December 25

"Good will to men!"
Choirs of angels sing,
Lifting their voices high.
Stories of gifts
The Wise Men did bring,
But I ask myself why?
Where has the love for other men
Gone in these passing days?
Why has the Christ one
Clear in Christmas
Faded to a haze?
Kettles clink with too few coins
Too many eat too well,
While all the while in some dark corner
Hungry faces tell
Of sadness, hunger, loss of hope –
Why should they rejoice?
'Cause no matter how loud they cry
No one hears their voice.
But, as all good Christians usually do
On this happy day
They turn their backs,
Sit down to eat and
Go on their merry way.

Perceptions

He looked and looked and looked again;
he rubbed his eyes and looked and then
he saw so clear, but knew not what
it meant to him, or so the thought,
until he tried to sort things out,
but then his mind was full of doubt
and still unsure his mind did stray:
the vision would not go away,
nor would the tastes, the smells, the sound,
all signals full load, all in-bound,
until his head would sheer explode
or maybe, it would just implode:
it didn't matter either way,
his self he tried so hard to save
to no avail, he'd lost his hold
upon his dreams – no, those he'd sold –
and so he tried to take firm hold
of what he saw; he thought he'd told
what was right, good, of course, the truth;
he thought he'd done so since his youth,
yet that was just a twist of fate
and breathing in, he tried to wait
but stumbling, grasping, thinking back
he couldn't say, he'd lost the track
or scent or trail or what it's called
and losing more, he was appalled
that he, so proud, of all he knew
could find himself in such a stew,
for this was stuff for simpler men
who rubbed their eyes and looked again.
But all we've got are senses, five:
without them, we could not survive.

Not-born-in-the-USA Blues

She was eight years-old. She had her whole life
before her, till she was bug-splatted
like her brothers, her sister, her mother.
Father was vaporized a year ago.

And her annihilation will be argued
(by untouched, made-up heads, wanting to be
something, someone, but at her expense)
if it was a good bomb, or a bad one.

And the polls and pundits pontificate
in those far-off lands of the occident,
so unknown, so different, so exotic,
like in a thousand and one horrid dreams.

We all know: the world must be made safe.
From whom? For whom? And why was that again?
I couldn't hear you. They're droning my home.
Oh! sorry you feel threatened round your campfire.

But, decisions must be made, and hard ones:
tough love, I say, when it kills to be kind;
and, well, you cannot know what's good for you
when you live that close to oil; we know best;

we're all called upon to make sacrifices,
for ways-of-life are at stake, just not yours;
we're so sorry you happened to be,
by chance, at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I was eight years-old. I had my whole life
in front of me, till I was bug-splatted
like my brothers, my sister, my mother.
Father was vaporized a year ago.

Exit, stage left

In 1965, The Byrds covered a Pete Seeger song that ended up being the US #1 hit with the oldest lyrics, namely, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. It was wisdom all decked out in hippie garb. And even though the song has faded to a mere "classic", what it had to say was as true then as when the words were first written down, and they're just as true today. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

William Shakespeare, one insightfully poignant observer of life and the human condition, eloquently expressed a corollary of thereof, which we also recognize as true when we are reminded of it, namely,

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts ...
(As You Like It, II, vii)

He then goes on to describe the several seasons of one human life, and in each of these seasons, all those purposes of the Preacher take on differing degrees of emphasis, if not necessity. That is the way of life. We are all called on to decide which roles to play when and how, and what to leave in and what to leave out.

The world is not any better than it was when The Byrds caught my fancy and fired my desires so long ago. I make no bones about it. The world wasn't in good shape then, but I thought it could be changed. I was shown it can be changed, but not necessarily for the better. Well, at least for the better for most of us. Some folks made out like bandits, because most of them were. I believe we're in this life to learn, and I've learned that much at least. Still, I'm ashamed of myself for not managing more. I'll try to do better next time.

This time, of course, it would be tempting to get lost in that thick forest of remembered hopes, dreams, aspirations, failures, illusions, and disappointments, but I have grandsons now who will have to live with what we have done. I have a lot of explaining to do, and more.

In other words, it has become clear, to me at least, that my own purposes, role, and part to play have changed, and there are just so many hours in a day. I think Robert Frost ("Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening") sums it up best:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Godspeed.

#StopCetaTTIP #StopTISA #CETA #StopTTIP

I'm not at my desk today. Very early this morning, I headed out to do what little I could to make a difference. Today, I'm in Frankfurt am Main, demonstrating against the so-called "free-trade" agreements that our governments are trying to ram down our throats. We need to stop these -- all of them (there are no "good" ones) -- so today I would just like to remind you why:

1. These agreements affect every single one of us, from the highest ranking politician to the highest paid CEO of an international corporation to the lowest paid employee in any of the countries involved in the agreement and all those citizens of those countries, including those not yet born. Any agreement that comprehensive can't be negotiated in secret, for it affects too many people. When so many people have so little to say about what happens to them, it is undemocratic at best, but subversive at worst.
2. If, as we know these agreements foresee, extra-judicial, extra-political, extra-legal "courts" must be established that take precedence over the duly and democratically elected governments of the countries involved, then these agreements are additionally undemocratic and by definition partial to the negotiators and not those afflicted.
3. There is no reasonable, let alone reliable, research that supports the claims regarding increased economic activity or numbers of jobs to be created. Any and every claim is nothing more than a statement, at best, a fraudulent depiction at worst, and should be rejected in either case.
4. Agreements that favor large, multi-national corporations discriminate against and are antithetical to small, local companies (not only mom-and-pop organizations, but also small and mid-sized regionally active ones as well). In other words, such agreements discriminate against an established and desired class of businesses.
5. Although touted as "free-trade" agreements, there is nothing in them (at least not as far as any of the leaked documentation regarding the agreement or the negotiations is concerned, that reflects free-market theory. You don't have to be a fan or advocate of Smith or Friedman to feel that your needs aren't being met here.
6. The most fundamental assumptions underlying any such agreement are based on philosophies and economic theories that have no justification in or documented relevance to actual social and economic realities. (The neo-liberal assumption that all actors in all markets act out of "enlightened self-interest" has never been reasonably or convincingly demonstrated.) There is a serious disconnect between theory and reality.
7. The frameworks that are to be established by such agreements derive from the assumption that governmental intervention in markets is undesirable, yet the benefactors of such intervention are the strongest supporters of such agreements for they have been assured that such interventions will continue once the agreements are in place. In other words, for them, they can't lose.
8. Another underlying assumption of the agreement is that privatized undertakings are always more efficient than government-influenced undertakings, but there is not a shred of reliable evidence anywhere, worldwide, that supports the contention. In other words, the agreement is based and founded on premises that have no basis in reality.
   
9. There are many other, time-tested and proven, ways to promote increased economic activity between entities. There is not just one way. There are alternatives.

All of these issues are known. In other words, they are the simple conclusions that can be drawn from the available documentation, the political discussion, and the factors that have been made public. It hasn't been easy to get this far, for the public discussion up until now has been thwarted by vicious propaganda, clouded by distractions and irrelevant side-discussions, and undermined by so-called experts who are taking part in the negotiations but who are unwilling to divulge necessary details.

If for no other reason, all of these so-called free-trade agreements should be rejected because of the negotiators' insistence upon secrecy. I don't care that education has been driving into the ground in recent decades. I don't care that "the public" is allegedly not well-informed enough to make a competent assessment of the agreement itself. Business and trade are not that complicated that even half-way reasonable individuals can't form an informed opinion about them. The fact that free-trade-agreement whistleblowers have been so aggressively pursued is reason enough to question the legitimacy of the agreements themselves. When one has to resort to such heavy-handed methods for a matter that is purportedly in all our best interest, I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that perhaps the advocates aren't putting all their cards on the table. And if they aren't, I think it's more than reasonable to ask "why". And I haven't even begun to address the environmental, safety-standards, quality-standards, health, healthcare, or infrastructure issues, just to name the most obvious, but certainly not all of them, that need to be considered as well. The list goes on and on. There is truly not a single aspect of our lives not addressed in some way by these agreements, but we should trust that the negotiators are acting in all our best interests. It boggles the mind.

The mere notion of "secretly negotiated, free-trade agreements, which -- just to add a bit of spice to the discussion -- really not even need to be approved by the governments of the countries involved is, well, suspect. Upon what experience am I -- or anyone else -- supposed to base the voluntary acceptance of something so far reaching being negotiated by people with a proven track record of deception and misinformation?

Yes, that's what I thought. And that's exactly the reason I'm not at my desk, but rather on the streets, in Frankfurt, to give voice to and to make a statement against what is being imposed upon us against our collective will. There is a growing number of citizens who want to know more and deserve to be informed. There is a growing number of families who have questions that need to be answered. There is a growing number of individuals who doubt the veracity of the claims being made. There is a growing will in the citizenry that wants to be included in the democratic discussion that should be taking place. All of these things the supporters of the agreement would like to deny.

It is amazing, if not breath-taking, in this day and age that in light of the minimal information that has leaked to the public that non-participants can be in favor of such agreements. From all we know about what is involved, we have to ask ourselves upon what are the proponents basing their approval? Still, there are those who want to force these agreements through come what may. But, for my part, I can't see why they're necessary, nor can I see what advantages they are going to bring, nor can I just sit back and wait to see whether the supporters get their way at the expense of the rest of us.

I'm not at my desk today. Very early this morning, I headed out to do what little I could to make a difference. Today, I'm in Frankfurt am Main, demonstrating against the so-called "free-trade" agreements that our governments are trying to ram down our throats. We need to stop these -- all of them (there are no "good" ones). Our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren hang in the balance.

I have to do something other than just wait till it's too late.

Maybe we just can't change ... then we deserve everything we get

There are a lot of people who -- and quite a few of those I know -- think the world is the way it is because it reflects, what they call, human nature.

Think about it: death, destruction, mindless devastation of resources and the environment, wanton disregard for human life, crime, oppression, lust for power, greed, brutality, glee over the pain and suffering of others, violence of all kinds (verbal, psychological, social, physical), insatiable desires ... everything that turns the world we know into the hell we fear. That's the natural way of things. The world is as it is because it is simply in our nature to be that way. It's in our genes. It defines who and what we are. What an interesting view of one's fellow man. But, it seems to be the dominant perspective. Every time something goes wrong, someone gets killed, someone's oppressed: well, that's just the way we are. We are evil by nature. That's got to be the crappiest of all possible worlds.

In spite of all that's wrong with the world, there are still glimmers of hope: wanton acts of kindness, altruism, compassion, empathy, people willing to sacrifice (sometimes, big) for others, not to mention the sheer breathtaking beauty of just about any place on this planet that hasn't already been despoiled by the other humans who don't give a care about what's going to happen to us. The contradiction couldn't be more obvious. The paradox of life -- especially human life -- couldn't be more apparent. What are we to make of all this?

Given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who don't believe the world is to be despised, and given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who believe there is more potential for good than we're led to believe, and given the fact that there are still plenty of individuals -- albeit few -- who are more than willing to make sacrifices for things generally considered positive, it is difficult to draw the absolute conclusion that the world is the way it is because our nature as humans dictate that it must be so.

This is the part that has always fascinated me.

In a similar vein, I have a few (very materialistic-minded) friends who never tire of reminding me how closely we are related to our not-so-distant simian cousins. This doesn't bother me, to be perfectly honest, for I am thankful and actually happy about our closeness. We're not the same, that's for sure, but we're similar, and this is a good thing. We humans are different -- and that is not to say "better" in any sense of the word, but that's not something my friends have grasped yet. They -- I believe -- want to impress upon me that we are simply, or just, or only, animals. But, we're not. we're different. Very different, and it's this difference that captivates me, that captures my attention, that makes me ask all kind of "why" questions.

For the longest time, we've (and by that I mean, we humans have) interpreted this difference as "superiority". There is a "more" involved, of course: Koko attained the (sign) language equivalent of a three-year-old, but most of us have more comprehensive vocabularies and communication abilities. Great apes have learned the significance and value of fire, but we humans have taken this to ends that are -- I'll be the first to admit -- questionable at best (e.g., what good is nuclear power if it creates waste that can't be disposed of safely). "Better" or "worse" are ethical categories that apparently only we humans are capable of, even if we don't deal with them well. All that interests me, I can assure you, is that there is a difference and that, when all is said and done, that difference obligates. We're not meeting, let alone fulfilling, that obligation.

It would seem, then, that we humans are capable of great (and even, good) things, but we don't often give ourselves the extra push to turn potentially damaging ideas and actions into beneficial ones. It would seem to me, then, that we are not inherently "evil" or "bad" or even "sometimes harmful" by nature, rather, given half a chance, we'll take the path of least resistance and when it turns out to be less than optimal, or even desirable, we'll make use of that other human-only characteristic, namely rationalization: we'll use every communicative strategy and ability we've ever acquired to "make clear" why it had to turn out as it did. In other words, it would seem that we're just fundamentally lazy.

Our animal cousins, for better or for worse, but in accordance with their nature, have to find food, eat, and, as any good biologist will tell you, reproduce in order to keep the species going. They really can't just lay back and say, "Screw it, I'm not foraging today, and I'm not copulating next mating season." We can. There are those who do, I know, but they are not nearly as plentiful as our conservative friends would have us believe (and by that I mean all of my friends who are so upset by how good welfare recipients have it while they have to work overly hard for anything and everything they get.) Generally speaking, I would say, that given the slightest option, most human beings will opt for less than more when it comes to expending energy for gain. I'm sure it contributes more often than not to the sad state of the world in which we find ourselves.

In the lower levels of the society (or social economy) we've created for ourselves, this is viewed as parasitical. In the upper echelons of that same society, this is considered evidence of efficiency. When we stop to think about our behavior, we find rather quickly that we all pretty much act the same but some of us are permitted more leeway in judgment than others. This selectivity of perspective becomes a problem as soon as it becomes a public way of thinking (i.e., political). What's good for the goose is never, ever good for the gander, regardless of what the old saying says. And here we start getting closer to the real problem when it comes to so-called "human nature".

Humans have a notion, if not a concept, of "power". Our animal cousins don't. Whoever is the alpha male or female of the group gets there through very, very different rules than whoever becomes an alpha male or female in human groups. Our animal cousins have very grounded, biological, instinctual determinants at play that we humans have transcended quite a long time ago. We like to point to this or that behavior and compare it to this or that behavior of our animal cousins, but the behaviors, due to the motivations underlying them and the psychological, affective, and mental abilities enabling them, in humans are quite a different thing. And this is, in the end, what we need to recognize and acknowledge: humans are simply different from other animals. Yes, we share a lot, up to 98.5% of our DNA and all that goes with that, but there in that 1.5% difference is more challenge than most of our human compatriots are willing to deal with.

The mere fact that we know that we are oppressing/causing pain to/dominating another makes us different. The mere fact that we are aware of the discomfort/pain/anguish we are causing another makes us different. The mere fact that we can conceive of ways of domination that go beyond mere physicality attests to the fact that we are different from our animal cousins. The actual fact that many people choose the non-oppressive, non-painful, empathetic path in their relations with others underscores the fact that we are, in the end, different. We are capable of being different, even if we most often choose not to be, and choose to be, unfortunately, mere animals.

Irrespective of what our materialist compatriots would like to believe, we humans are capable of "more". And since we are capable, it is incumbent upon us to find out precisely what this "more" is and act accordingly. We can't merely fall back on some nebulous notion of "human nature" and maintain that the world is in such bad shape because we can't do any better, or that our "human nature" prevents us from being better than we are. There is a "more" that defines what it means to be human, and it would serve us well to find out just what that is. But, instead of letting it go to our head (as it has in the past) and using this difference to justify all the death, destruction and devastation we've visited upon the planet, maybe, just maybe, it would be worth our while to think about what that difference means in "being human" and rise to that challenge.

I'm convinced that the sooner we start acting (truly) human; that is, in accordance with our potentialities, not our actualities, the world could -- and would -- become a better place. Who knows, maybe it could become a place worth living in.

But, that would take energy and effort, and what lazy sod is going to invest that?

Déjà vu, all over again (or Thanks for the memory, Yogi)

Most of you don't know who Yogi Berra is, and that's OK. He was a part of my childhood. Every kid who grew up in America during my time, grew up with baseball. I was never a big fan, but there are times I still think of hot, muggy, summer nights at the ball park. That's a memory worth preserving ... but that's a subject for another time.

Anyhow, the title of this blog is one of Yogi's famous lines. A lot of people thought he was a little slow, but still a nice guy. I think he was a little ahead of the rest of us, and still a nice guy. I wonder if it matters which it was. I doubt it.

You know, it's weird when you get that déjà vu feeling. We've all had them, that's for sure. Usually, they sneak up on you when you least expect it, and suddenly you're overwhelmed by that feeling that you've been here before and done this before, and heard these exact words before ... it's like reality gets into a strange kind of time loop. It scares some folks, or so I've been told, but I've always found those situations exhilarating somehow. Well, I did, that is, until I realized my whole life is turning into one big déjà vu.

Just recently, an old internet-who-stepped-out-into-real-life friend stopped by for a visit. Since I'm back to where I started when Uncle Sam sent me overseas during my dodging-the-war-in-Vietnam days. Through more twists-of-fate than most people are allowed, I ended up doing liaison on the German-German border. I was sitting there in the Fulda Gap just waiting for "the balloon to go up" marking the onslaught of the savage Russian hordes who were just chomping at the bit a mere five miles as the crow flies from where I called home.

Yep, that was me at the End of the (so-called) Free World, keeping the world safe for democracy, ensuring that you could all sleep well at night. I was there. I did that. And, to this day, I wonder what I was doing.

We all knew the drill back then: when those Russian missiles full of nuclear warheads were screaming in to kill us, well, just hide under your desk at school and then, once the big dust cleared, walk quickly (don't run) home, and take a buddy with you, someone who would have had to take a bus to get to his or her own home. It didn't matter if you liked them or not. The fate of the world was at stake, and everybody has to do his part, you know.

And then, well, there I was, staring Ivan and his evil cohorts in the face, just wondering when they were going to take advantage of the slightest lapse in our vigilance and come thundering over the border with their thousands of tanks. They were just salivating, waiting for the order to attack ... at least that what was I was told. I spent a lot of time out on that border, I can assure you, and not once did I see a bit being chomped nor anyone salivating. I did see a lot of sad-sacks like myself being forced to pull duty somewhere they never thought they'd be. And every once in a while, one of them would escape and we'd have to debrief them, and well, their lives weren't going all that well and they were looking for something better, so they risked life and limb to go for it. I wanted something better too, but in comparison I was too much of a coward to risk life and limb for it. I just wasn't getting that life-and-limb thing.

Ivan wasn't coming, not if he could help it. And neither was Klaus or Dieter or Hans or whatever their parents had named them. They were sitting out their duty and the end of their world just hoping that Paul Bunyan wasn't going to get frisky, like I was hoping that none of them were getting the itch to conquer either. Turns out, they weren't. Little foot soldiers like we were (and that we had 100% in common) don't want to conquer anything. We'd rather be at home, or with our friends, or having a beer, or looking for a date, or just avoiding hassle. Anything would have been better than what we were doing, but we were under orders. Big brains somewhere knew a whole lot better than we did what was good for us.

Well, that's what they wanted us to believe, but I didn't believe it then ... and from what I was able to gather, neither did Ivan, nor Klaus, nor Dieter, nor Hans. To quote my idol, Bob, we were "Only a Pawn in Their Game".

That Cold-War thing was a big deal. A lot of people invested a lot of time, energy, and other resources, not to mention money in keeping that illusion going, to get us to buy into the fear and uncertainty, to get us to live in abject fear of total annihilation, so that other people, most definitely unrelated to any of us normal mortals, could gain a helluva lot of power and make one whole helluva lot of money. Down here, on the ground, there were millions of ignorant, exploited, drones who were working their butts off in hopes of a better life while up there, in ephemeral spheres, a small number of spoiled elites were ensuring that we drones kept our noses to the grindstone so that their lives which were immeasurably better already could be even more immeasurably better, or something like that.

One thing I know for sure: none of it had anything to do with freedom, democracy, the will of a people, or any of those high-falutin' ideals we get beaten about our heads and shoulders. Ideals are just a red herring. In the end, it's mostly about money and power, but not for those who don't have it, rather for those who do (and they always want more).

So, I took my friend out to Point Alpha, the Cold-War Memorial site nearby, where they still have an actual compound that was used by the troops on the border and where you can see in real life what lengths both sides went to in order to keep alive that illusion that something great was at stake.

For my part, it was, and is, nice to be able to share a part of my life with another human being. I like taking people out to the border so that they can see the physicalities of what was going on back then. There is a little museum out there as well, so you can see pictures and artifacts and models and listen to real-life testimonies of people who experienced all that, back then, when the world was clearly divided into black and white, us and them, friend and foe. And while you're walking around, telling your friend what you were doing then and how and why, you suddenly realize that it's over 40 years later and at bottom, not a damn thing has changed at all.

Suddenly, you're overwhelmed: it's déjà vu all over again.

Again, the old heroes push their way into your head. Dylan, a classic if there ever was one, "With God on our Side", near the end, sings:

I've learned to hate the Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side

What the hell are we doing? NATO's piling in as many troops around Russia as is possible, though there is no (just like there wasn't then) any clear, reasonable indication that Russia wants anything more than to be left alone ... or be given a seat at the table, but apparently we'll be having none of that. The USA alone has more than 1,000 military bases overseas, and apparently it's not enough. And they've got themselves trying to stare down the Chinese in the South China Sea, and just what they're doing in and around Syria is anybody's guess, but one thing is for sure: the Russians aren't going to have any say in anything if Uncle Sam has anything to say about it.

And there I was: staring at the fence, trying to formulate a coherent thought, and it had slithered its way, unseen and unsuspected, into my ill-prepared consciousness: not a damn thing has changed no matter how much water has flown under the bridge of history.

None of this inspires confidence in my view of human beings and their ability to learn. None of this comforts me when I have trouble sleeping at night. There aren't any facts involved now, just like there weren't any then. It serves some interests to have this full-blown, heavily armed, and propaganda-rich animosity towards the Russians so the long-gone, almost-forgotten, Cold War has been heated up again. What's for dinner tonight, dear? Left-overs.

Things were, in many regards, simpler in Yogi's days. But, truth be told, they weren't much different. That's kind of sad, when you stop to think about it.

Think about it.

Just a brief message of truth

We're constantly overwhelmed with so much noise; so to avoid the overload, I'll keep it short:

The world cannot change until you -- yes, you -- change.

Some things are that simple.

EOM

The illusion of illusion, or go kick a stone

The Vedas inform us that all that is around us is maya, illusion, if you will. That's a huge pill for many to swallow. We resort to Dr. Johnson's infamous refutation of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy -- the first argumentum ad lapidem -- in which he kicked a rather large stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus." That has settled the case for most of us, I suppose for the ensuing almost 300 years. But maybe it really hasn't resolved the issue at all.

For adherents of that latter-day religion known as Materialism, it absolutely conclusive, but like the zealous adherents of most religions, it is easier to ignore what doesn't fit into one's belief system than it is to accept what challenges it. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. What's worse, even within that unrepresentative 5%, modern physics has shown us that atoms are not all that solid and consist mostly of empty space. Yes, there are explanations for the solidity, but they are, at the moment, our best guesses as to how things work. And that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with best guesses as long as we don't forget that's what they are: guesses. Too often, though, we simply forget, or we convince ourselves that what we experience as reality is reality as it really is. On the one hand, that helps get us through the day without major inconveniences and injuries, but on the other hand, it gets in the way as soon as we have no more stones to kick. At least this is the case with our experience of natural phenomena. Our experience of reality, in other words, works just fine and it only becomes problematic when we think that our experience is the only valid experience. Quite often it is not only helpful, but illuminating, to seriously exchange experiences with others. More often than not, we end up realizing that we have more in common than separates us.

What works for natural phenomena becomes more difficult when we're dealing with human phenomena; that is things that people do and say. Just this morning I read that Trump's newly fired campaign manager laundered his ill-gotten (or not properly reported) gains through a Washington lobbying firm with close ties to Clinton. And though underreported at the time, it is now fairly clear that Trump and Bill Clinton had a nice chat very shortly before the Donald decided to make his presidential bid. It would seem there's more empty space in a hydrogen atom than there is between the two separate parties vying for the world's allegedly most powerful office. The dismay I expressed a couple weeks ago seems somehow justified.

This isn't the only example of things not really being the way we are led to believe they are. In fact, it would seem that most of what we're being told, at least on mainstream and quasi-mainstream media is less news than it is ... well, for lack of a better word, propaganda. Personally, I'm not at all pleased with this development, and I'll be the first to admit that trying to find "real" news, or the "true" story (by which I mean the one that simply corresponds most completely to all known facts, or sometimes even "fairly reliable news" or an "insightful" story demands more time, energy, and effort than most of us can reasonably be expected to expend. It shouldn't have to be so hard to figure out life in this day and age, even if most of what I'm forced to hear about day in and day out is rather far-removed from my everyday reality.

The above is simply an example. I'm not condoning nor condemning. I'm convinced that everyone involved in every single aspect of this latest political mess believed that they were doing what needed to be done and that they believed their reasons were both reasonable and worthwhile. Once you take a step back from it all, however, it all looks pretty sleazy and messy, and, ultimately, extraordinarily dangerous and deadly, but I'm not convinced there's a secret cabal (the notoriously infamous "they") who are out to get us. By the same token, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Clinton and Trump have much more in common with each other than either (or both) of them have with me, and I don't think it would difficult to make the case that their interests are very different from mine.

Now, don't get me wrong: it's not that I think that either of them, or any of those inside our outside the spotlight of political activity is reasonable or even respectable. I have -- for as long as I can remember -- had an intense suspicion of anyone who maintained, directly or indirectly, that s/he knew better what was good for me than I did myself. Those who on occasion did -- my parents, for example -- just didn't tell me that they knew, they demonstrated that knowledge, they kicked stones. And so, now in my old age, if you're just telling me, not showing me, well, then you're just spouting hot air, and I needed take that too seriously, unless you're spewing so much of it that it's contributing to global warming and then I'm forced to get involved.

Who knows, perhaps some of those humanitarian interventions we hear about all the time aren't really so humanitarian after all? Could it be that national and foreign policies are more often driven by desire for profit than a desire to help? Is it possible that some of that providing support for democratic forces elsewhere is a mere distraction from the destruction of democratic inclinations at home? Could it be that most of what we're being told simply doesn't square with most of what is actually being done? I have a rapidly growing suspicion that there is increasing disconnect between words and deeds ... not just in America, not just in Germany, not just in the corporate world, but everywhere I turn. There is a whole lot of illusion out there, that's for sure. It could even be that when we're dealing with human phenomena, illusion is the best we can hope for. I don't necessarily want to think that, and I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, and one thing is certain: that's not necessarily a comforting thought.

And so, once again, I find myself in a situation in which, like I argued a few posts ago, you just have to let go. When dealing with human phenomena, it could very well be that taking the old adage, actions speak louder than words, seriously may be the human equivalent of kicking stones. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to turn off the TV. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to put down that newsprint bludgeon you like to beat others over the head with. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to just let the yappers go on yapping and the screamers go on screaming. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a closer look at what the yappers and screamers are doing, and not just listen to what they're saying.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a deep breath and a step back from all of that and allow a little common sense and actual experience back into your life. Kick a few stones, or maybe, just maybe, start thinking for yourself.

Religion's not the problem, zealotry is

As I said the last time, human beings are neither inherently good nor evil, and the world is in the shape it is because we have allowed it to be as it is. We have a say in how the world is. We don't take our own voice seriously, and more often than not, we believe things to be a certain way, when maybe they're not that way at all.

Our debate on terrorism, to take but one example, has turned into one of religious bigotry, and as is so often the case, those screaming the loudest know least about why they're screaming. We humans like to think we know a lot of things, but in the end, we know very little. We believe much more than we know and when we believe long and hard enough, we make religions out of things when and where we least expect it.

Sometimes it's more than worth the effort to stop believing for a moment, to take a step back and think, but even more importantly, reflect on why you think the world is a particular way. Serious reflection never hurt anybody.

Religion, believe it or not, is a good example, because it is the one subject the world over that you're never supposed to talk about in polite company. Why? Because it is very fundamental to how we understand the world to be, whether we are aware of what we believe or not. There's an old saying, "Feelings tell us what to think." And what we believe most often drives what we feel.

Since I'm going to be using the world "religion" a lot in this post, I think it only fair that you know what I mean when I use the term. Now, you can think what you want about Wikipedia, but given that I'm looking for a fitting description, not an authoritative statement, I think it's perfectly legitimate to draw on it in this case. The first paragraph on the relevant page reads:

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organization that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the "divine",[2] "sacred things",[3] "faith",[4] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings"[5] or "... some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."[6]

The key is that religion is "designed", if you will, to help us understand why things are the way they are and why life is the way it is. The "system" side of it includes behaviors, practices, special texts, and societal organizations, among others, though we can agree that these are probably the most important aspects overall.

The nice thing about having such a comprehensive description is that you can apply it to any number of observed phenomena and ask yourself whether what you're dealing with could be considered, in this case, a religion or not. The results can be quite surprising.

Let's take something that's on a lot of people's minds these days: capitalism. Is it just a economic theory, or has it become more than that? Let's see:

It is certainly a "cultural system" (we love to distinguish us from them in terms of it). There are definite behaviors associated with it, such as reducing discussions to economic terms, making money the basis of all valuation, consumerism; and practices, e.g., speculation, stock-market activity, and marketing/advertising; and world views, for example, there is no such thing as society (cf. Thatcher on this one), or simply, there is no alternative. It has sacred texts: Smith's Wealth of Nations is comparable to the Old Testament; Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, perhaps the New, if we compare it to Christianity. It has special, particularly revered places like Wall Street, the City (in London), and Frankfurt. It has a notion of divinity (the Almighty Dollar), sacred things (stocks, speculative instruments of all kinds not meant for the masses), and while it is silent on the topic of supernatural beings, it does like to think its principles describe the natural order of things. It most certainly, as attested to by its most ardent devotees, a "sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life". Capitalism has become, for all intents and purposes, a driving basis for all our lives.

Oh sure, there are branches and denominations here as elsewhere: different central banks can be seen analogously to the Papal See or prime archdioceses. Stock exchanges and bank headquarters take on the role of temples and churches, and stock-holder meetings rival the spectacle of old-time big-tent evangelists. I don't think it's all that far-fetched to maintain that capitalism has become a religion for many people, and probably more people than are willing to admit to it. That doesn't change the reality of the situation.

The things believed in are not any more substantial or "real", to use the everyday word to describe them, than anything any of the major religions have to offer. Buddhism has no supreme being and neither does capitalism.

The similarities go on: all major religions have "founders"; that is personages, mostly historically verified, to whom believers trace their roots, even though those individuals themselves are not adherents to the faith (i.e., Moses wasn't a Jew; Christ wasn't a Christian; Mohammed wasn't a Muslim, Buddha wasn't a Buddhist). And they have a variety of special figures (often termed "holy", though the Hebrew root of this word, QDSh, means, more or less, "set apart") who may be considered minor prophets, saints, or mere holy persons, like Smith (whom we mentioned), Ricardo, Malthus, Say, Marx (comparable to Lucifer elsewhere), Hayek, von Mises, and others. These are "authorities" in the ecclesiastical sense, not just in the literal sense, of the word. Depending on the flavor of your own belief they carry more or less authority of course.

I think I've made my point: We can think of capitalism as a religion. It is possible to frame the discussion such that we can expand our religiously based discussion of "terrorism" in a very unexpected direction, and one that would not be all that absurd. But, that's not where I want to go with this, nor is that where I need to go.

Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Capitalism ... in and of themselves, they just are. They are a set of beliefs, worldviews and practices, etc. that attempt to help us make sense of our lives and the world around us. They are -- and here I'll put it in very mundane, secular terms -- explanatory models of reality.

What is so fascinating about thought experiments like this one is that the deeper you delve, the more fascinating it all becomes. As long as I don't come up with the crazy idea that my way of believing and seeing the world is the only valid way of believing and seeing the world, we don't have a problem. All of these ways are seen for what they are: ways of believing and seeing the world, and in that moment, I can not only recognize and acknowledge that other way of believing and seeing, I have the wonderful opportunity to learn from that different perspective.

Unfortunately, that's not how we seem to function as human beings. Once we find a way that makes sense to us, we start thinking that this is the only valid way of seeing things, of understanding things. That step to exclusivity, to "only my way" is what utterly dumbfounds me. The borderline between a believer and a zealot is a very thin one, to be sure, and what I see is an increasing number of zealots. I think we need to be a bit more careful with our beliefs. Granted, someone who benefits -- or who believes they benefit -- from a particular way of seeing will be inclined to favor that view, but the fear that they have that perhaps taking another view would disadvantage them in some way can only be accepted if one plays through the possible scenarios in order to find out if the fear is justified. That, of course, takes time, energy, and effort, and who is really willing to sacrifice much of any of those these days.

It's not that ignoring them and falling back into one's own belief of correctness can't be accomplished without expending lots of time, energy, and effort. It's hard work defending one's views against others. Unless, that is, you happen to align yourself with a large group of other folks who have bought into the same exclusivity that you have. And that's where we are today. And, when push comes to shove -- and that's unfortunately what happens all to often: we start literally pushing and shoving ... then injuring ... then killing -- we pull out the miserable old might-makes-right stand-by, and things simply go downhill.

My point is that what we appear to be doing is driving the Devil out with Beelzebub. I purposely chose this particular approach via religion because it is religion that appears to be doing most of the driving of our thinking, and I think we're leaving a major player out of the game. In the end, we believe. We don't know, we can't prove, but we've been given the ability to think. I'd like to think we'll start using that ability more not less. And that starts when we become more reasonable, not zealous. My example with capitalism was to show that the frameworks and categories that we simply take for granted can be used to find meaningful avenues of discussion and exchange with others.

For the most part I can't help but think that we're all looking for the same things but have chosen very different words to describe them. Maybe the words aren't what really matters. Think about it.

If you can't take any more, maybe it's because you can't let go

The world's is sad shape. I mean that literally. I don't know how anyone can look out into the world and not be sad at what is happening, what's not happening, what's being said and how it's being said, and at how helpless all of that makes us feel. If you think you've got things under control, you're not paying attention to anything but yourself. But life's not about you, yourself, or what you personally think is right, wrong or indifferent.

Not being an ardent, only an interested, student of history, I can't say for sure, but the indications are strong -- very strong -- that we human beings haven't managed to learn very much in the course of our collective sojourn on this planet. For lack of a better number, let us say 100,000 years of hominoid and human history, most undocumented of course, and there's no real evidence that we're any better off inside that our forebears.

Oh sure, we've developed lots and lots of techologies and gadgets that were supposed to have made our lives easier, and while we now live statistically longer than our ancestors, there's no real signs that we're living better. We've simply traded physical ailments for mental and psychic ones. We've made it possible for our bodies to survive for a surprisingly long time, but we're not happier about it or doing it.

Take a moment and be honest with yourself: you're in the privileged position of being able to read this post. Thousands of years of hard work and sacrifice ... millions of deaths and lots of privation ... went into to making it possible for you to be able to do so. And ... ? Aside from the other car in the garage or the last bank statement or the country-club membership, are you truly satisfied with your life and the lives of those close to you, or you just living as if you were. You're completely and utterly content with the state of your own being and that of the world in which you find yourself? If so, then why are you reading this?

Anyone who looks into this blog a couple of times and all of you who peek in more often than not know unequivocally that I am not. The country into which I was unexpectedly and accidentally born has mutated into something that I cannot recognize anymore. The country which I have chosen to be my home is becoming colder, harder, more ruthless and irrationally violent than I would have hoped. The world in which I one day woke up has become a plundered and polluted environment that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy (if I had one), let alone upon my grandchildren for whom I'd sacrifice everything I have if I knew they'd suffer even one second less. But, I know as well, my sacrifice would be like every sacrifice ever made: in vain. Because we refuse to recognized, let alone acknowledge, that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- has to be the way it is. Things are as they are, not because we have made them that way ... we didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, let's see if we can't screw up our world beyond all recognition." ... rather because we have let them become that way because we just didn't know what else to do.

In contrast to what I'm pretty sure most people believe, I do not believe that human beings are inherently evil. By the same token, I also do not believe that human beings are inherently good. What I do know -- or, perhaps more cautiously stated, believe -- is that human beings simply are.

There are lots of things that simply are: the whole universe and everything in it. It's just there. We didn't put it there. We didn't make up the rules and laws that govern how things happen there. It's just there. We don't even have to want to explore the Mystery of Creation or want to have an answer to the big-W question, "Why?", to agree that whatever is is, and that's all we have to deal with. We human beings are simply a part of that. It doesn't matter whether we believe some omnipotent being put us here or whether we're the product of some alien intelligence gone wrong (or right) or whether there even is some omnipotent being or just blind randomness. It doesn't matter for the simple reason that we're here and we have to deal with whatever it is we are confronted with. We, as a species, but particularly as individuals, know deep in our hearts that we're here and somehow someway we have to come to terms with that. Do we really think that any more than that is essential for our well-being?

Maybe. There are many of us who are always on the lookout for that "more", whatever it may be. It's simply hard to believe that this physical mess, with all its shortcomings, deprivations, pain snd suffering is "all there is". I have a body, which I can see, and a whole lot of wonderful (and awful) sensations that I can feel, and that makes me wonder about those who want to tell me that the physical (what I can access through my five senses) is all there is to Life. That's not enough. It comes up too short. There is so much more that moves me (sorrow, joy, hope, that feeling you get when you actually experience a sunrise or sunset or holding the hand of a person who dies) that I can't help but feel that my materialist friends and their simple chemical reactions in my brain and neuron-synapse firings can't really get into the game at all. I understand them, I think, but I don't know why I would want to live in a world that devoid of meaning.

But when I get on Facebook, for example, I'm suddenly confronted with diehard materialist who still find beauty in a work of art, exhilaration at a new experience, despair when a loved one departs and anger when they see injustice being committed. I don't know why they have (or better, acknowledge) those feelings (or maybe they're only pretending they do), but I'm nevertheless glad that they have them and share them. There's a lot wrong with social media, don't get me wrong, but sharing with others isn't one of them.

The point is really this: regardless of whether they are materialists, anti-religionists, born-again hopers, political activists, politically interested by-standers, environmentalists, free-market apologists, spiritual seekers, anarchists, democratic idealists, Realpolitik-realists, traditionalists, conservatives, liberals, militaristic-go-getters; pacifists, in the end, it just doesn't matter at all. All of them, regardless of where they're "coming from", generally believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. They're not satisfied with things "as they are" and they all share the same belief that regardless of how things are, it's not the way they have to be.

I'll be honest, right up front: that amazes me to no end. If I had sleepless nights, that would cause them: how can it be that so many people from so many different perspectives, imbued in so many different "philosophies", "blinded" by so many different belief systems and religions all come to the same conclusion: the world as we experience it is anything but the best possible world (to corruptingly paraphrase Leibnitz)? Shouldn't that give us pause to reflect? I think, "yes", but apparently much of the world doesn't think so at all.

OK, some people aren't reflecting because they think they have all the answers and if the rest of us would just let them have their way, we'd all be "saved" or at least have some kind of utopia on earth. Bzzzzzz! Wrong answer. We'd just have their limited, individual bullshit to put up with. None of us individually has T-H-E answer. We may have a contribution to the answer, but it's not all of the answer. The answer, whatever it may be, is bigger than all of us.

None of us -- neither you, dear reader, nor I -- is going to save the world. It may just be that the world, as we know it, does not need saving. It's not in good shape, that's for sure; it's in sad shape, as all of us know; but it may not be doomed.

It could also be that we don't need a strong leader, a long-lost messiah, a forgotten prophet or a supergenius to get us out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Did it ever occur to you that if you -- yes, just you ... little, old insignificant you -- started acting like you mattered (at least in the immediate world in which you find yourself) that the world at large might become a different world altogether? I believe it would.

Most of us are fed up with "the world as it is", but it is that way because we make it that way. If we act differently, no matter how insignificantly, the cumulative effect would be unignorable. We don't act differently because we think that however the world is is simply beyond our control. It is. But, it is not beyond our influence. We can change the world, truly, but we have to change ourselves.

I'm not asking you to become a different person overnight. That would be ludicrous, even if it were possible. I'm not even asking you to change your mind or way of thinking, though that would induce a change that may be hard to take. All I'm asking is for you to do is simply "let go" ... of all the ballast, the opinions, the solutions, the leaders, the parties, the programs, the whatever that you thought might make a difference. None of it will. The world will change -- and for the better, I can assure you -- when you finally start acting in a way that you know is right: listen, sympathize, and have compassion for others: first in your immediate environment, and slowly, but surely, in an ever-expanding circle of immediateness.

Just let go of what you think is right, and act as if you knew what right is.

My fellow Americans, 'tis with heavy heart ...

As my old friend Julius C. used to say, "alea iacta". For those of you who don't know Julius, "the die has been cast". The stage has been set for the 2016 US presidential showdown. It's all over but the shouting; that is, all the shouting can now begin.

Maybe it was having the measles in 1956 and suffering through the disease as well as the only thing on TV -- the Republican National Convention -- that put me off (TV for one, but presidential elections for another), or the mere fact that it really doesn't matter who runs or who is elected in the end -- let's face it, nothing really changes -- at least not for the better, but for whatever reason it was, in the end, I'm not excited about this year at all, maybe even less excited than usual.

Growing up I went through the same indoctrination as everyone else, but I couldn't get all excited about it. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense. All that talk about democracy and democratic processes, well, it just never really jibed with what I saw all around me. Theory is one thing, experience is another. To reconcile these inconsistencies, I told myself that one was the ideal, the other simply the reality that we were working on to eventually come up to the ideal. It didn't take all that long to realize that there wasn't a whole lot of working-on-the-reality going on. There are too strong interests in the status quo that were, and are, willing to let the little matter of democratic ideals get in the way.

Back in those measly days, the Republicans came across as liberals (fiscal responsibility, high taxes, support for Social Security and unions, etc.) and the Democrats looked like they couldn't get their act together (Jim Crow South, voter suppression, but support for social programs and a desire for some kind, maybe any kind, of change). Remember, this was prior to the long overdue Civil Rights Movement and the first shift, in my lifetime, of the political center in America. In many regards, it looks like the parties have switched places since then, but that's not all that surprising. We know that in everyday language words can exchange meanings (e.g., for 250 years or so, "awful" meant what "awesome" means and vice versa), but in the active world of reality in which we live, this could simply be a matter of becoming what you hate.

But none of that's important, really. The problems that were known then -- gerrymandering, excessively restrictive voting legislation, too much money in politics, the Electoral College, etc. -- are still with us today. That's half-a-century of awareness of very specific and very specifically undemocratic issues, and not a single one of them has been changed for the better. Oh sure, every now and then something cosmetic has been done, but nothing of substance. And, in some regards, the situation has gotten even worse. After all, we knew in which direction change-for-the-better lay, but that wasn't the direction in which we moved. And it's not as if it would be difficult to really change any of these things:

• a simple law outlawing gerrymandering could be passed
• another law designating a simple formula for determining representation (in the House of Representatives, for example), like "1 representative for every 500,000 people" and requiring fairer districting to reflect that could be implemented
• ending voter-registration requirements; attaining a certain age automatically gives you the right to vote

But none of that ever really comes up for discussion and I haven't heard anybody actually clamoring for that public discussion either (though you can find one neatly tucked away in innocuous corners of the internet). Granted, the Electoral College -- an institution that has certainly outlived its age, but certainly not its intent -- would be more difficult to tackle, needing a constitutional amendment and all (and we all know how idolatrously sacrosanct American holds its constitution), but that money-in-politics thing got changed the most: the US has shown -- and judicially upheld -- that certain forms of bribery are not only legal, but encouraged. How much more undemocratic can you get? Of course, most Americans don't get it, and are so caught up in their self-adoration that they don't even realize that most of the rest of the world has long caught on: America is really good at saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes I think they're trying to turn it into an art form. But it isn't and it's not going to become one.

It's not that people aren't thinking about how the system could be improved, or that it's all too difficult to understand the fundamental shortcomings of a two-party system But the system America has is the system an elite 200+ years ago wanted in order to keep "the people" in their place, so naturally, it's the system that the current elite are simply loathe to change. Why should they? It works very much in their favor. For example,

• 75% of Americans want terms limits for Congress, but there are none.
• 63% of Americans want to get rid of the Electoral College, but they've still got it.
• 58% of Americans want federally funded healthcare for all, but they've only got a system most of them don't want anyway.
• The vast majority of Americans support some kind of enhanced background checks for buying guns, but are they going to get any? You know the answer.

Let's face it, what the people want in America is hardly the issue. Any substantial, visible change has to go through Congress and it's obvious that Congress isn't about to do anything but work for its owners. The people just don't count. They're there for the show, and a show is what we're all about to get, once the real campaigns are launched. It may just be the worst show to be staged thus far.

In the midst of a system that is as overtly corrupt and undemocratic as this one, we also have a certain mentality at work that gives me pause to wonder. It is in presidential election times that one gets to hear the truly bizarre. America is the only modern, allegedly democratic nation in which the phrase "a wasted vote" makes any sense. The very phrase oozes with undemocratic sentiment, but it is thrown about and used as if it were somehow meaningful. The mere concept should be enough to make all our hair stand on end, yet in America it somehow does make some sort of distorted sense: in a consciously designed and implemented two-party system, third parties are per definitionem outside the system; they don't count ... and they never counted, and as long as the system remains as it is, they never will count.

(As an aside: Bernie never stood a chance. Had he not tried to elbow his way into the Democratic Party, he wouldn't have gotten even the minimal media coverage that he got. Don't believe me? Ask Jill Smith or Gary Johnson. Now that we know he never stood a chance in the Democratic Party, what option did Bernie really have? First past the post wins, and that's that. Now his still recalcitrant supporters who know they have been more or less blocked out of the system are being harangued not to waste their votes in this oh, so important "historical" election. Go figure.)

In the end, though, because of the way in which the system has been set up and in light of the fact that for as democratically inclined most Americans like to think themselves, barely more than half of the voting-age population ever makes it out to cast a vote for their delegate to the Electoral College anyway (which I don't take as a sign of a particularly healthy democratic mindset). And when we consider that traditionally, around 4% of these will waste their votes on a hopeless cause, and that, at least in the last 10 elections the winner has garnered on average around a mere 51% of the vote, we have the, allegedly, most powerful person in the world being elected by about 25-27% of the US voting-age population. That, my fellow Americans, is minority rule. It takes a vivid and creative imagination to spin that into an exemplary model of democracy.

This is, however, how a two-party systems works (and how it was always intended to work). Moreover, the most fundamental assumption underlying the system, the one that should, at least in principle, make it acceptable or at least remotely viable, is that whoever is running is worth voting for in the first place. There was a time -- in my measly and post-measles days -- when I thought for a moment that such elections were about positions and policies. We're all allowed to be naive in our youth. In the meantime, as this latest presidential primary circus has shown, positions and policies apparently don't matter at all. The whole affair has degenerated into little more than a popularity contest. One party has no real policies and positions at all, just a lot of hate and fear, and the other has some, but they're the same, old same-old, regardless of how "progressive" the internal opposition was in the run-up to the nomination. I find it exceedingly interesting that there's more talk now about unity and togetherness than there is about anything substantial. Trump is being sold as anti-establishment, though he's anything but anti-elite; Clinton is being sold as a rallying point, because she's established in the elite. Somehow I'm still missing "the people" in this alleged democratic adventure.

What is more, one has to search far and wide to find actual engagement with and analysis of the Democratic Party platform, for more than anything, this election is already being pitched as "historic" because a woman is running (though not alone, nor for the first time, but it just so happens for one of the only two parties that count). Already we are being encouraged, in particular women are being encouraged, to vote for the woman, merely because she's a woman. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a particularly weak political argument, and there's nothing democratic about it. There's a lot at stake in this election, that much I will concede, and that's all the more reason in my mind to think really hard about if you're going to vote; if you are, how you're going to vote; and most definitely what you are actually voting for. The spin-wheels are already squealing that anything is better than Trump, but not why it is that only Clinton is that "anything".

And so, my fellow Americans, he we are, a decade-and-a-half into the 21st century and we're about to witness what promises to be one of the most unreasonable, dirty, hateful, mean, confrontational and potentially violent presidential election cycle ever. Oh, how far we have come. Oh, how rich and reasoned is our understanding of democracy and the democratic process. Oh, how proud we must be. This, my fellow Americans, is apparently the best we can do.

Though disappointed in my measly days, along the way I had hoped that we would learn and grow, just as all my adult guides expected of me. In my youthful naivite, I thought that's how the world worked. It doesn't. Learning, apparently, is what others are supposed to do. Still, I'm older now, just a little bit smarter in spite of it all, but not necessarily wiser. What I have seen this year will certainly be more than enough for the next four years, to be sure. I shudder when I think of the short-term. I'm concerned deeply for all our futures.

What I have seen that pains me most though is that we have apparently, been forced into submission to a "system" which has come to exhibit and represent all that it was meant to overcome.

My fellow Americans, thanks for the extra load of crap

It's not like I have nothing to do, nor that there aren't things I'd rather be doing. But, I'm not getting to them, because I have to spend way too much times "explaining" things that can't really be explained.

This week, the allegedly impossible happened: Trump was nominated by the Republican Party as their candidate for president. It's their good right. In contrast to lots of people I know, I'm all for democracy, even though I also know that it means you may get more than you bargained for or that you end up places you never wanted to be. I can live with that, but I don't want to have to live with trying to explain how things like this can happen ... in supposedly the most advanced country on earth ... in allegedly the greatest country the world has ever known ... in purportedly the zenith of Western culture.

My fellow Americans, you know and I know, even if the rest of the world hasn't caught on yet, that there is a massive disconnect between the marketing of a product and the actual product itself. After all, we grow up with exaggerated claims about everything. It's part and parcel of being American. The Greeks may have invented the word "hyperbole", but we filled it with life, everyday life. America is -- let's face it -- non-stop hyperbole.

It's hard to get that if you're not American. It's hard to understand that what is said has little resemblance to the reality it's supposed to describe and that what's shouted at the world shouldn't be taken all that seriously, for the most part. Words mean little in America. We're born pragmatists. It's in our blood: it's not what we say that makes a difference, it's what we do, and when you look at what America has been doing to the world since the last big war, well, you realize there's a reality there that lots of other peoples are having trouble living with. But that's a subject for another day.

Let's face it: the Donald -- the very moniker gives it all away -- is not presidential, and his wife isn't very first-lady-like at all. Oh, I'm not saying anyone else in the eventual race is cutting better figures here, far from it. You just have to realize that cute charm has worn off the American facade. Melania should have done her homework. I know students who almost lost their degrees for less plagiarism than she aired in her very short speech. In today's world of intellectual property, stealing others' words has become a mortal sin. Feigning ignorance, sloughing it off as cavalier, allowing for that much sloppiness at such a critical juncture is, well, inexplicable at best, but trust-eradicating at worst. Why do Americans expect so little of those who are going to represent them to the rest of the world?

And yes, the Donald ... sorry, I got side-tracked ... he's everything we imagine a leader of the free world is not. (OK, he's now got a Boris Johnson from that other wannabe empire flitting through the world distracting attention from serious issues, but that too is another story for another day). He is unstatesmanlike, vitriolic, incoherent, uninformed, and ignorant of history; he is unaware of his own effect on others, easily manipulated, insensitive to others, and of questionable ethics and beliefs. Yes, yes, I know that even the most seasoned politician can be any of these things on a bad day, but this is Trump on his good days. I used to think it was cute and somewhat funny when people made jokes about a senile Reagan getting to close to the nuclear button, but I have to tell you, I'm not the only one in my personal environment who is worried about Mr. I-don't-have-to-think-anything-through-because-I'm-great having such serious access.

You know, and I know, and I've said as much before, you don't live in much of a democracy, but given the wide range of more-than-life-threatening issues on the table, it is really not too much to expect that you'd at least offer someone up for office who gives you the impression he could be taken seriously. Too many of my Trump-supporting Facebook friends are tying to push his "outsider honesty", but a billionaire is never an outsider to elites and having no tact is not the same as being honest. There are too many Americans who simply don't know the difference, and this is the behavior we have come to expect from pubescing adolescents, but not from office holders whom we are supposed to be taking seriously and whose words and actions can cause major upheavals in financial markets or peace negotiations.

A lot of people I know once did -- and still want to -- have a high opinion of America, but between the apparent increase in good old police brutality, the lost-the-plot gun stuff being reported, the obvious über-aggression of US-led NATO, and now the Trump spectacle, it's getting harder and harder to explain to them why they should be taking American seriously. I certainly can't explain it to them, even if I wanted to, because my own head wags and my own jaw drops on a regular basis, but apparently Mr. Trump is what some people envision as the "most powerful person on earth". I get shivers.

Now, I'm fully aware that the other half of the gruesome twosome to be running for office in America has yet to be officially nominated. It's a done deal, though, we all know that. And no one should think it is any easier explaining Hillary to my fellow, questioning-asking German citizens. Yes, they know she's Bill's wife, they know she held political office, they know she was Secretary of State, but it's not like she left a lasting impression on anyone around here. Well, maybe on the politically elite, but I'm talking about everyday people with every problems who have an everyday understanding of international politics. But they know what Wall Street is, and they know what Goldman-Sachs is and they who has close ties to big money and who doesn't and, well, that just raises a whole lot of other questions that, to be quite frank, I have little desire to try and explain, even if I had a coherent explanation to offer.

No, my fellow Americans, you have and you are about to make my life much more difficult than it need be. I can't explain how Americans think, because I'm not convinced myself that a whole lot of thinking is going on over there, at least politically. I don't understand the gun fetish, even if there is an alleged constitutional amendment supporting it. I don't get the massive police violence that we're seeing on the news so often. I don't understand the too numerous killings of unarmed civilians. I don't understand how corrupt and manipulated allegedly democratic processes have become, be they the passing of simple legislation, the refusal to nominate a supreme-court justice, or the curtailing of voting rights, or the circuses you call the primaries. I don't get any of that, and neither do my German friends and neighbors, but I can't explain it to them either.

Personally, I have no vested interest in who you decide to have run or who you decide to field as presidential candidates. One thing I do understand, though, is something I can't explain to them anyway, namely it really doesn't matter in the end who is finally elected president in America: nothing is going to change anyway. Not only do Americans not elect its own president, as the primaries showed this time around, they really have nothing to say about who ends up being candidate. But it doesn't matter in the end. Yes, we all like to act like and think that the President of the United States has something to say, but other than little decisions, like who gets X'd off the kill list or which tie to wear to the press conference, the real decisions, such as whether there's a drone-kill list at all, are made by others. What everyone here knows and has no trouble saying is how badly money has corrupted America's political system, and my only real recourse is to affirm that they're right: America is not politically driven, it is money driven. If the right people or enough people stand to make a profit, it will be done, regardless of the politics of the situation.

Unfortunately, they really don't understand that either. Well, to be honest, I think they don't want to understand it. Nobody wants to think that at bottom it's all about money. My mother taught me, though, that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well ... I can understand that, even if I have trouble sympathizing with it. But we truly have to ask ourselves what real options do we have?

When you've run out of explanations, the best you can do, I think, is to motivate people to ask questions for themselves, so all I can do is repeatedly admonish my fellow German (and other European friends) to ask the only really relevant "political" question we have: cui bono? (Who benefits?) And that's the question I'm asking myself post-Republican National Convention: cui bono? That's the question everybody should be asking.

We should learn from tragedy, but somehow we can't

Very early on while learning to write, I was given some sage advice and learned a valuable lesson: don't write about something if you're too emotionally involved. You should know I'm not heeding that advice right now.

What happened in Nice two days ago was a shocking, horrific, abhorrent, gruesome, atrocious, and terrible act, but it was not an act of terror, try as we might to make it one.

Terror, for those of you who may have forgotten, is the use of excessive, random violence for political ends. And as things stand at the moment, there is no political connection to be found, regardless of how badly the authorities and media want us to believe there is.

A foreign-born, but French, petty criminal with more personal and family problems than most of us can begin to imagine takes a truck and drives amok into a family event, wreaking unimaginable harm, injury and death upon everyday men, women, and children -- families and friends who wanted no more than a bit of joy in their lives. This is a tragedy. You can't know how deeply I grieve for victims, their families and their friends. France was not attacked. Families were attacked. And you can't believe how irate I am that this tragedy is being instrumentalized for other, much less honorable, purposes.

The perpetrator is dead. He can never tell us what motivated him to commit such a brutally horrendous act. There is no mention of the situation in the socially volatile and disadvantaged hot spots in most large French cities. It doesn't matter that we've imposed an economic system that is more exclusionary than capable of meeting even the most basic human needs. And what is more, there are questions about the level and types of security being provided for the event, especially in light of the fact that France is essentially living under marshal law. But all of that is merely brushed aside.

The French prime minister has already declared an Islamistic connection, without offering even the merest shred of evidence. Without claiming responsibility, Daesh is thrilled with the result. Why is that surprising but how is that even newsworthy? The media has been abuzz with one special report after another parading out an endless stream terrorism experts in blatant disregard for the known facts of the case. Even Hollande promised in his initial remarks to increase military retaliation in Syria, and civilian deaths that will result will be the consequence of real, not imagined, terror.

Are we ever going to learn anything? I have my doubts.

When people snap mentally, they go on killing sprees, be it when they used to "go postal" as we referred to it America (because it seemed to happen more often to postal employees than others) and shot up their co-workers or be it when they drive a truck into a crowd of people out for a celebration. Until 9/11 no such event would have labeled as terrorism, but since then there is no killing spree that is not.

9/11 didn't change everything. We changed. We became frightened and fearful and allowed our rights and civil protections to be taken away because of an unavoidable event. We packed it up in the package of terrorism and we've been terrorized ever since. We've dug ourselves in so deeply that we can't see anything anymore without it having a terrorist tint. And if it doesn't have one, we're more than willing to give it one. We're so concerned with what might possibly, perhaps, unexpectedly happen to ourselves that we don't have it in us, it would seem, to stop and mourn for those who need it.

We're in the process of making this about us, when it has to be about those who have been killed and those who have been left to suffer.

Listen! Enough is enough, and enough is too much

Sometimes enough is just too much.

Sometimes you just can't find the words.

I don't know about you, but life even as a dispassionate, detached observer is getting hard to take. It makes you wonder. Well, it makes me wonder, I can tell you that.

Back in my carefree days, I studied literature and was amused by the Theatre of the Absurd. It was crazy, but insightful, purposefully not making sense to entertain. OK, I was young, naive, and a good portion stupid, I'll admit: Beckett and Pynchon weren't writing to entertain, they were rubbing our noses in our own stuff; they weren't just insightful, they were brutally honest; they weren't crazy, we are.

Most of you, dear readers, didn't even stumble over the "carefree" in that last paragraph. You all knew what I meant and most of you smiled inwardly and waxed nostalgic about those days. Truth be told, the vast majority of human beings on this planet never had a carefree day (let alone years) in their lives, but we're too sheltered, too pampered, to out-of-touch to know that. All right, add ignorant to my list of non-virtues.

One day, you (possibly) wake up (and I think most of us have) and you realize this isn't some silly play on the stage that you're watching: damn! Shakespeare was right, all the world is a stage, and every last one of us is a player. Are we just screwing up our parts, or are we really playing our roles? And therein lies the rub, as Bill would also say.

Falcon Heights, Baton Rouge, Dallas -- just the popper on a long, long bullwhip of absurdity. Thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless, heartless murders, every one of them, and all I can see and hear are tongues wagging, fingers pointing, and knees jerking. We'd might as well face it: we can't fix it. No, it's not because the situation is so broken it can't be fixed. No, it's not because "they" are to blame. No, it's not that "we" are to blame. The reason we can't fix it is simple: we don't want to. All the yelling, screaming, and wailing is just as thoughtless, needless, senseless, feckless and heartless as the murders. There is so much hot air and heated passions being projected into the world that we may die of heat exhaustion before we gun each other down.

For the record -- not as if it will matter -- the vast majority of cops are honest, hard-working, dedicated people who are just trying to make their communities safe. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of our fellow black citizens are decent, hard-working, dedicated people who are trying to make the best of their lives in the situation in which they find themselves. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. The vast majority of protesters are honest, concerned and active citizens who are trying to make those who are still unaware of some of the issues involved more aware. We shouldn't condemn them all for the actions of a few. But that's precisely what we do in all cases. The rotten apples spoil the barrel, and the few give the many a bad name, but it never occurs to us that what we decry in others 9 times out of 10 is merely what we ourselves do all the time. It takes one to know one.

One thing is for sure: this most recent absurdity is truly American. it's American because it's happening in America, not everywhere else; it's being perpetrated by Americans, not some vague foreign agents. No, the problem's as homegrown as you get; you're simply reaping what you have sown, and you're going to keeping on reaping till you own up to the fact that you've got no one to blame but yourselves, collectively, of course, but personally as well.

Yes, we're all to blame, and it's time that we all just face up to it. Did it ever occur to you that you are never part of the problem, it's always"them", or at least someone else. Did it never occur to you that you are always right and "they" (or at least someone else) never is. My Facebook and Twitter feeds have been overflowing with one-breath analyses, one-line conclusions and zero solutions. I don't know what is more absurd, to tell the truth: what's going down or what's being said about it.

But, in all the din of accusations, counter-accusations, blame-fixing no one is listening.

That's the biggest problem of all: no one is listening.

Of course, there are two other problems that play in here that we cannot afford to ignore: The first is America's race problem. It's there, and it's deep-seated, that's for sure. Very deep-seated. It's so much a part of the culture that not a thing is going to change until we own up to it. This isn't a matter of artificially construed and inappropriately applied statistics. Having a race problem, is all the more absurd, of course, now that we know there is no such thing as race, but the label used is the right one because it's the one we can connect with. It was apparent in the fake debate about the flying of the Confederate flag. It's to be found in the the voter restriction laws being passed. It's in the simple, fact that in the year 2016 the KKK is making a comeback. How can that even be? It's time to own up to the fact that no where on earth do people of color have so much working against them as in America. Oh, I know the excuses; I was brought up with them. The ideal is a land of equal opportunity but the reality is an unequal as you can get. The ideal is equal rights under and before the law, but the reality is anything but. Stop screaming, accusing, blaming and start talking ... openly (for a change), honestly (maybe for the first time), directly ... but more than anything else, start listening.

The other problem is the violence problem: There are more murders, more violent crimes committed in American than just about anywhere on earth, and this doesn't take into consideration how many actual deaths were caused, for example, by the wrecking of the economy by capitalist speculators. Ball-point pens can be as deadly as any gun. Just this week we saw murders committed by those within and those outside the law. Americans, it would seem, are more willing to accept all sorts of violence as legitimate, but there is no such thing. There is legalized violence, as when the state allow itself to execute those it deems undesirable, but legitimate violence doesn't exist. It should always be the last resort, not the first one, as we are seeing.

And by the way, this isn't a gun issue, folks. Guns are a red herring. The absurdity we're dealing with is a simple, fundamental and deep-seated acceptance, if not love, of violence. Guns are tools, nothing more. They complicate the matter, but they don't define it. Yet physical violence, while the most obvious, is probably the least of the problem: the everyday psychological violence perpetuated on the populace, both collectively and individually, is mind-boggling to say the least: the unbridled, gloves-off brutality of business competition, the cold, calculating oppression of social-service recipients, the wielding of debt as weapon of suppression, be you a home-owner down on your luck or a student trying to make a better life for yourself. Get on the wrong side of the system and you'll be crushed, mercilessly. There is no mercy for losers. Fear is the prime motivator and threats the weapon of choice. But of course if that doesn't work, there's always physical violence as a last resort. It's just around the corner ... or in your face. You see it in its favorite sports, you see it in political campaigns, you see it in the rapaciousness of casino capitalism, you see it in its foreign policy, and you hear it in everyday language. It's time to start listening to what's really being said.

It's enough already. Really. It's time to stop accepting this absurdity as the way things are. None of this has to be the way it is. Things are as they are because we have either made them this way or allowed them to become that way. And while you personally may never have been shot at, while you personally may not have suffered injustice, it is time to wake up to the fact that there are too many who have and too many who do. When are we going to get it? When are we going to see that we are involved whether we like it or not? When is this absurdity going to stop? Well, it can't stop until you do everything you can do to make it stop. It's your move.

It's no wonder the world's in such bad shape

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that has gone on in the last week, we've got damn little to show for it. That little fiasco did, however, make a number of things clearer than most would like to admit, but they're not necessarily the ones we like to think.

You may not want to admit it, but Emma Goldman was right: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Great Britain said they wanted out of the EU. There's not even the slightest hint that the process is even being seriously considered. The Tories apparently have to get their house in order. Why? What as it in before? It wasn't this vote that split it. The pranks and psychoses that were there before are now simply going to involve other people. None of this has anything to do with sovereignty or immigrants or lack of democracy on the Continent. The Brits have just as much democracy as anyone else: none. We're simply back to business as usual.

Believe me, I'm not picking on the Brits. They merely brought a couple of issues to the surface. As I noted recently, the US can't even pretend to have a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Though that doesn't stop them or their pundits from piping up. Both Juncker and Merkel this week have shown they have absolutely no intention of getting democratic about anything. Even people who think they did things right get to do them over again if the right people insist on it. Nothing to see here: it's just business as usual.

Hell, the only people I can see trying to make a point at all are the French, and we can't won't hear a thing about it because the European Cup (the European Soccer Cup for my American readers, and believe me, it's a big sports deal, in all senses of the word) is being played and the media isn't about to ruin such a fine sporting event. After all, there are advertisers to consider on the one hand, and ... well, you know, that is even more business as usual.

It's not really my place, but I have to tell you: democracy has nothing to do with voting or elections. Nothing. They like to tell us that the term "democracy" comes from the Greek and means "rule of the people", but you should know that ever since the term has been coined, the demos was considered a "mob" and there is no self-respecting elite in the world who is going to put up with mob rule.

Personally, and I'm as about as far away from an elite as you can get, I see their point, and I also see how well they can turn us into a mob when it suits them. Just look at the Brexit fiasco. Don't get me wrong, it's the not the end result I'm calling into question, it is the process of getting there that stunk to high heaven. We really need to think twice about getting into bed with racists and bigots (with a wink here to my American friends supporting Trump) if you don't want to be lumped in with racists and bigots. Voting, though, referendums, elections ... all those nice respectable outlets we're allowed to have ... they're just games were allowed to play to get us to think we have something to say. We don't. If we did, why are the French out in the streets? They have every reason to be: their government doesn't listen to them any more than yours listens to you. They have also experienced -- up real and personal -- just how much difference an election makes.

My question is: just when are we going to get it? just when are we going to realize that all of this "working within the system" is just a rather underhanded way of keeping all of us under their thumb?

Oh, I know what a lot of you are thinking ... especially the more paranoid and those of you who consider yourself smarter and more critical than the average mob person: he's seeing conspiracies, this one; maybe we ought to get him a tinfoil hat. That's OK. You are allowed to think whatever you want regardless of how silly it is. I'm not saying that there is some organized cabal planning the oppression of the rest of us, some nefarious and shadowy group plotting our enslavement. Here is what I do know, however:

• There is not a Western government that isn't dominated by special interests.
• There is not a Western politician who isn't influenced -- for or against -- by those interests.
• There are large corporations who are willing to spend a pittance on lobbying knowing full well their return-on-lobbying-investment will be worth every penny.
• There are very, very rich people who aren't going to share a penny with anyone else if they can help it.
• Those powerful corporations driven by profit and those rich folks have much more in common with each other than the rest of us think we have with each other, even if it is only their love of money.
• Neither of these groups is what we might call "democratically inclined".

But that's "the system", as we all know it. But, you should know that I know this as well:

• The last thing they want is for US to think we might be able to do anything about it.

And they succeed, not in some grandiose, concerted, focused effort at suppression, but because it is simply too easy to get us quibbling amongst ourselves, to get us angry at each other, and to have us at each others' throats. It's so easy because they have convinced most of us that we're nothing more than individual egos seeking our own self-interest, and that we're really nothing more than losers if we think otherwise.

I'm sorry, folks, but it is really not any more complicated than that.

If change is going to come ... that is, change that in any way, shape and form is, or may be beneficial for ourselves or our children or our grandchildren ... we've got to wake up and not smell the coffee, but smell the stench of deceit, distrust and defeat that they shower upon us.

There are times when the bravest thing you can do is to just say "no". Now is one of those times.

If you don't like the world as you find it, if you don't like the world as it's being shoved down your throat, if you don't like the world that others have made for you, then it's your move. No political candidate is going to "work for you"; they're going to work for whoever pays them enough to get re-elected. No elected official is concerned about you; they are concerned about their constituencies and getting re-elected. Am I saying that there are no elected officials or politicians who are trying to make a difference? Not at all. What I am saying is that "system" is broken, so let's stop trying to fix it, but instead try setting up something new that works. What does that "something new" look like, how does it work? I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. Since when do you need me telling you what is good for you?

If you don't like the world as you find it, stop whining (or whinging, as my British friends might say) about lost opportunities and wasted votes. Get informed, get smart, get active. Most of all, start talking: to family, friends, neighbors ... figure out what is important to you and find like-minded people to help you achieve your common goals. Think big and start small, but start. And when in doubt, ignore the system. It wasn't set up for your benefit, that's for sure.

There is no one that can make a difference in the world other than yourself. Like it or not, it all starts with you. It's time you realized that and did something about it.