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