End-of-the-year close-out

A long-term acquaintance of mine recently asked me why I'm so hard on Americans. My reply? They deserve it. Hey, they have it way too good and have no idea how good they've actually got it. Yes, yes, Thanksgiving has just past, but I didn't see (again) any sign that the celebration of the holiday had anything to do with its Spirit. For those who could: a big stuffed turkey and we're all a bit fatter, a bit dumber, and, of course, a bit happier.

C'mon. What do you say about a democratic nation in which less than 40% of the registered voters (notice I did not say eligible voters, or it would be even lower) turn out for an election? What do you say about a democratic nation that gerrymanders so that incumbents win and constituencies lose? What do you say about a country that overwhelmingly re-elects a legislative body that has an approval rating under 10%? I'll tell you what I say: it's just what I'd expect of a fat, dumb, and happy populace.

OK, OK, I'm being harsh again ... sorry. It's too easy, or, well, it's just too hard not to be. Oh sure, most Americans I know like to tell me that American society is so complex that no generalized statement is possible. They know, and I know, that such a statement is simply and blatantly absurd, but it's said anyway. Why? Because otherwise, somebody might have to do something about, well, anything.

Affordable-Care Act or no: 40 million un(health-)insured Americans; child poverty rate of more than 22% and rising; infant mortality rate ranked 34th (behind Croatia and Cuba); most extreme wealth-poverty divide in the industrialized world; world's 3rd largest population (whereby #s 1 and 2 have over three times as many people) but world's 2nd biggest polluter. Oh yes, there's just so much to be proud of.

It all wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't have so many other people I know telling me what a great place it is. When you look at it from the outside, it's anything but great, but the propaganda machine is churning both inside and out in a measure unknown ever before. I'd like not to be so critical, but I don't know how. With all that going on, I don't see a shred of evidence that anyone there really wants to do anything about anything. If the blacks protest (e.g., in the Ferguson aftermath), they're turning everything into a race issue. If Occupy protests against the banks, they are being radical. If one protests against Eternal War, one is being unpatriotic. If you feed the homeless on the streets, you go to jail. Give me a break. What about any of that makes sense?

No, the end of the year is upon us, and I'm going to turn my attention to other, more important matters. If Americans were all alone in their bubble island, I don't suppose I'd care, but they keep reaching out and touching the world, and what's even worse, most Americans think everyone else wants to be touched. No, if Americans want to do something, if Americans want to change something, then there's no better place than home. Get your own house in order before you start telling others how to clean up theirs.

And that's all I have to say about that.

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.