I duly noted President Obammer's* first state dinner, held a few days ago. Contrast that with what my first two state dinners would have been like, had I been elected President.

The most important difference: Mine would not have been state dinners, but rather Anti-State Dinners. And they would have been billed as such, since I believe state sovereignty (read: special interests) to be mankind's greatest threat.

So, what is an Anti-State dinner? Its defining feature would be a total lack of the rich & famous and/or well-connected. No government officials would be invited. In fact, I would be the only government official present. Everybody else would simply be common, ordinary citizens selected at random.

My first such dinner would be in the United States; my second, in Africa. At my first dinner, there wouldn't be any food served or even allowed - this would have been a mini-fast. And I would have urged my fellow Americans - those not in attendance - to also fast by skipping one meal. And donating the cost of that meal to a local food pantry.

At my second dinner - in Africa - the menu would be recommended by those invited to attend. I would ask all of the nations of Africa: "Which among you would grant permission to stage this party?" And I would choose the poorest among those responding. At first, I thought of asking each African state to send 10 of its randomly-chosen average citizens. But I thought of a refinement: I would ask that 10 members of each of Africa's tribes/ethnic groups be invited as guests. Since my theme is "open borders, open world, anti-state," what better way to celebrate that idea than by aiming at the groups that really matter: the tribes and the various collections of ethnicities.

At both of these anti-state dinners, I wouldn't speechify - I would listen. Open mics for all who would care to speak. And I wouldn't care if a speaker launched into anti-American rhetoric. I would be there to listen and process - not to pre-judge.

As for Obammer's* shindig

The Indian Angle

India was honored - which is fitting, since India could use some major league reassurance right about now. If you pick up a world globe and rotate it until India is in the dead center of your view, you'll see why. India is surrounded by hostile forces and would stand to lose the most if an Islamic Union, similar to the European Union, ever came into existence. Muslims in Africa would be far more likely to find common ground with (and trade with) fellow Muslims in Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan than with non-Muslims in India.

In addition, the US, in its long-term strategic planning, sees India as a vulnerable outpost in this part of the world which is becoming increasingly hostile to the West.

These two headlines (just two days apart) from Thaindian News ( http://www.thaindian.com/ ) underscore the nature of the larger struggle:

Oct. 26, 2009: US would welcome ‘professional' Indian Army in Iraq and Afghanistan [I have no idea why the word professional was placed in quotation marks.]

Oct. 28, 2009: India rules out deploying troops in Afghanistan, Iraq

India won't commit troops to our Anti-Jihad simply because India knows what's good for itself. The US, on the other hand, doesn't really need India's military assistance. We have a longer-range goal in mind: One of these days, the untested Indian military will be tested in combat - with Chinese forces or versus forces from an Islamic Union. And the US fears that Indian forces won't be combat ready when the actual bullets and bombs start flying. Only so much can be gained by joining with US forces in war game maneuvers.

There is no substitute for combat experience.

That's why the US wants the Indian army fighting militants in Muslim countries.

And for another reason: If India committed armed forces, that would be seen as standing firmly on the side of Washington DC in this area of the world. But...that's exactly why India doesn't want to get involved militarily.

About that (mostly) vegetarian menu

At first, I thought the entire menu was going to be vegetarian. If so, Saturday Night Live missed a golden opportunity. They could have parodied Larry the Cable Guy backing his pickup truck near one of the dinner tent's side exits. He'd be hosting a tailgate party, offering cans of beer and meat to Obammer's* guests dressed in their finery. And of course among them, incognito, would be our President wolfing down a hotdog so he could hurry back to his guests.

But, no, in reality meat was served: prawns and scallops.

I immediately thought: If meat was going to be served at all, why put forbidden, unclean, unkosher food like prawns and scallops on the menu? I believe there's a reason for everything - especially at events of grand significance like this. Prawns and scallops "found" their way on the menu as either a test or a joke. As a test: To see who would actually eat the disgusting things. As a joke: In the form of a put-down of non-Jews in attendance who simply couldn't, for one evening, suffer with veggie fare.

Such matters as prawns and scallops might seem rather trivial. But there are indeed times when such lowly things can tell us a great deal - if we have ears to listen and eyes to see.

And not too far up the evolutionary ladder are those two supposed gate crashers. Everybody is oohing and ahhing: Tut! Tut! Lax security! Obammer* could have been assassinated! Yeah, right! People. Get over it. Those two got in simply because they were supposed to. End of story. Don't even give it another moment's thought, except to ask yourself: Why?

Obammer* to dedicate a statue to Dubya

Nobody talks much about Iraq any more. Certainly not in terms of: We shouldn't have gone there in the first place. That particular sentiment was quickly replaced by: Well, now that we're there, we can't very well just leave [read: ensuing blood bath]. Instead, we're now waiting to hear how much more deeply Obammer* wants to immerse us into Afghanistan.

Oh, wait. It doesn't matter what Obammer* actually wants - what's more important is what he says he wants and what he actually does. For if our President woke up in a cold sweat deciding we just had to cease our Afghanic overkill, his days would be numbered. The generals would quickly see to that. [And, yes, that means I believe our military is no longer under civilian control.]

The way the generals and others "in the know" see our Middle East end game: History will prove George W. Bush was right. Dubya stood alone, ridiculed and mocked. But it will be seen in retrospect: the surge was the right thing to do - all surges are the right thing to do. And in their dreams, they see Obammer* dedicating a statue to Bush - perhaps even ordering that his likeness be blasted into existence next to the other four Mount Rushmore presidents.

And in their minds, they imagine Obammer* waxing eloquently about Bush as the greatest American president - bar none.

But...such imaginings are no more than simply counting one's chickens before they hatch. Which can be easily paired with another admonition: Print only as much paper money as can be backed up by reality, not by paranoid delusions of grandeur.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"My kind of state dinner would have been far more fulfilling than Obammer's* will turn out to be" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

We-the-People will have done some growing up when We no longer elect presidents based on simple slogans: "Change you can believe in."  [Indeed!] That kind of sloganeering isn't far removed from asking voters to look at candidates' pop up books (or comic books) for their views. And we can claim a bit more maturity when we realize there is a reason Obammer will be revealing his "new" Afghanistan strategy on Tuesday - at West Point! [Side note: Somehow, I don't think he'll announce the sensible course - withdrawal - in front of all those cadets.]

Hmm...between Dubya on an aircraft carrier gloating "Mission Accomplished" and Obammer songing-and-dancing at West Point, I'm starting not to see a whole lot of difference between the two.

And maybe our maturation will be even more profound if we can immediately let Lou Dobbs know that he can't save the empire with himself as president. That would truly be a Dobbsian Nightmare if ever there was one.

Steve Searle, Candidate for US President in 2008

It happened to me in Uncommon Ground yesterday. And I'm not sure why or exactly what happened, but here goes - to the best of my ability:

I was reading Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as I was eating rich food on an empty stomach in a too-loud place which I thought was a coffee house but turned out to be a yuppie bar. Also, wearing too many layers of clothes for as nice as it was outside, and stoked on too much caffeine. Then I came across the passage describing how Ayaan had undergone Female Genital Mutilation when a child in her native Somalia.

Actually, she and her sister - both pre-teens.

Then I had to set the book down and collect myself. Started feeling nauseous with hot flash coming on. Felt like instant onset of flu. I was almost finished with my brunch anyway, so I pushed my plate aside and laid my head down on the bar. Closed my eyes tightly. But...not wanting to draw attention to myself, I sat up straight after a few moments. Collecting my coat and sweater, I made my way a couple of feet to an easy chair next to an unlit fireplace.

After sitting down, I closed my eyes again hoping for the wave of nausea to pass. When I opened my eyes, the sunlight seemed overpowering and liquid - reducing everything it touched to an indistinct and fused glare.

I looked at the muted dark floor and took deep, slow breaths.

All told, this queasiness passed in about 10 minutes. Whew...very intense. Can't say I'd ever felt anything quite like it. Though it was most remarkable for its brevity. Oh, I've been sick before - even suddenly so. And I know the ways I get sick and this wasn't one of them. Passing so quickly after coming on so strong.

I paid my bill, then stepped out into the cool air. Very calming. Took the bus home and just laid down for an hour.  Thinking: FGM, eh? And all I had to do was read about it. Not like I was there or anything.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"I'm not given to such overreaction, so I surprised even myself. And this from a guy who could watch Irreversible (2002) calmly enough to find its redeeming social value. But I felt for that poor young woman crying in the lobby because her boyfriend thought it was a date movie. Dude - read the reviews" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

THESIS:  Increased cancer rates can be attributed to the "cancerous" growth rates we seek in our economic structures.

What is cancer? Wikipedia states: "Cancer...is a class of diseases in which a group of cells displays [my emphasis] uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), [and] invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues)..."-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

Let's think for a moment about that bit concerning uncontrolled growth. Don't we lust after that kind of growth in our economies? And don't we consider that to be good? Isn't rapid (shall we say "cancerous?") growth in our investment portfolios considered the ideal? Only on rare occasion will anyone ever think: "Rapid growth in one area of our economy could be detrimental to other areas."

Even more rarely will anyone think: "Rapid growth in the economy as a whole could be detrimental to the entire body politic in the long run." Cancerous rates of economic growth, to continue the comparison, can be invasive in Wikipedia's sense - that is, they could be intrusive and destroy other aspects of society. All of which gave me pause when I saw this headline:

"Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020" - so claims a report bearing that title on the website of the World Health Organization  [ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/ ]

Slow down, you're moving too fast

I know far too many people who have become virtual whirling dervishes. Their bodies might not rotate as do those of the famed Turkish "dancers." But their minds do - spinning ever more quickly, all in the name of "faster, faster, time is money." Most people fault carcinogens in the environment, but I will also fault mind set. That is, the kind of person who willing puts himself on the rat race's ever-accelerating treadmill is the kind of person who, shall we say, opens himself up to the effects of cancerous influences.

Cancer doesn't scare me, but it probably should. I'm the only member of my immediate family who hasn't been afflicted with cancer. My mother-in-law and father-in-law both died of cancer. My best friend had throat cancer. And I've heard from people I work with and from others in my circle of acquaintances who have had bouts or known of others in those straits.

So, why doesn't cancer scare me? If I am ever told that I have cancer, I can assure you one of my thoughts will be:

"Oh well. I've benefited all my life from the prosperity which cancerous (economic) growth has offered. So why should I be spared from having to pay the piper?"

Not that I'm a brave man, I'm not. Many things scare me, but I try to see how the things that happen to us fit into the larger scheme. Perhaps cancer will come my way, perhaps not. But in the meantime, I don't seek cancerous growth, I don't have a hurried mind, I'm not into manic acquisition, I'm more into give-give-give than take-take-take.

There's a lot to be said for the importance of one's state of mind. Maybe that won't ward off cancer which might come my way, but meanwhile I do enjoy the serenity bestowed by trying to cultivate a more relaxed outlook. And there's a lot to be said for meanwhile.

And then there's the matter of nuclear waste

I had a nightmare once about how the US will decide, in the not-too-distant future, to dispose of its harzardous nuclear waste. Send to each and every citizen, via first class mail, his or her share of that waste and let them figure out what to do with it.

Something has to be done and no other plan will be agreed upon. Once there was talk of using the state of Nevada as a central burial ground. But ever since Harry Reid, Nevada's senior senator, eventually became Senate Majority Leader, Nevada has been spared.

It's funny how politics works, motivated in its own way by cancerous concerns. But...don't get me started on the scourge which comprises our current political system. I tried my best to spare you from that blight.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Actually, anything that gnaws at our peace of mind can undermine our immune system, opening the way to a variety of cancers - some literal, others figurative yet just as deadly" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

As near as I can figure, the only fitting descriptor would be Isness, which is what It has. That is, the universe simply Is. It is neither good or bad, intelligence or stupid, large or small, loving or hateful.

There are spiritual seekers out there who sense an underlying intelligence to the Thing-As-A-Whole. And some who feel there must be Intelligent Design at work, which (lo and behold) means there must be an Intelligent Designer.

And yet others inform us that the universe is evolving - whatever that means. [By the way, no it's not.]

My two cents, for whatever that's worth

First things, first. There is no Intelligent Designer - no Mr. Big, no God who created heaven and earth.

I suppose it's easy to look at complex natural structures and exclaim, "Ah ha, Someone must have thought that one out and created it." But why, I ask, "must" this be the case? I much prefer Shakymuni Buddha's explanation of phenomenal occurrence [and I paraphrase]:

"Something comes into existence when causes and conditions make it so. And it is worth neither your time nor trouble to try to apprehend these reasons. What is worthy of pursuit is Enlightenment itself, obtainable only by means of religious practice."

Any particular set of causes and conditions, which give rise to any particular entity (no matter how much it might impress the lowly), is only one manifestation taking place within the Whole. But the Whole itself, I maintain, doesn't do or think squat. For if it did, this would only be evident if it resulted in something outside of the universe coming into existence. But then we couldn't speak of a universe, now could we, since that word is supposed to encompass everything and can't (by definition) include anything outside itself?

The Universe is merely a boundless crucible in which things happen and in which things unhappen. Creation and decay...the endless cycle from which only Buddhas can escape.

Also, we are not evolving into a super race of Post Humans. The best we can each hope to become is exactly the same "best" as always was: We each can hope (no, not "hope" - I meant to say "work") to become a Buddha. That prospect has existed forever and will exist forever more. But what is a Buddha? And why is that goal so worthy of pursuit?

Buddhas and the rest of the Universe

Once upon a time, untold trillions of millennia before he attained Buddhahood, Shakyamuni Buddha had a mortal body. Just as you and I do now. And when he gave the appearance of being born over 2,000 years ago in India, he also "caused" everyone he encountered to sense him as if he had a body one could see and touch, like any other body.

But he did not really have a body. He was (again, long ago) a common mortal who had a flesh-and-blood body who made a decision to behave himself. Sounds strange to put it that way, but yes - that's exactly it: He decided to behave himself. To act in a way that would lessen desires which are, after all is said and done, the reason why each of us continues to be reincarnated in a (drat) flesh-and-blood form. Which is absolutely unnecessary.

A Buddha is an entity which has the ability to appear in particular locations, at particular times, while simultaneously merged with and indistinct from the universe as a whole. It is written (in The Lotus Sutra) that a Buddha has the ability/power to project an infinite number of "copies" of himself (these are called emanation Buddhas) so he can appear anywhere people have a spirit that seeks his guidance on how to avoid having to return to karmically-dictated locations and sets of circumstances. Deep down inside, we all have a desire to become Universal rather than remain provincial - to not be tied down or restricted in terms of freedom of movement.

Our current lives, as lived in fleshy-and-bloody vessels, is all about limits. And oddly enough, it is our desirous nature - always wanting more and more - that keeps us from becoming More and More.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"What particular things could you possibly want, when you can be it all? - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

On June 18, 2009, the US Senate unanimously passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 26, which bears this title:

"A concurrent resolution apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans"

Right now, Res. 26 is pending action in the House Committee on the Judiciary. Based on what follows in this blog, our Reps might decide against supporting their Senate colleagues on this one.

The print media messes up...again

On June 19, 2009 The Washington Post ran a story with an inaccurate sub-headline.

The headline itself reads: "Senate Backs Apology for Slavery." [So far so good, but...not for long.]

The sub-headline reads: "Resolution Specifies that it cannot be used in Reparations Cases."

Oh, I'm sure Staff Writer (Krissah Thompson) thought Res. 26 makes that specification. And I'm sure the good senators thought so too. But in fact that is not the case, which can be determined by (guess what?) reading the resolution itself (linked below).

Is this a Disclaimer or what?

My focus is on this bit at the very end of the Resolution:

QUOTE:

DISCLAIMER. - Nothing in this resolution - (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.

:UNQUOTE.

As for (A): It won't wash to merely issue a Disclaimer stating the Resolution doesn't support any claim, while in fact the language of its entire preceding text does exactly that - by admitting guilt of a crime against humanity. How can any entity admit guilt, but in the next breathe claim it doesn't have to pay for what it's done?

Crimes against humanity aren't covered by statutes of limitation. This is precisely the reason Obammer* prevented the United States from participating in the UN's Durban II conference on racism. He absolutely wanted to avoid any discussion of, and responsibility for, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as a "crime against humanity."

As for (B): To recap the pertinent portion of the Disclaimer:

"Nothing in this resolution ... serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States."

Wait a minute...if it's not settled, then the issue is still open. Right? The entire US Senate said so - unanimously!

Maybe they meant: "This resolution is intended to serve as a final settlement, specifically denying the possibility of any type of Reparations payments or compensation and disallowing any legal action in pursuit thereof; instead, let our apology suffice."

The literal wording, however, works quite well for me since it denies that any part of the text can serve as a settlement. So if "any claim" has not been settled, it's obviously still pursuable. Therefore, in my humble opinion, any potential "claim [placed before an international or an African court] cannot be considered settled by this Resolution. Those words, plus the Resolution's copious admission of guilt, actually serve to open the door to the filing of Reparations lawsuits abroad and (I dare say) within the US itself.

Blacks apologizing to...themselves?

Of course any good lawyer would disagree with my preceding interpretation. Just as they would surely argue that black is white (or Black has become White, in a manner of speaking) if that would serve their client. But I would ask any such lawyer to explain this part of Res 26:

"The Congress...apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws..."

Read that carefully. Taken literally, our Senators don't think African-Americans are people. For if they did, this would have been written instead [note my underscored change]:

"The Congress...apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the other people of the United States..."

Furthermore, the original sentence would still fail even if we charitably allow that the Senate didn't come right out and say that Blacks aren't people. For it has African-Americans apologizing to themselves. Read that sentence with common man's competence and you'll see what I mean. I paraphrase:

"The Congress [which represents all Americans], acting on behalf of the people of the United States [which includes African-Americans], apologizes to African-Americans..." Again, this sentence includes among the Americans doing the apologizing a group of Americans for whom the apology is intended. Which is just plain stupid.

I wonder, do our lawmakers bother to read what they write? Or do they leave it to the courts to interpret what they really meant to say? In either case, God help us.

Dubya's contribution to Obammer's* dilemma

This particular section of the Resolution will make it nearly impossible for Obammer* to deny our Reparations debt:

QUOTE:

... on July 8, 2003... President George W. Bush acknowledged the continuing legacy of slavery in life in the United States and the need to confront that legacy, when he stated that slavery ‘‘was . . . one of the greatest crimes of history...

:UNQUOTE.

"...one of the greatest crimes in history..." So claimed Bush. I don't think Obammer* will be in any hurry to send a US delegation to the next UN conference on racism. [Who'd want Dubya's words thrown in their face?] Unless...the House of Representatives decides to vote against this Resolution.

See text of Resolution at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:sc26hds.txt.pdf

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Over and over again, I see an inability to properly use language as paving the way to our downfall. To our leaders, I implore: Speak well and write well - is that too much to ask?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

What do you mean "if?" Each of us has the power to make this change. Me? I decided to stop making monthly payments on my credit cards. I owe $10,000 to Visa and Discover, though I stopped paying two months ago. And I told them so. And I told them why.

When they call asking for their money, I say, "I am paying you...just not directly. I'm paying indirectly by sending that money to people you've owed for quite a long time."

Then I explain how my dollars to the United Negro College Fund are meant to serve as Reparations payments to the Black community. Our banks keep redefining the meaning of "obscene profit" on a daily basis, after our lawmakers did away with the concept of usury. So I decided it's time to start compensating for all the slave labor that helped enrich them for so long.

Bottom line? The UNCF will end up getting all $10,000 plus whatever interest I deem appropriate.

I instruct the UNCF to send a notice of each Reparations payment (labeled as such) to Visa/Discover. So I'm acting as an unauthorized agent of my creditors, doing for them what they should be doing themselves: Paying what they owe. So I guess I get to be a small voice of conscience for big business. Pretty cool, eh?

Icing on the cake: I heard about how big businesses use their debts as assets, selling them to speculators. Now I know what it's like to fill them shoes. I get to use my debt in a creative way. As Yakov Smirnoff used to say, "What a country!"

Most important to keep in mind:

The recent killings at the Fort Hood military base were the work of one man, who only might have been motivated by his religion. For all we know, he simply might have had what is crudely referred to as a nervous breakdown. This man - Nidal Malik Hasan - is a Muslim, a Major in our armed forces, and a military psychiatrist. He is also still alive and might therefore tell his side of this story.

This incident, taking place on US soil, is an extreme rarity. The vast majority of acts of domestic terrorism in the last ten years (emphatically, few in number) had nothing to do with US involvement in the Middle Eastern wars.

The United States isn't a country in which such acts occur on a daily basis. Far from it. I saw a movie back in 2005 - The Interpreter - which featured the bombing of a crowded bus in New York City. This occurred to me at the time: "What makes this act most notable and shocking to the moviegoer, is its sheer impossibility of occurrence. There hasn't been any such bombing at all - though the 9/11 attacks had taken place more than three years ago." Nor, might I add, since the time this film came out.

Even Europe, with a substantial Muslim population of its own and being closer to the Middle East, has suffered surprisingly few acts of domestic terrorism - though some of these were real headline-grabbers. This shows, the vast majority of Muslims living in Western countries are just trying to live ordinary lives with dignity - like the rest of us who aren't radicalized by politics or religion.

A lonely, anonymous death in the cold mountains

The 13 who died in Fort Hood will have their faces all over the internet, not to mention in the more traditional media. Their names will become household words - at least for a while - and their stories will be told. So-and-so wanted to serve his country. Another wanted to see the world. He left a dead-end job for a more promising career. She wanted a way to finance a college education. It will be said of most of them, "They look so young and innocent."

Of course, there are others of our soldiers who also looked young and innocent at one time. Until combat hardened them. After that point, it doesn't matter why they enlisted. It doesn't matter at all that they once looked so young and innocent. None of that matters at all to the guys on the receiving end of our seemingly endless supply of bullets. Those guys have just one thought in their minds: "They're trying to kill me."

Many of those guys will not die in what would be considered a fair fight. Carpet bombings, massive artillery barrages, and drone aircraft will exact their toll, after which embedded newsmen will report: "X number of terrorists were reported as killed by coalition authorities as a result of a heavy bombing campaign in such-and-such a valley." Pictures of those dead are rare and will never reach a mass audience. Many will remain anonymous to the rest of the world, mourned specifically and by name - only by their families, friends, and tribesmen. The vast majority of mourners, however, will not grieve for the fallen by name and as individuals but instead as part of a large and mostly nameless group of resisters of foreign occupation.

A few questions:

• The female police officer who shot Major Hassan would add an interesting dimension to this emerging story if it turns out she's a Muslim. Or, even more interesting, if she ends up converting to Islam.

• Did Hasan truly believe he was like a trapped animal, with no other option than to lash out?

• Even if Hasan had to go to prison rather than be deployed to Afghanistan, could that have been worse than killing his fellow soldiers? Didn't he even give one thought to possible resulting retaliation against his fellow Muslims who are in the military or are just ordinary US citizens?

• What kind of conspiracy theories will emerge to support the notion that Hassan was some kind of fall guy?

• How is it that the first responders were two civilian cops? Where were the MPs?

• Why were two other soldiers arrested at the time of the shootings, only to be quickly released?

• What details will emerge of what Hassan said when he himself received counseling? Or will doctors remain silent, claiming doctor/patient confidentiality?

• What kind of horror stories did Hasan hear in his role of counselor to returning war zone soldiers? Just how horrible is it over there?

The irony of Gordon Brown's speech:

About two months ago, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a speech on Afghanistan, which included this bit:

QUOTE [ My own comments are inserted in the following text.]:

It is on this basis that I made clear in the Spring - as did President Obama - that preventing terrorism coming to the streets of Britain, America and other countries depends on strengthening the authorities in both Pakistan and Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda, and also the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban.

[Terrorism coming to our streets?! I thought the original mission was to eliminate the possibility of any more 9/11-style attacks. You know, spectacular and of huge propaganda value.]

For if in either country, the Taliban are allowed to undermine legitimate government...

[I won't even finish quoting that sentence. What's important to remember is that the Taliban were once the legitimate government of Afghanistan before we "undermined" them. While it's true that the US never recognized that regime diplomatically, our ally Saudi Arabia did and, furthermore, we "recognized" them to the extent of trying to negotiate a deal to allow construction of an oil pipeline through their country.]

:UNQUOTE [For full text of Brown's speech, go to: http://page.politicshome.com/uk/brown_speech_text.html?page_num=1]   .

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"I would love to see our President go to Hasan's hospital bedside - once he's well enough to talk - and ask: What's your side of this story?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

I found it fascinating, when reading about the Roman Polanski case, that France does not extradite its citizens to the US to face trial. Not even if the guilty party would happen to admit his deed. Not even if the guilty party would decide to boast in the public square.

Suppose Osama bin Laden had been a French citizen holing up in that country after masterminding the 9/11 attacks. The US, of course, would have demanded that France surrender bin Laden. But...since France does not extradite its citizens to the US, they would have refused our demand.

And of course the US would have invaded and done to France what it's trying to do to Afghanistan, right? Right?!

Oh, wait a minute...the French are white and the Afghans aren't...as white. I don't know, maybe that's it.

Oh, before I forget, as far as Polanski is concerned: He should serve time in jail for he had done to that poor child.

Even though CBS News had this to say on Nov. 3, '09:

"Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who got a civil settlement from the director, has asked for dismissal of the charges against Polanski, saying the re-emergence of the case is causing her stress and health problems" - http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2009/11/03/roman-polanski.html

There are several considerations here:

Even though Samantha Geimer was an injured party, she wasn't the only one. The state of California, which suffered an indignity in its administration of justice - not to mention the countless young girls since then who have been abused by powerful, well-connected men. And anyway, I think once Polanski ends up in the can, Ms. Geimer will come to feel an inexplicable lightness of being.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Come to think of it, no wonder France worries about its Islamic citizens who might travel to the US and..." - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

The 17% Mandate

During Afghanistan's Aug. 20 election, one-third of the registered voters turned out and, of those, roughly half cast their ballots for Hamid Karzai, the incumbent and recently declared winner.

Let's do the math: Half of one-third yields about 17%. [That's democracy?]

This means, 17% of registered voters cast their ballots for Karzai, which of course doesn't count those who were not registered. But, I suppose, in any democratic country, those who don't register are assumed by analysts to be too lazy to vote, too busy to vote, or (too?) willing to accept the mandate of their voting peers.

But that "analysis" doesn't take into account the use of indelible purple ink. Interesting story, that. In its infinite wisdom, the Afghan election authorities (chosen by - guess who? - Karzai) mandated that those who vote have to have a finger dipped in (supposedly) indelible purple ink to prevent them from voting twice.

Doesn't that sound a little strange to you? I mean, if the Taliban was trying to discourage voting, why mark these voters for their convenience?

I can see two possible reasons:

• If voters in areas controlled by Taliban wouldn't turn out to vote, due to having to be marked so conspicuously, Karzai supporters manning those polling stations could stuff the ballot boxes without running the risk of overstuffing (that is, having more Karzai votes cast than voters eligible to vote at those stations).

• Not all "indelible" inks are created equal. Ground observers report that in certain areas, ink was provided which was easily washed off, allowing voters to cast multiple ballots. All Karzai had to do was provide the truly-indelible ink in his opponents' strongholds.

President Obammer* congratulates this cheater

We are treated to the spectacle of President Obammer* saying, "I congratulated [my emphasis] him on his election for a second term as president of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan."

However, I must hasten to add: Obammer* and Karzai are comparable in at least one way, as discernible by this clue:

"Karzai promises reform - but without specifics" - title of article posted by the Associated Press today.

Karzai and Obammer* are weak on specifics: Karzai promises reform without specifics, while Obammer* promised change you can believe in - also without specifics. Such similarities are not mere coincidence but are manifestations of the law of karma. Too bad. It didn't have to be this way. There was an alternative:

We would have been out of Afghanistan by now had I been elected US President. Actually, we would have been completely out before the end of April 2009. According to Point TWO of my legally-enforceable, 47-point contract:

QUOTE:

Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

[My entire contract is at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle-for-us-president ]

:UNQUOTE.

Too much democracy

Maybe the United States and the rest of the civilized world community (the part that counts) can gloat about a 17% mandate. Maybe Hillary Clinton can spin, as a good thing, an election handed to an incumbent resulting from a "personal decision" made by the chief opponent.  This conveniently overlooks that opponent's charge that the runoff election could not be fairly run.

I wonder, though, how much pressure President Karzai could possibly feel from his base in the future. He still has in place the mechanism to cheat and will have, without doubt, the continued blessing of the United States and allies to use this mechanism. Who's going to stop him? Especially with our troops there to enforce his will?

Oh well, we're not too keen on democracy ourselves. Not really. Or at least, our elites aren't. Why else do you think the institution of the US Senate was created? Answer: To thwart the will of the people. Though our quaint history books tell us: "...to prevent an emotional public from getting carried away." Right...

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"We have too much work which needs to be done at home to be farting around in Afghanistan. And we'd be healthy enough to do it had my Single Payer health insurance plan passed, financed in large part by our cessation of war games in the Middle East. What's that, you say? Hot off the presses: US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't commit to passing a US health-care overhaul this year. Oh, well. As they say in politics, "stuff happens" or doesn't, as the case may be - which isn't exactly change, but you can definitely believe in it" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.