I hope you enjoy all 16 of these mini-essays/comments.
ONE:
[My response to Angie, who had posted something rather unintelligent concerning the recent riots in Great Britain.]
@ Angie,
First of all, there are often huge differences between what a person (literally) says and what he means. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see past the literal in order to see the pain the other is feeling.
As for what Freddy literally said: “Nobody is doing nothing for us,” a reasonable translation would be: “Everybody is doing at least something for us.” You are of course wrong to translate that as “he’s being cared for in the fullest.” And perhaps that’s the gist of the problem: There are too many people who believe that “at least something” means “in the fullest.” It most certainly does not. If everybody is doing “at least something,” perhaps that “something” is too little – even if truly everybody is doing it.
And perhaps that’s what the young man is really driving at.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sometimes the words do get in the way of the meaning.”
“Sometimes the words do get in the way of the meaning.”
TWO:
“… Patrick Leman, a University of London professor who researches 9/11 theories. ‘It stops us from having to confront the unpredictability of life.’”
Some things, however, are very predictable - like stooges from academia trying their hand at debunking. I think David Ray Griffin would blow this guy out of the water.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I still don’t buy the official 9/11 cover up.”
“I still don’t buy the official 9/11 cover up.”
THREE:
“…the basis of our marriage is respect” – Bachmann [for US President]
Hmm…even deadly enemies can respect each other. So using the word “respect” tells us absolutely nothing about their relationship. Besides, isn’t the basis of marriage supposed to be love? Just saying…
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Oh, and the words ‘submission’ and ‘respect’ are not synonymous.”
FOUR:
“But everybody should have the right to be in a union.”
Actually, everybody should have a Right to Life without being victimized by special interest groups – and that’s what a union is. What? You don’t think they go out on strike for YOUR benefit, do you?
As long as we insist on having a polarized, advocacy type of society (glaringly manifested by the Dem/Pub monopoly), we will always have various groups clawing and scratching for a larger share for themselves, at the expense of the larger society.
The only way out? Replace Congressional Districts (which are geographically based, therefore having a built-in territorial bias) with Cross-Sections. Each CS, having a constituency drawn at random from a list of all eligible voters nationwide, would not have a territorial bias.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“In order to create a government truly representative of We the People, we need a replacement Constitution that would allow for Cross-Sectional Representation. Without that, no true democracy (which is a word that does not appear even once in our current Constitution – go figure).”
FIVE:
“…take a final decision on buying Italian paper after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced…”
Whoa, you don’t have to say any more after having said, “Silvio Berlusconi.” You can tell an awful lot about the political cultural (if not the soul) of a country from the kind of people in charge. Silvio Berlusconi? With him at the helm, the ECB would be fools to buy Italian paper.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Whatever happened to the quaint notion of actually having great leaders? On actually insisting on having great leaders?”
SIX:
This whole bond rating business is nothing more than a scam. How is it that New Zealand and Finland have a better rating than Saudi Arabia and China? And what in the hell is the Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list? Oh, that’s right…part of the Queen’s club (RHIP). I can see why Switzerland made it – still riding high on Nazi money and, oh the secrets that government could spill!
Looking at this triple-A club, a certain word comes to mind – cartel. I can see that the interests of the master race are very well secured indeed.
As a side note: A friend of mine said, “You are aware that the US lost the War of 1812 and has been a British colony ever since.” No, I don’t buy that, but the behavior of our leaders is rather suspect and shows they don’t have our best interests in mind. If not ours, whose?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Neutral bond rating agencies, indeed! Who invents this nonsense?”
“Neutral bond rating agencies, indeed! Who invents this nonsense?”
SEVEN:
Foreigner 427 responded to my post (SIX, immediately above) by writing:
"Saudi Arabia and China?"
How open are those nations to international agencies? Not very. How open are these nations to free market forces? Not very. How much are businesses in those countries subject to the whims of a totalitarian gov't? Very much.
So they get a lower rating.
"Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list?"
You seem to be confused. It's not a rating of how rich you are, it's a rating of how stable the country is, how open it is to free market forces, etc, which ultimately determines the likelyhood that repayment of debt could face a problem.
How open are those nations to international agencies? Not very. How open are these nations to free market forces? Not very. How much are businesses in those countries subject to the whims of a totalitarian gov't? Very much.
So they get a lower rating.
"Isle of Man doing on the elite AAA list?"
You seem to be confused. It's not a rating of how rich you are, it's a rating of how stable the country is, how open it is to free market forces, etc, which ultimately determines the likelyhood that repayment of debt could face a problem.
[My answer to Foreigner 427’s text, cited immediately above.]
Well, Foreigner427, the nitty-gritty of the bond business is, “If I buy your bonds, will you pay me back?” It doesn’t matter if the issuing nations are “open to international agencies..or free market forces,” or if the countries are totalitarian. What matters is, “will you pay me back?”
When trying to gauge likelihood of payback, the fact that both countries are very much integrated into the international monetary system assumes huge importance. China and Saudi Arabia will play by the rules because they have too much to lose if they don’t.
As for what determines how rating agencies issue their verdicts, I doubt there’s a lot of science behind that – witness the behavior of these players as they issued dubious ratings during the subprime mortgage crash.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m not confused at all – this is still a scam. The question is, how pervasive is it?”
EIGHT:
“Turks have grown less enamored of the prospect of joining the European Union.”
As I have written in the past, the heart and soul of Turkey does not belong in the EU. Turkey would do well to position itself as the pivotal (even capitol) state of a resurgent Caliphate. Though perhaps that would be better known as an Islamic Union.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I would welcome an Islamic Union, headed by Turkey, into the international community.”
NINE:
I will blow Mitt Romney out of the water, when the time is right, with a YouTube clip I scripted.
This clip will show him being sworn in as the newly-elected president, concluding his oath with: “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [pause] I do so solemnly swear upon THIS, The Book of Mormon, the most correct book of scripture known to man.”
As he says “THIS,” he takes the Book, upon which his left hand is resting, and lifts it over his head for all to see. As the camera zooms in on the cover, we see these words: The Book of Mormon. We also hear a buzz of commentators’ voices saying stuff like: “This is an outrage,” “Impeach the sonofabitch,” “The ballz of this guy,” “Who does he think he is?”
As for that last question, he knows exactly who he is, who he has always been – a descendant of a Mormon apostle who really believes what he just said, “The Book of Mormon [is] the most correct book of scripture known to man.” If that is what the newly-elected President of the United States believes, why should he swear his oath on the Bible? Why shouldn’t he say exactly what he feels, for all the world to hear?
I’m really going to enjoy the howls from the Religious Right once this YouTube clip goes viral.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“All I need now is an actor who looks enough like Mitt Romney. Maybe the guy who played Herman Munster…oh wait…he’s dead…as dead as will be Romney’s candidacy when…”
TEN:
[My answer to Mitt Romney who said, “Corporations are people.”
“Corporations are people?”
Hmm…did Romulus mean, “Corporations are legal persons?” Or “Corporations employ people who have feelings too?”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Or maybe we should ask his twin brother REAM-US.”
ELEVEN:
My response to WM, who posted: “Tax all political contributions at a 50% rate...let the lobbyist pay their fair share.” [WM got a lot of thumbs-up for this. Go figure.]
My response: At first blush, WM's idea sounds good, but it wouldn't really raise much revenue. I suppose that's not the point, though. The real point is to suggest something (anything!) that will make We-the-Sheeple feel good about ourselves.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Okay, now that we’re done jacking off, when will we get really serious by voting all incumbents out of office and giving independents a chance?”
TWELVE:
If all political contributions are taxed at 50%, corruption won't be lowered [as claimed by one poster]. What it will do is diminish the effectiveness of contributions made to third party and independent candidates, since they don't attract deeply-pocketed donors. The fat cats won't have any problem beating a 50% tax; they'll just double (easily double) their "contributions" - being more than willing to pay the tax. But the non Dem/Pub candidates will be the ones who will suffer, since their donors can't as easily up the ante.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"The only way to beat these bastards is to vote all incumbents out of office - even if that means voting for the party you loathe...or (if one is available) you could vote independent (hint, hint)."
THIRTEEN:
From the article posted on Yahoo: “An experimental unmanned hypersonic glider has been launched from an air base on the central California coast…The U.S. military is trying to develop technology to respond to threats around the globe at speeds of Mach 20 or greater.”
My response: (sigh) And how much is this going to cost us? Actually, there will be two costs:
ONE: The cost of building and maintaining a fleet of these things;
TWO: The “cost” which will result from our temptation to use them by sticking our noses into every little nook and cranny in the world.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It’s that second cost that will be the zinger.”
FOURTEEN:
“Governments had to step in to provide liquidity in droves through low interest rates, bank bailouts and injections of cash into the economy.”
Actually, that is false – governments did not have to step in. Yes, there would have been pain had they not stepped in, but relative to what? Nothing was really solved and bad companies (supposedly too big to fail) should have been “allowed” to do just that. Their assets would have been snapped up by other companies, and their bad management would have been fired. But…those who sing the praises of unfettered free market capitalism would have none of that. Their refrain would have been the same, “Where’s my bailout?”
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Bailout is just another way of saying ‘Kick the can down the road.’”
FIFTEEN:
“…massive…invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned [before the A-bomb was dropped].”
It wasn’t at all necessary to invade Japan. We could have nickeled and dimed them to “death.” The US had total air and naval superiority, so the solution should have been, “Surrender or we’ll starve you out by bombing your crops.” If not that, then we could have picked and chosen where on the Japanese islands and when we could have invaded.
The thing that’s so often glossed over is the fact the Nagasaki bomb was dropped a mere three days after Hiroshima was leveled. We didn’t care that it might have taken the Japanese high command more than 3 days to give up a war they’d been fighting for years. [Could we make such a decision in three days? Look how long it took for us to work out our debt-increase deal.] We knew Japan would eventually surrender (and sooner than later), so it didn’t really matter when (what’s the rush?).
We nuked Japan to send a message to the Russians. And if that doesn’t qualify as an act of terrorism, what does?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It kind of hurts to think of ourselves as the world’s first nuclear terrorist, but if the shoe fits, wear it.”
SIXTEEN:
[The four words highlighted in yellow (below) are the opening words to 4 sentences posted by one of my responders. My response follows each of his sentences.]
“Air power has never won a war without a ground attack of some sort.”
The war against Japan was already won, so your point about air power is irrelevant. While it’s true their ground forces still occupied huge tracts of Asian land, the Japanese islands were without an air force, without a navy, and without a land force that could do anything but stay put. The Japanese islands were sitting ducks which could have been “persuaded” to surrender by means of a war of attrition. We could have, in effect, quarantined them. A lot of mouths to feed with the prospect of no means to feed them is a mighty powerful persuader.
“the definition of terrorism is vague…”
Oh really? The killing of innocent civilians in great numbers would certainly qualify – especially if there was a viable alternative. The Japanese High Command could have been given an ample demonstration of the power of the nuke without us having to drop them on two heavily-populated areas. For instance, blowing one high over Tokyo harbor would have made the point. Or maybe over sacred Mt. Fuji.
“Another thing not really considered was using it as a veiled threat against the Soviets.”
Are you kidding? That was exactly the point – the major point.
“So if both sides of an armed conflict agree that use of such weapons is acceptable, how is it terrorism?”
Doesn’t matter what both sides “agree” or if both sides do it – terrorism is terrorism, except if one happens to have a legal mind.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“There’s no way around this – The US was the first country to engage in nuclear terrorism. And there’s no way to song-and-dance around this conclusion. And I'm not terribly sorry if that offends anybody.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“It won’t matter who is elected US President in 2012, if it’s anyone other than me. The Elite’s agenda will not be challenged. “
No comments:
Post a Comment