50 Shades of Grey, the movie

One glaring oddity

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

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

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


Of wealth and impressionability

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

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

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

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


Of their names

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

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


Overall impression

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

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

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

Steven Searle, just another member of

the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The murder of a Jordanian pilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, one can only hope.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Chicago Politics: Some observations & suggestions

Introduction

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

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

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

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


What I'd like to see:

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

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

All in the name of greater transparency.

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


On second thought:

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


What we really need:

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

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


Diversify

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

* * *

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

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

Steven Searle, just another member of

the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Arrest Senator Lindsey Graham

Scenario:

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

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


What crime did Graham commit?

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

QUOTE:

source: Article II, Section 2, US Constitution

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

:UNQUOTE.

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


QUOTE:

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

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

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

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

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

Concerning Constitutionally-mandated oaths

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


QUOTE:

source: See Footnote 1

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

:UNQUOTE.


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

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

- that each troop has sworn to defend the Constitution but

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

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

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

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

Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
former candidate for US President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Footnote 1:

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


Footnote 2:

According to the link cited in Footnote 1:

QUOTE:

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

:UNQUOTE.

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

The shortsighted Charlie Hebdo

We’ve all heard this narrative over and over again: Two shooters (accompanied by one driver/lookout) killed 12 members of the Charlie Hebdo editorial staff on Jan. 7. Within the week, millions of French citizens flooded the streets of Paris and other large cities. These crowds embraced the slogan “I am Charlie,” declaring themselves to be staunch supporters of freedom on speech.

However, this is the same Charlie Hebdo which had a previous incarnation as a magazine called Hara-Kiri:

QUOTE:

SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo first appeared in 1970 as a successor to the Hara-Kiri magazine, which was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.[10]

:UNQUOTE.

How many among those millions of demonstrators found it acceptable to condemn Muslims killing 12 journalists, while finding it unacceptable for (virtually) that same magazine to mock the death of Charles DeGaulle? Both the killing and the mocking are instances of freedom of speech being exercised, right?

Looks like freedom of speech got sacrificed on the altar of Charles DeGaulle, a secular god of the Frankish people.

Charlie Hebdo’s staff had prior warning of Muslim sensitivities concerning the creation of images of their Prophet. That is, there was a firebombing of this magazine’s offices in 2011 for that same crime. As far as freedom of speech is concerned, hate speech and fighting words aren’t protected. At least in the United States of America, they’re not. Even common sense tells you, you cannot crawl into a bull fighting arena day after day and wave a red flag in front of the bull, and then complain when he finally charges at you.

Charlie Hebdo had always been a low-circulation magazine, not even among the top 25 in sales among French magazines. Now it can claim the largest-ever single print run in French history – having cranked out 7 million copies of its first post-massacre edition. And eager souvenir seekers the world over are snapping up all available copies.

If I was at a newsstand in Paris, looking at the front cover of this issue with a thought of purchasing same, I would have turned away empty-handed upon seeing the front page. That shows a cartoon image of the Prophet with a sad face and a single tear streaming down his face. He’s holding a sign that says, “I am Charlie,” and he’s below the headline that reads “All is forgiven.”

It seems Charlie Hebdo’s editors couldn’t resist waving that red flag in front of the bull one more time. It’s like they’re saying, “No one can tell us what to do.” Never mind that riots erupted throughout the Islamic world causing the deaths of several people. Never mind that Muslims would react badly to an infidel magazine putting words in the mouth of their Prophet, while showing him declaring himself to be Charlie Hebdo. Never mind the claim that “All is forgiven.”

I don’t think Charlie Hebdo could have succeeded more magnificently in insulting Muslims than it did by means of this cover – not even if they consciously tried doing so.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Samgha of the Lotus and

Former candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Smell of Bacon: An NYPD story

Introduction

Today, I offer you a short story I wrote recently, followed by my comments. But first, I offer some background for this story.


Background

My short story was inspired by the photo which the following link will connect you to. Which in turn was inspired by the ambush killing of two NYC police officers as they sat in their squad car in December, 2014:

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/a4bedca/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Ff5%2Fa3%2Fd9088cf94263973dd602dfcea634%2F150108-police-editorial.jpg

The two officers in question were Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, whose recent funerals were attended by thousands of police officers, many from police departments across the nation.


The story: The Smell of Bacon*


DATE:       Jan. 3, 2016
Location:   NYC
Event:        A funeral for a recently-slain NYC police officer

I remember reading about the huge turnout of police officers who attended two funerals about a year ago - for slain officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. So when yet another officer was ambushed in that same city last week, I decided to join the mourners as they assembled in the street outside of the funeral home. I was never very comfortable among cops, so I decided to hang back at a distance and not immerse myself in the crowd.

I also remember how uncomfortable I felt when I saw photos of all those uniformed mourners packed so closely together. As fate would have it, my fears proved well-founded based on what happened when the crowd was at its peak. Two single-engine planes packed with explosives, flying low and coming from opposite directions, did a kamikaze on that crowd. Not long after, mortar rounds descended wreaking their predictable havoc.

That was well over a week ago. Death toll was in the hundreds - mostly uniforms. I had watched from a place spared by the attackers. It was awful - seeing all those scorched corpses and body parts. And watching a large number of officers trying to help the wounded. I also saw a fair number who ran away, thinking only of themselves - fearful of another possible assault. Something else as terrifying in its own way was wafting through the air - the unmistakable scent of fried bacon. Must be my imagination, I thought.

It didn't take long for the various police unions to start howling. Citing the precedent of the city's response to the Liu & Ramos killings, demands were issued. All of the dead NYPD officers:

• should have streets named after them;

• should be posthumously promoted to the highest, legally-permissible pay grade so their next-of-kin could be entitled to greater benefits.

Of course, the departments of the dead who weren't members of NYPD felt a ripple-effect of pressure for similar treatment.

I wonder if similar funerals in the future will be as well and vulnerably attended. But I don't have much time to wonder these days.  Ever since I hacked NSA's computers years ago, I knew I was on their shit list as a possibly dangerous non-conformist (they don't even call them "terrorists" anymore - how far we've come). So I went underground, which so far has proved good for me. But I feel sorry for the poor and minorities without influence or a place to hide. I heard that cops all over the nation unleashed their wrath, killing dozens and strong-arming untold thousands more. And grand juries routinely refused to indict any cops, even in cases where it was undeniable - undeniable except to such as the compliant and cowed members of these grand juries.

I cry and pray for the dead and those who felt they had to kill them - sometimes at the cost of their own lives.

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

My comments

I posted this on Yahoo:


QUOTE:

B'OR is the kind of guy who would call the murdered police officers "heroes." Even though they were really two guys in the wrong place at the wrong time - who weren't in the midst of doing anything heroic. The H-word is hugely overworked. As for cops in general? I don't know about NYC, but in Chicago [my home town] they comprise the biggest street gang in town.

Anecdote:  When I was in my [late] 20's, I was jumped by a couple of thugs and ended up with a bloody face. They fled, then I saw a squad car waiting for a green light at a nearby intersection. I ran up and knocked on the window. Cop turned his head, saw what a wreck I was, then took a bite out of his donut and drove off when the light turned green. No, I don't have a lot of love for cops. As for you cop supporters, heaven help you if a cop thinks you're guilty of something.

:UNQUOTE.

• Someone posted a one-word reply to the above-quote: "fibber." Uh, huh. This poster undoubtedly doesn't live in Chicago. If he did, then he would know what most Chicagoans know - my experience was not an isolated one. On occasion, I encounter such posters on line who like to accuse folks like me as being "libruls." (sigh): I don't care if anyone disagrees with me, but I don't care for one-word respondents bent on showing off their stupidity.

• Hundreds of cops had turned their backs on their mayor since they felt he, in effect, encouraged anti-police demonstrators who had protested the recent death of Eric Garner at the hands of a police-officer using a choke-hold to subdue him. [NOTE: None of the other four officers, who had Eric pinned to the ground and heard him say "I can't breathe," bothered to try to break the choke-hold, or tell that cop to ease up. You will never hear of any such behavior.] Also, the number of arrests and parking tickets saw a precipitous drop over the last two weeks. Looks like these cops are being insubordinate. In the first case, if (for example) President Obama were to suffer such an episode (say) during a speech he were to offer to West Point graduates, they would be severely punished. But, no, cops get a pass, as they all-too-often do.

• Members of the NYPD are called New York's Finest. "Finest" what, I must ask? Are we to believe that even the worst-behaved of their corp are to be held in higher esteem than (say) a highly-effective medical doctor or school teacher?

• Then there's that TV show "Blue Bloods," which is a term used to indicate a person of noble birth. Excuse me? That smacks of hubris - for which there is karmic retribution (sooner or later).

• In cases where a cop is accused of killing a citizen, it's too much to hope a grand jury will ever indict.  Such jurymen are too easily cowed by a prosecutor who presents evidence - but perhaps not all of it nor with any conviction to indict. Instead, a special prosecutor (a neutral party from another state or from the federal DOJ) should handle such cases.

• The feds should randomly set up sting operations focused on local departments to see if cops are breaking the law.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of The Lotus Sutra and

a former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote: 

Bacon* - This is based on the habit of some to refer to police officers as pigs.

Charlie Hebdo: How soon we forget

The Algerian War of Independence lasted from 1954 to 1962. That was so long ago that most Americans don’t know much about it or that there ever was such a conflict. However, the two brothers (Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi), who killed 12 people in the attack on the Charlie Hebdo (satirical magazine) headquarters, remembered.

[I pause here to offer my prayers to these brothers, who were doing what they thought was right. They, in their early 30's, were too young to die.]

This source (Wikipedia) summarizes that war quite nicely and includes the following quote:

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

QUOTE:

Historians, like Alistair Horne and Raymond Aron, state that the actual number of Algerian Muslim war dead was far greater than the original FLN and official French estimates… Horne estimated Algerian casualties during the span of eight years to be around 700,000. Uncounted thousands of Muslim civilians lost their lives in French Army ratissages, bombing raids, or vigilante reprisals. The war uprooted more than 2 million Algerians, who were forced to relocate in French camps or to flee into the Algerian hinterland, where many thousands died of starvation, disease, and exposure.

:UNQUOTE.

I don’t know about you, but I would be inclined to nurture a grudge against the French nation that was responsible for this genocide. It’s true that France has contributed greatly to the world’s culture. But these deaths and that war were definitely a black mark on their reputation.

I mean, France itself had been liberated from German occupation about 10 years prior to Algeria’s attempt to gain its independence. You would think the French would have been more sympathetic with the yearning for freedom felt by the Algerians.

“Freedom,” specifically the right to freedom of expression, is highly prized by the French and has been rallied around at recent demonstrations as something the French will rabidly defend against alien elements. I don’t know if French law bans the act of (falsely) yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or permits physical assaults against those guilty of using “fighting words.” But, setting that aside for a moment, those same demonstrators don’t think much of the right of Muslims in France to maintain their Islamic identity. A good example was the ban in 2011 against women wearing a burqa in public – a ban which was upheld in 2014 by the European Court of Human Rights.

Hey, no problem right? This only affects French Muslims, not real human beings.

As for tolerance, if someone among those demonstrators had hoisted a sign saying “Vive la Algeria,” the self-righteous (tolerant) crowd would have probably torn him to pieces. I guess the limits of tolerance depend on whose ox is being gored.

Concerning blasphemy against the Prophet

By now, and for some time, it’s clear that Muslims disapprove of “slandering the Prophet” or even lampooning him. Knowing this, I would suggest that writers and cartoonists stop doing so, keeping the “fighting words” doctrine in mind.

If anyone wants to question the tenets of the Islamic faith, that can be done respectfully by means of interfaith (or inter non-faith) dialogue. Even a fanatic can be approached if we take the time and trouble to find the right words to use. To reduce the level of fanaticism, I suggest that the French – and the Americans – simply stop waging war against Islamic countries. All that war-making will end up doing is creating more people who will nurture a decades’ long grudge – people like these two brothers. People who will strike back decades after the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All I can hope for, is that the victims of such reprisals don’t knee-jerkingly ask, “Why me?” But they will ask, simply because they will have lost any clear memory of what we did to the attackers and why.

Of course, the Western powers won’t cease and desist their wars, simply because they wish to prevent the rise of a unified Caliphate. That’s what these wars are all about – the prevention of the rise of a new power center, especially one strong enough to resist Western exploitation of its resources.

In short? The rich and powerful don’t like competition, which is what a Caliphate would offer.

As for blasphemy, I sincerely hope that the Prophet (and his followers) would have a thick enough skin to ignore any slights. I can’t see killing someone for being disrespectful. Within the world of Buddhism, slandering the Buddha to his face (for example) for a million years would invite karmic retribution. But from what I’ve read, the Buddha would silently and calmly endure insults and pray for the enlightenment of the offender. And, as importantly, any of the Buddha’s followers who witnessed such blasphemy would not have attacked the offender.

Maybe that’s because they don’t have an ox that’s being gored, but because they know the offender has deep-seated issues that need to be overcome – and that takes time.

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

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of The Lotus Sutra and

a former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com