Renouncing US citizenship, while retaining state citizenship

Question: Is it possible for an individual to give up his US citizenship, while insisting that he is still a citizen of his particular state – for instance, [just to pick one] Illinois?

Why I ask the question: The Civil War settled one issue by disallowing the “right” of any state to secede from the union. However, can a state virtually secede if its citizens renounced their US citizenship while retaining their [Illinois] citizenship? By the way, this is no idle, theoretical question, as the following essay will demonstrate. At the end, I propose an interesting scenario for a work of fiction.

Some initial considerations

The US State Department has this to say on its website*:

QUOTE:

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1.     appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,

2.     in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and

3.     sign an oath of renunciation.

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect…Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States.

:UNQUOTE.

Note those last six words: “or while in the United States.” Now consider this sentence from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

QUOTE:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

:UNQUOTE.

This sentence is interesting for two reasons:

·       The US Constitution is telling the states how state (as well as national) citizenship is defined. If states’ rights and state sovereignty are to have any meaning at all, a fundamental right of any state must be to define, applicable to those people living within its borders, what constitutes being a citizen of that state.

·       All US citizens are, by dictate of the 14^th Amendment, automatically dual-citizens.

Conclusion: The US State Department says no one may renounce his US citizenship unless he’s out of the country. However, doing so would prevent his re-entry to [Illinois], wherein he still retains citizenship. The US State Department does not even take this possibility under consideration.

Two Constitutions “consider” citizenship

Here I will cite the US as well as the State of Illinois constitutions – talk about waffling and ambiguity!

The US Constitution: This document uses the term “the people” several times. However, not until the 14^th Amendment is the concept of state citizenship addressed. For instance, notice (below) where it uses the term “inhabitant,” when the word “citizen” would have been more appropriate:

QUOTE:

[FROM] Article I, Section 2: “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, by an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”

[FROM] Article I, Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

:UNQUOTE.

State of Illinois Constitution: This document** doesn’t define “Illinois citizenship” and in fact speaks only of US citizenship in these two important areas:

QUOTE:

[FROM] Article III, Section 1: “Every United States citizen who has attained the age of 18…and who has been a permanent resident of this State for at least 30 days next preceding any election shall have the right to vote at such election.”

[FROM] Article IV, Section 2: “To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent.”

:UNQUOTE.

An argument in support of selective renunciation

By “selective renunciation,” I mean: Renouncing US citizenship while retaining [e.g. Illinois] state citizenship, and being able to do so while remaining in one’s home state.

There are three sovereignties at issue here: That of the United States, that of each of the 50 states, and (last but certainly not least) that belonging to each individual. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution make it clear that each individual still retains a degree of personal sovereignty.

By what right has the sovereign United States to demand that a sovereign person must leave the sovereign state of Illinois to renounce (only) his US citizenship?

In fact, one has only to look for guidance at the Oath of US Citizenship (which, by the way, natural born US citizens don’t have to take):

QUOTE:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

:UNQUOTE [SOURCE: http://www.uscis.gov/].

Why can’t a citizen of Illinois, while remaining in Illinois, wishing to renounce [only] his US citizenship only be obliged to insert a legal notice in a newspaper taking an oath contrary to the Oath of US Citizenship? The contrary elements could include:

·       “I hereby declare…my allegiance only to the State of Illinois [which, by the way, doesn’t define what it means to be an Illinois citizen] and, most importantly, replace my former allegiance to the United States with my allegiance to Jesus Christ [of whom one may speak as a “foreign prince”].”

·       “I will support and defend only laws which are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ [or Buddha or “just laws,” if you prefer].”

·       “I specifically refuse to bear arms, perform noncombatant service, or work of national importance since all three are violations of the US Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude.”

·       “I will swear an oath replacing the last four words – ‘So help me God’ – with ‘So help me Buddha.’ [NOTE: “…you may provide to USCIC*** a written notice to request a modified Oath of Allegiance which refrains from reciting ‘so help me God’”. However, though one may “refrain from reciting ‘so help me God,’ one can’t substitute “so help me Buddha.”

A Basis for a Work of Fiction

Take the case of North Carolina, a state which once tried to secede. There is still considerable anti-union sentiment within its borders and, moreover, sentiment in favor of establishing a Christian republic. This would be a form of rebellion against the increasingly secular, anti-God, pro-materialistic general culture of the United States at large.

Though North Carolina as a state sovereignty was not allowed to secede from the Union, a virtual secession might yet be possible. If all, or a substantial majority of NC’s citizens renounced their US citizenship while keeping North Carolinian citizenship, things would start to get interesting indeed. Suppose these NC-citizen-only voters did not mark their ballots for US president or even for NC’s “representatives” in the US Congress. If only a small percentage of NC’s voting age residents marked their federal Congressional ballots, how “legitimate” could those ballots be?

Or if the non-US citizens of NC voted for Congressmen who swore not to vote in the House or Senate if elected, should these officials be considered Congressmen – even though elected by non-US citizens?

What about a “hostile takeover” of a State?

The US is a highly mobile society. Suppose it becomes more so in the future, at a time when a new philosophy takes root among the more economically advantaged. Suppose this group decides to leave their homes en masse in the various states and all of them move to Vermont (population 625,000) or Alaska (population 710,000) or to some equally small state. Given the low numbers of current inhabitants, this immigration wave could overwhelm the natives. This in turn could set up the virtual secession scenario I’ve been describing.

Would the citizens of such a state, those who specifically renounced their US citizenship, be made to pay federal income taxes (presumably obligatory of US citizens)? Maybe a deal could be struck, whereby such renunciates could be obliged to pay for military protection – but that’s all.

Final Thoughts

Frankly, I don’t consider myself to be a US citizen, since I owe my greatest allegiance (at least territorially speaking) to the world. I am a citizen of the world, caring about all and discriminating against none. I have several motives in presenting this essay:

·       Always, first and foremost: To make people think.

·       To underscore how unforgivably sloppy we’ve been with our lawmaking.

·       To add further argument against territorially-based sovereignties, claiming these to be the greatest enemy of world peace.

·       To support the idea of Cross-Sectional Representation, a governance model I’ve blogged on before (at this site) which seeks to eliminate the artifice of state/national sovereignties.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Superman once fought for ‘truth, justice, and the American Way.' I’m far from being a Superman, but I can still fight - and that will always be for ‘truth and justice as a proper Way for Humanity.’”

REFERENCES:

  * US State Dept website: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

  ** As of “this document”: I doubt any of the other state constitutions define what it means to be a citizen of its particular state.

*** USCIS – The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has a website at http://www.uscis.gov/ which contains this sentence.

It's risky dating politicians...sometimes

Wanted: Creative types to assist with my Presidential ad campaign

The hallmark of my campaign will be original, creative, artistic ads based on the new politics represented by The Independent Contractor’s Party. I hope you can help me come up with a series of elegant ads which will linger in the mind. Can you do it? Or do you know someone who can? Please don't hesitate: now is the time to step up to the plate.

I’m asking for volunteers because I don’t have the means to pay you. However, I won’t insult you by saying, “You’ll get your reward in heaven.” It would be more accurate to say, “You’ll get your reward in the heaven on earth that we’ll create by helping elect independents to office.”

The sample below, which I wrote, will give you an idea of what I have in mind:

BASIC SET UP:

The viewer will see a head shot of an attractive but not model-beautiful female (aka ON) talking into the camera in response to an off-camera interviewing voice (also female, aka OFF):

OFF:  You just went out on three different dates with three different politicians. Tell us about the Democrat.

ON: He drank himself stupid with beer – from cans! Can you believe that? How gross! And he kept pounding down chili dogs with onions. Then he was all over me like a cheap suit. I said, "You're not my type." He said, "That's okay, honey, politics makes strange bedfellows, if you know what I mean." I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

OFF: What about the Republican?

ON: We had caviar and fine wine, and then he wanted to tie me down. Kept saying I reminded him of his daughter. Kept talking about doing a pre-emptive strike.

OFF: Wow! What did you do?

ON: I knocked him on his ass and said, "How's that for a pre-emptive strike?"

OFF: Cool! What about the Independent candidate?

ON: Oh, he was a real gentleman. Took me to a movie, then we went out for coffee.

OFF: And?

ON: He asked me what I thought about the movie.

OFF: And?

ON: He asked me what I thought about a lot of stuff. He listened...I don't get that a lot.

[The next image shows a split screen. On the left, is a freeze frame of ON after she delivers her last line. On the right, is a live-action head shot of me, saying:]

"I've spent my whole life listening, and I think I know what you want. My written contract tells the whole world what I'll do if elected. My opponents don't have contracts, so they make promises instead - which they may or may not keep. You know, politics as usual. If that's not good enough for you, I'd appreciate your support. Thank you.”

[Final image: A blue field with white lettering: Steven Searle for President in 2012. Vote for Independent candidates.]

Female voiceover concludes with: "Steven Searle for President in 2012. Vote for the only Independent candidate running for President."

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

The only candidate with a contract: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?"

Stella Artois ad, and soup ad

Introduction:

Today, I present two sketches for production and airing:

·       Stella Artois personified

·       Soup ad format as political commercial

I’m trying to encourage you (denizens of the web) to create commercials suitable for promoting the Revolution – (er) I mean, the new politics I’ve been describing on this blog. I hope these two examples stimulate your thinking.

Ms Stella Artois personified

Disclaimer

There is no such person named Stella Artois, at least not to my knowledge. The following is a rough sketch of what I'm hoping for in a VP running mate. My print ad appeared in Bitch Magazine a few years ago, seeking interested female applicants to join me in running for President in 2008 (which I hope to update for my run in 2012). The ad had a blazing heading: Bitch Wanted. The following text read like a “help wanted” ad. Back then, no one had stepped forward, though my hopes are as high as ever that someone will now. [As the Buddhists are fond of saying, "You know who you are."]

The real Stella Artois

Stella Artois is a very fine Belgian lager, one of my favorites before I quit drinking last year. "Stella" comes to mind for several reasons:

First, I've seen some of the very fine Stella commercials in theaters while waiting for various movies to start. I hope that some of my campaign commercials approach a similar level of exquisite artistry. One of my favorites (titled "Death Bed Wishes) features a dying Frenchman and a priest falsely assumed to have consumed his last beer.

Second, as a beer, SA has bite and good taste, a rare combination in beer as well as in people.

Third, I remember that scene in "Streetcar Named Desire," where Stan Kowalski is yelling, "Stella! Stella!" My desire for an ideal running mate is just as intense.

Ms. Stella Artois, the VP Running Mate

Excerpts from a fictional encounter:

Stella: Hello, Mr. Searle. I saw your ad and I'm responding: I would love to be your VP running mate. My name is Stella Artois and I'm an attorney, actually a Public Defender going on 10 years. I never entered law in order to make a lot of money, but instead I wanted to make a difference. I agree with you, our legal system is in great need of fundamental reform. What I've seen in a courtroom is enough to make you sick.

Steve: Is your name really Stella Artois?

Stella: If you mean, was it my birth name, then no. I had my name legally changed.

Steve: Why?

Stella: For much the same reason I crudely scissor-cut my own hair: To make a statement. Also, I happen to like that particular brew. And I did it back when anything that sounded French was suspect in this country. So, I wanted people to hear my "French" name, get to know me, and think to themselves, "Not bad!"

Steve: Here's a simple test. If we were to be running mates and I was to legally change my name, what would you suggest?

Stella [laughs]: That's easy. You should become Jim Beam. The upshot, pun intended: Jim Beam and Stella Artois: The perfect boilermaker.

Steve: I love your answer. Now let me tell you what I have in mind if you were to be my running mate: You don't have to:  laugh at my jokes, agree with all of my policies, seek my permission to speak your mind, be sickeningly polite if you disagree with me, or even sign the same contract as me. I would expect you, though, to commit some of your campaign promises in contract form and sign that.

Stella: Now, can I tell you what I expect from you?

Steve: That's exactly the kind of question I was hoping you'd ask.

[Freeze frame, with these words superimposed: Any "Stellas" out there?]

Soup Ad as Political Commercial

This is yet another ad script I've written (for TV medium) to give an idea of the scope of creativity I'm hoping for in my presidential run's ad campaign.

SCENE: He unveils to Me: A tray bearing 3 bowls of soup, with a soup can by each bowl (labels hidden from view).

Me:      We can't promote my candidacy the same way ad men sell soup.

He:     Bear with me. Here, try this. [Me sips] What's it taste like?

Me:      [Takes another sip and rolls around in mouth] It tastes strong and beefy, too beefy. Too gross and overpowering. Nothing subtle about this at all.

He:     Very good. [Shows the label: It's clearly marked GOP] Now, try this one.

Me:      [Relishes another sip] Tastes kind of chickeny, but it's very weak, watery, and unsubstantial. Not much spice to it, either. But, yes, tasting this? Chicken comes to mind.

He:     Excellent! [Shows the label, which clearly reveals Democrat] Now, try this last one.

Me:      [sips] Huh? It tastes just like water, no flavor. What's your point?

He:     First point: Nothing had to be killed to make this soup.

Me:      Best not to mention that. Not many vegetarians in this country.

He:     Second point coming up: Now (ahem) please sign this. [He tears off the label on the soup can to reveal the ICC contract* on its back; Me signs it] Now take another sip.

Me:      Wow, this is wonderful...great...awesome.

He:     There's another word, go for it.

Me:      Magical!

He:     E-yes! That's it, exactly. The point? "When candidates start signing contracts, magical things start to happen."

Me:      People might string you up for practicing witchcraft. How did you get it to suddenly taste so great?

He:     Would you believe I asked the Buddhist gods for some magic?

Me:      Right, and the Keebler elves really exist.

He:     [indignantly] No, they don't.

Me:      Well??

He:     When you signed, the pressure of the pen stimulated microchips in the paper causing them to transmit to flavor chips in the soup, releasing this great flavor.

Me (slowly, incredulously):      Flavor - chips - in - cans - of - soup? How elaborate!

He:     What? You think this is a little over the top?

Me:      Well, it does make a point [pause and turns to face the camera] what do you think?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of the ICC* - The Independent Contractors' Party

"I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a written contract to the voters containing my campaign promises. If I fail to keep any of these promises, I lose my office" - Steve.

American Exceptionalism

I actually bought Sarah Palin’s $26 book: America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.

More than “bought” it, I read it. More than read it, I gave it the deep think.

Today, I will address a topic to which Palin dedicated that book’s entire third chapter, entitled America the Exceptional – consisting of about 30 pages. [All quotes below are from this book.]

QUOTE:

But what do we mean when we say America is an exceptional country? We’re not saying we’re better than anyone else, or that we have the right to tell people in other countries how to live their lives.

:UNQUOTE [page 63].

My response: Actually, that’s exactly what we’re saying. Sarah certainly isn’t fooling anybody by saying otherwise. Oh, to be sure, in our public speeches and printed materials, our leaders won’t come right out and say anything like that. But, especially among Sarah Supporters, they make no bones about this. They say stuff like, “God made us better than anybody else and He gives us His divine favors,” and “Hey, hey, get out of our way, we’re the mighty USA,” and “It’s our way or the highway.” I could go on, but you get the general idea.

QUOTE:

When we say American is exceptional we’re saying we are the lucky heirs to a unique set of beliefs and national qualities, and that we need to preserve and value those beliefs. We’re saying America is a model to the world, not a bully to the world, or responsible for the world.

:UNQUOTE [again, page 63].

My response:  Ah, “lucky heirs,” you say? To a profound extent, those “unique…beliefs” were foisted off on us by the Founders and enforced by succeeding generations of authoritarians who refused to change with the times. As for “unique…national qualities,” those were not uniformly shared by even the earliest Americans. Basically, you had a bunch of propertied & moneyed intellectual fancy-talkers communicating in a manner barely intelligible to a sizeable, rowdier, uneducated, and disadvantaged portion of our citizenry.

In another chapter (page 191), Palin states: “He also personified what John Adams meant when he said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” This dovetails neatly with Palin’s assertion that we have “unique…national qualities.” Or does it? The Founders must surely have realized (and were leery of) the Great Unwashed – those among the great mass of citizens who did not own land, were a little rough hewn, and among whom dwelt (shall we say?) persons of ill repute or even scoundrels.

Any claim about what a “moral and religious” people we are surely doesn’t take into account how badly we treated native Americans. It also turns a blind eye to the fact that pious, churchgoing Negros weren’t allowed in White Southern churches. Not to mention that some of those White congregants donned white robes and burned crosses in the name of the KKK. In short, the Founders were trying to create a narrative to impress the rest of the world and create a national identity.

As for any need to “preserve and value those beliefs,” the greater need is to move on. The current generation can be Founders of a greater spirituality and can create their own Constitution, for which there is a crushing need. One of the greatest faults (though not of their own choosing) of our Founders: They indeed had a spirituality, at least to some extent, but that was a product of the religious turmoil in Europe. What they lacked, in all seriousness, was any grounding in Buddhist teachings, notably the Lotus Sutra. However, this hadn’t even been translated into any Western language until 1852, well after the US independence literature had been written.

This last bit is important because I, through the vehicle of my candidacy for US president in 2012, hope to use the teachings of the Lotus Sutra as the basis for a new American revolution.

And finally, that bit about “America is a model to the world” needs only one comment: Not as much now as it once was.

Other Exceptionalisms

I have a problem with claims concerning how “exceptional” America is. Especially with people who speak often of those claims, in bragging and demeaning tones, forgetting that modesty, too, is a virtue.

There are many noble examples of exceptional cultures – there are even some based on ideas. You’d have to look awfully hard to find a greater per-capita concentration of genius than existed in BCE Athens, Greece. Not to mention modern day Israel. Though I believe Israel has lost its way, it’s not entirely too late to right itself. Here, though, you can’t help but wonder how a people who had suffered so much during World War II managed to find the grit to try to reclaim an ancient legacy – return to their Biblical homeland.

And World War II itself provides many examples. Let’s use the USA as a basis of comparison, by noting that less than 1% of the US population at the time died in the war – combined civilian and military fatalities. In fact, only one-third of 1% had died. Not to mention that US cities and infrastructure had been virtually untouched.

The Soviet Union lost over 14% of its population, not to mention huge loses in its agricultural and industrial base. And yet they recovered sufficiently and quickly enough to mount a serious challenge to US international dominance.

Poland lost 16%. A special “hats off” to Poland here for having not only recovered but for having survived Communism by means of a strong sense of national identity. One can only wonder if the US, if ever suffering anything similar, would have the guts of the Poles or if our perennial partisan bickering and culture wars would prevent the US from ever rising again.

Moving on from WW II’s considerations, we have China. What amazing courage the Chinese leadership must have had to send a huge army against UN/US forces during the Korean War. This at a time when the US possessed the only appreciable nuclear arsenal in the world. And, yes, there was serious discussion at the highest levels concerning use of US nukes against North Korean/Chinese forces.

Conclusion

There are people who need to cling to the notion of American Exceptionalism. My response is: “Whatever floats your boat.” But I must direct to them a challenge: Instead of boasting about how great we are/were, what have you done lately? Have you examined your suppositions to decide how best to move forward or are you living in the past?”

These are good questions, though I fear the Palinians don’t do the deep think too often or well. However, I can promise them (and everybody else) this much:

I am going to re-read Sarah Palin’s book and post a lengthy rebuttal. All I ever ask of my potential presidential opponents is that they put their thoughts in writing. Then, for me, the rest is easy. I easily shredded Obama, McCain, and Hilary Clinton during the 2008 campaign. I shall have no problem similarly disposing of Sarah Palin.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“I suppose my last two sentences (above) must sound awfully conceited. However, I do not believe in false modesty, and that sentence happens to be the truth.”

Bury the F-35 jet

QUOTE:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The F-35 fighter jet, set to replace a large part of the US warplane fleet, has become the most expensive weapons program ever, drawing increased scrutiny at a time of tight public finances.

Following a series of cost overruns and delays, the program is now expected to cost a whopping 382 billion dollars, for 2,443 aircraft.

…

But there is now the potential for competition from China, which this week unveiled its first radar-evading combat aircraft and fueled a sense of a military rivalry between the two powers.

:UNQUOTE.*

Know when to say “when”

If a person drinks, yet doesn’t know when to say “when,” he is an alcoholic. If a country spends foolishly, money it doesn’t have, well…that’s another kind of addiction.

As the next US President, I will bury the F-35 project, because I know when to say “when.” At $150 million per plane (so far), we are staring into the face of an obscenity. And there’s absolutely no reason for this. We again seek to go further into debt in the name of obtaining greater security – haven’t we yet learned that won’t work? There’s a gigantic scam being foisted upon us, which goes something like this:

“The US government knows the F-35 can only have limited effectiveness against insurgencies. The only force that might hold the line is (as candidate Obama put it), being able to put ‘more boots on the ground.’ In the eyes of the US ruling class, masses of armed and highly mobile troops must be available to impose our will on the rest of the world (or at least that part of the “rest of the world,” which excludes our allies/stooges). Well…maybe them, too, though indirectly.

“However, in order to obtain those troops, the US will either have to reimpose the military draft or else create an economic climate which will encourage enlistment. Or a combination of the two. If we spend ourselves to the poorhouse, by financing projects such as the F-35, that will help create the necessary economic climate.”

And, of course, having such an arsenal will only serve to encourage us to use it. And, again, I ask “why?” China will not prove to be a threat – and our Oligarchs know that. The big over-the-horizon threat, at least in their estimation, is the potential rise of an African/Middle Eastern Islamic caliphate. The recent events in Tunisia haven’t exactly escaped the notice of our intelligence community – after all, they are at least somewhat intelligent. In fact, they even saw this coming. And they see huge potential for a general uprising against Hosni Mubarak, our puppet ruler of Egypt.

In a worst-case scenario, weaponry like the F-35 is intended to induce shock and awe and to cover a large land mass, which is what the Caliphate could well encompass.

However, when the history of our miscalculations is written, we will look back and ask ourselves, “Wouldn’t it have been easier (and cheaper, and most humane) to simply have lent a helping hand to the recently-liberated Tunisians? Wouldn’t it have been better to allow nature to take its course, rather than weaponize Mubarak (for decades) so he could suppress his own people?”

The man in the street in Egypt isn’t stupid. He knows the US pays for the clubs wielded by Mubarak’s “security” forces. Clubs which are used quite liberally to beat him over the head.

Enamored of high tek

I will now speak from the perspective of a Buddhist, and invoke the lesson of a movie: The 1956 sci-fi milestone, Forbidden Planet.

The long-gone inhabitants of a distant planet, Altair IV, had managed to build a technological infrastructure that could materialize any of their thoughts. Talk about the ultimate labor-saving device!

However, the Krell were wiped out in one single day after they activated this mechanism. They forgot about the subconscious evil, which lurks in most minds, which would also materialize its thoughts in addition to whatever their conscious minds were trying to conjure – the so-called monsters of the id. These monsters went on a rampage and killed every last one of them.

Even though the Krell had mastered a technology which offered a chance to create a heavenly paradise, they themselves turned out to be their own worst enemy.

So much for technology, which I personally minimize in importance. The truest clue to our overall state of advancement is our longevity. I suppose we can feel superior to have increased our average lifespan well beyond what people in the Dark Ages had enjoyed. But, again, that’s nothing more than technological advancement.

I’m talking about a lifespan of 1,000 years and more. In fact, the Lotus Sutra speaks of average life spans, in certain Buddha lands, lasting millions of years. However, in those societies, there wasn’t any technology. There wasn’t any need. These beings were able to create reality with their thoughts – without (as the Krell had tried) by means of a machine.

They had other attributes as well – such as the ability to be in several places at once and the ability to shape-shift. They had no need of any type of food except: dharma joy and meditation delight.

They attained these wonderful abilities by opening the door of compassion and by engaging in practices suitable for the attainment of enlightenment. Mostly, by caring about the spiritual welfare of their fellow man.

Don’t look too much upon the marvels of our technology, look instead at the extreme brevity (relatively speaking) of our life spans. That’s the truest measure of our progress. And then ask yourself, “How advanced are we, really?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“New weapons systems are a cesspool which is (literally) sucking the life out of all of us” – Steve.

  * SOURCE: Article by Mathieu Rabechault – Jan. 13, 2011

Dr. Watkins for Mayor of Chicago: A Declaration of Independence

On January 15, 2011, I sent the following email to the (hopefully) next mayor of Chicago:

QUOTE:

I am a “white” resident of Chicago who will be voting for Dr. Van Pelt Watkins on Feb. 22. Chicago will be lucky to have such a fine person as mayor.

For what it’s worth, I wish to offer a few tips which your campaign might find useful. Also, for what it’s worth, I have been a state civil service worker at Northeastern Illinois University for 29 years. I’m about as ordinary and powerless a citizen as can be imagined. However, I do have one minor claim to fame: I was the only candidate in the history of this country to run for US president (in 2008) on the basis of a legally-enforceable contract. If I had been elected, if I had violated any of the 47 campaign promises listed in my written & signed Electoral Contract, I would have forfeited my office.

That leads me to my first tip for your campaign:

Dr. Watkins might consider offering such a contract herself, a sample of which follows:

QUOTE:

Electoral Contract specific to Chicago’s Mayor

This link leads to my blog on which I detail what a US president’s electoral contract [my own contract, back in 2008] could look like:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html

The enforcement mechanism, in this case, is quite simple: If I were to violate any of my written campaign promises yet fail to resign the presidency, the Congress could impeach me. However, there is another way which could be included in Dr. Watkins’ contract, since there’s no way to impeach Chicago’s mayor:

“If an opinion poll of registered Chicago voters conducted by the respected polling firm of _____ would ever show 50% saying I should resign as mayor, I would have to either resign immediately or forfeit a ‘bond’ in the amount of ____ held in trust by ____.” [NOTE: Any such poll would have to be paid for the mayor’s detractors.]

Other possible mayoral campaign promises:

ONE: If elected, I would have no part in raising taxes or fees for four years.

TWO:  If elected, I would have no part in granting public money (not even by means of bond issues) for the benefit of privately owned corporations, especially sports franchises, especially in regard to construction of new ball parks.

THREE:  Discretionary money in TIF accounts, controlled by the mayor, would be spent as follows: 50% for school improvement (not for any salary increases), 30% for (other) infrastructure improvements, and 20% to hire more police officers.

FOUR: If the day comes when the city council consists of at least 50% independent aldermen not aligned with any political party, I would seek majority approval by such Council for legislation, that being sufficient for enactment. Also, I would step aside and allow the Council to select its own presiding officer and, in all respects, operate independently of the mayor.

:UNQUOTE.

Other suggestions

Dr. Watkins should emphasize that she is an independent who believes Chicagoans have suffered under one-party, strongman mayor rule for too long. Single party rule dominated by a strongman is typical of stagnant third world countries. And this is not fitting for a leading world-class city like Chicago.

On the other hand, this is not a suggestion that competition in the form of a revived GOP is welcome. What is really needed, here and nationwide, is an end to the Two Party System’s dominance. When elected officials are beholden to a political party, they lose their connection to the people they’re supposed to service.

As mayor, Dr. Watkins would invite City Council members to sever their allegiance to the Democratic Party and declare as independents. Either that, or face challenges from independents who will start to look increasingly attractive to a party-weary public.

It’s time for Chicagoans to declare their independence by voting for independents.

With people like Rahm Emanuel, we don’t know what favors he’ll be expected to grant in exchange for campaign contributions. With the other candidates, they will behave as good servants, doing what’s best for the Democratic Party without any care for the ordinary citizens of Chicago.

As Mayor, Dr. Watkins could lead for renegotiation of the city’s parking meter deal by threatening to lead meter boycotts on certain selected days, saying, “On these dates, I urge all citizens to take public transportation instead of feeding bloated parking meters. We will continue this boycott until this blatantly unfair contract is renegotiated.”

I hope you will consider these possibilities as foci for your campaign.

Sincerely,

Steven Searle

Candidate for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

:UNQUOTE.

Post Script

I’m going to send another email to the Watkins campaign, suggesting that she add one more facet to her campaign: Advertise heavily that she, if elected, will aggressively investigate Chicago’s more hidden aspects of corruption. She can do this by means of her executive authority as mayor, and by inviting the feds to come in and pour over the books. She can order all agency heads to fully cooperate in this investigation. If this trail of investigation leads to where I strongly suspect, Mayor Richard M. Daley might end up doing the perp walk after all.

In any event, such revelations will be to the good of all of Chicago’s citizens.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors Party

" #1: Anybody but Rahm; #2: Anybody but a Dem/Pub; #3: Watkins is actually a very good option."

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.

Though it might seem an odd placement for a creative writing exercise such as this, I concluded: "Exposing my fellow citizens to my creative side is a good way for them to get to know me. And this is important since I wish to become their president."

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 for US President in 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.