How many chances do we have left?

Though I tend toward pessimism (just ask anyone who's known me for the past, say, 20 years), I'm not necessarily a cynic. Oh, I have my moments, just like anyone else, but it's not my normal state-of-being. My kids would label me a "curmudgeon", perhaps a "grumpy old man", and that's fair enough ... after all, there really isn't a whole lot to be all that happy about these days. And things are not getting better for the vast majority of us. And that's the difference between me and the optimists: I know that for the vast majority of us, I have to repeat, things aren't generally getting better.

Sure, we can argue about whether or not we are complaining on a very high niveau, but that's beside the point. When you consider what is possible, with our technology, with our knowledge, with our ambition, well, we just come up short. I'm a full supporter of Buckminster Fuller who has reminded us again and again that there is more than enough for everyone, even in these days of overpopulation ... but only if we are willing to share. Too few have too much and are too unwilling to do just that. But, that's another issue for another day.

The real problem we're dealing with has nothing to do with politics or policy, nothing to do with culture (be in American, German, or Chinese), and it has nothing to do with anything else that seems to dominate our current discussions. No, it's much simpler than that (the big issues usually are). No, we're talking about attitude, no more, no less. The real problem we have is with our attitude.

We've got some pretty screwed up ideas in our heads and they drive us to do things we might not do otherwise. I've touched on some of them from time to time (like, the notion of "property", for example), and others are so obvious they are not worth talking about at all (like, resource depletion, oil dependency, income inequality, and more). And the more uncertain the world around us becomes, the more we try to hold fast to whatever it is we may believe, regardless of whether it's worth believing or not. That's what I mean by attitude: what you are willing to believe, even in the face of ultimate collapse. We're so afraid of what may be that we fail to see the real possibilities that lie before us.

It's good to belong to something. That's what really constitutes families. Someone once said that our family are those people we have to love, whether we like it or not. But that's changed. How many families are torn by strife? How many families simply shred themselves when mom or dad dies and everyone else is left to fight over what's left? How many folks do you know who simply hate their siblings, parents, relatives ... whatever, because of all the bad that has happened to them? There are too many. But, there are even more families that are either intact or have some semblance of togetherness. That's somewhere to start.

My question is, why stop there? Everyone who is "not-family" is an "other", and it is high time that we realize that not every "other" is a threat, a nemesis, or a potential enemy. Instead, what is "other" can be highly beneficial. The problem with American, industrial agriculture, for example, is its monoculture nature (some areas only corn, others only wheat, still others only cattle). These cultures are simply not sustainable. We need -- and this is a great lesson that nature teaches us -- a certain level of diversity, a certain variation of culture in order to survive. You'll notice, I did not say, live ... no, it's a matter of survival.

Our current attitude is "different is bad". This is simply short-sighted. Though the question still remains: how much diversity is necessary?

How much is left?

Whenever change happens, especially sudden or drastic change, there is a general feeling of loss. Whoever is benefitting from the change, of course, doesn't notice it. They are generally excited and want to maintain the new state as the status quo. At the current time, the changes with which we are faced are not benefitting the vast majority of the earth's inhabitants. The vast, vast majority of people this time around are losing out.

To see this, you have to step back from your own situation. Sure, you might have a steady job, but how many of your former co-workers are no longer with the company? Are you working more or fewer hours and is your paycheck still going as far as it used to? What about all those other "problems" we keep hearing about? Immigration, unemployment, same-sex marriage, restriction of legal rights because of terrorism, rampant and worldwide fundamentalism, climate change, energy dependency? The list never seems to stop.

We just recently avoided another stupid and senseless war, but none of played out as most of the West expected. It was, to be perfectly honest, bizarre. A ruthless and blood-thirsty dictator may or may not have been responsible for a heinous crime that the chastisers were already guilty of, yet the armed escalation was headed off by an unsavory autocrat with a poor record of human rights at home, while we all know full well that the alleged victims of the crime are a loose confederation of interests, every bit as brutal and savage as the dictator they are fighting. There was nothing about that situation that was right, in any sense of the word.

For anyone willing to look, it was clear that the entire confrontation was valueless, and worthless as well. Bombs can't solve problems. The possibility of finding a just war is slim to none. We're slowly realizing that violence does little more than beget violence, and lots of us are simply getting weary of the non-solutions to real issues and problems. We speak of democracy, but don't practice it ourselves (or what is all that voter-restriction legislation and gerrymandering about in the US?). We speak of liberty, and enact draconian and oppressive legislation (NDAA, etc.). We speak of peace and threaten with military force. We speak of tolerance and refuse to compromise with, or sometimes even talk to, our adversaries and opponents. If there ever was a mess, this was one, and it pushed us hopelessly toward the brink, again.

Now, more than ever, it is time for all of us to start thinking seriously about what is important to us, and what we are willing to allow "the others", whoever they may be. In framing our entire discussion in economic terms (gains, losses, costs, benefits, risks, transactions, trade, sanction ... the list goes on), we have eliminated a very important dimension of our lives: morality. Oscar Wilde once remarked that a cynic is a person who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and that is where we have ended up. It is a sad state, to be sure. Cynics are never happy people. I simply cannot help but think that we can do better than this. The question is: can we?

What is good and fair and just and honorable and upright and worthwhile need to be brought back into focus, even knowing full well (or at least suspecting) that there may not be one single, universal answer to the question.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

OK, now that the excitement of the recent election has died down (and it certainly didn't take long did it), the government will go about its business. Coalition negotiations will be conducted, compromises will be reached, and in short order we'll have a "new" government that's going to look a whole lot like the "old" government. How did Peter Townsend put it: "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss".

For the most part, and this is nothing specifically German, I can assure you, most folks are glad. I mean, deep down, the last thing they really want is change. Oh sure, it'd be nice if we all earned more, there were fewer taxes, if the potholes got fixed and my Internet connection actually delivered the claimed megabit rate. And some might even be ecstatic if there were enough childcare places and better healthcare provisions and there wouldn't be so many poor people that we all have to look at. A few, of course, would like to see immigrants treated better and a very small minority would like to see them gone. But none of that represents what we really mean when we use the word "change".

We can stand it, a little bit at a time, but humans just aren't hardwired to like radical and drastic change, be it good or bad. Most of our history has been one of hardly-noticeable change. There have been a few "upheavals", if you will, such as the Agricultural or Industrial Revolutions, and natural catastrophes, be they mini-ice ages or epidemics like the Plague, which have thrown us off balance for longer periods of time. But these are few and far between. It's just our luck, though, that we apparently are living through another. Call it the Technological Revolution, the Information Age, Globalization ... it really doesn't matter ... but what bothers most of us most of all are the significant shifts in our own lives. They induce stress, and they are not getting fewer.

When seen in this light, elections are often a plea by the populace to slow down this pace of change. We don't like it. We don't know how to deal with it. We would prefer not to have to deal with it. What happens in any such shift, though, is that values change. They have to. Shifting from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural one places a different emphasis on caretaking, on nurture and on organization. Our stories change as a result. The same is true when we move out of the sedentary mindset of agriculture and machines start dominating our lives. Yes, there are benefits, to be sure, but there are losers as well. What we see when we look back over the long trajectory of human history is that the swings up-and-down (or back-and-forth, if you prefer) are simply getting more forceful, more drastic, and consequently, more destructive. Still, we know, regardless of how we vote, or how we act, we really have little, if any, influence on what will happen to us.

Beneath the surface, I believe there is a thick layer of anxiety that we'd like to bury even deeper, but we can't. We can see that things are changing but not for the better for most of the world's inhabitants. We can see there are very few winners, but a whole lot of losers. We feel ever more threatened by things that we just don't want to know about. Our very values -- what we believe to be good and right and true -- are having trouble holding up to the pressures they are confronted with.

But, it has always been this way in times of change. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The people have spoken ... sort of

Isn't that what one says when there have been elections? "The people have spoken." Yesterday was Germany's turn to speak out, or speak up, or however it is that they are allowed to present themselves. I can't say that there's anything really surprising about the outcome, and I certainly can't see where there is going to be any monumental change on the horizon.

As it turns out Merkel and her CDU are, unsurprisingly, the strongest faction in the Bundestag with 41.5% of the vote. She is followed by the SPD (25.7%), the Linke (8.6%), and the Greens (8.4%). No one else, including the former coalition partner, the FDP (which failed to make the Bundestag for the first time), the Pirate Party and the remaining fringe parties.

Considering the fact that the two largest, so-called "people's parties" (Bürgerparteien) ran content-free campaigns (not a single issue was addressed on campaign posters or advertisements; the candidates were what was being "sold"), it is somewhat surprising that they garnered a total of 67%; that is, two-thirds, of the popular vote. Pre-election polls showed that "most" Germans were looking for a Grand Coalition, and they may have got their wish. Apparently, that many German voters are either satisfied with how things are or how their party is or they simply like the face of the person running. This is disconcerting for me, of course, because this is precisely how campaigns are run in the United States, and it's clear, at least to me, that they don't have a democracy anymore. This does not bode well for the future of Germany in particular, or Europe in general, for this malady will surely spread.

On the other hand, the one glimmer of hope still is that there is something of a leftist majority in the country. When we take the SPD, the Greens (a former spin-off from the SPD) and the Linke (the Leftists, who in part split off the SPD and which part lent credibility to the former East German faction) together, we see that there is a fairly strong majority to be had. Together they account for 42.7% of the vote. Unfortunately, the "established" parties (which surprises me about the Greens since they only achieved this status on their own around 15 years ago), don't want to have to deal with the Linke, whom they consider politically unacceptable. Truth be told, however, at 8.6% (even suffering some light losses) they are the third strongest party in the country (I don't count the CSU as a party since it's strictly Bavarian). Sooner or later, perhaps, the will of the people needs to be considered again. As it has been demonstrated, Germany's heart, at least, beats on the left.

It may appear to many, especially outsiders and Angie would like us all to think so, that Germany is doing well (which means that there are any number of people who think it's too well), but there are number of crucial issues that need to be addressed: income inequality, equal pay for equal work, the social safety net, an aging population, European unity, banking regulation, the euro, and more. It cannot simply plod on as before thinking that everything is just fine as it is. It isn't, and, if we take the numbers seriously, of those who voted, more than 58% did not vote for the party that will propose the next government. And, as far as all (potential) voters are concerned, a full 70% did not vote for it either. To claim a rousing victory under these circumstances is to turn a blind eye to reality and your back on those whom you have been elected to serve.

Yes, the people have spoken, sort of, and the pundits will spin the results beyond all belief, yet the real proof of the election pudding will be in the eating when policy is formed and laws are passed. I'm going to reserve judgment for later, but my initial impression is that not a whole lot is going to change. Merkel needs a coalition partner and she will most likely try to get the one she can dominate best, which would be the Greens. In that case, we'll hear more about renewable energy, but we won't see more of it. Merkel also knows that generally speaking the people wanted a Grand Coalition, but that would mean work, on her part and on the SPD's part, but given the emptiness of their campaigns, I doubt a whole lot can be expected. No, if you ask me -- and I know you didn't but you read this far so you get to read it anyhow -- our slow, painful, unjust and unnecessary decline will continue among resounding repeititions of how good things are.

Whose choice is it anyway?

Tomorrow is Germany's big day. It's their turn to play modern liberal democracy. The polls will be open till 6:00 pm, and they will have barely closed and the first returns are going to be showered upon us. Personally, I have no dog in the hunt. I'm not eligible to vote here, but I will certainly be affected by whatever happens.

Oh, I'm not going to go on about any of my own prognoses on how the election will turn out. I think it's a pretty foregone conclusion that it will very much a lot of the same old same-old. Whichever party does muster the most votes and will be charged with forming a government is going to have to coalesce with at least one other (larger) party, or maybe even two. Though I find a proportional representation somewhat messy, I prefer it hands down to the first-past-the-post model that the Americans dreamed up. There is always some compromising to do, that's for sure, but, well, we've seen where blocking ... or blockhead ... politics can get you.

No, my own personal take on it all is that the system is simply rigged. Those most affected, or at least those directly affected, have little, if no say in how they are governed. I know all the reasons why lots of folks think that's the way it should be, but I really have to ask why it is that I'm good enough to pay taxes and am required to use government-provided services, but I have absolutely no opportunity to cast my vote for whomever I want representing me.

Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks that voting rights should be a matter of residency, not of citizenship. Let's face it, I do not reside in any of the 50 United States, and rightfully, I shouldn't have a say or a voice in who runs the show. I'm not affected, I don't keep up with local affairs. But, in a similar vein, what do I have to say about federal-level elections. My last state of residence was California, but why in heavens should I be allowed to vote in the elections for Congress or the Presidential elections? I am at best tangentially affected by whomever is in office and I am so removed from the goings-on in California that it is simply ludicrous for me to be chiming in about anything, let alone voting.

The situation is very different here. Of course, it's also different, say, for a Brit living in Germany, or an Italian living in Spain, or a Belgian living in Greece. Each of these citizens is confronted with the consequences of each and every decision made from Brussels on down to the municipal level. I think each of these individuals should be allowed to vote locally, wherever it is they are living and working, and not necessarily only there from whence they hail.

Yes, we like to talk about freedom and democracy, but it's just a ruse. Deep down, we find any number of ways to fix it that those affected by decisions have nothing to contribute to those decisions. We don't want openness and freedom. We'd much rather have rules, restrictions, regulations, and reasons-to-say-no.

This is just another example where the system has simply not been able to keep up with the changes that have affected it, and most of us aren't quick-witted enough to realize that you can't solve tomorrow's problems with yesterday's solutions.

Syria - Just part of the game?

Sometimes I wonder if it all isn't really some kind of game. A bizarre game, of course. A dangerous one. But is it?

I've purposely moved a bit farther east from Greece, because it is here that this craziness becomes even clearer. Just as Saddam Hussein was useful to the US for a while, our friends in Russia have their preferences as well. Neither we nor they are very picky about who is supported, as long as we think we're getting something out of it. The question often is merely "What?" Power, prestige, natural resources, money ... it might be any or all of these these, though for those who place a lot a value on obtaining them at just about any cost, I have to think it is some personally perferred combination of them, and perhaps some others I haven't thought about. It's not my thing and I simply have a lot of trouble following that kind of thinking sometimes. So, I'd like to briefly consider three "coincidences" (for lack of a better word) that have moved into the spotlight recently.

OK, granted, the first one is an oldie: petrodollars. But, when you think about straws breaking camels backs, what did Iraq do back then that ticked off the US so badly that they were willing to risk an illegal war to stop it? The world knew he didn't have chemical weapons or WMDs; we know in the meantime that Bush & Co. and Blair blatantly lied about that. One thing Saddam did do that was, to many, the ultimate slap in the face was that he decided not to deal in dollars for oil anymore and had his account denominated in euros. Here's a serious explanation; and here's a more humorous one. After all, we did see that the euro was a bit of an issue with Greece too, even if in a very different way.

Could it be that the US is suffering from a bit of currency envy? Maybe. They are treading on somewhat thin ice. Banks can be very sensitive at times, especially when they have set their minds to do something, which brings us to the now notorious end-game memo. Greg Palast broke this one. Ellen Brown has pointed out that there were four countries not playing by the rules the WTO wanted everyone playing by: Iraq (which we just dealt with), Libya (which we dealt with in 2011, not the least of which also because the Crazy Colonel was thinking of trading for oil in gold dinars), our evergreen nemesis Iran (goes without saying), and, of course, Syria. They needed to be dealt with separately. Why? Apparently because these countries favor Islamic rules for banking operation, more specifically, the prohibition of usury, which is what western banks live for and from.

And, last but not least, there is the fascinating interview with retired Gen. Wesley Clark (from 2007) in which he makes frighteningly clear that in the aftermath of 9/11, seven countries were slated for take-down (originally, within five years), and the process appears to be progressing nicely: Sudan (destroyed by civil war, split and (predominantly Christian) South Sudan set up in 2011), Somalia (destroyed by civil war, reconstituted in 2012), our old friends Iraq and Libya (just discussed, which are mere shadows of their former selves) and then, not unexpectedly, Iran, Syria (our current hot spot) and Lebanon (just now creeping into the news ... coincidentally, of course). Or maybe it is a whole way of thinking.

I don't know about you, but this all gives me pause to wonder. I wonder what the US is really up to and why. I wonder why the Manning and Snowden disclosures have so recently erupted and have been reacted to so visciously. I wonder what is really at stake in Greece and Syria. But I also wonder why we, the normal, everyday, citizens of the world, have to put up with so much crap.

Syria - What's that all about?

Those who know me know how much I love a good "conspiracy", especially those that aren't. I find most conspiracy theories amusing at best, but it is generally obvious where the perceptual flaw lies. The recent developments in Syria and what has happened did get me wondering, I'll admit.

Of course it's a huge coincidence that when I finally get around to blogging about what might be going on behind the scenes in that corner of the world, it just so happens that President Obama gets called on an ill-advised and short-sighted statement that he made months ago. One really shouldn't be drawing lines of any color in the sand, if one's not ready to back it up with action. But that whole situation came across to me as rather bizarre.

The Syrians have been killing each other for months ... profusely and brutally. Neither side is giving any quarter. That couldn't be our problem. Ill-fated and unauthorized aggression, as the Iraq War perfectly demonstrated, is too big a failure and too fresh in Americans' minds to be simply ignored by another illegal war. That could have presented a problem, and may still be a problem. Of course, it could also be that this has simply been a brilliant ploy by Obama all along.

It is not clear to me when America got queasy about brutal dictators and the use of poison gas. There is every indication that we knew exactly who was using gas against civilians back in 1988 in the Halabja massacre, and who was most likely helping them. This has been confirmed by the Huffington Post, The Week and The Economist, based on a scoop revealed by Foreign Policy magazine. This was known before and thematicized as late as 2006. Moreover, this latest crossing of the red line wasn't the first, just the largest; there were allegedly five previous incidents. But none of these caused outrage. The other loudmouth in the recent response, Britain, whose Parliament refused to support the charge forward, most likely provided the chemicals which were used to develop the sarin gas in the first place.

The unexpected shift of the Russians calling for UN control and Syria agreeing plus a less-than-radical Iran in the background speaking in moderate terms were also rather unexpected twists in the whole scenario. No, for me, this is all still much too unclear. There are too many flashing lights, too much smoke, and I expect more than one mirror involved.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy at work, but I am saying there appears to be more here than immediately meets the eye.

The Greek patient - Update

This is, of course, an ongoing story. Some of what we've seen over the past few posts is easily confirmed, other information will have to wait for further revelations. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't at least provide a few links to get you started, should you be interested in following up on developments.

The South Stream pipeline is taking shape. More information can be found

• on Wikipedia;
• on the pipeline's own webpage and
• on Gazprom's webpage.

The Nabucco pipeline is not faring so well. It appears that the project as a whole has been abandoned, but the Western portion is allegedly still an option. This is, to my mind, an interesting development. More information can be found

• on Wikipedia;
• on the World Socialist Web Site and
• at Natural Gas Europe.

Finally, there is the issue of Greece's gas reserves and its development. Offical statistics have little to say, but that would be expected in light of Müller's presentation, but there are other sources that do shed some light on the subject and provide some interesting additional perspectives:

• the Proven gas reserves page on Wikipedia;
• Wikipedia's List of natural gas fields;
• at Natural Gas Europe;
• by Reuters regarding US-Greece gas relations;
• by Reuters regarding Greek oil itself, and
• at the Online Wall Street Journal.

Of course, recent developments with Syria, to which I'll turn next time, also have an impact on this issue.

The Greek patient - So what do we do now?

When I think about all the time, money, energy, and, well, lives that have gone into this ... I'm not sure what to call it ... charade (?), this burlesque (?), this whatever-you-want-to-call-it ... I can assure you, I'm anything but happy. To be truthful, it simply turns my stomach.

Oh, I know, I know, the world isn't all that nice a place and nasty things happen all the time, but you'd think that after almost a million years of human history, we would have learned something. You'd especially think that in light of what we know about how badly all this money-grubbing and resource-grabbing turned out, we'd be a bit more cautious today. But we aren't. We're still playing stupid games that are costing real people their lives and their livelihoods. You'll forgive me if I'm less than enthusiastic about support for what's going on.

You should know that I think that the EU is far from perfect. I am a big fan of the idea of Europe – that much is certain – but I'm not a big fan of the EU as it's being implemented today. I believe we've been called to do better, and in order to do so, we – and by that I mean you and me and your neighbor and my neighbor ... everyday people, that is – have to become more involved and make ourselves heard. There are lots of good ideas around, and it's time we started putting some of them to work. As for the Greek patient, well, here are my suggestions for his recovery:

1. The Americans have nothing here that is theirs. It's time for them to go home or bother someone else (though I'm in favor of the former). They should get their own house in order before telling other folks how they ought to be living.
2. The IMF should be sent home. This fits in with #1. It's an American organization, and I can't begin to imagine what business it has being involved in anything internal to Europe.
3. The Greeks should be given a say in their destiny. We all agree – hell, even the Greeks that I've spoken with agree – that they need to get their fiscal house in order, but they should decide who should help and they should invite those whom they trust in to help them.
4. The Greeks should use their natural wealth to pay off those creditors who perhaps deserve to be paid off. Some of those creditors are mere exploiters and they are free to made downward adjustments as appropriate.
5. The Greeks should play a suitable role in deciding how their resources and their wealth can help Europe as a whole prosper. (In this point, there's a whole lot of rethinking to be done.) They have the means and, with some assistance, the wherewithal to ensure that Europe can actually start becoming a reality.
6. The EU must become more democratic, devolving a lot of the current power held by the EC to the European Parliament, but as a transition to a more reasonable form of governance for the 21st century.
7. The EU has the opportunity, and therefore should take it, to reorganize their money business. It's time to place our fiscal future on a new foundation. It is time to opt out of the purely fiat currency malaise that plagues the world. They could set an example for how money itself can be made more democratic so that wealth is more equitably distributed than it is now and so that everyone, not a select few, benefit when it grows.

These are merely broad-brush suggestions, of course, but in each and every one of them is an opportunity to make sensible, positive changes to business-as-usual. Will the world become perfect as a result? Absolutely not. But, in doing so, we increase the chances that there will even be a world left to leave to our children.

Think about it.

The Greek patient - What's really at stake?

It is at this point that I want to pick up a thread which was laid down in the sixth post in this series: the gas pipelines I referred to.

At the heart of the Greek problem is a rather down-to-earth fact: natural resources. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Let's face it: America is a resource junkie. Americans represent 5% of the world's population, but they consume 25% of its natural resources, in particular its energy resources. The Americans aren't all that hip on renewable energies (cf. the Keystone pipeline, fracking, and more) but we all know that in the interest of the environment (which also doesn't make much of an impression on Americans either) there have to be other ways of conducting our (production) business. Finally, we also know that capitalism, as it is currently practiced in the US is unsustainable. Infinite growth on a finite planet is, well, simply impossible. But the impossible never stopped America. There was a time when that might have been a good thing, but in this case, it could be the end of us all.

As it turns out, Greece is sitting on more than significant quantities of much-desired natural resources. Nobody ever bothered figuring this out, for as we saw in our review of Greek history, the occupiers were more interested in getting what they could while they could get it that the search and extraction of – granted, at the time, unknown – resources was not their highest priority. We all know, though, that America's, if not the world's, greatest addiction, is to hydrocarbons. And it is here that our Greek patient becomes downright sexy.

As fate would have it, Greece is sitting on the currently largest natural gas reserves in the world. It's not like this wasn't known before. The Germans, during WW2, obtained most of their oil from Rumania, but they were drilling in Greece as well. When you look at the whole region – from Rumania in the North, to the Caspian Sea in the Northeast, to Iran, Syria and all the way down to Libya, it stands to reason that hydrocarbons should be present in and around Greece. As it turns out, the Americans have known this for a long time.

A short digression back into history:

One of the first things the Americans did after "allowing" the military junta to take over Greece was to since contracts to explore for gas and oil. These contracts were for a period of 26 years with an option for an additional 10 years. When you add it up: 1968 + 26 + 10 = 2004, oddly enough, the year that turmoil started in Greece as we have seen. Between 1968 and 2004, oil was cheap. The Saudis had agreed back then that they could live with $40/barrel, but in 2004, oil prices began to rise drastically, as high as $140/barrel. Suddenly, Saudi oil wasn't as attractive as it once was and to a junkie, well, when you have to start paying more for the same fix, you start looking for other sources.

You can say what you want, but given the fact that it has been more than proven that Bush and Blair overtly and specifically lied to start the Iraq War, the object was oil, not freedom. Our beef with Iran isn't really over their nuclear program, for the observant reader will have noted that the Americans attempts to get in good with Turkmenistan is an attempt to outflank Iran to the North ... they are sitting on huge gas and oil reserves, too.

No, if you ask me, the jig is up. We're not dealing with anything more than a grab for resources just like we had back in the 19th century. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The Greek patient - A third (and final) editorial excursion

Many of you know that I'm a pretty skeptical person at heart. I'm not the world's foremost optimist. If anything, I tend strongly toward cynicism. I do think that there is still hope for humanity, but not much. I still believe that maybe even my fellow countrypeople, the Americans, can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get themselves out of the corner they've painted themselves into ... well, that's what I believe on good days. Not every day is a good day.

For as long as I can remember, the USA has considered itself something special. I don't want to get into an argument as to whether they are/were or aren't/weren't. I simply don't care. I don't think they're special; I think Americans are just like everyone else, and my travels and experiences have borne this out. America and Americans are not entitled to any more in this world than anyone else.

For as long as I can remember, though, it has appeared that America and Americans believe they are entitled to more than others. For all their talk about liberty, freedom, individualism and more, their governments have been willing to deal with the most ruthless and unsavory dictators and countries, if they thought they could get something out of it. It has never been and is still not unusual for the CIA (or whomever may be currently responsible for such things) to remove one head of government to get in another who is more sympathetic to America's interests. Pinochet was fine with us; so was the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, and even Idi Amin (remember him). This bothers me, because I never wanted to believe that this is what America was all about.

But it is what America is all about. If they have "interests", of any kind, be they strategic or geo-political or whatever, they are willing to employ any means necessary to pursue those interests, regardless of the costs, be they mere financial or, more importantly, moral or human costs. You will have to excuse me if I don't stand up and simply wave the flag. Trust, respect, yes, even love, is something you must earn. You don't get any of that by simply being there. America, in my book, still has a lot of earning to do.

And just so you know: I don't want to hear any of that crap about how America isn't doing anything that others aren't doing. Just because others do things in no way justifies your doing them. This is biggest cop-out in business (hey, if we don't do , our competitors will) and it's the biggest cop-out in politics as well. When I wanted to do something because "all my friends were doing it", my mom used to ask me if my friends were all going to jump off a bridge, was I going to jump too. In some regards, too many folks (especially high-ranking politicians) simply haven't grown up.

Even though I'm not the biggest fan of nation-states and believe, fundamentally, that they may have outlived their usefulness, I do realize that they still exist and that they still have a role to play. Nevertheless, no individual country is so unique, so special that they have more, better, or unique rights than any other country. This applies to America, whether it is the richest or the most hapless country in the world.

And, with that in mind, let's finish our story.

The Greek patient - Schlimmer geht immer (Things can always get worse)

Papandreou is gone. On 11 November 2011, a new PM takes over Greece, Loukas Papadimos. Now, I know you're probably getting bored by this, but you've got to look at this guy's resumé: studied at MIT starting in 1966; from 1975-1984 Professor of Economics at Columbia; as of 1980 Chief Economist at the Federal Reserve in Boston (!); 1985 moved to Greek Central Bank, of which he was head from 1994-2002, that is, during the period in which the euro was introduced. What is more, it was Papadimos who brought in Goldman-Sachs to do Greece's books for their entry into the euro. Interestingly enough, during this time, the Vice President and Principal of Goldman-Sachs overseeing this area was Mario Draghi, the current head of the ECB. What a small world we live in.

Obviously, between internal Greek turmoil and the now-infamous Troika breathing down the Greeks' necks ... and by the way, we should recall who composes the Troika: the European Commission (EC), the IMF (there at Germany's insistence) and the ECB (led by a Goldman-Sachs man); great ... so no one is surprised when new elections are required, which brings us to the current Greek PM, Andonis Samaras, who, as it just so happens, is an Amherst College alumnus who also went on to study at Harvard. It would seem the world isn't getting any bigger.

Now, what most of you probably don't know is that the IMF is anything but a neutral or humanitarian organization. David Graeber likens them to the former Mafia collection agents ... you know, the guys who would break your kneecaps if you didn't pay back your loans ... that is, to thugs. And basically, Graeber's assessment is spot on. What is more, although officially an organ of the United Nations (UN), according to the fund's charter, the president must be European and the 1st Executive Vice President must be an American. Of all the nations sitting on the board of the fund, however, only one has the right of veto: the US. It is obviously not neutral, and it is not too far-fetched to maintain that it is simply a front organization for American interests.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that much about the Greek "illness" is not necessarily hom-grown. There are a number of outside influences that are anything but insignificant. The involvement of the CIA, the rather obvious attempts to destabilize the country, the rather heavy-handed attempts to influence the directions of actions taken against Greece and the euro, the intrigues, the connections ... well, when you look at it all, you have more the feeling you're reading a John Grisham novel instead of something about modern-day, political life on this planet. But as I said at the onset, you can't make this up. Things are much worse than we thought.

The question, though, is why? Greece has never really been all that self-sufficient or stable; it is such a little country; it is economically anything but a powerhouse; it constitutes an insignificant portion of the total European economy; it ... yes, obviously the list goes on, and I, for one, am having trouble understanding why Greece in recent years has become such an explosive issue.

So, after another brief editorial excursion next time, we'll get to the real heart of the matter.

The Greek patient - I don't know what it is, but it just hit the fan

Old habits die hard, and old aversions even harder. By 2009, tensions were running high.

There is a strong suspicion that a thwarted assassination attempt on Karamanlis had been planned by a Western intelligence agency (most likely the CIA ... go figure). This plot was broken up shortly before a planned meeting between Karamanlis (Greece), Putin (Russia) and Paranow (Bulgaria). Greek intelligence maintains it was all part of a plan to destabilize Greece. This assassination attempt was flanked by kidnappings of major Greek industrial figures, widespread demonstrations and "terrorist" attacks (local bombings). Also in 2009, a scandal involving the transfer of ownership of an alleged historical Greek monastery on Lake Vistonida sprang up. It was an exchange of the monastery for prime real estate in Athens. The connection was Karamanlis' press secretary, but it could have been a set-up, too. In 2011, the abbot of the monastery was arrested and indicted on fraud charges in relation to the deal. Karamanlis was on the ropes, but the pressure was increased. He called for mid-term elections, though he had little chance of winning, and a mere two days before the elections in 2010, two bombing attacks were carried out at two Karamanlis campaign events. Naturally, he lost the election, but he also resigned his leadership of his party and disappeared from politics.

Enter the new Prime Minister (PM) of Greece, Georgios Papandreou, whose biography is more than interesting: born to an American mother in Minnesota in 1952; studied at Amherst College receiving his doctorate in 1979; two years later, he was a Greek citizen and member of the Greek Social Democratic Party; from 1999-2004, Foreign Minister; but, in 1992/93, he was a Fellow in the Center for International Affairs at Harvard.

He took office in October 2010. His first act as PM was to renege on his campaign promise to raise the welfare rate, which most likely got him elected in the first place. Only 14 days after the election, though, his newly appointed Finance Minister "discovered" that the actual Greek deficit was not 6% of GDP as the former government had maintained, rather 12-13%. How he was able to figure that out before even settling into his office is a mystery to everyone. Papandreou then decided to "come clean" in Brussels and denounced his own government and country for defrauding the EU. And this is how the crisis was kicked off. But it doesn't stop there.

In January 2013 the Chief Statistician at the time of the "fraud" was indicted. This was one Andreas Georgiou, whose own biography is worth reviewing: alumnus of Amherst College; PhD, University of Michigan; 1989-2010 worked at International Monetary Fund (IMF) overseeing various programs. In other words, it was a man from the IMF who was able to "discover" the Greek accounting discrepancies before actually entering office, and at least one member of his staff has testified that she was directed to misrepresent data. I don't know about you, but this all comes across as rather fishy.

To top it all off, Papandreou, Mr. I'm-So-Sorry in Brussels, negotiates a multi-billion rescue package only to announce he will put it to a popular vote (due to all the strings that are attached). This is nothing that anyone wants to happen (except for maybe the Greek people), and the next thing you know, we've got elections again.

But it doesn't stop there. More next time.

The Greek patient - What's really going on?

Some of you are probably asking yourselves by now, "Why all the fuss if there's no really big identifiable problem?" Like so many other nations the world over, the Greeks have borrowed more than they can probably ever repay, but that in and of itself shouldn't be the issue. So have the Americans, the Brits, the Japanese, and most of the European countries as well. Despite massive cuts to their social systems, the implementation of inhuman austerity programs, and the forking over of billions of euros in support payments, Greece in further in debt now than it was at the beginning of the crisis? How can that be? It's easy. Greece, and most certainly the Greek people, never see a cent of that money. It is simply siphoned off to the country's creditors (read: banks and financial institutions) primarily servicing only outstanding interest. To my knowledge, the capital hasn't been touched yet. At this rate, the Greeks will never get out of debt. How many of you has it occurred to that maybe, just maybe, that's the plan?

I'm not spinning out the latest conspiracy theory here. What follows is not something my feeble mind could make up. But, I can assure you, it will make you wonder nevertheless.

The crisis in Greece moved into full gear in 2004. The Prime Minister at the time was Konstantinos Karamanlis. Though having studied at Tufts University in the US (masters and PhD), Karamanlis turned his attentions away from the US toward Russia, offering Putin to become involved in Gazprom's newly planned cooperative venture with the Italian energy company Eni, the South Stream gas pipeline, which was to run from Russian, through the Black Sea, then Bulgaria (thereby avoiding the Ukraine, who has periodically been less than cooperative with the Moscow government) at which point it can branch south towards Italy and northwest toward Austria, thereby increasing gas service to Europe. Kamaranlis thought the Greeks could get involved, and Putin thought Russia could help Greece develop its energy industry. Sounded like win-win to those involved.

Now, who would be surprised if I said at this point that our friends in the States were anything but pleased? Why should they care? Isn't business just business? Well, it would be if the Americans weren't planning on building their own – the Nabucco – pipeline from the area around the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey (thereby avoiding Russia) to Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary to a distribution point in Austria.

The construction of South Stream started in 2012, so it will be built. The Americans are trying to gain a foothold with the dictator in Turkmenistan, a particularly unsavory character, even for American political tastes, and haven't been able to get their ball rolling yet. And then the nerve of those pesky (let us not forget, lazy, tax-evading) Greeks cozying up to Russia like that. Was somebody trying to rain on someone else's parade. It would seem so.

Obviously something needed to be done. But what? And this is where, at least to me, things really start getting interesting.

The Greek patient - A second editorial excursion

Let me say right off that I personally thought the euro was introduced too soon, but I'm not a banking/finance/economic expert, so what do I know. It turns out that Herr Müller, Mr. DAX is also of that option, so at least I'm not in discredited company. I also firmly believe that at whatever point the euro would be introduced ... it was never a question of "if", it was only ever a matter of "when" ... some conditions other than the Maastricht criteria needed to be met:

1. Joining could never be optional. If you're in the EU, you come into the Eurozone. Nevertheless, some reasonable leeway could be negotiated for each country.
2. An EU finance minister had to be appointed to manage it; individual countries would all be bound by all the same rules.
3. The European Central Bank was to become a publicly-owned central bank with the power and authority to print money.
   

By not doing that, we have run into to-be-expected difficulties. When we consider Greece, as the current configuration is the euro is too strong for the Greek economy. They have no leeway to devalue their own national currency in light of the pressing economic and fiscal problems they are facing.

To put this in perspective: the Greek economy represents only about 1.5% of the EU economy as a whole. That's like saying that if Louisana went belly-up tomorrow, the United States as a whole would implode. That is, of course, ludicrous, but one of the reasons that the US would have fewer problems is that they have a real central bank and the same rules apply to everyone in the federation (that is, in the United States as a whole).

The Eurozone has a different central-bank structure and which functions differently, and each of the "states" in Europe is still, literally (not figuratively as in the US) an independent country. This makes all the difference in the world.

There are a number of options circulating regarding how to solve the problem, but upon closer examination, we find that most of them would cause more problems than they would solve. The one that many have pushed for – in particular American economists – is that Greece (and the second patient, Cyprus) should just be pushed out of the Eurozone and return to their own native currencies. But that's not really an option at all. It turns out that if they leave the Eurozone, they have to leave the EU itself, and it is unclear whether there is a sound legal mechanism to allow for that. For better or for worse, it is up to Europe to get its house in order, and as we shall see in what follows, the last thing they need is a lot of advice from outsiders.

What we've seen up until now, however, is interesting enough:

1. the euro itself is not the problem, but the structure of the euro is (but it's internal to Europe);
2. the size of the Greek economy is not the problem, but how it can be managed is;
3. at present, Greece is still a sovereign nation and should, at least in my estimation, have some say in its destiny (especially since foreigners have been calling the shots there for almost 2,000 years); and
4. a sound financial and economic reorganization is absolutely necessary, sooner rather than later, but expecting the Greeks to save themselves to prosperity is cruel and unusual punishment.

OK, it was an editorial summary, but it is still important for what comes next.