US President’s weekly Yahoo News updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between Aug. 28 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 21 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

When I saw the headline – "Turkey says it will challenge Gaza blockade" – I thought the Turkish navy was going to try to bust the [Israeli] blockade. Whew…glad that wasn’t the case.

“He said the Turks apparently intended to raise tensions with Israel for its own reasons.” Let me guess: “Because we’re Jewish.” [Hey, if all else fails, trot out that old excuse.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Actually, it’s because they’re Zionists which means ‘Never having to say you’re sorry.’”

TWO:

There’s no way the GOP will do anything that will help Obama win in 2012. And that includes sabotaging jobs/recovery programs (by pretending to offer alternatives) which might lower the unemployment rate.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“The GOP knows if the jobless rate sinks below 7% by October 2012, they won’t win the White House. Therefore…”

THREE:

[This is in response to former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder talking about how the EU might evolve, when he said: "We will have to give up national sovereignty."]

There are two steps for achieving a United States of Europe or, as I prefer calling it, simply “Europe.”

ONE: Totally integrate the armed forces of all member states. That is, no longer allow a separate German Army, a British Navy, an Italian Army, etc.

TWO: Disband all national legislative assemblies.

THREE: Replace those assemblies with one mega assembly whose members are elected from Cross-Sections. Each Cross-Section will be created by compiling a master list of every eligible voter in Europe and dividing that list into 500 Cross-Sections, each containing an equal number of voters randomly-selected from that master list.

Each Rep, when compared to any other Rep, will have the same ratio of rich vs. poor, Catholic vs. Protestant, and Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, etc. Therefore, legislators won’t have to worry about trying to appease constituents living in one particular area or who happen to be of one dominant religious persuasion.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I developed Cross-Sectional Representation in 1976 (the Bicentennial) as a replacement Constitution for the US. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Europe adopted CSR first?”

FOUR:

"Never has there been in Israel a committee that held an open and serious discourse with thousands of citizens." – Netanyaju. Hmm…that speaks volumes of the level of democracy in the (so-called) only democracy in the Middle East.

Somehow, I can’t manage to conjure up much sympathy for the Israeli social justice protestors. They kvetch against the cost of living, skyrocketing rentals, rising poverty rates. But, really, the only “social justice” at issue here is for the Jewish (esp middle class) citizens of Israel. If increasing the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank would lower their cost of living, the protestors would say “Right on.” But they wouldn’t think twice of the impact that would have on the Palestinians living there.

As for protestors pitching a tent city in Tel Aviv, where’s the IDF? Why isn’t the military clearing out these squatters, maybe roughing them up a little in the jailhouse to “teach” them a lesson? IDF  would have done exactly that had Palestinians in the West Bank tried squatting in the settlements? Oh, well, I guess “social justice” applies only to me and mine, and not to you and yours – especially if you’re not Jewish.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“These protestors are going to have to man up by realizing the truth: Israel is not a democracy – it is a de facto theocracy, complete with the attendant costs and limitations. Love it or leave it.”

FIVE:

[This is in response to the US ambassador [Mr. Crocker] in Kabul claiming the US must stay in Afghanistan or risk more attacks.]

“…as expensive as this has been in blood and treasure, it has cost a lot less than 9/11 did."

What about the cost in terms of our lost prestige and dishonorable conduct (waterboarding, WMD, special rendition)? I hope Crocker isn’t only considering our costs in Afghanistan, for we would not have entered Iraq (which was and still is being) costly enough without the 9/11 pretext.

[Crocker] described building a stable Afghanistan as "the ultimate guarantee that there will not be another 9/11."

B*llsh*t! There are no guarantees of any kind in life. What tree is this guy living in? All we’re doing by staying in Afghanistan is making the Taliban stronger. If we leave and Taliban ends up (re)seizing power, they will find it harder to govern a country than to resist imperialists. Besides, why limit our nation-building to creating a “stable Afghanistan?” I’m sure Somalia will need to be dealt with, not to mention those recently “liberated” countries of North Africa.

NOTE: Fighters in Afghanistan (thanks to US “funding” for their training) are becoming a stream of rebels fanning out to Libya, Algeria, and Egypt (surprise!). How much will we end up fighting those insurgents? Will we end up finding out it would have been much cheaper (read: cost-effective) just to pull out now?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Ryan Crocker = career diplomat = now serving in Afghanistan. Tell me, are you really that surprised he’s spouting this nonsense? There are times when well-meaning patriots become our worst enemy – worst than the Taliban.”

SIX:

[This is in response to an article about a proposed public policy change in Germany.]

“…policy is likely to be increasingly hijacked by incumbent firms hostile to competition from start-ups.” Translation: Policy will always be determined by the interests of the haves vs. the have nots.

“Some politicians resist reform because they are captive to interest groups.” Uh, huh. And, as I’ve posted numerous times before, the only way to bust out of this captivity is to rewrite your constitutions so as to allow for Cross-Sectional Representation. Just google these words for more details: Cross-Sectional Representation Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“We can’t afford to dick around anymore; the time to reform is NOW.”

SEVEN:

“…and it remains a stain on the record of the American intelligence services that they cooperated with these very abusive intelligence services [like the one in Libya under Gadaffi]."

“A stain,” you say? US intel doesn’t see it that way at all. They see it as “intel, as well as politics, makes strange bedfellows.” And they congratulate themselves for their ability to tap in to unlikely sources of cooperation. But I must disagree with that “strange bedfellows” claim. More accurate would be: “Birds of a feather flock together.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“As for that horse manure about CIA asking Libya to respect al-Sadiq’s human rights, they were laughing so hard, they could barely see straight enough to type those words.”

EIGHT:

I cheat at Sudoku. I solve as many squares as I logically can. Then I’ll find a 3x3 with two squares, not on the same row or column (that’s important), missing (for instance) a 1 and a 4, those being the only possibilities for those 2 squares which I mark with a small “reminder” pencil dot. It doesn’t matter if there are other unsolved squares within that 3x3. After I arbitrarily assign that 1 & 4, writing those numerals smaller than those in squares I’d already solved, I proceed to try to solve the remainder of the puzzle using my meager repertoire of techniques. If I reach a point where I’ve broken a rule (e.g., two 6’s in the same row), then I’ll erase all my mini digits, reverse the 1 & the 4 in the original 3x3, and proceed to solve the puzzle. This has worked for me 90% of the time with puzzles I’d struggled with for hours.

NINE:

“…withdrawal of the smog regulation [by Obama] was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.”

Business doesn’t seem to understand (1) the concept of “the cost of doing business,” and (2) if we continue removing health-related “obstacles” to business growth, we won’t have anyone left alive to buy their products.

“…the science behind its initial decision needed to be updated, and a new standard would be issued in 2013.” Why issue a new standard in 2013? We need to be really, really, really sure we’ll have good science backing this, so let’s wait till (oh) 2025 – being sure to check with the lobbyists first to see if that would be too soon.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Businesses and their lobbyists are waging war against the United States. Even if ‘only’ using pollution as a weapon, wouldn’t this qualify as treason?”

TEN:

"By Saturday, if there are no peaceful indications for implementing this, we will decide this matter militarily. We do not wish to do so but we cannot wait longer," Mustafa Abdel Jalil…

Dear Mustafa, you cannot wait any longer? Pray tell, what’s the rush? Do you think NATO will level Sirte simply if you ask? Who knows what NATO is capable of (since it seems they cannot even keep their word), but I certainly hope not this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Say, Mustafa, you wouldn’t happen to have an Enemies List you're trying to cross names off of, would you?”

ELEVEN:

“[Dominique Strauss-Kahn] apologized to the institution's staff…”

If he didn’t do anything wrong, why did he apologize? Unless of course his “apology” wasn’t sincere. Then it wouldn’t matter if it referred to any particular incident.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Or maybe it was a politician's apology rendered in advance for something he plans to do, as in ‘I’m sorry to have to do this but…’”

TWELVE:

@ Britt & IMHO,

Actually, it would appear you’re both wrong. I checked this article from France 24 International News, which had this to say: “Strauss-Kahn told staff he had come to ‘apologize to those who have been hurt’ by the scandal, and said he was sorry that the sensational case had had a negative impact on the IMF, according to a Fund employee at the meeting.”

Sounds a bit too indirect and self-removed for my taste.

He could have said, should have said, but didn’t: “I apologize for my personal misconduct and lack of judgment. What I did was wrong and I promise never to do anything like this again.” [That promise should be part of any apology.] Of course, since he’s still in the States, he couldn’t publicly add, “I paid $50 for a blowjob, which was a violation of my sacred marriage vows and…[well, you get the idea].”

DSK’s legal staff “indicated” [I love that word] that had this case gone to trial, DSK would claim the sex was consensual. Maybe it was as “consensual” as $50 (guessing at the amount here) would buy. But still, soliciting for prostitution is illegal in NYC, so admitting he paid for sex could have been used against him, even if the rape charge was taken off the table.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I wish someone at the IMF listening to his statement would have yelled out, ‘Stop with the weenie, man up, and give us a real apology.”

THIRTEEN:

"People are the most important ingredient in life," Bachmann [who recently snagged a book deal, her book scheduled to come out in November] said.

So that’s what we are, eh? Ingredients? Maybe she wasn’t really born here. Maybe she was born where cannibalism is practiced (hence, human “ingredients” being important). I demand to see her birth certificate : )  If, however, she meant to say, “People are the most important aspect of my life,” I’d have to ask where God fits in. Probably a bit above being “obedient” to her husband.

I wonder if her contract with the publisher has a secret clause: “You can’t drop out of the race until at least 2 months after publication.” Of course, if her poll numbers don’t stop sliding, that won’t matter.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“My ‘book’ is on line and it’s free.  Just google my name.”

FOURTEEN:

@ Michael,

You say, our problem is that we are not adhering to the Constitution. That must mean we have a Constitution that can be easily circumvented and not adhered to. How is that possible with such a flawless document? Let me turn this around and ask you: “How can we change things so the Constitution isn’t so easily ignored?”

Why do you claim it’s “simply ridiculous” to start all over again? We Americans are an innovative bunch of trailblazers unafraid to face the future and change if we have to. [If we refuse to change, we'll become extinct.] Why do we insist on clinging to that which no longer serves us? To that which is doing us far more harm than good.  I’ll tell you what is “simply ridiculous”: To refuse to consider alternatives while the Ship of State is sinking.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Google my name for a more detailed description of my proposed changes, especially concerning Cross-Sectional Representation.”

FIFTEEN:

“Rebels have been converging from the east and west on Sirte…to battle Gadhafi loyalists.”

And of course NATO will bomb the rebels to prevent them from harming innocent civilians in Sirte. Riighhtt! [Somehow, "you're either for us or against us" will fit into this unfolding chapter.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“There’s a special place in h*ll for Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy for their undeclared war on Libya.”

SIXTEEN:

“The American people have done everything they can” – candidate for US President, Michele Bachmann.

No they haven’t, not even close. Karmically speaking, we get exactly the kind of government we deserve. The culture of corruption in DC was aided and abetted by the American people who kept voting Dem/Pub/Dem/Pub…ad nauseum.  And they STILL won’t seriously consider voting for independents because they’re too stuck on Brand names. This lockstep stuff has got to stop or we’re seriously fewecked.

Irene might have been an Act of God but far be it from someone as mean-spirited and self-loving as Bachmann to figure out what that means. It’s hard to divine (pun intended) the meaning of natural phenomenon but I’ll give it shot:

Irene and that earthquake were the products of karma. Sure, DC felt the quake but the karmic retribution was greatest at the exact spot where the quake occurred. And the most direct recipient was the earth itself – yes, the earth has good and bad karma. Other direct recipients were the people who died or whose lives were impacted by either event. People who try to glean the will of God from natural events will always end up frustrated, since it’s not His will being manifested – it’s a product of the combined karma of a lot of players.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Even God [one of many such Gods] suffers/benefits from karmic retribution/reward and will continue to do so until He attains enlightenment and becomes a Buddha."

SEVENTEEN:

[My response is to this quote, furnished by Itiswhatitis.]

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

- Daniel Webster (1782-1852), US Senator

@ Itiswhatitis

Daniel Webster was an unrepentant blowhard with a very large opinion of himself. The only way there will be “anarchy throughout the world” is if the world abandons God. The US Constitution has nothing to do with any impending international breakdown.

The real danger lies, not in the Constitution failing, but in We-the-People failing as spiritual (especially, honest) human beings. Constitutions come and go, and there’s always room for improvement. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly stuck in the past. “American – forget not your proud heritage – that of innovator and trailblazer” – Steven Searle.

"[Daniel Webster] was a thoroughgoing elitist, and he reveled in it," says Robert Vincent Remini, Daniel Webster: The Man And His Time (Norton, 2009) p 352; also pp. 429, 636 [source: Wikipedia article on DW].

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I don’t give a rat’s behind what Daniel Webster thought. I’d much rather hear, in his/her own words, what Itiswhatitis thinks.”

EIGHTEEN:

@ K

ONE: I won’t sink to your level by name-calling (REF: “idiot”); I’ll just respond to your points.

TWO: ALL of us – those of at least average intelligence – “know more than the Founding Fathers.” There’s no way they could have known what the average school child [now] knows.

THREE:  Yes, they created a unique system – but not one that should be expected to live forever (even if laden with amendments).

FOUR: Why don’t you admit it can be replaced and not merely amended? The Preamble states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union… do ordain and establish this Constitution…” If We had the right to “form a more perfect union” back in the day, We have the right to form an even more perfect union” now & may do so by ordaining and establishing a replacement Constitution. Isn’t that what we innovative Americans are all about – ever in search of perfection?

FIVE:  You’re only guessing in your last sentence – “probably just ideas.” When people over-generalize, they run the risk of overlooking some genuinely good options. My concept of Cross-Sectional Representation has not been “proven to fail.” What is proving to fail is our outdated Law of the Land mostly upheld by unthinking, sentimental, “loyal” Americans – the kind of whom it is said, “With friends like them, the country doesn’t need enemies.

SIX: I take it you’re in favor of legislative gridlock and the anti-democratic Senate filibuster rule, which are slowly grinding this country to a halt.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I can’t help but be awestruck by your ‘open’ mind.”

NINETEEN:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL wrote, “Do you believe that life begins at conception?”

Maybe the key question should be: When do you believe the soul enters the unborn's body? Can't remember my source on this, but many Japanese (Shintoists?) believe the soul enters 4 months after conception. Therefore, abortion prior to 4 months hasn't destroyed a soul, though it has destroyed a life.

I can feel the pain on both sides of the pro-Choice divide. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment outlawing (most) abortions. But that amendment should also include this provision: “Any woman leaving the US [vacation, business, whatever] must submit to a pregnancy test before leaving. If she’s pregnant, she must either still be pregnant when she returns or have her newborn babe in arms.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I find it hard to encourage anti-abortion legislation knowing how easy it is for the wealthy to simply cross the border to fix their ‘problems.’ Actually, they cross the border to fix a lot of their other problems as well, but that’s for another post on another day.”

TWENTY:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL,

When you wrote, “Sounds like a political answer,” were you referring to my words concerning the amendment I suggested? I’m kind of surprised you didn’t respond to that – the silence was deafening.

As for, “Scientifically the point of conception is the only non-arbitrary point!”… That depends. If someone “knows” [and I would rank religious “knowledge” as no better or worse than scientific “knowledge”] that the soul doesn’t enter the body until 4 months after conception, then there wouldn’t be anything “arbitrary” at all concerning the decision of a woman to abort prior to 4 months. “No harm [to a soul], no foul” as the old saying goes.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“This isn't an easy issue, which is exactly why I would tend to favor each individual woman making her own choice. The wealthy would only do that anyway, so why discriminate against the poor?”

TWENTY-ONE:

[These last three entries are responses to AWFULLLLLL.]

AWFULLLLLL,

If you don’t want to amend the Constitution, you may be missing your best chance to impose your moral view (which I’m sure you feel is the correct view) on the country at large. And frankly I don’t see why you would choose to decline this perhaps historic opportunity.

Your argument may indeed be moral, but if it is to be more than just “your [theoretical] argument” (instead of a means to change the law of the land), you’ll have to take some kind of political action. Otherwise, the status quo (Roe vs. Wade) will prevail. Remember what they say about enough good men doing nothing.

I have already commented on my belief: “…I would tend to favor each individual woman making her own choice.” But to expand on that: As a Buddhist, I believe each soul reincarnates at particular times, which are a direct consequence of its karma. If a fetus is aborted, that death is not permanent (as, say, the Christians believe) since it can later be reincarnated (born) to different parents. If a fetus loses its life, that’s a product of its karma but not the end of the world. However, by losing that life, its negative karma has been reduced to a point which would allow for birth under more favorable circumstances in the future.

As far as when the soul enters the body, I really don’t know nor have I any belief. But that’s irrelevant to whether I think a woman has a right to abort before the third trimester.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If you really think it would be murderous to abort (say) within a month of conception, then you’ve got to get political to eliminate that state of affairs. Merely being moral isn’t good enough; merely being moral, when you could do more than sit on your hands, would make you an accomplice to this kind of murder, would it not?”

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I strongly suspect Yahoo News! routinely censors my posts or isolates them somehow so as not to be available to the general public, but there’s not much I can do about that.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

On waiving copyright, and Israeli and Tibetan clinging

Today I will address my personal decision to waive copyright protection. However, I will then transition to how Israel and Tibetan Buddhists, each in their own way, are guilty of clinging. Or, put a better way, guilty of attachments which block the path to enlightenment. And, yes, even the Israelis, though not Buddhists, hunger to become fully-enlightened Buddhas – they just don’t fully realize this yet.

Waiving copyright

I hereby waive copyright protection for any and all material posted (or to be posted) on this website. Nobody has to ask my permission to use, rework in their own style, or compensate me in any manner. I don’t even ask that users acknowledge me as a source. The only limitation is that I maintain the right to post and utilize, without payment of any fee, any and all such material as I see fit under my own name. [NOTE: It’d be a hell of thing if someone developed one of my themes, copyrighted that for themselves, and were to tell me I couldn’t use my own original source material.]

Naturally, if anyone reading this wants me to address some type of “permission” or memo of understanding directly to them concerning (say) any one of my ideas on this blog, I would be more than happy to do so.

Now why, you may ask, would I do such a thing? I can’t remember where I’ve heard this (and right now, I’m too lazy to try to google the source): “If you show me a man who says ‘This is mine,' I’ll show you a thief.” That’s my guiding principle here. Now that doesn’t mean you can approach me on the street and ask me to surrender my underwear on the spot. In that particular case, there are other considerations involved which I won’t get into here.

A more accurate view would be to consider my waiving to be a form of almsgiving – Buddhists such as myself are supposed to be big on that. It is written: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” But I don’t waive in order to be flattered; I do so in order to inspire. Must be the teacher in me that delights when someone can take a concept I’ve initiated and more fully develop it. Or even rework it in a form far superior to my original.

Don’t be deceived, though. My waiving is not entirely selfless, for I do gain something from this mindset. I have found that by not zealously clinging to my writings, I have become more creative. [Translation: I give up something, but I get much more in return.] I’m not sure why that is, but I’ll hazard a guess. People who cling excessively to “their” ideas get trapped in their own style of thinking. But by “giving it up,” I free myself from those chains. By not weighing myself down by saying, “This is mine, mine, mine,” I have discovered that internal doors of the mind open up bringing me fresh inspiration.

Yeah, I know…sounds kind of hokey, I suppose. But there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere. At least, this seems to work for me.

The Buddha’s teaching on clinging

We form attachments – that’s what we humans do. But when we obsess about these, to the point of desperate clinging, the internal calm needed to attain enlightenment is disturbed. We end up thinking so much about our “things,” we can’t focus on what is necessary for enlightenment. Desire is a good thing – for instance, the desire for enlightenment. But that’s about it.

Israeli clinging

I shouldn’t really say “Israeli” when I mean Zionist, so I stand corrected.

The Zionist clings to his (false) notion that God gave to his tribe a homeland. By the way, this territory far exceeds the Occupied Territory and Israel itself, but that fact is not trumpeted by the Zionists. They’re taking action, one step at a time. First, flood the West Bank with as many settlements as possible so as to dilute any possible Palestinian territorial claims. Then…ah, yes, then will come that time in the perhaps not-too-distant future when the Zionists can press their claims for the rest of the land they wish to annex. Again, this is a far greater mass than is currently appreciated by the popular press.

Personally? I don’t think God made any such gift to the Jewish tribes, at least not for all time. Even if He did, for the sake of argument, I view such a gift as a divine test. Case in point: If someone gives me a present, it’s mine to do with as I please. If I wish to share it with someone else, or even give it away entirely, that would be my prerogative. After all, unless it’s the kind of gift given with strings attached, I would be free to dispose of it as I saw fit. Once given, such a gift then becomes my personal property.

In the case of the Jewish tribes, if God did indeed give them (for instance) land now known as the West Bank, that doesn’t mean those tribes have to greedily cling to that land as if it’s a lifeline the loss of which would surely lead to drowning. Perhaps the tribes are being tested to see if they would be willing to give some of their (supposedly) God-given land to their stepbrother, the Arabs living in the West Bank. Stepbrothers? Yes, same father (Abraham), different mothers (Sarah and Hagar).

Here’s the test: If the Jewish tribes can stand idly by while their stepbrothers are living lives of misery and privation right next door to them, as a result of actions they themselves have inflicted, then how can it be said they are following the commandment to “Love the stranger.” If they can’t even show any love for their stepbrothers, how can they love those even stranger still?

This is no small question. For if the Jews are to be a nation which will be a light unto other nations, they’ve got to show loving kindness toward their own kin. If they can’t do even that much, then they might as well forget about that “light unto other nations” stuff. It doesn’t take much to see that Israel is not considered exemplary by the other nations of the earth – except perhaps the United States, though mostly because we find Israel useful as an ally.

Tibetan clinging

I don’t have any idea how the average Tibetan living in exile in India feels about the loss of his homeland. I don’t know if he has any expectation of regaining that homeland. But I do know this much: Far more important than their homeland is their religion – though I wish certain others could come to feel the same way. Homelands come and go. We leave this life only to be reincarnated elsewhere. And it’s doubtful that that “elsewhere” will turn out to be the homeland we’ve become familiar with in this life.

The Buddha himself set the best example by giving up his homeland. More than that, he gave up the throne which he, as a prince, would have inherited. By giving up his homeland, he gained far more than he lost. Excessive identification with a way of life or a particular piece of real estate turns out to be a hindrance to our spiritual progress.

I have a strong disclaimer, though, concerning the authenticity of the Tibetans’ adherence to Buddhist doctrine. From what I can see, they seem to have become too focused on the worship of the Dalai Lama and to various local protective deities. They have only the most indirect connection to the Buddha. If they had a firmer connection, they would abandon the unique, local variant of “Buddhism” which I call “Tibetanism.”

To me, the Dalai Lama, as the spiritual leader of his people, is especially at fault since he does not follow the Buddha’s most supreme teaching – the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha told his followers to abandon all of his prior teachings, since they had been meant as only a prelude to the revelation of the truth, known as the Lotus. However, the Dalai Lama says nothing – not one single word – in support of this highest doctrine.

He does, though, say a lot about other irrelevant stuff – and he giggles perhaps a bit too much.

The Buddha taught that the most ideal Buddhist practice is to read, recite, ponder, and spread the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Since the Dalai Lama has not done that, he must be considered a heretic. And this label is doubly-damning because the Dalai Lama should know better.

However, all that having been said, I do not consider the Lama to be an evil man. He’s just another victim of clinging – in his case, to his homeland’s customs, language, tribal costume, and to the reverence his people feel for him. About that last: It’s hard to shake off the addiction to being worshipped. This is a trap which ensnares leaders the world over – from the secular (Saddam Hussein and a wide variety of presidents-for-life) to the religious (Popes and lesser pretenders to godliness).

The Dalai Lama has a real and enduring value in that complete strangers to Buddhism are attracted to him. I’m not sure why, though that is not as important as them making some kind of initial connection to Buddhism. Even if that connection isn’t the most ideal.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“We would all gain much if we mediated on our attachments and tried, at least for a moment or two, to abandon them. Might open up whole new worlds.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com