For decades, now, the al-Qaida leader has been identified as ‘Osama bin Laden’. So common this appellation has been, that it has succumbed to the perennial penchant to reduce his to an acronym: OBL.
Suddenly, as the White House seems to be gearing up for reelection, the loyal and obedient press has now chosen to ignore the time-honored OBL for the renaming of the dead foe, something for which, finally, a peace prize might find merit, as Usama, burying ‘Osama’ along with his weighted corpse at sea. Along with the traditional custom of dumping their dead loved ones into the ocean, as Obama has claimed, countering the outrage from the Muslim community, is it also time-honored traditional affection to rename the dead as well?
Maybe it’s just me but that seems to make the similarity to Obama with Osama, the only difference being the BS, a bit too glaringly obvious. Even my spell checker hasn’t been updated to this latest bit of propagandistically motivated newest spelling. Perhaps it’s because now, we no longer can be sure who the real OBL is, unless we should fear that he has been reborn as UBL. Wait and watch.
Perhaps the next update from MSFT will have this newest spelling inserted surreptitiously into the onboard dictionary; because right now, USAMA is underlined with red squiggles, raising the all-too-obvious questions, hardly blending in, unnoticed, like the insistence from the White House and the president that, prior to the release of his long form Birth Certificate, Obama (not Osama or Usama) didn’t have a long form Birth Certificate. Even Snopes.com had to change their official statement of proof to match the conflicting statement of proof. Sometimes I wonder if the random numbers chosen for the lottery each week have a greater probability of being more accurate than ‘statements released by The White House’.