At the movies

Introduction

Today, I'm going to offer some random impressions of movies I've seen over the last year or so. My comments aren't meant to be comprehensive.

American Sniper

Fury, a WWII film starring Brad Pitt as a tank commander, was a far superior movie, hands down. I saw it three times while suffering through AS only once. Too bad Fury didn't get nominated for any of the Academy Awards, though the acting alone (by Pitt and his tank mates) was amazing. Bradley Cooper did a competent job in the lead role in AS, but couldn't hold a candle to how the "furious" managed to engage its audience. While all 5 actors of the tank crew were impressive, I was especially moved by Logan Lerman's performance.

Of course, the movie's "American Sniper" had a counterpart among the Iraqi insurgents, whom he manages to kill. I have to admit, though, that I felt a certain degree of respect for the Iraqi, who was trying to protect his land from the outside invading force.

As usual, I am bothered by any use of the word "American" to mean "United States of America." There is no such country as "America," though I have suggested that we enact legislation to change that. A better title might have been "SEAL Sniper," though I remember a media outlet down South that had passed a memo to its news team saying, Don't call our guys "snipers" since that's a pejorative word best used against the enemy's solo marksmen - call our guys "sharpshooters" instead.

Taken 3

I hope Liam Neeson gives up the action hero schtick - and the sooner the better. As his character uses his martial arts skills, aided for our benefit by fast-motion stutter camerawork, there are parts in the fight scenes where we can see how hard it is for Neeson to even walk without stiffness. He definitely showed his age in his footwork.

Then there's the scene in which Neeson, in a commandeered police car, is being chased by the police on a busy expressway. There were numerous crashes in which, easily, a dozen innocent motorists were killed - though (of course) we didn't see the mangled bodies. I thought, "Why didn't the cops break off the chase or Neeson surrender when this mayhem started?" Maybe Hollywood, by means of this scene and its callous disregard for innocents, is trying to sell us the oft-enforced theme of "the ends justify the means" or, put another way, "we should ignore collateral damage."

The scene in which Neeson gets the drop on the Russian mobster, but misses while using an automatic weapon, is unbelievable. Especially since he's supposed to be this highly trained CIA badass.

Dracula Untold (2014)

The story line of this movie doesn't follow the life of Vlad Dracula as depicted in this marvelous book:


Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times by Florescu and McNally (1989).

This book, since it was written by two scholars, I had feared would be too dry (which it wasn't) to sustain my interest. And my first reading was also a challenge since the book contained a lot of necessary historical background, as convoluted as genealogies can sometimes get. But I was so impressed with this book overall that I read it two more times.

My conclusion? Dracula, Prince... should be the source material for a truly gripping movie about the historical figure of Vlad Dracula, since his real life story is far more astounding than as depicted in Dracula Untold. Furthermore, the lead actor in an updated version shouldn't be some hunk - though Luke Evans did a commendable job in this 2014 film. The lead should be someone who looks as close as possible to the portrait shown on the book's cover. Check out that cover - one hard look at that is worth more than any thousand of my words.

I truly hope someone makes a movie based on this gripping scholarly work. In fact, I'm amazed that no one has done so yet. My prediction? If done well and if faithfully following the book, any resulting movie would easily stand as a towering giant of this or any previous age.

Birdman

The acting by the entire cast was uniformly awesome, though I especially enjoyed Emma Stone's turn as Michael Keaton's daughter. But I had a problem with a supernatural element at the end of the movie, which showed Stone looking out of a window. Her father, while she was briefly out of his hospital room where he was recuperating, had jumped out of a window. When she saw the empty room, she went to the window and looked down. Seeing nothing, she looked up and smiled - at her father presumably flying though the audience didn't actually see this.

The set-up for supernatural expectations came at the very beginning of the film where we see Keaton in his underwear levitated a few feet above the floor in a lotus position. So far, so interesting. But about midway through the movie. There's a scene in which Keaton, fully dressed and in broad daylight, leaps off the roof of a building and does some gliding before he lands gracefully on the busy sidewalk below. Yet...none of the pedestrians react to this. This inconsistency bothered me and ruined an otherwise fine film.

Unbroken

Directed by Angelina Jolie, I saw only the trailer which was enough dissuade me from seeing the whole film. There's a scene in a WWII Japanese-run POW camp in which the hero is forced to take a punch to the face from his fellow prisoners. The trailer leads us to believe that all these men, maybe about 50, were to take turns delivering a blow under the watchful eye of the prison commandant. Totally unbelievable - no man could live through that ordeal, especially after having been starving on a life raft for 47 days.


Finding Vivian Maier

A brilliant documentary about a brilliant street photographer who had died unrecognized for her vast body of work covering decades. Vivian is such an endearing though unassuming character, I wondered how her genius managed to shine though she had been poor her entire adult life.


Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhaal gives us a master's performance as the sociopath in this tense drama in which he portrays a kind of "ambulance chaser" who uses a police scanner to learn where accidents have occurred. Racing to the scenes, he then videotapes the carnage and sells the footage to a local TV news program. This film was well-written and beautifully shot and edited. I'd say, one of the best films of the year.

Riz Ahmed does a notable turn as Gyllenhaal's assistant.

Point and Shoot

This is basically a story about a pampered young American who takes a road trip by himself, traveling mostly in the Middle East on a motorcycle. He eventually ends up joining the rebels in Libya, to fight against Gaddafi. Or at least that's what we're supposed to believe. Here's a brief blurb from Rotten Tomatoes:

QUOTE [See Footnote 1]:


Winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival, Point and Shoot chronicles the journey of Matthew VanDyke, a timid 27-year-old who leaves his home in Baltimore and sets off on a self-described "crash course in manhood" through the Middle East. The film begins in 2007, when VanDyke, armed with a video camera, embarks on a 35,000-mile motorcycle trip through Northern Africa and the Middle East. While traveling, he strikes up an unlikely friendship with a Libyan hippie, and when revolution breaks out in Libya, Matt joins his friend in the fight against dictator Muammar Gaddafi. With a gun in one hand and a camera in the other, Matt fights in - and films - the war until he is captured by Gaddafi forces and held in solitary confinement for six months.


:UNQUOTE.




When viewing this movie, I smelled a rat. I asked the theater manager, "Why are you showing what is obviously a CIA set piece?" The audience is expected to believe VanDyke traveled - alone - through some very dangerous territory. And yet he wasn't robbed or assaulted - "Hmmm...nice motorcycle you've got there. Hand it over or we'll kick your ass."


In the footage, shot by VanDyke or by whomever he could convince to hold his camera for him, we see him in a crisp, freshly-starched military uniform - always, never a wrinkle. Even though he was "fighting" in Libya (more likely, he was simply posturing for the camera), his clothing wasn't stained with sweat - which one might expect in a desert country like Libya. After a while, I got tired of seeing him mug before the camera while preening himself. He's got to be the most narcissistic person I've ever seen.


Then there was a highly suspect scene in which he's supposed to shoot an enemy. He aimed his weapon and carefully squeezed off one shot at his target, who was standing at a window in a nearby building. He missed - but I was baffled as to why he didn't fire with his weapon on automatic.


Too much in this movie seemed contrived - or composed - for the benefit of Americans who want to believe that some of their fellow citizens were willing to be the boots on the ground that President Obama wouldn't provide.




The Signal (2008)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. And one of only two that I walked out on well before it ended. It pretended to be a zombie flick, but it violated certain rules. One of which: If you shoot a zombie in the head, that permanently stops him in his tracks. However, in this movie, a shot to the head didn't stop these zombies.

In its defense, I'll say this movie sustained a nice tension and had a good "look." But I couldn't tolerate more than 30 minutes of this gore fest. The other 5 people in the audience walked out before I did, so I was the last man standing so to speak. I only mention this movie as a prelude an even worse movie - "Goodbye to Language" by Jean-Luc Godard.

Goodbye to Language

This was only 70 minutes long, but I walked out after seeing only 20 minutes or so. I know, Godard is highly regarded as a long-established genius, per this quote:

QUOTE [see Footnote 2]:

Recently turned 84, Jean-Luc Godard is the seminal figure of modernist cinema, holding a position in film history roughly equivalent to that of James Joyce in literature, Paul Cézanne in painting, and Charlie Parker in jazz. As the early Godard champion and chronicler Richard Roud wrote, “There is the cinema before Godard and the cinema after Godard.”


:UNQUOTE.


Genius or not, this movie was a steaming pile of horse manure foisted on us by a filmmaker bent on taking a dump on his audience - and then laughing at his coup. I'm not sure what Godard was thinking when he titled this movie as he did. One might assume he was saying "Goodbye to written language." But this movie seemed to be his way of saying "Goodbye to the language of film itself." It was shot in 3D, but not to especially notable effect. It had minimal dialogue, which included a stupid question: "What's the difference between an idea and a metaphor?"


It also included a bit of gratuitous nudity and the occasional use of blaring audio.


Maybe I was wrong to walk out - nobody else in the packed theater did. But, as I had wanted to tell the theater manager (though I didn't bother), "I'm like that little kid in the story about the Emperor's New Clothes - I'm not afraid to yell out 'The emperor is naked.'"

Calvary

The believability of Calvary's story line was severely compromised when the good-priest killer spoke of how he'd been molested as a child, frequently and over a period of years. My question to this killer would have been: "And your mother, who did your laundry, didn't notice your bloody underwear or wonder why you acted so strangely after being raped by this (now deceased) dead-priest?"

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

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



FOOT NOTES:

1) Per Martin Rubin at http://www.siskelfilmcenter.org/godard

2) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/point_and_shoot/

Jackie Robinson West

By now, everybody has heard the story about how the Jackie Robinson West team was stripped of its world title by Little League Baseball for rules violations. The reaction of Father Michael Pfleger, as expressed in this tweet, is interesting:


QUOTE (see NOTE 1):

I am both angry and disgusted at the obsession of this man from Evergreen Park to try and take away the championship from the Jackie Robinson West Team...REALLY?  Is the fact the an African-American Team could do so well, Unite the City, and prove the Great Children that is the Norm on the South Side, is that so Distasteful to you Sir, that you have worked day and night to discredit these young children? GET A LIFE....and Leave these Children, leave our Children alone....THEY WON DAMN IT!!!!!!

:UNQUOTE.


And these words come from a priest, whom one would think would have shown more honesty!

The whistleblower, a coach from a rival team, had merely brought rules violations to the attention of Little League officials. What's wrong with wanting to get the truth out? He wasn't trying to "discredit these young children," he was trying to right a wrong. Shouldn't a good Christian, especially a priest, applaud that sentiment?

But, no. Father Pfleger is trying to play the race card. He calls this "an African-American Team," but I wonder: "Did the adults in charge of the JRW team feel compelled to use out-of-district ringers so they didn't have to consider using any white kids on the team?" Not only are all of the kids on the team black, but they're all the same shade of black. What's with that?

Supporters of the JRW team's attempt to coerce Little League Baseball into reinstating their world champion status come across as connivers trying to asshole the League into submission. These supporters claim something is being taken away from these kids, while failing to mention that the team did not earn this prize according to the rules. Some even believe that every team that competed should be investigated to assure they'd complied. LLB doesn't have the resources to micromanage to this extent. However, I'm sure if they'd been offered proof of non-compliance by other teams, they would have treated those teams as they'd treated JRW.

And then there's the perennial fame-seeker, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who actually hailed the JRW team as "heroes." Aren't we all a little tired of hearing the H-word flung around so liberally? The kids on the JRW team are superb baseball players, but that alone doesn't make them heroes. To claim so would only debase that word.

It's sad that "supporters" of JRW are teaching these kids: "All you have to do in life in order to get your way - right or wrong - is to make enough noise and attract to your cause those who are really acting in their own interests." As for engaging legal counsel to push the envelope even further, there will never be any shortage of lawyers ready to take your money. And that's a pretty good life lesson for the young to learn as early as possible.

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

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

NOTE:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/02/12/opinion-pfleger-emanuel-should-be-ashamed-in-wake-of-jrw-scandal/

50 Shades of Grey, the movie

One glaring oddity

I have not read any of the books nor do I intend to. So I have only the experience of having seen the movie to go by. The "glaring oddity" I speak of concerns the title, which is an apt description of both lead characters - Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey. That is, both of them came across as grey - that is, totally lacking in color. It doesn't matter how many shades of grey there might be - grey is grey, which sounds pretty boring to me.

Anastasia (Ana, age 21) graduated with a bachelor's degree in English lit and Christian (age 27) is a billionaire businessman, so he's got to have some smarts. But you surely wouldn't notice any sign of intelligence judging from the content of their dialogue. And yet, at a late point in the movie, she tells Christian "I love you." Based on what, I wonder? If Ana had (only) a gut feeling that Christian might be someone she could love - after knowing him over a greater period of time - then, instead of coming out with the L-word so soon, she could have said something like, "I sense something profound, wonderful, yet inaccessible in you. So I'm starting to have feelings for you." I say, start there.

If I were Anastasia, I would hold back on the "I love you" bit until she'd learn more about the 15 other women who'd preceded her. Christian volunteered that number when Ana asked, "How many other women have seen your (S&M) playroom?" While I thought it out of character that he didn't say, "I don't want to talk about possible others," the sheer number alone should have prompted Ana to ask, "Did you cast them aside because you'd tired of them?" And "How long before you tire of me?"


Of wealth and impressionability

A lot of guys are painfully aware that rich guys have a powerful advantage in the pursuit of the women. Some might call such women "shallow." To be fair, though, there are equally shallow men, perhaps the vast majority, who don't look much beyond a woman's looks.

I kept wondering how the guys viewing this film were processing this question, "Is that all it takes to wow a woman, a ton of money?" When I had this thought, I remembered a scene in the excellent film Good Hair (starring Chris Rock, 2009). He was interviewing a group of black men in a barber shop about how expensive it was to maintain the hairstyles of the women they love. This movie explored the near-fetishistic relationship black women have with their artificial, store-bought hair, hating their own God-given hair. There were a lot of long faces in that group of men as they discussed the thousands of dollars they had to spend in response to her question: "You want me to look good, don't you?"

I feel, the best response to that question is: "I much prefer bald women or those with very short hair" - which in my case (I'm Caucasian by the way) is in fact my personal preference. Good Hair is a good study in why a lifelong pursuit of the shallow leads to unhappiness.

In Ana's case, she should be thinking, "What can a man like Christian see in me that could foster a long-term relationship? With all that money, he can indulge any desire, the natures of which will only become more intense and unusual over time - lest he get bored." Again, keep in mind that their conversations were totally devoid of any content of interest. Hmm...maybe she is incapable of even thinking along these lines.


Of their names

Christian Grey - that translates to "dull Christian," especially the kind of Christian (religiously speaking) who looks upon women as (at best) second-rate, inferior creatures or (at worst) property or objects. This is a man who is so controlling and insecure that he has to dictate the terms of his sexual relationships. A man who says he made his fortune by being able to read people. I ask, "How can a man be able to read people in all their subtleties if he won't let anyone even touch him?" Maybe he meant to say, "I'm good at sensing the weaknesses of people so I (like a shark) know when to move in for the kill."

Anastasia Steele - The name Anastasia comes from a Greek word meaning "resurrection." In order to be resurrected, one first has to die. It would be interesting to see how she dies and what forces work to resurrect her - and what her resurrected self will look like. Maybe her surname gives a clue - that she has a foundation that is as hard and durable as steel.


Overall impression

I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would, even though her "I love you" spoiled it for me. Still, it was a beautiful piece of cinematography and the two lead characters had a nice, tense chemistry between them. And the end-scene was brilliant, in which they say each other's names as an elevator door closes, with Christian on the outside and Ana on the inside.

Largely, I would say, "This movie has value more as the basis for an exercise in 'How could I have made this movie more interesting?'"

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

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

The murder of a Jordanian pilot

The media has dubbed the immolation of Jordanian pilot Lt. Moath al-Kasasbeh (27 years old) as a murderous act. And there are leading Muslim clerics who denounced this act, saying only God can punish by fire and that the Quran forbids the mutilation of bodies even in time of war.

And then there's the pilot's father who at first said that the war against ISIS was not Jordan's fight. And then, when his son was killed, he started screaming for blood. The father's anguish is understandable but rather short-sighted. That is, did the father feel any pain for those people killed by the bombs dropped by his son?

As for those bombs, they started fires which burned alive those who were targeted. And yet, I don't hear Muslim clerics saying anything in those cases about God being the only One who can punish by fire.

As for the "murder" of this pilot, maybe ISIS was hoping to terrorize other Jordanian pilots. Hoping they'll think twice before dropping their bombs. And if any of them were to get shot down, they'd think many more times than twice about what ISIS would do to them if captured. There was speculation about the king of Jordan helicoptering into battle against ISIS. God knows what ISIS would do to him if he got shot down.

As for using the word "murder," I'm sure the Jordanian king would order his troops to open fire on unarmed civilians should they start massing in protest against his dictatorship. That's what a monarchy is, a form of dictatorship. And should such shootings take place, the US wouldn't utter a peep of protest. After all, Jordan is a valued ally in the war against terror, even though the vast majority of their army hasn't tasted battle for well over 30 years.

I have a problem with people (such as pilots) who kill from a distance. Too many of them look at the destruction they wreak as the result of playing some kind of macabre video game. I won't say that this pilot got what was coming to him, even though (karmically speaking) that's exactly the case. I'll just refrain from saying so. One of the world's biggest problems is, too many people are too willing to jump on a bandwagon. Or are too quick to seek revenge. That's all too typical of the people who are followers of the various Abrahamic faiths. Just look at the entire Middle East, where many of those people live - all packed together in close proximity.

I can't imagine a Buddhist burning anyone alive or, for that matter, dropping bombs on people. The Buddhist realizes there are more than enough people willing to do such things, so he doesn't have to add his efforts to theirs. But since Buddhists aren't very influential and are few in number, they have to rely on expedient means to undermine the nastiness that prevails in the world. But I am fully confident that the Buddhists will conquer the forces of greed, anger, and stupidity after those forces knock each other out.

Anyway, one can only hope.

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

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

Chicago Politics: Some observations & suggestions

Introduction

On Feb. 24, 2015, Chicagoans are scheduled to vote in an election for mayor and, among a few other posts, for alderman - one for each of Chicago's 50 wards.

As a lifelong Chicago resident - though ineligible to vote since I renounced my USA citizenship 3 years ago - I'm very much interested in the underlying process. Especially on how to reform this process. Unfortunately, there is no magical solution I can suggest that can yield immediate results. And that's mostly because it will be hard to overcome the fear that grips Chicago's elite and the middle class voters who trust that elite to hold off the barbarians.

Let's talk about that fear. Chicago is a shell of its former self. Back in 1970, Chicago had a population of 3.66 million compared to its current population of 2.7 million. That's a decrease of 25%. However, the population of the USA increased by 50% during those 40 years - from 203 million to 308 million. Within Chicago's borders are huge swaths of abandoned buildings, which represent an ongoing loss to Chicago's elite. That inspires that elite to find ways to attract as much power and influence as it can to itself, which means that the downtown business district prospers while the poorer areas on the south and west sides languish.

It doesn't help that Chicago and Illinois are surrounded by states that have managed to put their financial houses in order. Of course, Chicago voters know that, so they blindly put faith in the strongman model of local governance. [Remember what the Italians said about Mussolini - "At least he made the trains run on time."]


What I'd like to see:

Transparency and greater ease of access to the ballot for potential candidates. Right now, if someone wants to run for mayor he's got to collect 12,500 signatures on nominating petitions. And those petitions can be challenged if, for instance, signatures don't match those on the voter registration cards on file with the Election Board.

Anybody can challenge these petitions, but I have a better idea. Some civic-minded individual citizen should file a Freedom of Information Act request for photocopies of all mayoral candidates' petitions. And then create a website putting all those voters' names in alphabetical order - along with their home addresses and the names of the candidates they back. Then advertise a challenge to the city's residents: "Check with this website to see if your name is listed as having signed a petition to put a particular candidate's name on the ballot." That way, we eliminate the spectacle of highly-paid lawyers to scrutinize these petitions for irregularities, who will try to convince the election commissions to agree with their findings.

All in the name of greater transparency.

Actually, such a civic-minded citizen wouldn't even have to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. All he'd have to do is exercise his right to review all of these petitions in person, so he can take photos (maybe using his own cell phone) of each page of these petitions.


On second thought:

I would advocate getting rid of the requirement to submit nominating petitions. Instead, just mandate that anyone wishing to appear on the ballot pay a $1,000 application fee. That's not much to ask, considering that candidates pay people to run around collecting petition signatures anyway.


What we really need:

A city council composed entirely of independents. We don't have to live under one-man (or one-party) rule. We routinely condemn other countries that have presidents-for-life and other forms of autocratic rule. But we so easily accept the necessity of electing a strongman, alpha male to be in charge. What we fail to keep in mind: That strongman has, and will develop an even stronger lust for, increases in his personal wealth - above and beyond the amounts he receives for his mayoral salary.

If we can get rid of the nominating petition requirement, that would open the door for a huge source of independent candidates. I'm talking about university professors who could take a sabbatical if elected. There are a lot of them in this university town and they would have the independence necessary to take a cold, hard look at how Chicago is run and make any necessary changes.


Diversify

Chicago needs to create a designated zone for growth which can challenge the downtown concentration of power. This zone should be on the south or west sides and can get a start by denying zoning permits to any company that wishes to construct buildings downtown. Or offering tax incentives to those willing to build in the designated zone.

* * *

There is only so much Chicago politicians can do to revitalize this city. But the current one-party system will refuse to act unless their own economic (and party's) interests come first. And there is simply not enough booty to go around for that to happen.

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

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

Arrest Senator Lindsey Graham

Scenario:

I would like to see a member of the USA's armed forces covertly arrest U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. And then I'd like to see this member arrange for the Senator's incognito imprisonment in a black-hole cell controlled by one of our independent militias. Graham would only be released after an election is held to replace him in the Senate.

This sounds like the kind of material that makes for interesting fiction. Perhaps so, but I think this traitor of a senator should be somehow made to account for violating his constitutional oath of office.


What crime did Graham commit?

I accuse the Senator of attempting to usurp the power of the President as specified here:

QUOTE:

source: Article II, Section 2, US Constitution

...and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors...

:UNQUOTE.

According to the preceding quote, the President "shall appoint ambassadors" and the Senate shall give "advice" toward this end. However, Graham is trying a pre-emptive strike as indicated here:


QUOTE:

source: CNSNews.com, article by Susan Jones, Dec. 22, 2014

(CNSNews.com) - A message from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): "If you are being offered the ambassadorship to Cuba, turn it down, because you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed."

Graham, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," said, "The Congress is not going to reinforce this policy." The senator was talking about Obama's diplomatic re-engagement with Cuba. "There will be no confirmation of an ambassador to Cuba because the Castro brothers are terrible dictators who deserve no new engagement. They deserve to be condemned and isolated...."

:UNQUOTE.

As for that last sentence, it is Senator Graham who deserves "to be condemned and isolated."

In the sentence highlighted in blue, Graham is addressing every potential candidate for this ambassadorship, which has a chilling effect. Since he is a high-ranking member of his party, his GOP colleagues would be hard put to oppose him by responding to any request from the White House for "advice," which the Constitution says the Senate must provide. Suppose, for example, that Graham himself were to be asked by President Obama to provide his Constitutionally-mandated "advice" on this matter, perhaps to offer his insight on the merits of candidates who made the short-list. To be consistent with his comments made on "Face the Nation," Graham would have to decline, though that would violate the Constitution.

Concerning the language I yellowed above: It is not the place of Congress [though I'm sure Lindsey meant to say "Senate"] to "reinforce this policy." If the President should decide that Cuba is to have an ambassador, the Constitution does not say "but only if the Senate will allow it."

Concerning Constitutionally-mandated oaths

Senator Graham, as well as all officers and enlisted men in the military, have sworn an oath. These oaths all share the same opening language:


QUOTE:

source: See Footnote 1

"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...."

:UNQUOTE.


Senator Graham has violated his oath by attempting to foment an usurpation of the President's powers with his words, which were meant to sway his fellow senators and discourage potential applicants for this ambassadorship. And so far, our entire military has failed to uphold their oath by allowing him to get away with this.

The military oath might be considered problematic, given these two apparently opposing demands:

- that each troop has sworn to defend the Constitution but

- each has also been tasked with following all lawful orders issued by his superiors [See Footnote two].

Some people might ask, "Are you suggesting that each member of our military be allowed to decide on his own whether a member of Congress is an enemy of the Constitution?" The answer to that is obviously "yes." What other option is there - to mandate that they ask their superiors for permission to arrest a member of Congress to stop him from undermining the Constitution? That won't work because the chain of command has a built-in bias to defend the status quo as dictated by the Dem/GOP duopoly instead of defending the Constitution.

And to think Lindsey Graham, who has launched this blatant attack on the Constitution, wants to become our next President.

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

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


Footnote 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office


Footnote 2:

According to the link cited in Footnote 1:

QUOTE:

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personal are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.

:UNQUOTE.

I find it hard to believe the implication that officers do not have to obey orders, though their oath doesn't address this issue. No matter how you slice and dice it, insubordination is still insubordination.