Cain and Abel: Revised...

The complete title of the following is:

Cain and Abel: Revised for your Reflection by Steven Searle, the Buddhist

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. [NOTE: Numbered passages such as this one are from Genesis 4, King James Version of the Bible.]

 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

And Cain had many thoughts as he labored in the fields:

"I labor mightily in the fields, while my brother idly watches his flock of sheep. I, however, bear no enmity toward my brother, for he is decidedly weaker than I and a dreamer. On the other hand, I revel in the exercise of my greater strength, knowing it feeds my father and mother. And also feeds Abel honestly, for the Lord has not granted us permission to eat meat. Neither did the Lord forbid it, but I am still anxious about the matter.

"Abel brings meat aplenty to our family, of which he, Adam and Eve partake. I, however, cannot fathom this slaughter, which the Lord has not directly permissioned. Also, the Lord is silent when I question him on this matter.

"Aye, gladly, then, do I labor in the fields, though the sun burns me hotly and the soil yields grudgingly."

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Cain's thought was not to influence the Lord nor seek His favor. Rather, it was to influence Abel thusly: "If Abel sees me give away a portion of that for which I have worked so hard, maybe he will reconsider his idle ways and what they mean to the lives he takes among his flock. As his older brother, I owe him an example. As I owe to my father and mother to be my brother's keeper."

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain thought unto himself, though he said nothing to the Lord:

"The Lord has asked me three questions, which I am too angry to answer at this time. But I know the answer to anger: Hard work. Whenever I labor in the fields, I become calm. I know I am more fiery than Abel, so it is that Abel shall never know how hard work and purpose can forge our minds. Poor Abel. He thinks to please the Lord at the expense of the life of a living animal."

So it was that Cain walked away from the presence of the Lord, not witnessing what happened next between the Lord and Abel. Though the Lord "had respect" for Abel's offering, that was feigned for two reasons. For the Lord had been taken aback by Cain's offering. Never had He been offered anything before, though He supposed that pride might well up within Cain's breast should He appear to respectfully accept Cain's offering.

Also, He wished to wait until Cain's departure before addressing Abel:

"You expect me to ... eat that!?"

Abel: "I offer you my best."

The Lord: "If you had offered to Me a live firstling for Me to uplift straight unto heaven, that would have been more acceptable. But this? You offer to Me a thing from which you've taken life and you call that your best?"

Abel silently withdrew from the presence of the Lord, crushed by the censure of his Lord. Walking further and further, when sure he was unobserved, Abel found himself a precipice and threw himself from it in despair. Cain, walking by, saw this and ran up to Abel's crushed and dying body:

"Oh, Abel, why did you do this thing, end your own life?"

"Cain, I am saddened beyond relief at my Creator's censure. I can no longer remain here. Without Him, my life has no meaning."

"But we do not know what death will bring."

"Maybe it will be like sleep: mostly blackness, quietude, and visions of better things."

"Or maybe not."

"Or maybe not. Please, my brother, do not tell the Lord of this."

9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

And Cain thought: "The Lord asks where is Abel as if He doesn't know...and I think: He truly doesn't know. Maybe there are certain things He chooses not to know. Also, He does not answer my question ‘Am I my brother's keeper?'"

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

And Cain thought unto himself:

"The Lord God truly does not know. Not if He has to ask, ‘What hast thou done?' I am sure He hears the voice of my brother's blood, but that voice I'm also sure is not to accuse me of misdeed. It is surely only the cry of agony. The Lord God knows my fire and thus suspects I could kill my brother. Yet I shall remain silent as to Abel's demise, since I have promised my brother that I would not reveal his secret."

Many years passed and Cain had reflected frequently upon the nature of the Lord and the meaning of his exile. He thought thusly, but never expressed aloud his thoughts, preferring to keep them unknown to the Lord who (who knows?) might be listening:

"I have kept my promise to my brother Abel, though I wonder: What has become of Abel? Where is he? How is he? Is he somehow with the Lord? If so, has he spoken of my innocence? If the Lord knows my innocence (that is, if Abel has told Him), my continued suffering must then be for reasons known only to the Lord. Aye, I am used to hardship and I do thank the Lord for my continued strength to endure it.

"I also thank the Lord for my good wife, who ‘knew' that I had killed Abel (for I never told her otherwise), yet also sensed me to be a good man. She accepted me and loved me, though I had displeased the Lord. This speaks well of her, and till my dying day I will consider her to be the greatest gift of all from the Lord to me.

"I find it interesting though (in the privacy of my unspoken thoughts) to know that my Lord had chosen to remain ignorant of certain things. Though why should that surprise me. For had He not surprised us all by speaking falsely -- lying -- when saying:

‘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.'"

And so these came to pass:

The first offering unto the Lord. This was made by Cain, though in Cain's mind, the benefit was intended for Abel and not for the benefit of the Lord.

The self-imposed ignorance of the Lord concerning the affairs of man. God asked, "Where is Abel thy brother?" He asked because He didn't know, and because He had seen the effect of His words upon Abel. Worried about Abel, He looked for him but found Cain instead and so asked him, "Where is Abel thy brother?"

The profound sacrifice of Cain. He kept a promise made to his brother though incurring punishment from the Lord in exchange.

Steven Searle's End Note:

I am aware that the account in Genesis specifically says that Cain slew Abel. However, keep in mind that this account is known as "The First Book of Moses Commonly Called Genesis." This Book might have had more authority had it been known as "The First Book of God..." It is important to keep in mind that it was Moses who wrote this book. Moses was not only "just" a man, he was also a Jewish partisan. Unlike the Ten Commandments which were rendered in God's own handwriting, "Genesis" was in Moses' own writing and, I'm sure, was rendered through the various lenses of his experience.

Divinely inspired? Perhaps, perhaps not.

More to the point: My rendering of the Cain and Abel story claims things God did not know, which I had written as: "Maybe there are certain things He chooses not to know." If that is the case, then how could Moses know something (that Cain slew Abel) that the Lord God Himself did not know? It is on this basis that I chose to revise the Cain and Abel story as I did.

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s not good enough to merely read scripture; one has to read between the lines and figure out (for himself) what is true and what is false" - Steven Searle

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Obama's first official act was…?

Trick Question: What was President Obama’s first official act, back in 2009? [Nobody’s going to answer this correctly!]

Clue:  Barack Obama’s first official act occurred immediately (as in one breath later) after taking the oath of office. Most people are amazed at this revelation, but quickly agree after reading the following analysis.

My contention:  Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution when he administered the oath of office to president-elect Barack Obama.

View this clip and tell me I'm wrong in my (following) analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ8QW5gy5zg

The blow by blow: A look at the scene of the crime

Senator Diane Feinstein addresses the multitude: "It is my distinct honor to present the Chief Justice of the United States, the Honorable John G. Roberts Jr, who will administer the presidential oath of office."

[Side bar: I think we can safely assume what follows is an administration of the presidential oath of office - and (as should be the case) nothing more.]

The Chief Justice asks, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?"

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts didn't ask, "Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator, and, in addition, be immediately subjected to a constitutionally-prohibited religious test?"]

Then Roberts starts his recitation of the oath, in words which Obama is supposed to repeat, by saying, "I Barack Hussein Obama…" Roberts, with a misstep or two, states the oath as it literally appears in the Constitution, using the words "I" (twice) and "my" (once).] Then he proceeds to violate our Constitution by asking, "So help you God???????" [I boldface the word “you” and add lots of question marks to underscore: A question was asked.]

[Side bar: Notice that Roberts shifted pronouns from the first person constitutional (as it were) to the second person unconstitutional (as it is).]

I'm calling Roberts on his shit (someone's got to)

When Senator Feinstein introduced Roberts, she said he was to administer the oath of office. Question: What right did Roberts have to follow up the oath by asking, "So help you God?"

Answer: Roberts had no right to do so, according to Article VI of the Constitution: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..." Sounds to me like Roberts was trying to squeeze in a religious test, even though that wasn't the purpose for which he was introduced that day. [If Obama had answered "no" to that question, then it could be argued he hadn't taken the "oath." Well, at least argued by pinheads within the GOP.]

Suppose Obama had looked Roberts square in the eye, in front of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and said, "Sir, you have no right to include such a question, making it appear to be part of the presidential oath of office. I ask you to retract that question." [And then, but only if he wished to do so, Obama could have added, "So help me God."]

Could you imagine our new chief executive publicly humiliating the Chief Justice in front of millions of people? [Hmm...might make an interesting scene in a movie.]

However, something occurred to me, especially since it was obvious that Roberts and Obama had not privately rehearsed the oath in advance so as to avoid any miscues. Did Roberts intend to embarrass Obama by adding this question (unbeknownst to the president-elect) after recitation of the oath?

Think about this: Obama might have paused for a moment thinking, "Wait a minute...that's not part of the oath, why is he asking me this question?" After that moment, he would have collected himself by thinking, "I've got to respond - and quickly - or the public will think I have a problem with saying, ‘So help me God.'"

Don't tell me "words don't matter"

Barack Obama gave a stirring defense of the importance of words during the campaign when he said, "Don't tell me ‘words don't matter.'" He made it quite obvious, he believes that words matter a great deal. So how could he tolerate being subjected to Roberts' religious test as the very first act of his presidency?

And, yes, it was his very first act as president because, once he had uttered the official oath, he was no longer "just" the president-elect. He was the president who could "enter on the Execution of his Office," as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

QUOTE:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

:UNQUOTE.

"Words don't matter after all" - the lawyers

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday," White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a written statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."

The White House Counsel should have just come out and said, "The Constitution isn't very specific on many issues, but on this it is: The requirement to take the oath by using the wording specified in that document. So it's obvious that the president-elect was not properly sworn in yesterday. That's why he will be taking the oath today."

This is no small matter. Barack Obama is like any other president who is surrounded by legal minds who are deft at circumventing the law. He's got to get rid of these people or else they're going to convince him (for instance) that it's okay to sign Executive Orders legalizing torture (though they won't call it that).

And, believe me, the lawyerly abuse of language won't stop there.

There's something funny about those Chief Justices

Consider Chief Justice William Howard Taft's bold assertion:

QUOTE:

In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft garbled the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover using the words "preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect, and defend". The error was picked up by schoolgirl Helen Terwilliger on the radio. Taft eventually acknowledged his error, but did not think it was important, and Hoover did not retake the oath. In Taft's view, his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath.

:UNQUOTE [source: wikipedia**]

So Hoover did not retake the oath, eh? Any rationale person should rightfully conclude: Constitutionally-speaking, Hoover had no right to exercise any of his presidential powers.

However, we're not taking about rationality here, we're talking about the divine rights of kings - oops, I meant to say, the divine rights of Chief Justices. If Taft thought "his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath," then he was within his rights.

Then it follows, of course, that if Chief Justice Roberts saw fit to subject Barack Obama to a religious test, that was within his rights, too. And the Constitution be damned!

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"I can't be the only person on the planet who noticed Roberts' illegal religious test, can I?" - Steve.

The Green Swastika

When I ran for the office of US President in 2012, I had adopted the green swastika as my personal symbol.

I chose the color green because that’s the color of life. I wished to declare myself as “life affirming.” Money is also known as “green stuff,” though in my case that can only be regarded as a coincidence of meanings. Anyone who would even think of running a campaign while refusing campaign contributions and refusing to trade favors for endorsements obviously doesn’t care anything about money. And that’s me.

As for the swastika part: I’m a Buddhist and the swastika is a well-known symbol of my faith. I am also aware of its use by the Nazis but I like to think that misuse was part of the reason the Nazis failed. Also, my green swastika won’t be rotated 45º as was Hitler’s invention.

I’m aware that (probably most) Jews will take extreme offense at my choice of symbolism. That, however, is not my problem. I wish to take ownership of the swastika in much the same way as some Blacks take ownership of the word “nigger” and the editors of Bitch magazine took ownership of the word "bitch." During my first campaign for the US presidency in 2008, I paid $700 for an ad in Bitch in an attempt to solicit a female running mate. The ad, written in the style of a “Help Wanted” ad, started out with “Bitch wanted.”

As for what Jews may or may not have thought of my candidacy: I don't care. I didn't make any attempt to solicit Jewish votes. I didn't go to the Wailing Wall, put a yarmulke on my head, and pray. I didn't debase myself and the American people by belaboring the “special relationship” between the US and Israel. In fact, I spoke against that relationship, saying it has cost us too much for too long.

If I had been elected President, I would have voided US diplomatic recognition of Israel and, instead, granted diplomatic recognition to Palestine. In fact, as President, I would have tried to visit Palestine in an official capacity. Of course, some might ask, “What if Israel wouldn't have let you enter Palestine, since they regard that area as part of the Occupied Territories?”

My answer to that? “It will be extremely interesting, to say the least, if the Israelis were to attempt to keep a US President out of Palestine. I would have tried to enter Palestine anyway. How they might ever keep a US President out is something they should weigh very carefully.”

And, yes, I'd even taken into consideration that Israel may well have planted a mini nuke in Washington, DC. Why they would do such a thing? Insurance. I'm sure Israel has planned for the possibility that its biggest ally might some day turn against it. As for me avoiding Washington for that reason, I have nothing to fear.

By the way, my personal adoption of the green swastika has nothing to do with the Independent Contractors’ Party, which I founded. I don’t set policy for that party – in fact, no one does or ever can. As I’d written earlier, any candidate from anywhere on the political spectrum may be regarded as an ICP candidate if he declares himself to be and if he offers a written contract listing at least some of his campaign promises.

The emergence of the ICP is a shout that a new era in politics is dawning in America – one in which the elites currently controlling political parties will become a thing of the past.

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

“I intend to use the green swastika to promote a greater appreciation of applied Buddhist practice. Those of the Abrahamic faiths, with their obsession with the End of Days doctrine, don’t really offer anything more positive.”

Israel gives better (head)

Warning: If the topic of beheading bothers you, even when the point (as here) is to create a work of fiction, then don't read on.

Back in 2006, I had first offered this piece to the public, though on a now-defunct website. Even though Gilad Shalit is no longer a prisoner, I want to reintroduce this piece in the name of the larger themes it explores.

Triple-M Gives Good Head; Israel Gives Better

 by Steven Searle © 2006

Background and Dedication

On June 25, 2006, Palestinian militants either - depending on your point of view - "kidnapped/captured" Gilad Shalit, a 19-year old corporal in the Israeli army. When I finished writing this piece on July 20, 2006, nobody knew if Gilad had been executed and, if so, what retaliatory military response Israel would come up with. Israel's overreaction-to-date, however, leads me to wonder out loud: "Why are they militating so extremely? For the sake of one young man? Do they know something about him that the rest of us don't? Like, maybe he's the Messiah or something?" No, can't be, I'm sure this is not the case. Maybe some exaggerated invoking of "an eye for an eye" is at fault.

Or maybe something more mundane is at work. Perhaps the Israeli military is reacting to the audacity of a successful attack on one of its units. It's well known that authoritarians the world over do not like to be embarrassed and, further, tend to wreak havoc on their transgressors. Who knows?

Even if Gilad Shalit is alive and eventually freed, thereby reducing Israeli military hyperactivity (at least until the next "crisis"), I feel the following kaleidoscopic might be a reasonable indicator of events yet-to-unfold in the event of a similar seizure in the future. So it is to Gilad Shalit, to whom I dedicate this piece.

Forewarning 

I am sure many people will take offense at this humble literary effort of mine. For one thing, the subject is a decapitated head. This, I admit, is grisly enough to contemplate only in passing, let alone to dwell upon at great length as I have done here. However, I felt emboldened to proceed by keeping in mind that extremes in writing are sometimes necessary to match ever-evolving extremes in actual human behavior. Concerning events transpiring in the Middle East, writing in a nicey-nice manner won't cut it.

Then there are those who will see my words as anti-Jewish. For the record, I am not a Jew Hater, though I am personally uncomfortable with the very idea of a state conceived for the benefit of a particular religion. My feelings on this issue are equally negative toward the idea of an Islamic state or a Christian state...or a Buddhist one, for that matter. As far as negative reaction from the Mossad is concerned, I address those practical ladies and gentlemen as follows:

Frankly, I don't care if you conclude that you must hate me for my words. I do care, however, about what you might do, since violent overreaction by partisans of all persuasions seems to be very much in vogue these days. As bad as your overreaction might be for me, I fear it would be many times worse for you and, especially, for those things you care most about. I declare this from the standpoint of a follower of the Buddhist scripture known as the Lotus Sutra, which assures a horrible retribution in the here-and-now which will persist for many lifetimes for those who would harm a Preacher of the Law (like me, for instance).

I urge you, partisans of Israel, to carefully contemplate my presentation. Learn from it. Don't dismiss it too quickly. Let it sink in. Deep in your hearts, you know the tension in the Middle East cannot continue for much longer. Embrace your Arabic neighbor, for he is truly your brother. Refraining from this embrace is breaking God's heart. As for me, do not regard me too harshly. If you feel duty-bound to regard me as an enemy, I know that you will come to realize (after all gets said and done): "With enemies like Steve, who would ever need friends?"

Some Useful Definitions 

Definition:  "SuperBall (originally Super Ball) is a toy manufactured by Wham-O®. It is an extremely elastic ball made of Zectron®... When an original Wham-O® Super Ball was dropped from shoulder level onto a hard surface such as concrete, it rebounded to about 90% of the original height."- quoted from Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia.

Definition: "SuperDuperBall (SDB), capable of rebounding to 99% of its original height, is the next generation of SuperBall. SDB is powered by utilizing a bio-technology capable of actually storing ‘reboundability' in much the same way as capacitors (caps) store electric charge (i.e., caps and bio-caps are units capable of discharging when needed). Though no practical military use of SDB's has been conceived as yet, [U.S.] Commander-in-Chief has ordered all relevant information classified ‘Top Secret.'" - quoted from a stolen, classified U.S. Department of Defense document.

Definition: "AMD" stands for "Anti Missile Defense," a highly-efficient system deployed throughout Israel during the period of the following chronology, intended to destroy any incoming missiles launched from neighboring locations. Israel's AMD, developed jointly by U.S. and Israeli technicians, is considered the prototypical system for that which is being contemplated for imminent deployment throughout the United States. 

Definition: "IDF" stands for "Israeli Defense Force," the official name of Israel's armed forces.

Definition:  "Day Zero" is a day in the future which occurs months after a member of the IDF is kidnapped/captured by a previously unknown band of Palestinian militants calling themselves the Mighty Minions of Mohammed (dubbed "Triple-M" by the popular press). [Note: This seizure is the first to have occurred in years in the Palestinian Territories.] 

Chronology of Events Starting from Day Zero 

Day Zero (noon):

News Flash [Gaza City]: Nobody knew what Triple-M meant by saying, "The head shall soon be bouncing all over Israel." The whole world knew which head was being referred to; the "bouncing" part was the mystery. Now we know. Militants had already publicly announced that IDF Corporal Heezah Freemason* had been decapitated. Israel then responded by demanding the return of the corporal's head shortly after discovering the rest of him. Astonishingly enough, it turns out that Freemason's head had been encased within a transparent superball-like substance. Then, a powerful catapult having been used to launch it from an unknown point within the Gaza Strip, it arced over the border and landed in Israel. After bouncing crazily thither and yon for close to an hour, it finally stopped, crashing through the roof of a popular Israeli deli. Thank God/Allah no one in the deli was hurt. 

*Editor's note: "Freemason" was not always the family surname; Heezah's father (Ima) had it legally changed while still a U.S. citizen. The senior Freemason claimed: "I call myself ‘Freemason' because I would be more than happy to personally build a brick wall, free of charge, around any Jewish community in the world threatened by hostile neighbors."

Day Zero (9 p.m.): 

[Scene: Two young American volunteers in Gaza City. They are alone in a park, sitting under the stars on a clear desert night, sharing some private thoughts.] 

"Why didn't the Israelis open fire? Anything launched from Gaza has always been shot down. That's policy." - Eve. 

"Under normal circumstances, yes. However, they were willing to hold their fire and take a chance this incoming was Heezah's head. They definitely wanted to recover it intact." - Adam. 

"Why did they think it might be Heezah's head?" - Eve. 

"I heard Triple-M actually told IDF High Command they were about to launch Heezah's head, just before doing so. HC decided to take a chance and not engage their AMD." - Adam. 

"My God! ‘Take a chance?' What if it had been nuclear?" - Eve. 

[Laughing.] "Even though they didn't engage their AMD, SENSOR is always engaged. Within seconds, they knew it was non-nuclear. And that's all they wanted to know. True, it could have been some type of bomb, but they figured it was too small to cause major damage. So, like I said, they didn't shoot because they wanted his head intact." - Adam. 

"Why did Triple-M use a catapult? Was it to confuse or somehow thwart AMD?" - Eve. 

"AMD would have been quite capable of stopping anything launched, even by catapult." - Adam. 

"Really? I mean, what if an object is in the air for only a few seconds before it would hit its target?" - Eve. 

"Well, it would have to truly be ‘for only a few seconds.' Anything more than that would be stopped in its tracks. Even if it comes in without heat, like something catapulted, SENSOR would pick it up. You see, these days, everything in Israel is either highly controlled, under surveillance, or on a hair trigger ... including its citizens, I'm afraid." - Adam. 

"Back to my question: Why a catapult?" - Eve. 

"I think it was to make a statement, like ‘You may have the best air defenses in the world and we can't top that. So we'll try a bit of low-tech instead.' Besides, maybe SENSOR wouldn't have been able to ‘see' inside a missile to determine it non-nuclear. In that case, a shoot-down would have been necessary. And I'm sure Triple-M's big goal was to create a spectacle with this bouncing head - not wanting it shot down." - Adam.

"I heard IDF took the head in, ah, ‘custody' hours ago. And yet, no reaction from the Israeli government." - Eve. 

"Yeah, it's been awfully quiet." - Adam. 

Looking around and straining to listen, Eve says: "I can't hear a thing. It's like the desert itself is holding its breath." 

Day Zero plus 10 days:

Excerpt from secure e-mail between two agents of Israeli Intelligence: 

"Analysis of Projectile is complete. There is no doubt that Heezah's severed head was encased in what is now known to be an SDB-like substance, though the following is of particular interest: Using a process currently unknown to us or the Americans, the terrorists were able to ‘rubberize' the molecules of Heezah's head (similar to how organic matter is petrified). The apparent purpose of this was to prevent disintegration of the head due to shock waves generated within the SDB when making its multiple impacts (bounces) in Israel. We are attempting to replicate this rubberization process. More later." 

Day Zero plus 30 days: 

News Flash: No reaction whatsoever from official Israeli sources over this highly unusual first in the long-running history of terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. This non-reaction is a first in its own right, as Tel Aviv is always very quick to (at least) verbally condemn any terrorist activity. Rumor has it, this silence is an indication of a severe split within the government as to how to proceed. 

News Flash: Throughout the Middle East, especially in the poorer quarters, the sport of basketball has witnessed an upsurge of popularity. Pundits throughout the civilized world have always appreciated basketball's time-honored utility as a poor man's sport. So it comes as no surprise to see many of the poorest and most idle of Muslim youth whiling away their time on the courts. What is surprising is the portrait of Heezah Freemason's head which is crudely painted on all of these balls. Oddly enough, this phenomenon has not been seen in any part of the Palestinian Territories. 

Day Zero plus 40 days: 

Two wealthy Saudis, in private conversation: 

"I really have to congratulate you on that rubberized-head idea. Your research team really showed the world what a group of committed and resourceful...no, forget ‘resourceful'...I'll just come out and say it: ‘stinking rich'... Arabs are capable of devising." - Alpha. 

"You want to know the funny part? The U.S. President himself told me about this Top Secret SuperDuperBall technology." - Omega. 

"He told you?" - Alpha. 

"Oh yes, indeed. He had a few drinks and ... we're ‘allies' don't you know? And the rest, as they say, is ‘loose lips.' But of course I didn't tell him we had already developed that technology ourselves, long ago. And, as well, I didn't mention our rubberization process." - Omega. 

"Why did you not tell him? Are we not ‘allies,' after all?" - Alpha. 

"Oh, yes. We are allies, but I'm not stupid." - Omega.

Day Zero plus 42 days: 

[Scene: Within the walls of a maximum security Israeli prison, Knitt'n Yah'hoo sits in solitary confinement, in the grip of a disturbing vision. Knitt'n was imprisoned for a failed attempt at suicide bombing ten years ago and found religion while incarcerated. He keeps his increasingly frequent visions to himself, saying nothing of them aloud, knowing that even the walls of his cell have ears.]

Knitt'n's vision: 

A transparent orb is sailing across the border. Within said orb I behold a head - and only a head. Its facial expression is a mask of pure horror, such as one would surely wear if knowing well in advance of one's own pending beheading. That's what's hardest about death: Having too much time to think about the blow that has been threatened. Or maybe the hardest thing occurs when the means of death is delivered slowly by unsteady hands. 

For as long as there have been men, we have dreamed of flight. But not like this. Not flying into one's homeland after being personally desecrated. Now comes the first of many bounces - this one, on the hard surface of a paved road - after which the orb sails once again high into the sky. I see that face in slow motion, rippling with shockwaves caused by smacking the highway. I see many more bounces and many attempts to snare this orb - all unsuccessful.

Then it stops after crashing through a roof. Passers-by, looking too closely at this atrocity fall back, tears blinding their eyes. They are the lucky ones, for they can look away. After a while, they will feel with less intensity the memory of what they saw. I, however, cannot get that face out of my mind; it is branded onto my eyes. Everything I see seems imprinted by that visage, solely for my consumption. The face of a man who might have been a friend, under other circumstances. 

Day Zero plus 60 days: 

[Scene: Two young American volunteers in Gaza City. They are alone in a park, sitting under the stars on a clear desert night, sharing some private thoughts.] 

"Did you hear what just happened?" - Eve. 

"Who hasn't? Imagine! Taking the severed heads of 20 prominent, imprisoned terrorist leaders, shrinking them so they'd fit into one small SDB, and launching it into Gaza." - Adam. 

"Well, at least IDF had the decency to warn the Palestinian Authority not to shoot, and why." - Eve. 

"Right, that's exactly what the world needs more of: this kind of decency." - Adam. 

"I heard lots of money changed hands for the Israelis to access the necessary technology for this operation." - Eve. 

"Yeah, money seems to work miracles every time. What would the Middle East be without its share of miracles?" - Adam. 

Day Zero plus 61 days: 

News Flash: There is an eerie silence pervading the Palestinian Territories, the day after 20 shrunken heads were launched into Gaza. There are no demonstrations in the streets, no wailings from the mosques, no self-flagellations in sight. The world is wondering, "How will the Palestinians respond to this outrage?" 

Day Zero plus 62 days: 

[Overheard in a marketplace.] 

"I guess ‘an eye for an eye' now means, ‘Consider us ‘even' if, for every one of our least important whom you kill, we kill 20 of your most prominent.'" 

Day Zero plus six months: 

News Flash: It's like waiting for the other shoe to drop. There has not been a single terrorist incident against the Israelis since Israel launched those 20 heads four months ago. What next? 

Day Zero plus six years: 

[From the diary of a prisoner of conscience in the United States, in the middle of serving his fifteen year sentence, who devotes his time to following current events, praying for the soul of Gaia, and meditating.] 

Dear Diary: 

Nobody visits Israel any more, that sad land of tragedy. I guess it's just as well their government built that wall. It serves well to keep out anyone who might accidentally wander into no-man's land. Nobody would want to cross that border now. 

I still cannot believe what happened. No one will ever get it right. After the 20 heads were launched, the Palestinians purposefully withheld any reprisal. I heard this was the result of a huge whispering campaign that ended up having a huge butterfly effect. You know, word of mouth, in effect: ‘Let us not respond, going head-to-head so to speak. Let's do what the Israelis would least expect and, ultimately, would themselves suffer most greatly from: Respond with submission. After all, isn't that what the word "Islam" means? To "submit to the will of God?" 

And "submit" they did. They did not react at all. They slammed the brakes on all of their vehicles, great and small, of externally-manifested Jihad. They said nothing unkind and did nothing unkind, including the few of them who still crossed the border on a daily basis to work in Israel. They suffered taunts and jeers to be sure, but maintained their submission stoically. And in this, the Palestinians were joined by their sympathizers throughout the Middle East. 

Then an amazing thing happened. With the terrorists/freedom-fighters no longer threatening them, the Jews turned against each other. The Super Duper Orthodox started the ball rolling by pointing accusing fingers at the [merely] Orthodox, saying, "You're not really Jews." The different factions became increasingly suspicious of each other, to the point where one small band of zealots stole some nuclear weapons from the Israeli arsenal, just to assure their own security. [I guess the small always fear the large.] Other groups, seeing this, obtained nukes of their own. 

Then, a very predictable thing happened. There was an accident, or a misunderstanding. Call it what you will, but it ended up in a nuclear exchange within Israel. It seems that years of ever-escalating insensitivity to Israel's Palestinian Problem induced such a state of paranoia as to make Israeli self-destruction inevitable. I guess that's human nature. Wasn't Israel supposed to be a light unto all nations? Tell me, what did it profit Israel by showing the world a light created by its own nuclear meltdown? Maybe this "light unto all nations" edict was intended to be a negative example. I don't know. 

Sad Israel. I shall now say a prayer for her. 

Day Zero plus Eight Years: 

A great Buddhist meditation master reads the minds of his close disciples, coming up with: 

·       Why was it so important for the Jews to have a nation to call their own? The Chinese take-over of Tibet didn't destroy Tibetan Buddhism. Also, the world community allowed that "Big" to take over that "Small" - without much complaint.

·       It is claimed in a certain Holy Scripture that God gave a certain land to the tribes of Israel. Did they not know that God was testing them? Not everything in such scriptures is to be taken at face value. Even in our Buddhist scriptures, there are sections where the Buddha himself actually lies and hopes that his disciples call him on it. It was one of the great failures of those in the Great Assembly of monks that, in fact, no one did call him on it.

·       An evil thought crossed my mind: I had always hoped for a great disaster to befall the Middle East. This would show the world how following false religion leads to disaster. Even though I know this to be true, there's no way the followers of Abraham could have known it; they'd be too busy finding ways to blame the Other instead of looking within themselves. I say mine was an "evil thought," because one should never pray for the misfortune of another. Instead, I should have prayed for their enlightenment. And worked toward it.

·       One could say, "The humiliation of the Moslems by the Great Western Powers was karmic retribution for the great arrogance of the Caliphate at the height of its power." As for the Israelis, they took the notion of God being on their side entirely too far. What greater arrogance is that? I wonder how they will resurrect themselves, and what this resurrected form will look like.

·       It will be interesting to see how Jews and fundamental U.S. Christians will come to interpret this turn of events. In times of great tragedy, the interpreters and revisionists start kicking their activities into high gear.

·       I wonder what God, that Great Bodhisattva Protector of the West, will do now.

·       There is a new sect calling itself "God is Greatest," which is gaining in popularity among disillusioned Western monotheists. They've abandoned all pretense of theology and Holy Scripture, becoming religious Know-Nothings. All they do is repeat aloud, over and over, "God is Greatest." How do I as a Buddhist reach out to people like this?

Day Zero plus Ten Years: 

[Scene: Two aging American volunteers in Gaza City. They are alone in a park, sitting under the stars on a clear desert night, sharing some private thoughts.] 

"Have you heard? Vietnam and North Korea are asking for U.S. military help. It seems China's ready to invade." - Adam. 

"I heard China wants to annex those two countries. Could that possibly be true? Whatever happened to the principle of Self-Determination - that Holy Grail of the Left?" - Eve. 

"I'd believe anything these days, including the truth: newly-discovered resources in these countries are ‘inspiring' the Chinese." - Adam. 

"Ah, a different kind of Holy Grail. I guess the Big will always be tempted to exploit the Small - unless the Small happen to have nuclear weapons [laughs]." - Eve. 

"or unless God is on their side [laughs]." - Adam. 

"Or both [both laugh]." - Eve. 

"I wonder...what is it that makes the Big big?" - Adam. 

"Maybe the Big guy is the guy who ultimately wins, assuming there is an ‘ultimate'" - Eve. 

"By annihilating his neighbor? Or assimilating him? Or thoroughly dominating him with some currently-unknown-yet-irrefutable technology?" - Adam.

"So that's it, then? We're doomed to an endless series of conflicts between Bigs and Smalls? - Eve. 

"Maybe things aren't so bad as all that. Even if a very ‘Big' appears on the scene, it could conceivably go the way of all the others: Power struggles from within, loss of vigor, over- or under-reaction at the top, corruption...all ultimately leading to breakdown. Some would call this: ‘failure of integrity.' I like that. Then it would join all the other failed ‘Bigs' in a special Big Hell." - Adam. 

"And not take us little people with it, I hope. - Eve. 

"Right, that is something to worry about. Seems like people are worrying more and more these days about how to deal with the various Bigs in their lives." - Adam. 

"Maybe instead of worrying, we should forsake the Bigs and, as individuals, just pray to deal with our age-old demons: Borders, Boundaries, and Behaviors." - Eve. 

"Don't the Buddhists call these three demons Greed, Anger, and Stupidity?" - Adam. 

"Same thing, yes?" - Eve. 

"Yeah...same thing." - Adam. 

FINISH 

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“In order to make some larger (hopefully) profound points, I’m willing to risk looking bad. Appearances aren’t everything” – Steve.