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:

• 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 ]

: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."

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

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'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:

• 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?

No one who believes in the first statement will ever meet God - at least not in this lifetime.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Israel's Karma

Introduction

Today, I'll offer a few thoughts on:

• Israel's karma

• A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal: Successful efforts to create humanoid life

• The concept of "nation"

• The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews

Israel's Karma

Countries are bound by the law of karmic reward and retribution - just as individual people are. When people die, their karmic status doesn't disappear - it gets carried over to their next incarnations. When countries die, it gets a bit more complicated. For a country's boundaries can remain roughly the same, but the living essence of what comprises a country can change radically. For instance, the Spain that had numerous colonies and great wealth once upon a time is quite different from the Spain that exists today - a Spain struggling with high unemployment and a much reduced influence in the affairs of Europe.

At this point, it would be helpful to keep in mind what the word "karma" means. According to the Wikipedia article on karma:

        Karma means action, work or deed;[1] it also refers to the principle of
        causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future
        of that individual.[2]"

From this definition, it's easy to see that what one thinks ("intent") has a place right alongside action. If one is delusional, then he may be forgiven a flawed intent and actions based on that intent. But not entirely forgiven. If evil actions are committed by a delusional person, the karmic retribution to be suffered by that person will serve to teach him a valuable lesson. In that way, his future intent won't be as heavily influenced by delusions. It's unfortunate that this future might occur after this lifetime. If this turns out to be the case with a critical mass of the Jewish people, then the fortunes of the state of Israel will suffer a dramatic reversal. That would be only a matter of time.

In the name of backtracking from that critical mass, it's never too late to make efforts toward enlightenment.

I'm speaking primarily of the siege mentality casting a pall over a majority of the Jews living in Israel as well as in the illegal settlements - which is all of them. Not to mention, how shabbily they are treating their half-brothers living in the Occupied Territories. [Same father, Abraham; different mothers, Hagar and Sarah.] To be sure, those half-brothers would treat Israel's Jews just as shabbily if the balance of power were to be reversed. But sometimes a more effective use of power is to be the first to extend the hand of friendship, even though one might be powerful enough to insist on the status quo.

To their very great advantage, though, the Jews of the world are far from being one monolithic entity. That might explain why Israel does not permit Jews living abroad, that is with few exceptions, to vote in Israel's elections. The Jews living in other countries simply represent a group that is, generally speaking, far more diverse and liberal in its outlook than those living in Israel. As for the Right of Return, non-Israeli Jews in large numbers don't want to move to Israel since they're perfectly at home in their current environments.

The karma of Israel is also being influenced by the profound influence that Buddhist thought has on many young and disillusioned Jews. Those who consider themselves to be Jewish only in terms of tribal identity sense that something is fundamentally wrong in the worldviews of avowedly religious Jews.


A secret even bigger than Israel's nuclear arsenal

That secret is: Israel's successful efforts to create humanoid life. They look like us, they talk and act like us, but they're man-made "human" beings. To use an ancient term, they are Golems. But because of huge advances in medical technology, in large part inspired by the work of Nazis like Dr. Mengele, there were vast improvements in what might be called Golem-creation technology. Israel's secret program to create a Golem was prompted by a belief, common among secular Israeli Jews, that the God of the Hebrews had failed to prevent the Holocaust. So these seculars decided that some type of supernatural intervention, which they themselves could control, was needed.

By the way, this "God of the Hebrews" was not the God who created the universe (Who, BTW, doesn't exist since the universe wasn't created - it always was and always will be), an idea embraced (though never publicly) by the seculars. More on that in the last section of this post.

In the name of provoking the deep-think on this issue, I direct you to two links - one of which is to an article I'd posted earlier on this blog:

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

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-golem-of-chicago-rahm-emanuel.html


The Concept of "nation"

I have grave misgivings concerning the concepts of nation, national sovereignty, and tribal identity. These three constitute the greatest threats to peace and, even, the continued existence of mankind. Because of my concerns here, I renounced my USA citizenship over three years ago, designating myself as a citizen of Greater Terra instead. That's just an airy way of saying, "I'm now a citizen of the world, which I feel should be regarded as one nation."

As for what I consider to be the ideal form of government, that would be a form of kingship. Ideally, a Buddha would be the king and his subjects would be everybody in his realm whom he is trying to manifest their own buddhahood.

I feel that the Israeli Jews in particular have made a grievous error in how they perceive nationhood and any greatness that might accrue to it. I offer two quotes immediately following this link:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8176/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

QUOTE

2. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing.

:UNQUOTE.

Regarding what I yellowed above, how can one person ("you," that is, Abraham) be made into a nation, great or otherwise? The idea of a particular person ("you") being a nation is forcefully conveyed in a statement attributed to King Louis XIV: "The state? I am the state." It's ironic, though, that this same king on his deathbed, as advice given to his heir, said:

       "Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often
        undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not
        imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself
        principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects."[86]*

And this from a king regarded by many as great. It's too bad his enlightenment came so late in his life. The negative karma King Louis's "bad example" created in his role as king-state wrought havoc on France, especially in the forms of two world wars in which it suffered greatly.

QUOTE:

7. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.

:UNQUOTE.

The "seed" referred to had to be Isaac and Ishmael. Unfortunately, it appears the Bible makes "clear" that only Isaac was the intended. But...it might be useful to remember that God did not write the Bible, that the only words in God's own handwriting were the Ten Commandments, which are silent on this matter.

It would have been better for world history had not Abraham sent his son Ishmael and Hagar out into the desert to die, for that was surely his intention. If instead a way, through good parenting and God's guidance, could have been found to unify Ishmael and Isaac in the the bonds of brotherly love, we today might have ended up having that "great nation" which was promised but remains elusive to this day. God's guidance simply wasn't there. And Abraham was such a mentally disturbed person, his fatal flaws infect his followers to this day.


The nature of the "god" embraced by the Jews

"I am a jealous God...I am an angry God." No wonder so many have abandoned this particular deity. And, yes, to be sure: He is not the only God out there. Even in Buddhist literature, untold trillions of gods are said to exist. Just as there are untold trillions of Buddhas, who are marked by such tranquility that they never get angry or jealous. As for all of those gods out there, their deepest heartfelt desire is to attain the highest goal - to become fully enlightened Buddhas.

A friend of mine once claimed: "Whoever caused Noah's flood wasn't God, since (in His desire to destroy the sinful) He killed untold millions of animals. That was not God-like behavior and is unforgivable."

Also, this God accepted and was pleased by burnt offerings. Again, innocent animals are made to suffer.

Then there's the interesting case of the siege of Jericho, in which the victorious Jews killed every man, woman, and child, excepting the harlot Rahab and her family because she had sheltered Jewish spies within Jericho. But the victorious had no problem killing all of Jericho's ox, sheep, and asses because they thought they were following God's commands. It would be too easy to say, "They should have done a little more thinking before slaying." But who wants to question the favor bestowed by some supernatural force who might well have been a devil? And, yes, Buddhism speaks of many devils, some of whom serve to protect the Buddhist Law. I guess that means, there's good in even the worst.

Given the God-awful behavior of the God of the Jews, I can easily understand why the more ponderous among them are attracted to the Buddha. For he never favored anybody in particular, saying, "I have no mind to love one thing or hate another." It is the vow of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to save and protect all living things. So a Buddha never would have done anything as loathsome as causing a Great Flood or approved of eating meat.

There are Jews in Israel who strongly disapprove of the behavior of their fellow tribalists. Members of "Not in my name" come to mind. And they do more than just disapprove. I can only hope and pray that large numbers of them are also Buddhists (or soon shall be), though perhaps only secretly. Much work toward change has to be done, and better sooner than later.

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

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

Iran's right to obtain nuclear weapons

I've long argued that Iran would have the right to acquire a nuclear arsenal by simply withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article X.1 of that treaty appears to open that door:

QUOTE:

Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

:UNQUOTE.

At this point, I wish to emphasize the seven words highlighted above:

• Just because a nation signed the NPT doesn't mean that it gave up its right to exercise its national sovereignty;

• The words "if it decides" aren't followed by "unless overruled by the Security Council." The authors attempt to argue that mandating that the Security Council be notified of intent to withdraw somehow gives it the power to "jeopardize the supreme interests" of the nation attempting to withdraw.

I urge you to read the article* posted on this link, which seems to have been written in the spirit of Bush II's legal team when it decided that waterboarding was not an example of torture but, instead, constituted an example of "enhanced interrogation:"

www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd79/79gbjr.htm

This link is part of a website maintained by Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy - the article in question written by George Bunn and John Rhinelander, posted on May 1, 2005.

I started smelling a self-serving rat as soon as I read this article's very first sentence - that is, the sentence that immediately follows its quoting of Article X.1:

QUOTE:

Do the nations that belong to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) have a right to withdraw from it at any time they wish and for any reason?

:UNQUOTE.

Using the word "wish" is an intentional device meant to mislead us into thinking that any nation attempting to withdraw would be doing so as a matter of whim. However, as Article X.1 makes clear:

• Nations attempting to withdraw could only do so after the passage of a 90-day period;

• And not for "any reason," but due to "extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

As for what could constitute "extraordinary events," I maintain that the imposition of international sanctions and the saber-rattling of every candidate for US president during the 2012 election cycle would count. All of our pandering pols love saying, "Under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." Such actions and such talk clearly demonstrate a hostility toward Iran which hasn't been directed against Israel which already obtained the bomb in the name of its own self-defense. There isn't any talk of insisting that Israel open its borders to UN weapons inspectors.

The very next sentence in this article is revealing in that its authors fail to condemn the US for considering unilateral action in place of a divided Security Council:

QUOTE:

After the failure of the Security Council to act effectively in 1993, the US Secretary of Defense concluded that the use of force against North Korea was necessary to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

:UNQUOTE.

Let me get this straight: After the Security Council failed to move against North Korea, the US Secretary of Defense advocated the "necessary" use of force against that country. Whatever happened to the rule of law this article's authors are trying to promote against Iran? What they're saying is, if a major power decides it should act because of a failure of the Security Council to reach an agreement, that would be acceptable.


Conclusions

I wonder, what would happen if every single nation not a member of the Security Council would decide to quit the UN? Most of those nations already know the UN exists primarily as an extension of the foreign policies of the major powers. Maybe they figure, it's better to have a UN than not. Or they might be grateful for the aid bestowed by that forum's major supporters. But they are surely aware that the US has no problem in "upgrading" its own nuclear strike force, even though the NPT mandates eventual and complete nuclear disarmament.

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

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

Footnote:

* title of article: The Right to Withdraw from the NPT: Article X is not Unconditional

Hierarchy within the world of Buddhism

There is hierarchy within the world of Buddhism. But much of that has nothing to do with Buddhist doctrine itself, but is rather a product of our own prejudices. However, any Buddhist who might even for a moment be tempted to think Eself* superior to a fellow Seeker of the Way, should keep in mind a cautionary note. Even if E has been practicing for decades, E should give even the newest initiate a profound measure of respect. For that initiate might be a profoundly accomplished bodhisattva who decided to use E's shapeshifting powers to assume the appearance of a bumbling beginner.


As for the role of women

QUOTE [pg. 24**]:

Good men, the person who upholds this sutra will be like this. The buddhas, who are the king, and the sutra, which is the queen, join together in harmony to give birth to this bodhisattva son.

:UNQUOTE.

In the days of the Buddha in ancient India, kings were considered superior to queens who weren't considered to be much more than kings' wives. However, the Buddha preached a doctrine about all things being equal. E could have said (above): "The buddhas, who are the queen, and the sutra, which is the king..." For that matter, E could have also said, "...to give birth to this bodhisattva daughter (or child)."

But the Buddha didn't say either. Why? My best guess, such a change would have been too much for the Great Assembly to hear. It would have run against the grain of their own prejudices.

That same reason applies to this quote:

QUOTE [pg. 26**]:

Suppose, for example, there is a prince who, although still just a boy, is entrusted with the management of affairs of state because the king is abroad on a journey or has been seized by illness.

:UNQUOTE.

Why should a prince, "although still just a boy," be entrusted instead of the queen, an adult? Anti-female prejudice ran so deep (and still does) that the disciples could more easily believe that a boy (because of his penis) is superior to a woman.

QUOTE [pg. 225**]:

Bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulated questioned [Bodhisattva] Manjushri, saying, "...Are there perhaps any living beings who, by earnestly and diligently practicing this [Lotus] sutra, have been able to attain buddhahood quickly?"

Manjushri replied, "There is the daughter of the dragon king Sagara, who has just turned eight...."

:UNQUOTE.

Out of the countless living beings most recently converted by Manjushri, E cites one. However, I am left wondering, "What about Manjushri Eself who was still (just) a bodhisattva? How is it that an eight-year-old girl attains 'buddhahood quickly,' but Manjushri hadn't yet managed that accomplishment?"

More to the point, regarding females in Buddhism, why did this girl have to change into a man in order to complete the practices necessary for the attainment of enlightenment? In my view, E didn't but only did so (in E's capacity as a shapeshifter) simply because E knew the Great Assembly wasn't ready to accept that a being in female form could become a Buddha.


The Three Refuges

QUOTE (pg 414**):

three refuges:  To take refuge in the three treasures of the Buddha, the Law, and the Order, i.e., to believe in and give allegiance to the three treasures. The formula "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Order [congregation of believers]" was recited as a profession of faith by monks and laypersons from very early times....

:UNQUOTE.

I too accept the three refuges, but in a rearranged fashion:

"I take refuge in the Law, I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Order."

In other words, I put the Law first. To the casual observer, this might not seem like such a big deal. However, there are Buddhists out there - possibly all of them - who would profoundly disagree with me. Frankly? I don't care. Each of the three refuges is vitally important. However, the Buddha is not always in the world to teach us and members of the Order are often few and far between. But the Law is always here. Furthermore, without the Law, the very idea of a Buddha and the Order would be meaningless.

I have reduced the three refuges to a three-word chant, which I've included in my Buddhist practice: "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha [another word for Order]."  This chant is meant to replace all others - including the Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo of Nichiren's followers. "Lotus" refers to the Lotus Sutra, which the Buddha defined as his most profound teaching. "Buddha" might seem to be self-explanatory, but the Lotus Sutra speaks of devils (and well-intended, shapeshifting bodhisattvas) pretending to be a buddha. So if push comes to shove, we're responsible for using our own enlightened nature to properly identify a Buddha, should one enter our lives in person.

I do not, however, hold the "Lotus, Buddha, Samgha" chant as the superior practice. Even though the Nichiren sects' believers assert that chanting N-M-R-K is the superior practice, I steadfastly believe that reading and reciting the Lotus Sutra is the greatest practice. The Buddha himself said so.

As for the Order, I consider everybody - Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike - to be part of the Order. Even a Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist was, in a previous lifetime, exposed to Buddhist teachings and carries that wisdom with E in this current lifetime. E might express that wisdom in the terminology of E's current faith, and E's understanding might flawed, but E'll still have something to offer which will be useful to a currently-practicing Buddhist.

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

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

Footnotes:

Eself* - This means "himself or herself." On occasion, in my essays I use upper-case E in place of the personal pronouns he/she/his/hers/I/me. This usage makes my sentences gender neutral. Why E? E is the most common sound one hears when reciting the English-language alphabet, so I use that commonality as a device to embrace all beings without discrimination.

** - All page numbers indicated above are from one source:

The Lotus Sutra and its opening and closing sutras [known as the three-fold Lotus Sutra]
Translated by Burton Watson
Published by 2009 by Soka Gakkai

Post-Mortem on Chicago's mayoral election

"Chuy" Garcia lost, so we've got four more years of Rahm ISRAEL Emanuel as mayor of Chicago. Two comments regarding the previous sentence:

• Rahm might well decide to jump ship and accept Hillary Clinton's request that he run as her vice president. Then tough guy, bold decision maker Rahm wouldn't have to deal with Chicago's ugly, perhaps insurmountable fiscal situation should he actually become vice president.

• Israel is Rahm's middle name, not some nickname like "Chuy." And it is to the state of Israel that Rahm owes primary allegiance, which he can serve quite well as the USA's vice president. Or as President, should anything - heaven forbid (wink, wink)! - happen to Hillary.

Chuy ran an ineffective campaign

In terms of the commercials Chuy chose to air on TV, his campaign was atrocious. For instance, he tried to hammer Rahm on closing 50 Chicago public schools. It's true that Rahm had come across as autocratic when he'd ordered these closings, but what would Chuy suggest instead? That these 50 be reopened? Perhaps Garcia could have asked what Rahm intends to do with the land and buildings belonging to those shuttered schools.

Chuy should have pressed Rahm on his expensive use of bonds to finance the city's day-to-day operations. Or on how rating agencies had lowered Chicago's bonds to a status just above junk bonds. That marked a decrease of five levels during Rahm's watch. And yet, Chuy didn't say squat about any of this.

I have an uneasy feeling that Chuy ran a sham campaign. He, I believe intentionally, campaigned in such a way as to give Rahm an insurmountable advantage.

This part really helped Rahm:  Chuy's proposal to hire 1,000 new police officers without saying how he intended to pay for them. A better proposal would have been to redistribute those officers we already have on the payroll. There are vastly underserved areas in Chicago's poor neighborhoods where it's really hard to find a cop when you need one. But in the downtown business district, there are cops all over the place. Too often I've seen clusters of cops standing around downtown doing nothing.

I even saw two behemoths (probably wannabe NFL hopefuls) intimidate a Streetwise newspaper vendor into "moving on." His crime? Trying to sell his newspapers near the Thompson Center. Seems like police brass don't like low-life types being seen in high profile places.

In a very real sense, there are entire neighborhoods in Chicago which are being deprived of their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Chuy could have at least mentioned that.

As for hiring 1,000 new cops, that would mean current cops being paid overtime would suddenly be deprived of that extra cash. Which would mean they would want a raise to make up the difference next time police contracts come up for renewal. And Mayor Garcia would find it hard to resist pressure from Chicago's largest street gang on this issue. I'm talking about the cops being that street gang.


A Commercial for Chuy

Back on March 11, I posted the following on this blog:


"I want to see Chuy on TV saying:

QUOTE:

When Rahm Emanuel left the Clinton administration, he got a job as an investment banker, earning $16M in three years. Rahm had no training or experience in finance, and yet he got this huge payout. Why? I figure he got paid off for services rendered to the financial elite, or for services about to be rendered. I figure Rahm is working harder for Chicago's financial elite than for the man in the street.

With Rahm as mayor, the rich will get richer and everybody else will be getting crumbs. Is that good enough for you and your children?

:UNQUOTE."


If Chuy had hammered Rahm with this ad from the very beginning, maybe Rahm would have been forced out of his attempt to portray himself as the new, contrite, warm, fuzzy Rahm. He would have instead lapsed into being the asshole he's always been - and still is. People like Rahm don't change without divine intervention or therapy - and I haven't heard he's been the recipient of either.

Rahm Emanuel is a very sick man who's managed to cover up nicely. But when push comes to shove, his true colors will always show themselves.


Some additional observations:

• Turnout among Chicago's registered voters was 39.95%. Of course, this doesn't count those who could have registered but didn't. In an election of this importance, only 4 out of 10 registered voters cast ballots - even though early voting was allowed.

• Rahm got 55.72% of the vote vs. Chuy's 44.28%. This means, only 22.25% of Chicago's registered voters had cast ballots for Rahm vs. 17.7% for Chuy. So, it seems only one out of five of Chicago's voters were enough to assure the reelection of this Israeli agent.

• To those who think casting a ballot doesn't matter: You're right but only insofar as saving Chicago is concerned. Neither Rahm nor Chuy will be able to do that. But you have to change your mindset if you want to affect the long-term picture. If we'd managed, say, a 90% turnout, that would have served notice that We-the-People (including the slumbering Silent Majority) decided to seize the ballot box. This seizure, however, becomes most effective if turnout is huge for the primaries, and is done on a regular basis nationwide. That's where the real action is. For once We serve notice that We're taking back what's Ours, no longer will incumbents be able to count on hard core party faithful to dictate the course of voting in its early, critical stages.

• Among the 50 wards in which there's a black majority, Rahm won 57% of the vote. I attribute that to Barack Obama's endorsement of Rahm. That's a shame, since it will be blacks who will receive the fewest benefits under the rule of the new, improved Rahm - just as they did under the old, autocratic Rahm. It didn't help Chuy's cause, that he seemed so vague about his plan to rescue the city.

• One of Rahm's commercials made much of the fact that Chuy voted for the largest property tax increase in Chicago's history. That was back in 1986, when Chuy was a brand new addition to the City Council under mayor Harold Washington. That increase ($80M) passed without a single vote to spare, so Chuy could have claimed that his vote was a profile in courage.  He voted with the independents who supported Mayor Washington, in opposition to the Machine Democrats who wanted a no vote in order to make it next to impossible for the mayor to balance his budget.

• In this recent campaign, Chuy could have thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Rahm to promise not to raise property taxes if elected. This, while Chuy could have promised to raise property taxes, but only so they'd be in line with those taxes in Chicago's neighboring communities which are higher. Property taxes will go up, and both Rahm and Chuy knew this in advance of the election. So Chuy could have forced Rahm to commit in advance, while claiming the courage to admitting this is what would have to be done.

• Chuy could have reminded voters about Rahm's announcement last year to raise property taxes by $250M in order to shore up two city pension funds. It seems the voters had forgotten all about that.

• Chuy might be forgiven his failure (assuming it was an honest failure) if he'd only had more money to match the onslaught of air time Rahm was able to buy for his ads.

• Bottom line? Rahm wins, Hillary wins, black voters lose, big money wins. Chuy? Hard to say. But his supporters definitely lost.

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

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

How much did Rahm Emanuel pay you, Phil?

Talk about the appearance of impropriety! On Tuesday, March 31, Channel 11's Phil Ponce, disguised as a moderator, tried his level best to humiliate Jesus "Chuy" Garcia during his mayoral debate with Chicago's current mayor, Rahm Emanuel.

My personal feeling? Ponce did what he did because he had been paid off by the Rahm Emanuel campaign. Furthermore, Rahm knew about this because he was all-too-ready to interject what appeared to be a spontaneous line.

So what did Ponce do? He asked Chuy, "If you can't keep your own son out of a gang, how can you steer the city away from gangs and violence?" He asked this question twice. During the exchange between Ponce and Garcia, Rahm was mostly silent. Except for one notable interjection:

"I don't actually think this is a fair line of questioning."

So Rahm gets to come across as noble, though he would have most likely asked Chuy that question himself if the polls had shown that Rahm was appreciably behind (say, by 10% or so) with the election to be held next week.

I've watched Ponce at work over the past year and was impressed by his professionalism and even-handed approach to interviews he'd conducted. Which made his blatantly pro-Rahm bias so incredibly noticeable.

If Rahm's people had been able to lure Ponce over to their side, maybe money wasn't the only motivating factor.  Both Ponce and Garcia are of Hispanic origin. But Phil probably looks down on Hispanics like Garcia who speak in heavily-accented English. And who weren't born here as was Phil. Phil comes across as rather elegant and aristocratic and might well even look upon himself as white. Remember: People identify most strongly with the class/ethnicity they aspire to rather than the one they come from. There's a special term for people like Phil who fall into this category: Self-Hating Hispanics.

In short, by putting down their fellow Latinos (I loved his line during the debates, before once again pressing Garcia, "With all due respect..."), such people are trying in effect to deny their own backgrounds.

When I saw Ponce's hatchet job, I was reminded of the Steve Kroft interview with Barack Obama just before the 2008 election. Obama was getting ready to walk on stage for a pep rally. And there was good old 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft about to engage in a spontaneous interview. Again, the appearance was of a set piece in which Obama had already been briefed. In response to Kroft's questions about Obama's executive experience, Obama said - I run my senate office and my campaign for president.

Indeed!

If I had  been in Kroft's shoes, I would have ripped Obama a new asshole: "Senator, two things: All of the other senators run their offices and you don't run your campaign, David Axelrod does. So...what other experience do you have"

By the time Rahm Emanuel has been positioned to run for US President, maybe Steve Kroft will still be around. Or maybe Phil Ponce will fill the role of the stooge.

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

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