Key scene in The Book of Eli:

Eli [Denzel Washington] is standing before the gates of Alcatraz prison, where he's challenged by armed guards. He calls out to them saying, "I have a King James version of the Bible." Eli is then escorted into the compound.

My suggested revision:

Eli calls out to the guards, "I have a Bible."

Guard says, "Is it a King James version of the Bible?"

Eli, "No...like I said...I have a Bible."

Background

Eli is a man on a mission, having spent 30 years trekking westward across the United States. A voice in his head had told him to bring a book (the Bible) to an enclave of decency on the west coast. The Entity behind the voice also guides and protects Eli along the way. This is necessary for two reasons: Eli is blind and the world has been rendered a wasteland by a "final" war.

Make that three reasons: Eli has the only copy of the Bible in existence, the others having been book-burned or (presumably) wiped out from all computer-storage media. Eli informs us, the Bible had been hunted down since many blamed it for the apocalypse. This singling out is interesting, as we learn at the end of the movie that the Koran and the Torah had survived.

About that voice

Why must anyone assume that voice in Eli's head was the voice of God? Why did Eli make that assumption? Suppose Eli had made a leap of faith, those 30 years ago. As he tells us, he's been reading that Book "every day" for 30 years. That's a long time - long enough for any objections to rise in his heart. If this Book was bogus in any way, he should have felt that and refused to continue his mission.

There are detractors out there who believe the King James Version to be precisely that - bogus. However, a skilled debater might counter: "Since God works in mysterious ways, perhaps it was His intention that this flawed, corrupted version ‘serve' mankind until they had time to develop enough faith to challenge it and seek God directly. After all, God had been directly challenged by Abraham once upon a time. So who's to say this Book - allegedly the word of God - shouldn't be challenged? Perhaps that is precisely its purpose - to be challenged."

If God wanted to reintroduce Himself to mankind after the apocalypse, He could have simply given Eli a version of the Holy Bible - with all errors and omissions removed (at long last!). In other words, the direct Word of God.

Refinements

I would have much preferred a movie that informed us: all religious texts (or at least those foundational texts of the Abrahamic traditions) had been systematically wiped out without a trace. That would have made it easier for God to give mankind a perfect Bible lacking errors or editorial manipulations. However, the existence of the Torah and the Koran would have presented challenges to Eli's perfect text.

Eli might have claimed it was the King James Version, but who could possibly challenge that? There was no competing copy lying around and (presumably) those who might have committed it to memory (as he had done) were long dead and therefore not able to contradict him. For these reasons, the title of the movie was perfect, for what else could such a book be called other than The Book of Eli?

The theater was full

I saw this movie on opening day and the theater was packed. Critics would come to write disparagingly of it, but I think they miss the point. People are hungry. They need heroes, such as one lone man on a mission facing huge odds to rekindle faith in God. And these heroes can be shown in an imperfect vehicle such as this particular movie.

Sure, there was a lot wrong with it. Such as, how long Eli manages to hang on to life after having been shot. And how he rows to Alcatraz Island while an able-bodied young woman looks on as his passenger. Oh, she gets around to taking over the rowing chore, but only after she sees him suffering in his efforts.

There were also some nice touches - like the overall acting and the underwritten dialogue. When Eli speaks of a time when "we had too much" and "people threw away things they'd kill for now," the audience knew exactly what he was talking about. The Book of Eli stimulated and provided food for thought, in ways highly-polished preachers can't. And for that, we should be grateful.

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

"It's been said, good acting can redeem a bad movie. Though the other actors ranged from competent to outright good, Gary Oldman deserves a special nod. He alone was worth the price of admission" - 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.

Obammer's* graveside words

As soon as our President uttered these words, during his State of the Union speech, he admitted that any large-scale comprehensive health care reform is dead:

QUOTE:

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done.

:UNQUOTE.

My interpretation

• "Here's what I ask Congress" [Part 1] - when he said that, he meant this: "I was ready to sign a bill, so you can't blame me if Congress couldn't manage to come up with one. The Senate might be controlled by my party but I'm going to allow its will to be thwarted by a minority." [More on those last four words in a bit.]

• "Not when we are so close" - Who on earth can he possibly be kidding? The House will not have the courage to even bring the Senate version to a vote. Which might be why Obammer* didn't turn to Nancy Pelosi, who was sitting right behind him, and ask her to bring the Senate version to an immediate vote in the House. As Speaker of the House, she would have had that power. Even though she had expressed doubts, a few days earlier, that there would be enough votes to pass the Senate version, our president could have put Pelosi and House Democrats on the spot - opening them up to some serious arm-twisting.

• "Not when we are so close" [Part 2]: What you mean by "we," Chief Democrat? The GOP is positively ecstatic over Obammer's* crash and burn. Even though he wasn't a direct part of the dirty dealing which produced the Senate version, he was definitely aware of it. Moreover, he didn't insist - early on - that the Senate really needed only 51 votes (not a filibuster-proof 60) to pass legislation. [More on that, in a bit.]

• "Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people." By "us," he presumably includes the GOP. Ain't gonna happen. They're too busy dancing on his grave.

Lack of leadership

Obammer's* attitude all along has been to remove himself from the fray, urging the Congress to produce a bill for him but remaining strangely silent as to his preferences regarding content. His lackluster use of the bully-pulpit was duly noted. But...none of this stopped him from sending me (and, I'm sure, millions of others) an e-mail on Jan. 28, which included this line: "Can you help fuel our fight for the middle class with a monthly donation of $15 or more?"

That e-mail had this subject line: "I cannot do it alone."

I knew he couldn't do it alone, but he definitely didn't do all he could have. During his State of the Union speech, he could have said:

QUOTE [again, this is what Obammer* could have said]:

I want to make a personal appeal to each and every Senator here tonight to bring democracy to the US Senate by permanently eliminating the filibuster option. Our troops are dying to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. The least you can do is make the principle of One Man, One Vote a reality in the US Senate. When the threat of a filibuster means it takes 60 votes instead of a simple majority of 51 to pass a bill, those 51 Senators and the people they represent become disenfranchised.

I understand that Republicans and Democrats alike, whenever in the minority during past administrations, had found it advantageous to threaten filibuster. And this practice is quite old. It is also, and has always been, undemocratic and plainly unfair.

More importantly, the practice of filibuster is in direct violation of at least three different sections of the US Constitution:

Article V: "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." If, for example, a state were (like all other states) allowed two senators but (unlike the others) only one could vote, that would be a clear deprivation of "equal suffrage." And yet, if a state's senators were to find their votes rendered meaningless by a minority threatening a filibuster, that is a comparably clear deprivation of "equal suffrage."

The Fifth Amendment: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When a citizen's senator finds the value of his vote diminished in Senate chambers, that citizen finds the value of his own vote similarly diminished. In other words, that citizen is being denied full and complete representation in the Senate, which in turn means that citizen has been "deprived of...[his] property [that is, the full value of his vote], without due process of law."

The Seventeenth Amendment: "...each Senator shall have one vote." That must mean, by any fair and sensible standard, that each Senator's vote is to be considered equal to each other Senator's vote. Allowing for filibusters denies this equality.

Therefore, I ask the Senate to 1) permanently eliminate the archaic, unconstitutional, undemocratic institution of the filibuster, and 2) pass a version of health care reform based on a simple majority with a scope (and this is my personal recommendation) at least as broad as that of the House.

:UNQUOTE [One more time: This is what Obammer* could have said.]

We need a leader, not an Obammer*

Ever since Barack announced his candidacy for the US presidency, I had a very bad feeling - which didn't take long to confirm. This man is simply incapable of thinking outside the box, of generating any unique and inspired approaches. He is simply proving to be too eager to embrace age-old traditions and ways of doing things. As he once declared in the early part of the primary season, in more or less these words: "Confrontation is not my style."

Okay, now what?

Let's consider two other quotes from his speech:

• "That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight."

• "And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

[sigh] Obammer* can want all he wants, but the fact is - the filibuster will still be there to thwart him. And with his blessing, for he will do nothing - absolutely nothing - to challenge it. And you know what? If he ended up doing nothing else during his presidency, making the US Senate live up to our democratic ideals would make a fine legacy indeed. But...he simply won't - can't - do it.

But if I had been elected President...

...we would have had Single Payer Health Insurance by now. And, no, I'm not just talking about reforming health care, I'm talking about the whole enchilada - SINGLE PAYER.

And to help pay for it? The money we would have saved by having removed all of our combat and non-combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan well before June of 2009. These bold innovations were all listed in my written contract which contained 47-points, including:

QUOTE:

POINT FIVE:

I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

a Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge - that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

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

Had I been elected President, Single Payer would have come to pass. And I wouldn't have let any filibuster stop me. Obammer's* rhetorical skills might exceed my own, but I would have gotten the job done. Even if it meant having to embarrassing the entire US Senate during my State of the Union speech.

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

"Over and over again, I reach the same conclusion when asking myself ‘Why did My Space and Daily Kos bar me from posting during the Presidential campaign?' I have absolutely no doubt that the Obammer* campaign urged those webmasters to shut me down. Even though I had absolutely no financial resources to run a campaign, I did have one thing that absolutely terrorized Obammer's* brain trust: I had ideas backed up by a legally-enforceable contract. I represented a novelty which could not be allowed to gain traction. So I have to hand it to David Axelrod and Company for running a campaign so sensitive to even the faintest of outside threats, they saw to it that My Space and Daily Kos would not allow me to have a platform. Of course, now all that remains is for Obammer* to show he's got what it takes. Don't hold your breath" - 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.

I saw Avatar last weekend - twice - with mixed emotions. I loved it mostly because of its immense potential as a world-changer...in a very real way. I hope it gets translated into as many languages and seen by as many people as possible. And that these people actually talk to each other, dammit.

Yes, it was awe-inspiring to look at, in both its 3D and regular incarnations. But even more amazing - its minimalist storyline and dialog. Many critics fault what they see as a weak and predictable plot. I see a masterpiece of tight scripting which didn't lapse into wordiness or preaching. And given its 162-minute length, the pacing was perfect.

Was it anti-military and anti-American? I didn't see it as a slam against current US society but as a warning of what we might become. If we keep sliding down that slippery slope, then we will richly deserve such a slamming.

The movie showed a corporation, using mercenaries, engaging in warfare against an alien population after diplomacy (corporate diplomacy, at that) had failed. So that's how things might end up? A corporation gets to decide to open fire on the natives after It diplomatically fails? Of course, that's not how things work now (for the most part), but we might really end up empowering private groups as the equals of national sovereignties. [Think of Blackwater's duly authorized antics in Iraq.]

Was Avatar racist? Some critics had a problem with the mighty White man saving the noble savage. Maybe filmmaker Cameron's sequel(s) could blunt that criticism. However, it makes perfect sense that a renegade outsider was the only one who could have been the pivotal player to foil the ambitions of other outsiders. It didn't matter that this particular outsider happened to be white, only that he happened to represent the dominant power. Of course, our Neo-Con promoters of American world domination would predict that by the year 2154 (Avatar's setting), earth will indeed be dominated by the United States. Which, in turn, will be dominated by corporations with powers abdicated to them.

Cameron wisely refrained from portraying Jake Sully as some kind of being who is light-years advanced compared to any of the Na'vi. Sully was of average intelligence but was willing to work hard at learning. His one moment of genuine inspiration didn't serve to classify him as a genius - only as a man in desperate circumstances who had a flash of inspiration. That moment? When he decided to try riding and bonding with a Toruk. If successful, he would be embraced as a rare and unique leader called Toruk Makto.

It could be said that Jake Sully saved the noble savages. But it could be said with equal force that they saved him. And that they brought him closer to a spirituality he had not found on earth. After all, when things looked darkest, he didn't pray to Jesus or to God. He prayed to a source that had some proven power on this planet, as he witnessed firsthand. Was this particular source superior to God or was it just one of many similar planetary divinities? Maybe humans had abandoned their God, in contrast to the Na'vi who actively interacted with their deity. And maybe that's why earth had become a dying world.

Some brief notes on Avatar

• The Na'vi seem to be a race of demigods, who are assisted by their environment on a daily basis. Neytiri was able to gracefully descend, breaking her "fall" by an exquisitely timed series of impacts with broad leaves. Perhaps the leaves intelligently met her more than half way, so to speak, giving assists when needed? In contrast to Sully's fall, which was far from smooth. So maybe the leaves, in his case, couldn't as easily "work" with this alien.

• It's hard to believe $150 million was spent on marketing Avatar, which is 50% more than it costs to make the average Hollywood movie. And making Avatar cost about twice its marketing budget - $300 million.

• I had no idea that the term unobtainium, the mineral mentioned in the movie, has been around since the 1950s.

• The actress (Michelle Rodriguez) who portrayed Trudy was hot.

• It's interesting that the Na'vi were blue-skinned, same as certain deities in the Hindu tradition. Also interesting: An avatar is the incarnation of a Hindu deity.

• An avatar also means "man of god" - that is, someone who purposely appears among selected populations at key times in history to preach salvation in a way and manner they can readily bear witness to.

• In spite of the pooh-poohing of certain Christian critics, the movie Avatar does not preach pantheism. [I doubt they even know what that word means.] What the Na'vi call Eywa (the Great Mother) seems to be particular only to Pandora. Eywa is a protective entity that is worshipped (maybe "appreciated" or "loved" are better words) by the Na'vi, but that doesn't make Eywa a goddess. Probably, more than anything else, these critics are offended by the idea of prayers being answered by an entity they don't approve of. In any event, quite wisely I believe, Cameron didn't offer anything approaching a complete theology - only enough to whet our appetites.

• A special nod to Stephen Lang for his marvelous turn as Colonel Miles Quaritch - outstanding performance. Actually, the entire cast was perfect and - it was a pleasure to see Sigourney Weaver back on the screen.

• The charge: Cameron is a hypocrite because he was only able to make such a film because of the advantages offered by our glorious empire - great material wealth and lots of guns to keep it that way. My answer: I don't see this situation as hypocritical as much as I see it as ironic, for wasn't it once said that the capitalist will sell his executioner the rope used to hang him? Of course, those same critics don't exactly spend a lot of time duly noting the down side of empire.

• At one point in the movie (because of something Dr. Grace Augustine said about interconnections between plants), I thought Pandora's flora would be the ones to rise up and engulf the corporation's infantry. Hmm...what a strange term: corporate infantry. I surely hope it never comes to that.

• Sequel notes: It would be interesting if the Marines who had been wounded and left behind were somehow (at least) bodily converted into Na'vi form. This would be an example of Eywa not "taking sides." Since the dead Marines were now with Eywa, She would learn from them the plight of the dying planet earth which would add further motivation to save the wounded Marines. How these transformed Marines interact with the Na'vi could provide an interesting tension. If Eywa moves with mercy and compassion in favor of the balance of life, how could She ignore the death of earth and its people?

• Sequel notes: Since the corporation blew it, an official delegation representing earth's governments could be sent to Pandora. Perhaps they might even have genuine negotiation in mind. Since Hometree had been destroyed, perhaps the Na'vi would have no reason to object to a mining operation on that site only. In exchange, though, the Na'vi offer a counterproposal: They will allow this one mining operation in exchange for earth allowing a contingent of Na'vi to go to earth to preach their way - and maybe try to make contact with Gaia, the earthly equivalent of Eywa. Such preaching would make the Na'vi avatars in the Hindu sense of the word.

Dr. Dolittle and the Secret Lake

As much as I loved Avatar and see its value as a world-changer, I felt a twinge of loss. I couldn't help but wonder, "Will Avatar's breakthrough filmmaking technology discourage films of more modest budget and scope? Will people come to read even less than they do now? And is the ancient rite of storytelling around a campfire being rendered totally obsolete before our very eyes?"

Herculean effort and Midas amounts of money brought Avatar into being. But will this new age of storytelling serve only to diminish the imagination?

When my son was six-years-old, he was especially fond of one of his Christmas presents - an elegantly illustrated story about Dr. Dolittle. I think it was one of those Little Golden Books with large type and (maybe) a couple of dozen words per page. After reading this to him many times, I wondered out loud, "Do you suppose there are any more stories about Dr. Dolittle?"

From a local bookstore, I heard about the original series of books written by Hugh Lofting. When I saw a list advertising one such novel over 350 pages in length, I hesitated. Could this possibly be the source of our brief Little Golden Book? However, the title intrigued me - Dr. Dolittle and the Secret Lake - so I special-ordered it from England. When it finally arrived, I noticed that the type was smaller, that several hundred words filled each page, and the illustrations were few and far between and very crude. And what was worse? This Dr. Dolittle was short and dumpy - not at all like the tall and aristocratic looking Rex Harrison featured in the 1967 movie.

So I thought, "Now what? My son is looking at me right now with this book in hand, a book we'd waited weeks for." It would have been tempting to shrug it off by saying, "This is not the same Dr. Dolittle - there's some kind of mistake here." But, happily, I didn't. We made a ritual out of me reading it to him a half-hour before bedtime until we finished the whole thing. And my son was thoroughly enraptured by this very tall tale. And more? I too was smitten.

The Secret Lake, as it turns out, is located in Africa and contains water from the Biblical flood of Noah. As Wikipedia puts it:

"The Doctor then receives an urgent call to rescue what is literally his oldest friend: Mudface the Giant Turtle, who was a passenger on Noah's Ark." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Dolittle_and_the_Secret_Lake

And since Dr. Dolittle can speak to the animals, he ends up writing down the story of that Flood as dictated to him by this turtle still alive after all these centuries. After seeing Avatar, I thought about how Lofting's story of the Secret Lake and the Flood would translate to the silver screen. But I concluded, "Nothing like that could possibly replace the joy we shared during the months it took to read this novel from cover to cover."

Never once were we bored. I ended up buying four more Dolittle novels penned by Lofting, though they weren't nearly as long. They were each as wonderful in their own way. Of course, it helped immensely that I had read to my son every day from the time he was six months old. So he was ready for this.

Note: It takes a lot more effort (a labor of love, actually) to prepare a child for The Secret Lake than it does to prepare for Avatar. But those extra efforts are far likelier to produce heaven on earth.

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

"Some viewers were actually depressed after watching Avatar - sad that this utopia doesn't really exist. To them I say, Transform yourselves into avatars and dedicate the rest of your lives into making our earth into the paradise you crave" - 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.

Today's blog will focus on the novel One Second After and the "threat" of terrorist attack by means of EMP: Electromagnetic Pulse. Also, I will have some unkind-but-wholly-accurate words for the author of One Second After (William R. Forstchen, Ph.D.) and that shameless snake oil salesman who wrote its foreword, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (also a Ph.D. - believe it or not).

"One Second After is a 2009 novel by American writer William R. Forstchen. The novel deals with an unexpected electromagnetic pulse attack on the United States as it affects the people living in and around the town of Black Mountain, North Carolina." - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Second_After

Basically, this novel details the struggle for survival which starts one second after a nuclear weapon is detonated at high altitude over each of three different states: Utah, Kansas, and Ohio. One second after these detonations, the entire continental United States no longer has access to its electrical power grid or any devices with EMP-sensitive circuits which were "fried" by the sudden surge of energy released by these weapons.

I want to be very clear about this: We're being lead to believe that three low-yield nuclear weapons could serve to knock out the technological underpinnings of our modern way of life. No computers. No phones. Few operable automobiles and trucks. No planes, no refrigeration or heating units. No manufacturing, dependent on electrical power. Even portable power generators are rendered useless by this attack.

So of course my bullshit detector went into high alert.

Hidden Agenda?

I believe there is a hidden agenda motivating people who seek to terrorize (really, there is no better word) their fellow Americans by speculating about what nastiness our numerous enemies wish to inflict upon us. These native-born terrorists are basically insecure weaklings who are terrified of every possible doomsday scenario they can dream up. They would if they could engage in pre-emptive strikes against the entire gamut of bad guys out there.

Or try their damnedest to convince the US government to do so.

Neither the author nor Gingrich has any military experience whatsoever (nada, zero, zip). Neither of them served in our nation's armed forces in any capacity. Yet, they have collaborated in writing several novels of military fiction. How strange!

My own experience in the military (USAF) was limited, but I can tell you this: "There's a derogatory term which soldiers use when speaking of such long-distance ‘warriors' - of people who find it so easy to speak of valor and combat without themselves ever having been in harm's way. That derogatory term is maggot."

[To be sure, maggot covers a lot of territory, but would easily include such authors.]

The novel itself gives a clue as to motive

Back to the notion of pre-emptive strike. I quote from page 201 of One Second After, from Chapter 7: DAY 18.

QUOTE:

9. WAR NEWS!  This same resident reports that the attack is now believed to have been three missiles, fired from a containership in the Gulf of Mexico. Our forces overseas are engaged in heavy combat in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Korea. There is progress on all fronts. Responsibility for the attack rests upon an alliance of forces in the Middle East and North Korea ....

...widespread outages in Japan, South Korea*, and Taiwan ...similar missiles over Eastern Europe.

  * Observation by Steven Searle: South Korea? North Korea is just over the border and would therefore be affected by any EMP attack against its southern neighbor. So (apparently!) North Korea, as one of the parties responsible for this attack, decided to attack itself(?)

:UNQUOTE.

So there we have it. Eighteen days after the US has been rendered paralyzed), not only has our government been able to determine who was responsible, but had also managed to engage our forces in heavy combat in five countries (four of which do not currently have US forces present on their soil). And (we are assured), "There is progress on all fronts." All this in 18 days!

I swear, whoever writes stuff like this must be taking stupid pills (or assumes their readers are). The only way it would be even remotely possible for there to be "progress on all fronts" is for the United States to have instantly decided to take off the kid gloves and use nuclear weapons and massive WWII style assaults on these nations. Oh...I get it...no one's been taking stupid pills. It appears that Fortschen and Gingrich, in their sly way, are urging the United States to stop being soft on our opponents - that we must strike now, with no holds barred (up to and including the use of nukes) before it's too late.

And check out that list of opponent nations, which includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are currently allies in our global war on terror. Unless...by DAY 18, we were able to determine that the Saudi and Pakistani governments were linked to this EMP assault. Has anyone who praises this novel even noticed that Saudi Arabia is included on this shit list?

Saudi Arabia? Hello! [Sounds like a bald-faced oil grab to me.]

Let's do the math

The novel itself makes categorical assertions about what would happen if the US were to be attacked by an EMP weapon, but (am I surprised by this?) nowhere in the novel itself (or in an Appendix or Foreword or Afterword) is any number-crunching done.

So allow me!

The basic assertion is that even a relatively low-yield atomic bomb detonated up to several hundred miles above ground level would generate an EMP with sufficient energy to knock out sensitive electronic components everywhere within line-of-sight of the explosion. Anything "over the horizon" wouldn't be affected, which is the reason why a high-altitude detonation would be preferred by our enemies.

First, there are some practical factors which would limit the damage inflicted:

• Not all of the energy in a nuclear blast ends up in the form of EMP. For example, there is a tremendous amount of heat, light, and sound generated as well - none of which would harm ground-based circuits from such a distance.

• Energy dissipates as it moves away from a central point. That is, the blast's energy would be most highly-concentrated within the first few miles from the source. [In my calculations, though, I assume that all of this energy is uniformly distributed within a 100-mile blast radius.]

• A great deal of energy (even that composing the EMP itself) would radiate away from ground level - harmlessly into outer space.

• Any EMP would surely be weakened by collisions with the molecules which make up our atmosphere.

I'll add two other considerations detrimental to Forstchen's argument:

• There were serious scientists who had urged that we not test our first atomic bomb out of fear that a chain reaction could ignite the entire atmosphere of the planet. Didn't happen but their calculations suggested such a possibility. The point? Not all calculations are created equal.

• When the most powerful hydrogen bomb of all time was detonated by the USSR, the plane that dropped this 50 megaton behemoth wasn't knocked out of the sky by an EMP (unless those dastardly Rooskies figured out a way to shield that aircraft's electrical systems - ah, one more thing for us to be afraid of, though we should keep in mind: "Surely the US must have developed similar shielding technology since the Tsar Bomba exploded on the scene in 1961.")

• The foreword of this novel states: "My friend Captain William Sanders, USN, one of our nation's leading experts on this particular weapon, will provide the afterword for this book explaining in greater detail, using unclassified documents, as to how such a weapon works." No offense, but I'm not exactly thrilled that a Captain is considered "one of our nation's leading experts." I would expect that someone a little more highly-credentialed be cited. Or that someone so knowledgeable had been rewarded with a higher rank. [Again, no offense but...please...]

For the sake of my analysis, I will assume that an EMP weapon is detonated 100 miles above my home town of Chicago, Illinois. I will also assume that all of the energy is contained and uniformly-distributed within a sphere 100 miles in radius, though of course that wouldn't literally be the case. However, this assumption makes my argument even more powerful, as you will see. The weapon in question will be assumed to be equivalent in energy to that of the Castle Bravo device, the most powerful ever tested by the United States.

Castle Bravo, detonated in 1954, released 84,000 TJ of energy - 84K TeraJoules. My analysis will show, this is the equivalent amount of energy (if evenly distributed within a sphere with a radius of 100 miles) released from one 100-watt light bulb being turned on for one second in a volume of space consisting of 722 cubic feet. In other words, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each edge. [Can you feel the burn?]

[Note: For my step-by-step analysis, see Appendix 1 at the very end of this blog.]

Let's use a little common sense here

If three low-yield nukes could bring the USA to its knees after being secretly launched from a barge in the Gulf of Mexico, our enemies would have done so long before now. Since numerous nations currently own nukes, we could never be sure who actually used these particular three against us. But Newt Gingrich and company assure us that, indeed, we are in mortal danger of such an attack. And, by gum, we'd better spend whatever it takes to EMP-proof our infrastructure.

Don't forget: Whatever gets added to our ever-increasing mountain of debt will serve only to drive us more deeply and more quickly into a servitude from which we can never recover. But...maybe that's precisely the point.

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

"Hell, I used to think the Newt in Newt Gingrich's name stood for Newton. Now I think it stands for Newtron Bomb" - 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.

Appendix 1

To recap:  Castle Bravo, detonated in 1954, released 84,000 TJ of energy - 84K TeraJoules. The following analysis will show, this is the equivalent amount of energy (if evenly distributed within a sphere with a radius of 100 miles) released from one 100-watt light bulb being turned on for one second in a volume of space consisting of 722 cubic feet. In other words, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each edge.

All of the energy output generated by a nuclear explosion can be calculated by using Einstein's famous equation, E = mc². Even though this energy consists of different forms, I will not differentiate here as to how much ends up in the form of an EMP, though (obviously) it must be less than the total amount of energy generated.

My chain of logic proceeds as follows:

• The volume of a sphere is determined by this equation: V = (4/3) π r³.

• The volume in question, being determined by the bomb detonating 100 miles above the earth, is 4 million cubic miles.

• Assuming that all blast energy is contained within this volume, that gives us 84,000 TeraJoules of energy per 4 million cubic miles.

• That's equal to 21 billion joules per cubic mile.

• Next, convert 21 billion joules to its equivalent in Kilowatt Hours of energy, a unit most Americans are more familiar with.

• 3.6 million joules of energy might sound like a lot, but that's equal to one kilowatt hour. Translation? That's the amount of energy needed to keep a 1,000 watt light bulb burning for an hour or, put another way, enough to keep ten 100-watt bulbs burning for an hour.

• Therefore, 21 billion joules is equal to 5,800 kilowatt hours. Again, this is the amount of energy contained within each cubic mile within 100 miles of detonation.

• 5,800 kilowatt hours is the amount of energy used by 5,800 light bulbs burning for an hour, if each bulb is rated at 1,000 watts. Or, put another way, the same as 58,000 100-watt bulbs.

• One cubic mile is equal to 150 billion cubic feet. Therefore, if 58,000 100-watt bulbs are burning for an hour within a 150 billion cubic foot volume, that's equal to one bulb burning for an hour within a volume of 2.6 million cubic feet.

• If that one bulb is burning for an hour, that's equal to 3,600 seconds. Or, put another way, to 3,600 bulbs burning for one second.

• That reduces down to one 100-watt bulb burning for one second within a volume comprising 722 cubic feet. Or, put another way, within a cube measuring 9 feet on each edge.

• Considering these calculations, it doesn't seem like we're talking about a lot of energy here, especially since I've taken into consideration what happens within a 100-mile radius. Our authors are saying this one single bomb could blackout an area covering more than a dozen states, if exploded at an altitude much greater than 100 miles. But of course, the further away the detonation, the less energy would be contained per cubic mile. So that single, solitary light bulb would burn for one second within a volume much greater than 722 cubic feet.

Key words in today's blog: Negro dialect, effigy, Bolo tie, scat singing

Let me get this straight: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) apologized for having said Barack Obama is a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one?" [see QUOTE below]

"Well, Harry, what you said is true, so why on earth are you apologizing?" - that's what I'd ask.

As soon as Reid apologized, Obama should have publicly stated:

"I cannot accept an apology for uttering an inoffensive truth - for Senator Reid's words were both inoffensive and true. I am a light-skinned African-American. And I don't speak in any kind of Negro dialect, though I could do so if I wanted to. No one should ever have to apology for what Harry Reid said."

Had I been elected President instead of Obama (and, of course, if I also happened to be black, which I'm not), I would have added:

"Apologizing for something like this cheapens the act of apology." Which it does.

For those who missed the source of this brouhaha:

QUOTE:

On page 37 [of Game Change by Heilemann & Halperin], a remark, said "privately" by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama's racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his

[as quoted on page 37]

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - - a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately.

:UNQUOTE: [see Footnote 1]

As for the Republicans who are clamoring for Reid's resignation, stop acting stupid - now...I mean it...I'm so embarrassed for you.

Obama hung in effigy in Plains, Georgia

Question: Why is the US Secret Service bothering to investigate the hanging (in effigy) of President Obama?

Possible answers:

• They feel they have to jump on every little thing since our entire security apparatus is under greater scrutiny these days.

• They want to intimidate the opposition.

• Because they can.

• It's their job.

Consider this before answering:

The Secret Service might be using this particular law to guide their thinking:

Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

QUOTE:

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits ... in the mail ... any ... document containing any threat to take the life of ... the President of the United States ... or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2]

If the Secret Service wants to fantasize that a hanging in effigy equals a knowing and willful threat against the president's life, they'd be delusional. They'd also be wasteful of the taxpayers' money needed to investigate this matter. If they hope to find the culprit and browbeat him into making incriminating statements - for the sole purpose of railroading him to prison as a warning, then they'd be evil and small-minded. And worse: They would succeed only in having the opposite effect - they would infuriate the common folk (except the idiots who listen to Rush Limbaugh).

If the Secret Service discovers this "hangman's" identity, I would advise this potential victim: "You don't have to talk to these assholes."

For sale: A Blacque* Obammer* bolo tie

My creative streak kicked in when I read about the effigy incident. And I came up with this: Someone should produce and market a Blacque* Obammer* bolo tie with these features:

• The ornamental clasp should be a small, wafer-thin TV monitor programmed to repeatedly show Obammer* being waterboarded into confessing his "sins" by Dick Cheney.

• The bottom two strands of the bolo tie should converge into one, leading to a hangman's knot.

• An image of Obammer* carved from (what else?) highly polished ebony hanging from this knot.

• The Obammer* statuette should be made hollow and filled with fecal matter as a symbolic way of saying, "This guy is full of shit." Of course this poop should be hermetically-sealed to avoid any unpleasantness should this icon accidentally crack open. But of course it goes without saying, "This president would never crack under pressure." Whew...good to know. [See separate heading, below, entitled Fecal Matters.]

• Whatever you do, don't make this Obammer* image a voodoo doll, since practitioners of that particular true religion might object.

It would be interesting to see how the Secret Service would react if tens of thousands of Americans ordered these bolo ties. That would be an awful lot of people to harass for "threatening" the life of the president.

Terms and Conditions: As is usual with my Gaia blogs, I waive all copyright and ownership of this intellectual property. [See the Open Invitation section after my signature block.]

Fecal Matters

I've been told that my humor occasionally tends toward the scatological. For the record, I do not "study or analyze feces" (that's definition 1 of that word). Definition 2 doesn't involve me either: "a preoccupation with feces, filth, and obscenities" - see Footnote 3. However, no matter how much we might dislike the more unpleasant facets of life, shit happens and there's not much point in trying so hard to avoid it.

When I was not quite a teenager, I happened to hear someone described as a scat singer. So, being the inquisitive type, I looked up scat in a very old dictionary that included this definition: "the excrement of an animal." I was quite horrified that someone could actually be described as singing like that.

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

"SS stands for Secret Service. Let's hope it doesn't devolve into another kind of SS - the infamous Schutzstaffel. No, I'm not kidding " - 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

Footnote 1: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/the_juiciest_revelations_in_game_change.php

Footnote 2: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

Footnote 3: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scatalogical

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.

Today's blog is inspired by two unrelated events:

• The recent suicide bombing which killed seven CIA officers in Afghanistan;

• US Major General Michael Flynn's (also) recent report on the need to reform intelligence operations in Afghanistan

Anything humorous (and "humorous") has a source in reality. First, the reality:

QUOTE:

The suicide bomber [first name: Humam] who killed seven CIA officers in Afghanistan was invited onto the heavily guarded base as a possible informant and, in a breach of security procedure, wasn't searched, according to three current and former CIA officers.

The bomber was escorted to the gym on the fortified complex known as Forward Operating Base Chapman for a meeting with a senior CIA debriefer, according to intelligence sources familiar with the incident.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 1].

Now, for the joke based on this reality:

Question: What were the last words spoken by a CIA agent, just before Humam al-Balawi detonated his suicide vest?

Answer [keeping in mind they were in a gym]:

"Humam! Welcome to our gym. Say! You look pretty bulked up* already, so you don't really need a workout. But join us anyway. Here, let me help you remove your flak vest."

  * bulked up because of explosives hidden under his shirt

Interlude:

Before I proceed with my CIA roast:

Yes, I freely admit this post is in bad taste, and is only "humorous" in a macabre sort of way. Sometimes "bad tastes" have to be introduced in order to rid ourselves of all the sugary sweet stuff (bull shit propaganda) we're being continually fed. Sometimes macabre humor is necessary to make a point, which would otherwise evade the jaded. So, if there are any flag wavers out there who might take offense to anything in this post, a bit of advice:

You should adopt the mindset of the true intelligence professional and seek to mine my words for whatever might be useful to your cause. Then disregard the rest and by all means, don't be blinded by your emotions.

That being said, I offer the following for your sober reflection - all humor aside:

Maybe Humam al-Balawi wasn't the only double agent on the scene that fateful day. Maybe, just maybe, whoever didn't pat him down knew what al-Balawi was about to do. Maybe there were two double agents involved.

About Major General Flynn's report:

I'm going to assume that al-Balawi acted alone, and that CIA staff who had allowed him to enter this camp without a pat-down were incompetent (at least this one time). If so, that's obviously just one instance of incompetence, though sadly it cost eight lives (nine, counting al-Balawi's life, and I do). However, this quoted source covers incompetence spanning the eight years the US has been doing its imperialistic thing in Afghanistan:

QUOTE:

KABUL - NATO's top intelligence officer has ordered significant changes in the way information is collected and shared in Afghanistan, saying that without reform the U.S. intelligence community will continue to be only "marginally relevant" to the counterinsurgency mission.

In a stinging assessment of the U.S. intelligence effort after eight years of war, U.S. Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn directed intelligence workers to focus less on the enemy and more on civilian life.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2].

All joking aside (at least for the moment), I suggest you (no matter your political persuasion) invest less than an hour to read General Flynn's highly illuminating (though somewhat self-serving) report entitled:

Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan [source: http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/press/AfghanIntel_Flynn_Jan2010_code507_voices.pdf]

My impression, based on this report: Apparently we haven't learned anything from our bitter experience in Vietnam. Bottom line? From the intel point of view, for the last eight years, we've been in Afghanistan doing nothing except dicking around.

Yeah, that's a crude way to put it, but you won't find a better or more succinct executive summary.

Now, on to the jokes

About that light bulb:

QUESTION: How many CIA agents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A few possible answers:

• "That's classified information."

• "If I tell you, I'll have to kill you."

• "None, CIA agents prefer working in the dark."

• "One, but he has to be briefed on the necessity of first removing the defective bulb."

• "The party needing it replaced - is he a warlord on our payroll?" If so, the bulb will be replaced as if by magic - with no agents appearing to be necessary for the job.

• "One, but there is an exception: If we're talking about a double-agent with recurring amnesia and a saboteur's heart, he'll screw in a replacement bulb, then induce that bulb to fail, and then replace the bulb yet again. And keep repeating the process. In other words, with such an agent in charge, the bulb will never be permanently replaced."

• "No more than one agent would be allowed to change this bulb, since using a few more would suggest incompetency and using a lot more would suggest an embrasure of the communal tendencies near and dear to the hearts of commies and pinkos."

• "No one would try to replace it. Instead, a team of agents would start torturing it until it decides to start shining again."

1,001 uses for a dead CIA agent:

These "uses" are in the spirit of the Dead Baby Jokes:

• If CIA leadership doubts a living agent's ability to follow any and all orders, they can order him to cannibalize a fallen comrade. If he says, "Can't do it, sir. He's looking right at me," then they can give him a flag and say, "Here, cover his face and then do it for Old Glory."

• Take two dead agents - then shrink and mummify them. Then use them as bookends. However, your books will inexplicably burst into flames if they're not on the CIA-approved list.

• Make them into soup that not even a starving cannibal would eat, and offer it to our Gitmo prisoners.

• For visual entertainment, make them into soup and then toss in a bouillon cube. Even though dead, they will react to anything French and get all agitated and frothy.

• Use them as a source for heart transplants...oh, wait...they don't have hearts.

• Form a mental picture of one agent and say, "At least, this one won't be tempted to do any more torturing."

• Convert them to sawdust and sprinkle over polluted bodies of water. All manner of things foul and nasty will gravitate toward this "sawdust" which can then be skimmed off. Voila! Clean water!

• Since the CIA is always looking for extralegal sources of funding, Leon Panetta could order that dead agents be mummified for sale on the black market as lackeys. There's always some warlord or potentate out there who'd be willing to pay dearly for his very own CIA lackey.

• Same as above, except don't mummify - petrify instead. Our enemies would love to decorate their homes and offices with spooks who look terrified. No, wait...I guess I had said petrify instead of terrify.

• Make sure he's really dead - these guys have a way of coming back to haunt you. If really dead, call Ghostbusters since CIA has surely done extensive research on how to maximize use of their agents - enabling them to work their mischief from beyond the grave.

• Use dead agents as a training tool for new agents who aren't very bright, saying, "This is what dead looks like - and that's how you'll end up if you don't follow procedures, such as patting down visitors to your base."

• Call the fallen agents "heroes" and then move on.

• Run one up a flag pole and see if anyone salutes.

• Make them into fertilizer and sell to our enemies, whose lands will lie barren for a thousand years after only one application.

And now, seriously speaking...

I know, I know...some of you might be wondering, "Aren't you afraid you'll piss off some CIA agent and he'll disappear you down some black hole somewhere?"

Answer: No I'm not, since the true CIA professional (and they are all unimpeachably professional, aren't they?) will know exactly what I'm driving at: "Get your shit together or people are going to start laughing at you." More than that - being loyal Americans, CIA would fight to the death my right to exercise free speech.

And if there are any CIA agents out there who are on the bubble concerning my fate, they should consider the next two stories - about General Curtis LeMay and Barack Obama.

Curtis LeMay

When I was in the Air Force, I heard an anecdote concerning General LeMay, when he was in charge of the USAF Strategic Air Command.

He was waiting in line to board a nuclear bomber, having to wait while the Military Police reviewed boarding passes. This brief procedure was necessary to assure that only authorized personnel could board the plane. When it was LeMay's turn, the sentry didn't ask for his papers but instead saluted and waved him through.

The General asked the sentry why he didn't follow protocol and review his boarding pass. The sentry said, "But I recognize you as General LeMay, Commander in Chief of this entire command."

The General snapped, "Young man, for all you know the President of the United States might have just fired me and voided my pass. We have security measures in place for damn good reasons."

Barack Obama

I have seen several photos showing Obama surrounded by his smiling, adoring troops after making a speech and then mingling with his soldiers. They were informally gathered around their Commander in Chief, with some of them even raising their cameras above the crowd to snap a better picture.

Frankly, that's a bit too loosey-goosey for my taste. I don't care if we have a volunteer military. Here's what I would say to these soldiers:

"That man is the supreme military leader of this country. You do not smile in his presence. You do not shuffle and gawk and say "Aw shucks, sir." You do not kick back and chill out in his presence. You are always to be at attention, staring out into space with firm, determined, and unemotional resolve. You are never, ever to lose your military bearing. What do you think this is, some kind of warm, fuzzy, family gathering? Your loose behavior sends messages, including this one to the President himself: It's okay to use troops as props in support of your political posturing.

"No, it is NOT okay. Soldiers, you have a job to do and how you carry yourselves - at all times - is part of that job and is of the utmost importance. Do not forget this."

This just in...

I was just about to post this blog, when I saw this:

QUOTE:

Defending his agents, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the bomber was about to be searched before the blast occurred [which killed seven CIA agents officers in Afghanistan].

"This was not a question of trusting a potential intelligence asset, even one who had provided information that we could verify independently. It is never that simple, and no one ignored the hazards," Panetta wrote in a Washington Post op-ed piece posted online Saturday. "The individual was about to be searched by our security officers - a distance away [my emphasis - please define "a distance"...inches, feet, yards, or what?] from other intelligence personnel - when he set off his explosives."

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 3].

I don't believe Panetta's claim for one moment. For if the bomber was about to be searched, then why wasn't he searched before being allowed to enter the base? And if the search was about to be conducted beyond what was believed to be an adequate distance from other intelligence personnel, then we have to ask:

Have the terrorists managed to develop explosives for their suicide vests which are many times more powerful than previously encountered? If so, then that's a far bigger story than this particular bombing itself.

"Sorry, Leon. The more lies you tell, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself" - Steve.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/cia-casualties-american-civilians-killed-afghan-suicide-bomber/story?id=9456517

Footnote 2: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Footnote 3: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_afghan_attack

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

"If I had been elected President instead of Obama, those seven CIA agents would be alive today. They wouldn't have been in Afghanistan in the first place - nor would any of our other forces still be there - or in Iraq - or (secretly) in Iran" - 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 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.