Today, I touch on these topics:

• The vampire, Rahm Emanuel
• Barack Obama
• The vampire movie: Let the Right One in

The vampire, Rahm Emanuel

I call Rahm Emanuel a vampire for only one reason: He is a major league malefactor who will end up sucking the life out of this country. In his new role as White House Chief of Staff, Rahm will work his mischief in one of two ways:

• As an effective blocker, preventing undesirables from gaining access to the president - especially those with views not in alignment with Israel's. [And I was hoping to get close enough to Barack to try to convert him to Buddhism. I hear he's in search of a new faith option as a result of the Rev. Wright fiasco. I doubt, however, that Rahm would let anyone like me anywhere near Obama. Too bad, that would be a great loss for our new president.]

• As a virtual puppet master - an agent of the real Powers-that-Be, serving to pass on to Barack Obama his marching orders. ["Okay, Mr. President, here's what you're going to do."]

I strongly urge all political analysts - especially amateur bloggers (maybe the only honest ones left) - to keep a very watchful eye on Count Emanuel. There is way too much about this man that doesn't add up, in spite of spinmeisters pushing the concept of a mellower, less-combative Rahm. Those are the same people who hadn't asked Obama any tough questions before we cast our ballots; who'd chosen instead to hype him as The Second Coming. They're also the same ones who won't be the least bit critical of Obama's performance as president; they will simply massage any episodes of bad judgment.

Barack Obama

I cannot emphasize how strongly I am disappointed that Obama isn't keeping Rahm Israel [yes, that's really his middle name] Emanuel at arm's length. And I don't buy that bit about Obama and Emanuel being "close friends," as claimed by Jackie Calmes writing for the New York Times. Their life paths had few places, or reasons, to intersect - so such a claim sounds exaggerated. Rahm is the very epitome of forces that want nothing to do with progressive change.

Come to think of it, that goes for Barack Obama as well.

I have frequently argued that Obama isn't capable of offering anything new - that he's hopelessly tied to Old Think. Witness his choices for his team of economic advisors. To me, they're nothing more than a collection of "the usual suspects" - you know, the guys who cops routinely round up for questioning after a crime has been committed. The media, however, designates them as "experienced" (puh-leeze) and as brilliant men who had made their share of mistakes which helped create our current mess but are also capable of learning from their mistakes. [Come again?!]

Every member of this team has been tied to past government involvement and/or is a card-carrying member of the Wall Street establishment. Not one alternative thinker among them. Can you imagine what would happen to the stock market if Obama were to tap someone like Ron Paul (who wants to get rid of the Fed) as even a Devil's Advocate for this team?

There is a certain value to tapping mainstream talent, though. After our economy sinks deeper into the quagmire, Obama can claim (in effect): "The best and the brightest, which had been endorsed by both sides of the aisle, couldn't arrive at a consensus. They offered me several sets of options, each with disclaimers in the form of minority opinions, expressed or implied. But they couldn't actually guarantee the effectiveness of any one of these options. If they couldn't arrive at a solution, nobody could have; but I stand by my team and thank them for their efforts. I had to choose to go with one of their grand plans, which failed due to circumstances not entirely under our control. Now we'll really have to roll up our sleeves and get to work." [By the way, his next words won't be for the faint of heart.]

As for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State: I can only conclude that, after all was said and done, experience doesn't matter. Maybe it will come to pass that Clinton played the role of an inert actor following a pre-determined script. If the events which will comprise our near (and maybe distant) future turn out to be so irreversible, then experience will prove to have been, like, totally unimportant. Just as well, I suppose, since Hillary Clinton really has no background to justify this promotion.

The vampire movie: Let the Right One In

I saw Let the Right One In last week - twice: once on Friday and again the following day. Yes, I liked it - a lot.

Basically, Right One is a boy-meets-girl movie set in Sweden in the early ‘80s, about two twelve-year olds - Oskar and Eli. Oskar is a boy who is one of us (I'm assuming you, dear reader, are not a vampire), while Eli isn't really a girl (though looking like one, Eli is a castrated boy), is a vampire, has been twelve-years old "for a long time," and is a lot stronger than "she" looks.

The dialog (in Swedish, with English subtitles) is minimalist to the point of being terse. Yet somehow it inspired a lot of thought (well, at least in my mind). For one thing, imagine coexisting with a species more intelligent than our own, yet one which needs our blood to live. I started rethinking some of PETA's arguments.

It was only later (delayed reaction?) that I realized the true horror implied by the movie's ending. Quite simply, if Eli and Oskar (who had run off together) were to have any kind of life together, Oskar would have to become a vampire himself. Or else he would age, while Eli remained perpetually young, which would put Oskar in much the same place as Eli's "father." This person was not Eli's real father, but was utterly devoted to her and must have an interesting story of his own which (I hope) the novel reveals. [Just yesterday, I started reading that novel (same name as the movie) by John Ajvide Lindqvist.]

I also thought about the kind of buttons a movie like this might be pushing with its audience. There's an awesome scene in a swimming pool where skinny, frail-to-the-eye Eli metes out punishment to three bullies who were about to harm Oskar. She even tears one's head off - while Oskar is being held under water. I know a lot of guys are out there who would appreciate a kick ass girlfriend like that. Maybe that's got something to do with the pressure we feel from society: Always be strong, never show weakness, and we're always better than women who are always inferior.

There's a lot to recommend Let the Right One In, including the music. So even though most of you didn't vote for me for US president in 2008, I hope you'll listen to me on this score: Check this movie out.

Steven Searle

Losing candidate for US President in 2008

"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

 

Even though I won't win this election, vote for me anyway. If you do, you'll walk away from the polling place with a good feeling in your heart. And who knows - maybe your vote will tip some mystic scale somewhere and unleash that Butterfly Effect I've been hoping for these last two years (better late than never). As for me, I feel that my work has only just begun. My two biggest projects are (though not necessarily in this order):

• 1) To create a third political party of independents, which will totally replace the Democratic and Republican parties, and

• 2) To change the religious status quo from the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation to a Buddhist nation or, if I can't manage that, at least to a nation which is more ethically predisposed.

In my personal view, these two goals are inseparable. That said, it will seem ironic that I also believe in the separation of church and state. However, my future postings will eliminate this apparent irony.

This will be my last post on Gaia, at least until December. This layoff will be a bit of a shock to me since I've been posting diligently for two years now, at a rate of roughly one essay per five days. I will resist the temptation to post, even if (for example) Israel should launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. I will resist even the powerful urge to say, "I suspected as much."

While I'm at it, I might as well congratulate the state of Israel. For no matter whether McCain or Obama wins, Israel will get from the United States exactly what it wants, including its annual welfare payment. I don't think any other "constituency" could possible make that claim. So, in the spirit of gallows humor, I offer my congratulations.

The die is cast

In the final analysis, it won't matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain wins this election. Each is just one man who will not be able to turn the tide of misfortune which has befallen us. Karmically speaking, not only will the United States get what it deserves (for better or worse), but so will each and every one of us - no matter where in the world we happen to live.

The only bit of advice I can offer to men and women of pure intent is, be alert for any opportunity to do your bit. You may be destined, like me, to play only a small role in the unfolding drama that is our future. But that small role is unique and it is yours, and you should undertake it with pride.

You are the heroes. You are the saviors. Never forget that.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"There are no small roles - but there are too many small minds who don't see possibilities"  - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

Working toward the personal growth of others - and trying to minimize my self-absorption (great word - says it all).

 

That's Colin, not colon

I'm sure Obama's colon is fine - it's his Colin [Powell] I'm worried about.

My advice to the good senator:

"Barack, if you get elected, don't be so quick to embrace members of the Old Guard, which is exactly what Colin Powell is. I'm sure you're happy he endorsed you, and you were right to thank him for his support. But...you didn't have to go on TV the very next day and say Powell will have a role as one of your advisers. Isn't that a real knee-jerk reaction?"

Yes - Barack Obama, the agent of change you can believe in - wants Powell in his inner circle. He continued by saying, "Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss" - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/20/2008-10-20_barack_obama_former_secretary_of_state_c.html

I hope Obama shows considerably more restraint in his reactions in the future.

Why am I not surprised?

[Sigh]...after riding the wave of change in order to secure the nomination, Obama first crawls into bed with Joe Biden and now with Colin Powell. I assure you, President Obama will quickly surround himself with other, similar business-as-usual types. Advocates for change need not apply for work in his administration.

Quickly, now: What do Obama, Biden, and Powell have in common? Oratorical skill. This will become a prime commodity in an Obama administration, which will have as its first order of business: Smooth-talking the American people and reassuring them [an absolute must, since he has no solutions].

My problem with Colin Powell

I've heard the media harp for years about how Colin Powell commands respect. To me, that's nothing more than a competent projection of military bearing. In fact, Colin and Barack have both profited mightily from a fawning media easily impressed by good acting. [Concerning acting ability, Colin and Barack are birds of a feather.]

Colin Powell isn't my ideal of a military man. His combat experience was minimal, having earning a Purple Heart after stepping on a pointy stick covered with shit. Called a "punji stake," it was a booby trap widely used by the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. [Come to think of it, I couldn't find any accounts indicating Powell had ever been shot at - quite a feat for a soldier!]

Most of his career was spent in the Battle of the Budget, fought in the perilous terrain of our nation's capitol (for example, during his assignments at the Pentagon). After earning his MBA, he became what is sometimes derisively called a rear-echelon officer.

Colin Powell is overrated, over-hyped, a brilliant self-promoter, but he's also someone whose time has passed. Why is Barack Obama so quick to include in his inner-circle such a well-known Brand X? Is he that desperate to establish credibility in the eyes of a skeptical Washington political establishment - or among We-the-Sheeple who swallow media hype?

Colin Powell as a military man

My biggest problem with Colin Powell lies in the kind of military man he was (well...that and his embarrassing performance before the United Nations concerning WMD in Iraq). For most of his so-called military career, he was really a politician. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. However I get bent out of shape when I read glowing accounts of "Colin Powell, epic hero."

At this point, I will contrast General Powell with General Helmuth Weidling, as depicted in Downfall. This movie showed the last days of Hitler during the Battle of Berlin. General Weidling was in the thick of the fighting, when he left his troops to appear before Hitler to respond to charges of disobeying orders not to retreat. When Weidling appeared at Hitler's bunker, he told the two officers on duty he was reporting to the Fuehrer to be shot.

Those were his orders.

That's right: He was ordered to appear, so he could be executed. However, after a one-on-one with the German dictator, he successfully defended his actions. He couldn't wait to get back to his men who were fighting a hopeless battle against overwhelming odds. This was no political general.

Somehow, I don't think Colin Powell is even remotely comparable to such a selfless human being and old-school exemplar of a soldier.

And the beat goes on

Colin Powell said: "I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."

[Sigh]...here we go again with that Savior Complex. When times are tough, everyone yearns for a hero. What was it his countrymen said about Mussolini? ["At least he made the trains run on time."...Gotta love that old time fascism...gives me goosebumps all over.]

General Powell, let's get one thing straight: Barack Obama is not, as you said, "a new generation" - he is one man. And given the nature of your military beliefs (don't go in without overwhelming force), how can you possibly vest so much faith in one man? As a military man, you know damn well one man can't get the job done.

General Powell, what is needed now is fundamental systemic change. You do your country no good by pretending otherwise.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"We don't need former generals offering us generalities - we need specifics. And we need to elect non-Dem/Pub legislators who are independent enough (and brave enough) to come up with the solutions we need. If we don't elect them, you might as well kiss your 401K goodbye" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

 

Money has karma

Money has karma? You bet. Money is born, has a life span, dies, and then is reincarnated. And even though "inanimate," it sometimes acts as if it has a life of its own. But like everything else, money does not exist as an independent entity. It is very much a projection of our own karma (and we of its) - very much a projection of what kind of people we are.

Economists speak of the "debasing of currency." If currency is debased, then so are we. I hope the following reflections will inspire similar re-evaluations on the nature of money and our relationship to it.

Fat lot of good gold did for 16^th century Spain

Gold is money, money is gold, right? Personally, I have no idea why this should be the case. In fact, gold has to be one of the most worthless things to come out of the ground. But for some reason, its scarcity managed to alchemically transform it into money (though not always into wealth).

According to Cecil Adams, even as Spain was amassing all of its New World gold and silver:

QUOTE:

For the latter part of the 1500s and on into the 1600s Spain was a debtor nation, spending more abroad than it took in. The result was a net outflow of gold and silver. Attempts were made to restrict the export of precious metals, but without much success. In the end it all simply dribbled away. The problem was that the conquest of the New World left Spain with a lot more money, but not that much more wealth... They didn't realize that until too late and suffered centuries of poverty as a consequence.

:UNQUOTE [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/611/what-happened-to-all-the-gold-spain-got-from-the-new-world ]

With gold and silver abundantly in hand, it was easy for the Spaniards to buy manufactured products elsewhere, rather than develop their own industrial base. Maybe this point underscores a fundamental underpinning of wealth and money produced/obtained by any given society in any given time: behavior (in this case, laziness).

In other words, our money is a reflection of our character.

The character underlying true money: A story

Once upon a time, a loyal subject (Lo Li) appeared before his king to redeem a pledge. Ten years prior, Lo Li had performed an invaluable service for King Hi-Ness. So now Lo Li stood before his master, pleading a case for payment. Unfortunately, Lo had lost the Promissory Note his king had specially prepared, meant for redemption after the passage of ten years.

• - Sire, it is with regret I inform you that I cannot produce the Promissory Note you'd issued to me, since it was lost at sea when I was shipwrecked five years ago.

• - Good man, do you remember what the Promissory Note stated?

• - Indeed, majesty. It stated that I could ask as payment anything in your kingdom, not to exceed certain dimensions, or 100,000 gold coins.

• - Do you remember those "certain dimensions?"

• - [Lo Li quoted them from memory.]

• - Your memory in this matter matches my own. So even though you have no document as proof, you may claim your payment since my word is my bond.

• - But what of the Note, your majesty? Without that, I have no legal basis to press for payment.

• - The Note was but a truly secondary thing, actually a token meant to refresh your courage while waiting for its redemption, should hard times ever visit you.

• - Great king, I express my profound admiration for your generosity - for without the Note I have no claim.

• - Not so, Lo Li, for without your great services rendered one decade past, it is I who would have nothing. A piece of paper is superfluous to two gentlemen who have good memory as to its meaning.

• - Very well then, gracious king, I ask for 100,000 gold coins as my payment.

• - I regret to inform you, most loyal subject, that wars have depleted my treasury and I cannot conjure this amount. Can you propose an alternative?

• - [Without a moment's hesitation.]Your one and only daughter, sire.

• - She is but ten years old and cannot now make you a good wife.

• - A wife I do not desire, since I had lost the only wife I could ever want many years ago to the plague. But the child we never had, that is the payment I now seek.

• - [Without a moment's hesitation.] I know you as the epitome of honorable intentions, good sir, and will grant this request.

Know when to say when: Another story

Many years ago, I was hiking in a wild and deserted area, notably absent of humanity. I had expected to see many unusual things in this area, but had not expected to see the Accountant named Senor Age. He was sitting down, cross-legged, in the middle of a crossroads, dressed in a suit more properly seen at a business function.

He looked terrible.

Without waiting for me to ask, he told me his story starting with: "It's time to die.

"I am bankrupt, but I'm too honest to steal. So I came here simply to wait for death to overtake me."

"Why not seek assistance? Charity? A loan from friends? Anything but this?"

"Anything-but-this covers a lot of territory which I cannot visit, so here I sit and wait. As for charity, I've received quite enough of it in my life, so it should be given to others. As for loans, I've too many as it is, so I decided to draw the line and take no more."

"There will be Blood" - starring Daniel Day-Lewis

Back in 2007, I saw There will be Blood, which had this interesting exchange: A man commented on his own recently-ended incarceration for a crime he didn't commit:

"Well, I guess that's time spent for bad stuff I did, which I got away with, so I have no regrets" - or words to that effect.

I thought that was a remarkably Buddhist-like response, though this was by no means a saintly character. He was clever and weak, and had tried to lie his way into a rich man's confidence. I was very much uplifted when contemplating this mixed-bag of a human being. On one hand, he was like many people - who are weak, claim to have assets and connections they lack, and try to attach themselves parasitically to wealth. On the other hand, he had a sense of the poetic justice meted out as payment by an unforgiving universe.

Too bad he died the way he did, but he was too weak to profit from his sense of that poetic justice.

Reflecting once again on 16^th century Spain

An interesting question popped into my mind when I reflected on Spain's new found, New World wealth. You might call this question my "Spanish Inquisition:"

What would have happened if Spain had managed to dump all this new-found precious metal on the market all at once?

Of course, this is hypothetical, since Spain didn't snap its fingers causing all this "money" to appear immediately. It came to Spain over a period of decades, which provided enough time for this metal to ramp up inflation which diminished Spain's actual purchasing power.

But that's the point of my question. Suppose (somehow) the Spanish Crown managed to keep this discovery of New World treasure a secret long enough to acquire enough of it to distribute to agents who would fan out throughout Europe and (overnight) buy up all assets. This sudden appearance and expenditure of precious metal would have short-circuited any inflationary response.

But to that question, I follow with a better one:

Why should one party be able to buy up everything in sight quickly and thoroughly simply because it acquires a bonanza having nothing to do with the value of its labor or intelligent planning?

"My friend's friend had a boat and I had not" or what is true wealth?

Years ago, a friend of a friend invited me for a boat ride on a small lake. Sounded like fun, so I said yes. We zipped around for an hour making waves, which crashed into other waves we'd made after going in circles. Later on, I thought: "I wonder if he enjoyed this ride anywhere near as much as I did?"

This is not an idle question. I do not hunger for material things and so did not spend my life trying to earn enough to acquire them. Nor had I been tempted to go into debt for this purpose. But it's not what I didn't do that's important here - it's what I did do: By dedicating my time (remember: time is money, but not in the way most people suppose) to my Buddhist practice, I gained a heightened sensitivity and appreciation for the commonplace.

For me, that ride was far more profound than it could have ever been for my benefactor. He simply did not have the eyes to see, or other senses to appreciate, this. One might say, his vision was fogged over by clouds of anxiety produced by what he had to sacrifice for that boat.

As for me, that boat ride wasn't in any way "necessary." The way I see things, all of my interactions with the physical world have acquired other dimensions. And the cool thing is, I'm not anybody special - anyone can acquire this richness, without having to go around digging for yellow stuff to "pay" for it.

What's over the horizon?

What will the future hold? How will concerns for money shape our future politics?

In answering these questions, keep several things in mind:

- The money you earn now (and manage to save) may or may not keep its value. Why should it?

- As long as financial stability can be assured, John Q. Public will not care at all about how that stability is achieved. As long as his 401K and other investments stay on track, he won't care about inequities which maintain his own security.

- Without honest and ethically-based financial and governmental structures, we will definitely be going to war to maintain our lifestyle.

- The money you invest in our current markets is, ultimately, inflationary and destructive. In order for you to get a decent return on your investments, your money managers will have to get much more than that on theirs. And so on up the "food chain." In order to obtain highest possible rates of return, mega institutions will become the agents of highest possible rates of exploitation.

Conclusion: I believe our current economic crisis will "force" G8 nations to collaborate with other major players to implement measures which will increase their control over market forces at the expense of your economic and political freedoms. Control is what it's all about, but that's a fixed commodity. The more control large institutions have, the less the little guy will have. That's the wave of the future.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we pour all of our hopes and anxieties onto two men - Barack and John? We ask them, how will you fix our economy? And they fumble generalities and panderings in reply. When, in reality, they don't have the vaguest idea on how to proceed. We keep trying to pin our hopes on a savior but there is none. What will save us is electing independents as our lawmakers, but no - we won't do that. We'll keep looking for that savior" - Steve

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

 

"This guy might actually win...let's think about this."

According to Rasmussen Reports (posted Oct. 15, 2008):

"...Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday once again shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That's the fourth straight day with identical numbers and the twentieth straight day that Obama's support has stayed in the narrow range (of) 50% to 52% while McCain has been at 44% or 45%."

While this might seem to be good news for the Obama camp, there is a down side: There is such a thing as peaking too early. I mean, it's really starting to sink in: "Wow, this guy could actually become our next president...[pause] hmm...is that a good thing?"

It might not bode well for Obama for too many people to start asking that question, with 19 whole days left before Election Day. Especially if the McCain camp stokes people with this line of attack:

"With Democrats aiming for a veto-proof control of the Congress, is it such a good idea to grant them the presidency as well?"

With 55% of those polled recently by Rasmussen expecting an Obama victory, while only 15% believe McCain will win, how many of those 55% will balk at giving the Democrats total control of the legislative power of the federal government? Especially if the Democrats manage to obtain veto-proof control of Congress?

"I'd be one really pissed-off nigger if..."

I read an editorial recently, written by a black man, speculating how blacks might react if Obama would actually lose this election. His verdict? "with resignation." Is that so? Or was this "editorial" some kind of a pre-emptive strike, trying to plant the seeds of resignation?

I would hope for a far different type of reaction. Resignation, my ass! I'm not suggesting mob action burning down the town, but resignation just doesn't seem like a good call. Especially if there's strong evidence that this election was stolen.

Even though Obama's ahead in the polls, his lead isn't overwhelming - especially against such a feeble opponent. Also, some whites who said they'd support him, when polled, might not when they actually go to the polling place. So it is entirely possible Obama might legitimately lose. However, even if that should happen, a nagging sense of vote thievery couldn't be denied, which would bring about real anger and not just a quiet, smoldering resentment.

If Obama should lose, I would respectfully urge the black community (and other Obama supporters) to retaliate in a systematic and focused manner by participating in the General Strike option I've described elsewhere in my Gaia blogs. After all is said and done, real victory will only come (after you've been cheated) by means of economic retaliation against the powers-that-be. But you've got to be intelligent as to how you go about this.

GOP (and military) reaction to an Obama win

Rule # 1: Republicans will be sore losers carrying the burden of this cross: a heavy sense of divine self-righteousness.

If Obama wins, the Pubbers will cry in their beer about the liberal media's conspiracy to smooth the way for Obama by having treated him as a rock star from the very beginning - with no hard questions asked, thank you very much. [Well...now that you mention it...]

However, Obama might win them over by means of an increase in our military activities, and not just a measly surge. He's already said we'll have to get tougher in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If he moves quickly and aggressively enough, even our military establishment might decide to let Obama have a chance to become an effective president. [I'm deadly serious here.]

Besides, Obama might not have much choice (or might not perceive that he does). If the world economic order (as envisioned by the G8) doesn't stabilize, war might be impressed upon him as the only viable alternative. Every once in a while, I'll hear some fool say we should have another world war so we can repeat the successful drive to prosperity which occurred after WW II ended.

Lot of fools out there, and some of them advise presidents.

The specter of Rahm Emanuel

 

One of the driving forces of the Democratic Party has been a particularly nasty piece of work known as Congressman Rahm Emanuel. His power will vastly increase if Obama wins the White House, which will turn out to be good for Israel (and the Democratic Party) but not so good for the rest of us. In fact, I refer to Emanuel as "the Democratic Party's congressional representative of Israel," rather than "the Democratic Party's congressional representative of Illinois' 5^th Congressional District."

If the shoe fits...

Emanuel represents precisely the type of political machinist who is bringing us all down. Consider this bit from the Wikipedia article on Rahm:

QUOTE:

Notably, he reportedly told British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "This is important. Don't fuck it up," prior to Blair appearing in public with Clinton for the first time after the Lewinsky scandal emerged. Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways." On the night after the Clinton election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name." His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".

:UNQUOTE.

Sigh...people don't get nicknamed "Rahm-bo" for nothing. Aren't you tired of crazed, fanatical partisans running our political show? We don't have to tolerate this: Just say no. If we don't, we'll be treated to the spectacle of Democrats trying to consolidate their power, the same as the GOP did when it was in the driver's seat. Each party tries to do this when it's their "turn" to run the show. Aren't you tired of being ping-ponged around?

For this reason, I urge voters to throw the bums out and elect only independents to Congress. Too much is at stake to allow the people who are responsible for the financial mess were in to be allowed to be the ones to fix it. They can't fix it, they won't fix it, and they don't even really want to fix it.

Only independents untied and unaffiliated with any political party can fix things. I asked an Iraq War vet: "What's the greatest danger to our country today?" When he replied by saying "the Global War on Terror?" I suggested instead: "The Two Party system in America." He paused when I added: "Hands down...that's the biggest threat to our country." Then he slowly nodded.

Emanuel - Fundraiser and Powerbroker Extraordinaire

I'm sure John McCain's campaign would have loved to connect Rahm Emanuel's agenda and character to Barack Obama - both men hailing from Chicago, interestingly enough. However, John and the GOP wouldn't even dream of going there for two good reasons:

• Emanuel would be quick to claim, "They're picking on me because I'm Jewish."
• The GOP has had its own versions of Emanuel, so this would be a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

Rahm Emanuel is exactly the kind of old school politician I'm trying to extinctify. We don't need people like this, people of this ilk:

QUOTE:

Emanuel, who made almost $10 million in 2002, accumulated the bulk of his net worth between 1999-2002 after serving in the Clinton Administration, when, with no experience in the field, he was hired as an investment banker at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein. There is nothing illegal in this, as many trade-off of previous government contacts and reap big rewards.

:UNQUOTE [source: www.theneweditor]

I know there's "nothing illegal in this," but I smell a fish - and a rotten one at that. Why on earth do we tolerate this stench?

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"A few weeks ago, I saw a man in a crowd - on the college campus where I'm employed - giving me the evil eye (if looks could kill). He wasn't close enough for me to positively ID, but it was either Rahm Emanuel himself or someone who looks an awful lot like him. If it was Rahm and if he was checking me out, I guess I should be flattered...or maybe I should be creeped out." - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

I can’t believe McCain or Obama will most likely end up being the next US president. We can’t do better than them? We can’t?! I’ve been trying my best for two years to thwart this disaster with my own candidacy. However, it seems no one was terribly interested in what I had to offer: I’m the only candidate to offer a written contract in exchange for votes. My contract is very specific and details exactly what I’d do if elected (all 47 points are on my Gaia blog). And it mandates my loss of office if I don’t deliver. But it seems I wasn’t flashy enough. People want either a charismatic unknown (really, no one knows who Barack Obama is) or a crusty, feisty old POW who’s joined at the hip with Bush. I don’t know – to my way of thinking, the US derived a great deal of its strength from well-executed business contracts between persons of integrity. So I tried to extend the concept of the business contract to the political realm. Made sense to me. Maybe we’ve lost our way, though, in terms of (at least) our general business integrity. That might explain a great deal about what’s (really) wrong on Wall Street. Oh well, I’m still in this race till the end. However, should Obama or McCain win, all I have to say is: Rots of ruck. Steven Searle for US President in 2008 The Best Party Available “You wouldn’t sell your house without a contract, why give your vote away?” – Steve.

 

I'll come right out and say it: "Our current economic meltdown is a good thing." We can use this opportunity to force the System to change. More on that in a bit, but here's a clue: I'm still advocating a General Strike, one year after my initial declaration.

You won't hear my Dem/Pub opponents say good things about our economic downturn. Barack Obama and John McCain, to be fair though, aren't saying much of anything at all. They really don't have a clue on how to "fix it." They suffer from the same affliction as does much of the electorate: They're victims of Brand X vs. Brand Y thinking.

Barack Obama is in effect saying: "All I have to do is ride out my brand name recognition for four more weeks."

John McCain is in effect saying: "All I have to do is get people thinking Obama's like some cheap, dangerous product imported from China that causes cancer."

I should have said Obama and McCain are "victims/beneficiaries..." "Victims" because they've lost the ability to think outside the box. "Beneficiaries" because one of them (most likely) will be elected president due in no small part to a half-century of efforts by the American advertising industry to program us into thinking we've only (ever) got two choices:

• Coke vs. Pepsi
• McDonalds vs. Burger King
• Nikes vs. Reeboks
• Good guys vs. Bad guys
• Tide vs. All
• "We'd rather fight than switch" - an old Tareyton cigarette slogan
• Great taste vs. less filling
• You're either for us or against us.
• Filtered vs. unfiltered
• Damnation vs. everlasting life
• The In Crowd vs. the Out Crowd
• Losers vs. Winners
• Mainstream media vs. independents
• Democrats vs. Republicans

Bottom line? Actually, most people are deathly afraid of having too many choices, since that would force them to think. But, not to worry, when too many choices present themselves, we tend to rely on what our friends think or what influential celebrities think. Sad.

We can, however, break the grip of Brand X vs. Brand Y thinking - but only by realizing we can go on the attack:

Revisiting my call for a General Strike

On Oct. 20, 2007, I posted a blog on this site entitled:

"General Strike declared by Steven Searle" at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/10/general_strike_declared_by_steven_searle

It opens by saying:

"I hereby declare that a General-yet-Incremental Strike against the top seven U.S. banks will commence on November 1, 2007."

It continued by detailing an easy-to-implement strategy for attacking the major banks of this country. Little did I know back then - a year ago - that our financial institutions' greed would have wreaked such havoc upon us. To which I urge: Let's pour it on.

Maybe if systematic economic warfare conducted by America's citizens brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average down so (say) 8,000 (7,000?), we could force a capitulation of the Dem/Pub Party monopoly.

My general strike had two stated goals: This strike shall be considered successful when:

• Bush and Cheney resign from office (or are impeached and convicted)
• The United States withdraws all forces from Iraq - not just all combat forces.

I believe a General Strike should be encouraged now, since that's the only way to sufficiently "stress" the System to the point where fundamental change is inevitable. [And that, Barack Obama, is the only change I can believe in.]

The people in power don't want to change anything, except according to their own values formulas. That is, in accordance with what will keep them wealthy and in power. Oh, sure, Congress will conduct investigations as to why "things" got so out of hand in the financial sector. [They're good at conducting fingerpointing investigations - makes good copy.]

I truly regret that my call for a General Strike a year ago didn't gain enough traction to force Bush/Cheney from office. Or to force us out of Iraq. However, I still believe in the power of a General Strike - this time with a new goal:

We don't call off the Strike until all incumbent Dem/Pub Congressmen in DC resign. I don't mean "most of them" - I mean "all of them." It would be quite all right with me if other Dem/Pubs sought to run for office to replace those who'd resigned. However, I believe that the Dem/Pub Party Combine would suffer such a loss of prestige, no one in his right mind would run as a party man.

Hopefully, he or she would see the logic of running as an independent, for one term of office only, and under the terms of a written contract which is the basis of my current run for the US presidency.

This statement in today's posting of Rasmussen Reports should encourage potential independent Congressmen everywhere:

"Congress was front and center in the national news last week and the American people were far from impressed. If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again."

Here's the exact breakdown to the question asked by Rasmussen's pollsters:

"Would you vote to keep the entire Congress or get rid of the entire Congress?"

17% said "keep the entire Congress"

59% said "get rid of entire Congress"

24% said "not sure"

I think the 24% who said "not sure" might have been thinking of (maybe) one or two Congressmen in particular they'd like to keep in Congress.

Isn't it amazing, though, that almost three-fifths of Americans replied: "Get rid of entire Congress?"

Another pitch for Cross-Sectional Representation

I have written about the need for a new model of government, which I invented, called Cross-Sectional Representation. Our current economic troubles serve well to illustrate the value of my new model.

For instance, when Ireland had recently decided to guarantee all bank deposits in an effort to prevent runs on Irish banks, guess what? Depositors from (for example) British banks yanked their deposits out, flooding funds into Irish banks.

Lesson? When times get tough, protectionism starts looking pretty good.

If, however, the European Union had a constitution based on my Cross-Sectional Representation model, Ireland could never have acted on its own. The politicians who would have had to okay this scheme would have informed the Irish bankers who were promoting it:

"We can't do this. Our constituents would overwhelmingly vote us out of office."

This argument makes sense only if you're aware of CSR's fundamental principle:

QUOTE [using the USA's Congress as a reference point]:

The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congresssmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests.

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"In the event I lose this election, I will still carry on my campaign to elect independents to office - as I look the Dem/Pubs squarely in the eye and demand they abdicate" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

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.

 

Only one-third of the Republicans in Congress supported their president on an issue of vital importance. That's how Bush described his $700 billion financial sector bailout scheme - as an issue of vital importance. It's too bad Bush wasn't similarly rejected by his own party when he had sought congressional authorization to go to war against Iraq back in 2002. Wouldn't that have been something?

How on earth can this be spun?

If only 13 Congressmen had voted yes instead of no, this bailout package would have passed. And this wouldn't have changed the support ratio by much:

After the actual vote, the final tally showed that 60% of the Dems and 33% of the Pubbers had given their support.

If the bill had passed with a majority of Dems in support and a majority of the Pubbers in opposition, the Dems could have gleefully claimed: "See! The Pubbers didn't even support their own President...but w