The Changing Face of Latinos in America

In case you've been on a long retreat in Himalayas or living "off the radar" for the past several years, you should know that Hispanics are the second largest population in America right now, although their rate of growth have slacked off in recent years. That position had long been held by blacks, who have fallen to third and may drop to fourth over the next few decades as Asians, the fastest growing demographic in America are starting to catch up (in Canada, they are already the second largest group in terms of population).

Meanwhile, whites, who've long been the largest population since the country's conception, have been in steady decline, despite the surge in births following WWII (the Babyboomers) in terms of overall population. The result of all this is that within the decade or so, the US will be a nation of minorities, with no single group being dominate. How that will play out politically and economically remains to be seen.

Of course, this is pretty much old news as alluded to at the beginning of this article. What I would like to discuss is a new phenomena which has been happening within the Hispanic Community and its possible affects on society. Hispanics have historically been Catholic (Roman Catholic to be more precise), and typically very devout at that. In fact, the Catholic Church as had an impact on Latin America from the moment Columbus planted the Imperial Spanish flag in the sand in what is now the Bahamas side by side with Friar Juan Perez, a Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order (the "Minorites").

The Catholic Church has exerted a powerful impact over the population in Latin America for centuries, some of it for good such as basic education and medical care and some---perhaps much of it---for ill such as working hand-in-glove with the wealthy landowners and government to keep the peasants mostly ignorant, poor, and on the farms (the result, as we've seen in Latin America, has been the slow growth of a educated middle class. Latin America still suffers from a two tier stratification between the very wealthy and the very poor). Attempts to reform society have often meet with violent opposition by the wealthy, and usually with the support of the Church's entrenched hierarchy.

So, it's this mix of admiration and fear of their faith, as well as the government, including its military and police, which has dictated the order of society in Latin America for generations, and it continues as Hispanics have crossed into the United States, legally or illegally. But, there's a subtle change taking place that we should be aware of. Assimilation among Hispanics has largely been slow; perhaps slower than among any other group which has immigrated in mass to the US. That's not to say there hasn't been assimilation, there has, especially among Cubans, Panamanians, and Puerto Ricans. However, among other groups, such as Mexicans and those from Central and South America, it's been slow at best.

Among certain segments, there's actually been a strong resistance; insisting that they not learn or speak English, the historical and de facto "official" national language of the US, as well as a refusal to adopt many of our national traditions. Nevertheless, change has still taken place, among which has been the adoption of other religious faiths. This is particularly true of younger immigrants (regardless of their legal status). 68% of Hispanics identify as Roman Catholic. At present, approximately one-third of all Catholics in the US are Hispanic or of Hispanic origin, with two-thirds of those attending services in Spanish. However, some 18% now identify at Protestant while 8% don't identify with any religion; some that would have been unheard in their grandparent's generation.

Of the 18% who've converted, the majority of them have become members of Evangelical congregations such as Pentecostal, Baptist and Church of Christ. Interestingly still is that many of these churches have started offering services and/or religious classes (like Bible Study) in Spanish. As an aside, many of these converts have also changed their political allegiances a well. While most Hispanics in the US have tended to lean heavily Democrat or politically Left (with the except of Cubans, who've historically been Republican), these converts have increasingly become Republican or vote along conservative lines.

Just for clarification, membership in both corporate controlled political parties has been and continues to be on the decline while Independents, who are now the nation's majority at 44%, continues to rise. Third parties, such as Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists are also showing signs of growth too. So, while these Hispanics have left the Democratic Party, their political switch doesn't necessarily mean they've joined the Republican Party. It means that they've have become more conservative in their political outlook. Thus their change to religious denominations which tend to more conservative, so has their political outlook.

Meanwhile, it's important to note that while Hispanics are showing more willingness to leave their traditional Roman Catholic roots, and while the trend is slowly increasing, Hispanics still make a much smaller percentage of overall membership in Protestant, and specifically Evangelical congregations than whites or blacks (Asians are the smallest group making up Protestant membership). Now, as for the 6% who describe themselves as secular, it's interesting to note that 66% are recent post-high school graduates, meaning that they are still fairly young adults. 63% say that English is the primary language, even if they come from bilingual households.

Almost half were born in the United States, and 41% come from households which bring in $30,000 annually or less. So, this 6% then are native born and assimilated, fairly young, have a basic education and come from relatively poor, likely lower level blue collar homes (there's another Pew Survey which I came across which demonstrates that Latino identity appears to be diminishing over generations, starting with native born children. I'll include a link to that survey as well below). Perhaps that's not too surprising. I think the identification with our ancestral homelands tend to fade across all racial and ethnic groups as individuals become increasingly assimilated. Maybe the last bonding tie will be artificial identifier of the "hyphenated American" such as "Asian-American' which identifies the individual as being racially Asian as well as having Asian ancestry while now being American, which is not a racial description. Hispanic-American is quite different however.

To clarify as briefly as possible, the Federal government defines "Hispanic" as a ethnic group rather than a race, since Hispanics tend to be an admixture of various races. Thus, a "Hispanic-American" may be racially more a central African origin or Native American origin, or even mainly Spanish or Portuguese origin, yet be from a Latin American culture. Black Americans are generally referred to as "African-Americans" although neither "African" or "American" are racial descriptions. The use of the term "African" can include the predominantly northern Arab populations (who are categorized racially as "Caucasians"), the more central Negro populations (which is a race), or the white South African Boars and Afrikaners (who are obviously white). Again, "American" doesn't describe a race, but rather a country and/or culture. Of course, whites are typically referred to by their racial indicator, "Caucasians" rather than as "Euro-Americans" which would be more accurate using the above logic of hyphenation.

So, while Hispanics seem to slowly assimilating despite the efforts of some to stop to reverse this trend, it's likely that in time Hispanics will eventually simply become a mixed bag like the majority of other Americans. Meanwhile, it's probable that Catholicism will remain the dominate religion among Hispanics, its hold will lessen as more chose to explore other faiths (and political allegiances), there is another trend taking place among Hispanics which seems to be often overlooked.

79% of black Americans tend to be primarily Protestants; 14% align with Evangelical churches, like the Baptists, while 53% follow traditional "Black Protestant" faiths such as the United Church of Christ and the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) churches. 5% belong to the Catholic Church while 4% are members of Mainstream Protestant churches such as Lutheran, Methodists, or Presbyterian. An estimated 18% are unaffiliated with any organized religion. However, 2% of blacks in the US are Muslims; mainly followers of the controversial Nation of Islam which has somewhere around 35,000 -45,000 members, which brings me back to Hispanics and religion.

One often ignored trend among Hispanics is that they are the fast growing group converting to Islam, which, given their numbers, could play a serious issue down the road. As present, the numbers are relatively small; approximately 150,000 within the Latino community, but there are signs those numbers may be growing. One reason is that the principal recruiting ground of Islam, especially radical Islam, has long been in US prisons, of which Hispanics represent approximately 33% of all inmates.

According to US Federal Bureau of Prisons, 80% of religious conversions in prison are to Islam, with the majority being blacks, the number among Hispanics has been increasing rapidly. Muslims make up 9% of the total prison population, compared to presenting around 1% to 2% of the general population (in New York's prison system, Islam makes up nearly 20% of the inmates). Combine this with the number of gang members in prison, this could have potentially devastating consequences if this spills over to the drug cartels who adopt Islam in conjunction with their criminal activities (for statistical purposes, blacks comprise 37% of the prison population, compared with 2.2% of Native Americans and 1.6% of Asians, while whites, which includes a portion of Hispanics, make up 58.5%). Terrorists groups like ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and Al Qaeda could look like a bunch of kindergarteners by comparison next to criminal gangs like MS-13, Mexican Mafia, or the Sinaloa Cartel.

America has the largest incarcerated population of any country in the world, 724 per 100,000 people compared to "evil" Russia which has just 581 per 100,000; not a notable distinction for a country which prides itself on being "enlightened" or "advanced" (as an aside, half of the world's incarcerated population are in just three countries---the US, China, and Russia). Given the changes in US demographics, incarcerating the second and third largest populations, can't be good. Meanwhile, we're seeing changes in the political and religious alignment of Hispanics, as well as the increasing assimilation among the younger generations, yet there still runs the potential backlash the mass imprisonment of a specific group brings (generations ago, it was the Irish and Italians as well as the Poles and other Eastern Europeans).

This doesn't excuse the criminal activity of gangs any more than it did the Irish, Jewish, or Italian gangs of the 1920's and 30's, not does it excuse in any way individuals illegally entering the US (which is frowned upon by those of the same group who entered legally). However, we must address the problem we obviously have with incarceration and immigration. As the Roman Emperor Tiberius said of his nephew and future emperor, Caligula, "I'm nursing a viper for the Roman people", so are we laying the groundwork for a potential disaster.



Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion

Hispanic Identity Fades Across Generations as Immigrant Connections Fall Away


Is being Hispanic a matter of race, ethnicity, or both?

Muslims in America: Latinos Converting to Islam As US Population Grows


Federal Bureau of Prisons: Statistics

I Know You Heard What I Said But Did You Understand What I Meant?

I titled this article after a oft used quote from a good friend of mine back in my Navy days. His name was "Nick', although we all called him "Moses" because of his thick black beard. Nick was forever making quips which, unfortunately, were sometimes taken out of context. This occasionally led to some intense verbal discussions mainly with folks who didn't understand Nick's personality very well. Nick's response was usually the above quote. Nick was fond of saying that so many times people see and hear what they want to see or hear; usually as a result of societal preconditioning. It's almost like they were subconsciously preconditioned to pick up on specific words or images without considering the rest. I used to kid Nick that, for a "Yankee", that was pretty insightful, and it was.

I've been writing Another Opinion since 2005, but my articles go back a lot further than that (I've got some 500 or so articles under my belt as far as A/O goes). I've had articles published in numerous professional journals, magazines, and newspapers. I've appeared on television and been a guest of various radio shows. I've even co-hosted a top rated Independent radio show of my own. My opinions have sometimes changed on various topics as new information became available, but I don't think its affected my core beliefs. One of those core beliefs has been to be open minded; to at least actually listen to the other person. While rarely my opinion was changed, I've have often learned something new or became aware of something I wanted to know more about. If you don't change and evolve, you stagnate and decay. It applies just as much to ideas as to life, and dogmas aren't very good at change.

However, I've noticed a decided change of late where an exchange of opinions, especially opposing opinions are increasingly not tolerated any more. It's like one side or another has decided that what the other person's has to say is not only automatically "wrong" because it's different, that person doesn't even have the right to express it. We're seeing it on college campuses (which should be the last place where freedom of expression and speech should be denied), high school and elementary school, and even in the corporate world (where a single comment or even word, taken out of context, almost automatically leads to manufactured condemnation, boycotts, and public ridicule).

We've seen individuals attacked, protests which have turned into near riots with businesses vandalized. Even those who have been invited to speak have found themselves assaulted, the stage swarmed, and deprived of the opportunity to express their opinion, all because its differs from the current "groupthink" or "echo chamber" mentality which simply reinforces one's beliefs and values by being exposed to one narrative only. People are then left assuming that their particular opinion is the only valid one. Meanwhile, the other side is demonized.

This type of thinking carries with it the implied belief that the other side has no "right" to their opinions or to express them. I think, at its core, this "groupthink" goes back to our education system, from grade school through college, with students not being taught critical thinking skills; the ability to research and reason out logically an argument. I remember being taught to not just know the other side's position as well as our own, but actually having to defend their position in order to know how to best validate ours. In addition, students are not taught Civics or history (at least to any meaningful degree). What they do learn is very narrow and limited in scope and typically one sided. As an aside, we need to focus on practical skills and trade schools which provide near immediate entry into the job market with good pay and benefits. Not everyone should or need to go to college.

Some college administrators have recently had to cancel speakers over threats of protests and possible violence. Even I have had individuals complain about some of my posts; usually claiming that I write, post, or comment about just one side and not the other. A few have directed their comments (or emojis) at me personally if they happened to dislike an article I came across and posted. I've even had fellow writers, vloggers, and talk radio jocks who've been attacked verbally and in some cases, physically threatened over their articles or comments What happened to civility folks?

I recall an old quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English writer of Voltaire, which goes something like this, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", which reminds me of another quote which is equally important, especially these days, "Your freedom of expression stops where my personal space begins" (paraphrased from Judicial philosopher and civil libertarian Zechariah Chafee Jr, who said "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"). Again, it all goes back to civility and the right of individuals to express their opinion on various topics in a mutually respectful matter and environment.

Of course, much of the disrespect these days is manufactured by paid political operatives hiding behind fake shill groups and amplified by the corporate-owned media for the purpose of shutting the other side in an effort to control the political narrative. It's a coordinated effort to end or discourage public discourse in order to control the political (and thus social and economic) direction this country pursues. What this reminds me of is the running street battles between the SA (Brownshirts) and the Communists during the early 1930s in Germany. Each side would attack the other's speakers and/or disrupt meetings and events, except here most of the attacks and disrupting are being done just by one side (so far).

An increasing number of writers and social commentators (your truly included) have noted that this has contributed greatly to America's widening social, economic, and political divide. Many noted political scientists and historians have pointed out that America hasn't been this deeply divided since the decade preceding the Civil War. The same can be said of Germany in the 1930's as mentioned above. One thing for certain, is that this divide, which began with Bill Clinton and continued through George W Bush and Barack Obama, may have already reached and passed the point of no return.

As I've often pointed out (and been equally criticized about for reminding people), Hillary's defeat amid charges of repeatedly lying to Congress, illegal weapons and uranium sales, rigging of the Democratic Primary (in conjunction with the then DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was fired for her role but immediately hired by the Clinton Campaign), the Benghazi Scandal, and other charges along with the election of Donald Trump, the non-Establishment Republican candidate, may historically represent the tipping point
.
Some would argue that Obama was the tipping point, and there's certainly a good argument for that given his gutting of ICE and suing the State of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws (and allowing Mexico to join in the lawsuit---a first), Eric Holder's illegal arms deal with the drug cartels (resulting in the deaths of border agents as well as DEA agents), and repeated efforts to invade Syria just to mention a tiny few. Of course, one could equally argue George W Bush was the tipping point. Lord knows he bungled enough! We could start with the invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, which destabilized the entire region and led to the rise of ISIS and Boko Harem and the genocide of Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds. It also triggered the mass influx of "migrants" into Europe (thanks also to the imbecilic political "leadership" in Europe), but there's so much more than just that. The point is that regardless of their political parties, we've witnessed a recent history of disastrous policy mistakes.

It's this point which is so often overlooked by critics (even friendly ones) of Another Opinion. From their preconditioned perspectives, I must either be Left or Right. It's one or the other. There are no other choices because the corporate-owned media has told them there are no other choices. The fact is that there are other choices. It's not all black or white (or red and blue in this case I suppose). I don't ascribe to any partisan party dogma. Been there. Done that. No thanks. I prefer to think for myself, which often means doing my own research and studying the pros and cons of every argument. But, that kind of thinking is viewed almost as heresy these days because it doesn't fit with the established political narrative which says that what ails you and society---whatever it is---is the fault of the other side.

Listen folks, if the Democrats were all they claim to represent, there wouldn't be a Republican one in office anywhere in America. By the same token, if the Republican Party was all it claimed to be, you couldn't find a Democrat anywhere. The fact is they aren't. They both represent Corporate America because they underwrite their campaigns. Their lobbyists help them write the bills and then provide summaries of those bills along with recommendations on how to vote. These corporations provide a revolving door into some very lucrative positions and back again. Meanwhile, you and I get the illusion of thinking that we make a difference by voting when in actuality, we simply get to pick between two pre-approved candidates. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if we chose between red "Kool-Aid" or blue "Kool-Aid".

The system is broken, at least as far as we are concerned. For the ruling elites which make up America's Oligarchy, it works just fine...as intended. It is this game which I won't play. I want our democratic Republic back. I believe that when someone is elected to office, they should cease being a Republican or Democrat or whatever. They cease representing a political party and it's myopic dogma and represent Americans and what's best for all of us, not just a few, and certainly not just the uber-wealthy and powerful. I believe in representatives not dependent on corporate money. I believe in a transparent government with public input (taxes, pay raises should all be voted on by the citizens). I believe there should be term limits.

I believe Congress and the Presidency should be bound by the same laws that we are (and that includes their insurance. They also should not receive lifetime salaries or security---they can pay for it if they want it). I also believe that the United States, like every other nation, has the right to protect their borders. Any group which aids illegal immigrants should be fined and lose their business or tax exempt status (suspended for six months with their first offense. One year with their second and permanent with their third). Only US Citizens should be entitled to any taxpayer based social services.

Everyone graduating from high school should be required to have two semesters of Civics minimum, which includes volunteering for some charity like Meals on Wheels or at the VA; maybe helping out with the Board of Elections doing voter registration drives. In addition, students graduating from high school should have a basic comprehension of math, science, history, and English (of course, I would love to see teachers paid on par with coaches too). I couldn't care less what kind of athlete they are. If they are on a sixth or eighth grade academic level, they don't graduate. On a unrelated note, the LBJ's "War on Drugs" is a failure. We need to legalized marijuana and focus more on rehabilitation for misdemeanors (being sure to segregate them from felony cases, especially violent and/or career criminals). Those convicted of violent crimes involving premeditated murder should be given a choice---solitary confinement for life or execution. Their choice. I don't want to hear about their sad little childhood. They're adults who made adult decisions, albeit bad ones.

I support the 2nd Amendment. Period. It wasn't written for hunters or weekend target shooting. It was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government. I support the right of employees to organize, be it as a union or an employee association. If you look at the history of unions, they developed in industries where employees were abused and taken advantage of. However, I think many of today's union leadership are little better than corporate bosses. That needs to stop, and unions should return to the employees if unions are to have any chance of surviving. At the same, if you're a business and you want to avoid unions, then stop treating your employees like crap and pay them a decent wage. Problem solved.

While I'm at it, fully support a social safety net. We also need help at some point, and sometimes that help has to come from society (preferably as a last resort). However, never should living off of taxpayer charity be a "career choice". It should be temporary; just long enough to get retrained or find another job (and no, you shouldn't continue to get more money for continuing to have more children. If the national average is 2.5 for instance, the maximum amount of assistance should be three kids. Families on public support should not be penalized for having the male remain with the family. I don't support Affirmative Action. Sorry. I see it as simply legalized reverse discrimination. Employers should be able to hire the best qualified candidate. It's good for the business and its good for society in the long run.

I don't support intervention in the affairs of other nations, especially their elections unless there is a legitimate need. We get bent out of shape with claims of their alleged intervention in ours. The US has been overthrowing governments and assassinating duly elected leaders and backing military dictatorships. It's not our business who another country freely elections or what kind of government they want (for that matter, we need to stop propping up governments. We need to seriously start closing overseas bases where we don't have a real security need to be there, and that includes withdrawing from NATO. While we're at it, we need to reexamine who are our strategic allies are today instead of basing them on war which ended in 1990.

So dear reader, there you have it. If any of this makes me seem "Right" leaning or "Left" leaning, so be it. I see myself, and this blog as Centrist (it's been consistently ranked among the top 25 Centrist blogs in the country for several years now). I see issues and look at addressing them based on the facts at hand, not through a blue or red prism. I also feel free to change my opinion as those facts change without fear of not being a ideological purist. I have no use for political dogma, either Right or Left, and I refuse to fit neatly in some prepackaged "either/or" box. I will consider myself free to praise or criticize Republicans or Democrats or anyone else based on what they actually did. I am very good at tap dancing on toes and tipping sacred cows. The nice thing is that I know I'm in good company. Independents such as myself are now the political majority with 44% of the electorate and growing, while Democrats and Republican are stuck in the 20% range and shrinking. I eagerly await word of their impending demise. It's time to take back our country from the ruling plutocracy---the Oligarchs---and their trained media attack dogs. I refuse to chose "either/or" politics and instead, chose a democratic Republic with We the People in charge. Now that you've heard what I have to say, do you understand what I mean?

Let's Talk About NATO Shall We?

President Trump recently ruffled some feathers while speaking to members the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. Ruffling feathers isn't anything new for Trump, who seems to take a devious delight in seeing whose golden goose he can drop kick across the Rose Garden. I can't say I blame him. Washington is deep up to its coffered comb overs in special interest muck. However, I was curious to see if Trump was right about this one. Are US Taxpayers picking up the lion's share of the bill needed for Europe's defense? For that matter, should Washington even be spending our money on Europe's military?

Before we get started, let's take a moment to remind ourselves why NATO was created and what it's all about. Historically, Europe had long been a continent interlocked by a complicated network of treaties and alliances which ebbed and flowed like Seine or Danube rivers. Today's friend was tomorrows arch-nemesis. This system of alliances reached the status of an art form under three key statesmen---Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (1754 - 1838), who career as French diplomat and foreign minister spanned decades, from King Louis XVI through the French Revolution, Napoleon, King Louis XVIII and Louis-Phillip. Known to be as brilliant as he was duplicitous.

Next was a younger contemporary, Klemens von Metternich (1773 - 1859). Von Metternich was Austria's Foreign Minister who represented the victorious powers following the second defeat of Napoleon. His diplomatic maneuvering resulted in the creation of the "Metternich System" of interlocking treaties and alliances designed to prevent any future "Napoleon" and ensure peace in Europe. The last, but less important diplomatic chess player was Prussia's Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898). Von Bismarck served first as the Minister President of Prussian, and then later as Chancellor of the German Empire; an empire he largely created himself.

All three men attempted to create a network of alliances designed to benefit their particular country just as any diplomat then or now would. But, given Europe's long history of bloody wars, also sought to create a system whereby war would become too costly economically and militarily to wage, and for a brief time, it held. However, Europe came to be dominated by lesser men with greater egos. Their systems were undone in one form or another. World War One all but destroyed any notion of wide ranging interconnecting alliances (in fact, it was misused of the existing cross-nation alliances which was to blame for the continent wide carnage). Out of the "Great War" or "War to End All Wars" as it was known, a more restricted system of alliances arose. However, these new political arrangments were little better and helped set the stage for next State sanction murder spree, World War Two.

When that war ended in 1945 to the tune of 60 million people killed or 3% of the world's total population (when disease and famine are included, that number jumps to 80 million). No sooner than the war ended, the stage was set for the next confrontation, the Cold War. Without going into the details of what happened, the former allies formed their own armed camps, with the USSR and the countries it "liberated" from the Nazis on one side, and the US, Great Britain, France and other countries freed from Nazi occupation on the other (China aligned with the USSR, but it's interest remained centered in Asia).

The first to formalize their "mutual defense and cooperation" agreement was the West in July 1948, which originally included the United States, France, UK, West Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Later, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Turkey and Iceland joined (France withdrew in 1966 and rejoined in 2009). Its purpose was to deter what was seen a aggressive and expansionist USSR, especially amid Communist uprisings in various Western nations such as Greece and Italy and Stalin's refusal to allow free and monitored elections in the countries where it now occupied.

In response, the USSR created the Warsaw Pact in May 1955 as a counterbalance to NATO (interesting, the USSR actually requested to join NATO January/February 1954 and offered to allow a German reunification. The offer was rejected at the insistence of the UK's Anthony Eden and America's John Dulles and France's George Bidault). Originally, the Warsaw Pact consisted of the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Albania (which withdrew in 1968), Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia (the impetus for the creation of the Warsaw Pact was Czechoslovakia's fear of a rearmed, albeit truncated and monitored, Germany. As such, it sought a military alliance with Poland and East Germany).

While the Warsaw Pact was formally dissolved on July 1, 1991, which also marked the end of the Cold War, NATO continues to operate as it always has done, but why? Its sole purpose, to defend Europe from a possible Soviet invasion, has vanished. I need to point that that since the fall of the USSR and end of the Warsaw Pact, many of its former members have opted to join NATO, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

We also need to be reminded that US support of NATO was due largely to add our economic and military weight to a Europe which was still struggling to recover from the Second War, now 73 years past, is no longer valid either (in fact, Germany, now reunified, is ranked as the fourth largest economy in the world, with the UK and France ranked 5th and 6th respectively). Militarily, each of the NATO members work in cooperation in developing, manufacturing, and deploying military equipment, so why are we there?

If we examine the costs to operate NATO, it's not cheap. According to NATO itself costs in 2017 were $946 billion dollars. The UK contributes just over $55 million dollars to NATO (equal to 2.1% of its Gross Domestic Product or GDP) while France spends just under $45 million dollar or 1.8% of its GDP. Germany spends about $45.5 million dollars on NATO, which equates to 1.2% of its GDP. Italy contributes right at $23 million dollars; about 1.1% of its GDP. Canada gives a tad over $21 million dollars to NATO, which is 1.3% of its GDP. Meanwhile Turkey and Spain both provide about $12 million dollars each or 1.5% and 0.9% respectively of their GDP. Greece, which has long been a troubled economy, still manages to contribute $4.7 million, or about 2.4% of its GDP.

Newcomer nations such as Poland has anted up with just over $10 million dollars, which is equivalent to 2.0% of their GDP, while Romania provides $3.6 million; 1.8% of it GDP. The Czech Republic gives a little over $2 million dollars to NATO and Hungary sends $1.4 million dollars, which is equal to 1.1% GDP for both countries. Other members nations provide a lot less in terms of actual dollars, but in many cases, it still represents a substantial portion of their GDP. Bear in mind that while these percentages of GDP don't seem like a lot, they represent the final values of all goods or services at the time of purchase. In this case, this the equivalent of capital being taken out of the economy and being given to nation rather than reinvested back into the economy. For larger countries, this doesn't really have much of an overall effect, however, for the smaller nations or the ones in serious economic trouble like Greece, it's a big deal.

Now, I bet you'd like to know where the US stands in its contribution to the defense of NATO wouldn't you? Well, here you go. US Taxpayers pony up just under (barely) $686 million dollars (yelp, you read that correctly). That represents a whopping 3.6% of our GDP (remember, the next closest country is UK which provides just over $55 million dollars or 2.1% of their GDP). That's a pretty substantial difference any way you want to look at. So, again I have to ask why? Why are US Taxpayers on the hook for maintain a military organization for which we get very little bang for our bucks?

The prime purpose of NATO, to defend against the USSR, no longer exists; in fact, if you look at the new member nations, many of whom are former Warsaw Pact members, Putin's Russia is pretty much surrounded on practically all sides. Militarily, Russia is in a far worse position than it was at the height of the Cold War in the early 1960's, or even in 1990 when it ended. So, while President Trump may have (in his usual fashion) overstated America's position with regards to NATO, there is no question that we pay far more than any nation. In fact, with a published budget of $946 billion dollars, NATO couldn't function without us; at least on the scale that it does, but does it even need to?

In 1949, when NATO came into existence, the USSR was indeed expanding. It had gobbled up most of Eastern Europe. It was looking to expand in Africa, South and Central America, Cuba, and (in conjunction with China) into Asia; notably Korea and, later, Vietnam along with Laos and Cambodia. It was also seeking to expand, at least its influence, into space. In some of these areas, it was successful, however, in most, it failed for various reasons (including CIA sponsored coups and assassinations not to mention "backdoor" support of various groups). However, Europe was still weak. The war had just ended only four years earlier, and while both sides had nuclear weapons, their range was still limited.

Today, either side can drop multiple bombs anywhere it pleases. The likelihood of a conventional invasion, especially of Europe, is all but non-existent. Modern Russia is all but surrounded by NATO member States (which, in my opinion, is actually a far more dangerous situation than in pre-1990). Of course, there are many today in high places who are busy trying to rekindle the Cold War; it's like they need a super enemy to match their military super state. Personally, I don't see the point. There are other, potentially far worse, issues facing not just us as a nation, but that of Russia and especially Europe right now. Perhaps it's time to put NATO to bed and start addressing those issues.



Defense Expenditure of NATO Members Visualized (Infographic)

The World's biggest economies in 2018

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Homepage

NATO vs. Warsaw Pact: How the Ultimate Cold War Showdown Could Have Killed Millions

Word Games and Misdirection

Maybe it's me but I just can't help laughing at some of the partisan name calling that goes on between the Left/Progressives/Liberal/Democrats and the Right/Conservatives/Republicans. Of course, I understand the whole point of it, which is to demonized the other side; unusually by accusing the opposing side of doing the same thing you're doing! At the same time, there's something a bit frustrating about how many ordinary people accept at face value these accusations. I don't know if that's because of a faulty education system, willful ignorance, or the part of the joy of living in a echo chamber is never having to actually think for yourself.

I suppose it's a bit of all three. There's no arguing that the education system in the US is sorely lacking. According to all the data metrics, American school kids are mediocre at best (we usually rank in the lower middle half according to most surveys). In specific topic areas, we tend to rank towards the bottom quadrant. Some school systems in the US are dismal; little more reformatory prep schools than anything. Teachers are forced to act more like wardens or babysitters than educators (that is when some of them aren't not having sex with the kiddies).

I don't know what went wrong. Look back at the school books of the 1930's or 1950's and compare them to the academic criteria of today from elementary school through high school. To be blunt, kids today couldn't begin to hack it. Since the 1960's, we've continued to dumb down education. Instead of preparing these students for living and working in the world, we simply flunk them on through and wish them luck. We spend more time worrying about hurting their feelings than we do preparing them for life.

We tell them they need to go to college (where many our ill-prepared for) and four or six years later, they wind up with useless degrees in terms of their marketability and a debt load they'll spend most of their early adulthood paying off. Instead, we should recognize that not everyone if cut out to go to college, and not every job needs a four year degree to do. Many of these young adults would be better off going to a technical or trade school. First, you get through it a heck of a lot faster. It's cheaper, so not huge debt to pay off, and there's actually a demand for those jobs. Besides, the money is usually great and so are the benefits.

As for the willful ignorance, what can I say? You either do your own homework or you have to trust what you're reading, watching, or hearing. As adults, we're expected to have at least some common sense (often wishful thinking I know). However, if what you're reading for instance is from a partisan site, you can be pretty sure that what you're reading is slanted. It doesn't matter if its Left or Right or whatever. Each side always tries to put itself in the best light and make it seem that the other side is Evil incarnated. That's just the way it is.

Let's take as an example the recurring theme of the Left calling the Right (be they Alt Right, Conservative, Tea Party, or Republican) something like "Fascists" or "Nazis". Meanwhile, the Right calls the Left (or Liberals, progressives, or Democrats) names like "Socialist" or Communist (often using the two similar but unrelated terms interchangeably) or "Nazis" (yes, seriously). First, neither side are Nazis despite often deliberate misrepresentation of the abbreviation, however, the term is used as the all-purpose "boogeyman" to scare people into envisioning people goose stepping down the street and folks in brown shirts going around beating up people.

So, before we get into some detail, let's get the term "Nazi" out of the way. The term "Nazi" is actually shorthand for National Socialist German Workers Party or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German, which abbreviated as " Nazi" from the first two word, Nationalsozialistische (it was more formally known as NSDAP). The "National" meant Pan-Germany, or all the lands which were or had been inhabited by the Germanic People. "Socialist" didn't have the same meaning Karl Marx attached to it. It was not the internationalist form of socialism that served as the foundation of either Socialism or Communism.

What Hitler meant was a community of people of similar ethnic heritage, values, culture, and traditions. In short, a Germanic/Nordic community supporting a common heritage and belief system. "German" really needs no explanation. "Workers" meant just what the word means, ordinary working class people, which included middle class, craftsmen/artisans, and white collar employees and shop owners. The name was purposefully chosen to attract a broad base of supporters (the original name of the party was "German Workers Party" or "DAP" in German. Still, it was far Right, racist (meaning supporting a particular race. In this case, German/Nordic), populist, and nationalistic.

In terms of economics, the Nazi economy was pretty much Right of center, but in terms of social programs, they leaned slightly Left. However, unlike the Left, the Nazis dissolved all unions, but not entirely. In their place they created a national union, the German Workers Front or using the German abbreviation, "DAF" (they even adopted the International Day of the Workers, May 1st, as a national holiday; something the old unions could never get accomplished), while keeping the many of the rights and benefits the unions had provided plus the power of the State (there were some negatives to this, but that goes beyond the scope of this article).

Corporations maintained their independence and carried on as before. Of course, many supported the State when it came to its war efforts because, well, just like now---military contracts pay extremely well and they often got subsidies from the government. However, capitalism continued. There were of course, changes in education (including a toughing of academics and physical education), mandatory community service, new social programs such as ending smoking, more Holistic healthcare and better hygiene, environmentalism, public housing, and so forth. However, voting was suspended. The people would have to trust their fate to one party and above all, one leader, which many Germans were willing do after what they perceived was the failure of a democratic Republic under the Weimar Government. As an aside, Fascism is where big business and the government work in partnership to achieve economic and political control over society.

Now, Communism was the exact opposite. First, there was no private enterprise. The State owned everything---farms, factories, and you. It regulated nearly everything you did. So, let's break Communism down. One of the most important things to understand is that "Communism" as we've come to know it is quite different from what Karl Marx envisioned in his theories of State and economics (better known as "Marxism"). "Communism" developed more as a reinterpretation of Marx's ideas by Vladimir Ulyanov, better known to the world as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Under Marx, all means of production would be owned equally by the workers. All profits would be shared equally. Everyone would have the same access to education, medical care, ownership of land, and so on; "each according to their needs" was the catchphrase. Race, ethnic group, religion, gender were meaningless to Marx. This "worker's paradise" would be global, hence the term "international". Instead of banks, there would be something like credit unions. Businesses would be run by worker or employee committees. These committees would chose representatives to come together in other committees to work on other projects. This was Marx's version of Socialism. However, under Lenin and later, Joseph Stalin, there was to be "temporary" intermediate phase called "dictatorship of the proletariat" whereby the State would take ownership of everything until such time that the workers could assume full power. This, of course, never happened.

Under what was essentially Stalin's version of Communism given Lenin's early death soon after the revolution, the State assumed complete control over society, what education, to who worked where--depending on the needs of the State, to complete control over factories. All businesses were State owned or State approved. There was no independent businesses; there was no free enterprise. There were elections, but only one approved party and usually just one candidate per office on the ballot. This then is Communism, which is obviously different from Socialism.

So, when you see, read, or hear one group making some dire accusation about another that so-in-so are "Nazis" or "Communist" or try to use the term "Socialist" interchangeably, you'll know better. By the way, lately I've been seeing the term "Democratic Socialist" used as a form of Communism, and you're right to be suspicious of the comparison. Democratic Socialism is first and foremost, a democratic society. However, the citizens determine what is and isn't needed, and take full responsibility for paying for it. So, if they vote for a tax increase to pay for roads, schools, or healthcare, that's fine. The citizens stepped up and took responsibility. By the same token, the citizens could nix various government programs they don't want to pay for. Another way of thinking of it is as an ideology which strives to introduce democracy into the workforce, using worker or employee co-operatives and committees (formal and ad hoc) which aim to ensure that there is a public provision covering basic human needs which are satisfied with full knowledge and approval of the costs by the workers. Of course, these definitions are the highlights. We could spend days and weeks examining every nuance, but you get the idea.

I guess you can see why I chuckle at the constant finger pointing by various groups at their ideological nemesis and how they will purposefully misuse a term or distort a description in order to demonize the other side. Ultimately, the idea is to play on our emotions, and hopefully, get us to react without thinking. In the end, it's to divide us and keep us from realizing that we have more in common than not; that we share the same common enemy in the ruling Oligarchy which seeks absolute control.

The Oligarchs already control the economy and financial system. They already control 96% of all media outlets; we so often find ourselves dancing to their tune without even realizing it. They control both political parties. No one gets elected and stays elected without their support, especially since the Supreme Court mistakenly upheld "Citizens United". They help write the bills that Congress then votes on, and provide summaries for the Congress members to read, along with their recommendation on how to vote. Divided, we focus our frustration and energy on each other. United, we focus our anger on those responsible for the destruction of the Republic and on all the manufactured hatred. It's up to us...for now.

Has America lost its ever-loving mind? Civility in Today's Politics

The level of anger in politics has reached a new high, though it would be more accurate to say a new low. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat representing the 43rd District in California, has been known for saying some insane stuff for years now. In fact, many view her in the same vein as another Congressional nut job, Nancy Pelosi. However, this time, ole Maxie went just a bit too far.

The 79 year old Congresswomen recently called her supporters and others (mostly Millennials), on the Left to "harass" Trump Administration officials and supporters at every turn, including protesting at their places of work, at stores where they shop, and even at restaurants. Some have even interrupted this to mean harassing them online, by phone, or in front of their homes. Whatever they feel they have to do is acceptable, at least according to Waters.

Ms Waters told the crowd that had gathered to protest the arrest of illegal immigrants "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents". She went on to demand the release of illegal immigrants and the temporary separation of children from the detainees.

The following day, Waters appeared on MSNBC, where she had "no sympathy" to Trump staffers or their supporters. Excuse me for the comparison, but as an amateur historian, this has shades of Kristallnacht written all over it. For those of you unfamiliar with Kristallnacht, otherwise known as the "Night of Broken Glass", it was the most violent Nazi pogrom to date against the Jews of Germany. Kristallnacht took place in night of November 9/10, 1938, and led to destruction and burning of hundreds of Jewish businesses, homes, and synagogues throughout Germany by the feared SA (better known as "Brownshirts").

However, the actual intent of Kristallnacht was to encourage violence against not just the Jews, but gypsies, the Democratic Socialists, homosexuals, and Communists. More importantly, it to see just how much violence against these groups that the German People were will to accept. As we all know, they were willing to accept quite a bit, Many considered it "none of their business", or where to afraid to say anything.

We've recently learned where White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a local dive, the Red Hen, by the owners, who told Ms. Sanders that they had "certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation". Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen found herself, along with a couple of friends, confronted by an angry mob when went to a Mexican Restaurant which forced them to leave. Later, another mob showed up outside her Virginia home, complete with signs and megaphones.

Amusingly, the Congresswoman appeared on several talk "news" shows, complaining about the backlash from fellow Congress members and claiming that she was getting "death threats" (most likely it was just people wishing she'd hurry and die). Nevertheless, when did we cross the line where members of Congress can feel they can wantonly call for the open harassment, protests, and threat against anyone, let alone an opposing Presidential Administration?

Since the election of Donald Trump, we've witnessed an a near crescendo of rhetoric, mainly by the Left, and egged on by the corporate media, against the Trump Administration. It seems that every news broadcast, be it cable, network, talk, or interest, starts and ends with some deliberate jab at Trump or someone in his administration. The same can be said of his supporters, or quite frankly, anyone on the conservative Right. College campuses have become hotbeds of political activism, which isn't a surprise. They've been that since the 1960's, but what's different is that instead of accepting differences of opinion and open discourse, they attempt to quell anyone who disagrees with their carefully polished worldview.

We find, at nearly every turn, attempts to quash any freedom of opinion which differs from theirs. We've come to accept "echo chamber" politics as the norm. That is, we tend to associate only with those who think and act like we do, and in doing so, come to believe that our particular worldview is the only one. Thus, when we encounter anyone with a different worldview, we tend to react by either running away or with aggression, what is often called the "fight or flight" syndrome which is based on both our individual makeup and to an extent, on society's (or at least, our own 'tribal' clique).

This has really never been a problem for society before since there was always too much personal interaction, which meant individuals and groups had to accept these differences and had to learn to get along. Nowadays, thanks to social media, we can simply avoid what we don't like or understand. In fact, technology has made it possible to nearly avoid all personal contact in general, which will prove interesting over time given that we are social animals. The problem comes in when these self-reinforced notions of moral superiority come in contact with each other, such as with politics and social or economic policy.

Now, I don't want it to appear that I'm placing all the blame on the Left. I'm not by any means. Under the Obama Administration, there were many on the Far Right who were bordering on having a complete meltdown over his actions and policies. In fact, there were several instances where it got pretty dicey, such as repeatedly wanting to invade Syria, immigration issues (like suspending ICE, illegally selling guns to drug cartels, or suing Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws and---for the first time---allowing a foreign government to participate in a federal lawsuit against a state), and so on. However, the Far Right never reached this level of visceral hatred that we see coming from the Left.

During the Obama Administration, we saw those on the Left singled out Fox News' Right leaning reporting, along with some of its early leading hosts such as Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Megan Kelly, or Bill O'Reilly. Talk radio consisted of several prominent individuals, most notably Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (who is also a Fox host), and Michael Savage. However, opposing that was CNN, MSNBC, the network channels (ABC, NBC, and CBS and the overwhelming majority of their daily programming, often masquerading as "entertainment"). There's no question that the Hollywood elites push a liberal message. Talk radio too had its share of liberal or "progressive" hosts such as Thom Hartmann, Alan Colmes, and Rachael Maddow (who is also a host on MSNBC). The internet had its share of political perspectives represented, but liberal dominated.

Today, Fox still remains, but many of its prominent hosts have disappeared (many after false accusations of "sexual harassment" years or decades after the supposed event) while the Left continues in full force, thanks to the sheer number of networks and shows available (and directed advertising dollars). The same goes for radio and even the internet (and let's not forget that 96% of all media is owned by just six corporations, so they all dance to the tune these corporations call). So much for unbiased reporting. In other parts of the world, this is called propaganda.

In addition, we've seen the proliferation of so-called "fake news", which entails not just non-mainstream outlets, but even the major news outlets knowingly and willingly pushing stories which are untrue, either in their entirety or at least their presentation (such as showing staged events and presenting them as actual events or making it appear that more people are present that they actually are). Of course, we've become used to biased reporting to the point now where it's taken for granted. Note: see the last line in the previous paragraph above.

Some key hosting sites such as Facebook and YouTube have openly censored, demonetized, and/or deleted any conservative content, including blogs! I even had two articles "censored" recently for discussing an ongoing issue in the UK concerning an individual who was arrested for reporting on a Muslim rape gang. The British Government ordered a media blackout and asked that other media outlets globally comply, which they apparently did! Since the ban being partially lifted, my numbers on those articles have started to increase, but it's doubtful they'll reach their previously anticipated levels. Many individuals who host sites on outlets like YouTube have been all but forced off; usually by demonetizing their content under the auspices of "dangerous", "potentially offensive", or "inciting" language. Whatever the term they chose to use, it's always broad and vague enough to cover anything they dislike, which is anything they view as too conservative.

So, what's happening here? The division we're experiencing in society goes back years, if not decades; perhaps even extending all the way back to LBJ and the Vietnam War for some. Each administration since has created its own cracks in our national foundation, however, those cracks seem to have widen under Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama. Now, we're see it under Trump. Under Obama, there were calls for the succession of several states. We're now hearing of the division of California in order to acquire more Congressional influence in Washington. Perhaps we'll see Texas do something similar.

Meanwhile, the call for succession is still there. Some, such as the Washington Post, have discussed the increasingly likelihood of a second Civil War. Personally, I think it's a real possibility, although I think it's more likely to be a revolution than a civil war since a civil war is, by definition, an attempt by one party to replace the government held by another party (the US Civil War was, in reality, not a "civil war" per se for instance. The South sought to leave a union it voluntarily had join in order to create a separate government, not seize control of the existing one. Thus, the "Civil War" was actually a rebellion of the states).

I think something similar is in the works. How this will play out, given the interconnectedness of society remains a big question. Nevertheless, the current union as its now exists can't and won't hold for much longer. America's divide is too broad and too deep. It's been compared to the divide America experienced in the latter half of the decade before the war. The chief difference is that we lack the great statesmen of their time which were able to hold the nation together, albeit briefly. Today, we have people like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and a media egging it on. I suspect what we'll eventually see is something more akin to the French, German, or Russian revolutions; and either/or scenario where there is a victor and the vanquished.

In the case of France, it led to Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, followed by the rise of Napoleon. In Germany, it was the collapse of the Weimar Republic and rise of Hitler. In Russia, it was the fall of democratic Provincial Government and rise of the Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which ultimately led to Stalin's Reign of Terror. Since we're closely modeled on the Roman Republic, in its place we'll see the military dictatorship of a Caesar. We can only hope it's someone with the intellect and benevolence of a Julius or August and not the despotism of a Tiberius or Nero. However, unless we demand the restoration of civility from the political class, the media and their corporate masters, from the universities and schools throughout America, and from each other, the outcome for us all appears bleak.



Is America headed for a civil war? Sanders, Nielsen incidents show its already begun


Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials


Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials


Nancy Pelosi unraveling is a sad sight