WHAT'S WRONG WITH US

Despite recent appearances, this is not a political blog. (And yes, I've said it before.)

This blog is meant to support the Kindle ebook whose cover is depicted to the right of these words: WHAT'S WRONG WITH US.

(I just discovered the book is available as a free bootleg download on the Internet. I'm not quite willing to tell you where, right now.)

The central thesis of the book is that the reason human beings are so difficult to live with is that they are basically stupid.

Too stupid, in fact, to realize how stupid they are.

Oh, sure, an individual can see that other people are idiots. They just don't see how that idiocy could also be applied to them.

Basically, if a thought exists inside a human brain, that thought is considered correct. Any attempt to overthrow a given notion is immediately labeled false. Much of this inviolable knowledge is pounded into children's heads when they're helpless to resist.

(Keep in mind, Christians, if you'd been born in Baghdad or Tehran, you'd be a Muslim now. And be careful—your attempt to squirm out from under this obvious fact may stretch you Idiot Quotient to the breaking point.)

Another problem: Humans can't tell the difference between what they know and what they think they know.

The brain is mainly a machine for producing acceptable reasons why it's okay to think whatever it is you already think or to do whatever it is you've already decided to do.

The brain literally makes up stories to support your position on any subject. It also edits the world to provide you with "facts" that back you up—no matter what crap is bouncing around inside your diseased gourd.

The current election process is a window into this madness.

Roughly five percent of voters support third party candidates. This is idiocy. America is a dedicated two-party system, and the only time you can even attempt to move that needle is to align a third party with one of the major parties during primaries.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent who aligned with the Demos and tried for the nomination there. Hillary's super delegates made his quest impossible. Maybe next time it will work. But even it it does, this will still be a two-party system.

The way it is right now, the only thing a third party candidate can hope to accomplish is to throw the election to one of the major parties. Thus, Ralph Nader messed up the Florida vote enough to put George W. Bush in the White House. With disastrous results we're still trying to get away from.

The majority of Americans say they will vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Some of them are enthusiastic about their choice. Others are only trying to block the other guy from getting elected. It's been said these are the most unpopular candidates ever put forward by the Big Two.

This blog has attacked Donald Trump many times. (Trump would, if he had any inkling of this backwater corner of the Internet, characterize those attacks as "vicious." He likes that word a lot.)

The man puts himself right out there. Supporters often cite his willingness to speak his mind as their favorite thing about him. I guess we have to assume he really is saying what he means to say.

And in the process he shows himself to be a bully and a thug and a demagogue. He behaves in public in ways few Presidents have behaved in private. And some people literally love him for that.

He either sexually assaults women, or wants men to think he does, and so lies about doing it. Forty-some percent of Americans applaud this position.

Almost everything Trump says is either a lie or a promise no president can make happen. Forty-some percent of Americans want to fight to make him their president.

(If he loses, there will be lawsuits—and maybe armed insurrection. Man the barricades!)

Folks want change in Washington. They see backbiting and infighting and lack of cooperation, and they want it stopped. Forty-some percent of Americans reason that Trump, being an outsider, can make that change.

In fact, Trump faces a Congress that may never cooperate with him. About half are Democrats, and of the other half (the Republicans), about half of them hate the man. At best, he's a guy who will probably not veto anything the majority manages to get through.

(Assuming it's possible to get anything through Congress. Some Republicans have vowed not to approve of any Supreme Court nominee Hillary Clinton might put forward.)

Presidents need the cooperation of Congress to get most things done. And neither candidate is likely to get much help there.

Why is that? People know what they know and they know they're right (as far as they know). Why would they compromise that excellent knowledge? Why would they give an inch to the other side?

You can't bargain with devils!

This all-or-nothing attitude has been building for years. Is there any way out? Sometimes, when an outside threat is big enough, it forces folks to get together to defeat it. Will something like that work today?

One of the greatest challenges facing the world right now is Global Warming, but one of the candidates has it in mind it's a hoax. If his supporters agree, this country is not likely to come together to defeat it.

We face increased threat from Russia, but one of the candidates is fighting a compliment war with Russia's president. Trump says: "If he says great things about me, I'm gonna say great things about him." Putin recently declared Trump "brilliant." (Perhaps he admires the way the man lies and lies and gets away with it.)

Acting on his own, Trump may not be able to get much done. The question is, how much trouble can he get us into? If he wins, we may need to set up back-channel connections to the world to remind everybody this man does not speak for us. Is that some kind of treason?

Of course, Hillary Clinton has her own problems. I don't give them much space here because Trump provides me with vastly more material.

I believe she set up her private email server when she was in the Senate. She decided to keep it going when she became Secretary of State. That has proved to be a monumental mistake, perhaps big enough to cost her the election. If she were the ruthless monster portrayed by Trump, she would have anticipated trouble, if only the requirement to release all her private emails—or face criticism for deleting them.

And if you have political power, it's probably not a good idea to also have a foundation folks can send money to—in the hope of siphoning off some of that power in their favor. If a motorcycle cop won't be bribed to let you off that speeding ticket, it's only human nature to think a donation to the Orphans and Widows Fund might help you out.

Even if Pay-to-play isn't happening, it looks bad for the one in power. If your bribe doesn't actually stop you from getting you what you want, you might conclude it helped you to succeed. And you might spread the word.

(Humans believe in prayer, too—because they know it works. Try getting that out of their wonky heads.)

Oddly, some folks might hold their noses and vote for Hillary, despite the fact they believe Trump's lies about her. They just hate him more.

Any way you slice it, the majority of Americans are going to vote for indefensible reasons. But they'll all know they're doing the right thing.

Lucky us! We get to live right in the middle of this dangerous nonsense.