I hope you enjoy all sixteen* of these mini-essays.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ONE A:
[sixteen*: I couldn’t resist this late addition, so I added this sixteenth calling it ONE A. This is my reply to an article about a racist, anti-Obama bumper sticker featuring: “Don’t Re-Nig.”]
“if you take the top message at its literal meaning, to not renege in 2012…” Hold on there, hoss. The literal meaning has to be derived from what the sticker actually says, which isn’t “not to renege.” It says “Don’t Re-Nig.” A more accurate translation would be “Don’t re-elect the N*gger.” THAT’s its literal meaning.
As a play on words, reneg is both ancient and unfortunate. Forty years ago, when I was in the USAF, a fellow troop asked me (and, without waiting for me to reply, answered his own question): “What do you call one who renegs? A renigger.”
I’m waiting to hear the GOP’s final four vehemently condemn this sticker in no uncertain words. For if they don’t, we may well be looking at a sticker that will go a long way toward reelecting Obama.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Let me coin a new term: Reverse racism = an attempt to be racist that backfires.”
ONE B:
[RE: Article headline: “Rick Santorum: ‘The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant’” – I didn’t post the following to Yahoo due to extra Agreement terms I’d have to embrace.]:
Sans-Scrotum is being crazy like a fox by saying stuff like this. I suspect he’s trying to intentionally sabotage his own chances at the nomination now in order to position himself for the 2016 election. He knows the GOP can’t win now, even if he should by an act of God get the nomination this time around (which he won’t, by the way).
But he’ll have 3 years to run around saying he gave it the good fight, knowing he won’t have an incumbent president to face in four years. He’s sure the country will take a decidedly reactionary turn over the next few years (which it will, by the way). That’s why he says stuff like this now (which can’t possibly appeal to independents) knowing that the base will do his bidding when he won’t have an unbeatable Obama on his hands.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I think it’s funny, though, that he’s angling for votes among evangelical Christians, the kind who used to say, ‘We don’t much like papists in these parts.’ Go figure.”
TWO:
[Regarding North Korea’s pending launch of a satellite-bearing rocket]:
According to the basic definitions below, North Korea would not be in violation of UN resolution. If it is attempting to orbit a satellite, that means the rocket involved can’t be suborbital. From Wikipedia:
“A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target.” NOTE: If the objective is to deliver a warhead, but NK’s actual payload is a satellite, then the rocket involved would not be a “ballistic missile.”
“North Korea must ‘not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile…’” NOTE: Again, by launching a satellite, NK wouldn’t be in violation.
Oh, I get it. The very idea that some other country could develop a missile that could reach the US is unnerving. Wait a minute! What about Israel? Oh, that’s right. No sweat. They’re an ally. Riigghhttt.. Tell that to the families of the dead crewmen of the USS Liberty.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It’s always good to know who one’s friends are.”
THREE:
[RE: Moroccan teen forced to marry her rapist; her name was Amina al-Filali]
“…after being forced to marry the man who raped her.” Uh, does this “man” happen to have a name? The article saw fit to publish the victim’s name but not the rapist’s? It also doesn't mention that her family disowned her after she married this guy.
I’m not clear on how she was forced to marry this man. “He [again, I’d like the name) had sought to escape prison by invoking an article of the penal code that authorises the rapist to marry to escape prosecution.” Does that mean, “…marry the victim [as opposed to, say, a different woman] to escape prosecution?” And if it does, suppose the victim declines to marry her attacker – does that mean she ends up doing jail time herself or getting stoned for being a Limbaughian slut?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The devil is not only in the details; he’s in the hearts of those who ‘spare us’ the details.”
FOUR:
“…[Santorum believes] that [the way] someone is going to get there is if the conservatives unite." Ah, Rick, but that’s the beauty of Compassionate Conservatism, isn’t it? Neither you nor Newt will drop out, so in the name of your own self-seeking and -glorification, you both are more than willing to sacrifice the conservative cause. If that isn’t the opposite of “compassion,” I don’t know what is.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“That whole Compassionate Conservative bit was just hokum from day one, and those promoting that concept knew so full well. That’s why I like calling Conservatives ‘cons’ – as in con men.”
FIVE:
Very soon – I’d say around Labor Day of this year – the US will attack Iran’s suspected nuke sites. And, be very clear about this part: Israel (by prior arrangement) will not take part in this attack. For if Israel were to go it alone, there would be at least one profound risk: What would Israel do if the Russians retaliated by launching missiles (non-nuke of course) at Israel’s Dimona reactor site?
Some might say, “In that case, Israel would launch a nuke or two at Moscow.” Weelll..bad idea – Russia would simply level the place, with the approval of much of the third world. And, if so, what would the US do? If Israel were to attack Russia in any way, Russia would surely have the right to retaliate (or “the right of self-defense,” as the Israelis like to say). Israel’s biggest problem would be Russia – not necessarily Iranian retaliation.
Obama would see our unassisted strike as a golden opportunity. Americans are so weary of long wars in faraway places, they would be relieved (even jubilant) at a quick strike at Iran with no ground troops and no need for an exit strategy (simply because we would never have entered!). As a sweetener, not only will Obama attack military targets, but he’ll also target the personal assets of the ayatollahs – who are very wealthy and worldly men indeed.
For the record, I oppose any attack on Iran and I would lift the economic sanctions, if that were within my power.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"And what could the GOP prez nominee say after such an attack? Besides “duh,” that is?”
SIX:
[My response to two who responded to FIVE above]:
@ Idiot_Savant,
Dimona as a target has a lot of symbolic importance, in addition to its (officially unacknowledged) strategic importance. So this would make it a tempting target, even to a US eager to attack it secretly while blaming Russia (or somebody else) publicly. Don’t be too sure about what Russia may or may not do. I know Netanyahu has given this some thought. So should you – unless your handle is only half-right (and I wouldn’t bank on the “Savant” part being that half).
@ Stargazer46,
Where in the Bible does it say, as you claim, “[Russia] will lose all but maybe [one-fourth] of their military?” As for “The US is not mentioned in the last days” – there’s a lot that isn’t mentioned in the last days. You sound like just one more overblown, false prophet adding your own interpretation to the Bible (you know what’s supposed to happen to those folks, right?)
But there’s a larger issue here: There will be no End of Days, just as there never was a Creation or a Creating God. Get this out of your head once and for all. The universe always was and always will be. For the record, what you call “God” is busy working on His own self-perfection so that some day He can become a fully-enlightened Buddha. Much of the fault for the mess in the Middle East can be laid directly at His feet – more specifically, at the feet of His followers.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Russia isn’t the only entity that plays both sides of the fence.”
SEVEN:
“…says a suspicious Mr. Albright, ‘unfortunately the history of proliferation is just littered with countries lying about their intentions.’” Mr. Albright is suspicious? He’s concerned about countries (and presumably individuals) that lie? OK, Mr. Albright, answer these questions honestly:
Are you aware that any country that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (as Iran did) can simply withdraw 90-days after stating its intention to do so in writing? And that written rationale isn’t subject to approval by any authority? Furthermore, after that 90-day period, such a country could openly build nukes without violating international law?
What say you, Mr. Albright? I direct your attention to Article X, Point 1 [of the NPT]. Read it and weep. Now, if you think it would still be okay to attack Iran after that 90-day period, that would say an awful lot about you, now wouldn’t it? I’m sure Israel wouldn’t be too concerned about that treaty; why should they be – they didn’t sign it?
Why am I the only one bringing up this Article X loophole? When I ran it by the Ron Paul campaign, I was greeted with stone silence. Maybe that tells us where Ron Paul is coming from, yes?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“[sigh] Not only do victors write the history books, they also decide which laws to ignore.”
EIGHT:
[I didn't post this to Yahoo News, though I should have...FYI: In Mississippi and Alabama it was a virtual dead heat among the 3 leaders]:
Romney finished just a shade behind Sans-Scrotum in Mississippi. And he virtually tied with Knute Gettin’-Rich in Alabama. I’d call that doing quite well, actually. As for Santy “sweeping” these two primaries, ha! He didn’t sweep all the delegates and that’s what counts. Romney has just added more to his slow but sure march to the nomination. I would say Romney’s pace is well in keeping with his business plan.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“At least Romney has a plan; Knute and Santy only have big mouths.”
NINE:
[This was in response to a US soldier murdering 17 Afghan civilians in their sleep]:
“But the incident highlights the enormous strain the country's beleaguered all-volunteer military force is under.” But that’s nothing compared to the karmic strain our country has yet to suffer for having gone into Afghanistan in the first place.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Sooner or later, karma demands its due; what we did to those people will come back to haunt us – on our own soil – in ways scarcely imaginable.”
TEN:
[My response to Sam C, who responded to NINE above]:
Sam C, Don’t be so sure about karma being a non-Christian tradition. Do a little research, dude, and stop showing off your ignorance.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I just love it when the yahoos pipe up, don’t you?”
ELEVEN:
Anybody who believes our troops went to Afghanistan to fight for our freedom is a fool. We went in seeking revenge for 9/11 - taking out on an entire country for what a handful of extremists did to us on ONE day. I fear there is no end to our blood lust; a decade of payback isn't enough.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"I still remember all the yahoos chanting when the B-52s hit - 'bomb 'em back to the stone age.' They cared nothing for freedom then, nor do they now."
TWELVE:
[BK from Rockwall, Texas responded to ELEVEN above; to which I reply after his words]:
Steven you don't have a clue!! We didn't "take out an entire country", this is the country these extremists controlled and had numerous training camps that trained terrorists to attack the U.S. What would you have recommended that we did, kindly asked them to stop, asked the Taliban leaders if we could send a small elite force into the country to take them out, or maybe just take the liberal, peace waving, tree hugging view and just ignore it and hope it goes away!!! Terrorists don't just go away, their organizations just grows larger, just as Hitler did!!!
My response:
BK, you fail to understand what I meant by “taking out an entire country.” Of course, there are Afghans who are still alive and kicking, so I couldn’t have meant it in that sense. But their country, as a country (that is, as a sovereign state with power over its own destiny) has been effectively taken out. All this, while we gloat about giving them freedom under a warlord (Karzai) who cheated his way into the presidency, and who wouldn’t last a day without the US.
As for what you mean by “these extremists”: The Taliban controlled Afghanistan but they weren’t the ones responsible for 9/11 – al-Qaida was. Turning back the clock, the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a third neutral country, if the US could provide proof he was responsible for 9/11. Don’t be too quick to say there was proof at that time, for even on our own FBI wanted posters for bin Laden, 9/11 wasn’t listed as one of his crimes. As the FBI put it at the time, “We don’t have proof he was responsible.”
My suggestion at the time: Bomb them with flowers, which would have shocked the world expecting us to go ballistic (which we did) with the level of our restraint. That’s another way of saying, we should have turned the other cheek. Ever hear of that, you being from the good Christian state of Texas?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I guess we reserve our Christianity for white fellers like us, yes?”
THIRTEEN:
[I didn't even try to post this since Yahoo wanted me to agree to extra terms of service. This is in reference to one US soldier killing 17 Afghan civilians]:
“U.S. strategy will not change ‘in reaction to a single event.’” That is, far be it for the actions of one man to dictate the actions of an entire nation. Oh wait a minute – we have exactly that situation in the person of our president. It’s amazing how many people fail to realize that one of our three branches of government is a One Man Branch.
We would never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan if the vote of that one man would have been in the negative instead of the affirmative. I guess that gives the term “affirmative action” an entirely novel spin.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“The Constitution lists our three branches in order of importance – with the Congress coming first (Article I) and the President second (Article II). So we did we permit the Two Party System to reverse that? Come on, We the Sheeple, can anybody bleat me an answer to that?”
FOURTEEN:
“’… now you're going to make the argument, “I [Romney] should be president,” because of math,’ [Santorum] said on another.” That’s not the case at all. Look, Rick, I’ll spell it out for you: Romney will be nominated because he did the homework and planned in advance. Some people still call that “taking care of business.” And isn’t that what the GOP is supposed to be about – you know, being business friendly and all?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I hope Santy isn’t trying to say, ‘We should win because we’re so righteous.’”
FIFTEEN:
So Dan McGinnis, the author of the piece above, says “it’s one of the first things I do when I wake up in the morning” – that is “read what Ahmadinejad has to say.” Dude, if that’s true, you have way too much time on your hands. BTW, you’re not a “commentator” – you’re just another jingoist beatin’ them thar war drums, aren’t you Bubba?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Of course, ‘commentators’ like you won’t even touch this: If Iran were to formally withdraw from the Nuke Non-Proliferation Treaty, after a 90-day period it would have the internationally legally-recognized right to openly build nuclear weapons. What say you to that, Dan?”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to end up sitting around a campfire in the ruins of my hometown wondering why we didn’t try harder to stop the [man-made] apocalypse.”
Contact me at https://outlookweb.neiu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=0d2aaf32a7c049acaf7fff340faee9f2&URL=mailto%3abpa_cinc%40yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment