Steven Searle steals New Hampshire

Help me steal the 2012 New Hampshire primary. Hell, let’s be bold enough to try stealing both primaries – the Democrats’ and the Republicans’. Now would be the perfect time to start making our move.

New Hampshire is legendary for its independent streak, and for its unpredictable presidential primaries. All we have to do is persuade local independents to declare themselves as Dems or Pubs (just for this primary) and write-in my name. It would also be nice to persuade genuine rank-and-file Dems/Pubs to vote for me, since they too might be willing to join us in making a statement.

Imagine the electrifying effect my winning both primaries would have! How’s this for a declaration of war against the political establishment:

"We, the voters of New Hampshire, are sending a loud and clear message to all presidential hopefuls: Steven Searle is right when he says we deserve candidates who are willing to provide bold, independent leadership. We need to purge all Democrats and Republicans from Congress, replacing them with Independents. We want candidates who are willing, like Mr. Searle, to present their campaign promises in the form of a written contract. We applaud this candidate’s enforceable contractual mandate to surrender his office should he violate any of the terms of his written contract.

“We, the voters of New Hampshire, deserve:

·         a vastly reduced military budget that won’t suck the life out of our economy;

·         complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the “conditions on the ground;”

·         a vigorous system of regulatory agencies headed by independents (instead of industry sympathizers) that enforces our laws, incapable of political corruption;

·         Single Payer universal health care, which can be paid for by closing all of our overseas military bases;

·         Personal credit card interest rates capped at 18% - since any higher rate should be considered usurious;

·         An end to the Senate’s unconstitutional filibuster option – an option which President Searle vows to challenge with a two-pronged attack: (1) via the court system, and (2) by refusing to allow any bill to become law by means of his affirmative action unless the Senate permanently repudiates the filibuster and acknowledges its unconstitutionality;

·         A reformed Congress that dismantles its unconstitutional seniority system and top-down management style that denies the effective input and equal participation of all (including the most junior) legislators;

·         Access to the judicial system that would allow the most indigent citizen to challenge the interests of the wealthiest citizens on an equal footing;

·         A judiciary in which justices don’t get lifetime appointments but instead are limited by contract to renewable five-year terms (this is constitutional, by the way).”

But what about Obama?

Some will argue that my proposal would undermine Obama’s campaign. And that might allow the GOP’s candidate to squeak into the White House. Frankly, I don’t think Obama deserves a second term – no more than he deserved to be elected (or even nominated) in the first place.

As for those who think he’s so great, ask yourself if he was really what you thought he was when you’d voted for him. Did you figure he’d dig us deeper in Afghanistan? Did you figure he’d mess up health care reform so badly – for example, by excluding the public option? Are we any closer to a lasting peace in the Middle East or are we still busy kissing Israel’s ass? How about broad-based income tax reform?

Has Obama made any moves whatsoever to level the playing field? Or has he rededicated himself, after realizing bipartisanship didn’t work, to improving the fortunes of his party? He talks of a recovery which may or may not ever take place – and if it does, it will have nothing to do with his leadership. He speaks of reasserting America’s world leadership, but fails to realize we can’t be the policeman of the world.

Obama serves the established “business-as-usual” order. And that was his intention from the very beginning. I never had any doubt about that. He’s just another Party-animal incapable of thinking outside the box.

We have a decision to make – a question to answer: Are we going to decide here and now that we must rid ourselves of the scourge of Democrats and Republicans once and for all, or are we going to find some excuse at the approach of every election to stick with the current system – train wreck that it surely is becoming?

Let’s have a little fun, why don’t we?

As I’ve said in earlier blogs, I’m hoping to base my campaign on a David vs. Goliath motif. And that will involve a generous overdosing on YouTube of a wide variety of (in effect) political commercials. I challenge the more creative of you to whip up a little something based on “stealing New Hampshire.” If I could actually win both the GOP and the Democratic primaries in that state, you’d better believe the head honchos of both groups would shit their pants. I’m not suggesting that you literally show that but…on second thought, I’ll leave that up to you.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

I am the only candidate with a contract: "You wouldn't sell your house without a contract; why give your vote away?"

R.I.P. Chicago?

It’s official: Rahm Emanuel won the election and will be Chicago’s mayor for the next four years. God help us.

I say “God help us” – not just because I think there’s nothing Rahm can do to save the city. Oh, to be sure, Rahm will go through the motions and appear on lapdog-media TV making “Rah-Rah, let’s go Chicago” speeches. He’ll appear before all the right public fora and mouth all manner of clichés. But I personally don’t believe Rahm will be committed to anything more than lining his own pockets as the City of Broad Shoulders maintains its slow but steady decline.

The low turnout

I must admit surprise at the low turnout for this particular election. Out of 1.4 million registered voters, only 42% had bothered to vote for mayor. That’s especially surprising since voting early by mail was an option. That is, voters didn’t even have to bother to go to their polling places. Out of those 42%, 55% voted for Rahm – and the media calls that a landslide. Perhaps so, but there’s another way of looking at those numbers: Only 23% of Chicago’s registered voters cast their ballots for Rahm.

Worse yet, in my book: For every two who voted, there were three who didn’t.

How to explain that? Maybe those “three who didn’t” realized that none of these candidates could save the city:

Rahm Emanuel (with 55.27% of the vote), Gery Chico (23.93%), Miguel Del Valle (9.26%), Carol Moseley-Braun (8.99%), Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins (1.64%), and “Dock” Walls (.91%).

That is, these voters concluded that the city was past saving. So, rather than compromise their dignity by voting at all, these good citizens simply ignored the election. That seems to be the likeliest reason, though I wish they had considered the following:

“Chicago may well be past saving. But I want to make a statement by rejecting the four Machine front-runners and voting for the only plausible independent on the ballot – Patricia Watkins.”

But those good citizens might have also thought: “If Watkins becomes mayor, then we’ll only have a return to Council Wars, as during the days of Mayor Harold Washington. But this time, the Council will be a bunch of Democrats pissed-off that a Machine Democrat didn’t win the mayor’s seat.”

Blame the candidate?

I was almost tempted to blame Watkins for not running a more inspired campaign. When I viewed footage on her website of a few of her public speeches, I thought: “This person seems too self-effacing, almost apologetic.” I’m not saying she should have tried to out-asshole Rahm Emanuel at his worst, but surely she could have done more than roll over and play dead.

The lapdog-media did its best to exclude or minimize her. She was not even listed as an option when most public opinion polls were conducted. She was not invited to speak with the front-runners during any of the three televised debates. And of course the whole brouhaha over whether Rahm was even eligible to be on the ballot served his purposes quite well – by allowing a circus-like atmosphere to envelope the campaign to the exclusion of any serious debate on the issues. [He couldn’t have planned that any better…hmm..(?)]

And then of course media occasionally got cute, with remarks like this appearing on the CBS website*: “Braun and Del Valle trail, along with two other candidates – [Watkins] and [Walls] – who did not participate in the debate.” They didn’t “participate” because they hadn’t been invited!

I’d even read one mainstream account of how Rahm’s people tried to spin his potty-mouthing and belligerent past. They claim he has matured over time. I beg to differ. Rahm’s behavior, back in the day, was not a sign of immaturity. It was a sign of mental illness – which, by the way, doesn’t just go away over time…it just manages to mask itself.

Should Watkins have tried some high-visibility, grandstanding maneuvers, like showing up outside the debate locations with busloads of supporters, demanding to know why she’s being excluded? Should Watkins have indulged in a bit of guerrilla theater by arranging for her mock crucifixion in the middle of Daley Plaza? Should Watkins have (repeatedly and unceasingly) asked THE embarrassing question of Rahm Emanuel:

“How is it that you were able to ‘earn’ $16.2 million during your two-and-a-half-years of employment with an investment banking firm, even though you had no training or experience whatsoever in this field? Don’t you think you should come clean with Chicago voters on this issue, since they might well wonder if you’ll similarly ‘earn’ even more once you achieve supreme political power as their mayor?”

Should Watkins have promised to use her training as a Certified Public Account to “get to the bottom” of Chicago’s fiscal mess?

I had even sent e-mails to her campaign with suggestions on how she might proceed. By the way, these e-mails were never acknowledged. So I don’t know why Watkins didn’t run like she meant it. To my mind, there are three possibilities:

• She and her campaign staff were incapable of envisioning bolder campaign strategies.

• She ran a token campaign this time around, with a view toward running more seriously four years from now.

• She was threatened to “tone it down”…or else. [This is Chicago and these boys play rough.]

At this point, though, I want to thank Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins for at least having made an effort.

The only real, long-term solution

Years ago, an actor friend of mine was crying in his beer about how people just don’t go to see live theater any more. But then he remembered something: “If you want an audience, you have to go out and get one. You have to find a way to grow an audience. And if your message is too subtle, you have to find a way to raise consciousness.”

I suggest that a Coalition of Independents do just that. They can organize, resolving to run at least one independent in each of Chicago wards in the next election to oppose incumbent Democratic aldermen. Chicagoans have been lulled into apathy; consider:

“Between 1972 and 2009, a total of 30 Chicago aldermen were indicted and convicted of federal crimes such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, conspiracy, mail fraud and income tax evasion.”**

But even such negativity can be overcome, if only a power base can be established. And that base should come from the local universities, since they (unlike the labor unions, for example) haven’t been sucked into the culture of corruption that is uniquely the City of Chicago’s and the State of Illinois’. These universities, from among their ranks of professors, could be a source of independent candidates as well as a forum of opposition to the “business as usual” Democratic Party gangstas.

Of course, anything can be corrupted – even a reformist movement. This is Chicago, after all, and the elite have much to lose if their grip on power slips even a notch. So I suggest that any sincere potential members of such a Coalition keep it simple. Don’t, for instance, name your group the People’s Collective or Chicagoans for Socialist Change. Calling yourselves simply the Coalition of Independents adequately makes the point.

The mission of such a group is to seek out and enlist/draft potential candidates among academics (or other pillars of the community) who would be willing to run for election, and to serve if elected. The Coalition could also serve to advertise their existence, and promote the necessity of dismantling the One Party system in this town. They could even ask embarrassing questions like, “Why isn’t the money that’s been collected under the TIF programs been spent on economic development, as it’s supposed to be?”

Chicagoans don’t have to just lie down and take it any more. But they do need a focal point and visible leadership, which such a Coalition could provide.

If enough well-intentioned men and women do nothing, then we’ll always have business as usual and we’ll always lack viable alternatives. And we’ll always have people like Daley, Emanuel, and Edward Burke in charge. “Oh well, people are always free to leave if they don’t like it” – that’s what a cynic might say. Right! People are leaving – at least, those who can. As for those who get “left behind,” they might as well get used to comforting themselves by thinking, “Oh well, at least we have Democrats in charge here.” [Put that on your tombstone, dammit!]

Somehow, though, I don’t think that will be much consolation to our remaining residents, who will see their city sinking further while the boys at the top (and their cronies) manage to keep doing very well, thank you very much!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only thing that can save Chicago is a strong mayor, strong city council model – with independents at the helm” – Steve.

   *  http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/major-chicago-mayoral-candidates-debate/

  ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_City_Council

Jihad: An idea for a movie

Introducing: Jihad - the movie

The following are preliminary, sketchy notes which can serve as the basis of a very interesting movie. If you pass this on to anyone or use this material yourself, please be aware: I waive all copyright protection with one exception: The right to disseminate this piece as blogged here.

The following elements aren’t in any particular order.

Title for a proposed movie:  Jihad - the movie

Tag line: “What would you do if you suddenly had the means?”

Opening: On three consecutive black screens, the following appear in white letters:

Screen 1:

In western societies, the Muslim term jihad is often translated as "holy war".

However, the broader meaning is “struggle.”

Screen 2:

Shaman are intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the spirit worlds.

Screen 3:

“I am part of a Buddhist sect which has exactly one member – me” – Rex Shawman.

Rex Shawman: The protagonist is an American male in his early thirties, who is employed in the movie industry. His skills include computer graphics, special effects, and film editing. His name is a play on words: Rex is Latin for king, and Shawman is similar in sound to shaman, which is exactly what he is.

Contrast: Throughout the movie, we’ll “read” Rex’s mind as he sits in silent, solitary, stonefaced meditation. Which immediately cuts to him in social situations showing an animated nature and expressive face.

Thought: “Are there any real people? Are there only actors? Which role shall I play today?”

Scene: During a stand-up monologue in a night club, Rex asks his audience, “What was Barack Obama’s first official act as President?” [NOTE: This act occurred immediately after he took the oath of office as detailed here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/12/obamas-first-official-act-was.html ]

Scene: During another stand-up scene, Rex asks his audience: “Do you know the true story of how Guinness stout was created?

“Once upon a time there was a farmer who owned a small cottage in the Irish countryside. He collected water which drained from his rainspout into a small wooden bucket. The wood was fairly rotten, though, and it made the water taste woody. Then the farmer got an idea – some say he was moved by mischievous spirits to do what he did next. Which was: He picked up a handful of black top soil and threw it into the bucket. He added another handful of peat moss and a few rusty nails. In one more bit of perverse inspiration, he added a handful of manure.

“Then he let this concoction sit for a couple of days in the hot sun – to age as it were. Then he strained this sewage, so as remove all particulate matter. And then, again moved by mischievous spirits - for no sane man would do what he was about to do- he drank this unlikely brew.

“[pause] What I’ve just described is pretty close to what Guinness actually tastes like. Wouldn’t you say?”

Casting: The entire cast should be unknowns.

Scene: Rex is kneeling in meditation, facing a flickering candle. He’s thinking and we can hear what he’s thinking:

“Now what? I’m not sure…got to lay low for a while. I’ll think of something. I want to do something … but not just any old thing. And I don’t want my plan to be thwarted. Can’t do or say anything to give myself away. They’re listening.”

Scene: One year later at a CIA-run black prison outside the US:

Rex looks up into the camera and an off-screen voice asks, “What did you mean when you said “they’re listening?””

“The average American doesn’t realize how much he’s scrutinized. And once I won all that money, well…that changed everything. Every single move I made would be spied on. All in the name of national security, you know. All that money made me a potential security risk.”

Broad outline of plot:

Rex is a solitary Buddhist practitioner – “I’m not much of one for groups.” During his meditations, he’ll break silence by reading aloud certain passages of the Buddha’s highest teaching – The Lotus Sutra. This paints a picture for us as to where he’s coming from.

While out with friends, he joins them in visiting an open meeting of the Soka Gakkai International. At this meeting, Rex is challenged by an SGI member to chant for 100 days for “anything you want…pick something… chant for it…and see what happens.”

Even though he sees SGI Buddhism as heretical to his own understanding, he accepts the 100-day challenge. He buys a lottery ticket, which he holds in his hand just before he starts chanting alone. He says to himself: “Here is my vow: If I win the lottery, to prove I am not greedy I will not accept the money. I will destroy the ticket and not tell a soul about this.”

So he does win…but he doesn’t destroy the ticket. Instead, he makes another vow: “I can’t destroy this ticket. I must accept the money because I have a feeling I can do something enlightening with it. Enlightening for the whole world.”

He stashes most of his $100M winnings, not changing his lifestyle except in one respect: He opens up a small night club. “I work behind the scenes in movies, but I always enjoyed performing before a live audience. So I opened this small club to give myself and others that opportunity.”

After much struggle, Rex knows what to do next. He opens a bigger club, with a sign over the door: “All good conduct is welcome here.”

This bigger club, in one of its more expensive rooms, attracts well-heeled and influential regulars. These are taped via hidden cameras over a period of several months. This footage is secretly edited and manipulated by Rex to show panic and death resulting from a faux arson. Rex has gone through great trouble to learn as much as possible about his more notorious patrons, so he can narrate their bios as they die.

The resulting 10-minute movie is screened as a premiere titled Jihad. Essentially, Jihad is a mini-movie about a terrorist firebombing of the very same room in which the film is being shown, featuring the very same people who are watching this film. As the film unfolds its death scenes, including “terrorists” in black using flamethrowers on their victims, Rex is shown in the form of a hologram walking calmly among his dying guests. A freeze-frame of each one, engulfed in flames, is introduced by Rex. For example:

“Here we have well-known publisher Mr. So-and-so. He’ll soon meet his maker. But what was the nature of his jihad – his struggle? For truth? For God? For justice? Or only for the benefit of Israeli propaganda? [pause] Good Lord, nothing stinks worse than burning human flesh but…we all must make sacrifices.”

We see the 10-minute film unfolding but we do not see the audience watching it. But we do hear their murmuring, an escalating din of panicked voices, and chairs clattering noisily as guests scramble for the exits. We don’t see the live guests – only the film – but it’s not immediately clear if the live scene is “imitating art.”

Jihad ends and the lights go on. We see an empty room – empty except for Rex – with scattered chairs and other signs of flight but…clearly… no sign of any mass destruction caused by fire.

Rex picks up the phone, calls the police, and says, “I wish to turn myself in.” He hangs up the phone then aims a triggering device at an overhead sensor, which causes the room to explode in flames as Rex walks out a back door.

An initial decision is made to try Rex for an act of terrorism, especially since he had arranged in advance for this footage to stream to the internet via a number of outlets. This streaming took place shortly after his arrest.

However, since Rex’s actions had become an instant cause célèbre, it is decided to make him disappear. By secret order of the US president, Rex is removed from civilian custody, not allowed to stand trial, and sent to a secret CIA black hole prison in a foreign country.

During his secret interrogation, Rex makes several claims:

·         “I wanted to show I could have killed those men but … I am not a murderer.”

·         “I made the film Jihad to make a point – several points, actually. Like…here I am, willingly in prison, willing to give up $100 million. Most westerners could at least see some redeeming social value in this, but they’d be indifferent to a suicide bomber killing a few dozen civilians.”

·         “The whole point of jihad is liberation.”

Most of the time, Rex is in solitary confinement during which time he talks to himself. Not merely thinking to himself but speaking, so that any hidden microphone could hear him.

Thirty years later, he’s released from the prison, not able to access any of his previous fortune [seized as booty in the War on Terror]. Why is he released? “New administration in Washington.”

Last scene: He’s an old man sitting alone on a park bench in the spring. Another old man walks up to the bench and sits down next to him.

“I know who you are,” says the stranger to Rex.

“I know you know who I am but…who are you?” – Rex.

“I was one of your jailers. I watched you for five years.” – Stranger.

“Ah, I knew someone had to be watching me. Tell me, you guys still have the Global War on Terror thing going on?” – Rex.

“That? Oh yeah. It will never stop, you know” – Stranger.

“What’s the big focus now?” – Rex.

“Brazil was found to be not in compliance with…” – Stranger.

“Stop…no more…I don’t even want to know” – Rex.

“You said something in solitary. You said, ‘The whole point of jihad is liberation.’ Did you, personally, attain liberation?” – Stranger.

“It was never about my personal liberation. It was about…yours.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s entirely possible that movies won’t be made in the distant future; instead, people could read sketches like this, using their imaginations to connect those dots. Hell, it’d be a lot cheaper” – Steve.

To thank a soldier, Sarah Palin style

There are a lot of ways to thank a soldier; to name a few:

·         Mom style: Seeing your son or daughter come home safely from a war zone opens up a well of gratitude rare in this world.

·         Best buddy style: “Welcome home, dude…Let’s get smashed…I’m buying.”

·         Small town style: When seeing their favorite sons in uniform just off the Greyhound Bus with duffel bag slung over one shoulder, friends and strangers alike hail or nod their approval in his direction.

·         Steven Searle style: [More on that, later, but in the spirit of “ladies first,” I give you:

·         Sarah Palin style.

Sarah Palin has gotten a lot of mileage out of her attempts to ingratiate herself with our men and women in uniform. We’ve all seen footage of her mingling and cooing with our soldiers in a variety of settings. On one level, I can appreciate her sincerity since she herself has a son who served in Iraq. On another level, though, I can’t help but feeling she’s exploiting our soldiers. To be sure, she thinks she’s doing this for a greater purpose – but it’s still exploitation.

Here’s something I had posted over a year ago on the now-defunct Gaia website. You can just as easily substitute “Sarah Palin” for “Barack Obama,” which makes my point:

QUOTE:

I have seen several photos showing Barack 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."

:UNQUOTE.

The Essential Sarah Palin

I don’t know who Sarah Palin is or who she thinks she is or who she wants to become. In saying this, I do nothing more than simply admit my ignorance. I have found, in this life, that most people – especially politicians – do their damnedest to hide themselves from the public at large. However, that being said, I believe we can (and should) look for certain clues. And what better place to look than in a book written by such a person?

Even if this book is ghostwritten or severely vetted by campaign staff, we must conclude (rightly, I believe) that such material was at least approved by the candidate (yeah, this late in the ball game, I’ll call her “candidate”).

I’ve only read one book by Palin, but I’ll be bold enough to claim that within its pages (page 230, to be exact) is a clue to the essential Sarah Palin. The book:

America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

QUOTE [from page 230]:

Another of my favorite prayers is also a poem (or is it a poem that is also a prayer?) by Emily Dickinson. It’s a simple, logical explanation for a faith that is as deeply felt as it is unproved – and unprovable.

I never saw a moor,

I never saw the sea;

Yet know I how the heather looks,

And what a wave must be.

I never spoke with God,

Nor visited in heaven;

Yet certain am I of the spot

As if the chart were given.

:UNQUOTE.

For the record: That’s it – that’s the entire poem (or, more accurately, Palin’s paraphrased version), and it’s entitled “I never saw a moor.”

The first four lines speak volumes of Sarah Palin’s lack of experience in and awareness of the larger world. And they also speak of a presumptuousness bordering on the profound. How can anybody “know” about moors and the sea without having made direct, personal, physical contact? Knowledge of God can be obtained by a wide variety of indirect means. But of moors and waves? Aye, those are entirely different creatures altogether.

To Mrs. Palin (as well as to Emily Dickinson): “If you think you know anything about waves, especially never having even seen one, you’ll have quite a shock when you ride a 40-footer, should you ever happen to sail around the tip of South America.”

And we’re expected to believe she “knows” these things – and what else, I dare ask?

And of that “certainty” expressed in the last four lines…from whence did it come? And is her “certainty” to be valued above, say, Mitt Romney’s? For he must surely be considered one of her chief rivals for the GOP nomination. And I dare say, the “certainty” of a Mormon must be quite a bit different than a Generic Christian’s. Oh, did I use the “G” word, just now? See for yourself what I mean from this interview*:

QUOTE [with a few parentheticals of my own]:

Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?

You know, I don’t know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should do next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I’m on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.

What’s your religion?

Christian.

Any particular...?

No. Bible-believing Christian. [Which version? Followers of the KJV, for example, are rather picky on this point.]

What church do you attend?

A non-denominational [read: “generic”] Bible church. I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life. [What turned your family from Catholicism?]

Anything else you want to add?

You know, I can’t think of anything...

:UNQUOTE.

I’ve reworked the poem mentioned above to help clarify how I think it applies to Sarah Palin. I call it, “I’ve never been in battle:”

I’ve never been in battle,

I’ve never seen starvation,

Yet I know what they must be like,

Enough to serve the nation.

God never spoke to me,

Not a whisper in my ear,

Yet I know exactly what He wants,

Of that I am quite clear.

Steven Searle’s style of thanking soldiers

I will first and foremost clarify my approach by saying, unlike Sarah Palin, I don’t believe in making blanket profiles of groups – be they soldiers, Republicans, churchgoers, etc. In Palin’s eyes, if she sees one soldier, she sees all soldiers rolled up into one – all sharing common characteristics and infallibilities. This is an important distinction, which I hope the following short story conveys:

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."

  * * * * * * * * * *

I liken Sarah Palin to that starry-eyed sentry mentioned above. Like that sentry, Palin fails to see beyond reputation and background. She fails to appreciate context – that is, General LeMay exists and only has status and authority depending on context, as the General himself explained to the sentry. I have a bad feeling that Sarah, if elected, will need to have a great deal explained to her about such contexts.

I don’t share any such illusions. I know not all of our servicemen are brave and that many of them serve for somewhat less than patriotic reasons. I also have an idea of their limitations and will not unduly glorify them. Again, I fit them into contexts. For example, on page 43 of Palin’s book, she cites this tribute:

QUOTE:

It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the veteran, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

:UNQUOTE.

First of all, Palin ignores something she’d emphasized earlier in her book: All of our rights [at least in her world view] are God-given. So it’s interesting that she makes the leap from “God-given rights” to “veteran-given rights.”

Palin also fails to make a distinction that I would immediately embrace: It’s a bad idea to give too great a portion of credit to one group, for all of these freedoms she cites have evolved over the centuries due to the efforts of a lot of people from many walks of life.

Only the veteran who is no longer in the military:

·         becomes the preacher who brings our freedom of religion to life and gives it meaning;

·         becomes the reporter, who tests the limits of and expands the definition of freedom of the press;

·         becomes the martyr who speaks truth to power, although to be fair – some active duty soldiers do speak out, which is (by the way) highly discouraged within the ranks;

·         becomes a leader of people who assemble on behalf of various causes and sometimes get clubbed by policemen (many of whom are ex-military);

·         becomes a lawyer who knows how to navigate our unwieldy system of jurisprudence to give defendants the best possible chance for the fairest trial…under the circumstances;

·         becomes an independent politician trying to prevent his Dem/Pub colleagues from running roughshod over the few remaining rights we have.

It’s more than pretty words…

Saying “Thank you” to anybody should be more than just pretty words or a sound bite for photo ops. I would thank our servicemen by not having them fight needless wars – wars that actually undermine our national security. For instance, our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would thank our soldiers by not putting them in harm’s way while lying about how they are “defending U.S. soil.”

When a civilian becomes a soldier by enlisting, he signs a contract to do so. I would return the favor by signing a contract, just as I did when I ran against Obama in 2008. I don’t believe in slogans (“Change you can believe in” – give me a break) or empty promises. I would be elected, if at all, on the basis of a written contract listing my campaign promises. Should I violate any of those promises, I invite loss of office by means of impeachment.

You might find the following three promises from my 2008 contract to be of interest:

QUOTE:

ONE: If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.

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

THREE:  I will urge Congress to retroactively raise to $5,000,000 the payment to next-of-kin (or other designees) of all U.S. soldiers (and members of Private Military Companies) killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - and make that tax free. In addition, I will urge Congress to increase disability benefits to $1,000,000 per lost limb, also retroactively and tax free. All this with an apology to our troops who've sacrificed so much: "We - made - a - mistake - and - we're - sorry."

:UNQUOTE.

Take a careful look at that last point. Do you think President Sarah Palin would mount the bully pulpit on behalf of our killed or wounded warriors, as suggested by point THREE? Or would she just mouth platitudes as she does a whirlwind tour through a VA hospital? Do you think she would be brave enough to suggest such a large degree of compensation or would she be too mindful of the Tea Party urging her to cut the budget (at the expense of veterans, if necessary)?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“It’s a whole lot easier to say ‘thank you’ than it is to do ‘thank you’” – Steve.

   * Time Magazine’s Jay Newton Small interview with Palin is dated Aug. 29, 2008 and is on-line at http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837536,00.html