Thesis: If I become the next US President, my detractors might well end up dubbing me Steven the Draconian. They will quickly find that I have no use for the In Crowd, the Washington Corps of Lobbyists, special privilege seekers, and hangers-on in general.

A Draconian Proposal

My proposal's text: As your next President, I will not sign any bill into law that has any provision for tax increase or for increased government borrowing.

My proposal's context: My "no new tax/ no new borrowing" proposal is contained in my contract. That's the difference between me and the other two. If either of them is elected, he can go back on his word. If I am elected, I can't: For if I would, then my contract calls for me to lose the presidency. The enforcement mechanism lies in my contract's invitation for Congress to impeach me for (well) breach of contract. My contract defines breach of my candidacy's contractual basis as being an impeachable offense.

I will faithfully keep all of the promises listed in my written contract. If I don't, believe me: The Dem/Pubs in Congress will be all too eager to remove me from office by using my own contract against me.

Certain John McCain supporters perceived him as an anti-tax candidate. I'm sure they wish McCain, back then, had put his anti-tax increase stance in the form of written contract (like me). But...McCain didn't do that. McCain chose the usual path of asking people to accept a candidate's word on an issue. By doing what he did (see following quote), McCain violated a basic rule: Politicians are supposed to wait until after they're elected to break their promises:

QUOTE:

ABC News' Anamarie Rebori reports: Sen. John McCain made clear this weekend that when it comes to fixing Social Security, "everything is on the table," including a possible payroll tax increase....

...However, in a February interview with Stephanopoulos, which also aired on "This Week," McCain made a pledge not to raise taxes as president. When Stephanopoulos asked, "Are you a 'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" McCain responded affirmatively: "No new taxes."

:UNQUOTE: July 27, 2008: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-social-s.html

"Martial Law" McCain vs. "Bushwacked into it" Barack

No matter which of these two becomes President, martial law will be imposed. In fact, our financial markets are counting on that and will be relieved when it happens. Seems everybody likes it when a strong man asserts control. To be sure, though, nobody's going to call it "martial law." McCain will refer to "invoking emergency powers." Obama will call it "invoking emergency powers - reluctantly, I believe."

And what will George W. Bush call it, assuming he finds some way to stay in power after his term officially ends? The word sweet! comes to mind.

John McCain can take advantage of his new persona as the calmer, kinder, no-longer-angry John McCain, who will give his sweeping powers a certain warm-fuzziness. John has colleagues who well remember his more mercurial, eruptive side. However, the famous McCain anger has not been a factor in this election. This is almost as miraculous as Obama overcoming Clinton's insurmountable lead.

The Powers-that-Be who really run this country can be equally comfortable with Obama having to invoke martial law. There's a certain irony in having a black man do the dirty work, which will give the PTB a chuckle or two. Make no mistake, though, Obama (or McCain) ((or Bush)) will have to impose martial law and/or draconian measures. Our next President will have to deal with chickens having to come home to roost - a Day of Reckoning which can't be put off any longer.

What? Did you think we could keep borrowing and warring forever, without consequence? Were our foreign and fiscal policies a form of Pyramid Scheme, using a pyramid with an infinite base? Sorry, there is no such thing: Looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

Market Considerations

I tried looking at (for example) the Dow Jones Industrial Averages on a daily basis to determine a trend. The Dow would be up 1.5% one day, down 2% the next, then up again. Each bit of news was eagerly analyzed by investors who were trying to determine whether to buy or sell. They would cheer when the price of oil dropped a few dollars per barrel. Then they'd sober up after realizing that price drop was due to decreased demand. "Decreased demand" means "a lower level of economic activity." Oh shit, what to do, what to do!

There are wise men out there who remember, "Even during the Great Depression, there were people who became millionaires." It's true: No matter what, there's always opportunity lurking out there, somewhere. Maybe not for the masses, but enough for ... ME!

We are hopelessly hooked on a high and unsustainable rate of economic growth. And not just in order to accommodate an increasing population. The smart money needs to know that there will always be an ample supply of high rate-of-return investment opportunities. But also, the not-so-smart money needs to know that as well: Tens of millions of Americans are involved in pension/retirement plans which depend on solid and consistent rates of return over a long period of time.

It's time to re-evaluate what constitutes appropriate business ethics and practices, and to focus on sustainable and sober (rather than feverish and delirious) patterns and rates of economic growth. And the Dem/Pubs aren't up to this monumental and vital task!

Everybody "knows" that the big banks and outfits like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won't be allowed to fail. That kind of knowledge is the real key to investor confidence (such as it is, these days): Knowing that the US government itself (aka, the taxpayers) will end up footing the bill if the economy really tanks. And if that happens, then the politicians will know what to do to avoid taxpayer backlash: They'll create another emergency or - if worse truly comes to worse - invade another country and strip it of everything of value which isn't nailed down.

Of course, such draconia come complete with opportunities for high rates-of-return for those in the know. Which is exactly what we have to get away from.

Down with all Berlin Walls

My definition of a Berlin Wall: Any useless structure, whether made of bricks or laws, which is oppressive, unnecessary, or stands in the way of social progress.

Origin of my Berlin Wall: I was standing outside the entrance to the Science Building of Northeastern Illinois University, when I saw something I'd seen thousands of times before. But this time I saw it with new eyes. I'm talking about two walls, each a few feet high and maybe 30 feet long, which "funnel" traffic into the entrance of the Science Building.

I remarked to a friend, "These walls serve no purpose. They don't do anything." My friend laughed at my innocence, "I could lie and say they're decorative or meant to be an aesthetic complement. But that's not it at all. These walls do serve a purpose: To give state-funded private contractors one more item to bill taxpayers for. Don't forget: Contractors are major contributors in statewide elections. And these contractors expect to be taken care of."

If I were in charge, I'd take care of these contractors all right...with a shockingly new philosophy: Down with all Berlin Walls, before they even hit the blueprint stage! The United States desperately needs someone like me to take a long, hard, cold, cruel, unsympathetic look at how taxpayers' money is spent. Cautionary note: I don't suffer fools gladly, nor government waste.

Not all of my Berlin Walls are made of bricks. For example: If I were to become your next president, I would not lift a finger to bail out Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Our bailout mentality is as much a Berlin Wall as any other, though it's made of attitudes and habits rather than bricks and mortar. But it's equally oppressive in its own way.

Rules don't mean anything unless failure becomes an option. And believe me, failure is already more than an option - just not for large, badly-run, speculation-based corporations. When we deny failure to them by bailing them out, we invite even greater failure to ourselves - and our children.

Sorry big-leaguers...I will let you fail. If you can't manage your affairs, or if you overextend yourselves by investing in too many questionable ventures, then you will - and should - go bankrupt and have to sell off your assets. I don't have a sense of humor when it comes to corporate welfare. And if you don't like it, tough: Vote for the Republican next time.

Of course, there is another way. Big business could try to buy enough congressmen to overturn my bailout vetoes. "All" it would take is two-thirds of both houses. Fine, go for it.

Meanwhile, I will be busily encouraging the public to throw out all Dem/Pub congressmen in the 2010 general election. The first two years of my presidency will be tumultuous, to say the least, because I'll be at war with the business-as-usual Congress. But for every day of those two years, I will urge We-the-People to elect congressional candidates who are independents, who have written contracts like I do.

During my first State of the Union address, I will stand before Congress and urge the American people to vote against each and every member of Congress. This includes Barack Obama, who will be up for re-election in 2010. We need to start all over again with a completely clean slate, and this includes ousting Obama. I know well enough that he is not the "change you can believe in" - he's really the "regular Daley Democrat who David Axelrod and the Backroom Boys can believe in."

And this revamping goes for the Supreme Court as well

My first State of the Union speech, which I will give in January 2009, will be quite an affair. For instance, can you imagine the shock on the faces of our nine Supreme Court justices who will be listening to my speech as part of a live audience? I will look them squarely in the eye and, on national television, tell them that I expect them to submit their resignations immediately.

Of course, they don't have to and they probably won't. But I want them to know exactly where I'm coming from. I want them to know my view: That their connection to the Dem/Pubs (and therefore, to business-as-usual) is not in keeping with the spirit of the Revolution of Independents which I hope will bring about a new era of laws and legal interpretations. The Court, as currently constituted, is too political in origination and orientation.

I will ask for law schools and unpolitically-connected legal sources to provide me with a list of nominees to comprise a new Supreme Court. And I would carefully consider reappointing some of those justices who would resign, if they were to be recommended highly enough by non-Dem/Pub sources. However, each of my nominees would be able to serve for only five-year terms. [For a more complete discussion on why five-year terms can be arranged, go to my blog at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2006/11/my_supreme_court_nominations ]

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"No doubt about it. If I become your next president, there'll be a hot time in the old [Washington D.C.] town tonight. Tighten your seatbelts!" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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, I focus on two points:

• How should McCain and Obama conduct their respective campaigns - with only 85 days left until we cast our ballots?

• Some miscellaneous observations regarding this election.

• Expect the tabloids to feature stories on a former Barack Obama girlfriend or two. [I'm a bit surprised that none have turned up so far.]

• Suppose the 2008 election is stolen from Obama? I'm not sure how his supporters would react, but I know how Barack himself would react: He'd roll over and play dead, just like Al Gore and John Kerry did. And just like the Democrat-controlled Congress did, after ending up (in 2007) with the power to cut off funding for the Iraq war.

• If the Democrats win both houses of Congress and obtain a filibuster-proof Senate, can they be trusted with the absolute power which also having a Democratic president would confer?

• If McCain wins, expect to see old friend Rudy America's Mayor Giuliani nominated as Attorney General.

• Barack Obama runs the risk of peaking too early and losing his newcomer's appeal to the voters.

• It's a good thing Obama hadn't picked John Edwards as his running mate, now that John's adulterous affair (which he admits) and a paternity issue (which he denies) have come to light. I wonder if the candidates will ask their (potential) running mates to take lie-detector tests. Could you imagine McCain strapping a lie-detector on Mitt Romney and then asking: "Have you ever cheated on your wife?" [Maybe Romney would snarl back at McCain: "Let me strap that sucker on you and ask you that question!"]

• John the Miracle McCain came from nowhere - having polled only 8% among Republicans in December '07. So did Barack Thin Résumé Obama. I am determined to send both of them back to the nowheres from whence they came, by winning the presidency myself. This has been a season of unparalleled political miracles; wouldn't my victory be the stunner of all time?

• Congratulations to Paris Hilton for her great video response to John McCain's ad, which had "mentioned" her name, at http://www.funnyordie.com/, which got 6 million hits in 5 days. Brickbats to John McCain, who managed to anger Paris's parents with his ad. Maybe he doesn't mind angering people like the Hilton's who had contributed money to his campaign. Maybe he thinks of Paris and her parents as a kind of collateral damage. [Careful, John. Some kinds of collateral damage bite back.]

• 527 Groups: 527 Groups, similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, will come out of the woodwork after Labor Day. They will deal with the type of smear tactics which neither the candidates themselves (nor their official campaign committees) would dare to engage in. For instance, pro-Obama groups will try to undermine McCain's war hero status, while pro-McCain groups will try to excite the pinheads in their own ranks by challenging Obama to take a DNA test to prove he's not really a Jew connected by blood to the black Jews (the Lemba tribe) in Africa. [Silly, isn't it? After accusing him of being a closet Muslim. Maybe they'll dare to suggest Obama is both a Jew and a Muslim!]

My advice to the John McCain Camp

This is what the McCain camp shouldn't do:

Rely on smear campaigns to undermine Barack Obama. The Dems have learned their lesson from the Swift Boaters: Challenge quickly and forcefully any slurs the pinheads try to pin on your candidate. Obama has enough money to conduct retaliatory saturation ad campaigns to oppose any Swift Boater mischief.

This is what the McCain camp should do:

Embrace George Bush...fully, genuinely, often, and publicly - starting with McCain bringing Bush up on stage with him at the nominating convention in order to heap praise on him!

This is exactly the kind of strategy the Democrats wouldn't expect, not in a million years. They're busy thinking that Bush is an embarrassment, that his popularity is low, and that the GOP will surely want to distance itself from such an incumbent. Not so fast! Isn't the GOP good at attacking an opponent's strengths? I believe it will prove equally good at spinning its own (apparent) weaknesses.

Those "weaknesses" are embodied in one man: George W. Bush. By bringing him on stage - for the specific purpose of heaping praise upon him - will be the stroke of genius the Democrats could not possibly anticipate. And the beauty of all this is: All Bush would have to do is ... simply stand there and take it all in!

Excerpts from such a speech by McCain:

• "I want to thank you, Mr. President! Yes, thank you, and I can't thank you enough. After the devastating attacks on 9/11, the United States has not suffered another such attack. This was due to your diligence and insistence that we protect ourselves and take the fight to the enemy. History will prove that you were right: The best defense is a good offense."

• "I want to thank you, Mr. President, for taking the first bold steps in bringing democracy to the Middle East. America, I want you to think back seven years, back to the time before George W. Bush became our president. No one. NO ONE would have dreamed that the seeds of democracy could, to use the words of the worst of the naysayers, "possibly take root in such an alien soil." That, however, is where the critics were dead wrong. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are not aliens. They are not creatures from another planet. They are human beings, with hopes and aspirations just like us. And the common man in those two countries - and throughout the Middle East - wants government of the people, by the people, and for the people because - they are the people!"

• "I want to thank you, Mr. President, because I don't think enough people have. Instead, too many people have been unduly influenced by clever comedians who proved to be good at their jobs. But tonight I want to remind America that parody is not reality. Results are reality. And often, it is not the top student from the most elite school who gets those results. Many who are voted Most Likely to Succeed don't end up doing much of consequence at all. But there are others, Mr. President, like you, who show character and grit - and vision."

• "I am similar to you, George Bush, in that I was never a profound scholar. But we did go on, didn't we? You went on to become leader of the free world, and I rose from the depths of despair as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton to become a United States senator. I hope to prove that I am similar to you in other ways: We kept the faith. We knew the right thing to do. And we did it - even in the face of detractors to the right of us and detractors to the left of us - mostly to the left of us, I dare say."

• "Do you know what I fear most, Mr. President? That people will forget. They will forget that you were the architect of democracy in Iraq. And worse? They will believe President Barack Obama when he tries to claim the credit for that democracy - the same Barack Obama who got so much mileage by claiming he opposed our policies in Iraq from the beginning. We can't let that happen! I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and that credit goes to you, George Bush. And I believe in carrying on that good work!"

My advice to the Barack Obama Camp

My first piece of advice to the Obama campaign: Don't pick on McCain's age directly because you might end up offending too many elderly citizens, who just love exercising - "exercising" their right to vote, that is.

The Obama campaign could get a lot of mileage out of taking aim at his more rabid GOP detractors by saying: "These guys take pride in being ignorant." He actually said this at a recent townhall meeting in Berea, Ohio. It's a great video clip in that it doesn't actually call anyone stupid (thereby risking a charge of elitism). In fact, he didn't even call them ignorant - he said they "take pride in being ignorant," which assumes the part about being "ignorant" as being a given.

This Berea campaign clip was well done - a masterpiece of subtle deprecation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28&feature=related

The Obama campaign's biggest risk factor is that "Change you can believe in" will be challenged by McCain as just empty, high-sounding rhetoric. I can envision one of Mac's commercials featuring clips from numerous Obama speeches, repeating over and over: "I think," and "I believe." The narrative voiceover could ask: "I think? I believe? Senator Obama, what do you know? And who do you know well enough to call on to serve in your administration?"

The Obama camp will not be able to pin the sad state of our economy on the GOP, since the Democratic Congress is just as much to blame. And the GOP has an edge by being able to claim that spending on war and security has helped weaken the economy. This necessary spending was supported by the Democrats, who themselves are in favor of continuing such spending (as evidenced by Obama's pledge to increase the size of our military and the scope of its mission).

The GOP will try to dent Obama's aura by dwelling on his connection to Chicago Machine politics and also his days as an Illinois state senator who'd benefited from Machine support and danced to its tune.

To counter that, however, Obama could say something like, "I am proud to be a Democrat - proud to be a member of a party which is as diverse as America itself. Now, there are people who will try to hold the condition of Illinois's politics against me. And to that I say, ‘Not so fast.' Say what you will, for example, about Chicago's mayor Richard M. Daley. But also remember to say: ‘Richard Daley's been elected to serve as Chicago's mayor six times - and the GOP never came close to beating him. Though he's been investigated, he has never been accused of a crime. And not only Chicago admires this man and the city he helped develop into a world-class metropolis, but Time Magazine had chosen him, back in 2005, as the best out of five mayors of large US cities."

In short, Obama will have no trouble defending his time in Illinois nor the connections he'd forged there. And if he needs anyone to blame for Illinois's political mess, he could point to former Governor George Ryan (a Republican) who is currently sitting in federal prison serving a six year term for corruption.

Then Obama could steer the dialog back to his theme of "Change you can believe in" by stating the obvious: "Corruption in public life is not the exclusive fault of one political party. I know there are concerned patriots on both sides of the aisle who are gravely concerned about this major issue, and I intend to work with them to steer our course away from corrupting influences.

"I feel the pain of public servants who are loyal to the GOP who are honest and concerned about clean government, yet who cringe when thinking of Dick Cheney as a war profiteer. Who cringe when they see our government becoming so big and so oppressive of personal liberties that Barry Goldwater would be shocked."

My advice to the Steven Searle camp

I don't know if there is a Steven Searle camp, though I suppose with Election Day almost upon us, I'll find out soon enough. Meanwhile, I'll look in the mirror at the reflection of the one member of this camp who I know definitely supports my candidacy and say:

"Well, Steve, you tried your best and, knowing you as I do, I know you'll keep fighting the good fight, no matter what."

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"While it's true that there are a lot of ways to win an election without necessarily getting elected, I wouldn't mind hearing Hail to the Chief played for me once - before I'd ban it by Executive Order " - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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.

QUESTION: What do Barack Obama and John McCain have in common, besides their wish to become President?

ANSWER: They both think Georgia should be admitted to NATO.

MY RESPONSE: I oppose NATO membership for, not only Georgia, but also for the Ukraine. This is one of my positions as a candidate for US President in the 2008 election.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let me see if I've got this straight.

McCain and Obama are both advocating that the United States should go to war with Russia for the sake of one of our allies in the war on terror - that is, Georgia, with a population of less than 5 million. We should do this because Georgia is getting its butt kicked by Russia after Georgia's president ordered a massive military operation against one of its own wayward provinces. This province - a place called South Ossetia (population of around 100,000, many of whom are Russians) - had Russian peacekeeping forces, some of whom were killed by Georgia's attack.

Hmmm...and Russia's not going to be bothered by that? I guess one of the issues is whether Russia is overreacting, though McCain and Obama would have you believe Russia should have done nothing in the face of Georgian aggression.

Wait...I'm wrong...I'm a bit off in my chronology. I can't say "McCain and Obama are both advocating that the United should go to war with Russia..." Georgia's not a member of NATO at this time. However, if it had been a member of NATO, while attacking South Ossetia, followed by the Russians intervening, then Obama and McCain would have no problem going to war against Russia.

I guess we dodged a bullet here, since Georgia as a NATO member could have forced NATO and the United States to go to war on its behalf. That's one of the privileges of NATO membership: An attack on one member of NATO is viewed as an attack on all, forcing NATO to (in effect) defend itself by coming to that member's aid. But...Georgia's not a member of NATO ... yet.

Obama and McCain are disgusting

Increasing the size and scope of NATO is a provocative act. What the hell are my opponents thinking? They're both from this school: More is better and you can't have too many treaty obligations. And McCain, the more shameless opportunist of the two (though not by much!), wants to kick Russia out of the G8. What on earth does he hope to gain by isolating Russia?

And Bush is playing the brinksmanship game too, undoubtedly egged on by McCain's tough guy rhetoric. Bush thinks it's a peachy idea to have our navy challenge Russia's naval blockade of Georgia's ports and to have American planes land in Georgia to deliver supplies. Why can't these supplies be dropped off in, say, neighboring Turkey, to be transported cross-border to Georgia? But no...Bush wants to have our military brush elbows with the Russians. Maybe Bush is hoping for an incident. If so, why? Has Cheney already convinced Bush that a "limited" US military action would put the Russians in their place?

And now we have the Georgians trying to get cute:

QUOTE:

The US Navy's task force will be challenging the Russian naval blockade of Georgia's ports, while the giant US military cargo planes will be landing close to areas recently bombed by Russian warplanes. The Georgians tried to exploit the move last night by declaring that their ports and airports would be put under US military control, an offer the Pentagon quickly declined.

:UNQUOTE [From The Times article of Aug. 14, 2008 by Richard Beeston at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4526433.ece .

I guess I can't blame the Georgian government for trying to suck us into their conflict. We are allies, after all, and that means something, right? Just like it did prior to World War I?

McCain and Obama are both overlooking something profound here: Maybe Russia decided to overreact against Georgia for the same reason the US decided to attack Grenada. Back in 1983, the US needed a chance to give its military a bit of a confidence booster after its loss in Vietnam. Maybe Russia decided it had to overreact by not merely going tit-for-tat but, instead, by going TIT!!!!!!!-for-tat. Maybe Russia felt it had to make a statement: "We're not has-beens!"

We should take this opportunity to reconsider our own overreactive tendencies. Yes, I feel sorry for the innocent civilians in both Georgia and in South Ossetia. But I refuse to believe we have to make a federal case out of this. Not every war has to become our war. Sometimes armed conflicts arise, but that doesn't mean we have to automatically jump in.

The source of the problem: The sovereign state

I still maintain that the existence of the sovereign state as the basis of our world's political organization will continue to give rise to these types of conflicts. And the larger of these states will always jockey for advantage when conflicts arise. I hereby renew my call, expressed elsewhere on my Gaia blog, to replace the sovereign state. Not with a super-enhanced United Nations but, instead, with Cross-Sectional Representation. [NOTE: Use the search function to find my explanation of this radical new form of political organization, which I've developed and continue to promote.]

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"How much longer do you think Russia will tolerate death by a thousand cuts?" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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.

Interesting title, eh? What on earth could I mean by "Russia to join the Islamic Union?" Is there even such a thing as the Islamic Union of Nations?

Thesis: Any attempt to isolate/punish Russia for its intervention in Georgia could well lead to Russian attempts to reach out to the Islamic world in an attempt to find common cause.

A lot of our politicians in the United States and the European Union suffer from an old Cold War mindset: An urge to contain the Soviet Union. Whoops, I meant Russia...Double whoops, I meant the Commonwealth of Independent States. Or is it appropriate to invoke the CIS at this time?

The Key Players

The CIS is a confederation of former Soviet Socialist Republics, which lacks the ever-increasing cohesion of the European Union. However, that could change, starting with certain heads of state re-evaluating their nations' best interests.

For instance, take Russia: Leadership might decide it doesn't like the idea of being constricted by the West. Maybe it's not buying the idea that Georgia as a NATO member would be non-threatening. Maybe Russia might start to feel left out as the European Union and China (not to mention the United States) increasingly undermine African nations' sovereignty while chasing raw materials.

What about African nations...and here I'll re-ask the question in a more potent way: "What about Islamic African nations?" Africa has had a long and terrible history of being on the wrong end of the colonization bandwagon. And leaders throughout Africa are painfully aware that their countries could easily become de facto colonies once again. Unless...they had a powerful ally (Russia? CIS?).

What about Turkey? Turkey could well prove pivotal in terms of Russia succeeding with any plan to economically and strategically coordinate with the Islamic world, in the name of forming a counterbalance to Western Christian hegemony. The Turks are waiting impatiently to be allowed into the European Union, but (I believe) the EU will never let them in. Two reasons: The EU isn't anxious to drop trade barriers with an industrialized Turkey which is hoping for market access for its products, and there are too many cultural differences.

Even though Turkey is a secular state which happens to be overwhelming Islamic by religious preference, that doesn't mean Turkey is an Islamic state. However, many Turks chafe under what they perceive to be an anti-religious sentiment intentionally cultivated by their secularist leaders. Not to mention the many Turks who have become anti-American in their outlook and are starting to ask: "Who needs the European Union anyway?"

Bottom line? Turkey might welcome the opportunity to join an expanded Commonwealth of Independent States - a CIS with a mission: To form a more perfect union with which to compete against the EU.

What about the Islamic (or predominantly Islamic) nations of the CIS: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan (an Associate Member of the CIS), and Uzbekistan? These countries might decide to become more than just suppliers of raw materials to the West. They might decide there's power in union - even in a union with Russians - which is preferable to seeing their national interests languish while EU fortunes rise.

What about Iran? Iran could become an important part of any future Islamic Union, either connected to the CIS or not. I've written before on how a key Iranian port could serve as a major highway for trade with Africa.

But can these nations unite?

And...can these nations unite with Russia as a partner? At first blush, it might seem odd to suppose that Russia, with its legacy of atheistic Communism, could find common cause with Muslims. I can think of three reasons to so suppose: atheism as a state religion is dead in Russia; Muslims are influential in Russia, comprising around 12% of its population; and (best reason of all) politics make strange bedfellows.

Russia, with Islamic allies, would gain members of a free trade zone which could compete with the European Union, the United States, and China. The Islamic Union, with Russia as an ally, would gain a Big Brother with nuclear capability. But the IU would gain something which, in the long run, would be even more important: A stabilizing agent, which could even play a leadership role, as the different brands of Islam (potentially) collide within any Commonwealth of Independent States.

Russia as a referee? Not exactly, but once diverse (and even nationalistic) forms of Islam are brought into more intimate contact by virtue of being part of a union, pragmatic Russia could (ironically) be instrumental in the evolution of Islam to its next stage of development. [I can also see secularists in Turkey assisting in this capacity.] And I can see benefit to Russia in this process as it struggles to find its own spirituality.

My personal opinion is, the "book" on Islam hasn't been completed yet. There are many in the world who call themselves Muslims - many indeed who practice this faith assiduously - who don't really know much about it (or its different factions and schools). It can even be argued that the spirit of Islam suffered as a unifying force once different countries and cultures passed it through the lenses of their own nationalisms (or sought to suppress it, as the case may be).

However, I also believe that when people of faith come together, which they can happen more easily in an Islamic Union, their faith becomes not only stronger but undergoes an inevitable transformation.

Meanwhile, back at the home front

Short-sighted politicians like Barack Obama and John McCain have put their own self-interests ahead of the national interest, while speaking out against Russian "aggression" in Georgia. They use their own words to condemn Russia and call for "sanctions" - hoping to sound tough and increase their appeal to the general electorate.

However, something very profound is being overlooked by all of the pundits: Obama and McCain are US senators and therefore should not be speaking out at all concerning the on-going crisis in the nation of Georgia. The President of the United States (George W. Bush, last time I checked) should be the sole official voice of US policy. It is a conflict of interest for McCain and Obama - since they're both senators - to say anything at all. Their words, as senators, could undermine the president in his pursuit of his foreign policy.

In fact, I will expand my doctrinal take here: Obama, McCain (and, for that matter, Hillary Clinton) should have resigned their senate seats once they'd formally declared their candidacies for the presidency. If they had done so, then (and only then) should they have spoken out freely on this crisis - without undermining the president by virtue of being members of the legislative branch.

I know, however, that senators running for the presidency can (and do) say whatever they wish - regardless of their encroachment on presidential prerogative. Think about this, though: Wouldn't it have been refreshingly selfless for a senator to actually resign his seat in order to pursue the presidency? Wouldn't that have been change you can believe in?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Actually, I'm waiting for John McCain to commit the ultimate gaffe in this crisis: At a press conference, it would be absolute death for him to utter these fateful words: ‘And I find Russia to not be in compliance.' He would quickly find that he can't talk to Russia the same way he found it appropriate for us to talk to Saddam Hussein." - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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.

...doesn't approve. That's the short answer - so what's the question?

The question is: What's the real reason that Gordon Johndroe, the Deputy Assistant to President Bush, said recently, "The Iranian development and testing of rockets is troubling and raises further questions about their intentions?"

Johndroe's words appear in conjunction with this statement posted on Yahoo News on 8/17/08:

"The White House said Sunday that Iran's announcement it had launched a home-built rocket into space was ‘troubling' because such technology could also be used for ballistic missiles." [source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817/pl_afp/iranspaceuswhouse ]

The long answer

The short answer was: Because Israel doesn't approve.

The long answer is: Because Israel doesn't approve of any kind of development and testing which would allow for the possibility of enhanced Iranian spy satellite capability. This might provide enhanced early warning of any planned Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

My personal opinion is that Israel will unilaterally conduct such a strike against Iran and soon. I say "unilaterally" because Israeli intelligence doubts that a President Obama will lend support to such an operation, and they believe a President McCain would be too ham-handed or insist that such an operation be done his way.

Probably the best window of opportunity for Israel would be to strike between Nov. 5, 2008 and Jan. 19, 2009. That is, after we cast our votes for president on Nov. 4, but before the 44^th president is inaugurated on Jan. 20. [NOTE: If the Israelis were to wait until Jan. 19, that would mean our new POTUS would really have his hands full on Day One!]

On the face of it

Suppose for a moment the White House is telling the truth (okay, try to suppose), and that Israeli objection to Iranian spy satellites isn't the issue. Suppose we're really worried about Iran continuing its research on missile technology to the point of approaching qualitative equality with our own program. Then apparently we get to worry about whether Iran will actually produce such advanced missiles in appreciable quantities. And of course we won't believe them if they'd claim such missiles will be used only to launch communications satellites or to launch billionaires into space on luxury cruises (a new kind of cruise missile, if you will).

Why did the White House bother to say anything at all about the latest Iranian missile test, which was a dud by the way? Last time I checked, Iran was a sovereign nation which has a right to do anything not barred by law. And there aren't any laws barring the testing of rockets. So, again, why did the White House have to open its big mouth by saying anything at all about this launch? Sometimes there's great power in saying nothing at all. This was one of those times.

I think the White House spoke because it's full of paranoid little men who compete with each other to see who can be the most petty and full of fear. Paranoid little men love issuing statements on just about any little thing. Unfortunately, these lilliputians can start wars - which is why We-the-People have to remove them from office.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Joe Biden - change you can believe in? Suckers!" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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.

Introduction

Senator Obama is scheduled to give his acceptance speech tonight. As a pre-emptive strike against the heaviosity of this occasion, I offer something on the lighter side. Enjoy!

SCENE:  Newly-elected President Obama enters a dark and gloomy tenement in a run-down section of town. He came to attend a secret meeting of a group of black militants who have only one demand - but they want to make it in person: face-to-face with the new president.

President Obama had no problem just boldly walking through the neighborhood to get here unrecognized. He used a very clever disguise. Jaws drop when he enters the room.

1^st militant: "Mr. President - welcome. But I gotta axe, why you in blackface?"

Obama: "Correction: I'm in very blackface. The darker the black man is in this country, the less likely he'll be recognized by those of the Caucasian persuasion. In fact, they won't even look at him - and a lot of black folks won't look too closely either, sad to say. I had to do something to get here unnoticed."

2^nd militant: "Cool. I know your time is precious, so let's get right down to it. We have only one demand which we can all agree on: Use your power to paint the White House black. It's got to be the Black House."

Obama: "Maybe we can compromise on this - how about painting it gray?"

3^rd militant: "Then it better be a very dark gray."

Obama: "Don't you think people will notice?"

4^th militant [disagreeing]: "I say f**k very dark gray. Go for it, man. You the prez. Paint it the blackest black you can find. You can do any outrageous thing you want - just like Bush did. Long as you ‘paint' it as havin' to do with national security, even the rednecks will go for it."

5^th militant: "You could even say it's special paint what jus happens to be black - just like you special and you jus happen to be black. Jus say, ‘This paint will make it harder for terrorists to target the White House - especially at night.' You could even say it's got a special ingredient which throws off enemy missiles."

6^th militant: "Now you're talkin! Fools will believe anything if you say it serious enough. Fact is, you can keep em happy by keepin on callin it the White House - even though it be black! Ain't it true? In this country, we call things what are black ‘white' and things what are white ‘black' - all the f**kin time!"

Obama: "Won't everyone want this special paint to protect his own property?"

5^th militant: "Then lie to them, man! Tell them it's got a secret ingredient. If you go passin' it around to every fool what wants it, terrorists might get some and figure out how to neutralize it."

Obama: "Lie to my fellow Americans?"

3^rd militant: "Or something like that. [pause] I've got it: When you run this rap by them, say ‘I think' and ‘I believe' a lot. That way, it's not exactly lyin'."

2^nd militant: "I got an idea. Why don't you just get it painted darker, gradually? You know, so people won't notice. I hear they got paint that goes on light and gets darker over time. Then one day it will be black as black can be."

Obama: "And when that day dawns, don't you think someone's going to notice and start ranting about it?"

2^nd militant: "So what? Jus blame homegrown terrorists - redneck agitators trying to diss the prez."

Obama [talking excitedly, getting into the spirit of the occasion]: "I've got it! I could say something like, ‘In a serious breach of national security, a white supremacist group, aided and abetted by rogue elements within our military, infiltrated and painted the White House with a time-delayed darkening agent.' The upside is, we could claim that any attempt to remove or cover up this agent would result in permanent damage to the White House's façade."

4^th militant: "Then you could use this as an excuse to get down on the military and start arrestin some neo-con cats."

Deadly silence ensues. Everyone looks at 4^th militant, who says:

"Just thinkin out loud, man."

Then all the militants start talking at once, throwing out more ideas until it gets so loud, Obama has to quiet them down. When he can't wave them to silence or calmly talk them down, he pulls out a Dawg Whistle and blows on it.

The militants immediately fall silent and turn toward him.

Obama: "Now that I've got your attention, how do you propose I go about painting the White House with any kind of paint. Who's going to do it so no one notices? Got any ideas?"

1^st militant: "Barack, baby, you surprise me. Thought you'd come up with that answer yourself. It's obvious: Get Black Ops to do it."

4^th militant: "Or Very Black Ops, if you think or believe!"

Conclusion:

Forgive my indulgence in humor at this historic moment in time, but it's my reaction against how seriously some folks look at Barack Obama as the Second Coming - without having asked any serious questions along the Appian Way.

My theme here is: A sense of humor can help us get through a lot. If Obama becomes president, we're going to discover a profound need to laugh a lot to ease all that pain.

If you think my little sketch is humorous in the least, wait until you see my next blog. Subject: Nuclear disarmament: An essay regarding 1,000 points of light.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"1,000 points of light - and I'm not talking about candles in the wind. Stay tuned" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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 ultimatum to the US Congress:  After I am elected US President, I will present to the US Congress a mandate: On August 6, 2012, our total nuclear stockpile will be no greater than 1,000 warheads or else:

"If by August 6, 2012, the mandate of 1,000 points of light has not been met, then I will refuse to engage the United States in nuclear combat under any circumstances." [In laymen's terms this means, I will not "push the button."] Nor will I allow for the possibility of others, by means of existing predelegated nuclear weapons release authority, to "push the button" for me.

Note: I chose August 6 in honor of the memory of the victims of the Hiroshima atomic-bombing (Aug. 6, 1945).

Pre-emptive response to my critics:

What my critics might say: "What!? Are you saying that our nuclear arsenal must be reduced, without any expectations that the Russians reduce theirs? Are you also saying, if Congress doesn't go along with you on this, you're willing to expose the US to a nuclear attack by announcing in advance that you wouldn't retaliate?"

My response, in three parts:

• First of all, there's the little matter of me getting elected. If I'm not elected, lots of good things won't happen: Business proceeds as usual. However, if I am elected, that can only mean one thing: The American people support me in this historic initiative. If I can persuade them that this massive reduction in force is the single most important action we can take in the War on Terror (in its broadest sense), they will give me that support.

• I can be impeached and removed from office well in advance of my August 6, 2012 deadline. Oh, one more thing: My vice president can also be impeached well before that deadline. Why is that important? Once I'm removed from office, who's to say what my vice president would do? To play it safe, Congress would move swiftly to remove both of us from office so the Speaker of the House (a Good Old Boy/Gal, who could be counted on to push the button if necessary) could be sworn in as president.

• Even if I were to announce right now that I would never consider pushing the button, the United States would not be in jeopardy. How can I say this? Isn't it true that the President of the United States is the only one who can authorize the use of our nuclear weapons? Consider: The following statement "goes without saying" (though it is, in fact, incorrect): POTUS initiates but the Secretary of Defense must concur. This, however, is the reality: Nuclear weapons release authority exists (in both offensive and defensive capacities) which not even the US president can control - though this is vigorously denied by all authorities within the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex. [More on this last statement in a bit.]

1,000 Points of Light: Origin and meaning

My proposal is a practical path toward substantial nuclear disarmament - though I wish I could guarantee "total world-wide nuclear disarmament." I call my initiative 1,000 points of light in an attempt to "one up" President George H.W. Bush who had famously declared, back in 1988:

"I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good."

The 1,000 "points" of light I'm referring to are the 1,000 nuclear warheads which will remain in our arsenal on and after Aug. 6, 2012. Relatively speaking, each warhead (if it remains unused) is a "point" of light compared to how it would look once it's detonated. I also think of these 1,000 points as being figurative candles such as are used at prayer vigils to signify an expression of hope. By unilaterally opting to scale down to "only" 1,000 warheads, I will be sending a clear message to our enemies (real and imagined!) that we are willing to act on our own without demanding (or even hinting) that they also reduce their arsenals.

My message is: The United States is no longer a country run by fearful little men who think that more and bigger bombs will mean greater security.

I draw my inspiration from the following position statement issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/):

QUOTE [This is step #4 of a 10-step program, dated April 2008]:

Promptly and unilaterally reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads. The United States would declare all warheads above this level to be in excess of its military needs, move them into storage, begin dismantling them in a manner transparent to the international community, and begin disposing - under international safeguards - of all plutonium and highly enriched uranium beyond that required to maintain these 1,000 warheads. By making the endpoint of this dismantlement process dependent on Russia's response, the United States would encourage Russia to reciprocate.

:UNQUOTE.

I beg to deviate: Look at the preceding sentence. Here's where I differ from the Union of Concerned Scientists' proposal: I am proposing that we not only "dismantle" our excess warheads, but that we destroy or recycle them - regardless of what Russia does. We won't have to encourage Russia to reciprocate. They will simply be amazed that we aren't even hinting that they follow our lead, especially once I make clear:

• My opposition to including Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

• My opposition to increasing the size of NATO by including any additional countries as members.

• My opposition to building a missile defense system in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic.

I am telling the Russians that I am not a neo-con crazy who thinks the Cold War should be continued and passed on as a legacy to our children. The Cold War is over; now it's time to build that better world we all dreamed about as children.

Who really controls our nuclear arsenal?

I need to clarify this statement I'd made above: "Nuclear weapons release authority exists (in both offensive and defensive capacities) which not even the US president can control..."

I will start by offering this analysis by Bruce Blair, President of the Center for Defense Information:

QUOTE:

...the president's supporting command system is not actually geared to withhold retaliation in the event of enemy missile attack, real or apparent. It is so greased for the rapid release of U.S. missile forces by the thousands upon the receipt of attack indications from early warning satellites and ground radar that the president's options are not all created equal. The bias in favor of launch on electronic warning is so powerful that it would take enormously more presidential will to withhold an attack than to authorize it. The option to "ride out" the onslaught and then take stock of the proper course of action exists only on paper. That is what presidents never learn during their tenures. Their real control is illusory. What's more, the truth has been kept from the presidents intentionally.

Military nuclear commanders designed the hardware and procedures of emergency decision-making to ensure that no president would actually deliberately opt to ride out a Soviet nuclear attack, even though U.S. nuclear policy endorsed second-strike retaliation - assured destruction - as the essential element [my emphasis - Steve Searle] of U.S. deterrent strategy.

:UNQUOTE [Feb. 16, 2004 at www.cdi.org/blair/launch-on-warning.cfm ]

Admittedly, Mr. Blair's statement does not address my contention concerning who has nuclear weapons release authority in an offensive capacity. Even though I can't cite any source whatsoever proving that rogue forces within our military or CIA could start WWIII without us even being threatened by attack, we would be wise to assume this fate is at least possible. And with so many weapons in our arsenal, many of which are still on hair-trigger alert, this fate is more than "at least possible."

There are too many people not asking enough questions concerning who controls our nuclear fate. And "too many people not asking enough questions" is not a good way to run a democracy. At least our situation isn't as bad as it is in Israel, where the electorate has no idea (nor asks) who controls Israel's nukes - for the simple reason that their government neither admits nor denies it has them. For the record, it has them.

My belief is: It's about time We-the-People took control of our fate and started asking some hard questions and insisting on a reduction to those 1,000 points of light I'm proposing.

The Wild Card

Establishment types don't generally like alternative thinkers - calling us names like "loose cannons" and "leftist loonies." If I were to actually be elected president, they would stay up nights thinking: "What's this guy going to do?"

As August 6, 2012 draws nearer and nearer, they might worry about how I might go about shutting down our nuclear launch capability. [Let's assume for the sake of argument that they don't actually impeach me, though that of course would be their best option.]

Would they worry that I would order all nuclear armed submarines into port and order their crews to enjoy unlimited shore leave? Or maybe I would ground all of our nuclear bombers. Maybe I would order all of our nuclear systems' Generals to meet in the White House - and stay for an indefinite period of time.

I could order all these steps simply by virtue of being Commander in Chief - without needing any other authorization.

Or maybe military commanders might fear the worst - loss of command. As president, I could fire any - and all - generals and admirals. It's true that I could not appoint their replacements without approval by the US Senate, but there's even a way around that! Here's the "worst case" scenario:

I could actually decide to keep a General in his command but order him to issue no orders of his own; instead, he could only issue orders from me through someone I would "deputize" for this purpose - perhaps someone as low ranking as a Colonel. While it's true that what I'm describing is definitely not Standard Operating Procedure, it is a legal option. And I wouldn't care one whit if the military brass or other Powers-that-Be liked it or not.

My personal opinion? Too often, our military's top commanders behave like they are the tail wagging the dog. One thing they must never forget: They are under civilian control. Perhaps they need someone to remind them. John McCain is not up to this task, nor is the "I think and I believe" candidate.

Side note #1: Hmm...Colonels telling Generals what to do - by basically channeling my command authority. Any such Colonel would feel so empowered, she might think: "Now I know what it feels like for the meek to inherit the earth. Now that's a change I can believe in!"

Side note #2: I wonder why Barack Obama picked someone like Joe Biden to be his running mate. Could it be that Obama was trying to send a signal to the (real) Powers-that-Be - saying (in effect): "I know I'm a newbie - an unknown to you - but I picked Joe Biden (one of the inner-core Establishment's trusted functionaries) who would have no problem pushing the button if, for some reason, you didn't think I would do it."

Side note #3: As I write this sentence, I just learned that McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. [Why am I not hearing a rising chorus of impassioned protest from sea to shining sea over this bone-headed move? Are people (GOP types included) so used to getting shit on they'll just take this lying down??] Maybe it doesn't matter who the president is. If McCain were to die in office, maybe it will be irrelevant that an inexperienced ex-governor becomes the next Commander in Chief - because there's a system in place to launch our nukes which would bypass her completely.

Could a Buddhist launch our nukes?

I am a Buddhist, so it might be a good idea to ask me: "Since Buddhists are supposed to be non-violent, would you just sit on your hands and never - under any circumstances - launch our nuclear weapons, since that might violate your faith?"

My answer: "I'm a Buddhist alright. However, you might want to ponder these words on my Gaia home page: ‘I am a Buddhist, who is a member of a sect containing just one member (that would be me).'" That is, I'm not your regular homespun Buddhist.

I will answer the question directly by saying: "Yes, I could push the nuclear button." For those who think that's inconsistent with my faith, I invite you to ponder these words of wisdom from the Buddhist "bible:"

QUOTE [These words were spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha]:

When living beings witness the end of a kalpa and all is consumed in a great fire, this, my land, remains safe and tranquil, constantly filled with heavenly and human beings....My pure land is not destroyed, yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire, with anxiety, fear and other sufferings filling it everywhere.

:UNQUOTE [source: Lotus Sutra (page 230 in the Burton Watson translation)]

This means simply that our material world won't last forever - that there are realms that transcend it and overlap it. Actually, no material thing lasts forever - that's the basic idea behind the Buddhist concept of impermanence. However - and this is the beauty of impermanence - even though no particular material thing lasts forever, the entire universe does (which is made of a lot more than just material things). In other words, the nations of planet earth could commit mass suicide by indulging in nuclear war - thereby "killing" the Gaia we all know and love. However, Gaia will be reborn - even after suffering a seemingly irreversible nuclear death.

My aim is to see to it that Gaia, in her present incarnation, lasts as long as humanly possible. And it is for that reason that I offer my 1,000 points of light option, and my bid for the US presidency.

A few concluding quotes, and my conclusion

• "As of January 2008, the U.S. stockpile contained an estimated 5,400 nuclear warheads" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2008

• "An additional 15-percent reduction will be achieved by 2012 leaving a stockpile of nearly 4,500 warheads" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2008

• "A group of 95 scientists - [including] 23 Nobel laureates and 10 National Medal of Science winners - unveiled a statement outlining a series of unilateral steps that the US could take to reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons....As far as I am aware only one major newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, even mentioned [this statement], giving it just four sentences" - Lawrence Krauss at http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscimay7.html

How sad! Through some mystic process, the issue of reduction of nuclear arsenals never made it into the campaign debate. None of my opponents addressed this issue: Hillary didn't, Mac III didn't, Obama didn't...none of them! To be fair, though, even I didn't address this issue until just now. Oh, well, better late than never, yes? And it's still not too late to elect me as your next president.

I am the only candidate standing between you and a Joe Biden or Sarah Palin presidency.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Unlike the infamous movie character Dr. Strangelove, I never managed to stop worrying and love the Bomb. Couldn't quite stop worrying about It. Couldn't quite love it. Maybe that's a good quality in a prospective president" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

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.