the stand that will, by design, sink Rauner's campaign against Pat Quinn:
QUOTE:
[source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaRne6itWpg]
"The guts to cut spending and deliver term limits - Bruce Rauner."
:UNQUOTE.
The quote above is from a voiceover on a Rauner TV commercial. Like anyone else listening to this commercial, I thought, "You can't deliver term limits, since that would require a constitutional amendment which you yourself can't deliver." Anyone listening to that would (or at least "should") be doubtful of Rauner's credibility. So far, the media hasn't called him on this. If we had a less compliant media in this country, journalists and pundits should have raked him over the coals for this by now.
But they didn't. Not yet. And that's also by design. His GOP opponents don't bring this up because they are career politicians themselves who know that term limits would endanger their reliably elected incumbent friends - powerhouses within the party. So they don't want to make term limits an issue. As for the media, they'll withhold criticism because they want a horse race. Rauner is good enough copy without mentioning term limits, and has the potential of remaining good copy at least through the March 18th primary. And they don't want to turn up the heat on this issue until it's to their advantage - which will be when he faces off against Quinn.
This next quote, however, is a departure from the Rauner-will-deliver-term-limits theme. This is from a website paid for by Citizens for Rauner, Inc:
QUOTE:
[source: http://brucerauner.com/issue/government-reform/]
I’m not interested in a political career and don’t need money from the special interests. As governor, I will take them on directly and bring accountability back to state government. To do that, we can: Push for term limits. No governor should be allowed to serve for more than 8 years, and the legislature should be term limited as well.
:UNQUOTE.
Note carefully: In the first quote, Rauner "Has the guts to...deliver term limits." In the second, he says "we can: Push for term limits." Suddenly he's talking about "we" and only saying "can." And of course the word "push" is a far cry from delivering term limits.
And, finally, Rauner was quoted as saying: "I’m a big fan of term limits. I will never give myself more than eight years.” He could easily weasel his way out of that claim, should he be lucky enough to win two terms of office. He could say something like this:
"My intention was never to give myself more than eight years. But if the voters of Illinois should decide to give me more than that, I could finish the job of standing up to the entrenched interests which have dominated our state for so long. Ideally, we should have term limits in place by now, but that required a constitutional amendment which those interests rabidly opposed. So, minus that amendment, I ask the voters of Illinois to consider what I have to offer, compared to others who want this office in order to maintain the status quo."
What Bruce Rauner could do
Rauner could sign a contract stating that under no circumstances would he seek election for a third term and would not serve even if elected against his will. This contract would stipulate that he would be required to pay a hefty penalty should he violate the terms of this contract. Bruce Rauner is a businessman, so he knows what a contract is. Even though a politician's word can't be enforced in a court of law, he could structure this contract so that enforcement of penalty would be out of his hands. In other words, he'd have to go to court to try to void it.
If he, as he says, is worth several hundreds of millions of dollars, surely 100 of those millions could be placed under the direct control of designated trustees who would then pass that money on to the state's general revenue fund should they determine Rauner was in violation.
I'm a big advocate of such contracts, as witnessed by my two attempts to run for office (in 2008 and 2012) as the only presidential candidate in the history of the US to run on the basis of an electoral contract with the voters: In my case, any violation of my written campaign promises would have resulted in immediate forfeiture of the presidency. This link connects to my 2012 contract, with point ONE (of 31) explaining its enforceability:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
But...Bruce Rauner will offer no such contract. He's a very wealthy man who only wants to become wealthier. His business interests will never be far from his thoughts...which is exactly why he is pretending to run for governor.
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Bruce Rauner is a faux candidate for Illinois governor. He's going through the motions of running in the primary for the GOP nomination, scheduled for March 18. But his secret mission is to sink the candidacies of his three GOP opponents. These are current officeholders in Illinois state government, while he is a businessman with no prior public office experience.
But how...and why?
Right now, Rauner leads in the polls but has far less than half of likely GOP voters on his side. He's donated over $2,000,000 of his own money toward his campaign. But that's nothing compared to the several hundreds of millions of dollars of his net worth. In fact, his self donations should be considered an investment. His mission is to knock off his GOP opponents or, should he not win his party's nod, sufficiently sully them into irrelevancy by the time one of them might face Pat Quinn in November.
Then, soon enough, he will be rewarded for his service to the status quo. In Illinois, that will translate into favorable treatment for Rauner's business interests. And both Democratic and Republican politicians will be giving him this favorable treatment.
The GOP doesn't really want the governorship. They're perfectly satisfied to allow the incumbent (Quinn) to serve as a lightning rod for criticism regarding Illinois's fiscal crisis. They know that a Republican governor won't really be able to do anything to solve this crisis. They just want things to get so much worse here, that voters (or so they hope) will be in a mood to throw the Democratic bums out of office, hoping the Republican bums will be able to do "something."
Rauner is in a position, with his money and his willingness to air a barrage of commercials, to suck all the oxygen out of the room. His hapless GOP opponents will perish for lack of attention paid to their candidacies. His own candidacy has already planted the seeds of its programmed destruction by means of his stand on term limits.
Term Limits
This is the stand that will, by design, sink Rauner's campaign against Pat Quinn:
QUOTE:
[source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaRne6itWpg]
"The guts to cut spending and deliver term limits - Bruce Rauner."
:UNQUOTE.
The quote above is from a voiceover on a Rauner TV commercial. Like anyone else listening to this commercial, I thought, "You can't deliver term limits, since that would require a constitutional amendment which you yourself can't deliver." Anyone listening to that would (or at least "should") be doubtful of Rauner's credibility. So far, the media hasn't called him on this. If we had a less compliant media in this country, journalists and pundits should have raked him over the coals for this by now.
But they didn't. Not yet. And that's also by design. His GOP opponents don't bring this up because they are career politicians themselves who know that term limits would endanger their reliably elected incumbent friends - powerhouses within the party. So they don't want to make term limits an issue. As for the media, they'll withhold criticism because they want a horse race. Rauner is good enough copy without mentioning term limits, and has the potential of remaining good copy at least through the March 18th primary. And they don't want to turn up the heat on this issue until it's to their advantage - which will be when he faces off against Quinn.
This next quote, however, is a departure from the Rauner-will-deliver-term-limits theme. This is from a website paid for by Citizens for Rauner, Inc:
QUOTE:
[source: http://brucerauner.com/issue/government-reform/]
I’m not interested in a political career and don’t need money from the special interests. As governor, I will take them on directly and bring accountability back to state government. To do that, we can: Push for term limits. No governor should be allowed to serve for more than 8 years, and the legislature should be term limited as well.
:UNQUOTE.
Note carefully: In the first quote, Rauner "Has the guts to...deliver term limits." In the second, he says "we can: Push for term limits." Suddenly he's talking about "we" and only saying "can." And of course the word "push" is a far cry from delivering term limits.
And, finally, Rauner was quoted as saying: "I’m a big fan of term limits. I will never give myself more than eight years.” He could easily weasel his way out of that claim, should he be lucky enough to win two terms of office. He could say something like this:
"My intention was never to give myself more than eight years. But if the voters of Illinois should decide to give me more than that, I could finish the job of standing up to the entrenched interests which have dominated our state for so long. Ideally, we should have term limits in place by now, but that required a constitutional amendment which those interests rabidly opposed. So, minus that amendment, I ask the voters of Illinois to consider what I have to offer, compared to others who want this office in order to maintain the status quo."
What Bruce Rauner could do
Rauner could sign a contract stating that under no circumstances would he seek election for a third term and would not serve even if elected against his will. This contract would stipulate that he would be required to pay a hefty penalty should he violate the terms of this contract. Bruce Rauner is a businessman, so he knows what a contract is. Even though a politician's word can't be enforced in a court of law, he could structure this contract so that enforcement of penalty would be out of his hands. In other words, he'd have to go to court to try to void it.
If he, as he says, is worth several hundreds of millions of dollars, surely 100 of those millions could be placed under the direct control of designated trustees who would then pass that money on to the state's general revenue fund should they determine Rauner was in violation.
I'm a big advocate of such contracts, as witnessed by my two attempts to run for office (in 2008 and 2012) as the only presidential candidate in the history of the US to run on the basis of an electoral contract with the voters: In my case, any violation of my written campaign promises would have resulted in immediate forfeiture of the presidency. This link connects to my 2012 contract, with point ONE (of 31) explaining its enforceability:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
But...Bruce Rauner will offer no such contract. He's a very wealthy man who only wants to become wealthier. His business interests will never be far from his thoughts...which is exactly why he is pretending to run for governor.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Maury Povich, you ARE the father!
Introduction
I'm going to give you a chance to make a little money at the expense of Maury Povich. He's known by many as the Pregnancy Test King, since that's a regular feature on his TV program - The Maury Show. I'll also toss in an art suggestion regarding the Second Amendment, which could also earn you a little money. Remember: Fortune favors the bold - so, go for it!
The Maury Show
The Maury Show has a recurring theme dealing with people who want to know the paternity of the children born to their wives or girl friends. One such scenario goes something like this:
Husband sits with Maury while his wife is off-stage in a soundproof room. We get to see a picture of the child - usually less than five years old - who the husband doubts is his. Then the wife is brought on stage in order to argue with her husband, all for the entertainment of a hootin' and hollerin' live audience. Then an aide walks on stage and hands Maury an envelope containing the results of a DNA test. Then Maury declares, "When it comes to 3-year-old Jason, you ARE the father!" [Or "are not" as the case may be.]
It makes me angry
It makes me angry that Maury Povich makes money off the misery of others. Millions of TV viewers are treated, five days per week, to the spectacle of parents sharing heart-rending stories of their personal lives. Of course, when these parties go ballistic on stage and start pushing and shoving and yelling at each other, that stokes the audience into a feeding frenzy. And, I guess, that's the point.
I could never understand why anyone would want to appear before a national audience, when they could pay for their own DNA test and deal with the results in private. I figure, there must be a lot of exhibitionists out there. Or people who want their 15-minutes of fame. Or are sadists or masochists. Or need the money. I'm assuming they get paid something to be on this show, in addition to having Maury pay for these paternity tests.
There are usually four or five such couples appearing on each of these one-hour shows. Five days per week. Whew! Maury is merciless, but I wonder: How many more years can this go on, with this (currently 75-year-old) decrepitoid regaling us with an endless line of tales of woe?
So, put him on a T-shirt
Here's where you can make a little money. Print a batch of t-shirts showing a caricature of a red-faced MoPo surrounded by a dozen angry-looking women - the nastier, the better - each holding up her own test results with a caption reading, "Maury, you ARE the father!"
I would love to see video footage of news reporters covering future war zone hot spots the world over, having one feature in common: All of the locals are wearing these t-shirts!
Of course, what I'd really like is for this guy to go out of business because the American people got tired of his shtick. Even better? Because they acquired such a high degree of cultural advancement, there would no longer be any room for such low-life fare on our airwaves.
About the Second Amendment
Here are some elements you might incorporate into a painting concerning "the right to bear arms." That phrase comes from the Second Amendment which states in full:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This painting (say, about four feet x six feet) would feature a cartoon figure of a gun fanatic wearing an NRA button. However, instead of the usual flesh-and-blood arms hanging from his shoulder sockets, he sports a different kind of "arms" - assault rifles. Off to the side would be Leonardo DaVinci's "God" - of Sistine Chapel fame - shrinking back in horror at this "gun man." The caption would read:
"The only God-given right you have to bear arms is the right to bear the arms God gave you."
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
I'm going to give you a chance to make a little money at the expense of Maury Povich. He's known by many as the Pregnancy Test King, since that's a regular feature on his TV program - The Maury Show. I'll also toss in an art suggestion regarding the Second Amendment, which could also earn you a little money. Remember: Fortune favors the bold - so, go for it!
The Maury Show
The Maury Show has a recurring theme dealing with people who want to know the paternity of the children born to their wives or girl friends. One such scenario goes something like this:
Husband sits with Maury while his wife is off-stage in a soundproof room. We get to see a picture of the child - usually less than five years old - who the husband doubts is his. Then the wife is brought on stage in order to argue with her husband, all for the entertainment of a hootin' and hollerin' live audience. Then an aide walks on stage and hands Maury an envelope containing the results of a DNA test. Then Maury declares, "When it comes to 3-year-old Jason, you ARE the father!" [Or "are not" as the case may be.]
It makes me angry
It makes me angry that Maury Povich makes money off the misery of others. Millions of TV viewers are treated, five days per week, to the spectacle of parents sharing heart-rending stories of their personal lives. Of course, when these parties go ballistic on stage and start pushing and shoving and yelling at each other, that stokes the audience into a feeding frenzy. And, I guess, that's the point.
I could never understand why anyone would want to appear before a national audience, when they could pay for their own DNA test and deal with the results in private. I figure, there must be a lot of exhibitionists out there. Or people who want their 15-minutes of fame. Or are sadists or masochists. Or need the money. I'm assuming they get paid something to be on this show, in addition to having Maury pay for these paternity tests.
There are usually four or five such couples appearing on each of these one-hour shows. Five days per week. Whew! Maury is merciless, but I wonder: How many more years can this go on, with this (currently 75-year-old) decrepitoid regaling us with an endless line of tales of woe?
So, put him on a T-shirt
Here's where you can make a little money. Print a batch of t-shirts showing a caricature of a red-faced MoPo surrounded by a dozen angry-looking women - the nastier, the better - each holding up her own test results with a caption reading, "Maury, you ARE the father!"
I would love to see video footage of news reporters covering future war zone hot spots the world over, having one feature in common: All of the locals are wearing these t-shirts!
Of course, what I'd really like is for this guy to go out of business because the American people got tired of his shtick. Even better? Because they acquired such a high degree of cultural advancement, there would no longer be any room for such low-life fare on our airwaves.
About the Second Amendment
Here are some elements you might incorporate into a painting concerning "the right to bear arms." That phrase comes from the Second Amendment which states in full:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This painting (say, about four feet x six feet) would feature a cartoon figure of a gun fanatic wearing an NRA button. However, instead of the usual flesh-and-blood arms hanging from his shoulder sockets, he sports a different kind of "arms" - assault rifles. Off to the side would be Leonardo DaVinci's "God" - of Sistine Chapel fame - shrinking back in horror at this "gun man." The caption would read:
"The only God-given right you have to bear arms is the right to bear the arms God gave you."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Cancer: My Buddhist friend
Introduction
My presentation today concerns my struggle with two cancers and is in three parts:
A clinical description of my cancers
I was diagnosed with terminal cancer (Stage IV, liver)* in September of 2012. Shortly thereafter, I was put on a chemotherapy regimen, but was told I would have only about 5 to 8 months to live. However, that was 17 months ago and my condition has been stable for the past nine months. I've seen CT scans of my liver, which looked just awful when I was first diagnosed. There were at least 16 dark spots, each the size of a dime, covering the entire liver. And that's just from the front-side view of that organ.
About nine months ago, a CT scan showed the cancer was 95% gone. Yes, there were still some stubborn dark spots, but even they were reduced in size. My oncologist was extremely pleased, saying I had responded extremely well to chemo. But, he added, my condition is terminal. So far, I've undergone 22 cycles of treatment, each consisting of 3 weeks. On the first Monday of each cycle, I would receive an IV plugged into my Power Port which would dose me with Cisplatin** and Gemcitabine***. The next Monday, I would be dosed only with Cisplatin; the third week would be a rest week in which I didn't get any medication.
My doctor told me that most patients are only able to tolerate between 6 to 8 of these three week cycles. At that time, their bodies would show signs of toxicity, in terms of outward physical manifestations and the presence of certain tell-tale markers in the blood. But I've undergone 22 cycles of treatment, without any of these signs. As it turns out, there's a reason for this which lies in my genetics. I have a defect referred to as BRAC 2 which made me susceptible to cancer in the first place but which, ironically enough, also made me a good candidate for these particular drugs.
There are two cancer markers my doctor looks at in my blood samples in order to evaluate how well my chemo is working. For marker CA 19-9 (RE: liver): My blood test on Jan. 7, 2013, showed a decline from 1349 on Dec. 4, 2012, to 296. To put that in perspective, my first blood test on Sept 29, 2012, showed a count of 15,256 - with a non-cancerous person typically weighing in from 0-35. For marker CEA (RE: colon): My highest count was in Sept. 2012 (182) and on Jan. 7, 2013, my count was 2.4. Normal is between 0 - 2.5. So...here I'm normal.
And the news kept getting better as each month passed. I've been within normal range for both of these markers for the past nine months. Now, that doesn't mean the cancer can't come roaring back to life. It might develop an immunity to my chemo drugs, forcing a switch to other drugs which aren't nearly as effective. Or my body might finally show signs of toxicity. It seems that Cisplatin in particular is a very horrible poison that does major damage to the body. So it might only be a matter of time until I fall prey.
I might also fall victim to a blood clot breaking loose in my right leg - where I have a condition called DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis). I was told that was a frequent cause of death among patients in my condition. To minimize the danger of clots, I've been taking Warfarin (a blood thinner) ever since October, 2012. But that's a mixed blessing. If I'm taken off the blood thinner in order to, say, get a liver transplant, I'm at risk of a damaging blood clot going to my heart or lungs. If I stay on the blood thinner, I would bleed to death on the operating table during the transplant procedure.
As things stand now, I don't have much of an appetite but I haven't lost any weight. I'm still at 175 pounds, as I've been for about a year now. I still have all my hair and am not bedridden. I go out by myself just about everyday, and even shoveled snow with my son for 45 minutes about a week ago. I sleep a lot, though - up to 12 hours per day (off and on) - and feel weak and know I've lost muscle tone. My spirits are high and I enjoy talking to people - which I don't have much of an opportunity to do but feel a great uplift when it happens.
When I go to my chemo sessions, I see the other patients there - about 8 or so - and see a group of defeated, tired, withdrawn sad sacks. Sure, I have moments like that, but I've noticed it really helps to have a positive attitude. I haven't vomited for the past six months or so and when I go to the toilet, I haven't been constipated or suffered from diarrhea anywhere near as often as during my first eight months. I'm trying to walk more often, but in this particularly cold and snowy Chicago winter, it's been hard.
Overall, though, I feel pretty good, so I know I have a lot to be grateful for.
Cancer as my Buddhist friend
In Buddhism, at least as I've come to know it, there is a concept called "having a good friend." Simply put, a good Buddhist friend is anything or anybody that brings you closer to actively seeking enlightenment - but not only for yourself, for others as well. This "friend" could be someone or something actively seeking to do you harm. That might seem odd, but it is written that even devils have it in them to protect the Buddhist law, simply because they themselves - deep down inside - want to become buddhas.
I don't tell people "I'm dying of cancer," but instead say, "I'm living with cancer." Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "I'm wrestling with a cancerous condition," but that's a little too complicated for casual conversation. It's funny how I've been exposed to two very different movements that promised the possibility of an extremely long lifespan. I'm talking about millions of years in the same body. One of these movements was my year with Re-evaluation Counseling (or RC, for short). Their idea was that co-counseling was a tool that could rid you of the psychological baggage and traumas that were constantly undermining your health and vitality.
The other movement was Buddhist. Having compassion for all living beings is not only the prime point of Buddhism but is also responsible for determining the length of one's lifespan. That's right - the more you care for others and act upon such caring, the longer you live. I've outlived my oncologist's original prediction, but I want to go on and beat that by a couple of million years - at least. I want to go to my doctor's office for a review of my bloodwork and CT scan, and have him ask, "Okay, Steve, what did you do with the cancer? It's all gone - not a trace."
I'd like to say that my Buddhist practice was responsible. Moreover? I'd want him to believe that. As strange as it sounds, recovering from cancer will prove far easier than living without it. I'm 62-years old and don't have much in the way of financial resources. I live on my pension as a state civil servant - about $1900 per month - and I have about $4,500 in the bank. That's it - no stocks, no bonds, no property, no car, no investments. Over the past 15 months or so, I gave away about $10,000 to an out-of-state friend who is in far more desperate straits than I am. Frankly? I'm glad I had the opportunity to help and would do it again.
Some general observations and philosophical musings
For the past 17 months, I've walked the line between life and death. And I've come to appreciate both - especially to become unafraid of the latter. Sooner or later, death comes to us all. But so does rebirth - that's the hard part to embrace. I keep telling my son that I'll be back, so if I happen to pass on suddenly, that he should keep an eye open for any unusual or strangely familiar child he might "happen" to cross paths with. But if I don't come back to him - if my bodhisattva mission brings me to other places - I will always think of him. I hope I live long enough to see the twins (their first children) which he and his wife will be blessed with in September. But if not, I won't mourn that loss.
The Buddha once said, "I don't have it in my heart to love one or hate another." I hope to always have that sense of equanimity, hoping to expand my sense of compassion beyond the limits of love. My wish isn't so much to get to know my grandchildren but that they - somehow - encounter the writings I've posted on my blog. These are teachings and musings that I hope will benefit them and, hopefully, spare them from the pain of having to learn certain things I've had to learn the hard way. My hope in this regard extends to everybody - young and old.
I am humbled and awed by the loving kindness shown by my ex-wife. We were married for 20 years, separated for five, and divorced ten years ago. I was living in a friend's house when I was diagnosed. But she took me in, caring for me in her house for 15 months, until I recently moved into our son's house. Our divorce had a great and negative impact on her, which lasted for years. But I am glad I had the chance to live with her again and see how much she has grown as a human being.
Part of my condition has an upside - an ability to sense things others don't. Maybe they're too busy with the demands and trials of living in our contemporary society. So maybe that's blunted their senses. But I've acquired the ability to be stunned by the commonplace - a sunrise, a rock seemingly out of place on a sidewalk, a walk down the block, a deeply-drawn breath that has an unexpected ability to revitalize, an oddity in a movie which I'm sure no one else notices. I've always been sensitive to my surroundings, having worked most of my adult life to cultivate this. But my current condition has sharpened this sensitivity.
I noticed that I indulge in remembering past incidents in my life which were embarrassing or not well handled. "I could have done this," or "I could have said this"...you know, I woulda, coulda, shoulda. I am surprised at how often and with what clarity I would replay certain of these episodes in my mind. Maybe I was trying to learn as many lessons as I could, but I still find it remarkable. It is said that we shouldn't dwell in the past. Well, I hate to say it, but too many of us do exactly that - which is kind of like spinning our wheels.
I'm a bit disappointed in two of my Buddhist friends - those from my days as a member of the Soka Gakkai - who know of my condition, yet avoid me like the plague. It's not that I hunger for the company - far from it. I thrive far better than most in my times of solitude. My wish to see them is for their sake, not mine. A friend of mine who noticed my general aloofness toward the affairs of the world said, "You're not from around here, are you?" I knew what she meant and said, "No, but neither are you." She was a homeless person I met on the street, who I ended up living with for four years - off and on. We never had a romantic relationship but I found our connection to have been richly rewarding.
I have learned that you can find riches in the most unlikely of places. But having a conforming mind absorbed in the dramas of day-to-day life manages to rob most people of those riches.
A closing thought
I saw a reenactment of an explorer's deathwalk in a movie about an expedition to Antarctica. This was in the late 1800's and showed this man with his fellow explorers. But his feet were so badly frostbitten, he knew he was being a burden on his comrades who were trying to hike to safety. But he was only imperiling them by slowing them down. A snowstorm suddenly arose and the scene I saw was of him walking away from his comrades into the blinding curtain of snow, slowly disappearing from view as he hobbled away. He knew he was going to die and he knew what he had to do to give his friends a chance. I only hope that I can be that brave if it turns out that I have to be.
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes
(Stage IV, liver)* - I also have colon cancer, but only to a far lesser extent than my liver cancer. Interestingly enough, these two cancers had arisen independently of each other, this not usually being the case.
Cisplatin** - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatin
Gemcitabine** - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemcitabine
My presentation today concerns my struggle with two cancers and is in three parts:
- A purely clinical description of my condition and treatment;
- Why I consider my cancers to be my Buddhist friends;
- Some general observations and philosophical musings.
A clinical description of my cancers
I was diagnosed with terminal cancer (Stage IV, liver)* in September of 2012. Shortly thereafter, I was put on a chemotherapy regimen, but was told I would have only about 5 to 8 months to live. However, that was 17 months ago and my condition has been stable for the past nine months. I've seen CT scans of my liver, which looked just awful when I was first diagnosed. There were at least 16 dark spots, each the size of a dime, covering the entire liver. And that's just from the front-side view of that organ.
About nine months ago, a CT scan showed the cancer was 95% gone. Yes, there were still some stubborn dark spots, but even they were reduced in size. My oncologist was extremely pleased, saying I had responded extremely well to chemo. But, he added, my condition is terminal. So far, I've undergone 22 cycles of treatment, each consisting of 3 weeks. On the first Monday of each cycle, I would receive an IV plugged into my Power Port which would dose me with Cisplatin** and Gemcitabine***. The next Monday, I would be dosed only with Cisplatin; the third week would be a rest week in which I didn't get any medication.
My doctor told me that most patients are only able to tolerate between 6 to 8 of these three week cycles. At that time, their bodies would show signs of toxicity, in terms of outward physical manifestations and the presence of certain tell-tale markers in the blood. But I've undergone 22 cycles of treatment, without any of these signs. As it turns out, there's a reason for this which lies in my genetics. I have a defect referred to as BRAC 2 which made me susceptible to cancer in the first place but which, ironically enough, also made me a good candidate for these particular drugs.
There are two cancer markers my doctor looks at in my blood samples in order to evaluate how well my chemo is working. For marker CA 19-9 (RE: liver): My blood test on Jan. 7, 2013, showed a decline from 1349 on Dec. 4, 2012, to 296. To put that in perspective, my first blood test on Sept 29, 2012, showed a count of 15,256 - with a non-cancerous person typically weighing in from 0-35. For marker CEA (RE: colon): My highest count was in Sept. 2012 (182) and on Jan. 7, 2013, my count was 2.4. Normal is between 0 - 2.5. So...here I'm normal.
And the news kept getting better as each month passed. I've been within normal range for both of these markers for the past nine months. Now, that doesn't mean the cancer can't come roaring back to life. It might develop an immunity to my chemo drugs, forcing a switch to other drugs which aren't nearly as effective. Or my body might finally show signs of toxicity. It seems that Cisplatin in particular is a very horrible poison that does major damage to the body. So it might only be a matter of time until I fall prey.
I might also fall victim to a blood clot breaking loose in my right leg - where I have a condition called DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis). I was told that was a frequent cause of death among patients in my condition. To minimize the danger of clots, I've been taking Warfarin (a blood thinner) ever since October, 2012. But that's a mixed blessing. If I'm taken off the blood thinner in order to, say, get a liver transplant, I'm at risk of a damaging blood clot going to my heart or lungs. If I stay on the blood thinner, I would bleed to death on the operating table during the transplant procedure.
As things stand now, I don't have much of an appetite but I haven't lost any weight. I'm still at 175 pounds, as I've been for about a year now. I still have all my hair and am not bedridden. I go out by myself just about everyday, and even shoveled snow with my son for 45 minutes about a week ago. I sleep a lot, though - up to 12 hours per day (off and on) - and feel weak and know I've lost muscle tone. My spirits are high and I enjoy talking to people - which I don't have much of an opportunity to do but feel a great uplift when it happens.
When I go to my chemo sessions, I see the other patients there - about 8 or so - and see a group of defeated, tired, withdrawn sad sacks. Sure, I have moments like that, but I've noticed it really helps to have a positive attitude. I haven't vomited for the past six months or so and when I go to the toilet, I haven't been constipated or suffered from diarrhea anywhere near as often as during my first eight months. I'm trying to walk more often, but in this particularly cold and snowy Chicago winter, it's been hard.
Overall, though, I feel pretty good, so I know I have a lot to be grateful for.
Cancer as my Buddhist friend
In Buddhism, at least as I've come to know it, there is a concept called "having a good friend." Simply put, a good Buddhist friend is anything or anybody that brings you closer to actively seeking enlightenment - but not only for yourself, for others as well. This "friend" could be someone or something actively seeking to do you harm. That might seem odd, but it is written that even devils have it in them to protect the Buddhist law, simply because they themselves - deep down inside - want to become buddhas.
I don't tell people "I'm dying of cancer," but instead say, "I'm living with cancer." Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "I'm wrestling with a cancerous condition," but that's a little too complicated for casual conversation. It's funny how I've been exposed to two very different movements that promised the possibility of an extremely long lifespan. I'm talking about millions of years in the same body. One of these movements was my year with Re-evaluation Counseling (or RC, for short). Their idea was that co-counseling was a tool that could rid you of the psychological baggage and traumas that were constantly undermining your health and vitality.
The other movement was Buddhist. Having compassion for all living beings is not only the prime point of Buddhism but is also responsible for determining the length of one's lifespan. That's right - the more you care for others and act upon such caring, the longer you live. I've outlived my oncologist's original prediction, but I want to go on and beat that by a couple of million years - at least. I want to go to my doctor's office for a review of my bloodwork and CT scan, and have him ask, "Okay, Steve, what did you do with the cancer? It's all gone - not a trace."
I'd like to say that my Buddhist practice was responsible. Moreover? I'd want him to believe that. As strange as it sounds, recovering from cancer will prove far easier than living without it. I'm 62-years old and don't have much in the way of financial resources. I live on my pension as a state civil servant - about $1900 per month - and I have about $4,500 in the bank. That's it - no stocks, no bonds, no property, no car, no investments. Over the past 15 months or so, I gave away about $10,000 to an out-of-state friend who is in far more desperate straits than I am. Frankly? I'm glad I had the opportunity to help and would do it again.
Some general observations and philosophical musings
For the past 17 months, I've walked the line between life and death. And I've come to appreciate both - especially to become unafraid of the latter. Sooner or later, death comes to us all. But so does rebirth - that's the hard part to embrace. I keep telling my son that I'll be back, so if I happen to pass on suddenly, that he should keep an eye open for any unusual or strangely familiar child he might "happen" to cross paths with. But if I don't come back to him - if my bodhisattva mission brings me to other places - I will always think of him. I hope I live long enough to see the twins (their first children) which he and his wife will be blessed with in September. But if not, I won't mourn that loss.
The Buddha once said, "I don't have it in my heart to love one or hate another." I hope to always have that sense of equanimity, hoping to expand my sense of compassion beyond the limits of love. My wish isn't so much to get to know my grandchildren but that they - somehow - encounter the writings I've posted on my blog. These are teachings and musings that I hope will benefit them and, hopefully, spare them from the pain of having to learn certain things I've had to learn the hard way. My hope in this regard extends to everybody - young and old.
I am humbled and awed by the loving kindness shown by my ex-wife. We were married for 20 years, separated for five, and divorced ten years ago. I was living in a friend's house when I was diagnosed. But she took me in, caring for me in her house for 15 months, until I recently moved into our son's house. Our divorce had a great and negative impact on her, which lasted for years. But I am glad I had the chance to live with her again and see how much she has grown as a human being.
Part of my condition has an upside - an ability to sense things others don't. Maybe they're too busy with the demands and trials of living in our contemporary society. So maybe that's blunted their senses. But I've acquired the ability to be stunned by the commonplace - a sunrise, a rock seemingly out of place on a sidewalk, a walk down the block, a deeply-drawn breath that has an unexpected ability to revitalize, an oddity in a movie which I'm sure no one else notices. I've always been sensitive to my surroundings, having worked most of my adult life to cultivate this. But my current condition has sharpened this sensitivity.
I noticed that I indulge in remembering past incidents in my life which were embarrassing or not well handled. "I could have done this," or "I could have said this"...you know, I woulda, coulda, shoulda. I am surprised at how often and with what clarity I would replay certain of these episodes in my mind. Maybe I was trying to learn as many lessons as I could, but I still find it remarkable. It is said that we shouldn't dwell in the past. Well, I hate to say it, but too many of us do exactly that - which is kind of like spinning our wheels.
I'm a bit disappointed in two of my Buddhist friends - those from my days as a member of the Soka Gakkai - who know of my condition, yet avoid me like the plague. It's not that I hunger for the company - far from it. I thrive far better than most in my times of solitude. My wish to see them is for their sake, not mine. A friend of mine who noticed my general aloofness toward the affairs of the world said, "You're not from around here, are you?" I knew what she meant and said, "No, but neither are you." She was a homeless person I met on the street, who I ended up living with for four years - off and on. We never had a romantic relationship but I found our connection to have been richly rewarding.
I have learned that you can find riches in the most unlikely of places. But having a conforming mind absorbed in the dramas of day-to-day life manages to rob most people of those riches.
A closing thought
I saw a reenactment of an explorer's deathwalk in a movie about an expedition to Antarctica. This was in the late 1800's and showed this man with his fellow explorers. But his feet were so badly frostbitten, he knew he was being a burden on his comrades who were trying to hike to safety. But he was only imperiling them by slowing them down. A snowstorm suddenly arose and the scene I saw was of him walking away from his comrades into the blinding curtain of snow, slowly disappearing from view as he hobbled away. He knew he was going to die and he knew what he had to do to give his friends a chance. I only hope that I can be that brave if it turns out that I have to be.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes
(Stage IV, liver)* - I also have colon cancer, but only to a far lesser extent than my liver cancer. Interestingly enough, these two cancers had arisen independently of each other, this not usually being the case.
Cisplatin** - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatin
Gemcitabine** - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemcitabine
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Thou Shalt not Lie
No, the Ninth Commandment does not state: “Thou shalt not lie.” It says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
I’ve read on-line posts which claim the Ninth Commandment, in effect, tells us not to lie. But that’s simply not true. Consider the following from Source A*:
Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet? In such cases, the greater interest is justice for the innocent.
That author would have done better to replace that last sentence with this:
Since the Ninth Commandment deals with bearing “false witness against,” you wouldn’t be breaking that law since you didn’t say anything against your neighbors – the Jews you are hiding. In fact, giving them away would violate this one – “Thou shalt not kill.” If you lied, saying you hadn’t seen any Jews, you could claim to be “bearing false witness in favor of [my] neighbor.” No law against that! [NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]
That author, by saying “In such cases, the greater interest is justice…” is guilty of being dodgy by not answering (as I did) in terms of the Commandment itself. This same author shares, in that same posting, this anecdote:
A pastor walking through his neighborhood came up on a group of boys trying to out-lie each other. The kindly parson, overhearing a few whoppers, asked the boys what they were doing. They explained they’d found a puppy and decided the one who told the biggest lie would get to take it home. As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth. He looked each boy straight in the eye and told them all they should be ashamed of themselves, that when he was their age, he never told lies. The boys all bowed their heads and shrugged their shoulders in shame and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog.”
Being the mischievous soul I am, I would have been tempted to hack into his website and alter that last sentence to read:
The boys all gasped in amazement and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog, for you just now told a whopper that out-lied any of us.”
I know, I know…the author didn’t intend that meaning, but it sure jumped out at me…and struck me as being hilarious.
What about where he wrote (above): “As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth.” Why should he be disturbed at all? Since the boys were lying to each other without any intention of harming anyone – and each knew the other was lying (in which case, whatever was said wasn’t a lie in the sense of being an attempt to deceive anyone) – the preacher was just being a dick by trying to shame these boys.
Look at the wording of the Ninth
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
I’ve already dealt with the “against” part – what about the “neighbor” part? I looked up the word “neighbor” from Source B*, which says:
QUOTE:
1. One who lives near or next to another.
2. A person, place, or thing adjacent to or located near another.
3. A fellow human.
4. Used as a form of familiar address [like “Howdy, neighbor!”]
[Also included are the following:]
· To lie close to or border directly on.
· To live or be situated close by.
· Situated or living near another: a neighbor state.
Word History: even though one can now have many neighbors whom one does not know, a situation that would have been highly unlikely in earlier times. The extension of this word to mean "fellow" is probably attributable to the Christian concern with the treatment of one's fellow humans, as in the passage in Matthew 19:19 that urges love of one's neighbor.
:UNQUOTE.
I duly note, here and now, that Matthew 19:19 was written after the Ten Commandments had been given to Moses. So I think we can disregard this from the definitions of “neighbor” listed above: “a fellow human.”
However, if we do that, then apparently the Commandment could be rewritten to say:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor but it’s perfectly okay to do so against those who are not thy neighbors.” In other words, it’s only sinful to bear false witness against “folks like us.” We might not feel it right to embrace a Commandment that exclude others but…that’s what the words mean.
As for “bearing false witness against (someone),” what about saying something that isn’t true but which also isn’t against anyone? For instance, if some fool got up in the public square and insisted (even though he knew better) that the world was flat, he would be guilty of intentionally lying. But he wouldn’t be guilty of saying anything “against” anybody. Or would he? If someone in the audience were to believe this lie and act on it in such a way as to cause him loss or harm, then the lie would have had the effect of being against someone (that is, to his detriment).
But…maybe such a lie would be better prohibited by the “Thou shalt not steal” commandment. For by telling such a lie, the fool attempts to “steal” from the gullible listener something we all have a right to possess – an accurate description of physical reality.
The Four Agreements
Don Miguel Ruiz wrote a best-seller called The Four Agreements, which are basically four rules of conduct necessary for a virtuous life:
1. Be impeccable with your word
2. Don’t take anything personally
3. Don’t make assumptions [Side Note: This would have given Euclid fits, since he built a vast body of work based on making “assumptions” – aka axioms.]
4. Always do your best
Right off the bat, I liked the fact that God is not mentioned anywhere among these four rules. By saying that, I’m not weighing in on whether God actually exists or not. I’m merely saying, living a virtuous life doesn’t necessarily have to involve an external, higher being.
But I digress. Focus on #1: “Be impeccable with your word.” According to Source B*, impeccable means “without flaw or error; faultless.” But does that mean such words must be devoid of lies?
The Buddha, whose speech must surely be regarded as “impeccable,” never lied or so it is claimed. However, he is also praised for having used “expedient means” in order to teach his disciples – “means” which sometimes took the form of telling a lie. The idea, I suppose, is that lies told to help someone attain enlightenment aren’t really lies. But…I don’t buy that for a moment, as I explained in my essay, “Why did the Buddha lie to us?” at:
I can only speak for myself, but I regard “impeccable” speech as being completely free of lies.
Back to the beginning
Toward the beginning of this essay, I wrote:
[NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]
Let’s reconsider what Source A* said above:
Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet?
If the Ninth actually stated “Thou shalt not lie,” the only proper response would be to tell that SS Officer, “I’m not going to tell you.” Of course that would prompt a search of your premises which would quickly reveal the Jews hiding in your closet. But do you really think that officer would have accepted your answer and walked away, if you had told him you’d not seen any Jews?
Maybe, maybe not. Some people calculate the odds on answers to questions like this before speaking. If they thought it highly probable the SS man would believe them, they might risk lying. If they thought otherwise, they might say, “I’m not going to tell you” knowing full well they themselves would be punished after the inevitable search turned up closeted Jews.
Under those circumstances – an SS man in your face – would it be worth risking your life to keep the “Thou shalt not lie” commandment? Maybe the better question would be: Would it be worth your soul not to keep that commandment?
Side note: I’m going to purposely ignore the possibility of asking God/Jesus for forgiveness (and it being granted) for violating a commandment. For when one asks forgiveness, one is saying they won’t ever commit the sin again. But we know full well, that if our hero survived the first SS officer asking this question, he would lie again if confronted by a second SS officer. How many times can one break a commandment and ask for forgiveness before it becomes obvious that the breaker will always continue to break?
The uncomfortable but honest position must be: If the Commandment said “Thou shalt not lie,” then that is what is meant. Even at the cost of your own life? Yes, but I hasten to add: “Too many people cling to life (or at least their idea of life) when they really should let go.” That might be easy to say, but (you might object) how many people could be brave enough to stand up to an SS officer like that?
The answer to that question is, “Not as many would have had to be that brave if more people had been more honest way before Nazism had a chance to become the state religion of Germany.” A lot of little lies allowed a great evil to take root. The lesson? Maybe it would be better to get out of the habit of telling (and accepting) so many little lies that have a way of getting out of hand.
Steven Searle former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Try it out for yourselves in your personal lives, to live according to a ‘Thou shalt not lie’ commandment.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* Source B =http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neighbor
Thursday, February 20, 2014
In the News
The
following are my reactions to a variety of news stories I've recently
read on-line. Any quotations below are not cited as to source, but
did appear in the original news stories.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE:
Why
do I keep having this recurring nightmare about our own Pentagon
being responsible for the F-35's plans eventually ending up in enemy
hands because of "hacking?" If that were to happen (perish
the thought), we'd have to then come up with yet another generation
of fighters. Using the same contractor because by then Lockheed will
have learned its lesson. Oh, one more thing: This whole idea of
stealth aircraft overlooks one method of detection: From space-based
sensors that can detect these planes as they slice through (and
disturb) the earth's magnetic field. Busted!
TWO:
"[La-Sissie]...realizes
that Egyptians can go to Tahrir Square tomorrow if his administration
is seen as not being as efficient as promised...” No problem. He'll
kill as many of his countrymen as he needs to to stay in power. His
tanks will give a new meaning to the term “exploding population.”
Hey, fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, and will also keep
profits high for the generals. No, I do not like this man at all.
THREE:
The
United States... protested against the detention of the reporters."
And yet, our aid to La-Sissie will continue uninterrupted since, as
Obama refuses to declare, Morsi's ouster was not a coup.
FOUR:
Obama's
embarrassed that his move against Assad failed. When the insurgency
first erupted, it was cued by the CIA which had nurtured sleeper
cells in Syria for at least 10 years. Obama thought the time was
right and that Assad would be overthrown by popular revolt, after his
army turned against him. Well, that didn't happen. We goofed in our
calculation. As it turned out, Assad was right when he blamed foreign
influence for the move against him.
FIVE:
"Every
moment we don't separate from the Palestinians is a clear threat to
the existence of Israel as a Jewish state." Well, there's an
even greater threat - that of Jews converting to Buddhism after they
come to realize how bogus Judaism is. The US has no business
recognizing a state for its religion, since that has a chilling
effect on the right of anyone to convert.
SIX:
"Jews
are entitled to have a state of their own." If the voting
majority of Israel were to convert from Judaism to (say) Buddhism, no
one would be talking about a Jewish state any more, except of course
those "left behind" who didn't convert. Not my problem.
SEVEN:
Abraham
Lincoln preserved the Union – that's about it. However, he did so
by exacting (at least) three terrible prices. First, he
single-handedly voided the principle, as stated in the Declaration of
Independence, upon which the USA was created – that is, one people
(in this case, the Southerns) had a right to severe the political
bands which connect them to another people (in this case, the
Northerners).
Second, he demonstrated that the second amendment's protection against the overreach of federal power was a fiction at best. If the South, with an army of its own, couldn't fight off the feds, how on earth can modern day 2nd amendmentists hope to ever do that.
Third, Lincoln showed that not all men are created equal when it comes to military conscription. If you had $300 in your pocket (that is, if you were rich), you could buy your way out of the army. But if you were an immigrant just arriving in NYC, you were sworn in as a citizen – and then immediately sworn into the army.
Second, he demonstrated that the second amendment's protection against the overreach of federal power was a fiction at best. If the South, with an army of its own, couldn't fight off the feds, how on earth can modern day 2nd amendmentists hope to ever do that.
Third, Lincoln showed that not all men are created equal when it comes to military conscription. If you had $300 in your pocket (that is, if you were rich), you could buy your way out of the army. But if you were an immigrant just arriving in NYC, you were sworn in as a citizen – and then immediately sworn into the army.
EIGHT:
“...the
Court declared that the power to classify and conscript manpower for
military service was 'beyond question.''' That “power” is nowhere
listed in the Constitution. Although Congress has the power to raise
armies, like all other rights and powers, this one is not absolute.
For instance, in the name of “raising armies,” does Congress have
the right to seize wealth indiscriminately and without compensation
in order to pay for this?
The Court has also ruled that it is our “duty” to serve in the military, although the word “duty” is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution – except as a form of tax. [The Court is very good at making up stuff when it can't find a good argument – sad but true.]
Then there's the text of the Amendment itself. Why was it “necessary” to include “except as punishment?” Did anyone think the 13th would be used to empty our jails? And why were these words deemed important: “shall have been duly convicted?” [The word “duh” comes to mind.] Maybe the 13th should have read:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime or in the form of conscripted military service, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The Oath of Enlistment makes it clear that all conscriptees should be protected by this Amendment. You're being told to swear an oath, the meaning of which you can't possibly know. How many know the regulations and the UCMJ before enlistment? Then of course there's the “So help me God” part. If you don't say those words, then you can't be inducted – problem solved!
The Court has also ruled that it is our “duty” to serve in the military, although the word “duty” is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution – except as a form of tax. [The Court is very good at making up stuff when it can't find a good argument – sad but true.]
Then there's the text of the Amendment itself. Why was it “necessary” to include “except as punishment?” Did anyone think the 13th would be used to empty our jails? And why were these words deemed important: “shall have been duly convicted?” [The word “duh” comes to mind.] Maybe the 13th should have read:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime or in the form of conscripted military service, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The Oath of Enlistment makes it clear that all conscriptees should be protected by this Amendment. You're being told to swear an oath, the meaning of which you can't possibly know. How many know the regulations and the UCMJ before enlistment? Then of course there's the “So help me God” part. If you don't say those words, then you can't be inducted – problem solved!
NINE:
After
the 14th was passed, this country lost the right to call itself the
United States of America, because its first sentence took away the
right of the states to define citizenship within its borders: “All
persons...are citizens...of the State wherein they reside.” If a
sovereign political entity can no longer define by what criteria its
citizenship is defined, that power passing to another entity, it has
lost its sovereignty. Even under our federal system, the states were
recognized as having an appreciable degree of sovereignty. But the
14th was the first of many steps designed to eliminate that
status.
If you don't believe state sovereignty had become a target, then ask yourself why the former states of the Confederacy couldn't rejoin the union unless their state Constitutions were rewritten and approved by Congress.
Section 2 of the 14th amuses me where it says, “But when the right to vote...is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age...” It should have said, “...being at least twenty-one years of age...” It amazes me how Congress so often fails so miserably to get it right. What a bunch of idiots!
If you don't believe state sovereignty had become a target, then ask yourself why the former states of the Confederacy couldn't rejoin the union unless their state Constitutions were rewritten and approved by Congress.
Section 2 of the 14th amuses me where it says, “But when the right to vote...is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age...” It should have said, “...being at least twenty-one years of age...” It amazes me how Congress so often fails so miserably to get it right. What a bunch of idiots!
TEN:
It
never mattered how rich our presidents were or had become. What
mattered was the Prime Directive: "If they don't toe the line of
the real Powers-that-Be, there will be a bullet in the brain as their
reward." And they all know this.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven
Searle, former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder
of The Independent
Contractors' Party
Contact
me at
bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)