And there's a bright side too

Better to have the people who supported Clinton out on the streets demonstrating than the people who supported Trump. This gives hope for the future. And though it's clear that Trump won't carry out even a small fraction of the hate crimes he pledged himself to – he's already walked back most of them – still protesters have every right to oppose his presidency for the words he used to win it. And, hopefully, they have learned how to use Facebook and Twitter to spread the "news" and fan the flames of progressive change.

President Trump

Those are two words I didn't expect to hear together. I just didn't think that Trump had the numbers to win the election. But then I didn't support Clinton (or any other candidate in this election or the other elections that I recall). All in all, this was a very interesting election that once again demonstrates the weakness of political democracy. The person who won the election lost all three of his debates, making one wonder about the wisdom of the electorate. And now it's quite amusing to hear various commentators and political leaders lauding a system that might better be called 'foolocracy' – and, in particular, the peaceful transition of power – thereby implicitly admitting that they only give lip service to the ethical principles they avow.

Critical mass

The Trump campaign's meltdown now seems to have reached critical mass. Not to suggest that Donald Trump is anything other than a despicable human being... though, like anyone else, he must have some redeeming qualities... at this stage, just about any woman who may have met the man could start to have memories of Trump molesting her. That is not to suggest that those memories are not real or even that Trump did not do what is remembered. But memories are not always trustworthy. Indeed, they are often no more trustworthy than Trump (or Clinton). The problem for the Trump campaign is that these allegations tend to be substantiated by Trump's own undeniable, recorded words. So there is really nothing at all that Trump can say that will alter people's readiness to believe the worst about him. And that, in my opinion, is why Trump stands no chance of winning the election. Indeed, even his business interests may end up suffering. Arguments that Trump has not been running for office as pope but rather as president are simply idiotic. Both popes and presidents are role models who also have considerable executive authority. As such, both are expected to embody at least a minimal degree of human decency.

VP debate

Unlike most commentators, the VP candidates impressed me with their similarity to their running mate rather than their contrast to their running mate. Like Clinton, Kaine came across as too much substance with too little style. Like Trump, Pence came across as too much style with too little substance. I don't think either of them won the debate or advanced their party's ticket, not to a significant detriment of the opposing party. For a polarized electorate, Kaine didn't make Hillary seem any more likable, and Pence didn't make Trump seem any more sensible. Kaine should have been more laid back, and Pence should have been more prepared with facts. That probably would not have made any positive difference in respect to the election (any more than the election is likely to make any positive difference in respect to the deplorable state of American or global society), but the debate might have been more enjoyable and informative.

Smart?

By no means is the following any kind of endorsement for Hillary Clinton, but...

In his first debate with Hillary, Donald Trump offered Americans and the world a lot of food for thought in respect to his candidacy and the entire system of capitalism. At one point in the debate, Hillary suggested that Donald has not released his tax records because they reveal that he did not pay any taxes or even give any money to charity. Donald effectively admitted that Hillary was right by responding with: "That makes me smart."

Leaving aside any criminal aspects of tax evasion, it seems that Donald does not understand that the president is a role model. So what would happen if the entire population of the USA were to be as selfishly smart as Donald? Obviously, no one would pay taxes. And if no one pays taxes, then Donald's federal government would have no money to pay off any debt or implement any social, economic, political, or military program, including Donald's secret plan to defeat ISIS and his not-so-secret plan to build a wall along the border with Mexico (unless, of course, Mexico actually does pay for that wall... in advance). Pretty soon, the US would look worse than any Third-World country. And that's how Donald would make America great again. What Donald has not yet admitted (but implicitly and repeatedly demonstrates) is that he wants to make America great only for his personal business interests.

So here we have tremendous insight into not just what sort of president Donald would be but also what sort of principles capitalism promotes. Can anyone believe that Donald would not exploit his power for the primary purpose of extending his personal wealth? According to Donald's avowed standards, failure to do so would not be smart.

Saint or sinner

Around 1977, I lived for almost a year in Kolkata. Several times I visited Mother Teresa's flagship project, her home for the dying in Kalighat, Nirmal Hriday. Each time I went, I was appalled by what I saw. Clearly, almost none of the many millions of dollars that were raised for that project actually went into the project. (Apparently, almost all of the money was passed along to the Pope.)

Conditions at Nirmal Hriday were primitive. And, despite the name of the project ("pure heart"), the treatment of patients was so heartless and substandard that the place should have been shut down by the government. But, of course, that never happened. Jyoti Basu (the communist and atheist Chief Minister of West Bengal) and Mother Teresa (the Catholic nun) were friends. They pretended to have a common love for the poor, each basking in the other's popularity.

That same year, I also met personally with Teresa. I formally requested her support for nothing more than a high-level and independent investigation into the alleged poisoning of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar by a prison doctor. She flatly refused to endorse that.

So what I can say about Mother Teresa is this. Despite her religious guise – and possibly because of her religious dogma – Teresa was a very worldly person. If she was a saint, then she was the first saint who never opposed - who always propped up and who was in turn propped up by - any sundry governmental or religious authority.

Brexit

Not that I don't love England, but now that Brexit is official...
Go Scotland, go!