Miss Buddha

by Ulf Wolf

  After Fielding’s testimony, Judge Moore called it a day.

  :

  That evening, the Los Angeles Times ran this banner on its Web site: “Marten Disrupts World Religions.”

  The article, reporting on the trial, then went on to detail how through her now ubiquitous (a word often used these days) lectures seemed to reach and speak to all ages of all denominations, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew.

  According to quoted statistics, testified to at trial, the falling off of devoted flock was as drastic among the Muslim and Hindu as amongst the Christians and Jews.

  The question though, and one which Otto Jones seems to have skirted altogether, is whether this is a good or a bad thing. He has, in the writer’s opinion, successfully establish that Ruth Marten’s teachings have reached, touched, and wrested from the clutches of established religion a large percentage of their congregations, but he has not established whether this is for the good or for the bad.

  Perhaps, the article concludes, this will soon be addressed.

  Other media, whether online or television, filed similar reports, most highlighting (and verifying by their own research) the tremendous impact Marten is having on traditional and organized religion. Most also end by asking the Los Angeles Times question: Good or bad?

  :: 130 :: (Los Angeles Federal Court)

  Otto Jones’ next witness was nothing short of a coup.

  Nora Fielding’s daily television show, Of Sound Mind, enjoyed some of the best viewer ratings in the country, and was also syndicated to a healthy part of Europe and Asia. And it was the number one show in Australia. In fact, one of the tabloids had not long ago broadly wondered whether there was a person alive on Earth who did not know who Nora Fielding was.

  Psychiatrist by training and educator/entertainer by current trade, by appearance Nora Fielding could also have been Judge Moore’s sister. The same startlingly gray hair adorned both women, and for the occasion it seemed that Fielding, for some hard-to-fathom reason, had arranged her hair to mirror that of the judge’s. Standing up, hand on the Bible, taking the witness-oath, the resemblance was close to uncanny, and the hushed wave that seemed to break upon the shore of the court room confirmed this.

  Judge Moore was not a little uncomfortable about this what she deemed a bit of a spectacle, but concealed it well, wrapped in a well-worn and fitting let’s-get-on-with-it and unsmiling air.

  “Miss Fielding,” began Jones. “I would like to get right to the point. In your opinion, is Ruth Marten a danger to society?”

  “Yes,” she answered.

  “Why is that?”

  Before she answered, Nora Fielding seemed to have discovered some minor wrinkle in her skirt, which she took a moment to even out. This, one would assume, for effect, to deepen silence and heighten attention. She was a pro at this and she was succeeding. Apparently satisfied that the wrinkle was taken care of, she looked up at Jones, and then over at the jury and said, “There is nothing in this world quite as alluring, nor quite as impossible to reach, as the promised bliss of enlightenment.

  “Many, throughout history, have promised this holy grail, and purportedly shown the way, but no one has ever, can ever, or will ever, deliver on this promise.

  “Still, as the lost individuals we all are, we still fall for this promise, we still hope to find it, and don’t forget that hope is the one human emotion stronger even than fear.”

  She briefly looked down at her lap, as if to verify that the skirt-wrinkle remained taken care of. Then she looked up again:

  “We will never cease to thirst for the impossible, and not for a long time, if ever, has this promise of the impossible been presented so enticingly, nor as beautifully, as by Miss Marten.”

  “Are you then saying—for you are certainly implying—that Miss Marten lies in her account of the way to enlightenment?”

  “Lying is a strong word, Mister Jones. Lying does assume intent to deceive. I do not know for certain whether Miss Marten intends to deceive, she may believe what she’s saying.”

  “But what she does say, what she is telling her audience, in your expert opinion, is not true?”

  “Her message is definitely not true.”

  “And you say this based on what?”

  “A thorough and well-grounded education followed by two decades’ worth of professional experience with the human race.”

  “Why, though, does this present a danger to society?”

  “A society works best—or at all—when its members share both a view of reality and a notion of where we’re heading. In other words, when those in the society share a common goal. When, to use a rowing metaphor, all of us are pulling in the same direction.”

  “And Miss Marten’s promises disrupts this how?”

  Looking over at Ruth Marten, she answered: “By promising something so alluring that far too many individuals in the society abandon previously agreed upon goals and instead set out for this new, enticing destination. At worst you’ll find these poor people all rowing in a different direction, at best they simply let go of the oars.”

  “Is that the actual danger? Well, let me rephrase that. What, specifically, would be the result of this abandonment of the oars? What does the danger consist of?”

  “A good example is one that you’ve already mentioned, Mister Jones. I’m thinking about Gandhi. He brought India to its knees simply by telling everybody to let go of the oars. The British finally threw up their hands in frustration and packed their bags.”

  “And you see a parallel here, with Miss Marten?”

  “I do.”

  “How so?”

  “In that Miss Marten, much like Gandhi, has the world’s ear and has kindled its hopes. The Internet has allowed her views and promises to reach uncountable masses of people, all of whom might well let go of the oars.”

  “And then what would happen to society?”

  “It might come to a standstill.”

  “And that is the danger?”

  “That is the danger.”

  “No further questions, your honor.”

  Judge Moore looked over at Ruth, who shook her head in confirmation: No, no questions.

  :

  Jones’ next witness, Vince Reynolds, was the Chief Administrator of Hospital One, now—since a recent rash of acquisitions—the largest HMO in the United States. At well over six feet tall, and immaculately dressed, he struck the figure of the model successful executive. His voice followed suite, deep and assertive.

  Impressive.

  “Mister Reynolds, these days, how many hospitals does Hospital One manage?”

  “As of today,” said Reynolds, and—if that’s possible—straightened up further, the number stands at twelve hundred fifty-three. And you can add to that some eighty-six thousand medical offices.”

  “Impressive,” said Jones, indeed impressed.

  Reynolds smiled in return.

  “And how do you manage to oversee and run so many facilities?”

  “Our facilities are all networked, and we manage purely by performance statistics.”

  “And these statistics, how often are they reported to headquarters?”

  “Oh, they are streamed real-time. But they are summarized, to afford us an overview, every twenty-four hours.”

  “So, in other words, any data, and any conclusions you base on such information, is current?”

  “Never older than twenty-four hours.”

  “That’s what I’d call current,” said Jones, looking up at Judge Moore.

  “Agreed,” said Reynolds.

  “Now,” said Jones, looking back at Reynolds with an expression that bespoke getting down to business. “Here, in your deposition, you reference one statistic which you find, and I quote:” Looking down, Jones found the highlighted portion, “Deeply disturbing, if not alarming.”

  “Yes.”

  “What statistic is that, Mister Reynolds?”

  “New admissions.”

  “To you
r hospitals?”

  “Including hospital admissions. For statistical purposes, we treat office consultations as a sub-portion of admissions. This way the statistic reflects the number of individuals seeking treatment for new or recurring problems.”

  “Understood. And this is the alarming statistic?”

  “Yes.”

  “Why?”

  “It is undergoing a radical decline.”

  “How would you define radical, Mister Reynolds?”

  “Over the last two months we have seen a drop in admissions and office consultations of over 24%. That is an unprecedented decline.”

  “How do you explain this?”

  And now, coming to the rehearsed crux of the matter, Reynolds said: “We have plotted this decline against the increasing views of Miss Marten’s video lectures, and there is an almost uncanny relationship. Our admissions and consultations drop at virtually the same pace as the number of her online lecture views rise.”

  “So, are you telling this court that her lectures make people well?”

  “Well,” said Reynolds, and now he looked first at the judge and then over at the jury. “Our investigation paints a different picture: people think they are well, when they are not. Miss Marten is feeding them unhealthy portions of hope and promise and her audience seem to take this pie-in-the-sky to heart.”

  “So they are not less ill?”

  “No, our investigation shows that people are just as ill, contract just as many ailments as before, but they ignore them in favor of hope that they will get better and that their ailments will dissipate of their own accord.”

  “And do they?”

  “We see no evidence of that.”

  “And if this trend continues?”

  “If this keeps up, we may soon find ourselves facing an unmanageable backlog of illness and disease which in effect would spell catastrophe.”

  “Catastrophe? That’s a strong word, Mister Reynolds.”

  “Yes, but an accurate one.”

  Jones turned back to his assistant who handed him another sheaf of computer printouts. Addressing Judge Moore, he then said. These are the statistics referenced in Mister Reynolds’ testimony, and I’d like to enter them as People’s Exhibit Number Twelve.”

  Judge Moore nodded and received the papers. “So entered,” she said.

  Jones said, “No further questions your honor.”

  To no one’s surprise, Ruth Marten had no questions for this witness.

  :

  Jones’ third (and last) witness for the day looked Vince Reynolds’ antithesis. Bradley Anderson stood a rather heavy five-foot-four on a good day, had very little hair, and what little remained he had cropped to near invisibility. Dressed in a conservative, and seemingly inexpensive, brown three-piece suit, and sporting a bowtie under a blue button-down collar, he looked the archetypal accountant (or college professor), possibly hopelessly lost in a sea of numbers.

  His face was, nonetheless, a household one, since he was broadly acknowledged as the foremost economist in the country.

  “Mister Anderson,” said Jones after the legal formalities. “Where do you work?”

  “I am employed by the United States Department of the Treasury.” This he almost whispered, and not into the witness chair microphone.

  “Please, Mister Anderson,” said Jones. “Could you repeat this a little louder. And into the microphone, please. I don’t think all of the jury members caught that.”

  “Nor the judge,” said Judge Moore.

  “Sorry, your honor,” said Anderson. Then said again, leaning forward into the mic, and quite loudly this time, “I am employed by the Treasury Department.”

  There was no doubt that everybody heard him this time.

  “And what do you do there?” wondered Jones.

  “I analyze economic trends.”

  “Why?”

  “Why?”

  “Yes, why?”

  “Why, for the same reason you analyze any trends: to forecast the future.”

  “And that is your job, Mister Anderson. To tell the future?”

  “I didn’t say tell. No one can tell the future with certainty, but based on historical trends and with current data at hand, we can predict the future with some degree of likelihood.”

  “And that is what you do?”

  “That is what I do.”

  “Mister Anderson, in a recent deposition you offered that some critical economic indicators all agreed that all is not well with our economic future.”

  “That is correct,” Anderson said. Then added, “Nor with our economic present.”

  “What indicators were those, and what did they tell us?”

  “The indicators I referred to in my deposition all had to do with public consumption of goods and services. They all tell the same story: we are heading for a drastic economic slowdown, perhaps even a meltdown.”

  “I believe the word you used in the deposition was catastrophe,” said Jones.

  “That’s correct. That is the word I used.”

  “Could you, for the benefit of the court, and the jury, please elaborate on this.”

  And elaborate Mr. Anderson did, for he came prepared.

  And it took him the rest of the day to present his many graphs and other computer-generated media to illustrate what indeed was a dramatic slowdown in public consumption of such American staples as fast food, beer, movie tickets, medical services, entertainment, cars, luxury items, jewelry, and, yes, candy.

  Midway through this lecture, Judge Moore asked him to please speed things up. Not for her own benefit, for she found the information quite fascinating, but for the jury’s, where a few of the members had begun to nod off.

  “Sorry, your Honor,” said Anderson. “I just want to make the current situation absolutely clear.”

  And clear is what he made it. The judge’s interruption apparently stirred the slipping jurors back to attention, and for the rest of the presentation Anderson had everybody with him, and nobody missed his point: today, the American consumer was spending almost 25% less on goods and services than he did only three months ago. If this kept up, the U.S. economy would come to a standstill. Again he deployed the word meltdown, and to good effect.

  “But surely that will not happen?” suggested a now apparently alarmed Jones.

  “It could never come to a complete standstill of zero spending,” said Anderson. “But even if our national spending were to remain at current levels for much longer, factories would have to cut back on production and retailers, in order to remain in business, would have to shrink their inventories to match current demands. You must understand that a twenty-five percent reduction is spending is indeed catastrophic. I used that word in my deposition advisedly. It would be a catastrophe. It is a catastrophe.”

  “What happened? Do you have any explanation for this?”

  “Ruth Marten happened. That’s quite clear. The slowdown in spending coincides with her gaining popularity.”

  “Are you telling me that twenty-five percent of the population are now devotees of Miss Marten?”

  “No, I am not saying that, although by viewer statistics—the number of Americans that have or are now viewing her lectures—you could draw that conclusion. However, it seems, by our investigation, that more like ten percent of the population are headed for the Defendant’s promised land, and that these ten percent have cut their spending by more than half, but as much as sixty-five percent in some cases.”

  “You have proof of this?”

  “I supplied the documentation with my deposition,” said Anderson.

  “Right,” said Jones, and turned to his assistant; who, on cue handed Jones two thick folders, one containing the Anderson deposition, and one containing the supporting statistical and investigatory evidence. “I would like enter these as People’s Exhibits Numbers Thirteen and Fourteen.”

  Judge Moore received them, and passed them on to her clerk. “So entered,” she said.

  “Wo
uld you, in your expert opinion, consider Miss Ruth Marten, the Defendant, a threat to national security?”

  “Perhaps not to national security, the way we understand the word. But to national safety. Were this to keep up, this unprecedented slowdown in spending, our country’s economic engine would grind to a halt.”

  “And what would that mean, Mister Anderson?”

  “It would mean, could mean, famine, death, and chaos.”

  “Catastrophe?”

  “Catastrophe.”

  The jury, to a man and woman, appeared shocked.

  :

  The Los Angeles Times lead that evening’s Web Edition, and the following morning’s print edition with the following banner: Marten grinding the U.S. Economy to a Halt.

  The article went on to explain what Bradley Anderson’s figures actually meant, and then went on to express outrage that the media had not been informed about this earlier. If the country’s economy was teetering on the brink of collapse, why had we not been told sooner?

  Another LA Times article scrutinized the figures presented by Anderson and concluded that by all indicators—and by the paper’s own, albeit hurried, verification—they were true and correct. Which, the article concluded, was bad news indeed.

  Several television stations echoed the Los Angeles Times sentiment that they (and by they, they meant the public) should have been informed sooner about the impending implosion of the American economy.

  The President’s Press Secretary, however, put a less dramatic spin on things. “It is true that some statistics are heading south at the moment, but others are heading up.” She did not specify which others, and would not elaborate when asked to.

  There was not a news outlet in the world—print, television, or Internet—that did not lead with the Marten trial, and that did not weigh in on its progress. Most also expressed astonishment that Ruth Marten had only asked two questions so far, and only of one prosecution witness. If she were that incompetent, they went on to suggest, perhaps Judge Moore should compel her to accept counsel.