What I do get, though

There are some of you who figure I'm just another Bush basher. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sure, he was an awful president, but I can hardly remember a time when we had a good one. It's an impossible job, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't want it, but there are those who do, for any number of reasons. I don't particularly care what they are, because for as long as I can remember, none of them -- at least judging by their actions -- had much to do with me or you or any of us little folk. I can't help but feel that they really don't care all that much.

And for those short-term thinkers who think I'm playing the left-right card, I'll have to disappoint you there too. First of all, the political left and right was a creation of the 19th century, and that's where the idea belongs. We should be beyond that. After all, it is 2014. Even more poignant is the fact that the US doesn't know what left and right is. Politics there, when seen from the outside, where I am, is simply a matter of conservative and even more conservative. To be perfectly honest, America became a one-party system a long time ago: that one party may have two tiny wings, if you will, but truth be told, there's really not a dime's bit of difference between them when you get to looking closer.

No, it's all about power in the end. With Obama, it's not always obvious, only when he starts persecuting whistleblowers or droning innocent civilians. With Bush, it was easier. It was more obvious. His whole crew was about power, and violence, and they didn't hesitate to let everybody know. Clinton was truly slick enough to create enough diversions that we overlooked his deference to Wall Street and his commitment to US hegemony. Bush I was just a weak Reagan, and Reagan was an actor, pretending to be president but really just trampling over little people and waging fake wars for fake reasons, supporting wherever possible macho Central American dictators. Carter got the boot for not acting macho enough; Nixon and his henchman Kissinger were all about secret illegal wars in and around Vietnam. The top priority, in all cases? The common factor amongst them all? Image. An image of power. An image that scares others into doing your bidding. The unfortunate state of affairs is that really starting with Reagan, it has become more direct, more in-your-face, more violent, more aggressive, more intolerant, more ideological, and downright meaner.

And oh, by the way, this is not about government power either. Americans love their limited-government ideology, but oddly enough, those who are truly wielding the power can use that to distract most people from what is really going on. The shredding of the Constitution, the gutting of the Bill of Rights, the pervasive surveillance, are one side of the coin, but it's not because the government per se has something up its sleeve. No, as the old saying goes, "follow the money": the supremacy of property over human rights, the recent Supreme Court rulings on money as speech, the unjust legal system, the for-profit prison system, the privatization of the education system, and all the rest of these moves are put in place not so the government has more control, but rather that certain moneyed interests have more control ... of the government. When you take a step back, you realize quickly that what we normally think of as "the government" is merely a strawman for the real powers that be.

In keeping with theme that started this thread, I can only add, that going with this particular flow strongly reduces the likelihood that what you're doing is honorable.

The American disease

There is no doubt that the USA has been something of a powerhouse for a good deal of its very short history. It has benefitted from accidents of time and nature, of geography and sometimes blind determination. Not everything it has ever done, of course, like any other modern (or ancient) nation-state, is worth praising. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone gets some things wrong, but it is the sign of a healthy mind that we learn from these and not do them anymore. Unfortunately, this is precisely the virus that is infecting the country right now: it refuses to learn.

America talks a good game when it comes to ideals: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; freedom, democratic processes, and equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the reality is anything but this. It is actively seeking to restrict democratic processes, through legislation and precedent; it is raping the environment in the name of economic growth, it supports corruption and lawlessness, as the recent refusal to prosecute the criminals involved in the recent economic crash has shown; it has gone after whistleblowers with a vengeance; it has suppressed its minorities (again); it refuses to admit to, or even acknowledge, its genocidal past; it knows no solution to international problems other than war and violence; it has no hesitation committing war crimes (drones, torture) in pursuit of its interests; and it is doing all it can to suppress the last remnants of opposition at home.

Now, I don't know if this is what the majority of Americans want, nor whether this is the America that the majority of Americans see. It really doesn't matter. This is their country and the simple fact that there is no visible resistance to this reign of power and terror -- political, social, and economic -- makes those of us outside believe that Americans are, well, OK with all of this. This is really a situation of silence being assent, of not-acting-against being support-for.

Unfortunately, part of America's current power is perceived to be expressed in economic terms. The American capitalist system, the great delusion of trickle-down, the rape of resources, the blatant disregard for human feelings or rights, is one of the two vehicles the country has chosen to spread to the rest of the world (the other being outright war, including drone attacks and clandestine operations). What Americans apparently don't realize and what too many non-Americans don't recognize is that we not only don't need this, we don't want it either.

The US is ill, in so many ways, and it is simply bad manners and inconsiderate to go out and deal with others when you should be at home recuperating. My suggestion, therefore, is that the US simply go home. Go back to your own four walls and sort yourself out before you insist on sorting the rest of us out.

Yes, America has traditionally liked to think that it knows what is best for all us. It doesn't. It is in such a state of delirium that it can't even see what it is doing to itself. It's time to stop spreading this American disease. "Physician, heal thyself."

Are we going to do it or go for it?

Sometimes things boil down to simple choices. This is one of those times. I'm not talking about an instant, a mere individual "now". No, the choice itself is simple enough, but it's timing is, well, a bit more profound. Any halfway reasonable person recognizes that we, at least as denizens of the modern, Western World, but maybe even humanity as a whole, are at a watershed. What we decide to do is going to affect us for a long time to come.

No, I'm not going Chicken-Little on you. I'm quite calm and collected, as a matter of fact, even though there are more than enough "reasons" for me to be simply ranting and raving. It's not about one thing, no single issue. We've painted ourselves into a corner and the choice is whether we want to get out of it or not. If we simply sit or stand around till the paint dries, the house will have been torn down by the authorities and we'll just get carted off for trespassing and obstruction. Nobody really likes to talk about it because too many others will just shout you down or declare you paranoid, but if you just stop, take a deep breath, and look around you will a clear, detached, unemotional view, you realize pretty quickly that we're in over our heads.

Too many things are broken to be fixed: you can't fix the government, because the game is fixed; you can't fix the economy, because the game is rigged; you can't save the environment, because of the fixed and rigged games; you can't expect justice in a world made up of just ourselves and our think-alikes; you can't get informed by watching Faux News or its equivalents; you can't get smart by only having your own opinions; you can't ask for or demand solutions to problems that only suit you; you can't be inclusive if you're an isolationist; you can't be tolerant if you're an exclusionist; you can't expect change if you're not willing to change yourself. And that, dear friends, is where we are.

This is, believe it or not, my 400th post. In almost all of them, I have been saying the same thing, but the responses I get (mostly offline, that is true ... or via other media) tell me that I'm not getting through. I am surprised how many people agree with most of what I have to say, and I'm just as surprised how unwilling almost all of them are to do anything about it. And that, dear friends, is the crux of the matter.

It is all well and good that you think something, but it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference unless you do something about it. If you're only interested in what you can get out of it, how you can benefit, then it is better that you do nothing at all. Too many of you -- maybe even most of you -- are willing to complain, fret and moan, and just about everyone I encounter has a bevy of "reasons" why they are incapable of doing anything about anything.

I have neither tolerance of nor understanding for that. It's a cop-out, as we used to say; it's merely an excuse, as we say in Standard English. The defining character of this moment is either putting up or shutting up.

Time to pack it in?

Sometimes I'm sure we all feel like there's just no use in fighting anymore. Things aren't getting better. What is any one of us, individually, supposed to do? After all, each of us is just one person. That's right. But, so what?

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but we humans are different from our animal cousins in a very important way: we can talk. We can communicate both concretely and abstractly. We can question and we can explore. Our language abilities give us a tremendous leg up in the evolution game, to say the least. But it is this special skill that we use to little.

There are a couple of preconditions to making talking effective, however. (For a lot of us, this is the hard part.) First of all, not everyone thinks like we do. Not everyone sees the world like we do. Not everyone believes the things that we do. And that's OK. In fact, it's an advantage, collectively, if we allow it to be. Second, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equally. Opinions should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it, so just having one means nothing. We have to learn to provide support for the opinions that we have. Third, we have to be open to difference. This means not only allowing for other opinions, but also for other ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's not one thing but a combination of a variety of things that provides the best solution to a problem. Fourth, we have to be patient. We need to allow others to express themselves just as we want to be allowed to express ourselves. But, fifth, related to this, we have to learn to listen. I don't mean we have to find out what's wrong with what someone else is saying but strive to understand what s/he really is saying. Language is by its very nature ambiguous. We can think we've said something clearly but it may still be ununderstandable to someone else.

In other words, we need to relearn how to talk with one another, not just talk to, and especially not talk at ... no we need to practice talking with one another again.

Some of us are able to do this within our families, though Lord knows there are enough families in which this doesn't happen anymore. Some of us can do this with our close friends, but have trouble doing it with strangers, and this brings us to a sixth precondition, namely, all talk is personal. Every time we open our mouths (or write something like this blog) we are sharing part of ourselves with others. This takes a certain amount of courage. We can't be afraid to share.

The seventh, and final, precondition to be met is we need to be on the look out for what's common, not what separates. These days we focus too often what makes us different, not what makes us alike. For as different as we are, we humans have an awful lot in common. It is the commonalities that we find strength. In the differences we can find new ways to make the strengths stronger.

Why do I think this is an answer ... something as simple as learning to talk with one another again? I believe I'm on the right track for the simple reason that it is very easy to say, but we all know, it is extremely difficult to put into practice. That's a dead giveaway.

Afraid of the game?

Don't get me wrong. I know you are all readers of integrity and courage, of moral fortitude and strength of character. Still, I know, and you know that deep down, we shake in our boots. While putting on a calm, determined and fearless countenance to the world, inside we're mush. If we're honest, we're afraid of everything.

If we're working, we're afraid of losing our job because we can't live without the next paycheck. If we're unemployed, we're afraid no one will want us and we'll be forced onto welfare or worse. If we're healthy, we're afraid we'll get sick, especially if we're Americans (because we know a serious illness is the end of life as we know it). If we're successful, we're afraid we'll fail. Some of are afraid of appearing weak in any way, shape or form. If we have anything, we're afraid someone will steal it or tax it away. We are afraid of what the terrorists are up to. We are afraid of being mugged, raped, or killed just walking down the street. We don't like to admit it, but we're a fearful lot.

I hear this undercurrent in almost every discussion I have, with just about anyone, and the actual subject of conversation doesn't make the slightest bit of difference at all. The truth of the matter is, we live in constant and -- too often -- abject fear. We spend the better part of our waking hours just whistling in the graveyard. (You remember those times as a kid, having to walk through the graveyard at night. What do you do? You whistle. Why? Because even though you know there is no such thing as ghosts, a bit of sound overcomes the oppression of silence and the maybe-if-I-make-noise-they'll-leave-me-alone.) Oh, it's not reasonable and rational behavior, but we do our best to give it that veneer. Hey, whistling is harmless, after all.

This is what amazes me about life these days. We're supposed to be such an informed, enlightened, intelligent society. We Westerners have allegedly put all superstition behind us. We live in modern, democratic societies, where freedom is writ large, where liberty is a God-given right. Yet, we give up those rights voluntarily, we transfer our personal power to others willingly, and we shut up rather than put up. If we speak out, others will think we're jerks. If we're too adamant, others will think we're bullies. If we're passionate about issues, others will think we're obsessed. We worry a lot about what our neighbors think of us. Why? Because we never really talk to them about anything that matters, because most topics -- religion (most likely), politics (most definitely) -- are just taboo. After all, there's always the weather, the local sports teams, vacation plans, and yard work.

TPTB know this and they play on it readily. They can feed it (after all, they control the media and who goes searching for alternative news sources), they legislate it, they convince us that they are helping us out. They're not. They never have, and they never will.

It's a pretty hopeless situation, when you get right down to it. Well, actually, it's just sad.

But, but, but ...

Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, and I'm no mind-reader. You're wondering just how whacked I must be to come up with a crazy idea like that. Maybe it's something in the water. Maybe, and maybe not. I'm a big fan of principles and this is one that is very, very fundamental.

We may complain about our representatives in government, but we elect them. We say the system that only counts votes that are cast is fair. We agree that the minority should have the say. Do you see how quickly we get from agreeing to hey-that's-not-what-I'm-saying? The current democratic systems that are in place -- regardless of how democratic they appear on the surface -- are all rigged to promote minorities. Those who are selected to do the governing quickly come to believe that it is they who should decide. They are all charged with voting their consciences, which is fine, in principle, but if their conscience is at odd with the so-called will of the people, then what? And, what if a substantial group gets together and decides that we don't need all these freedoms anyhow because too many people don't know how to handle it. Is it OK for those elected representatives to simply imbue themselves with more authority than they should and make decisions that are no longer in the interest of those they represent? Well, that's how it works now.

For all the complaining that I hear about "government", I rarely hear the complaint that we, the citizenry, are too complacent. I don't know of an elected body that doesn't have everything that most of us would like to have: full healthcare coverage, a good salary, an excellent retirement plan even if you don't work at your job a whole lifetime, expense accounts, reduced-priced services just for you ... the list goes on. How can we with good conscience say that they deserve all this if the theory says that these people are working for us. Isn't that the idea of democracy to begin with: the elected representatives are "servants of the people"? Well, yes, that's the theory, but welcome to reality.

The mere fact that they do what they do and get away with it and all the rest of us do is complain is pretty substantial evidence in my book that we have given our power to them ... freely, willingly, knowingly. You might want to argue about that last one, of course, but if you buy into the system, if you think that the way it is all set up is fair and just and equitable, if you glorify your founding documents more than you care about your neighbors, well, then I have to agree with George Carlin: you get the government you deserve.

There are others of you who will be quick to point out that if you get too far out of line, if you question the system too directly, the authorities will be at your door. You're right. Americans, for example, have sat back and allowed the "system" to remove habeus corpus, detain citizens as terrorists on mere suspicion, to restrict freedom of speech, to establish a system in which money replaces justice and democracy, and generally to put the populace on the defensive. America, particularly in the wake of the Occupy movement, has shown that it is not adverse to using excessive force to quell peaceful dissent, and I refuse to even get started on how they are conducting their foreign policy these days. What is more, too many other governments are willing to go along, if not try out some of these shenanigans themselves.

There comes a time, however, in every one of our lives, when we have to ask ourselves how we feel about power. We can't avoid it. We have to decide how to deal with it.

The name of the game

It's encouraging to know that there is a chance we may get out of the current game, but I'm not placing any bets at the moment, nor am I ready to start a betting pool. Still, there are glimmers of light here and there, and I, for one, believe we should acknowledge and encourage every one we see. Nevertheless, if things are going change for real and permanently (which they are anyway, but we still have a chance to participate, if we want to), it is helpful to get a full grasp of the concepts involved. For this reason, a not-so-subtle shift of focus ...

Truth be told, there is a game, and it's the same one that's been played since as far back as we can collectively remember. It's name is Power. It's an odd game actually, because it only works if everyone shares the same beliefs. It's not a real game, but it is nevertheless real. It is not a fair game in reality, but it is in theory. It's a mind game, but one in which brilliance, intelligence or even wisdom aren't of much use. It's a subtle game, and it's deceptive. Consequently, we need to keep our wits about us, and we need to understand how we got to where we are.

No, no, no reason to stop reading. I'm not going to bore you with a traditional history lesson. Instead, I want you to stop for a moment and think about the following statement:

Only if we grant power to something can it have power over us.
- Jean Gebser

It's not an easy thought, I know. You have to keep going back to it and reflect upon what he is actually saying. One thing I'm pretty sure he's saying, though, is that power is not A given, it is simply given. And now, even more of you are probably asking yourselves: just what is he talking about? Fair enough. Let me try to explain.

Let's go back to the things I've talked about in the past few posts. Why is it that politicians can't agree? Why is it that the coalition talks in Germany are so hard to move forward? Why do we all feel so helpless most of the time in the face of political realities? It's simple, actually, because we've given up our own power and transferred it to others. The reason that the alternatives I spoke of in the last post seem to be making headway is that those involved are simply ignoring those who think they have they say. And, why do they think they have the say? Because we have more or less told them that they do. The problem is really not the politicians. The real problem is us ... or at least some of us, at least those who are more than willing -- for whatever reasons -- to grant their power to someone/something else.

Don't delude yourself into thinking this is an easy thought to grasp. It looks simple enough, I'll grant you that, but it takes a bit of time and effort to actually penetrate into its actual meaning. When you get it, though, it's a long overdue "AH HA", I assure you.

Same old game?

Well, well, well ... who would have thought that the Americans would have pulled it off? I would, and did. So we've got another six months of breathing space till the gyrations begin again. If there ever was a demonstration of the "game", this was it.

Though the US will now pay its bills and borrow more money, nothing has been resolved. The spin machines are operating at full power; everybody's responsible for saving the country, if not the world; the others were responsible for such reckless behavior; not a single thing has changed. There was nothing learned (other than maybe the other guy just might not cave when you expect); and there's always another day. In this case, it's a few months, but what difference does that make in the scheme of political things?

What the shutdown and standoff made crystal clear, though, is that whatever they are doing in Washington, it has nothing to do with what any of us might want or what might be of benefit to any of us little people. This isn't a simple matter of Washington being out of touch, it is about the fundamental principle of modern government: it's about those who govern, not those who are governed, and governing has lost its meaning of service to the general population, it is only about power. The Tea Party will continue to try to stop the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans will look for more hostages for the next round, and the Democrats will strut and gloat for a while and then realize that they, too, have to get ready for the next round. It starts in the spring.

On this side of the Atlantic, the expected has become news as well. The Greens and the CDU/CSU admitted they don't have enough in common to form a government, but, just as expectedly, maybe they could find enough should the SPD not manage to get together with Merkel & Co. The front door was closed, the back door unlocked; and you let the other guys step forward to take the hit for success or failure. We all know it's more the latter than the former. Though the polls indicated that the German people wanted a Grand Coalition, it's becoming increasingly clear that nothing will happen, no problems will be resolved and the ruling parties will spend the next four years fighting over who is really ruling, and nothing further will be resolved.

It is time to simply recognize and openly admit that they are going to do their thing, no matter what the rest of us want, and each is going to continue looking out for their own interests not ours. We're all faced with the same problems: crumbling infrastructure, an unbearable debt burden, upward pressure on unemployment, decaying and increasingly obsolete and inappropriate educational systems, aging populations, impending environmental disaster, decreasing standards of living, and as good as no future for our children, but what are TPTB in Germany and the US doing? Fundamentally the same thing: arguing amongst themselves as to who has the most say in doing what they want, not what the people might want, or even what might actually need to be done.

I would say the disconnect between the governing and the governed is pretty much complete. In all that's going on, what I miss more than anything else is even a hint that it's about the pursuit of the general welfare on the basis of anything even slightly resembling democratic processes.

But, it does look very much like the old adage is true: people get the governments they deserve.

Syria - Just part of the game?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria - What's that all about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greek patient - Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greek patient - So what do we do now?

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it.

The Greek patient - What's really at stake?

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

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

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

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

A short digression back into history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greek patient - What's really going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greek patient - A second editorial excursion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greek patient - There is no end of history

OK, if it isn't the lazy, tax-evading Greeks who are the cause of their own evil, what is. As it turns out, it may not be a "what" as much as a "who". Let's pick up our (hi)story where we left off.

In 1974 a modicum of stability came to Greece. In June 1975, the Greeks applied for membership in the European Union. As of the 1st of January 1981, they became members. At the time, it will be remembered, there was no (almost) common currency: the Germans had their beloved D-Mark, the French (and others) their (individual) francs, the Greeks had their drachma. The European project was progressing nicely. The Brits came on board in the early 70s, and besides the Greeks, Portugal and Spain also entered in the 80s. At the end of the 80s, however, something happened that no one had really expected: the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc collapsed. There was now a new source of disquiet, namely the reunification of Germany.

We like to think of Germany as a sovereign nation, but in the aftermath of 1989, not everyone was as excited as the Germans about a possible reunification. The Brits held great reservations, as did their traditional rivals, the French. In fact at a meeting of the two Germanys, France, the UK and the US (the latter being the victors of WW2, of course ... a war that apparently still wasn't completely over), the French, in particular, demanded that the Germanys be allowed to reunite only if they committed to joining the fiscal union – what became the euro – as well. The Germans agreed, they reunified, and well, we know their story up till now. But what does this have to do with the Greeks?

There was a lot of euphoria surrounding the introduction of the euro. Anybody who was anybody in Europe, well, except for the Brits who were still trying to figure out where their Empire went, the Scandinavians who are really into doing their own thing, and some of the more recently accepted countries, wanted to join in the party. Europe was growing together. The idea of Europe was gaining strength within Europe (the geographical entity) itself. Things were looking up.

Of course, not everyone was as excited as the Europeans. The greatest Europe-skeptics, of course, were the Americans. I don't think I'm revealing any secrets when I say that they were downright suspicious about it all. Here was a group of countries coming ever closer together who were larger by population and growing in economic power at a disturbing rate. Americans may be competitive, but they hate competition. And now, these stodge-pots were planning on introducing their own currency, too. Everybody knows the US Dollar is the only currency worth having. Or did they. It appeared that those Old Europeans were getting just a bit uppity. They needed to be watched ... and we know where that's led.

In the end, though, as of 1 January 2002, 17 of the current 28 countries in the European Union formed a new monetary union. Which promptly sunk in value by almost 30% in relation to the American dollar. What did you expect? Didn't we tell you that was a bust?

Well, you told us, but was it?

The Greek patient - A first editorial excursion

Practically the entire recorded history of the Greek people is one of being occupied and oppressed by foreign powers. A part of pleasure of doing business with these uninvited guests is, of course, paying tribute (read: being taxed). That the Greeks haven't developed an historic love of taxes is hardly surprising. What did they have get out of paying taxes? Nothing. The money went away and never came back. It built lots of palaces and monuments for the overlords, it kept those potentates fat and happy, but there is no real evidence that the Greeks got anything – ever – from being taxed. I mean, what reasonable person wants to pay taxes if you get nothing out of it?

Come to think of it, though, Americans, who have allegedly enjoyed less than 250 years of democratic freedom, only pay taxes when they are threatened enough or forced to and go to great lengths to see that they pay as little as possible. The most recent American grotesquery, the Tea Party, wants to eliminate them altogether. Why? Well, there is the ever-present and very inaccurate big-government argument, but if you ask me why Americans hate taxes, it's because you don't get anything out of them. When we visited my Dad in Western Pennsylvania, he had plenty of stories about all the taxes he got to pay because the governor decided that his corporate buddies and donors didn't need to pay so much, but he never got much for them either. The roads weren't cleared well in winter. Those same roads were full of potholes. There wasn't much in the way of senior citizen support ... well, you get the picture. I understand why he hated paying taxes. You get nothing for it.

Considering that the Greeks have as good as never really been the masters of their own fate, I don't find it all that surprising that they themselves never really even set up a tax system. Since the occupying powers always made sure they would collect what they felt was their due, they had one and the Greeks didn't need one ... for nigh on two millennia ... and the Greek people saw again and again and again that taxes mean only that others get richer while you, the little guy, just get poorer and poorer. But, in too many people's minds, it's the lazy, tax-evading Greek populace that has brought the country to the edge of ruin. What a bunch of hooey!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing nor justifying the situation in which Greece finds itself, but I am very adamant that those who maintain it's all the Greek people's fault are ignorant (in particular of the history of the country), arrogant (not having walked an inch in their shoes), and prejudiced (yes, those of love to think they know it all, have stereotypes dictating their thoughts). What I am saying is quite simple: we expect too much too soon.

I have always maintained: the East Germans suffered under their dictatorship for 40 years, and it is ludicrous to expect that it will take fewer than 40 years to get everybody out of it. The Greeks have been in the modern sovereign-state business – as a full-fledged partner – for only 40 years as well. So they should be doing everything to the same degree of effectiveness and effectivity that others have allegedly mastered in two, three or five times as long. Right.

If you set the bar too high, others can't jump over it.