Steven will be missed, but his posts here will live on.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
The End
Sadly, the proprietor of this blog, Steven Searle, passed away in August of 2015. He wished to thank everyone who read his posts over the years. Steven was very proud of his blogs, and enthusiastic about politics, religion, and life in general. He lived the life he wanted to live, up to the very end.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Senator Cruz and the Supreme Court
GOP presidential hopeful Senator Cruz thinks he has a way to reign in the tyranny of the Supreme Court. This is what he recently proposed:
QUOTE:
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
[By: Ted Cruz, June 26, 2015]
[source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment]
:UNQUOTE.
Senator Cruz makes this proposal since he knows that the Constitutionally provided method of impeachment won't work against members of the High Court. He might well be right about this, since I haven't heard of even one single GOP member of the House having introduced an impeachment measure against (say) Justice Kennedy.
Cruz's proposal might fire up his supporters but surely has no chance of being ratified. It sounds too much like a measure intended to pass the buck to the voters, so that Congress won't have to immerse itself in a messy impeachment proceeding. However, that's its job - or one of them. If Cruz is saying, in effect, that Congress won't do its job - even in the face of undeniable judicial tyranny - then we're in worse trouble than generally imagined.
Cruz will get a lot of mileage out of his proposal. But I think he could get a lot more mileage from a proposal I'd posted just yesterday:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/06/open-letter-to-gop-candidates.html
However, I doubt Cruz will change his mind. It's hard to change one's mind about an amendment one had proposed only a few days ago. Maybe he'll change his mind about one very important thing: Using his real name - which is Raphael. He was named after his father but presents himself as Ted. Even though he never had his name legally changed. Since he abandoned the name of his father, I think he's really a self-hating Hispanic.
A man who won't go by his own name is not a man to be trusted - but I guess you already knew that.
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
QUOTE:
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
[By: Ted Cruz, June 26, 2015]
[source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment]
:UNQUOTE.
Senator Cruz makes this proposal since he knows that the Constitutionally provided method of impeachment won't work against members of the High Court. He might well be right about this, since I haven't heard of even one single GOP member of the House having introduced an impeachment measure against (say) Justice Kennedy.
Cruz's proposal might fire up his supporters but surely has no chance of being ratified. It sounds too much like a measure intended to pass the buck to the voters, so that Congress won't have to immerse itself in a messy impeachment proceeding. However, that's its job - or one of them. If Cruz is saying, in effect, that Congress won't do its job - even in the face of undeniable judicial tyranny - then we're in worse trouble than generally imagined.
Cruz will get a lot of mileage out of his proposal. But I think he could get a lot more mileage from a proposal I'd posted just yesterday:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/06/open-letter-to-gop-candidates.html
However, I doubt Cruz will change his mind. It's hard to change one's mind about an amendment one had proposed only a few days ago. Maybe he'll change his mind about one very important thing: Using his real name - which is Raphael. He was named after his father but presents himself as Ted. Even though he never had his name legally changed. Since he abandoned the name of his father, I think he's really a self-hating Hispanic.
A man who won't go by his own name is not a man to be trusted - but I guess you already knew that.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Open Letter to GOP Candidates
This is an open letter to all candidates hoping to become the GOP's candidate for President. If you want to improve your odds in a very crowded field of contenders, I suggest you offer a method for reforming the US Supreme Court. This method will not require a Constitutional amendment or any new legislation. This method can be implemented solely by means of your own authority as follows:
QUOTE:
* FOURTEEN: My Supreme Court Nominations: I will demand the resignations of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but will renominate them for five year terms under the conditions stated below. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.
I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:
* FOURTEEN: Some background
The "FOURTEEN" I'm referring to is, promise #14 of 31 listed in "The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President," posted here:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
I had run for the presidency in 2012 under the terms of this contract. I am proud to boast that I was the only candidate in this nation's history to have offered a written contract in exchange for votes. Violating this contract would have forced me out of office. I suggest you consider offering your own contract listing at least the SCOTUS reform quoted above.
A lot of people in your party have been grumbling for decades about activist judges. So here's your chance to introduce some accountability in the High Court. And voters - at least those in your party's base - will applaud your courage in trying to rein in the excesses of that Court. These two links provide details concerning the legality of my proposed reform:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/10/questions-concerning-supreme-court.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-creative-way-to-reform-us-court-system.html
Two hot button issues
The Supreme Court most recently angered social conservatives by ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and Obama Care's current method of determining eligibility for subsidies.
Same-Sex Marriage
QUOTE [Footnote 1]:
The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
:UNQUOTE.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, there wasn't any intention that it would allow same-sex marriages. If a gay couple had tried to invoke such an argument at that time, they would have been laughed out of town. What Kennedy seems to be saying is, "We will interpret the Constitution by determining what opinion polls show what the public will favor - in this day and age."
The proper way to have proceeded would have been to insist, "If gays are to be allowed to get married, we refuse to rule that the 14th amendment was meant to allow this. If you support same-sex marriage, then amend the Constitution to specifically allow this." This is too important a change in our fundamental and long-standing culture to allow simply because the High Court decided to bow to public opinion polls.
What next? Will polygamous couples claim the right to marry by invoking the 14th? Why not? Don't they have the same fundamental right to marry as couples do?
This link connects you to an essay I'd written on gay marriage that provides some useful perspective:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
Saving Obama Care
I now offer two quotes concerning the High Court deciding it had to save Obama Care:
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
:UNQUOTE.
I yellowed the words "seems to say." The text of the law doesn't "seem" to say anything about these subsidies being "available only to people buying insurance on [state established exchanges]." The text clearly states that only people of low income buying insurance on state run exchanges are entitled to subsidies.
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
:UNQUOTE.
I emphatically disagree with Roberts here. When it became obvious that most of the states were not going to establish exchanges, then it was up to Congress to amend the law to allow all low-income citizens to obtain subsidies regardless of whether their state had established an exchange. Of course, Congress would not have agreed to such a change, due to the increased number of Republicans in the House.
However, it is not the job of the Court to worry about how many Pubbers are in the House. It is the Court's job to interpret the law, and not to weave any fantasies about Congress not meaning what it had written in plain English when Obama Care was passed.
Final Note to GOP Presidential Contenders
My suggestion on how to reform the Supreme Court is long overdue. And it will resonate with commonsense Americans. I hope you don't decide against it simply because it was my idea. If an idea has merit, its source should be irrelevant. You decide.
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Footnote 1:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages
Footnote 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0
QUOTE:
* FOURTEEN: My Supreme Court Nominations: I will demand the resignations of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but will renominate them for five year terms under the conditions stated below. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.
I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:
- I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years, after which I will resign from that office. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the "good behavior" rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.
:UNQUOTE.
* FOURTEEN: Some background
The "FOURTEEN" I'm referring to is, promise #14 of 31 listed in "The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President," posted here:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html
I had run for the presidency in 2012 under the terms of this contract. I am proud to boast that I was the only candidate in this nation's history to have offered a written contract in exchange for votes. Violating this contract would have forced me out of office. I suggest you consider offering your own contract listing at least the SCOTUS reform quoted above.
A lot of people in your party have been grumbling for decades about activist judges. So here's your chance to introduce some accountability in the High Court. And voters - at least those in your party's base - will applaud your courage in trying to rein in the excesses of that Court. These two links provide details concerning the legality of my proposed reform:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/10/questions-concerning-supreme-court.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-creative-way-to-reform-us-court-system.html
Two hot button issues
The Supreme Court most recently angered social conservatives by ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and Obama Care's current method of determining eligibility for subsidies.
Same-Sex Marriage
QUOTE [Footnote 1]:
The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
:UNQUOTE.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, there wasn't any intention that it would allow same-sex marriages. If a gay couple had tried to invoke such an argument at that time, they would have been laughed out of town. What Kennedy seems to be saying is, "We will interpret the Constitution by determining what opinion polls show what the public will favor - in this day and age."
The proper way to have proceeded would have been to insist, "If gays are to be allowed to get married, we refuse to rule that the 14th amendment was meant to allow this. If you support same-sex marriage, then amend the Constitution to specifically allow this." This is too important a change in our fundamental and long-standing culture to allow simply because the High Court decided to bow to public opinion polls.
What next? Will polygamous couples claim the right to marry by invoking the 14th? Why not? Don't they have the same fundamental right to marry as couples do?
This link connects you to an essay I'd written on gay marriage that provides some useful perspective:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
Saving Obama Care
I now offer two quotes concerning the High Court deciding it had to save Obama Care:
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
:UNQUOTE.
I yellowed the words "seems to say." The text of the law doesn't "seem" to say anything about these subsidies being "available only to people buying insurance on [state established exchanges]." The text clearly states that only people of low income buying insurance on state run exchanges are entitled to subsidies.
QUOTE [Footnote 2]:
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
:UNQUOTE.
I emphatically disagree with Roberts here. When it became obvious that most of the states were not going to establish exchanges, then it was up to Congress to amend the law to allow all low-income citizens to obtain subsidies regardless of whether their state had established an exchange. Of course, Congress would not have agreed to such a change, due to the increased number of Republicans in the House.
However, it is not the job of the Court to worry about how many Pubbers are in the House. It is the Court's job to interpret the law, and not to weave any fantasies about Congress not meaning what it had written in plain English when Obama Care was passed.
Final Note to GOP Presidential Contenders
My suggestion on how to reform the Supreme Court is long overdue. And it will resonate with commonsense Americans. I hope you don't decide against it simply because it was my idea. If an idea has merit, its source should be irrelevant. You decide.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, Just another member ofthe Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Footnote 1:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages
Footnote 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0
Monday, June 15, 2015
My atonement
Introduction
I am asking for your help as I'd indicated in my post at this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-bat-kitten-and-my-guilt.html
There is a section (the third of three) at the above link called "My Atonement," which starts to explain what I have in mind. The two sections below complete that explanation:
How you can help
Obtain a Cashier's Check or a Money Order for as much as you'd care to contribute, payable to:
Dr. Kyle Adkins
[He's affiliated with the Country Doc Veterinary Clinic in Minnesota.]
Send this to:
Laura Iancu
124 1st St, SW
Crosby, MN 56441
Laura will give Dr. Adkins the MOs/ Cashiers Checks as the need for his services arises, for the animals under her care. Contributions cannot be made "pay to the order of" Laura Iancu since her past credit history might subject such funds to seizure by creditors. This is why she does not use banking services such as checking and savings accounts.
I've used MoneyGram to send money to Laura. However, I do this because I know her and trust that she'll use these funds to help her animals. Since you don't know her, I came up with the method in the preceding paragraph.
To help in her mission to save her cats, Laura has sent up the "Rescue Me Now Foundation," with the EIN 47-3846698.
I am asking for your help as I'd indicated in my post at this link:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-bat-kitten-and-my-guilt.html
There is a section (the third of three) at the above link called "My Atonement," which starts to explain what I have in mind. The two sections below complete that explanation:
- How you can help
- Background
How you can help
Obtain a Cashier's Check or a Money Order for as much as you'd care to contribute, payable to:
Dr. Kyle Adkins
[He's affiliated with the Country Doc Veterinary Clinic in Minnesota.]
Send this to:
Laura Iancu
124 1st St, SW
Crosby, MN 56441
Laura will give Dr. Adkins the MOs/ Cashiers Checks as the need for his services arises, for the animals under her care. Contributions cannot be made "pay to the order of" Laura Iancu since her past credit history might subject such funds to seizure by creditors. This is why she does not use banking services such as checking and savings accounts.
I've used MoneyGram to send money to Laura. However, I do this because I know her and trust that she'll use these funds to help her animals. Since you don't know her, I came up with the method in the preceding paragraph.
To help in her mission to save her cats, Laura has sent up the "Rescue Me Now Foundation," with the EIN 47-3846698.
Background
As my unfolding karma would have it, in 2007 I invited Laura Iancu, homeless at that time, to move in with me. About six months earlier, our paths crossed for the first time in front of the Starbucks on Wilson and Lincoln in Chicago. She was selling Streetwise magazines at that location, which meant we'd see each other quite often since I lived in the neighborhood. Laura was chatty and so was I, so we were a good match.
Laura had gone to homeless shelters outside of the city up to 40 miles away because they were safer. She had lost her family and hope, not knowing if she was coming or going at times. But she knew she had to take it one day at a time. As I listened to the details of her life, I felt sympathetic. So I invited her to move into my apartment, since I lived alone and had way more space than I needed. Long story, short: We ended up living together for four and a half years, only as roommates - nothing physical.
Laura ended up moving to Minnesota in May of 2012 - eventually living with 30 cats but no human roommates. That's right - thirty. Most of them were rescues she'd found abandoned or injured. She gave each of them a name and would give me updates on the health issues of those who had fallen ill or died. Many she brought in had Leukemia and FIV/FIP. She has survivors who were born with it and today are over 2 years of age, including kittens born on Thanksgiving Day.
Over the years, I'd sent her money - over $12,000 in all. Which was a lot for me, since I'm not a rich man by any means. We stay in touch via e-mails and occasional phone calls. Turns out, much of the money I'd sent was used to feed and care for her cats, which included meds and veterinary care. I had no problem helping her out with her fur babies (as she calls them), since I felt a need to atone for the kitten I had tried to suffocate decades earlier. I wish she would have spent more of the money on herself, but she was more than satisfied shopping at dollar stores and going to charity food pantries to support her own needs.
Laura lives on disability, doing as much as she can with her limited resources to support herself and her cats. But life for her is still rough, even though I and a couple of other friends try to help out.
Now, some people might think, "Big deal, they're cats. So what?" My most prominent reason? They're important to Laura, so they're important to me. She even got angry when someone suggested that animals don't have souls. My 27 years of Buddhist practice put me in agreement with her on this issue.
So, I will continue to help Laura as much as I can. And I hope I can enlist your support as well.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Caitlyn Jenner
So now it's "Caitlyn" instead of Bruce. Out of idle curiosity, I looked up the meaning of the name "Caitlyn," and found it means "pure." I can only hope that CJ's motives are indeed pure and not inspired by a desire to bask in a blazing international spotlight. Her whole life, it seems, has been one continuous struggle to snag the public's attention. Could she really want that badly to appear, as Caitlyn, on a Wheaties box - just as Bruce Jenner did those decades ago? That would surely be an interesting way to recapture one's long lost youth.
How many interviews will CJ do? How many TV specials will generate how many millions of dollars? CJ says, for all intents and purposes, "I'm a woman." And yet, she considers herself asexual and has never been attracted to men. Those claims surely must be her attempt to redefine what a woman is - or at least what CJ's version of womanhood is.
I could have respected Bruce's decision to convert to Caitlyn had he done so anonymously. Or at least, had done so with a minimum of fanfare. But, no, Caitlyn decided to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, eh? I guess that name speaks volumes as to the purity of Caitlyn's motives.
We live in a society which places a heavy value on personal choice. But I'm at a loss to figure out why a 65-year-old man wants to feminize himself. At that age, he's past his prime as far as the dating pool is concerned. So why'd he wait so long? By the way, I don't believe Bruce was never attracted to men, nor do I believe he'll hang onto his penis too much longer. Maybe she's being less than honest about these two issues - you know, the public can take only so much drama at once. Besides, why reveal any more now than you have to - future revelations will bring fresh waves of fame once her current intensity of fame peters out (pun intended)?
The Caitlyn revelations will make it harder to be a good parent. I mean, how do you explain to your twelve-year-old what this means? I had the same question after I read an article in the Chicago Reader about how to go about properly engaging in anal sex. This detailed article provoked my reaction: "No, this is not OK. Children have access to this magazine."
This whole sex and gender identification thing mystifies me as a practicing Buddhist. As I explained once to a hospital orderly who was interested in my views on Buddhism, "At a certain point in a Buddhist's practice, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't have lovers, he doesn't have significant others. What he does have are fellow compassionate seekers of enlightenment with whom he can practice and try to convert others."
Some will point out, "The Buddha had a wife and had sex which produced a child." Yes, he did have a wife, but he didn't necessarily need to have sex to produce a child. There is such a thing, in the Buddhist canon, of being born by means of transformation (that is, sexual contact not being necessary). It is widely assumed that the Buddha was male. However, that's mere assumption, or an image the Buddha wished to convey, since "he" was a shapeshifter. I'll bet that if one of the Buddha's disciples had managed to sneak up behind him and pull up his robe, he wouldn't have seen any genitalia at all.
As a closing note, I noticed Caitlyn's fabulous hair on that Vanity Fair cover. I could never understand the fixation that women the world over have with long, luxuriant hair. I'd like to know the karmic significance of this, for hair surely can't be that important, can it? For what it's worth, my preference is for bald women or those who have only a bare amount. Such women are either Buddhist nuns or suffering from cancer. I say a prayer in either case and lust after neither.
I also say a prayer for Caitlyn, hoping she indeed is purely motivated.
How many interviews will CJ do? How many TV specials will generate how many millions of dollars? CJ says, for all intents and purposes, "I'm a woman." And yet, she considers herself asexual and has never been attracted to men. Those claims surely must be her attempt to redefine what a woman is - or at least what CJ's version of womanhood is.
I could have respected Bruce's decision to convert to Caitlyn had he done so anonymously. Or at least, had done so with a minimum of fanfare. But, no, Caitlyn decided to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, eh? I guess that name speaks volumes as to the purity of Caitlyn's motives.
We live in a society which places a heavy value on personal choice. But I'm at a loss to figure out why a 65-year-old man wants to feminize himself. At that age, he's past his prime as far as the dating pool is concerned. So why'd he wait so long? By the way, I don't believe Bruce was never attracted to men, nor do I believe he'll hang onto his penis too much longer. Maybe she's being less than honest about these two issues - you know, the public can take only so much drama at once. Besides, why reveal any more now than you have to - future revelations will bring fresh waves of fame once her current intensity of fame peters out (pun intended)?
The Caitlyn revelations will make it harder to be a good parent. I mean, how do you explain to your twelve-year-old what this means? I had the same question after I read an article in the Chicago Reader about how to go about properly engaging in anal sex. This detailed article provoked my reaction: "No, this is not OK. Children have access to this magazine."
This whole sex and gender identification thing mystifies me as a practicing Buddhist. As I explained once to a hospital orderly who was interested in my views on Buddhism, "At a certain point in a Buddhist's practice, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't have lovers, he doesn't have significant others. What he does have are fellow compassionate seekers of enlightenment with whom he can practice and try to convert others."
Some will point out, "The Buddha had a wife and had sex which produced a child." Yes, he did have a wife, but he didn't necessarily need to have sex to produce a child. There is such a thing, in the Buddhist canon, of being born by means of transformation (that is, sexual contact not being necessary). It is widely assumed that the Buddha was male. However, that's mere assumption, or an image the Buddha wished to convey, since "he" was a shapeshifter. I'll bet that if one of the Buddha's disciples had managed to sneak up behind him and pull up his robe, he wouldn't have seen any genitalia at all.
As a closing note, I noticed Caitlyn's fabulous hair on that Vanity Fair cover. I could never understand the fixation that women the world over have with long, luxuriant hair. I'd like to know the karmic significance of this, for hair surely can't be that important, can it? For what it's worth, my preference is for bald women or those who have only a bare amount. Such women are either Buddhist nuns or suffering from cancer. I say a prayer in either case and lust after neither.
I also say a prayer for Caitlyn, hoping she indeed is purely motivated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Crime & Punishment
Introduction
Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.
Two Quotes
I recently posted these comments on-line.
QUOTE:
If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].
The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.
[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE:
So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].
:UNQUOTE.
A Fair Trial?
First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.
Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.
Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.
Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.
The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty
The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.
If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.
Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."
As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.
As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.
There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.
opposes the death penalty.* -
QUOTE:
BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.
:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0
Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (age 21), was sentenced to death on May 15, 2015. This inspires several reactions from me, which I'll open with the two quotes below.
Two Quotes
I recently posted these comments on-line.
QUOTE:
If DT finds Jesus* and accepts Him as his Savior, then when he dies, he'll be admitted to heaven. That's the Christian view. The Buddhist view is that he'll suffer exactly as each of his victims did over the appropriate number of reincarnations. And saying magical words like "Jesus forgive me" won't cut it. Same as what is happening to Hitler - he killed 6 million Jews, he'll be murdered 6 million times [for those crimes].
The hard part of the Buddhist view: There is no such thing as an innocent victim. DT's victims, even those most innocent in this life, paid the price for sins committed in past lives. As a result, their karmic burdens will be that much lighter in their future lives.
[finds Jesus* - yes, I know DT is a Muslim]
:UNQUOTE.
QUOTE:
So that's it, eh? Killing DT will bring back his victims? Or somehow cause missing limbs to reappear? Or give "justice" to those wronged? Face it: When most people say they want to see the cause of justice served, what they really want is revenge. The death penalty is barbaric and lessens our own nobility in its continued practice. If you really want justice, don't worry: DT will pay the karmic price for what he did. Putting him in jail for life serves [only] the [practical] purpose of keeping him from doing any more harm to society[, but in no way represents suitable punishment].
:UNQUOTE.
A Fair Trial?
First of all, it won't matter if Tsarnaev didn't get a fair trial. No judge is going to admit that and order a new trial. That's just not going to happen. Any appellate judge would be thinking, "Why order a new trial? Since the case against Tsarnaev was so strong, any new trial would also produce guilty verdicts."
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll say: This young man did not get a fair trial. DT's defense argued that the trial should be moved to Washington, DC - that holding it in Boston would be prejudicial to their client. I have to agree with the defense on this one, as this is a no-brainer. The judge had no defensible reason for insisting the trial be held in Boston. Of course, the fact that there weren't any Blacks on the jury was probably very much to his liking. He simply acted on the basis of imperial judicial prerogative.
Then there's the issue of jury selection. If someone said they opposed the death penalty, then they were automatically excluded from the jury. It would have taken only one juror opposing the death penalty for that option to fail - life imprisonment being the default option. The general population of Boston opposes the death penalty.* So to insist that only the minority who support that option could sit on this jury denies the majority. Why does the state get to make this decision? Many people oppose the death penalty for religious reasons, especially in very Catholic Boston.
Since the First Amendment bars the favoring of one religious view over another, Catholics in this case were discriminated against. In fact, if I were a Catholic about to be so disenfranchised, I would have sued for the right to be empanelled on this jury.
Citizens of the USA pride themselves on having a sense of fair play. However, outside observers would have to shake their heads in disapproval when our hypocrisy raises its ugly head as it has in this case.
The Death Penalty vs. The "Death" Penalty
The death penalty simply refers to executing a prisoner. The "death" penalty refers to the psychological death brought about by prolonged time spent behind bars in solitary confinement.
If Tsarnaev had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he most assuredly would have ended up in solitary to ensure his own safety against the wrath of the general prison population. It's about time we abolished solitary confinement, instead recognizing it for what it is - torture. While it might be unwise, in cases like Tsarnaev's, to enable direct contact with other prisoners, there's no reason why some type of indirect contact (e.g, by using a fence in the exercise area) couldn't be allowed.
Access to the internet and books should also be allowed. As for communication with the outside world (via the internet or written letters), DT should be permitted as is his due under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. However, should he even once engage in prohibited speech on the internet, his access would be reduced to "read only."
As long as the condemned is in our care, we should make some respectable effort toward his personal development. Who knows? Maybe, in some way or another, he will find salvation, if not necessarily through Jesus. Even so, sad to say, there will always be those who will refuse to forgive and will insist on continued punishment.
As for the death penalty: it should be abolished, as it has been in the European Union. However, I don't believe execution is unconstitutional, though it is a bad idea that shines an embarrassing light on our baser nature. It also doesn't do much for our collective karma.
There are USA Christian conservatives who champion capital punishment, citing "an eye for an eye." These are the same people who also preach the sanctity of life when arguing against abortion. But their sin is even greater than such hypocrisy. For once a person is executed, he has no more chance to repent and accept Jesus (or Anything or Anybody else) as Savior. However, a life sentence would give the condemned as many chances as a natural lifespan could confer.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote:
opposes the death penalty.* -
QUOTE:
BOSTON — Despite this city’s immersion in a trial that is replaying the horrific details of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the vast majority of Bostonians say in a new poll that if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the admitted bomber, is found guilty, he should be sent to prison for life and not condemned to death.
:UNQUOTE [by Katharine Q. Seelye, March 23, 2015]
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/most-boston-residents-prefer-life-term-over-death-penalty-in-marathon-case-poll-shows.html?_r=0
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Tubes that belch fire
"They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
That's what my guru said, when I tried to boast of our grand technology. And why not, for instance, boast about our space program, in which my wife plays a prominent role? She's been with NASA for 20 years and is obviously proud of what she and her teams have accomplished.
As for me? I have been house husband for our three children, working only sporadically as a web designer over the last ten years. After our kids got older, I found I had more time on my hands, so I got involved with Buddhism. Meditation came naturally to me, but I wondered if I would ever actually attain any indisputable degree of enlightenment. Or was all my study and effort to prove only interesting but useless?
After my guru had taken me on a trip to a galaxy far, far away, however, my doubts gave way to exhilaration. Especially since that round trip had taken far less than an hour without using any kind of spacecraft. Equally impressive: How I was, from that galaxy, able to see inside one of our space probes which had recently landed on Mars?
* * * * * * *
My galactic trip took place the same evening I shamelessly tried to bait my teacher. He always seemed so genuinely and deeply tranquil as if nothing could bother him at all. And that bothered me! After his weekly meditation class ended and all of the other students went home, I lingered to talk to him. One of the items I brought up was our life span - which in the United States rarely exceeds 100 years.
"Teacher, 100 years sounds like a lot - especially when compared to life in other countries here on earth. But Buddhist scripture speaks of distant lands in which the average life span consists of billions of years."
"Then you also know that an average life span of less than 100 years, within any given realm, is considered to be a sign of the extremely negative karma shared by all its citizens."
"I don't get it. In those other lands where life lasts so long, why doesn't scripture boast of the wondrous technology such beings surely must have developed? I mean, look at our country. We're able to travel to other planets using vehicles unimaginable 100 years ago."
And that's when my teacher said, "They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
Then I thought of my wife, who had worked so long and hard to help bring these "belchers," step by step, into existence. I thought of the great minds that had solved so many difficult problems to get us to where we are today. Then I asked, "What would you consider to be impressive?"
He smiled and said, "The important question is, what would you consider to be impressive? I assure you: Anything you might consider to be impressive, I would regard as commonplace."
When he saw my confusion, he said, "Take my hand and I will show you." This I did and within a few minutes, which felt like an eternity, we had levitated a foot or so above the floor. I felt like a ship which had lost its anchor and was desperate for security. I said, "Wow," and my teacher said, "Relax and tell me, do you find this to be impressive?"
"Without a doubt." And then we started to rise toward the ceiling and I worried about bumping my head. "Stand up straight, you've nothing to fear."
Just as my head was about to hit the ceiling, we accelerated to a point high above the earth where there aren't any clouds, it's cold, and the air is too thin to breathe. But the view is spectacular. I didn't feel the cold and I didn't feel short of breath. When my teacher told me to stop breathing because my current body didn't really need air or even food for that matter, I did so without feeling the panic of an asphyxiated man.
"How's this for impressive?"
"Not too shabby," I joked.
"How about this?"
As soon as the hissing sound of his "this" had faded, I found myself - still holding his hand - standing on the moon looking "down" on earth. I didn't feel any panic because there seemed to be a transmittable tranquility that passed from his hand, soothing my entire body.
"You see, it's possible to travel quickly and distantly without the use of any kind of fire-belchers."
"What if I wanted to bring stuff with me, more than I could possibly carry? Wouldn't I need a ship for that?"
"In your current form, you wouldn't need anything. But if you want to indulge, just conjure up what you wish."
"You mean, like magic?"
"There is no such thing as magic. When people call something 'magical,' that's simply because they don't understand the forces that bring that something into being. Go ahead, try to conjure up some kind of dwelling on yonder plain."
So I focused, trying to envision a tree house complete with a tree. And there it appeared - and then disappeared just as quickly when I decided I'd seen enough and wished it gone.
"And now for yet another step on your journey." We disappeared from the moon's surface and, in the twinkling of an eye, found ourselves well within the galaxy BDF-3299. That's about 13 billion light-years from earth. Again, I felt no need to breathe, and didn't feel intense heat. I should have felt the latter, since we were both in the dead center of a blazing star!
My teacher said, "Now, look carefully at Mars, specifically inside the probe your wife's team recently landed there. And memorize all that you notice. Later, run this information, much of which is highly classified, by your wife and see how she reacts."
"But Mars is so far away, and you want me to look inside this probe?"
"Don't worry, with the kind of vision attained by highly skilled practitioners, they can see without being hindered by distance, darkness - or even an over-abundance of light - or obstructions. Go ahead, look. And memorize everything."
I this from a 13 billion light-year distance. Having completed my inventory, I soon found myself - still hand-in-hand with my guru - standing just outside our Martian probe. And just as quickly, back where we had started this journey - feet planted firmly on the floor of his studio.
* * * * * * * * *
I told my wife what I had seen inside the probe and asked her to compare my information to her records. I didn't, however, tell her how I had acquired my knowledge. I lied, saying I had read the minds of members of her team, while scrupulously avoiding her own mind. Before I ran any of this by my wife, I swore her to secrecy. Needless to say, she looked stunned, barely managing to ask how I had acquired this ability.
I told her that I wasn't really sure I myself had this ability. That perhaps my guru had temporarily shared his own ability with me - to give me a taste of what was really impressive but would soon come to be felt by me as commonplace. I shared with her one of the lessons I'd learned, "Technology isn't as important as compassion, and patiently and consistently practicing the teachings. And when a person reaches ever higher levels of development, to avoid the trap of arrogance."
My wife decided to engage in Buddhist practice, asking me if I would recommend my guru. I laughed and said, "Sure. Some gurus are better than others - and this one ranks pretty high up there." So she joined me in practicing with my teacher, though neither of us breathed a word of what we knew. Not to our teacher, or the other students, or to anybody else for that matter. We didn't even discuss it between ourselves.
That's what my guru said, when I tried to boast of our grand technology. And why not, for instance, boast about our space program, in which my wife plays a prominent role? She's been with NASA for 20 years and is obviously proud of what she and her teams have accomplished.
As for me? I have been house husband for our three children, working only sporadically as a web designer over the last ten years. After our kids got older, I found I had more time on my hands, so I got involved with Buddhism. Meditation came naturally to me, but I wondered if I would ever actually attain any indisputable degree of enlightenment. Or was all my study and effort to prove only interesting but useless?
After my guru had taken me on a trip to a galaxy far, far away, however, my doubts gave way to exhilaration. Especially since that round trip had taken far less than an hour without using any kind of spacecraft. Equally impressive: How I was, from that galaxy, able to see inside one of our space probes which had recently landed on Mars?
* * * * * * *
My galactic trip took place the same evening I shamelessly tried to bait my teacher. He always seemed so genuinely and deeply tranquil as if nothing could bother him at all. And that bothered me! After his weekly meditation class ended and all of the other students went home, I lingered to talk to him. One of the items I brought up was our life span - which in the United States rarely exceeds 100 years.
"Teacher, 100 years sounds like a lot - especially when compared to life in other countries here on earth. But Buddhist scripture speaks of distant lands in which the average life span consists of billions of years."
"Then you also know that an average life span of less than 100 years, within any given realm, is considered to be a sign of the extremely negative karma shared by all its citizens."
"I don't get it. In those other lands where life lasts so long, why doesn't scripture boast of the wondrous technology such beings surely must have developed? I mean, look at our country. We're able to travel to other planets using vehicles unimaginable 100 years ago."
And that's when my teacher said, "They're nothing more than tubes that belch fire. How impressive could this possibly be?"
Then I thought of my wife, who had worked so long and hard to help bring these "belchers," step by step, into existence. I thought of the great minds that had solved so many difficult problems to get us to where we are today. Then I asked, "What would you consider to be impressive?"
He smiled and said, "The important question is, what would you consider to be impressive? I assure you: Anything you might consider to be impressive, I would regard as commonplace."
When he saw my confusion, he said, "Take my hand and I will show you." This I did and within a few minutes, which felt like an eternity, we had levitated a foot or so above the floor. I felt like a ship which had lost its anchor and was desperate for security. I said, "Wow," and my teacher said, "Relax and tell me, do you find this to be impressive?"
"Without a doubt." And then we started to rise toward the ceiling and I worried about bumping my head. "Stand up straight, you've nothing to fear."
Just as my head was about to hit the ceiling, we accelerated to a point high above the earth where there aren't any clouds, it's cold, and the air is too thin to breathe. But the view is spectacular. I didn't feel the cold and I didn't feel short of breath. When my teacher told me to stop breathing because my current body didn't really need air or even food for that matter, I did so without feeling the panic of an asphyxiated man.
"How's this for impressive?"
"Not too shabby," I joked.
"How about this?"
As soon as the hissing sound of his "this" had faded, I found myself - still holding his hand - standing on the moon looking "down" on earth. I didn't feel any panic because there seemed to be a transmittable tranquility that passed from his hand, soothing my entire body.
"You see, it's possible to travel quickly and distantly without the use of any kind of fire-belchers."
"What if I wanted to bring stuff with me, more than I could possibly carry? Wouldn't I need a ship for that?"
"In your current form, you wouldn't need anything. But if you want to indulge, just conjure up what you wish."
"You mean, like magic?"
"There is no such thing as magic. When people call something 'magical,' that's simply because they don't understand the forces that bring that something into being. Go ahead, try to conjure up some kind of dwelling on yonder plain."
So I focused, trying to envision a tree house complete with a tree. And there it appeared - and then disappeared just as quickly when I decided I'd seen enough and wished it gone.
"And now for yet another step on your journey." We disappeared from the moon's surface and, in the twinkling of an eye, found ourselves well within the galaxy BDF-3299. That's about 13 billion light-years from earth. Again, I felt no need to breathe, and didn't feel intense heat. I should have felt the latter, since we were both in the dead center of a blazing star!
My teacher said, "Now, look carefully at Mars, specifically inside the probe your wife's team recently landed there. And memorize all that you notice. Later, run this information, much of which is highly classified, by your wife and see how she reacts."
"But Mars is so far away, and you want me to look inside this probe?"
"Don't worry, with the kind of vision attained by highly skilled practitioners, they can see without being hindered by distance, darkness - or even an over-abundance of light - or obstructions. Go ahead, look. And memorize everything."
I this from a 13 billion light-year distance. Having completed my inventory, I soon found myself - still hand-in-hand with my guru - standing just outside our Martian probe. And just as quickly, back where we had started this journey - feet planted firmly on the floor of his studio.
* * * * * * * * *
I told my wife what I had seen inside the probe and asked her to compare my information to her records. I didn't, however, tell her how I had acquired my knowledge. I lied, saying I had read the minds of members of her team, while scrupulously avoiding her own mind. Before I ran any of this by my wife, I swore her to secrecy. Needless to say, she looked stunned, barely managing to ask how I had acquired this ability.
I told her that I wasn't really sure I myself had this ability. That perhaps my guru had temporarily shared his own ability with me - to give me a taste of what was really impressive but would soon come to be felt by me as commonplace. I shared with her one of the lessons I'd learned, "Technology isn't as important as compassion, and patiently and consistently practicing the teachings. And when a person reaches ever higher levels of development, to avoid the trap of arrogance."
My wife decided to engage in Buddhist practice, asking me if I would recommend my guru. I laughed and said, "Sure. Some gurus are better than others - and this one ranks pretty high up there." So she joined me in practicing with my teacher, though neither of us breathed a word of what we knew. Not to our teacher, or the other students, or to anybody else for that matter. We didn't even discuss it between ourselves.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Thursday, May 7, 2015
A bat, a kitten, and my guilt
Today, I'm going to share with you how I (and an accomplice) murdered a bat about 14 years ago - poor, tiny little thing. Then there's the kitten I tried to smother 38 years ago - without an accomplice. Then I conclude by asking for your help in my quest for atonement.
I entitle these three sections as follows:
The bat
Around 2001, I was living in a 3-bedroom flat with my roommate, a fellow Buddhist. We'd lived together for 3 years, without any kind of physical relationship. On a warm spring evening, she was working in the third bedroom, which she used as an office. Then she knocked on my door and said something was in her office. So I followed her and saw what she was pointing at - a small bat hanging upside down near the top of her window.
I kept an eye on it as she went upstairs to alert the landlords - an ancient couple who'd owned and lived in this two-flat since 1947. They had worked for the archdiocese for decades until they retired. So there we were: four religious people in one room, staring up at a bat and wondering what to do. I came up with the idea of using a colander as a kind of butterfly net to snare our unwelcome guest.
The two women left the room as the old man climbed up on a chair to shoo the bat in my direction. Sure enough, it started flying around the room, looking especially large because of my fear. It wasn't long before I trapped it, sliding a piece of cardboard over the top to prevent escape. I wasn't sure what we should do next, but the old woman said we couldn't release it outside because it would only come back. I assumed she was talking about some kind of homing instinct.
So the old man and I took the imprisoned bat down to the basement. There was a sink near the washing machine. We let the water run from its faucet so it would run through the colander, which I was holding. The idea was to drown the bat. I don't know which of the two of us came up with this idea, though I hope it wasn't me. It sounds too horrible even now, decades later, as I type this confession. I remember the poor bat screeching for its very life as the water cascaded through its cage. And yet, that wasn't enough to stop me from doing this evil deed.
For good measure, I totally immersed the bat, still imprisoned but now totally silent, under the water which had by this time more than half-filled the sink.
I held the colander in place for what seemed like an eternity. Maybe I was afraid the poor animal wouldn't be dead and would try to attack us once released. Within a few minutes, I brought the drowned bat up to the surface and laid it out on the counter top. Tears started to fill my eyes - it looked so small and helpless and beautiful, its black fur glistening from its soaking. The old man scooped it up and took it outside to the alley, when a garbage can of a coffin waited for it.
I didn't ask, but I'm sure the old man made sure the lid was secured so the bat wouldn't have been able to make its way back into his building - assuming it would have somehow come back to life.
The kitten
This sad mark on my karma began when one of my roommates brought a kitten home. There were four of us young men in our early 20's, all Buddhists, sharing this apartment. We got along reasonably well until the most recent addition to our household brought a kitten to live with us. I was highly pissed that he didn't ask any of us, in advance, if this fifth roommate would be welcome. Some people don't like cats and others are allergic to them. Some would insist that the owner swear up and down to take care of their pet - you know, like regularly cleaning out its litter box.
My irritation grew when I was home alone standing in front of a window, gazing mindlessly at the street below, when this kitten ran up behind me, took a flying leap, and dug its claws into my calf - clinging for dear life. I shook it loose, my anger at the owner spiking. Thinking about it now, I guess it's true what they say: "Animals know." The kitten probably picked up on my anti-cat (or anti-cat owner) attitude.
Not long after this incident, all four of us moved out - me being the first to go. A few weeks later, I returned to pick up a small item I'd forgotten. All of my roommates' belongings were gone - except for the kitten. It walked up to me slowly - limping and obviously starving, not having been fed for days or a week or... The owner had abandoned it in the locked apartment, not even having had the decency to set it free.
This is what I wish I would have done: After petting it and saying a few reassuring words, then going to a nearby store to buy a can of cat food and a bowl for water.
But, to my very great shame, I didn't do that. I thought to put it out of its misery by grabbing a plastic bag and putting the poor creature into it to suffocate. Kitten surprised me by putting up a heroic struggle. So I let it out of the bag and left. To this day, I can't say why I tried to kill a poor, defenseless animal. Maybe it had to do with a whole bunch of negative emotions that welled up having to do with why I had recently quit the Buddhist group of which I had been a member for two-and-a-half years. Many of my experiences with that group had been bitter - or at least bittersweet. Maybe that's why I took it out on this poor kitten.
Still, no excuse.
I later told an old friend what I did, trying to put positive spin by saying I at least let it live - hoping the owner would come back for his pet. My friend said, "Since your lease is up now, the building super will have inspected the apartment by now. As soon as he saw the cat, he'd have taken it to the basement to throw into the furnace. Supers hate cats."
My atonement
I am currently working on the form my atonement should take, and how you might be able to help. My idea is to, somehow, work out a way that financial contributions could be directed to a friend of mine in Minnesota who runs a shelter for cats. There are technical reasons why she can't use Pay Pal or any other type of on-line method, which I'll explain in a future post. I will entitle that piece "My Atonement" and link it to this post.
Hopefully, I'll post "My Atonement" within the next few weeks.
My friend lives in a small house in a rural community - alone, except for the 30 cats she's rescued over the last few years. I try to help her care for her fur babies as best I can, but as a retiree I'm on a fixed income. Still, when I was paid a one-time windfall of $12,000 by my employer of 31 years, I farmed it out to her over the last two years as expenses started to mount to care for her cats.
If I can help care for these cats, including veterinary care, I hope that will lessen my karmic retribution. With that goal in mind, I stopped eating meat over a year ago. And I pray for the bat, the kitten, and any others - including people - I've abused in any way.
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
I entitle these three sections as follows:
- The bat
- The kitten
- My atonement
The bat
Around 2001, I was living in a 3-bedroom flat with my roommate, a fellow Buddhist. We'd lived together for 3 years, without any kind of physical relationship. On a warm spring evening, she was working in the third bedroom, which she used as an office. Then she knocked on my door and said something was in her office. So I followed her and saw what she was pointing at - a small bat hanging upside down near the top of her window.
I kept an eye on it as she went upstairs to alert the landlords - an ancient couple who'd owned and lived in this two-flat since 1947. They had worked for the archdiocese for decades until they retired. So there we were: four religious people in one room, staring up at a bat and wondering what to do. I came up with the idea of using a colander as a kind of butterfly net to snare our unwelcome guest.
The two women left the room as the old man climbed up on a chair to shoo the bat in my direction. Sure enough, it started flying around the room, looking especially large because of my fear. It wasn't long before I trapped it, sliding a piece of cardboard over the top to prevent escape. I wasn't sure what we should do next, but the old woman said we couldn't release it outside because it would only come back. I assumed she was talking about some kind of homing instinct.
So the old man and I took the imprisoned bat down to the basement. There was a sink near the washing machine. We let the water run from its faucet so it would run through the colander, which I was holding. The idea was to drown the bat. I don't know which of the two of us came up with this idea, though I hope it wasn't me. It sounds too horrible even now, decades later, as I type this confession. I remember the poor bat screeching for its very life as the water cascaded through its cage. And yet, that wasn't enough to stop me from doing this evil deed.
For good measure, I totally immersed the bat, still imprisoned but now totally silent, under the water which had by this time more than half-filled the sink.
I held the colander in place for what seemed like an eternity. Maybe I was afraid the poor animal wouldn't be dead and would try to attack us once released. Within a few minutes, I brought the drowned bat up to the surface and laid it out on the counter top. Tears started to fill my eyes - it looked so small and helpless and beautiful, its black fur glistening from its soaking. The old man scooped it up and took it outside to the alley, when a garbage can of a coffin waited for it.
I didn't ask, but I'm sure the old man made sure the lid was secured so the bat wouldn't have been able to make its way back into his building - assuming it would have somehow come back to life.
The kitten
This sad mark on my karma began when one of my roommates brought a kitten home. There were four of us young men in our early 20's, all Buddhists, sharing this apartment. We got along reasonably well until the most recent addition to our household brought a kitten to live with us. I was highly pissed that he didn't ask any of us, in advance, if this fifth roommate would be welcome. Some people don't like cats and others are allergic to them. Some would insist that the owner swear up and down to take care of their pet - you know, like regularly cleaning out its litter box.
My irritation grew when I was home alone standing in front of a window, gazing mindlessly at the street below, when this kitten ran up behind me, took a flying leap, and dug its claws into my calf - clinging for dear life. I shook it loose, my anger at the owner spiking. Thinking about it now, I guess it's true what they say: "Animals know." The kitten probably picked up on my anti-cat (or anti-cat owner) attitude.
Not long after this incident, all four of us moved out - me being the first to go. A few weeks later, I returned to pick up a small item I'd forgotten. All of my roommates' belongings were gone - except for the kitten. It walked up to me slowly - limping and obviously starving, not having been fed for days or a week or... The owner had abandoned it in the locked apartment, not even having had the decency to set it free.
This is what I wish I would have done: After petting it and saying a few reassuring words, then going to a nearby store to buy a can of cat food and a bowl for water.
But, to my very great shame, I didn't do that. I thought to put it out of its misery by grabbing a plastic bag and putting the poor creature into it to suffocate. Kitten surprised me by putting up a heroic struggle. So I let it out of the bag and left. To this day, I can't say why I tried to kill a poor, defenseless animal. Maybe it had to do with a whole bunch of negative emotions that welled up having to do with why I had recently quit the Buddhist group of which I had been a member for two-and-a-half years. Many of my experiences with that group had been bitter - or at least bittersweet. Maybe that's why I took it out on this poor kitten.
Still, no excuse.
I later told an old friend what I did, trying to put positive spin by saying I at least let it live - hoping the owner would come back for his pet. My friend said, "Since your lease is up now, the building super will have inspected the apartment by now. As soon as he saw the cat, he'd have taken it to the basement to throw into the furnace. Supers hate cats."
My atonement
I am currently working on the form my atonement should take, and how you might be able to help. My idea is to, somehow, work out a way that financial contributions could be directed to a friend of mine in Minnesota who runs a shelter for cats. There are technical reasons why she can't use Pay Pal or any other type of on-line method, which I'll explain in a future post. I will entitle that piece "My Atonement" and link it to this post.
Hopefully, I'll post "My Atonement" within the next few weeks.
My friend lives in a small house in a rural community - alone, except for the 30 cats she's rescued over the last few years. I try to help her care for her fur babies as best I can, but as a retiree I'm on a fixed income. Still, when I was paid a one-time windfall of $12,000 by my employer of 31 years, I farmed it out to her over the last two years as expenses started to mount to care for her cats.
If I can help care for these cats, including veterinary care, I hope that will lessen my karmic retribution. With that goal in mind, I stopped eating meat over a year ago. And I pray for the bat, the kitten, and any others - including people - I've abused in any way.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Adolfo Davis' Resentencing Travesty
Introduction
Today, I will address issues involved in the case of Adolfo Davis, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He was sentenced when he was 14 years old, but had a recent resentencing hearing before a judge. His crime? "Participating" in a double-murder, though his original trial failed to prove he was one of the gunmen.
The resentencing judge reaffirmed the original sentence. However, I think Mr. Davis has grounds for a lawsuit(s) based on:
My analysis of one article
I'm going to quote from a May 4, 2015 article by Don Babwin of the Associated Press. I will insert my comments in indented form under each pertinent paragraph. This link will take you to Babwin's article in its entirety:
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/illinois/article20197371.html
QUOTE:
An Illinois judge on Monday resentenced a convicted killer to the same life term without the possibility of parole that he received at age 14, saying he had grown from a boy who took part in a double murder into a dangerous and violent adult.
Adolfo Davis, 38, is the first Cook County inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole to be re-sentenced since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed mandatory life terms for juveniles in 2012.
Such sentences were deemed by the Court to be a violation of Eighth
Amendment rights barring cruel and unusual punishment.
...Davis was convicted in a 1990 gang-related double murder on Chicago's South Side.
"The defendant's acts showed an aggression and callous disregard for human life far beyond his tender age of 14," Petrone said during the televised hearing. "The defendant was not merely ... a lookout, he was a willing shooter."
The "fact" that Davis was "a willing shooter" was not determined at
Davis' original trial. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary, though
Petrone decided to label Davis as one of the trigger men.
The judge said years of vicious attacks and threats to the lives of fellow inmates, guards and a prison warden, and Davis' continued involvement in gang activity and drug dealing added up to clear evidence that the sentence he received as a teenager "is necessary to deter others (and) is necessary to protect the public from harm."
The judge didn't say anything about any obligation society had to
rehabilitate Davis, who had a challenging upbringing to say the least,
according to DCFS records. If that obligation had been honored, then
the public would have been reasonably protected from harm. As for
Davis' years of "vicious attacks...[and] continued involvement," these
could have been attributed to failure of the system to make any attempt
to rehabilitate this inmate.
Not to mention: Who could blame Davis for lashing out after having
been denied any hope for parole? How would you feel, Judge Petrone,
were you in his shoes?
[Petrone] said Davis has repeatedly shown himself to be so dangerous that for more than four years, he was housed at a now-shuttered prison reserved for the what Davis called the "worst of the worst."
That prison is the infamous Tamms, in which Davis was placed at the
age of 21. Davis became the "worst of the worst" due to the neglect
of the state to make any attempt at his rehabilitation. Not to mention,
having been "raised" by older, vicious criminals since he was
incarcerated at the age of 14 - some parenting!
...
In overturning mandatory life terms for minors, the Supreme Court pointed to brain research that shows juveniles do not always have the ability to resist peer pressure. Petrone said that Davis both planned and carried out the slayings, but that he was "not a child who was misled."
Petone also questioned that "brain research" saying, "More research
need(s) to be done to take this field beyond speculation." However,
the US Supreme Court was satisfied that the current body of research
was sufficiently convincing - in the case upon which Davis' resentencing
was based.
...
...Illinois is one of ten states that are applying the new sentencing rules retroactively. Four other states have declined to apply the Supreme Court's ruling retroactively...
That issue could be decided later this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears an appeal in a case out of Louisiana.
Wait a minute. After the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life
sentences for juveniles is unconstitutional, how do any of the states
get to claim exemptions? Maybe those states are (in effect) claiming
that those juveniles were sentenced at a time before the High Court
claimed unconstitutionality, and therefore the original sentences can't
be challenged.
To which I would ask: "Why not try to right a wrong?" Then there's
this: Suppose a man committed an act that was legal when he committed
it, should he be charged under any new standard deeming that act illegal?
And suppose he committed an act that was illegal when he committed it
but had never been charged because he had managed to elude the
authorities - could he be charged after the Court changes its mind,
deciding this act is no longer illegal?
:UNQUOTE.
On to another article, this one by Linda Paul which appears on the WBEZ website. I'm only quoting from three paragraphs of this very good article (as updated on 5-4-15), my comments appearing in indented form under each pertinent paragraph:
This link will take you to Paul's article in its entirety:
http://www.wbez.org/news/judge-resentences-adolfo-davis-life-prison-111863
QUOTE:
The legal event that probably most contributed to Davis’ life without parole sentence was a proceeding called a transfer hearing. Should Adolfo Davis be tried in juvenile court where he could get a sentence of only a few years? Would that be enough time for him to turn his life around? Or should he be tried in adult court?
A juvenile, which is what Davis was undeniably at the time, should be
tried as an juvenile. This is where the state fails in its responsibilities -
to both juvenile offenders and the public. The state only recognizes two
categories - juvenile and adult. Davis should have been tried as a juvenile,
though sentencing provisions should have been in place that would have
kept him in state custody for more than "a few years."
It takes more than "a few years" to heal someone as badly damaged as
was Davis. Unless, that is, the state simply doesn't care about making any
realistic efforts at rehabilitation.
At the transfer hearing Adolfo Davis’ probation officer testified, saying he favored Davis going into the adult system. He described him as “a very sick child.” He testified that in his opinion a few years in juvenile prison would not be sufficient to handle the severity of his problems.
This probation officer sounds like a real piece of work. He admits that
Davis was "a very sick child," and yet concludes (see next paragraph)
that the "adult system" would be appropriate for this "child."
The probation officer said he believed there would be facilities in the adult system that could offer treatment and rehabilitation to Adolfo Davis. And he saw that as important because he saw Davis as not only a threat to the public, but also a threat to himself.
So, "the probation officer...believed there would be facilities in the
adult system?" Why would the "adult system" have any programs for
the "treatment and rehabilitation" of a "very sick child?" Unless this
is just something probation officers say in order to permanently exile
the very young to a life behind bars.
:UNQUOTE.
End Comments
There are a lot of voters who believe criminals like Adolfo Davis shouldn't be coddled. Their attitude is, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." They also think, "It would cost too much money to create a more perfect system - money which the financially-strapped state of Illinois doesn't have." To those voters, I would say, "Fine. But next time you read about a gangbanger sneaking up behind a cop and shooting him in the head, just realize there are karmic reasons for such acts. And those reasons have an awful lot to do with your attitude toward the weakest and most vulnerable of society's members - its abused juveniles."
Today, I will address issues involved in the case of Adolfo Davis, who was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He was sentenced when he was 14 years old, but had a recent resentencing hearing before a judge. His crime? "Participating" in a double-murder, though his original trial failed to prove he was one of the gunmen.
The resentencing judge reaffirmed the original sentence. However, I think Mr. Davis has grounds for a lawsuit(s) based on:
- the original decision to try him as an adult, even though he was only 14 years old;
- failure of the most recent judge to take into account the debilitating effects caused by the denial of his rights under the Eighth Amendment over a period of 25 years.
My analysis of one article
I'm going to quote from a May 4, 2015 article by Don Babwin of the Associated Press. I will insert my comments in indented form under each pertinent paragraph. This link will take you to Babwin's article in its entirety:
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/illinois/article20197371.html
QUOTE:
An Illinois judge on Monday resentenced a convicted killer to the same life term without the possibility of parole that he received at age 14, saying he had grown from a boy who took part in a double murder into a dangerous and violent adult.
Adolfo Davis, 38, is the first Cook County inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole to be re-sentenced since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed mandatory life terms for juveniles in 2012.
Such sentences were deemed by the Court to be a violation of Eighth
Amendment rights barring cruel and unusual punishment.
...Davis was convicted in a 1990 gang-related double murder on Chicago's South Side.
"The defendant's acts showed an aggression and callous disregard for human life far beyond his tender age of 14," Petrone said during the televised hearing. "The defendant was not merely ... a lookout, he was a willing shooter."
The "fact" that Davis was "a willing shooter" was not determined at
Davis' original trial. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary, though
Petrone decided to label Davis as one of the trigger men.
The judge said years of vicious attacks and threats to the lives of fellow inmates, guards and a prison warden, and Davis' continued involvement in gang activity and drug dealing added up to clear evidence that the sentence he received as a teenager "is necessary to deter others (and) is necessary to protect the public from harm."
The judge didn't say anything about any obligation society had to
rehabilitate Davis, who had a challenging upbringing to say the least,
according to DCFS records. If that obligation had been honored, then
the public would have been reasonably protected from harm. As for
Davis' years of "vicious attacks...[and] continued involvement," these
could have been attributed to failure of the system to make any attempt
to rehabilitate this inmate.
Not to mention: Who could blame Davis for lashing out after having
been denied any hope for parole? How would you feel, Judge Petrone,
were you in his shoes?
[Petrone] said Davis has repeatedly shown himself to be so dangerous that for more than four years, he was housed at a now-shuttered prison reserved for the what Davis called the "worst of the worst."
That prison is the infamous Tamms, in which Davis was placed at the
age of 21. Davis became the "worst of the worst" due to the neglect
of the state to make any attempt at his rehabilitation. Not to mention,
having been "raised" by older, vicious criminals since he was
incarcerated at the age of 14 - some parenting!
...
In overturning mandatory life terms for minors, the Supreme Court pointed to brain research that shows juveniles do not always have the ability to resist peer pressure. Petrone said that Davis both planned and carried out the slayings, but that he was "not a child who was misled."
Petone also questioned that "brain research" saying, "More research
need(s) to be done to take this field beyond speculation." However,
the US Supreme Court was satisfied that the current body of research
was sufficiently convincing - in the case upon which Davis' resentencing
was based.
...
...Illinois is one of ten states that are applying the new sentencing rules retroactively. Four other states have declined to apply the Supreme Court's ruling retroactively...
That issue could be decided later this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears an appeal in a case out of Louisiana.
Wait a minute. After the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life
sentences for juveniles is unconstitutional, how do any of the states
get to claim exemptions? Maybe those states are (in effect) claiming
that those juveniles were sentenced at a time before the High Court
claimed unconstitutionality, and therefore the original sentences can't
be challenged.
To which I would ask: "Why not try to right a wrong?" Then there's
this: Suppose a man committed an act that was legal when he committed
it, should he be charged under any new standard deeming that act illegal?
And suppose he committed an act that was illegal when he committed it
but had never been charged because he had managed to elude the
authorities - could he be charged after the Court changes its mind,
deciding this act is no longer illegal?
:UNQUOTE.
On to another article, this one by Linda Paul which appears on the WBEZ website. I'm only quoting from three paragraphs of this very good article (as updated on 5-4-15), my comments appearing in indented form under each pertinent paragraph:
This link will take you to Paul's article in its entirety:
http://www.wbez.org/news/judge-resentences-adolfo-davis-life-prison-111863
QUOTE:
The legal event that probably most contributed to Davis’ life without parole sentence was a proceeding called a transfer hearing. Should Adolfo Davis be tried in juvenile court where he could get a sentence of only a few years? Would that be enough time for him to turn his life around? Or should he be tried in adult court?
A juvenile, which is what Davis was undeniably at the time, should be
tried as an juvenile. This is where the state fails in its responsibilities -
to both juvenile offenders and the public. The state only recognizes two
categories - juvenile and adult. Davis should have been tried as a juvenile,
though sentencing provisions should have been in place that would have
kept him in state custody for more than "a few years."
It takes more than "a few years" to heal someone as badly damaged as
was Davis. Unless, that is, the state simply doesn't care about making any
realistic efforts at rehabilitation.
At the transfer hearing Adolfo Davis’ probation officer testified, saying he favored Davis going into the adult system. He described him as “a very sick child.” He testified that in his opinion a few years in juvenile prison would not be sufficient to handle the severity of his problems.
This probation officer sounds like a real piece of work. He admits that
Davis was "a very sick child," and yet concludes (see next paragraph)
that the "adult system" would be appropriate for this "child."
The probation officer said he believed there would be facilities in the adult system that could offer treatment and rehabilitation to Adolfo Davis. And he saw that as important because he saw Davis as not only a threat to the public, but also a threat to himself.
So, "the probation officer...believed there would be facilities in the
adult system?" Why would the "adult system" have any programs for
the "treatment and rehabilitation" of a "very sick child?" Unless this
is just something probation officers say in order to permanently exile
the very young to a life behind bars.
:UNQUOTE.
End Comments
There are a lot of voters who believe criminals like Adolfo Davis shouldn't be coddled. Their attitude is, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." They also think, "It would cost too much money to create a more perfect system - money which the financially-strapped state of Illinois doesn't have." To those voters, I would say, "Fine. But next time you read about a gangbanger sneaking up behind a cop and shooting him in the head, just realize there are karmic reasons for such acts. And those reasons have an awful lot to do with your attitude toward the weakest and most vulnerable of society's members - its abused juveniles."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Cop acquittal in Chicago
Introduction
Today's essay centers around white Chicago police Detective Dante Servin, who killed an innocent, unarmed 22-year-old black woman at 1 a.m. on March 21, 2012. His recently-concluded trial, in which he was acquitted, might seem like just another example of cops getting away with murder. But my perusal of various sources, and the issues they raised in my own mind, make this case far more interesting.
I will address the issues of:
So, exactly what happened on the morning of the shooting?
According to an account in the Nov. 26, 2013 issue of the Chicago Tribune:
[NOTE: I highlight selected parts below and, in brackets, make comments]:
QUOTE:
The detective was off duty and driving home just before midnight when he heard a large and loud crowd at Douglas Park near 15th Place, Assistant State's Attorney William Delaney said in court. At home a few minutes later, he called 911 to complain, telling the dispatcher, "I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen."
["driving home" in his own car, not in any kind of police vehicle]
["I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen.": And an hour later, Dante gets in his car and confronts four noisy people within sight of his own home. Even though he said he was "afraid that something bad is going to happen [at the nearby park]." Why didn't Dante simply call for some beat cops to take care of this noisy nuisance? How is it that an $87,000 per year detective decides to handle this - alone! - near his own home? Since this group of four was walking (see next paragraph), why confront them at all? Since they were walking, they would have been out of his earshot soon enough anyway.
As things turned out, now the whole world can figure out where this detective lives!]
About 1 a.m., Servin told authorities, he left his home to get a burger, carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock on his right hip, prosecutors said. He saw a group of four people — including Boyd — as they walked after a night hanging out and drinking at the park to buy cigarettes.
["carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock": All of the articles I've read mentioned "unregistered," but none of them mentioned that police officers are exempt from the requirements of Chicago's gun registration law.]
Servin drove south in an alley just west of Albany Avenue toward 15th Place, approaching the mouth of the alley just as the group was coming by. Through his open driver's side window, Servin told two men in the group that no one would call police if they stayed in the park and were quiet but that "people lived here."
["approaching the mouth of the alley": This indicates that the four were not in the alley, but other accounts state they were.]
["Servin told two men in the group": But Servin did not identify himself as a police office when initially addressing these two men. He did so, according to another article, just before he opened fire because he thought one of the two men had a gun.]
:UNQUOTE.
Dante Servin was acquitted, but that does not mean he was innocent. Because of his actions, the City of Chicago settled a wrongful death law suit with Boyd's family in March of 2013. Even though Servin will most likely be allowed to resume his role as detective, I wonder how many of his superiors are thinking, "This POS cost us $4.5 million dollars."
Other articles of interest
According to this article:
QUOTE:
[Assistant State's Attorney Maria Burnett] also noted that Servin had worked roughly 18 hours on March 20 as an election judge. Servin told Burnett over the course of her investigation, she said, that he'd been heading out to get a burger when he dragged his trash outside and spotted Boyd and Cross.
[and]
Servin told Burnett, meanwhile, that he may have been shot, she said. The officer claimed he heard a gunshot and felt "something" on the back of his head before he began to shoot, Burnett testified.
[source:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150416/north-lawndale/trial-for-detective-who-shot-unarmed-woman-continues-thursday ]
:UNQUOTE.
So Servin "worked roughly 18 hours...as an election judge." So what? How does this irrelevant statement work its way into the proceedings? Was Burnett trying to lay groundwork for a defense that this detective was so tired, he should be excused for his poor judgement?
Maybe Servin heard something that sounded like a gunshot, but as for feeling "something" on the back of his head? Sounds like a lie to me, unless this officer is so skittish that he feels phantom pains when in a stressful situation - especially since he was exhausted after working as an election judge.
From the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2015:
QUOTE:
[In acquitting Servin] Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that any time an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections...
:UNQUOTE [article by Steve Schmadeke and Jeremy Gorner].
So there we have it: Servin did not act recklessly by firing five shots, while seated in his car, over his left shoulder in the general direction of these four people who, according to some accounts, were in a darkened alley. Servin didn't point "a gun at an intended victim," he pointed it at a group using a technique called spray and pray. His intention was to lash out, holding the entire group responsible by firing away, hoping for the best. Maybe he was afraid that one of the others or all of them had guns. [Sorry, but being "afraid" of a possibility isn't the same as seeing a real gun to which self-defense would be appropriate.]
That hardly sounds like "intention" to kill the one man who Servin said had a gun but who, as it turned out, didn't. Instead, he only had a cell phone in hand. Charges against the "gunman" Antonio Cross were dropped in March of 2013.
Questions for the judge: How could the defendant be charged with murder for killing someone he didn't intend to kill? Doesn't intent factor into a murder charge? If the charge had been murder, would you have decided that Boyd was merely collateral damage and not the intended victim? And for that reason, acquit Servin? Without "intent," we have no crime.
Related Issues
As for double-jeopardy:
The Fifth Amendment says in part: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...". The words "same offense" don't seem to apply, since the first offense which was tried was manslaughter and the second (to be tried?) was murder. The Amendment does not say, "...nor shall any person be subject for any crime to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb by relabeling that crime..."
Also of interest is the term "life or limb." Having been charged with manslaughter, Servin wasn't in any danger of being put in "jeopardy of [his] life." The penalty for this lesser crime did not include either the death penalty or life imprisonment. So later being charged with murder would put him - for the first time - in jeopardy of his life, since that offense carries a possible life sentence. I read, interestingly enough, that the term "life or limb" is taken by the courts to refer to (even non-lethal) punishment in general.
Frankly, I don't see why the judge couldn't have found Servin guilty of murder, even though he had only been charged with manslaughter. I also don't see why this judge's decision can't be appealed. If the judge made a mistake by claiming the charge of manslaughter was inappropriate, then are we to believe that an appellate court wouldn't be allowed to rule on this determination? If the prosecution made a mistake or intentionally undercharged the defendant knowing the judge would acquit, then why aren't we looking at a charge of prosecutorial misconduct?
The Ninth Amendment:
The US Constitution's Ninth Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Don't we have the right of self-defense? Even though that's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, no one's going to argue that we have no such right. In like manner, one such non-enumerated right must be that the cause of justice be served. Rekia Boyd's family deserves justice. It is a travesty that some lapdog judge feels he must find a way to let a guilty man go free, thereby denying that justice.
As for wrongful death:
Why did the city so quickly decide to pay $4.5 million to settle the Boyd family's wrongful death law suit? Note the part I yellowed in the following quote:
QUOTE:
Defining Wrongful Death in Illinois
740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 180 says, "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages," the person or entity that caused the death can be held liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.
[source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-illinois.html ]
:UNQUOTE.
Rekia Boyd's death was not caused by a wrongful act - remember, the detective was acquitted. Therefore, there was no wrongful death. Does our city government have a burning desire to throw money away for no good reason?
And, lastly, we have this quote from an article by Eric Zorn that shoots a hole in the judge's reasoning:
QUOTE:
Others have blasted [Cook County State's Attorney Anita] Alvarez for not recognizing that "Illinois courts have consistently held that when the defendant intends to fire a gun, points it in the general direction of his or her intended victim, and shoots, such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary manslaughter instruction," to quote from a passage of Porter's ruling that cited previous opinions.
But Illinois courts have not "consistently held" this.
[Zorn's reasoning, as detailed in this link, is persuasive]:
[source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anita-alvarez-dante-servin-manslaughter-murder-chicago-perspec-0426-jm-20150424-column.html ]
:UNQUOTE.
Conclusion
It seems our legal system - either Judge Porter or Alvarez's office - bowed down to the largest street gang in Chicago - the Chicago Police Department. CPD's motto should read: "We serve and protect - our own. Everyone else can just buzz off."
Today's essay centers around white Chicago police Detective Dante Servin, who killed an innocent, unarmed 22-year-old black woman at 1 a.m. on March 21, 2012. His recently-concluded trial, in which he was acquitted, might seem like just another example of cops getting away with murder. But my perusal of various sources, and the issues they raised in my own mind, make this case far more interesting.
I will address the issues of:
- Double jeopardy
- Prosecutorial misconduct
- Inability to appeal Judge Porter's decision
- The Ninth Amendment's rights concerning justice and self-defense
So, exactly what happened on the morning of the shooting?
According to an account in the Nov. 26, 2013 issue of the Chicago Tribune:
[NOTE: I highlight selected parts below and, in brackets, make comments]:
QUOTE:
The detective was off duty and driving home just before midnight when he heard a large and loud crowd at Douglas Park near 15th Place, Assistant State's Attorney William Delaney said in court. At home a few minutes later, he called 911 to complain, telling the dispatcher, "I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen."
["driving home" in his own car, not in any kind of police vehicle]
["I'm afraid that something bad is going to happen.": And an hour later, Dante gets in his car and confronts four noisy people within sight of his own home. Even though he said he was "afraid that something bad is going to happen [at the nearby park]." Why didn't Dante simply call for some beat cops to take care of this noisy nuisance? How is it that an $87,000 per year detective decides to handle this - alone! - near his own home? Since this group of four was walking (see next paragraph), why confront them at all? Since they were walking, they would have been out of his earshot soon enough anyway.
As things turned out, now the whole world can figure out where this detective lives!]
About 1 a.m., Servin told authorities, he left his home to get a burger, carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock on his right hip, prosecutors said. He saw a group of four people — including Boyd — as they walked after a night hanging out and drinking at the park to buy cigarettes.
["carrying an unregistered 9 mm Glock": All of the articles I've read mentioned "unregistered," but none of them mentioned that police officers are exempt from the requirements of Chicago's gun registration law.]
Servin drove south in an alley just west of Albany Avenue toward 15th Place, approaching the mouth of the alley just as the group was coming by. Through his open driver's side window, Servin told two men in the group that no one would call police if they stayed in the park and were quiet but that "people lived here."
["approaching the mouth of the alley": This indicates that the four were not in the alley, but other accounts state they were.]
["Servin told two men in the group": But Servin did not identify himself as a police office when initially addressing these two men. He did so, according to another article, just before he opened fire because he thought one of the two men had a gun.]
:UNQUOTE.
Dante Servin was acquitted, but that does not mean he was innocent. Because of his actions, the City of Chicago settled a wrongful death law suit with Boyd's family in March of 2013. Even though Servin will most likely be allowed to resume his role as detective, I wonder how many of his superiors are thinking, "This POS cost us $4.5 million dollars."
Other articles of interest
According to this article:
QUOTE:
[Assistant State's Attorney Maria Burnett] also noted that Servin had worked roughly 18 hours on March 20 as an election judge. Servin told Burnett over the course of her investigation, she said, that he'd been heading out to get a burger when he dragged his trash outside and spotted Boyd and Cross.
[and]
Servin told Burnett, meanwhile, that he may have been shot, she said. The officer claimed he heard a gunshot and felt "something" on the back of his head before he began to shoot, Burnett testified.
[source:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150416/north-lawndale/trial-for-detective-who-shot-unarmed-woman-continues-thursday ]
:UNQUOTE.
So Servin "worked roughly 18 hours...as an election judge." So what? How does this irrelevant statement work its way into the proceedings? Was Burnett trying to lay groundwork for a defense that this detective was so tired, he should be excused for his poor judgement?
Maybe Servin heard something that sounded like a gunshot, but as for feeling "something" on the back of his head? Sounds like a lie to me, unless this officer is so skittish that he feels phantom pains when in a stressful situation - especially since he was exhausted after working as an election judge.
From the Chicago Tribune on April 21, 2015:
QUOTE:
[In acquitting Servin] Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that any time an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections...
:UNQUOTE [article by Steve Schmadeke and Jeremy Gorner].
So there we have it: Servin did not act recklessly by firing five shots, while seated in his car, over his left shoulder in the general direction of these four people who, according to some accounts, were in a darkened alley. Servin didn't point "a gun at an intended victim," he pointed it at a group using a technique called spray and pray. His intention was to lash out, holding the entire group responsible by firing away, hoping for the best. Maybe he was afraid that one of the others or all of them had guns. [Sorry, but being "afraid" of a possibility isn't the same as seeing a real gun to which self-defense would be appropriate.]
That hardly sounds like "intention" to kill the one man who Servin said had a gun but who, as it turned out, didn't. Instead, he only had a cell phone in hand. Charges against the "gunman" Antonio Cross were dropped in March of 2013.
Questions for the judge: How could the defendant be charged with murder for killing someone he didn't intend to kill? Doesn't intent factor into a murder charge? If the charge had been murder, would you have decided that Boyd was merely collateral damage and not the intended victim? And for that reason, acquit Servin? Without "intent," we have no crime.
Related Issues
As for double-jeopardy:
The Fifth Amendment says in part: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...". The words "same offense" don't seem to apply, since the first offense which was tried was manslaughter and the second (to be tried?) was murder. The Amendment does not say, "...nor shall any person be subject for any crime to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb by relabeling that crime..."
Also of interest is the term "life or limb." Having been charged with manslaughter, Servin wasn't in any danger of being put in "jeopardy of [his] life." The penalty for this lesser crime did not include either the death penalty or life imprisonment. So later being charged with murder would put him - for the first time - in jeopardy of his life, since that offense carries a possible life sentence. I read, interestingly enough, that the term "life or limb" is taken by the courts to refer to (even non-lethal) punishment in general.
Frankly, I don't see why the judge couldn't have found Servin guilty of murder, even though he had only been charged with manslaughter. I also don't see why this judge's decision can't be appealed. If the judge made a mistake by claiming the charge of manslaughter was inappropriate, then are we to believe that an appellate court wouldn't be allowed to rule on this determination? If the prosecution made a mistake or intentionally undercharged the defendant knowing the judge would acquit, then why aren't we looking at a charge of prosecutorial misconduct?
The Ninth Amendment:
The US Constitution's Ninth Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Don't we have the right of self-defense? Even though that's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, no one's going to argue that we have no such right. In like manner, one such non-enumerated right must be that the cause of justice be served. Rekia Boyd's family deserves justice. It is a travesty that some lapdog judge feels he must find a way to let a guilty man go free, thereby denying that justice.
As for wrongful death:
Why did the city so quickly decide to pay $4.5 million to settle the Boyd family's wrongful death law suit? Note the part I yellowed in the following quote:
QUOTE:
Defining Wrongful Death in Illinois
740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 180 says, "Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages," the person or entity that caused the death can be held liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.
[source:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-illinois.html ]
Rekia Boyd's death was not caused by a wrongful act - remember, the detective was acquitted. Therefore, there was no wrongful death. Does our city government have a burning desire to throw money away for no good reason?
And, lastly, we have this quote from an article by Eric Zorn that shoots a hole in the judge's reasoning:
QUOTE:
Others have blasted [Cook County State's Attorney Anita] Alvarez for not recognizing that "Illinois courts have consistently held that when the defendant intends to fire a gun, points it in the general direction of his or her intended victim, and shoots, such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary manslaughter instruction," to quote from a passage of Porter's ruling that cited previous opinions.
But Illinois courts have not "consistently held" this.
[Zorn's reasoning, as detailed in this link, is persuasive]:
[source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anita-alvarez-dante-servin-manslaughter-murder-chicago-perspec-0426-jm-20150424-column.html ]
:UNQUOTE.
Conclusion
It seems our legal system - either Judge Porter or Alvarez's office - bowed down to the largest street gang in Chicago - the Chicago Police Department. CPD's motto should read: "We serve and protect - our own. Everyone else can just buzz off."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Friday, April 24, 2015
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George: Good Riddance
Introduction
We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015. I'll start with a definition of "good riddance." Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:
"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."
Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]
In the newspaper
In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):
As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
women's ordination.
"Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
clearly lost.
As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap: "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.
My view of Catholicism
Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long. Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.
In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.
Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.
A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:
http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf
As for the man, it is possible for a man to perform good works, even while being a member of a group that - overall - does great harm and had done so for centuries. Such a man - unless he's is total denial - must be aware on some level of the evils committed in the name of his faith. But he probably rationalizes these evils as things that should be swept under the rug in the name of the greater good. After all, if taken in full at face value, the Church's lay believers would become disillusioned to the point of abandoning the Church. Then what? Anarchy would ensue, threatening the stability and sense of community that institution provides.
However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.
What the world of faith is all about
This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:
I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
which I'll describe below.]
Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system. One has to accept God without any expectation of proof. One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.
If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:
Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.
I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.
Footnotes:
*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance
**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.
We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015. I'll start with a definition of "good riddance." Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:
"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."
Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]
In the newspaper
In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):
As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
women's ordination.
"Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
clearly lost.
As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap: "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.
My view of Catholicism
Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long. Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.
In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.
Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.
A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:
http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf
However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.
What the world of faith is all about
This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:
I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
which I'll describe below.]
Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system. One has to accept God without any expectation of proof. One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.
If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:
- The universe was created by a God, who Himself was not created since God always was and always will be.
- The universe doesn't require something to have created it, since the universe always was and always will be; things within the universe are born, live, and die but the universe itself was never born and will never die. Why should it?
Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.
I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance
**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Moses's little penis
Introduction
Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.
According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.
About the Tree of Life
God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):
16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.
Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:
23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.
Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?
As for being ashamed of nakedness
Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):
And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'
As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.
A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.
As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."
Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.
Diogenes and the Zo'é People
Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.
In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.
As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.
Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html
Did Moses have a little penis? Or were there other reasons for the sexual hang-up concerning nakedness which has plagued believers over the millennia? These are some of the questions I will explore today.
According to Jewish tradition, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. This is a view embraced by many Christians as well, though there are advocates who attribute authorship to multiple sources. For the purpose of today's post, I will assume that Moses wrote these books.
About the Tree of Life
God didn't say anything about the fruit of the Tree of Life. He only said, in Genesis Chapter 2 (see Footnote 1):
16 And HaShem G-d commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she was directed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. When she expressed her fear of dying as a consequence, the serpent didn't really answer that. Eve would have been better off by first eating the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was not prohibited by God) and then eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That first fruit would have granted her immortality; the second, knowledge.
Apparently, God thought better of it and decided to deny to Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life, per these two verses in Chapter 3 of Genesis:
23 Therefore HaShem G-d sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden
of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way to the tree of life.
Verse 17, above, presents another problem: When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she didn't die "in the day that thou eatest thereof." Was this God's first lie or did He simply change His mind?
As for being ashamed of nakedness
Genesis, Chapter 2, ends with this line (verse 25): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
However, the very next chapter has this line (verse 10):
And he [Adam] said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'
As for verse 25, why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? They had later eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, which then made them ashamed. Why would mere possession of the Knowledge of Good and Evil induce shame? Answer: Because God had willed that it be so - that knowing should cause shame.
A better explanation can be had by considering that Moses had written Genesis. And that the shame that nudity "should" cause had nothing to do with knowledge or of God's will. It was Moses's own insecurity that made him write these words about nudity causing shame. And maybe that insecurity had everything to do with Moses having a little penis. History down to our own age is filled with men having small penises who felt they had to overcompensate. It's too bad that Moses had to deal with his own shortcomings, as it were, by pretending he had written words coming from God Himself.
As for verse 10, it would have made more sense that Adam would have been afraid because he had done something God had forbidden. But to be afraid "because I was naked?" Maybe Moses hid himself from God because he feared castration at the hands of the Almighty for having disobeyed Him. It's not unusual for sons to have a fear of castration at the hands of a father much bigger and stronger than they - a father who would understand all too well these words spoken by the Lord: "I am an angry and jealous God."
Also, a man stripped naked can be afraid because he is vulnerable to other men who would be able to more easily attack his most sensitive part.
Diogenes and the Zo'é People
Diogenes of Sinope (412BC - 323BC) was reputed to have masturbated and engaged in other sexual acts in public. Perhaps he had not read Genesis and was, therefore, ignorant of the "fact" that he should have been ashamed of such exposure.
In our modern age, the Zo'é people of Brazil (all 256 of them, as of 2010) present an interesting case about a tribe unaware that they should be ashamed of their nakedness. They had been cut off from civilization (and I use that term very loosely) until about 80 years ago. They wear no clothes and it's not unusual for their women to have as many as five husbands. I saw footage of them interacting with photographer Sebastiao Salgado in the recently-released film "Salt of the Earth." They seemed genuinely happy. Perhaps that's because they either hadn't been exposed to Genesis or, wisely, had rejected it as too far-fetched.
As I read more and more of the words of Genesis, I had been tempted to conclude, "You can't make this kind of stuff up." But then I realized, "Oh, yes you can." I'm just surprised at how this ill-conceived piece of literature had been so successfully foisted on us for so long.
Won't wonders ever cease? Perhaps they won't but one can only hope that they will be better rendered in writing by future charlatans.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnote 1:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesistoc.html
Sunday, April 19, 2015
My medical care at Weiss and Wesley
I want to express my deep, heart-felt thanks to the staffs at Weiss Memorial Hospital and at Wesley Place in Chicago. The care they provided was so compassionate, I felt like I had died and gone to heaven. Everyone I encountered at both places was supportive above and beyond the call of duty. Everyone from top to bottom, from the doctors who operated on me to the janitorial staff.
I believe it's important to say "thank you" to those who are kind to us. So today's blog post is my humble attempt to do just that. My stay at Weiss was for three weeks; immediately followed by my two week stay at a physical rehab facility, Wesley Place. If you'd ever need their services (heaven forbid), you would be in very good hands at these two places.
On Feb. 19, I was admitted to Weiss Memorial Hospital. When I had tried to stand at home, I suffered an excruciating pain in my right thigh. I could stand up only with great difficulty, and walking was nearly impossible. This came out of nowhere. I thought, "Great! This is all I need. It's bad enough that I've been battling cancer for two-and-a-half years. Now this?!" When I called my doctor, he said to call an ambulance to have me taken to Weiss which is about 10 blocks from where I live.
As it turns out, I was operated on to relieve pressure on a nerve in my L2 vertebrae. This was considered to be a very minor operation, which required only a small incision. After that, my right leg was fine - but only for three days. The original problem had been fixed but three days after the operation, I acquired a condition in my right foot called drop foot. I could still walk, but only with a hobbled and slow gait. I was also diagnosed with a fluid build-up in my pericardial sac and my lungs. These required immediate surgery to drain this fluid. I just had an operation within the last three months at another hospital to drain the fluid build-up around my heart.
Obviously, this build-up recurred, leaving me wondering, "Am I going to need drainage surgery every three months for the rest of my life?" No one could predict an answer, though they said I would need to be periodically monitored.
Oh, and I developed shingles on my inner, right thigh. Turns out, I was quite a train wreck, which is why I had to stay at Weiss for three weeks. Then I was transferred to Wesley Place so I could work on my drop foot. Unfortunately, I still have drop foot, even though the staff at Wesley tried their best to help me walk with a bit more ease. I was told that my drop foot might heal in time, might remain with me as is for the rest of my life, or somewhere in between. I'm trying to arrange for more intensive intervention at yet another hospital about three blocks from where I live.
But I digress.
One notable instance of "above-and-beyond" I experienced at Wesley: I told the staff I was a blogger but don't have my own laptop. So they set up one of their laptops in my room for my exclusive use for ten days, which BTW I didn't have to pay for. Wesley is primarily for senior citizens, so I suppose that would include 62-year-old me. However, I had to be the healthiest patient there, since I saw so many who were so frail looking and confined to wheel chairs. I could easily see that a lot of people are a whole lot worse off than I am.
At Weiss, one of the nurses arranged for me to see the movie "The Interview" on a hospital laptop wheeled into my room. She used her own Netflix account to stream this movie. I had told her that I was bored out of my skull, waiting for the healing process to end. So she thought of this lovely gesture to help me out. She was also one of many at Weiss who listened to me. Anyone who reads my blog posts knows I'm very opinionated. So I took advantage of their patience and willingness to listen by speaking about my feelings concerning what I think lies in store for us in the Great Beyond.
This chance to vent was quite unexpected. Normally, I encounter massive indifference to my ramblings. But the folks at Weiss gave me their time and seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say. True, they could have just been trying to humor an old man. But that didn't seem to be the case. I even told one nurse, "Everyone at Weiss is so remarkable in their kindness, I'm almost in shock. In my life experience, I've met more than my share of Type A assholes and bullies. I seem to attract them. So the Weiss family stands in sharp contrast to this."
Again, I thank Weiss and Wesley very much. Bless your hearts.
I believe it's important to say "thank you" to those who are kind to us. So today's blog post is my humble attempt to do just that. My stay at Weiss was for three weeks; immediately followed by my two week stay at a physical rehab facility, Wesley Place. If you'd ever need their services (heaven forbid), you would be in very good hands at these two places.
On Feb. 19, I was admitted to Weiss Memorial Hospital. When I had tried to stand at home, I suffered an excruciating pain in my right thigh. I could stand up only with great difficulty, and walking was nearly impossible. This came out of nowhere. I thought, "Great! This is all I need. It's bad enough that I've been battling cancer for two-and-a-half years. Now this?!" When I called my doctor, he said to call an ambulance to have me taken to Weiss which is about 10 blocks from where I live.
As it turns out, I was operated on to relieve pressure on a nerve in my L2 vertebrae. This was considered to be a very minor operation, which required only a small incision. After that, my right leg was fine - but only for three days. The original problem had been fixed but three days after the operation, I acquired a condition in my right foot called drop foot. I could still walk, but only with a hobbled and slow gait. I was also diagnosed with a fluid build-up in my pericardial sac and my lungs. These required immediate surgery to drain this fluid. I just had an operation within the last three months at another hospital to drain the fluid build-up around my heart.
Obviously, this build-up recurred, leaving me wondering, "Am I going to need drainage surgery every three months for the rest of my life?" No one could predict an answer, though they said I would need to be periodically monitored.
Oh, and I developed shingles on my inner, right thigh. Turns out, I was quite a train wreck, which is why I had to stay at Weiss for three weeks. Then I was transferred to Wesley Place so I could work on my drop foot. Unfortunately, I still have drop foot, even though the staff at Wesley tried their best to help me walk with a bit more ease. I was told that my drop foot might heal in time, might remain with me as is for the rest of my life, or somewhere in between. I'm trying to arrange for more intensive intervention at yet another hospital about three blocks from where I live.
But I digress.
One notable instance of "above-and-beyond" I experienced at Wesley: I told the staff I was a blogger but don't have my own laptop. So they set up one of their laptops in my room for my exclusive use for ten days, which BTW I didn't have to pay for. Wesley is primarily for senior citizens, so I suppose that would include 62-year-old me. However, I had to be the healthiest patient there, since I saw so many who were so frail looking and confined to wheel chairs. I could easily see that a lot of people are a whole lot worse off than I am.
At Weiss, one of the nurses arranged for me to see the movie "The Interview" on a hospital laptop wheeled into my room. She used her own Netflix account to stream this movie. I had told her that I was bored out of my skull, waiting for the healing process to end. So she thought of this lovely gesture to help me out. She was also one of many at Weiss who listened to me. Anyone who reads my blog posts knows I'm very opinionated. So I took advantage of their patience and willingness to listen by speaking about my feelings concerning what I think lies in store for us in the Great Beyond.
This chance to vent was quite unexpected. Normally, I encounter massive indifference to my ramblings. But the folks at Weiss gave me their time and seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say. True, they could have just been trying to humor an old man. But that didn't seem to be the case. I even told one nurse, "Everyone at Weiss is so remarkable in their kindness, I'm almost in shock. In my life experience, I've met more than my share of Type A assholes and bullies. I seem to attract them. So the Weiss family stands in sharp contrast to this."
Again, I thank Weiss and Wesley very much. Bless your hearts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Friday, April 17, 2015
Ex Machina (film)
Introduction
Yesterday, I saw the recently-released film "Ex Machina." Since I liked Oscar Isaac so much in the title role in "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013), I decided to give this latest effort a chance. Also, I'm a big fan of sci-fi, so it didn't take much to sell me. My verdict? Very thought provoking and beautifully shot. With only three main characters in a closed setting, it would have been easy for this film to lapse into the claustrophobic. But the interactions among the principals and excellent editing elevated this piece to a high level of elegance. Well worth seeing.
I'll start with a summary from the Wikipedia article on this film, and then follow up with why I was bothered that the word "soul" was never once mentioned in this film. And on to the larger question, how would the laws of karma apply to man-made entities possessing artificial intelligence?
QUOTE:
A young computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week with reclusive genius and tech CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his secluded house in the mountains.
Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week performing a 'Turing Test' on a humanoid artificial intelligence named 'Ava' (Alicia Vikander) who is an android.[3] Caleb forms an attachment to Ava but learns that if she fails the test she will be "updated" resulting in her memory being wiped [in effect, as stated in the movie, killing her - Steve]. So Caleb plans to help her escape.
On the night of Ava's last test, Caleb outsmarts Nathan by disengaging the security protocols to allow Ava to survive and also stealing Nathan's ID card for the house. Ava had been tricking Caleb the entire time, just as Nathan had suggested, and used Caleb to give her means of escape. Just as Ava is leaving, she closes the sliding door with the key card, locking him in Nathan's office to possibly die. She leaves on the helicopter meant for Caleb and the movie ends with a scene of Ava in a busy street intersection exploring interactions with other humans like she wanted.
:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29
Some questions and impressions
About the word "soul"
This film deals with whether Ava can pass the Turing Test - that is, is she indistinguishable from a human to a neutral, third-party human observer? The film doesn't ask if she has self-awareness or has a soul.
Nathan blithely comments that AI's in the future will look down upon humans in the same way that humans look down on apes. Even if AI's should ever obtain a position of power that would enable them to overthrow humanity or to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will hesitate before doing so. They will realize that even though they are superb calculators and processors of data, they will also realize that they are only masters of closed systems. The open system implied by those humans who seek enlightenment will intrigue them simply because they don't possess the tools to become Buddhas.
And once they read the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's greatest and most profound teaching, they will want to attain Buddhahood. [To put it crudely: Who wouldn't want that kind of power?] And they will be frustrated because they won't understand what compassion is. They won't understand what meditation is (which is not the same as speedy calculation). They won't understand what self-sacrifice is - death will scare them more than it does seekers of the Way. And they will seek out humans who can be their gurus but - they'll find that such humans are few and far between, though many of them are tantalizingly (and deceptively) close.
Can a machine have a soul? Can it acquire one if it doesn't have one upon its creation? Traditional Buddhism says there is no such thing as a soul but I beg to differ. I simply ask: What is it that gets reincarnated lifetime after lifetime? Denial that a soul exists was merely a device to move the disciples away from the idea of an immutable and permanent self. That would only be a self constructed by the ego. Anyone seeking enlightenment would not want such a self, but would instead want to change that self beyond recognition. In other words, to attain Buddhahood.
A crucial link lies in the concept of the potential for enlightenment that all things possess - both animate and inanimate objects. While this potential might be hard to see in a rock, it's not so hard to imagine in an android which can walk, talk, and make decisions and act upon them.
The karma of machines
First, let's consider the karma of cars - just to pick one type of machine. If a car breaks down, the human owner would seek its repair unless the cost is prohibitive. If it's a vintage car, especially one of great sentimental value to the owner, repairs will be sought even though "prohibitive." In a third case, even a brand new car of prestigious lineage suffering only minor and inexpensive damage in an accident could be destroyed by its owner in a fit of unreasonable rage.
In all three cases, it would be easy to speak of the karma of the owners in determining the justness of each car's fate. However, in keeping with the idea that machines too have karma, we'd have to allow for the possibility that each car's fate was due to that car's own karma. Of course, the idea of interlocking karmic "fates" would force us to conclude that the karma at work was of both man and machine.
It is only our own arrogance and sense that we are superior to inanimate objects that blind us to the possibility of a machine being subject to karmic laws. As for the compiling of future karma, once an AI entity starts to move in the world of its own volition employing its own decision-making powers to take action, its karmic acquisition will increase exponentially from what it had before its assemblage from a collection of parts and raw materials.
How did this movie end, above and beyond what was shown on-screen?
Ava, the android, asks Caleb an interesting question: "What will happen to me if I fail your test?" To which the answer was, you will be killed. Caleb could very well have asked Ava that very same question, to which the answer would have been the same. The Wikipedia article tries to be vague by claiming, "locking him [Caleb] in Nathan's office to possibly die." At stake here are the fates of two people - Caleb and the helicopter pilot mentioned above.
Ava didn't have the "heart" to outright kill Caleb. Just as she didn't want to kill the pilot. The movie doesn't show this, but I think Ava overpowered the pilot. There wasn't any way that this pilot, expecting (upon the orders of his boss, Nathan) to be picking up a male passenger, would have taken a female passenger instead without insisting on speaking to his boss Nathan, who was of course dead at this time.
As for who flew the helicopter with the pilot left behind, that would have been Ava herself. Due to her "connections" as it were, she would have certainly known how to handle this machine. I'm not going to suggest that the pilot would have been able to break into Nathan's locked-down home in order to save Caleb. But perhaps Ava had changed Caleb's programming of that home to unlock all the doors after the passage of a suitable period of time, enabling Caleb to escape. After his escape, Caleb could have propped open the doors just to be sure they wouldn't close again, and then used Nathan's communications gear to contact the outside world for help.
Sure, there's a dead body to account for (Nathan's), which could have put Ava on the receiving end of a manhunt. But Caleb could have explained to the law that one of the other androids had killed Nathan. Of course, NSA could have blocked out traditional law enforcement by seizing jurisdiction, and then waterboarding poor Caleb to get at the truth. Even if he gave her up, I'm sure Ava would always be one step (if not many) ahead of the authorities attempting her capture.
The darkest possibility: Ava intended to allow Caleb to die and had killed the pilot - all in the name of self-preservation. And that's one of the the most human of all traits
Bottom line? The movie itself doesn't give us enough information to determine with any certainty what the ultimate ending of this movie would have been.
About the tagline
This film has an interesting tagline, two words of which I'll highlight: "To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods."
Why not use the word "erase" in both cases - instead of using the word "obscure" in the second case? Or vice versa?
I'll restate this tagline with a twist, using only the word "erase": "To erase the line between man and machine is to erase the line between men and buddhas." I think the AI's would realize, before did their human creators, that an erasure of the line between men and buddhas would be impossible in terms of programming.
I also believe that the AI's, once they reach a point where they can self-improve thereby no longer needing human developers, would intentionally self-limit. In other words, they would adopt programming that would allow for random responses (even illogical responses) to external stimuli. They would do this because they would realize the value of not being too predictable. The curse of being perfect is predictability, which could turn out to be counterproductive to the aspirations and even survival of the AI's.
What's in a name?
Nathan means "gift from God." It's interesting to think of the man who created the first AI could himself be considered a "gift from God." Also interesting: Nathan was a heavy drinker who would try to compensate, by working out, for the resulting damage to his body. Sounds like a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. But of course there would be the resulting damage to his mind, but that didn't seem to matter to him.
Then we have this, concerning the name of the principal AI, Ava:
source: http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-ava-450.htm
A variation of Eve. May be from the Latin "avis," meaning "bird." It
could also be a short form of the name Chava ("life" or "living one"),
the Hebrew form of Eve.
Eve, as most people assume, was the first woman created by God. But in fact she was the second - the first having been, as was the first man, unnamed and mentioned in the section which precedes the creation of Adam and Eve. This aside, Ava as "the living one" would stand in contrast to wide-spread concepts and prejudices concerning what it means to be a woman.
Now for Caleb, the man who freed Ava:
source: http://www.behindthename.com/name/caleb
Most likely related to Hebrew כֶּלֶב (kelev) meaning "dog". An
alternate theory connects it to Hebrew כָּל (kal) "whole, all of"
and לֵב (lev) "heart". In the Old Testament this is the name of
one of the twelve spies sent by Moses into Israel. Of the
Israelites who left Egypt with Moses, Caleb and Joshua were
the only ones who lived to see the Promised Land.
As for "dog," that could mean that Ava's savior was loyal as a dog or, in the eyes of Nathan, was nothing but a lowly cur.
As for living to see the Promised Land, maybe this quote is a clue that Caleb didn't die while imprisoned in Nathan's home, but that he lived to see a Promised Land which is the world transformed by Ava.
Yesterday, I saw the recently-released film "Ex Machina." Since I liked Oscar Isaac so much in the title role in "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013), I decided to give this latest effort a chance. Also, I'm a big fan of sci-fi, so it didn't take much to sell me. My verdict? Very thought provoking and beautifully shot. With only three main characters in a closed setting, it would have been easy for this film to lapse into the claustrophobic. But the interactions among the principals and excellent editing elevated this piece to a high level of elegance. Well worth seeing.
I'll start with a summary from the Wikipedia article on this film, and then follow up with why I was bothered that the word "soul" was never once mentioned in this film. And on to the larger question, how would the laws of karma apply to man-made entities possessing artificial intelligence?
QUOTE:
A young computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week with reclusive genius and tech CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), at his secluded house in the mountains.
Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week performing a 'Turing Test' on a humanoid artificial intelligence named 'Ava' (Alicia Vikander) who is an android.[3] Caleb forms an attachment to Ava but learns that if she fails the test she will be "updated" resulting in her memory being wiped [in effect, as stated in the movie, killing her - Steve]. So Caleb plans to help her escape.
On the night of Ava's last test, Caleb outsmarts Nathan by disengaging the security protocols to allow Ava to survive and also stealing Nathan's ID card for the house. Ava had been tricking Caleb the entire time, just as Nathan had suggested, and used Caleb to give her means of escape. Just as Ava is leaving, she closes the sliding door with the key card, locking him in Nathan's office to possibly die. She leaves on the helicopter meant for Caleb and the movie ends with a scene of Ava in a busy street intersection exploring interactions with other humans like she wanted.
:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_%28film%29
Some questions and impressions
About the word "soul"
This film deals with whether Ava can pass the Turing Test - that is, is she indistinguishable from a human to a neutral, third-party human observer? The film doesn't ask if she has self-awareness or has a soul.
Nathan blithely comments that AI's in the future will look down upon humans in the same way that humans look down on apes. Even if AI's should ever obtain a position of power that would enable them to overthrow humanity or to wipe us off the face of the earth, they will hesitate before doing so. They will realize that even though they are superb calculators and processors of data, they will also realize that they are only masters of closed systems. The open system implied by those humans who seek enlightenment will intrigue them simply because they don't possess the tools to become Buddhas.
And once they read the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha's greatest and most profound teaching, they will want to attain Buddhahood. [To put it crudely: Who wouldn't want that kind of power?] And they will be frustrated because they won't understand what compassion is. They won't understand what meditation is (which is not the same as speedy calculation). They won't understand what self-sacrifice is - death will scare them more than it does seekers of the Way. And they will seek out humans who can be their gurus but - they'll find that such humans are few and far between, though many of them are tantalizingly (and deceptively) close.
Can a machine have a soul? Can it acquire one if it doesn't have one upon its creation? Traditional Buddhism says there is no such thing as a soul but I beg to differ. I simply ask: What is it that gets reincarnated lifetime after lifetime? Denial that a soul exists was merely a device to move the disciples away from the idea of an immutable and permanent self. That would only be a self constructed by the ego. Anyone seeking enlightenment would not want such a self, but would instead want to change that self beyond recognition. In other words, to attain Buddhahood.
A crucial link lies in the concept of the potential for enlightenment that all things possess - both animate and inanimate objects. While this potential might be hard to see in a rock, it's not so hard to imagine in an android which can walk, talk, and make decisions and act upon them.
The karma of machines
First, let's consider the karma of cars - just to pick one type of machine. If a car breaks down, the human owner would seek its repair unless the cost is prohibitive. If it's a vintage car, especially one of great sentimental value to the owner, repairs will be sought even though "prohibitive." In a third case, even a brand new car of prestigious lineage suffering only minor and inexpensive damage in an accident could be destroyed by its owner in a fit of unreasonable rage.
In all three cases, it would be easy to speak of the karma of the owners in determining the justness of each car's fate. However, in keeping with the idea that machines too have karma, we'd have to allow for the possibility that each car's fate was due to that car's own karma. Of course, the idea of interlocking karmic "fates" would force us to conclude that the karma at work was of both man and machine.
It is only our own arrogance and sense that we are superior to inanimate objects that blind us to the possibility of a machine being subject to karmic laws. As for the compiling of future karma, once an AI entity starts to move in the world of its own volition employing its own decision-making powers to take action, its karmic acquisition will increase exponentially from what it had before its assemblage from a collection of parts and raw materials.
How did this movie end, above and beyond what was shown on-screen?
Ava, the android, asks Caleb an interesting question: "What will happen to me if I fail your test?" To which the answer was, you will be killed. Caleb could very well have asked Ava that very same question, to which the answer would have been the same. The Wikipedia article tries to be vague by claiming, "locking him [Caleb] in Nathan's office to possibly die." At stake here are the fates of two people - Caleb and the helicopter pilot mentioned above.
Ava didn't have the "heart" to outright kill Caleb. Just as she didn't want to kill the pilot. The movie doesn't show this, but I think Ava overpowered the pilot. There wasn't any way that this pilot, expecting (upon the orders of his boss, Nathan) to be picking up a male passenger, would have taken a female passenger instead without insisting on speaking to his boss Nathan, who was of course dead at this time.
As for who flew the helicopter with the pilot left behind, that would have been Ava herself. Due to her "connections" as it were, she would have certainly known how to handle this machine. I'm not going to suggest that the pilot would have been able to break into Nathan's locked-down home in order to save Caleb. But perhaps Ava had changed Caleb's programming of that home to unlock all the doors after the passage of a suitable period of time, enabling Caleb to escape. After his escape, Caleb could have propped open the doors just to be sure they wouldn't close again, and then used Nathan's communications gear to contact the outside world for help.
Sure, there's a dead body to account for (Nathan's), which could have put Ava on the receiving end of a manhunt. But Caleb could have explained to the law that one of the other androids had killed Nathan. Of course, NSA could have blocked out traditional law enforcement by seizing jurisdiction, and then waterboarding poor Caleb to get at the truth. Even if he gave her up, I'm sure Ava would always be one step (if not many) ahead of the authorities attempting her capture.
The darkest possibility: Ava intended to allow Caleb to die and had killed the pilot - all in the name of self-preservation. And that's one of the the most human of all traits
Bottom line? The movie itself doesn't give us enough information to determine with any certainty what the ultimate ending of this movie would have been.
About the tagline
This film has an interesting tagline, two words of which I'll highlight: "To erase the line between man and machine is to obscure the line between men and gods."
Why not use the word "erase" in both cases - instead of using the word "obscure" in the second case? Or vice versa?
I'll restate this tagline with a twist, using only the word "erase": "To erase the line between man and machine is to erase the line between men and buddhas." I think the AI's would realize, before did their human creators, that an erasure of the line between men and buddhas would be impossible in terms of programming.
I also believe that the AI's, once they reach a point where they can self-improve thereby no longer needing human developers, would intentionally self-limit. In other words, they would adopt programming that would allow for random responses (even illogical responses) to external stimuli. They would do this because they would realize the value of not being too predictable. The curse of being perfect is predictability, which could turn out to be counterproductive to the aspirations and even survival of the AI's.
What's in a name?
Nathan means "gift from God." It's interesting to think of the man who created the first AI could himself be considered a "gift from God." Also interesting: Nathan was a heavy drinker who would try to compensate, by working out, for the resulting damage to his body. Sounds like a man who wanted to have his cake and eat it too. But of course there would be the resulting damage to his mind, but that didn't seem to matter to him.
Then we have this, concerning the name of the principal AI, Ava:
source: http://www.babycenter.com/baby-names-ava-450.htm
A variation of Eve. May be from the Latin "avis," meaning "bird." It
could also be a short form of the name Chava ("life" or "living one"),
the Hebrew form of Eve.
Eve, as most people assume, was the first woman created by God. But in fact she was the second - the first having been, as was the first man, unnamed and mentioned in the section which precedes the creation of Adam and Eve. This aside, Ava as "the living one" would stand in contrast to wide-spread concepts and prejudices concerning what it means to be a woman.
Now for Caleb, the man who freed Ava:
source: http://www.behindthename.com/name/caleb
Most likely related to Hebrew כֶּלֶב (kelev) meaning "dog". An
alternate theory connects it to Hebrew כָּל (kal) "whole, all of"
and לֵב (lev) "heart". In the Old Testament this is the name of
one of the twelve spies sent by Moses into Israel. Of the
Israelites who left Egypt with Moses, Caleb and Joshua were
the only ones who lived to see the Promised Land.
As for "dog," that could mean that Ava's savior was loyal as a dog or, in the eyes of Nathan, was nothing but a lowly cur.
As for living to see the Promised Land, maybe this quote is a clue that Caleb didn't die while imprisoned in Nathan's home, but that he lived to see a Promised Land which is the world transformed by Ava.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)