On Dec. 19, I had posted on Gaia a blog I'd just written entitled, The Great Seizure. Then two days later I happened to see, on Yahoo News, an article bearing this title: "Resource-rich Brazil puts up its guard." This article supports a statement I made in The Great Seizure: "Don't suppose for a moment that our ‘allies' and others aren't aware of all this."

My thesis - the "all this" referred to above - was stated in my very first sentence: "The Great Seizure will occur when the United States uses its military to start taking stuff."

From: "Resource-rich Brazil puts up its guard":

QUOTE:

Brazil's planned reentry into the satellite business ... [is] part of a far-reaching defense plan to ward off potential plunderers of its immense natural resources, [Brazilian] officials say.

"In the coming era of scarcity, we're going to have to defend what we've got with our claws, our feet and our weapons," said a consultant to the Defense ministry [of Brazil] who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak. "The challenges could come from neighbors, they could come from the U.S., they could come from China - all allies now, but potential competitors in the future."

:UNQUOTE: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-brazil-defense18-2009dec18,0,6675591.story

Let's get two things straight right off the bat. First, this Brazilian consultant was indeed authorized to speak, but was also ordered to say he wasn't. You may be very sure the Brazilian government wants it to become widely known that it sees the U.S. as a potential plunderer of its resources. I'll come right out and say it: "The U.S. will do its level best to plunder Brazil's resources." Can there be any doubt about this? Oh, and don't tell me "we're the good guys," since nobody can possibly believe that any more.

Second, when this consultant said, "The challenges could ... come from the U.S., they could come from China," he only mentioned China and alluded to other "potential competitors" in order to avoid the appearance of singling out the United States. However, it is the United States, and the United States alone, that his words were really targeting. Think about this for a moment: He couldn't have meant China, since any Chinese threats would be strongly rebuffed by the US itself invoking the Monroe Doctrine. That doctrine, in fact, would serve to rebuff any non-American country.

Which invites a question: Should Brazil fear any of its Central and South American neighbors? The answer to that is a resounding "no," since (hands down) Brazil has the strongest military in those two areas. In fact, according to http://www.globalfirepower.com/ (which ranks countries militarily, but excludes consideration of nuclear weapons), Brazil's military strength is rated #8 in the world, just behind Germany. The only regional power even close to Brazil is Argentina, ranked #33.

Actually, Central and South American nations will end up looking to Brazil to unify the region and lead the resistance against Washington's designs. I cite three points from Hugh O'Shaughnessy's article* entitled "US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America":

• From the Caribbean to Brazil, political opposition to US plans for ‘full-spectrum operations' is escalating rapidly.

• The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin American and the Caribbean by acquiring unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in Colombia.

• The fact that the US gets half its oil from Latin America was one of the reasons the US Fourth Fleet was re-established in the region's waters in 2008. [I disagree with the author here: The Fourth Fleet was re-established to facilitate The Great Seizure.]

   * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-builds-up-its-bases-in-oilrich-south-america-1825398.html

The writing is on the wall:

Pertinent link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Armed_Forces#Extensive_Modernization_Program

This link has a section entitled Extensive Modernization Program, which includes two ominous sentences:

• In 2008, Brazil has signed a strategic partnership with France and Russia to trade military technology.

• In a second agreement, France will provide technical assistance to Brazil so that Brazil can design and produce indigenous nuclear powered submarines, to be completely built in Brazil [my emphasis].

This EMP section does not mention the United States at all. However, perhaps there's a reason for this:

QUOTE:

Christian Girault, a Latin American geopolitics specialist at France's National Centre for Scientific Research, told FRANCE 24. "The United States is traditionally Brazil's strongest ally. But now [Brazil] is looking to diversify its partners... because the economic crisis has reduced the prestige of the United States."

:UNQUOTE:

[ http://www.france24.com/en/20090907-sarkozy-lula-silva-brazil-france-combat-fighter-jets-rafale-military-defence ]

I respectfully disagree with Mssr. Girault. Brazil is "looking to diversity its partners" alright, but not "because the economic crisis has reduced the prestige of the United States." Prestige has nothing to do with Brazil's diversification. Distrust of US intentions has everything to do with it.

For at least the time being, however, the US will tolerate Brazilian expenditures for military upgrading for two reasons:

• As an assist for the world economy.

• Because it will prove to be an ineffective counterbalance to US forces - no build-up Brazil undertakes could possibly resist a serious US assault.

What can Brazil hope to accomplish?

Upgrading Brazil's military can have several useful purposes. By specifically citing the US as a potential plunderer, Brazil can hope to embarrass the United States into behaving itself. But...it takes a lot to embarrass the US.

Perhaps by assuming the mantle of Central and South American leadership, Brazil hopes to galvanize a broad-based opposition to US interference. This would prove particularly difficult for the US to counter if two events come to pass:

• Admission of Brazil to the UN Security Council.

• Brazil initiating some type of foreign aid program to help its less fortunate neighbors, in addition to developing joint economic ventures with these countries.

I hope, however, that Brazil's enhanced military doesn't end up persecuting domestic dissidents or overthrowing its government. Among others things, that might encourage direct US intervention (okay, I'll say it: "invasion").

"It didn't have to come to this."

I hope we don't end up saying, "It didn't have to come to this," if the US should end up subjugating Brazil as part of The Great Seizure. When I campaigned for the US presidency in 2008, I included this (as point #21) in my 47-point contract**:

QUOTE:

Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.

:UNQUOTE.

I wanted to send a clear message to our Central and South American neighbors, by means of this humble token of imperialistic renouncement (point #21):

"Gone are the days of US interference in your affairs. Long live the right of self-determination."

Unfortunately, my campaign for the presidency never got off the ground. For if it had, I'm sure my 47-points would have been embraced as breaths of fresh air. More than that: As vital. But, no, my offer of a legally-enforceable contract to the electorate did not reach enough ears. As a consequence, we have President Obammer*** leading us inexorably to The Great Seizure.

Well, I tried my best to stop the madness which will surely unfold. For my failure, you have my apology.

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

"It will be interesting to see if Brazil succeeds in fulfilling its destiny or, instead, becomes just another vassal state" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

    ** http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle-for-us-president

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

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 Great Seizure will occur when the United States uses its military to start taking stuff. And that will happen when the Shadow Government determines this country to be so far in debt that "something's got to be done." Then strings will be pulled causing that marionette [Obammer*] to "lead" the way. The Great Seizure could commence during this change-candidate's time in office - how ironic.

Kings of the Hill don't like losing their dominant positions - they tend to lash out or take preventive measures. The Neo-Conmen will not go quietly into that dark night, which would spell the final curtain on the irresistibility of American power. And these Right Wing think-tank types won't be alone; they'll be on the same page as countless others who think it okay to blatantly steal in order to support their current life styles. [And it won't matter if those "countless others" actually comprise a voting majority - as if voting will matter.]

The Great Seizure will occur by means of us declaring international martial law - unilaterally and with no pretense of backing by any world body or alliance, if necessary. We will try to force changes in the way business is conducted between nations, so as to more greatly benefit the US economy. But that force will only be applied to first-tier countries which are spared our plundering military. By means of direct invasion, or threat of invasion, we will seize from second-tier countries whatever resources are necessary to keep our boat afloat.

US citizens will go along because they will see no alternative. The government will bribe the population by offering forgiveness of personal debt. This will be attractive to the untold millions being crushed by credit card debt and the threat of ever-increasing taxation needed to service the national debt. Another Obammer* will rise (maybe even this current Obammer*) introducing widespread personal debt forgiveness, in one breath. And in the next breath, he'll reassure the banks (using more elegant language, to be sure): "Don't worry about new policies which void personal debt. Our military will take, from other countries, the resources and assets necessary to compensate you for your impending losses."

This new doctrine, the Great Seizure, is nothing more than an update of a much older doctrine: Robbing Peter to pay Paul. But it will be grander than anything ever attempted, and will become the final chapter in the Revised Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Standing idly by?

Don't suppose for a moment that our "allies" and others aren't aware of all this. They can see how the lines on debt vs. asset graphs lead to a point of no return - at which US debt, coupled with resource scarcity and pollution, will render the US position untenable. Just as our leaders sit in their War Rooms, other potentates sit in theirs and wonder: "Seems like the US military is getting lots of practice these days. Maybe we should join them."

Two good reasons for joining:

• It's not a good idea for any nation to allow its military to get too flabby - especially if it might have to (somehow) resist Superpower designs on their domains.

• By fighting shoulder to shoulder with Superpower forces, when the Day of Reckoning comes, maybe (just maybe) "allied" nations might, for sentimental reasons, avoid being placed on the "okay to plunder" list of mostly African and Middle Eastern nations.

Other power centers are not standing idly by; they have their own contingency plans. So, much will depend on whether the US decides to unleash its military without bothering to share the booty. Even the Nazis thought it wise, before invading, to divide up Poland with the USSR by means of a secret non-aggression pact. However, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men. That is, no secret agreement can be ideal and please everybody - some nation will have to be thrown under the bus (taking a hit for the team, as it were).

[Most worrisome of all: that any secret agreement will turn out to have a fatal flaw - again, best laid plans and all that...]

I'm thinking of India, which is in a truly unenviable position by virtue of its geography. If any master plan is devised to carve up the world (as the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 did with Africa), not every current power broker can be included. Considering India's isolation, the economic competition it offers, and its need for imported raw materials, the Chinese and the Japanese would find it desirable if the Indians were effectively removed from the equation.

One possible scenario: A crippling nuclear strike from Pakistan against India's major population centers, carried out by local terrorists or by our boys pretending to be.

The Indians, of course, are fully aware of all this, not being much lulled by Obammer's* words of support and alliance. Perhaps the only effective countermeasure would be for the Indian elite to accept this plan with the assurance they'd be alerted in advance so they could hunker down in a safe zone during the onslaught. They might find it acceptable for their land to be nuked by "dissidents" within Pakistan as a way to drastically reduce their own population - but only if they would be allowed to keep their independence. In exchange, China and Japan would be assured of removal of India as a competitor as well as unimpeded access to southern Asian countries and a share of Africa to boot.

And why shouldn't all this come to pass?

The world has already suffered through two world wars. And the main driving force (competition for ever-scarcer resources) that precipitated those conflicts is still with us. And added factors include unsustainable population growth, pollution, and an interconnected economic system which was never designed to benefit everybody.

For those who think a new Holocaust couldn't happen, consider:

• US nuclear forces are still on hair-trigger alert.

• We have a hawk for president [if it walks like a hawk and talks like a hawk...]

• We have a Secretary of Defense who calls himself the "Secretary of War." [If I were president, I would have publicly rebuked him for that.]

• The Nazis had left the world one enduring legacy: Some people, who are better than others, are justified in killing their inferiors to make more room for themselves and their grand plans. We embrace that legacy but call it by a different name: American exceptionalism.

• The most destructive of wars have always been caused by the most "civilized" of cultures. And since the US currently has the most civilized of cultures, it just might follow that we will be responsible for the most destructive war of all. [Please...don't say, "It can't happen here.]

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

"The only way out I can foresee: The rise of a new global anti-materialistic spirituality which not only embraces less is more but insists on this approach in its politics" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

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

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.

My answer

No, Muhammad was not a pedophile. That's my answer, even though he had married Aisha, one of his 13 wives, when she was six and he was 54. This marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine years old.

Background comment

This comment deals with why I ask this (title) question in the first place: I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali, now an atheist after having been a Muslim in her formative years, brought up the subject in Infidel.

So, being the modern man that I am, I searched the internet. I saw that many who have a problem with Muhammad, because of Aisha, also have problems with Islam in general. I have not encountered any instance of Muslims expressing even mild disapproval of this marriage - then or now.

But I can see why Infidel's author was bothered enough to at least bring up the subject. Though it seems much of Ali's discomfort stems from un-Islamic forces: The clannish patriarchal system of her native Somalia and the pre-Islamic custom of Female Genital Mutilation widely practiced in many African countries. Though Ali is not an Islamic scholar, her voice definitely adds a needed dimension to issues pertinent to (especially) immigrant Muslim communities in the West.

About Muhammad and Aisha and the Dalai Lama

The biggest reason I don't have a problem with Aisha's pre-teen marriage is, Muslims don't seem to have a problem with it. And it is here that I want to tread very carefully: Muslims consider slandering or insulting the Prophet to be a grave offense. However, I am not as concerned with slandering the Prophet as I am about distressing Muslims. These are flesh and blood, real-live-people to whom the teachings of Muhammad are profound.

Would I slander someone's father? Would I heap scorn on someone's brother or sister? Would I disrespect someone's son or daughter? No, to all of these questions, simply because that "someone" would not tend to be as receptive to anything else I might have to say. It is true that I have disparaged the Pope and the Dalai Lama but they are merely ordinary mortals, not on the same level nor as central to their faith traditions as are, say, Jesus and Shakyamuni Buddha...or Muhammad.

In the case of Aisha, I can only wrap my mind around her marriage by reason of exceptionalism. That is, if Aisha had been divinely intended for Muhammad, then I will not argue against the will of Allah. But if 40-year-old Joe Shmo down the street wanted to marry his 10-year-old neighbor, I'd have a problem with that.

In like manner, I've heard criticism of the Dalai Lama for having his kin working in high-level positions in his government. I, speaking as a Buddhist, can only say: "Well, why not? People who were disciples of a great leader in a past life could well be expected to be reincarnated as a relative in this life." [Exceptionalism, once again rears its head.] Not that I'm saying the Dalai Lama is a "great leader," for his message is too narrow and, I think, soon after his passing, he shall be quickly forgotten - both his person and his particular message.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have heard that Ayaan is despised by many in her original homeland, Somalia. And others hold her in low regard for having forsaken Islam, currently embracing atheism instead. However, since Ayaan is only 40-years-old and, as her book Infidel reveals, has always been a seeker, I sense she will abandon atheism. Worse than her embrace of atheism, though, is her embrace of the American Enterprise Institute. But I suppose she had to grab a lifeline when it was thrown to her - when she had to flee for her life from Holland, the job AEI offered here in the States was truly a life saver.

I sense in Ayaan Hirsi Ali an intelligent and independent woman who will sooner than later move away from the AEI. The stench of the company that group provides will prove too overpowering.

I think Ayaan has a lot to offer her fellow Muslims, and they will find a way to process what she'll have to say, after they find a way to forgive/reconcile with her. And she will find a way to promote her message - after she discovers exactly that message is. Toward that end, I would encourage her to pray or elsewise engage in a spiritual practice.

Muslims in general

Ah, that's a tough one. How can I speak of Muslims in general? The rich Saudi prince doesn't have much in common with the taxi cab driver in Gaza city or the followers of any of the Iranian ayatollahs. Or the rice farmer in Indonesia. In the final analysis, it won't matter how I react to these different Muslims. It will matter far more how they react to each other.

That being said, I find it ironic that Muslims swear a belief in the End of Days (especially, if that Day is to come any time soon), since it will take a long time (centuries?) for them to discover each other. If, however, something which Muslims can call an End of Days occurs (though I as a Buddhist might give it another name, such as the end of a kalpa), I sincerely hope that Day won't occur until Muslims work out their differences and show the rest of us what it means to be an ideal Muslim in this day and age. [Yes, that's a friendly challenge and an invitation, since I have a lot of faith in you.]

I feel a kinship with Muslims, though I know only a few of them personally. What I've read in books and seen in movies (especially these movies) has influenced me greatly:

Battle of Algiers (1966, directed by Pontecorvo)

Brothers (2004, directed by Bier).

Cache (2005, directed by Haneke)

Days of Glory (2006, directed by Bouchareb)

Iron Island (2006, directed by Rasoulof)

Osama (2003, directed by Barmak) [Nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, by the way.]

Secret of the Grain (2007, directed by Kechiche)

I eagerly await the contributions Muslims have yet to make in answer to:

What is the ideal society? Who should rule? In an Islamic society, what forms could dissent, loyal opposition, and expressions of individuality take? What constitutes good behavior?

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

"I couldn't help but notice that the famous narcissist Christopher Hitchens had written the foreword to Infidel. Hitch is well known for having written, God is Not Great. He might want to read Hitchens is Not God by Great. Just saying" - 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.

There were four Party slogans listed in George Orwell's novel, 1984:

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Obama is change.

Okay, you got me: Obama is change did not appear in 1984. This slogan appeared in early 2007, literally as Change we can believe in. However, it has appeared most recently, in its Orwellian meaning, when Obammer* spoke in Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace prize. I was doubly convinced of that when I heard someone say, "Dubya could have given that speech." He most certainly could have.

A quick review of the 1984 Party slogans will demonstrate how easily Obammer* "fills them shoes":

War is peace:  Of course it is. If a continuous, everlasting state of warfare becomes the norm (the default condition), then it's easy to see how an occasional outbreak of peace could become as unsettling as outbreaks of war had been in the past. Even today, there are too many who feel comfortable (that is, "feel peaceful in mind") only when the bullets start flying. It's that pre-war build-up that makes them nervous - knowing that something's about to happen and desperately wanting to be the ones to get off the first shots.

Freedom is slavery: Of course it is, which is exactly why freedom (read: democracy) cannot work. A critical mass of ordinary citizens views the work necessary to be a well-informed citizen (in turn, necessary to cast an intelligent vote at the ballot box) to be so burdensome as to be akin to slavery.

Ignorance is strength: Of course it is. But we must be careful here, for the slogan is not Stupidity is strength - and for good reason. Stupidity does nothing but undermine strength, translating into a spinning of the wheels. However, a lot of people find it easier to ignore subtle considerations, and instead find strength in bone-headed slogans, with nothing to back them up, like "change we can believe in." Besides, some find it a source of strength to ignore as much as they can for as long as they can.

Obama is change: Of course he is. But let's be very clear about this: He is a change only in the person of the president, which is mandated at least once within every 8 year period anyway. The only real change is, he's not Dubya - though he dutifully continues the policies of his much maligned predecessor. As advertisers and propagandists are well aware, "If you change the packaging, giving your product a new face, you can get away with selling your customers the same old shit."

Point/Counterpoint

The following quotes from Obammer's* acceptance speech** in Oslo are the Points, to which I reply with Counterpoints:

Points:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.

Counterpoint:

No, that's not "the most profound issue." This is what he should have said:

"But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars,

[my following words complete this sentence]

who could have taken the high road, the only realistic road to peace and security for the United and its allies, by immediately withdrawing all US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. My insistence on remaining in Iraq and escalating in Afghanistan will come to insure less security and less peace for the US and its allies."

Point:

One of these wars is winding down.

Counterpoint:

No it isn't. It's entering a more dormant phase, in which the various local players are merely reconfiguring and repositioning their assets. And they won't care one bit if their renewed struggle bears an outcome favorable to the Coalition of the Willing (read: to the United States).

Point:

The other is a conflict that America did not seek...

Counterpoint:

Oh, really? Perhaps, for the sake of argument, the US should have punished the Taliban to some degree for harboring Osama bin Laden (though it's doubtful they even knew exactly where he was hiding). But of course we would not have punished France as severely (and as long) as we've punished Afghanistan. If the 9/11 mastermind was a French citizen who had managed to escape to France, be sure of two things:

• 1) The French would not have surrendered one of their citizens to us (see http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2009/11/osama-bin-polanski )

• 2) The US would not have invaded France, overthrown its government, and occupied its sovereign territory for nine years.

The neo-conmen wanted the Taliban out before 9/11, and the rest, as they say, is history. So Obammer* should stop embarrassing himself by claiming "a conflict that America did not seek."

Point:

I know there is nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and [Dr. Martin Luther] King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.

Counterpoint:

If there is "nothing weak..nothing naïve...in the creed...of Gandhi and King," then why not try a little harder to follow those creeds? Obammer* doesn't have to fall lock-step into continuing the policies of the chickenhawks. When he later states, "A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," Obammer* becomes guilty of gross exaggeration, for Al Qaeda and Hitler's armies don't warrant comparison. And worse, for our continued belligerence in Iraq and Afghanistan will only serve to create among Muslim opponents an equivalent (or worse) of the Hitlerian armies Obammer* seems to fear.

Point:

I face the world as it is...

Counterpoint:

"Sorry, Barack, it's not that simple. What you're really facing is a world which we helped create and which you are pushing into a monstrous form which will seek revenge against us. You cannot pretend that you are some neutral, off-in-the-distance, uninvolved entity facing ‘the world.' You are inextricably linked to what that world is and what it is becoming" - Steve.

Point:

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

Counterpoint:

Nice try, but Obammer* cannot succeed in equating Hitler's armies and al Qaeda. Just because speechwriters try to promote such equations simply by strategically placing two sentences next to each other, doesn't mean they've proven their point.

Point:

Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

Counterpoint:

And why should they? In their view - a view which Obammer* is reinforcing with his recent troop surge announcement - al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other anti-Washington-consensus groups believe they are fighting for their lives against Western imperialists. As for that word - imperialists - please note Obammer's* speech opened with these four words: "Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses." Some of our old habits in the West die hard - including imperialistic tendencies and the worship of monarchs.

As for "lay down their arms," even though Obammer* was awarded the peace prize for, among other things, "[his] vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons***," we still have exactly as many nukes as when Dubya was president. Funny how that works. And, no, we don't have to wait for a treaty with the Russians to make at least some token gesture of nuke reduction.

Point:

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.

Counterpoint:

What's that got to do with our overkill efforts in Afghanistan? These instruments of war have a role alright, but they should be used as a last resort and used judiciously. I'm still not entirely clear about why Obammer* insists on carrying out the Neo-conmen's agenda. But I am entirely clear about this: If the Powers-that-Be had not been completely convinced from the beginning of Obammer's* mystic and meteoric rise to the top, Obammer* would have been shot dead somewhere along the way.

Having said that, I hasten to add: To Blacque Obammer* I wish a long and hearty life - that he may live decades longer so as to bear full force the brunt of the wrath of those whom he'd betrayed with promises of Change we can believe in.

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

"It would have been more fitting had Obammer* shown up in Oslo, only to be informed that his Peace Prize award was being rescinded due to his insistence on trying to hawk his way out of (now) his Afghanistani mess" - 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

  **  Obama's acceptance speech, full text of which appears at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/

  *** From the Nobel Peace Prize committee's Press Release announcing awarding of Peace Prize to Obama.

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.

QUOTE:

Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of the country and "have severe consequences for the United States and the world," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday as the Obama administration set out to sell its new war strategy on Capitol Hill.

:UNQUOTE: Associated Press: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan

After reading Gates's words (above), I duly note: He must be channeling Vietnam War-era hawks who would have used almost his exact words, like this:

Failure in [Vietnam] would mean a [Communist] takeover of the country and "have severe consequences for the United States and the world."

Secretary Gates might have missed this but: The Communists did take over all of Vietnam but there weren't any severe consequences for the US and the world. However, such doomsayers almost had it right, in spite of themselves. What had actually happened could have been predicted in these words (note my boldfaced additions):

"Failure in Vietnam would mean a Communist takeover of the country and have severe consequences caused by the United States and inflicted upon the world."

Do not suppose for a second the US loss in Vietnam wasn't taken to heart by career generals and foreign policy careerists. Their bruised egos and sense of betrayal by the civilian establishment caused a ripple effect we feel to this day. And do not suppose for a second that a US loss in Afghanistan won't become an equally bitter pill to swallow - especially after our Nobel Peace Prize winner of a President almost gave the military everything it wanted. NOTE: The word almost might come back to bite Obammer* in the butt, for I'm sure the generals might end up muttering among themselves: "We wouldn't have lost if POTUS had given us all 40,000 of the extra troops we wanted and hadn't talked about a 2011 drawdown of forces."

Fighting with the wrong weapons

The US decided not to fight with its best weapon when it chose a Secretary of Defense who had never once been shot at. In fact, Robert Gates is far better known as a Bush family loyalist and for his 26-year career in the CIA than for his military record. As for his brief (3 year) stint in the Air Force, he served as an Intelligence Officer at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, during some of the scariest years of the Vietnam War.

As I said, "never once been shot at." That was also true of another Secretary of Defense (who, like Gates, was also an Eagle Scout) - Robert McNamara. It might well also be true of our current top general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal. Frankly, I don't know how much confidence our soldiers can have in officers who have never encountered enemy fire. [I can only say "might" in the case of McChrystal, since the google search engine doesn't seem programmed to respond to this or similar queries: "Did this guy ever get shot at?"]

Even if McNamara or Gates had been shot at, surely there must be members of the general officer corps who feel, "How is it that a businessman [McNamara] and a CIA lifer [Gates] got to be Secretary of Defense? That's a slap in the face of the entire defense establishment - that is, of the entire fighting defense establishment.

And those military pros would be right. To the Powers-that-Be, it doesn't matter if the Secretary of Defense comes from a military background. What matters is that he knows to whom allegiance must really be pledged - yes, I said "to whom" and not "to what." "To what" means "the Constitution" and "the United States." "To whom" refers only to the inner circle of oligarchs who really run things.

Had I been elected US president instead of Obammer*, I would not have retained Gates. Further, I would have fired or reassigned at least 10% of the top officer corps. Not many people are aware of this, but the US president can indeed fire generals. He cannot appoint them without approval by the Senate, but he can fire them. I believe there are substantial numbers of high-ranking officers who do not owe their allegiance to the Constitution or to the United States - and they must go. Their continued influence will only prove increasingly detrimental to our security and functioning as a democracy.

Gates really has nothing to fear

If Robert Gates is worried about Islamic militants taking over more countries and directly threatening the United States, he really has nothing to worry about. Even if Obammer* is right when he claims that militants are planning attacks against us, even at this moment, so what? Asylums and prisons are full of angry people who plot revenge but who, it should be mentioned, have no realistic way of realizing their fantasies. Plus, if the US entirely abandoned Afghanistan right now, the Taliban would have its hands full in the aftermath. They would still have to deal with opponents among the warlords and the Northern Alliance, not to mention possible drying up of foreign financial assistance after having "won" against the United States.

People like Robert Gates tend to worry about loss of prestige and loss of funding by an uppity Congress, which might tire of our international war games. Gates firmly believes, once the US ceases throwing its weight around (referred in polite circles as "projecting American power"), the rest of the world might discover it could do quite well without our meddling. And the average US citizen might also conclude he could do quite well without foreign adventurism. And of course, more autonomy for the rest of the world and for the average US citizen would spell less control (and profit) for Gates' bosses.

Robert Gates doesn't care about what happens in Afghanistan or Iraq, as long as it doesn't appear that we're being run out of the country [Does anyone remember the slogan, "Peace with honor?"]. He wants our forces to remain firmly planted so as to convey this message, especially to Africans embroiled in civil war: "The US can and will go anywhere it pleases, any time it pleases. So, no matter how warring factions decide to go about resolving their conflicts, always remember: We are watching and we will act if we don't like what we see."

There's a word for that kind of attitude: terrorism.

The rest of the world would do well to keep in mind that the Americans were the first nuclear terrorists - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We might not decide to ever throw around nuclear weapons anymore (though, as the saying goes, "We don't ever want to take any option off the table"), but we can and will throw a lot of other stuff around if you step too far out of line."

In closing

And others might point out the "disrespectful" and even "outright unpatriotic" tone of my blogs. Okay, I'll admit it: I am not a patriot; I am a citizen of the world. And I believe in saying what has to be said, sometimes using provocative language - simply because being soft-spoken risks being ignored. I'll take my chances, hoping people will see fundamental truth in my wide-range of proposals posted here on Gaia.

If I seem impatient, intolerant, or even rude in my expressions, just realize those are all motivated by a desire to wake people up, shaking them if necessary. My dear mother used an expression which I fully embrace: "I don't suffer fools gladly." Frankly, I'm not out to win any popularity contests - not particularly caring if I'm liked - but I intend to continue my efforts to eliminate the foolishness which pervades our political dialogue.

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

"As for those who think we've got the situation under control in Iraq, remember: Just because news from that region flies under our radar doesn't mean the situation is any closer to final resolution than it ever was. Discerning readers will want to carefully evaluate the machinations of Peter Galbraith, which sought to favor the Kurds and which could vastly improve his personal fortune" - 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.

FACT: We won't leave Afghanistan until we feel like it - "we" being the generals.

It won't matter if Obammer* talks about an exit strategy, of a loose time-table, or of leaving when Afghan forces are sufficiently trained. Bush didn't want to be hamstrung by time-tables. Why should Obammer* be any different? If by some tentative benchmark date Afghanistan is still boiling over, our esteemed President will say:

"Upon further review...upon the advice of our generals...unforeseen circumstances have forced us to..."  Well, you get it.

No one will accuse Obammer* of rushing in. He met with his war council at least ten times (check), took his time to evaluate the situation (check), searched his soul Lord knows how many times (check), continues his efforts to foist off more of this war on our "allies" (check), and speaks of the responsibility Afghan war lords must assume ... uh, no, not "war lords"...meant to say "armed services." Same thing? Time will tell.

If nothing else, Obammer* has tried mightily to appear reasonable and collaborative. Image is everything, especially to those who had so easily bought into "Change you can believe in." But his only motive for such a studiously cautious approach is to try to lull us into a false sense of security. Read: The longer we're over there, the less likely the terrorists will be coming over here. [And people actually believe that.]

How could Obammer* ever leave Afghanistan after having said on Aug. 17, 2009:

"We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again."

Of course they are, since we're trying so awfully hard to incite them on a daily basis. However, it's not planes crashing into skyscrapers that we ought to be worrying about.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

What gave birth to the suicide bomber? The realization that the PLO couldn't defeat the Israeli occupiers in bouts of conventional combat. In other words, desperation gave birth.

Perhaps we will reach a point when Afghanistan will no longer be in the news, when only occasional violence rears its ugly head. Or when Obammer*-friendly media decides to reduce coverage of that war. But that won't mean the end of our troubles. I was daydreaming once, when this occurred to me:

Some day, 30 years from now, in a large Midwestern city, there are two poor elderly men sharing an apartment. They had lived in Afghanistan, having actually served Uncle Sam's cause nobly for years, until immigrating to the United States. They'd been living in the same apartment for decades, both still devout Muslims who had mostly kept to themselves. They didn't go to mosque, they didn't attend social functions sponsored by their peers. They appeared to be just simple folk who lived and worked menial jobs, secluding themselves at home in the evenings. They did absolutely nothing to arouse any suspicions whatsoever. They didn't even own a laptop nor have e-mail accounts.

Strictly stay-at-homes.

And that's exactly what they were - stay-at-homes.

But decades before, they had forged a pact. They swore to each other to conduct a destabilizing operation of modest-though-persistent deadliness. Every day, for 30 years, one or the other of them dumped a gallon of ordinary laundry bleach down a sewer. Never the same sewer twice in a row. Never either one of them two days in a row. Never at the same time of day or in the same neighborhood.

They knew that slow poisoning had been effectively used by assassins in the past. And they also knew to avoid drinking tap water - for 30 years. But they also knew that, somehow, they might succumb as a result of their own intrigues. To which they merely shrugged and sighed: "We will die or suffer in accordance to the will of Allah."

The Moral of this Story?

There's a saying: Every dog has its day. The problem for us is, there are a lot of dogs out there. At least we're making more and more humans into dogs by the way we insist on treating them. And make no mistake about this: We are insisting - every single one of us who isn't trying, at least in some small way, to resist Obammer's* reasonable approach. We insist by going along, not even offering token resistance. And don't tell me we're powerless - I've spent the last three years blogging on Gaia, doing my best to suggest ways of resisting the Man.

And there are a lot of ways.

Some might protest: "I'm not insisting on anything. After all, what choice did we have? McCain for President?"

I would answer such protestors by saying: "Oh you insist, all right. By rolling over, playing dead, and behaving so predictably. You had many choices over the years, long before it came to the point on Election Day when it was a matter of Obammer* or McCain. These choices might not have seemed like much, but when multiplied by millions of other conscious citizens they could have made a difference. You are directly responsible for this mess."

I'm not so worried about two old men who might make a career out of dumping bleach down sewers. I'm not even worried that many such cells are "out there" dreaming of exotic and unlikely ways of getting even. I am, though, worried about the teeming millions of the wronged who aren't doing anything - who aren't taking any action whatsoever (at least, for now) - who are, instead, seething with toxic thoughts which will manifest themselves in karmic ways. In ways that aren't predictable in Pentagon War Rooms. In ways which will be destructive nonetheless simply because they poison the common consciousness of all humanity.

And no time-table will be able to stave off those consequences.

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

"And what would you suggest David have done - fought Goliath in a steel cage-style wrestling match?" - 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.

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.