In the News - March 30, 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 or in comments posted by others.

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

ONE:

The reason why the US is so anxious to find Malaysian flight 370's remains is the gnawing fear that it's sitting under a tarp on some runway in China. We're scared that China might be capable of stealth maneuvers like this. We don't like not knowing how big stuff disappears without a trace.

TWO:

If Newt Gingrich [as the best candidate for the GOP's presidential nod in 2012] was an example of Sheldon Adelson's thinking, I don't think the Democrats need fear whomever else he now has in "mind."

THREE:

How incredible is it that a professional gambler like Sheldon Adelson speaks for the Jews in the USA? Or at least for those in the Republican Jewish Coalition who went to his casino – a den of iniquity – to listen to the speechifying. If I was a devout Jew, I would feel soiled after setting foot in such an establishment. The rabbis of old looked down on gambling, seeing it as destructive of society.

If Abelson amassed a fortune of $40B, he sure broke a lot of hearts along the way. But as long as he can play with himself by playing the role of kingmaker, he's not going to care. As for those GOP hopefuls who genuflected to Adelson, that tells me everything I need to know about where they're coming from. In fact, if any one of them had held a press conference denouncing this gathering at this unholy site, his stature in my eyes would have soared.

FOUR:

How did Indonesia get converted to Islam in the first place? I suspect the Theravada Buddhists living at the time were largely to blame. Theravada was a form of Buddhism that was highly monastic, whereas a form of Buddhism that stressed Mahayana's bodhisattva ideal would have been more focused on developing the Buddhist practice of the general population. That, in turn, would have made the people less likely to turn to Islam.

As for Myanmar, only 4% of the population are Muslims and they are heavily persecuted by the military government. That task is made easier by fanning the flames of hatred against the Muslim minority who happen to be from a minority tribe – the Rohingya. I think it is very unbecoming of these Buddhists – who, again, happen to be Theravada Buddhists – to be using violence against a tiny minority. If they're so worried about Islam spreading in their country, they would be better served by (again) practicing the bodhisattva ideal of conversion of the general population to Buddhist practice and to developing that practice among those people.

Theravada Buddhism is not Buddhism, since Shakyamuni Buddha sought to promote the Mahayana of the Lotus Sutra over the cloistered, monastic Theravada. The Theravada chose to ignore the Buddha, and the results in Indonesia and Myanmar are plain for all the world to see.

FIVE:

The Syrian jet was warned 4 times [before it was shot down]? Would the Turkish general staff care to comment on the nature of those warnings and how they knew they'd been received? Of course, if Syria had shot down a Turkish jet, the Turks would be howling bloody murder - and the Armenians within Turkey's borders would perhaps allow themselves the small pleasure of a slight smile.

SIX:

@ Larry323,

For one thing, we're not talking about an entire army. I was addressing the issue of soldiers manning a base's defenses. As for "a dead army can't live to fight another day," what are you implying? That the mighty Ukrainian army will end up fighting the Russians? That ain't gonna happen. And the loss of life incurred by Ukrainians defending their bases would have served a huge strategic purpose in terms of giving them the moral high ground.

Remember: any fighting would have been against what Putin calls "self-defense militias," not regular Russian army. If some of his troops died in battle under that fiction, he'd be hard put to explain himself to their parents and to his fellow citizens.

SEVEN:

As far as I'm concerned, if a nation has a military that won't uphold its own basic oath of service, that nation doesn't deserve its independence. This is a day of shame for the Ukrainian armed forces, which let part of their country be taken without firing a shot. Not - one - single - shot!

EIGHT:

@ Cameron Blakemore,

If the Ukrainians had opened fire on an enemy that wore no insignia, an enemy that Russia insists are militia units not under their command, then Russia wouldn't have any reason to retaliate. Liars are always punished, sooner or later. But not unless you call them on their lies. As for civilian politicians setting the rules, that's not entirely true. They don't micromanage. If a force is attacked by an enemy, there are preexisting protocols (set by those same civilians) as to how the troops should respond.

NINE:

@ Larry323, who wrote of Ukrainian military in the Crimea not shooting at Russians trying to storm their bases, "Only a fool would fight a battle he knew he couldn't possibly win."

Then apparently you've never heard of the Spartan 300. If they hadn't fought a battle they knew they couldn't win, Western Civilization as we know it would never have come into being.

TEN:

Laws that bar certain classes of people from owning guns are [examples of] Bills of Attainder, which our Constitution bans. According to wikipedia: “The word 'attainder', meaning 'taintedness', is part of English common law [upon which US law is based]. ...a criminal condemned for a serious crime... could be declared "attainted", meaning that his civil rights were nullified...”

So how is it that felons and, in this case, wife abusers are denied their 2nd Amendment access to guns? Once they've served their sentences, they shouldn't be burdened with “taintedness.” What gives?

ELEVEN:

Sleeping dog wrote, in response to TEN above: "Hey, some folks I know are starting a drive to remove laws barring recovering drug addicts, who have been found guilty of drug-related felonies, from being employed as pharmacy workers. Could I submit your name to their list of potential executives?"

[My response to Sleeping dog is in TWELVE below.]

TWELVE:

@ Sleeping dog,

The key flaw in your post lies in the word “recovering.” If you're going to assume that anyone guilty of drug-related offenses should be forever tainted and always to be considered as “recovering” but never recovered, then such laws are Bills of Attainder.

There are laws barring construction firms guilty of bribing state capital improvements officials, but even those laws don't taint. After a period of banishment from bidding on public contracts (that is, after having been duly punished), they are allowed to resume normal business activities. Therefore, no permanent taint has been assigned to such firms.

In like manner, you can't taint someone forever for a crime committed once upon a time for which he's been punished. The opening sentence of the article gives the game away: “The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law Wednesday barring anyone convicted of even a minor domestic violence charge from ever owning a gun.” The insistence that they be barred from “ever owning a gun” even for “minor” offenses shows a court too willing to deny 2nd amendment rights. What next? Would the court bar the wife of such an abuser the right to keep a gun in her home, which (arguably) her hubby might have access to?

THIRTEEN:

“...based on his strict interpretation of the Constitution.” This should read, “...based on what Scalia pretends to be his strict interpretation of the Constitution.” For all of those “strict interpretation” guys out there, I bring up two issues:

1) Since the Constitution only mentions Congress's military powers as being to “raise and support armies” and “to provide and maintain a navy,” how does Congress get to create an air force without a constitutional amendment?

2) Since the Constitution specifically disallows for creating new states from the territories of existing states, how could West Viriginia and Maine have lawfully come into existence?

As for Scalia's claim that “conversations are quite different,” I would counter that the word “effects” in the Fourth Amendment would constitute a sufficient umbrella under which conversations could fit. Besides, the Ninth Amendment should help if the Fourth is found wanting. The Ninth covers non-enumerated rights. Back when the Fourth was ratified, conversations couldn't be electronically monitored. But surely now that they can be, we must have a reasonable expectation (one of our Ninth amendment rights) that these should be deemed protected with as much force as are “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” which are protected by the Fourth.

Scalia is such a pompous clown, he should be impeached on those grounds alone.

FOURTEEN:

The limited action [former USA President Jimmy] Carter et al endorse won't do the job. Divesting, Boycotting, and Sanctioning all of Israel has a far better chance of being effective. Some might regard that as overkill, but hey Israel does overkill all the time. In their heart of hearts (though not publicly) the Israelis understand this. The DBS campaign, as it picks up steam, will be the only force that will cause Israel to reconsider its apartheid policies. What Carter suggests is too tepid.

As for comparisons to what the Nazis did, that's just so much yadda, yadda, yadda. The boycott has strong anti-Israeli policy connotations, not anti-Semitic connotations. It is meant to delegitimize the Jewish state as a whole because, well, they are acting illegitimately regarding the two-state solution. It is exactly that – a pressure tactic against its policies toward the Palestinians; once Israel starts responding favorably to that pressure, the boycott will end (so the ball is in their court).

The Nazi boycott was meant to destroy the Jews. The Palestinian boycott exerts reasonable economic and institutional pressures to get them to change their policies. Of course, if a majority of those who might boycott think Israel is acting reasonably, then they won't join the boycott. That's pure democracy in action – so what would Israel have to fear? Sounds pretty simple to me.

FIFTEEN:

RE: Egyptian court sentences 529 Muslim Brotherhood members to death.

John Mc posted: Now if they could do the same thing with gangs in North America.

My reply to John Mc:

Are you saying, "Membership in a gang qualifies you for the death sentence?" If so, you're probably agreeing with any claim that this was a fair trial, even though a verdict was handed down within days of the trial's beginning. I can understand if one or two out of thousands of Yahoo posters would be mentally disturbed enough to post such a sentiment. But you got 234 thumbs-up vs nine down (so far). Those 234 probably had their thumbs up somewhere they shouldn't have been. But you know what they say, "You can be an idiot and still have a vote in this country."

SIXTEEN:

C wrote in reference to FIFTEEN above:

John, I agree if it's a violent gang...

My response to C:

So you support the death penalty against people who engage in violence, even though that violence wasn't life-threatening. "Violence" could consist of pushing and shoving or even (in the minds of some) "intimidation." Before you jump on this bandwagon, C, you might want to offer a definition of "violence" that deserves the death penalty. Come on people, stop jerking off and think before you post.

SEVENTEEN:

Pinufo,

Actually, pushing and shoving [mentioned in SIXTEEN above] could rise to the level of being battery, which is a crime of violence. But let me use a better example: Suppose gang bangers got into a fist fight – against each other – surely you must admit that is definitely a crime of violence.

My earlier point was to insist that C provide a definition of what he considered “violent” so we could see what he considered was worthy of the death penalty. C had posted, “John, I agree if its a violent gang.” And what C was agreeing to was the death penalty for gangbangers who engaged in acts of violence. C seems eager to put people to death, but I notice he has not yet answered my request for his definition of violence that would invoke this penalty.

EIGHTEEN:

@ Enough!,

I gave up my citizenship, but in such a way that I did not have to leave the USA. I'm still here because the hicks in the State Department can't figure out what to do with me. Hey, their problem, not mine. In court documents I filed renouncing my citizenship, I freely admitted I haven't filed an income tax return in over 7 years and that I'm still here.

I admitted I was in a gang, but you obviously didn't read carefully enough to see the exact nature of my gang affiliation. To reword it, I was one US citizen among 300M or so, of which many (too many for my liking) were de facto members of a lynch mob type of gang. I was affiliated with this gang, much to my dislike and as an accident of my birth. But finally I said, “enough, I'm not supporting this enterprise any longer.”

What's wrong with asking some big mouth who wants to kill people for acts of violence exactly what he considers acts to be sufficiently violent so as to warrant the death penalty? Our whole legal system is based on definitions, so get used to it.

As for my presidential campaigns not gaining traction, I did my best with extremely limited resources while banning my campaign from seeking or accepting any campaign contributions whatsoever. However, since Obama and the others were willing to sell themselves to get elected, well guess what – you got exactly the kind of president you deserve for allowing money to run your lives.

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

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

The "right" to kill illegal aliens

Introduction

The following is from an on-line exchange I had with two persons. The last part deals with any claim some might advance that US citizens have a "right" to kill illegal aliens.


Opening

I posted this comment, the first sentence of which appeared in a news article:


QUOTE:

"A ballot measure to grant fertilized eggs the same legal rights as human beings..." The rights of human beings aren't addressed in our Constitution. However, the rights of citizens are, per Section 1 of the 14th amendment: "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

No state can make a law asserting the rights of the unborn (who are not yet citizens - being unborn - and therefore having no Constitutional rights) over the rights of a citizen (a woman who chooses to preserve her liberty by asserting control over her property - that is, her body - by having an abortion). The rights of a citizen must always trump those of a non-citizen. The only way a fertilized egg can challenge the rights of a citizen would be by means of an amendment to the US Constitution - not by means of a state ballot initiative.

:UNQUOTE.


Two Responses

One commenter observed:

"Why if corporations are persons, than surely fertilized eggs must be too!

To which I responded:

"You're missing the point. Corporations may have been granted personage status by a sadly mistaken High Court. But not even that Court actually declared Corporations to be citizens."

Another commenter responded:

"That's pretty lame. How about if a "citizen" murders an illegal alien? Would the citizen's right to liberty trump the illegal alien's right to life? Yeah... I don't think you really spent much time thinking this through did you?"

To which I responded:


QUOTE:

I will address your point, but first I'll address a much stronger point you could have raised instead: Does a woman's right to an abortion extend to the day before the unborn (that is, one who is not yet a citizen) is about to be born? Considering only the arguments I've made so far, the answer must be “yes, she could abort the day before.”

However, we have something called the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” One of these so-called non-enumerated rights, which I dub “the right to reasonable expectation,” must be a right of the people (collectively) to expect that such an innocent be allowed to live. Even though my arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, would allow a woman to kill her just-about-to-be-born child, most of “the people” would be horrified at such an action. Their “reasonable expectation” is that society – which they comprise – couldn't morally (that is, “morally” in a broad, generic sense that includes the sensibilities of atheists and non-Christians alike) – could not possibly condone such a killing.

We-the-people would think, “She had all this time to make a decision and waits till the last minute? That's just plain cold.” And this argument has everything to do with the idea that a person who waits too long to do something they'd normally have a right to do should not be allowed to execute their plan simply because they “sat on their rights too long.”

As for your (weaker) argument: like the preceding, we have another case of rights/powers in conflict. I suppose one of these days the murder of an illegal alien by a citizen (which you didn't have to enquote as “citizen”) will be defended with an argument similar to the one you suggest. However, a good counterargument would be that allowing citizens to murder illegal aliens would encroach on the President's power to conduct foreign policy. Only the President, in conjunction with the Congress, gets to decide how to deal with illegal aliens – not unelected citizens acting on their own as vigilantes.

Actually, I've spent a great deal of time thinking this through, but you did a service to all of us by bringing up a good point. And for that I thank you.

:UNQUOTE.


Follow up

I want to address a point the second commenter made, which I failed to address at first: "Would the citizen's right to liberty trump the illegal alien's right to life?"

I object to the idea that illegal aliens have infringed on our liberty at all. In fact, their presence in the USA has done much to enhance that liberty. Certainly their cheap, exploited labor has helped our economy. Some might argue, they've taken jobs away from citizens. But for the most part, those were jobs that citizens were loathe to do. To which I would add: "If you, as a citizen and native speaker of English (and possessing the educational advantages this country has to offer), couldn't compete for a job against someone without those advantages whose English isn't as good as yours, I don't have a lot of sympathy."

The greater argument, in terms of our liberty: If the USA hadn't turned a blind eye - for decades - to the flood of illegals crossing the border, Mexico might be a socialist state today. And our liberty might have found itself threatened by that state - imagine a Venezuela-type state run by a Chavez-type leader so close to home. Those millions of illegals being here (with many of them sending money to relatives back home) might have become so desperate had they been forced to remain in Mexico, that they could well have revolted against their government. And sometimes such revolutions aren't to our liking, in terms of the ideologies and personalities that end up in power.

In other words, our hands-off approach to illegals served as a pressure valve to let off steam south of the border.

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

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

In the News - March 21, 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 or in comments posted by others.

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

ONE:

RE: Obama says Ukraine has USA's full backing.

Let's stop with the "full backing" talk. That would mean we're willing to use nukes - which we're not.


TWO:

"But if [Putin] does not [back off], I'm very confident that the international community will stand firmly behind the Ukrainian government." So what does this mean - another Coalition of the Willing is being prepared to liberate Crimea?


THREE:

RE: An ethnic Russian woman in eastern Ukraine hoping for Russian intervention:

"...much of her savings vanished when the former superpower [USSR] broke up." How much of her savings ended up in the pockets of the same Russian officials she's hoping will save her now?


FOUR:

Kerry's protestations won't matter in the long run. Israel knows that Obama is a lame duck, and such ducks are always keen about their legacies. Obama would love to go down in history as having been instrumental in establishing the two-state solution. But that won't happen. Rahm Emanuel, as Obama's first chief of staff, made sure Obama would toe the line during those first four years by not lifting a finger to prompt meaningful negotiations. That was Rahm's job, for which he was rewarded as Chicago first "duly" elected Jewish mayor. It's not like Obama had any choice - he was ordered to take on Rahm as Chief of Staff. What? You think Obama had any choice in the matter?


FIVE:

RE: The recent seizure by Israel of a ship in the Red Sea laden with weapons.

From the Guardian (March 5, 2014): “Israeli officials say the weapons were flown from Damascus to Tehran, then shipped from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas to the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.... From there, the missiles would have been transferred by land across Sudan, into the Sinai desert and onwards to Gaza, the officials said.”

None of this makes any sense. If the Iranians wanted to ship rockets to Gaza, why upload them in Damascus? Originating from Iran would have been more likely and discovery by outsiders less likely due to the shorter route. How does one transfer such a cargo “by land across Sudan, into the Sinai desert?” They're not contiguous. And surely Bibi isn't suggesting that these missiles would have gone through the entire length of Egypt (allied with Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Iran) in order to get to Sinai. Either “these officials” are lying or they are too sloppy to get their story straight.

And once in Sinai, how would these missiles get to Gaza since Egypt has bombed the smuggling tunnels?

Not to mention: Bibi says all of this is confirmed by US intel. If so, I'd rather hear that from them directly than from him.

I think Bibi fabricated all of this.


SIX:

Wait a minute. Why is La-Sissie making this announcement [about a multi-billion dollar housing project]? He is not the President or Prime Minister - he's the defense chief. Does he think this measure will help the overall Egyptian economy, or will it be more helpful to his cronies in the construction industry? I saw "The Square," in which La-Sissie's armored personnel carriers intentionally ran over protesters. This man has too much blood on his hands to succeed. And I don't care if he's a Muslim, or if he pretends to be...karma is a bitch no matter what one's professed religion happens to be.


SEVEN:

Marc,

La-Sissie was in charge then or at least he was an integral part of the junta. His military was manning those vehicles. Also keep in mind that La-Sissie was an intelligence officer himself. So your comment on intelligence officers “discovering” Brotherhood involvement, which would benefit their guy (La-Sissie), seems far more likely. These guys stick together. Besides, if Brotherhood members in the military were guilty of running people over, the brass would have brought them up on charges. There's ample video footage available to allow the brass to figure out who was driving which particular vehicles. Also, those protesters weren't just Christians.

The majority of Egyptians want La-Sissie to run simply because they're desperate and no one else who could challenge him will be allowed to gain any traction or, even likelier, to even appear on the ballot.


EIGHT:

None of La-Sissie's predecessors were able to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood. And he will fail to do so as well. After he is elected, watch for Mubarak to go free. These military guys stick together and this is something the average Egyptian citizen knows all too well. La-Sissie will never get the stability he needs to convince foreigners to invest in Egypt. All it takes is a determined minority (say 3% of the population) to throw monkey wrenches in the works and foreigners that could help won't dare risk investing in Egypt. Tourists won't come. People will get desperate and start to blame La-Sissie, whose approach of terrorism against all who oppose him will blow up in his face.

Egypt's biggest problem is that it doesn't have a history of nurturing a diverse group of political parties and institutions. The only group that can fill leadership positions are in the military and they have their own agenda of lining their own pockets. No time to think about the people. They'll wish they had made the effort. By then, it will be too late.


NINE:

It won't matter which criminals La-Sissie allies himself with - Russians or Americans. [They tried the Russians once, remember?] As long as he insists on wielding a heavy hand by violating any sense of political neutrality (the most appropriate role for the military), he will fail. People, whether Muslim or not, have an ingrained sense of what constitutes fair play. And they won't think generals getting rich at their expense so constitutes. Sure, you're right, a lot of Egyptians (at least believe they) want La-Sissie to establish order. But remember: Without Justice, there can be no Law and Order.

I am confident that La-Sissie's overreach, much like Morsi's overreach, will prove to be his undoing.


TEN:

There was a commercial for the TV series "House of Cards" with Kevin Spacey saying, "Democracy is so overrated." His prior comment had to do with the Vice President assuming power without one vote cast in his favor. There was a better line: "The Constitution is so overrated."


ELEVEN:

" the United States has an 'unshakeable' commitment" to Israel's security." No, we don't. The only unshakeable commitments the US has are expressed in its treaties - you know, the kind that require the approval of the Senate. The USA and Israel have no such treaty - so any talk about unshakeable commitments is just that - talk. But I guess it's important to keep AIPAC happy.


TWELVE:

Snowden can continue being effective in Russia, whereas that effectiveness goes to zero if he ends up being incarcerated in the States. Snowden is free to address whatever issues he wants. Freedom of speech also encompasses the right to pick and choose one's topics. Adversaries might wish for Snowden to address the Ukrainian situation. But if he chooses silence on that topic, that is his right. It in no way means he's supporting Putin. Snowden is in Russia because of Putin. So if he starts railing against Russian intervention, Putin would expel him. Which is exactly what Snowden's enemies are hoping for.

As for the Ukrainians? What's happening there is in large measure their own fault. They elected a corrupt and inefficient government and borrowed like there was no tomorrow. Well, guess what? There's a price to pay for that – and sometimes that ends up being sooner rather than later. Also at fault? The EU, for having failed to step up to the plate and become the military power, sans NATO, that its economic might warrants. And the US is at fault for not having weaned EU from dependence on US military.

In spite of how much Obama gets his panties tied up in a knot, there's nothing the US can do to change the outcome in Crimea, except pray the Russians don't try to take all of Ukraine. Even then, there's nothing we could do. Think about that, as you pay over $1T for all of those ineffective F-35s you're about to buy. Fat lot of good they'll end up doing. 


THIRTEEN:

I said, “Snowden is free to address whatever issues he wants.” He's also free to commit suicide – it is an option. But I think we can be pretty safe in assuming he won't. Just because one can address any issue one pleases, doesn't mean one will choose to. Besides, there's nothing Snowden can add to the Ukrainian debate, so why should he, as an ill-informed outsider unfamiliar with the issue, speak up? “Massive oppression,” you say? More likely, he's just got his priorities in order – doing and saying what he can in areas in which he'll be most effective.

I don't care what Russia and China are doing. They don't go through the pretense, like we do, of factoring in constitutional privacy concerns. JFK was eager to disband the CIA – a move I fully understand and would concur with today. For the mischief they've caused, some of them should be shot. Snowden should get a medal for having made the public (and Congress) aware of the abuses against our own citizenry being perpetrated by our own intel community. And causing that community to lie to Congress so badly, they had to apologize. Frankly? Our own intel boys kicked themselves to the curb.

The real traitors are those in the USA who swore to uphold the Constitution, but decided they knew better so carved out exceptions for themselves. The real thieves are those who keep ramping up “defense” spending to help us fight enemies that we ourselves have made.


FOURTEEN:

"make a sweep of things by winning back the White House..." Um, to do that, it would help to field a decent candidate. I know! Such a candidate would have to stress social, hot button issues like a strong stand against abortion and reintroducing the Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution. I'm not saying the Democrats deserve to win, I'm just saying the Pubbers deserve more to lose.


FIFTEEN:

All Obama has to do is rewrite US diplomatic recognition of Israel as follows: "The US hereby temporarily suspends US recognition of Israel, while temporarily granting it to the as-yet undefined State of Palestine. US position will be reevaluated contingent on the progress of ongoing Israeli/Palestinian negotiations." This Obama can do without Congressional approval. I think we might see a little more urgency from Knittin-Yahoo once such a declaration is made.


SIXTEEN:

One more time: The USA never had a civil war. This was a War of Secession. A civil war, by definition, is one in which two or more parties within a nation's borders are trying to seize power. The Confederates didn't want national power, they wanted out. 


SEVENTEEN:

You wrote, “Civil war, a war between citizens of the same country.” Once the South declared independence, southerners were no longer “citizens of the same country.”


EIGHTEEN:

You're overlooking the fact that Article I doesn't grant the Congress the power to prevent secession. And the fact that the Constitution, unlike its predecessor Articles of Confederation, doesn't not speak of a “perpetual union.” Why was “perpetual union” not included in the language of the Constitution? The implication was that the states were recognized as being free to leave the union, as a function of their sovereignty and right to self-determination.

If the rest of the Union wished to engage in violence to keep a seceding state in bondage, then such action is nothing more than naked aggression in violation of the Constitution and of the Declaration of Independence.

It's true that no other nation recognized the CSA – at least not yet. But once an entire body politic (those in the Confederacy) in effect renounced their US citizenship, the USA could not maintain them in bondage. Which is ironic, since freedom was supposed to be one of the motives of the War of Secession. If I were to renounce my citizenship (which, BTW, I have) would the US have the right to say, “Oh no you don't?” Citizenship is a form of contract, which can be broken. People do it all the time, and yet Uncle Sam doesn't send special forces into other countries to specially render wannabe ex-citizens back to US soil.

In like manner, an entire body politic should not have been subjected to such a rendering. 


NINETEEN:

“The only people in bondage were the Slaves.” That was Constitutionally-approved bondage, BTW. Actually, once the War of Secession was lost, southern whites were in bondage, not being allowed to rejoin the Union until they ratified the 13th, 14th, & 15th amendments and rewrote their state constitutions to be approved by Congress. That part about not being allowed to rejoin the Union is a hoot, since the Union never recognized the Confederate states as having seceded in the first place. Therefore? The Union wanted it both ways – to claim it was illegal to secede and claim that those who seceded had to reapply to the Union under terms dictated by a victorious North. Our Constitution doesn't address how states that seceded would be allowed to rejoin.

“You can also declare the land your house sits on an independent country; but that doesn't make it a country.” Which is precisely why the Declaration of Independence speaks of a people seeking to sever the political bands that joined them to another people. It didn't say anything about individuals doing so.


TWENTY:

If Kerry's right, then why would the Palestinians object to (once more) declaring Israel to be a Jewish state? Maybe it's because Bibi's people stopped acting like Jews a long time ago. So why should the Palestinians confirm something as true that no longer is? Maybe the Arabs should come out and say, “We recognize Israel as the current home, subject to future reconsiderations, of the Jewish tribes as well as that of their non-Jewish citizens.” Oh, wait, that won't work either. What about members of those tribes who are quite happy to be citizens of their current, non-Israeli countries? There are surely Jews among them who don't consider Israel “home.”

Maybe the Arabs are hung up on the definition of just what is a Jew? Lord knows, there's not exactly consensus within Israel on this subject. The Super Duper Orthodox, for one, won't recognize any Jew who doesn't insist on wearing black in the hot desert sun. It is written: The SDO have more commandments than the Lord in Heaven even dreamed to impose.


TWENTY-ONE:

"The issue of sovereignty over east Jerusalem, home to key religious sites..." The Muslims and the Jews have much in common - including their attachment to the land. Buddhists, on the other hand, seek to transcend the limitations of the physical world and don't attach themselves to such trifles. The only way peace will be achieved in the Middle East will be achieved will be to abandon all of Abraham's teachings and embrace Buddhism instead. Abraham was a very sick man, whose diseased legacy haunts us to this day.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Soka Gakkai: A Love Story

Introduction

Today, I'm going to tell you a love story - mine. I was head over heels in love with a fellow member of the SGI (Soka Gakkai International). This is a lay Buddhist organization headquartered in Japan, which can claim at most about one out of every 1,000 in the USA as members.

I want to share my love story, since it helps illustrate a lot about SGI Buddhism that you won't find in any theological writings. This, perhaps inadvertently, illustrates a prime SGI principle: "Buddhism equals daily life."

It is said the Buddha used many expedient means in order to introduce living beings to Buddhist teachings. I hope the power of gossip (which this tale might end up inspiring) will prove to be such a means in my quest to shake things up here in Chicago, the scene of what I'm about to share.


The Principals

These five are the principals (whose real first names I am citing), all fellow SGI members of long standing (for over 20 years), who were involved in this drama in the last half of 2002:

• Marilyn - my SGI district chief, the object of my unrequited love, at the time informally separated from her husband;

• Steve - that's me (informally separated from my wife), one of five roommates who paid rent to Marilyn to live in a house she was trying to buy;

• Stan - a men's division leader;

• Mark - my chapter's Men's Division leader (two or more districts - the smallest unit - make up a chapter);

• Kathy - Mark's wife, who was my chapter chief.

Many Chicago-area SGI members came to know about my wish to win Marilyn's heart. But, after all was said and done, not a single one spoke to me about this. I didn't get any advice, guidance (except once, briefly, which I'll detail below), or even a willingness to be a good listener. I have found this to be typical of SGI members, at least in my personal experience - that is, they don't engage their fellow members in more than superficial conversation. And if I would have sought guidance from some senior leader, I'm sure he would have just "encouraged" me to chant about this.

This silence is ironic since SGI prides itself on hosting weekly "discussion" meetings in order to promote its brand of Buddhism. But...there's never any discussion - only the most basic, general type of religious material gets covered. Not to mention: SGI once dubbed one year in particular (can't recall which one) as the Year of Dialog and Friendship. In my 20+ years with the Soka Gakkai, I can't say I ever had one member who was a friend nor can I remember much in the way of dialog. Dialog seemed to make my fellow members nervous, especially the things that I would bring up.


Background

In May of 2001, I moved out of my home of 21 years and into Marilyn's house. She heard I was leaving my wife and offered me a room in this house she was trying to buy. I would be the fifth adult to share this space. For that first year, all of us got along fairly well. Since Marilyn (who I had known for several years) was my district chief, we held weekly SGI meetings in her living room, which I (as in the past) enthusiastically attended.

During the summer of 2002, Marilyn went on a vacation to Europe as a guest of the guy she was currently dating, some millionaire who had retired at a young age. This trip was to last for several months. During that summer, Stan and Mark paid me a home visit - or HV as it's known among SGI members. This is basically a visit during which members will chant together and try to encourage the visited person in the development of his faith.

After we chanted, we chatted and the subject of Marilyn came up. One of the guys - can't remember which one - asked, "You love her, don't you?" I admitted I did, but had no thought of pursuing a relationship. Long story, short? Both of them encouraged me to pursue her. I was hesitant, since I knew her to be far more materialistic than I was. She even told me, "I'm going to be rich, someday." Whereas, my heart was closer to the tradition of the world-renouncing, homeless brother monks.

But Stan and Mark were undaunted in their encouragement, even reminding me that I had a secret weapon at my disposal - the Gohonzon. That's a sacred scroll each member has enshrined in his home, at which he can direct his prayers. Which of course will come true. Oh, wait...that was old SGI doctrine. The current variation is: "Chant for your heart's desire. You'll either get it, get something better, or lose the desire for it - but not in a bitter, sour grapes kind of way."

After they left, I chanted about this and mulled over in my mind what I should do. I decided, as the expression goes, "to go for it."


Going for it

Marilyn would be returning from Europe in a few weeks, sometime in September. So I sent her an e-mail expressing my feelings for her. That might sound impersonal, and I have to admit it is. However, I had practical reasons for doing this: I wanted her to know how I felt and to mull it over while abroad. Also, I knew her to be difficult to approach one-on-one, simply because she seemed to always end up being swallowed up in the myriad activities that made up her personal life. Anyway, I'm a firm believer in putting one's cards on the table.

Marilyn did answer my e-mail about two weeks later, mostly expressing surprise. She didn't check her email every day since, as it turned out, she was caught up in the whirlwind of her boyfriend's road trip on the continent. Meanwhile, I made two decisions: I would chant two hours per day for a successful courtship and I would write her an on-going letter expressing my feelings. That letter ended up consisting of 500 handwritten pages of 8.5x11" paper. I had showed her this opus but never gave it to her, since she never asked for it. With one exception: On one occasion, I gave her about a dozen of its pages which she accepted but never responded to. As for the rest of it? After I moved away from Marilyn's house, about six years later I lived with another roommate who destroyed it.

At that time, I didn't care. And that particular roommate is someone who is still a good friend of mine to this day, although she now lives in another state. And, no, we were never romantically involved.

I maintained my two-hour chanting campaign every day without fail for five months - that is, only until realizing I had failed in my quest after moving out in January of 2003.


My courtship

When Marilyn returned, she didn't even acknowledge my feelings. In fact, during the next five months, we scarcely spoke at all. Part of that was due to a whole lot of drama that hit her all at once upon her return. She found out she was the victim of credit card fraud, which was traumatic since it was pretty obvious that two people we knew had committed this massive shopping spree. They didn't end up going to jail and, in fact, Marilyn never confronted them about this. She was just happy the credit card company voided the charges, so she didn't have to pay.

I was satisfied to let her come to me. She knew how I felt, and I didn't want to turn into this overbearing presence demanding answers. We lived in the same space and I wanted to give her as much space as possible, so I didn't go out of my way to force conversation. Yes, we still chanted together, since I was still a member of her district. But that was business - a noble calling we were both committed to.

Not long after her return, it turns out her millionaire boyfriend dumped her. She was devastated, and I told her I was sorry things turned out so badly. But I didn't make any overtures, except one. Weeks later, I invited her to see a movie with me - Amelie, starring Audrey Tautou. She accepted, but only after asking me if this was a date. Though I said "no," she must not have really believed me or didn't want to seem to encourage me, so she ended up canceling this outing. Too bad, it was a good movie. I saw it seven times while it played an extended run at Chicago's Landmark Century Theater multiplex.

To this day, I wonder if she ever got around to seeing this wonderful film.

Some time in November, 2002, I told Marilyn I would be moving out. We hadn't talked and I found that remaining there was too stressful for me. That's when she surprised me by saying, "If you move out now, you'll never have a chance with me." I asked, "Are you saying I have a chance?" And she answered "yes," but I knew deep down inside that was only part of the answer. The rest goes something like this: "The same chance as a snowball in hell."

At least I knew her motivation in saying I had a chance. She told me her financing for this house was precarious and she needed the rent money I was paying. I guess she felt she might not be able to get another roommate as rent-reliable as I was. After that exchange, we went back to our former status of barely talking. Looking back, I found her speechlessness surprising. She was involved in a co-counseling movement known as Reevaluation Counseling. And the purpose of that was to learn how to express your feelings and not be shy about doing so. I learned those lessons well enough myself, since I was also involved in RC at the time.


Toward the end of my courtship

In November of 2002, Kathy - who was chapter chief to both me and Marilyn - pulled me aside for a private chat. It's noteworthy to mention that Kathy's husband, Mark, never spoke to me about my efforts with Marilyn. And neither did Stan, though both of them had encouraged me during that fateful summer home visit to "go for it." I guess Mark and Kathy had a discussion about this and they decided she would be the one to speak to me.

I always liked Kathy, even though she was not the most sophisticated person I ever knew. She had grit, she had courage. She had confronted a gang banger, telling him in no uncertain words to stop trying to recruit her high school-aged son into a gang. I felt her faith was sincere, though it didn't involve asking any questions except - "What does the SGI leadership want me to do next?"

She asked me what my prayer was, and I said, "If I can't win Marilyn over, then I will devote all of my efforts to attaining Buddhahood." I was put off when she called that "a wimpy prayer." But I was only facing a rapidly dawning realization - that my efforts with Marilyn had all but completely failed. I wonder, though, what Kathy would have said if I had asked, "And what do you think a more appropriate, less wimpy prayer would be?"

It wasn't long after that, that I contacted a roommate referral service and moved out after finding a young banker working on his master's degree who needed a roommate. Steve turned out to be a pretty good match. Nice guy, but I hated how he beat me so easily in chess. So I ended up getting him a job teaching chess at the same summer school I'd taught in for over five summers. Steve taught the advanced class and I taught the beginners - all from eight to twelve years of age.


Aftermath

As fate would have it, I saw Marilyn only two more times over the following years. I stopped going to her district meetings, finding that too bitter a pill to swallow. The first time I saw her was at a party of SGI members, at which I avoided her like the plague. The second time: Within the last four years, she visited me in my office at Northeastern Illinois University at which she was a student. She appeared at my door, where I was the public face of the Media Services Department. And you know what? I didn't even recognize her. She was all peppy and cheerful in her demeanor but, as God is my witness, I didn't know who she was. When she asked, "Don't I get a hug?," I almost said, "Am I supposed to know who you are?"

She could tell I was clueless. Well, I gave her that hug after fumbling with an excuse, "You changed your hair." I had known her with straight, shoulder-length hair, though now it was in short, tight curls. I had seen an old photo of her in exactly the same hairstyle at her ex-husband's home, and I remembered thinking it wasn't a style I found attractive on her.

After our brief hug, she left - obviously downcast that I didn't even recognize her. But in my defense, she was the last person I ever expected would go out of her way to see me in my out-of-the-way office. And, truth be told, visual cognition isn't my strong suit. When my son was eight-years-old, I didn't recognize him either - since he was in costume and wearing his blond hair slicked back and dyed black. That was for a school play he was in. His face wasn't covered though and he was talking to me. But I thought he was just another kid at the school - one of many in a crowd - who knew me as a chess coach. It took me about half a minute to figure out who he was.

No, I'm not especially proud of this disability of mine. But I almost felt like telling Marilyn about this episode with my son and saying, "So I hope you don't feel too badly about this." But I let well enough alone and didn't end up chasing her down the hall to explain myself. Sometimes it's better just to cut one's losses and move on.

I found out, within a few years of leaving Marilyn's household, that she ended up marrying one of the roommates who lived there when I did, a guy named Mike. In fact, I had written about him briefly in my letter to Marilyn. I couldn't help but notice that they seemed very well suited for each other. He could make her laugh. He was also a better chess player than I was, and I also got him a job teaching chess in the summer of 2003. He and Steve both taught advanced classes. I felt good about that, since I felt deep down inside that he was a good man. Apparently, Marilyn thought so too.

Good for them both. Out of idle curiosity, I sometimes wonder if Marilyn struck it rich like she always dreamed. I also wonder how her Buddhist practice is going. For years, after moving out of her house, I couldn't stop thinking about her. But now I scarcely think of her at all. It's so true - time does heal all wounds. After all is said and done, I'm glad our lives intersected. Marilyn taught me a lot - especially about myself. She had a good, quick, unconventional mind and could be quite bold and committed when undertaking any activity near and dear to her heart. I'll always wish her well.


In closing

There is much I haven't shared here, but I think I got the most important parts. I had several motives in writing about this, but one in particular bears mentioning. When the SGI Chicago-area Director, Ethan Gelbaum, was digging into my background in the summer of 2013 - in the process of banning me from ever entering the SGI community center again - I'm sure my interaction with Marilyn came up. I'm also sure that SGI leaders and members were all too willing to give their version of what transpired. Which is sad, since none of them - not a single one (except Kathy) - ever bothered to speak to me about this. I just want to assure that my side of the story has a chance to be known.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Sangha of the Lotus, and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Ukraine: The Power of Silence

President Obama should have tried an entirely new strategy regarding the situation in Crimea and, more broadly, in the Ukraine:  He should have said absolutely nothing - no expressions of concern, no vaguely hinted threats. And he should have done nothing: No shuffling of his military assets, no maneuvers, no reconnaissance missions, no non-routine diplomatic contact with Ukraine or Russia, and - above all - no aid to Ukraine.

My suggestion also goes for EU officials such as Germany's Merkel. I suspect anything she says or does is entirely for domestic political consumption. You know, let the body politic know you're on top of things.

There are times, I believe, when the truest, most effective leadership boils down to completely avoiding any displays of public response. This would be totally unexpected and would drive those who seek to push our buttons nuts. The Russians already know the various western governments are capable of exerting economic pressure against their country. And these same governments know Russia can hurt them in terms of oil and natural gas trade. The only result our rhetoric has achieved is to mobilize Russian lawmakers to back Putin.

You may well ask, "How far are you willing to let Russia go in this crisis?" Fair enough. If Russia wants to annex Crimea or even annex all of the Ukraine, I wouldn't lift a finger in opposition. I wouldn't even freeze assets or cancel visas or even suggest any kind of economic retaliation. As to what the EU would choose to do, I think it's high time - in fact, long overdue - that the EU stand on its own two feet. If the EU desires the influence it thinks its economic might warrants, it's time for them to put on big boy pants and establish its own military - independent of NATO. And, much to Russia's consternation, that could mean German acquisition of nuclear weapons - that is, assuming the Germans don't already have them.

When I was running for the office of US President against Obama in 2012), my political contract* contained this provision (# 5 of 31):


QUOTE:

FIVE: Under no circumstances, during my presidency, will the United States militarily intervene in the affairs of any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. In addition, all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from all foreign nations, except for the token numbers needed at our embassies. This will include total withdrawal from NATO and will also include advisors we station in foreign nations in support of terrorist suppression and training of local forces. Bottom line: All of these forces are to come home.

:UNQUOTE.


If I had been elected US President, then it would have been solely up to the EU as to how it would choose to respond to this crisis - militarily or otherwise. But I, as President, would not have weighed in with any offer of assistance or sanctions. In fact, if Congress would have voted to respond, I would have vetoed that response.


But why give Russia a free hand?

I'm not giving Russia a free hand - I'm just denying Putin the attention he desires. The world economy is so firmly interlocked, that no nation can escape its machinations. If foreign governments offended by Putin's actions wish to punish him, while keeping in mind he could punish them, they could silently do so without heating up the rhetoric. Again, such "heating" is meant for domestic consumption only, but the Free World's leaders think they have to play to their constituencies.

Even if Russia annexed the entire Ukraine, they would find that a poor acquisition indeed. Not to mention: Third world countries would start looking at them as grasping imperialists. Nigerians, for example, might think: "We had our own separatist rebellion we put down in 1970. Are you going to suggest we hold a referendum in the area known as Biafra to see if those citizens still wish to secede? Are you going to sponsor a vote in Chechnya to see if they want their independence from Russia?"

That's right: Russia is playing a dangerous game by encouraging the secession of Crimea. Many established governments the world over fear secession, so Russia would not gain many friends among them by encouraging this in their own backyard.

That's right: An appearance of giving Putin a free hand would be an illusion - for he has no free hand. In the long-run, he'd have to pay consequences - seen and unforeseen. Bottom line? I don't think he thought this out very carefully.


The need for a Russian counterbalance

So, why did Putin act in such apparent haste and counter to his long-range interests? He's not a stupid man, by any means. I'm sure he distrusts what he sees as constant attempts at encroachment by the USA. And, frankly, I agree with him on this. The USA is not to be trusted - so much so, that the world really needs Russia as a counterbalance to secret US designs concerning its desire to rule the world. I wish the EU had acted more decisively in asserting its own independence and leadership by, among other actions, disbanding NATO and ordering American forces to leave the continent. The EU could have been this counterbalance, but found itself undermined by US interests working in tandem with homegrown elites allied with those interests.

I don't hold out much hope that China will provide a check against US power, for they are too corrupt and are poisoning their own environment. And the Islamic Union is a concept that the US and allies have doggedly attempted to undermine for decades. As for Africa? US forces - military and otherwise - are laboring mightily to make sure Africa maintains its historic role - as a provider of raw materials to western economies.

As strange as it might sound to say this, Putin may very well represent the only bulwark left against a New World Order thoroughly dominated by the Americans.

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

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Inventor of Cross-Sectional Representation*, the only governance system that
  can effectively challenge nationalism.


Footnotes:

my political contract* - I was the only presidential candidate in US history to offer a written contract in exchange for votes. This link connects to that contract:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

Cross-Sectional Representation* - http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html