U.S. is #22. Admit it.

We Americans can't execute on our plans any more, because whatever we do we have to wade through vast swamps of our own BS. This goes for healthcare, infrastructure, crime and terrorism. 

My favorite TV host and the smartest political commentator of all times, Bill Maher has brilliantly summarized it. We don't get $&*!t done, people! And China can! India can! We can't! 

                                                                        

Actually, Finland can, too.

Quiet voices, but tough decisions: shouting doesn't work.

Shouting is a sign of weakness. It is an attempt to send a strong message. But the others just get used to the noise, or else they've heard shouting before and they know  the shouter won't actually do zilch. 

They know they can just endure some shouting and keep on being the way they are. 

This truth applies to parenting, families organizations -- everywhere. 

Screams and cussing pollute the atmosphere with spiritual filth, which is the only effect they really have. Better to be the the one who does not need to shout to get attention. 

#InCaseYourMomDidntTellYou

Happiness requires strength.

Being happy requires guiding oneself on the right path with a firm, steady hand. 

Sticking to the right long-term strategy is staying on course. Emotions, temptations and whims are random winds pulling and pushing which ever way.

Many end up as a shipwreck because they are too weak to stay the course. But choosing to be strong or weak, we encounter pain at some point. There is no such thing as painless life.  

#InCaseYourMomDidntTellYou

If they did it twice, they will keep doing it.

The greatest firmness is the greatest mercy.

Two times is a pattern. If a person in your life does/says something you cannot stand; decide if you can just put up with it. If not, they should not be a part of your life. 

Maybe you don't love them that much, if this little thing is a deal breaker. Maybe it's not little but really non-negotiable, like infidelity, physical abuse, drugs. 

Either way, "giving them a chance" involves chance, which is gambling. Gambling some months or even years of your time on Earth, and some other, truly great opportunities. Maybe, maybe, maybe -- knock on wood -- they will change. Actually, they won't, but maybe-maybe-maybe. In a year or two. Or in ten. Your life, though is evaporating right now. 

So, either shut up and put up with it, because you need them as they are. Or if you cannot, then just  tell them to see you when they are a different person. 

This may be harsh on on them -- and on you -- but short-term pain is better than a major life disaster.

 

#InCaseYourMomDidn'tTellYou

The Constitution is in people's minds, or else it's nowhere.

We Americans may not realize it, but to a citizen of Romania or Somalia, our daily mentions of The Constitution -- with straight face -- come across as a childish naivete; a delusion of eternal Hippies who don't understand true dynamics of power. Simply because our world has not brutal enough to compel us, to bully us into growing up.

Only about five years ago have I fully grasped that significance of the habitual reference to The Constitution. It is not a child's pretend game, it is reinforcing a central pillar of the American society. 

The Constitution is in people's minds, or else it's nowhere. A piece of paper in the Library of Congress cannot be a central pillar of anything, nor can it protect anyone. It is people and their commitment that makes our Constitution alive. And that would fade away if its significance hadn't been reiterated daily. Corruption would become an accepted norm.

Is America at crossroads like Russia in 1917?

In the year 1917, after the fall of Russian monarchy, that country had a choice of a dictatorship and a dictatorship. The head of the newly formed Provisional Government, a relatively young politician Alexander Kerensky had attempted to steer the democratic course, an option that wasn't really on the table. 

The result was the greater of the two evils, a horrendous regime under Stalin, on par with the German Nazis, though not quite as bad. 

Is America at crossroads today, 100 years later, trying for a sane middle ground? 

Could it be that the only two realistic options are the crazy left and way-less-than-perfect right. Is American political dynamics at risk of repeating the Russian mistake?

No, our options are not the same as Russia's in 1917, not dictatorships. But if everyone is hell-bent on having their way exactly, down to the last letter, then nobody will get anything. We'll end up in unmentionable substance up to our eyebrows. Just as Russia. And we aren't going to like it.

Eat that Shakespeare, boy!

We don't teach literature right. A kid comes into the classroom, and comes back out the same, untransformed, having completed some boring and annoying assignments, but just the same as before. So no education happened. We need to teach the children to actually appreciate beauty. Teachers stick something "classical" under their noses. Children react as if it were a pile of tasteless, unseasoned greens. Eat it, it's good for you! Eat it, I said. No candy, until you eat it! No cookies! No reality TV! Eat your Shakespeare, boy!

Students need some emotional resonance. Whoever came up with the whole idea of that checklist-based rote in literature courses? Shakespeare: this, this and that. Faulkner: that, that and this. Got it? Okay. Now you are educated.

Go write an essay; go recite a monologue. There's a good lad. The teacher checks off another B-, the kid goes back to his or her seat, both much relieved: it's over.

That's not education, that's a waste of time. If there was no actual emotional reaction, the whole thing was pointless.

Beauty has therapeutic value. It heals our psyche. I am sure we could prove with hard facts and figures that Bach and Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Picasso lead to us having better doctors and engineers. There is actual business value to beauty.

That is why schools should instill sense of beauty and good taste in children, not have them cram a few irrelevant plots and passages. Those are usually forgotten after the finals.

Trump is at it, Again. Is America Buying a Lemon?

At the recent orgy rally in North Dakota, Trump has demonstrated that he has no new election strategy in the presidential race, now that he has secured the nomination. The same cheap verbal tricks and clever name calling. That's it. That is how he manipulated the fools on his side of the isle. He is the GOP candidate. The million dollar question is: will the same verbal fluff will work on the rest us. Will Trump make the sale?

Trump himself has been called many names that are, in fact, an accurate description of his essence. He has been called a persuader by the cartoonist Scott Adams. He has been called a salesman by yours truly. But, being an objective judge, I would not award myself the first prize in this label contest. The top prize would go to the former candidate Mitt Romney. His choice term is con artist.

Con artists perfect their persuasion techniques. Con artists have no intention to actually deliver. Their top priority is getting a certain fool -- the mark -- to do drop their vigilance and make one mistake. Hand over the money, open the door, cast a ballot. This time, the mark is America. Are we buying it?

The 2016 Race: Masks Come off, Standards Shatter.

This rant is a reaction to a rather depressing article on npr.org about hate messages on social networks, but it is more than that. I have been reading the news. I am connecting the dots. And I see one ugly picture. I see the shattering of standards of minimal decency, of treating all human beings with basic respect. The 2016 campaign isn't over, but the standards are gone.

The article I mentioned is about a social media app called Yik Yak. It is used on some college campuses to let the students chat with each other anonymously. Naturally, under the mask of anonymity, people could get a bit nastier than normal, but just how bad could it get? If you guessed threats of rape and calls for lynching, congratulations! You are correct.

That was just one dot, mind you. How about the incident with written hate message at CSU Sacramento last January? Another red dot.

There are more dots, to be sure, such as every other thing that comes out of the GOP front-runner's mouth. My favorite one is his retweet of "Jeb speaking Mexican", but there are plenty more, and plenty more to come.

I have said it before and I will repeat it: he is a salesman. The real problem is, that stuff sells. His personal contribution to the standards-shattering is probably significant: he came out, walking all over certain norms of social conduct and not only is he just fine, he is being rewarded. What a courageous pioneer.

Only two years ago, the country had a chance to "admire" Rush Limbaugh, but at least -- thank Goodness -- he has been loosing business. I will not claim that the standards were very firmly established. Nor will I deny that racism and hate were an issue all along. But at least, there was a widely accepted consensus that those were bad things.  In the offices and on public forums, people had to either be decent or to wear a certain mask if their spiritual face was too ugly to bear.

I had once told my kids that in Germany, swastikas were illegal, but in the United States they were only de facto illegal. Nobody would arrest a Nazi, but nobody worth hanging out  with will ever say hello to them, either. I told my kids they were lucky to have been born in America. This is the most successful nation in the world. We have standards here, for crying out loud!

Back in the twentieth century, the country has been at crossroads. Thanks to the human rights movement, thanks to the turbulent history of the 60's and 70's, we are headed in the right direction. Were headed, that is. A ship like USA doesn't turn easily, so it must be that for the last several years, we have been making a supertanker's equivalent of a swerve in the direction of the dark ages.

If Trump Had To "Go," Would He Excuse Himself Off Stage First?

When I was five, a visit to the bathroom was a serious blow to anybody's credibility, especially to my political opponent's. I would have used it against them, no problem.

Trump's recent lavatory-related jab against his rival was targeted at that level of maturity. Which, according to the cartoonist Scott Adams, is the right level to target.

Heck, if Trump himself needed to "go" during his rally, would he bother walking offstage, like a decent person? Or would he do it right there?

One thing for sure, if he did, he'd get roaring applause from his supporters. And he'd rise in polls once again. Given  everything else that's been going on at his rallies, this is the next logical step.

GOP '16 Menu: a Tealiban Extremist and a Sales Weasel.

AP Photo/ Isaak Brekken.

A certain blog I've been following lately, keeps calling Trump a master persuader. I would prefer the term Master Salesman. I am mulling over the possibility that he could face Sanders in November, and I am not sure I like the odds.

Bernie would argue like an adult. Trump's strategy could be summarized as strategic name calling. There is more to it than that, of course. I doubt Trump could out-govern Sanders, out-fix the injustices of the system, out-defend-the-nation, etc. But he had made many a sale in his business career, so he can surely out-sell Bernie, or anyone else running against him.

The aforementioned blogger, while quietly flattering Trump, has not really been so flattering to his voter base. Let me introduce you to the Moist Robot Theory, which states that most of us can be programmed subconsciously, by carerful choice of emotionally colored words.

That and large audience, which Trump can afford to pay for, is all he really needs to push his message. I hope the American voters are better than that in general, but the support Trump has been enjoying is an excellent case for Moist Robot Theory.

I am not saying all conservatives aren't very bright -- I know that is not true. I am not saying Trump isn't very bright. Nor am I saying that I myself  have never been an emotionally biased fool -- all of us have been. But whoever will be programmed by cheap verbal tricks while making an important voting decision -- well... I hope this doesn't apply to most Americans.

Ben Carson's Hidden Message.

I have a speculation about Carson's recent rise in the polls. No, the neurosurgeon is not actually dumb enough to believe his grain-in-the-pyramids theory. He is playing dumb, on purpose. If you doubt it, just look at what kind of talk got Donald Trump to the top of the polls this summer.

Or, remember Rep. Todd Akin and his brilliant insight into female anatomy. For those of you who had forgotten, he had claimed that a pregnant woman's body magically knows whether or not the conception has been through rape, and if so, it can abort the fetus on its own accord. Well, that one was actually a case of bona fide stupidity, but that is not the point.

The point is, someone had voted for that guy! That is yet another reminder of what kind of clientelle Mr. Carson is attempting to serve.

America is a nation of salesmen! The customer is always right. So is the market. So are the voters. Bill Maher, smart as he is, has no chance of changing any minds or hearts by calling Americans dumb. Coming back to Todd Akin example, one might get a fleeting, horrifying suspicion that Bill might actually have had a point. Still, every businessman knows that antagonizing the audience is asking for rotten eggs in the kisser.

A businessman won't argue with potential buyers. He will adapt to the reality of their demands, reasonable or not. Adapting is so much more practical than trying to change the world.

Thus, I speculate, Carson doesn't really believe in his own pyramid theory. His real message is: I am not siding with a bunch of egghead academics. I am one of you, folks. You know, just another American. It works. His numbers are up. I guess, we shouldn't ridicule Carson for his egregious ignorance. Instead, we should be flattered that he is trying to so hard to be one of us.

Tormenting Animals: Because We Can?

It is indeed a philosophical question -- and irrelevant to some -- whether we should be allowed to subject animals to pointless suffering. The recent killing of the majestic lion Cecil is a shocking reminder that the question is there. Another reminder is routine cruelty of the meat industry to not-so-majestic cattle and birds, whose muscle tissue is served daily on burger buns all over America. On the other hand, our friends from the religious right scream that we are all higher beings, God's creation, and not animals at all. If we cannot earn the status, let us magically award it to ourselves anyway.

Cecil has been killed by a licensed hunter, in perfect accordance with the law, though the way in which he's been killed ought to be illegal: for the last 40 hours of his life, the lion had to to put up with the sharp arrow in his flesh.

Is anyone in the whaling industry paying attention? What about cattle? The law protects them against cruelty, but the political pressure to enforce it isn't there. If we need to eat them, fine. Can  we kill them humanely, for Christ's sake?! Can we only kill what we need to? Can we learn to treat each other decently, while we are at it?

``You call my children animals!'' a priest had once screamed at the biologist Richard Dawkins. He must have heard something that Dawkins never said: that we are nothing but animals. It is up to us whether or not we act as higher beings. Either rise to the level, or shut up about not wanting to share 96% of your DNA with a chimp. Mammals are,in fact, capable of compassion. Are you?

Anti-Hillary TV Ads Are Being Tested in Labs.

In this NY Times article, Ashley Parker and Amy Chozick write of a peculiar research lab, financed by a Republican strategist. The lab is testing anti-Hillary TV ads for effectiveness. They use paid "experimental rabbits" from various voter groups.

The article remarks that "Republicans are acutely aware that early attacks labeling Mitt Romney as elitist were impossible for him to shake in 2012." That might be, but I doubt that Hillary will be effected by such attacks to the same extent. After all, Mitt Romney's message was off-the-leash capitalism, which didn't sit well with the majority of the voters.

Obama has been elected and re-elected by the economic scare, by the recession. Just as his predecessor has been re-elected by the terror scare of Sept. 11th attacks. Not to say that every election has the scare which ultimately decides the outcome. Indeed, a notable exception is the comedy of the year 2000, when W made it into the office by flipping the state of Florida -- they couldn't find a coin -- and by court decision.

One important feature that differentiates Hillary from the other side is the lack of certain attitude toward a drowning person. The GOP candidates come across as if they were telling a drowning man to calm down, take a lungfull of air, practice his strokes down there, and swim for the nearest public beach, all on his own. God forbid, they might infringe on someone's freedom by heading for a private  beach instead.

The message of self-reliance and personal responsibility is certainly a right one. I tell my kids that, by and large, they are on their own in this world.

However, coming from certain politicians, that's how the message comes across. Especially, if it is used to as an argument against affordable healthcare. So, the negative TV ads portraying a candidate as "elitist and out-of-touch" won't stick to Mrs. Clinton as much as they've stuck to Mr. Romney. It's her message that counts, really.

Je Suis Charlie 2.0.

To the Muhammad Art Exhibit attackers: if you two can hear me down there in the pits of hell, you schmucks are the reason why the contest had been held in the first place!

No, I did not participate in the contest, and would not want to.

If I had a good neighbour who happened to be a Muslim -- you know, smiles and hellos every morning, doing each other little favours, that sort of thing -- he or she would be another reason why I would not join any contest of the sort: out of respect for that person's feelings.

As it is, I have no close relationship with anybody who practices the faith. But I keep hearing of the nutters willing to tell me what I can and cannot draw in my own home. Pamela Geller may not be the nicest person in America, but the fact remains that her group was attacked on American soil for exercising their constitutional right. Attacked in their own backyard.

Perhaps, AFDI deserved a peaceful protest by decent Muslims, and things could have been said to put the bigots to shame. Islamic activists could have emerged with a moral victory. Instead we had two filthy individuals, who identified themselves with Islam, who did what little they could to perpetuate the ugly stereotype.

Whoever hates that faith, whoever loves the stereotype had received just what they wanted last Sunday. The Fox-Newsesque bigots a-la Ann Coulter must be delighted right now. Seriously, all the extremists out there deserve to hear this: you are the real reason why the pictures of the prophet are being drawn by defiant artists all over the world.

This week's outrageous murder of Boris Nemtsov is but a tip of the iceberg, the bulk of which is missed by the English-lingual press. Along with Anna Politkovskaya and Sergei Magnitsky the man is now a victim of political terror.

The world's largest country, home to 150 million people, the country that gave us Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov, Aivazovsky and Kandinsky, the country with amazingly rich culture and history, is bound to swim in the filthy waste of its own moral degradation for years to come. Lack of  ordinary conscience in too many hearts and common sense in too many
minds is the underlying reason.

Suppression of free speech in the last year has reached levels unseen even back in 2012. Somehow, this has gone by largely unnoticed by Huffington Post, CNN, or Fox News. Moreover, the degree of support of such oppression among the common folk does not receive nearly enough attention in the west.

In this video, we see ordinary Russian citizens protesting the war in Ukraine. These people are bullied not by the police or the Security Services, but by their fellow countrymen. (The blue-and-yellow flag is Ukrainian).

Such is a nature of a dictatorship: oppression of people by their own kind, not just by the Evil Man Upstairs, be it Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin.

The attackers in the video think they are being patriotic. They have no idea what is it they are doing to themselves, to their children. There is no law without free speech. There is no feedback and no way to govern effectively without free speech. They are handing their own government a terrible license to squash any one of them individually.

President Obama had to issue a statement of condemnation and a call for a transparent investigation, of course. He had no choice. Still, I am sure, he realizes that demanding justice of the current Russian government is nothing short of naive.

It is probably time to address the nation as a whole, because a significant portion of it -- though hopefully not a majority -- supports the policies of Kremlin.

High Incarceration, Low Incarceration.

In the much touted book Rich Dad Poor Dad -- which has also received quite a bit of criticism over factual errors (see here and here) -- Robert Kiosaki puts forth the importance of understanding cash flow. In essence, it means that the financial state of the individual can be viewed as multiple pools of money connected by pipes. The employer's pocket feeding into the individual's pocket, which in turn feeds the mortgage, the utility bills, et cetera. In order to be wealthy, one must understand that plumbing.

This is not a financial blog, but I wonder what we might have concluded had we applied similar reasoning to the penitentiary system in the United States. Consider the pools of the American people: pre-high-school, high-school, college students, working professionals, the unemployed, criminals at large, prison inmates.

Criminal history, depending on the offence may remain on the ex-inmate for seven years or longer, virtually precluding him or her from landing a decent job. A glass ceiling over impoverished communities becomes a pipe feeding from the pool of the prison inmates back into itself. Throw in some  suction from high-school into the criminal and prison pools, as well as weak economy which is sure to pump some people from the working professional pool into the prison system as well and we get one ugly picture.

The U.S. incarceration rate is comparable to that of the Soviet union during the reign of Joseph Stalin.

"Rape culture" or "Sexual anarchy?"

Today, I want to rant about a, shall we say, interesting article by Jeremy Egerer "The Irrational Modern Woman, Sexual Anarchy and 'Rape Culture.'"

Although the exact message of the piece is a bit amorphous, the author seems to assert a certain dichotomy, an either-or situation faced by  a modern woman of the Western world.

What dichotomy? Well, looks like there is more than one, which is the part that the author could have made clearer. Let's see:

"She demands liberty for all women to portray themselves as sexual objects and then complains when objectified by random men on the street ... She wants men to defend her against lewd sexual advances and then derides men for using terms such as 'slut' while she accepts them."

What exactly does that mean? I can but speculate, but I shall try. Cannot ask the author. Or, perhaps, I can ask the spoiled, insufferable modern gal herself? What is it you want, dear lady? Do you want to adhere to the dress code of a catholic school, perhaps even wear a nijab? Or do you want to put up with whoops and insults of intoxicated morons driving by?

It's not like they'd find a way to insult just about anyone on the sidewalk -- except, perhaps, a police officer or a group of sinister male teenagers. If only you presented yourself appropriately, those guys would have been the epitome of chivalry and gentlemanhood. See what you have reduced them to?

Do you want your dad/mom/priest to make decisions about your sexual behavior? No? Would you rather leave it to a rapist? No again? Who, then? Who is it that you want to be in charge of your vagina? You are  "driving every sensible male into a state of confusion." Mr. Egerer certainly sounds confused.

All right, all right, I may have exaggerated. In fact, reason has glimpsed through the clouds of Mr. Egerer's affliction.

"It may be argued," he says, "that the defining factor of 'rape culture' concerns the woman's choice, that her consent alone determines whether or not sexual advance is proper."

Indeed, dear sir. Indeed. It may very well be argued.  But, alas, it's must have been too cloudy in there, for in the very next sentence we read:

"... when every woman has a different preference, and all is possible, how may men be held morally accountable for woman's defense?"

Meaning, some women don't like their most intimate decision to be overridden by strangers, but some others, apparently, do.  "And any man with any sense of morality -- or even simply a brain -- is rightfully frustrated." I am so sorry, sir. You have my condolences.

On the fight over Ohio Voting law

This scenario has probably been observed in politics once or twice. ;)

Them: "Here's our new great bill, which has X and Y."

(The X part looks wonderful and is loudly touted. The Y isn't so pretty.)

Us: "Nope, we're not having any of that, because of Y. See? It's right
there, and it's ugly."

Them: "Muuuum! He's against X! He's mean!"

The most recent point in case, the brawl between Obama and that other guy's
presidential campaighns about Ohio early voting law: http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters. (Via (@thenation )

A little more googling produces a host of other articles complementing the picture.

Actually, Fox News does mention both sides of the story, though the article title might be a tad bit misleading. Allright, maybe I'm being nitpicky here.

And here are the words of Obama's advisor David Axelrod (click here to read the rest):

"What that lawsuit calls for is not to deprive the military of the right to vote on the final weekend of the campaign, of course they should have that right," Obama's top campaign advisor David Axelrod told host Chis Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "What that suit is about is whether the rest of Ohio should have that same right. And I think it's shameful that Governor Romney would hide behind our servicemen and women to try and win a lawsuit to try to deprive other Ohioans of the right to vote."

My own haiku. Brilliant, I think.

Waiting for my sushi order...
Sake already here.
What's Japanese for 'lekhaim'?