The Fourth of July and a Few Things to Bear in Mind.

On this Fourth of July, let us remember a certain event involving one of our most beloved Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside of what would become Independence Hall. When the proceedings ended, in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors,
dozens gathered close by the doorway to question anyone they could. One of the first to emerge was Benjamin Franklin. A Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic madam, if you can keep it". A democratically elected representative republic, if, as he said, we could keep it.

We did for many generations; through wars--foreign and domestic, good times economically and bad ones as well. We fought and argued among ourselves, but we kept our democratic republic nevertheless. But then something happened. Something changed about how we were governed, or perhaps it was us who changed. Maybe it was the rise of divisive factions; political cliques, better know as political parties which our Founding Fathers largely opposed that increasingly divided us. Perhaps it was the rise of a super wealthy business class which sought to usurp the power of the government. Regardless, the power bequest to us by the Founders began to slip from our hands. We dropped the levers of power and picked up television remotes or video joysticks to waste hours at a time instead of paying attention to what was being done in our name.

While we were busy watching "reality" television, sports, and playing on our video games, America slipped into an Oligarchy. A wealthy elite took control of our government. Free speech was replaced with money; whoever has the most shouts the loudest. Those elected or appointed to serve the People now serve new masters--corporations. Power today is maintained not by the Will of the People, but by corporate money, partisan gerrymandering, no term limits, and in many cases no direct recourse such as citizen referendums or voter initiatives. Our democratic republic experiment is little more than a shell now; something we try and pretend is real much like the ancient Romans did after the rise of the Caesars until such time as the farce could no longer be maintained. Today we struggle to define what it means to be an American Citizen or whether we have the right to secure or even have borders!

So, let's take a few minutes from the festivities of the day to remember why we fought a revolution against the world's mightiest nation at the time. It was over taxation without us having a say. It was over censorship of the media and our right to say what we believed, including the right to criticize those in government without fear of reprisal. It was over corruption of government officials, be it in the form of bribes, "loans", or voting themselves pay increases. It was over the right to worship in the faith of our choice, or even having the right to have no religious beliefs at all. It was, after all, the sovereignty of the individual with mattered the most.

It was over ending abuse by government troops who acted as the police of their time, including being forced to provide for their welfare. It was over the right to know what crimes we were charged with should we be arrested, and to face those who accused of these crimes. It was also over the right to a speedy trial rather than to spend months or even years in jails. It was over the right to posses firearms; not just to hunt with, but as our last resort against tyranny; the same tyranny which sought to deprive us of our other rights.

Where Does American Stand On The World's Freedom Index? The State of American Freedom Pt 1 of 3 of Our "Where America Ranks" Series

Did you watch President's Trump's State of Union address? I watched most of it (including the Pelosi sideshow going on behind the President). I took particular note of how often Trump made reference to America being "great", which has been a central theme of his since the campaign. That made me wonder---just how "great" is America really? As most Americans already know, the United States is an Oligarchy; ruled (as opposed to governed) by a relatively small number of elites. Of course, these same elites and a few others, dominate the rest of the globe, or at least most of it. So, how does the US stack up in terms of overall freedom, income equality and social mobility, and finally, in terms of the quality of our education system? This article will be part one of a three part series which will examine those issues.

The first topic we'll look at is freedom. After all, the notion of "freedom" has been this country's mantra practically since its founding. It's why people from around the world want to come here. But just how "free" are we actually? We already know that the US has become essentially a surveillance state since 9/11, be it government agencies or corporations (as an Oligarchy, the two work in tandem anyway). As I wrote in my last article, the US has adopted a "enhanced" driver's license, which acts as a defacto national ID card, complete with a tracking chip and facial ID capability.

Our cell phones and social media monitors and records us, builds profiles of sites we visit, where we shop and purchased, not to mention even tracks us, and even anticipates our likes. Some people like that. Personally, I find it a little scary. It's too much private information in the hands of other people and computers. Our credit cards are chipped and so are our cars and trucks. Some people have watches which double not just as a time piece but also as cell phone, internet access point, and, of course, a monitoring devise. But these are more incidentals; reflections on the state of our personal freedom amid ever growing technology. What I want to know is how we ranked in terms of our basic freedoms.

One of the most important freedoms that American has been a free press, as covered under the First Amendment along with free speech and freedom of association. According to Reporters Without Borders, they researched the openness, independence, accurately, and self-censorship of the media. Out of 180 countries, the US is now ranked in the 45th spot, dropping two spots since Trump was elected President. This partly the result of a not so subtle propaganda war again the Trump White House and the proliferation of what's often called "fax news".

So, if the US is in 45th place, who came in first for the most honest, accurate, and fair media? That went to Norway, followed by Sweden in second place. Russia was ranked as 148th while China was 176th. In last place was North Korea. No big surprise there! According to the Human Freedom Index, which was compiled by the Cato and Frasier institutes, in terms of personal freedom, economic freedom, and amount of tax and regulations, the US is ranked in the 17th sport; a drop from its usual third place spot. Pretty sad for a country which prides itself as being the "Leader of the Free World" don't you think? The drop started around the time of Bill Clinton, and has continued to decline through the presidencies of George W Bush and Barack Obama, and now, into President Trump's administration.

The top spots went to Switzerland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Ireland, and Australia. As an aside, Hong Kong was ranked number one in terms of economic freedom and second in personal freedom. In addition, Hong Kong was the top ranked place for innovation, be it technology, business, or government. At the bottom of the list was, starting at 155th place, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Venezuela, and Syria. Venezuela, prior to Hugo Chavez, was ranked as the wealthiest country in Latin America and one of the most economic and personally freest countries. However, since the adoption of a Marxist version of Socialism, it's economic, social, and political systems has been in a free fall, making it one of the worse countries in the world to live in.

According to the website, Traveller, which is a travel site that rates the best countries and places to visit, the United States ranks 25th in personal freedom. The information came from The "Legatum Prosperity Index for 2018", which looks at a variety of factors such as crime, business environment, health, personal freedom, environment, among other factors. The report listed the US as first in terms of business environment and sixth in social capital. However, we ranked poorly in terms of governance (19th), economic quality (13th), personal freedom and natural environment (23rd each), health (35th), safety and security (43rd). In terms of education, we only made it to the 9th spot.

The top ranked countries (in order) was Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, Ireland, Uruguay, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, and Portugal. Also included among the top twenty were all the Scandinavian countries, Slovenia, Australia, Malta, the UK, Costa Rica and Spain. The least most tolerant countries included most of Africa and the Middle East (excluding Israel), along with Iran in the 5th spot, Russia in 9th place, Iraq in at 11th and China at 12th. However, according to the report, coming in first place as the least free country was Afghanistan.

In terms of healthcare, according to the World Health organization, the US ranks 37th in the world, behind countries most all European countries, as well as Canada, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Chile, Australia, and Morocco. In fact, the US ranked in between Costa Rica and Slovenia. That's actually pretty embarrassing if you think about it; a country like the US being ranked behind and in the midst of second tier countries.

The top spots went to Italy, France, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, and Singapore. Other nations in the top tier included Japan, all the Scandinavian countries, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and most of Europe. It goes to show that while "Obamacare" did improve overall healthcare in the US, it fell far short when compared to the rest of the world. In terms of healthcare performance, America actually ranks dead last.

The study, conducted by the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, examined five areas. Namely, Access, Care Process, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Healthcare Outcomes. The study showed that while the outspends every other country, we somehow managed to fail three of the five issues with Americans having the highest mortality rate of any country in the study; much higher than their counterparts in Europe. The report cites essentially a lack to adequate quality care as the chief cause. America would have fared far better had it adopted a single payer health system and allowed individuals and companies to purchase supplemental insurance. This would have allowed even small businesses to a means to compete with the larger ones without the extra financial burden or forcing employees to find their own coverage, and for a far cheaper price.

However, the US did come in first place in one key, albeit dubious category. American was ranked number one in terms of incarceration. We imprison more of people than any industrialized nation in the world at a rate of 655 per 100,000. That's more than China, Russia, Cuba, or even North Korea. The closest country to us is El Salvador, which jails 609 per 100,000 and Turkmenistan with prison rate of 552 per 100,000. Cuba jails 510 individuals per 100,000 while for Russia it's 409 per 100,000. The top reason for the imprisonment in the US was due to drugs, possession or sell, followed by felonies of one sort or another.

Well, there you have it. For a nation which fancies itself as the bastion of freedom, it appears the facts don't back up the hype. In most of the studies, the US typically ranks between the middle and the low end of the second tier of whatever category we're looking at with one glaring exception. The problems we face are not partisan issues. This isn't solely the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. It can't be attributed to the extreme Left or Right. This is a systematic failure in which both sides share the blame equally. This is what the partisan bickering has brought us, not to mention the corporate control of the agenda and the demise of labor unions (say what you want about unions, they at least ensured that their members received good wages and benefits). Our next installment will focus on income inequality. I hope you will join us.


US drops to 45 in countries in ranking of countries based on freedom of the press

US freedom ranking lower than you would think

Freedom around the world: The most (and least) free and tolerant countries

Countries with the most prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of July 2018

The Patient Factor: World Health Organization Ranking of World Health Systems

The US Ranks Last in Health Care Systems Performance

Is America Still the Land of the Free?

I recently came across a story where some high schools students were send home for wearing t-shirts with a picture of President Trump on them. The claim by the school was that they had received complaints from other students that they didn't feel "safe". The students were told they either had to turn their shirts inside out and leave the school grounds. They chose to leave. That wasn't the only instance.

There's been numerous examples where people have been harassed or even assaulted for wearing "MAGA" (Make America Great Again") ball caps. These attacks have come in restaurants, shopping malls, or even on the street. The attackers, as a rule, don't know their victims. In fact, they know nothing about them other than the fact they're wearing a "MAGA" hat or t-shirt which either shows their support for President Trump or for being conservative. What's most interesting is that the attackers, when caught (and most are), were questioned about what they did it, all claimed that they felt threatened! That's right, they were the ones who felt threatened! So, when they attacked some guy or gal waiting at the bus stop or while someone was ordering food or trying to enjoy their meal, it was the victim who was at fault, not the attacker.Of course, none of this includes that name calling, threats, or harassment these "threatened" individuals like to inflict or the blocking of streets and expressways, nor the random destruction of property.

But, of course, this hasn't been just about "MAGA" hats or t-shirts with Trumps picture on it, people (including school kids) have been attacked for wearing shirts or hats with American flags on them or pro-2nd Amendment slogans, or actually, anything patriotic. Can you imagine being told in a school to either turn you t-shirt inside out or face being expelled for the day all just because it had an American flag or something patriotic on it? Heck, you can even opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school! We have professional athletes making millions yet disrespecting American servicemen and women as well as first responders by taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem. They claim injustice and inequality, yet where are they during off season? Certainly not protesting! They are in fact enjoying their very lucrative salaries.

In the past, kids were sent home for wearing t-shirts, jackets, or hats which featured a Confederate flag or something else dealing with the Confederacy (it was deemed "offensive" or "racist"), yet kids wearing a black power or black pride t-shirt, Afro-centric jewelry weren't. Children who show up wearing a "Che" or "Malcolm X" t-shirt are fawned over, and of course, nothing ever is said to anyone wearing a Hillary or Obama piece of paraphernalia. Why is that? What's going on? We have seen historic statues removed in the dead of night; some destroy and many vandalized because someone claimed to "offended". Does that "being offended" work just one way or can anyone be "offended" and get what they want?

Just recently we had the incident where high school kids on a field trip from a Catholic school here in Kentucky (Park Hill to be exact) were tried and convicted not just by a politically biased media, but even by their own school without full disclosure of the events. I believe that we're all currently awaiting some public apologies which I doubt will be coming. Apparently a group of "Black Hebrew Israelites", which is a group which claims that they are the actual descendants of the ancient Hebrews and thus chosen by God, were taunting the mostly white school group with racial slurs when, in response, the kids starting chanting their school cheer rather than get into some pissing contest with this apparent racist group. I guess school pride trumped racial hatred!

Then in came a small group of Native Americans led by an activist and self-described Elder named Nathan Phillips claimed they were trying to "separate" the two groups (which were already well separated) except the Native American group got in the face of the school kids and starting chanting and banging on drums. The schools kids refused to be goaded into doing anything, and yet they were portrayed by the biased media as the aggressors.

Why this group of Native Americans didn't do the same thing to the "Black Hebrew Israelites" is another interesting question which remains unanswered. It took a few days before additional clips became available, but it certainly appears that the Catholic schools kids were being taunted and harassed by two racially motivated groups. Well, in my opinion, kudos to the kids for taking the higher roads and know race baiting when faced with it. It further damaged a corporate media and members of Congress who have already lost the trust of the American People. Meanwhile, I think some serious heartfelt apologies are due to these kids both as a group and individually starting with their school.

It's getting harder and harder to be patriotic American in this country. That is seriously something which I find to be hard to say. We were once seen as "melting pot"; a nation where you could come and start over in life, leaving behind the political, religious, ethnic, and class restraints of wherever it was that you came from behind. Here, everyone had a chance to improve their lot in life, to get an education and believe what you wanted to believe so long as you left other people alone. Not so any more.

People used to do whatever they could to find a way to come to America. They even tried to learn English before they came or on the trip here. They wanted to speak the language. They wanted to be Americans, not some hyphenated "half-American". Yes, the majority had a sense of pride of the culture, but that took a backseat to being an American first. Ultimately, much of their cultures and traditions became added to pool of other cultures and traditions to create something new; something genuinely unique. Something genuinely American.

In my own family history, my immigrant ancestors learned and spoke English. At home, in private, or in church, they may have spoken German, but out in public it was solely English. Their children were taught English and to think and behave as Americans, not "German-Americans". Even my Irish and Scottish ancestors did their best to learn the laws, traditions, and values of their new homeland. Mine family was far from unique. Many immigrant families did the same thing. Some even refused to teach their children the native language of their former homeland so strong was their desire to become Americans.

Nowadays, it's the opposite. Many immigrants, both legal and illegal, demand that we must adapt to their way of doing things. They not only refuse to learn to speak English, but insist that we find ways to enable them to continue speaking in their native language. Heck, in some places, even the street signs are in a foreign language, and government forms---paid for with US tax dollars---are printed to accommodate them.

I'm not saying being an immigrant is easy. It's not by a long shot. New laws, language, values, not to mention sights, sounds, and even smells. Practically every group which has immigrated has face discrimination in one fashion or another--the Italians, Jews, Germans, Slavs, Irish (and Scots), Chinese, and so forth. It's natural to seek out or form a community with those with whom you familiar. America has had various enclaves in nearly every city and town, and to a certain extent, still do. But still, the objective has always been to become an American.

Nowadays, we see people actually encouraged not assimilate; to stay separate. Whereas before, the goal of every immigrant was to become a citizen, it's now to find a job and send money home. There's no real desire to become an American. Ultimately, that creates a sense of separate identity. When you don't "buy in", you have no loyalty to the host nation. You want what's best for your particular group without regard to the nation as a whole. Eventually, that leads to division and the desire to create a independent community or state much like what happened in Yugoslavia.

Of course, this goes way beyond that just immigration. It's pretty common for people to complain about what you say if it's differs from their worldview. Somehow having a different opinion is deemed "offensive" or even "racist", especially if that comment comes from someone who is white. Why is that? Shouldn't everyone be able to say what they feel, so long as no one is physically abused? After all, the Founding Father's expressly provided us with the right to free speech. But there are groups---mostly those under 30 (the so-called "Millennials"), especially on campuses where free thought and rational discussion was once the norm---demand that those who differ in opinion from them actually be denied their 1st Amendment right to speak, even when they've been invited to!

There have been numerous instances where invited speakers have been shouted down, stormed on stage, physically assaulted, or simply "disinvited" by the school administration at the last minute. During the 1960's and early 1970's when campus unrest rampant, there was still open and free discussion of ideas. In fact, one of the key premises to higher education has been to the exchange of ideas, even with those with whom you disagree. No so anymore. Nowadays, that's actually discouraged. Students demand "safe spaces" so they don't have to hear opposing views. This has even gone as far to certain racial or religious groups demanding segregated "safe spaces", which to me borders on the absurd.

We are also facing new forms of discrimination, whereby religious groups, again, demand, that other religions be denied the right to display their religious symbolism or pray...even on their own college campuses. Whatever happened to our tolerance of religions? America never faced the religious hatred or violence which plagued Europe and the Middle East. People have been allowed to practice their faiths (or even lack thereof) in relative peace. That too seems to be changing as we are increasingly being told what is and isn't acceptable. Even the wearing of religious themed jewelry is becoming taboo.

Religious freedom has always been one of the beautiful things about this country. Naturally, there are those who try to claim that America was founded as "Christian Nation", the truth of the matter was that America was founded to be free from a state imposed religion like other countries in Europe. The Founding Fathers intended that America was to be a place where every religion was welcome and no one had to secure permission from government to practice their religious beliefs...or to have no beliefs at all! We are now starting to see where some are trying to impose their beliefs on others, including the creation of "no go" zones, no pets, restriction on certain consumable items, mandatory clothing, etc which violates several of our core rights as a country. If you that's what you want, have it, but don't try to impose it on others.

America has always been a nation which focused on roughed individualism, yet we've always been willing to lend a helping hand to those in need of it. Today, we have a government which is increasingly sticking its nose in our personal business. It is mandating what we can and can't do in our own lives. We find ourselves losing our personal freedoms almost daily. Some of it actually taken from us by the government through mandates by unelected bureaucrats which leave us no recourse. Some is through laws by those elected to office but who are unaffected by the very laws they pass. And some of it through corporations who, in partnership with government, seem to use us as economic resources to be exploited and discarded.

I can't help wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought of our America if they could see it now. I wonder if they'd be proud of how we've progressed or would they hang their heads in sorrow? I think that in some respects they'd be pleased with what we've accomplished. Certainly with our technology, which would have stunned them into silence, as well as growth as a country from the original 13 colonies which stood toe to toe with the mightiest empire in the world at the time. I have no doubt they'd be most pleased that slavery ended long ago, but sadden by its cost on the nation just as they would have by all the wars we've faced as a nation. After all, they warned us about entanglements in the affairs of others.

Women's suffrage would have perhaps amused them, but I think they would have approved, however, the notion that we willingly accept that there is more than two genders would have appalled them to no end (I can't imagine what they'd say about the body piercings and tattoos). The notion that unsavory elements within government were trying to deprive the citizens of their expressly given right to bear arms would both alarm them but wouldn't surprise them. After all, to disarm the citizenry is the first act of any individual or group intent on tyranny.

What would surprise and disappoint them would be how few are willing to stand up and fight back (or just how many are willing to go along with it). They understood firsthand the cost in lives in creating a nation and what it took to maintain it. They would understand that we will again either have to bear an even greater cost or face eventual enslavement, even if it's a benign one. They would be pleased with all those who chose to come to this nation, but deeply disappointed about how many of those have chosen not to be become Americans or even show enough respect to learn the language.

While the majority of our Founding Fathers were capitalist of the libertarian variety, the power of Corporate America over its citizens and especially the government would terrify them. The "Deep State" along with corporate and government control over our lives would rouse their ire as did British taxes or the commandeering of homes to house British troops. State mandated control over our children or healthcare would freeze their very souls. They would demand of us an explanation as to why we had allowed government such power. Had some madness ceased the country that we allowed a corporate-government state---a ruling elite---to emerge which could dictate how we lived our lives, or pass laws without our approval---especially taxes---or which this new ruling elite was exempt? Why do we allow corruption and treason by these elites to go unchecked?

Ultimately, I think our Founding Fathers would be stunned into disbelief and silence. They would find themselves sitting, head in hands, wondering what had become of the America they founded. It would appear to them that the "Great Experiment" had failed. We had gone down the path which had destroyed all other democracies and republics. We proved too willing to sacrifice truth for illusion; freedom for the promise of security; honesty for silence. I think that collectively, they would reach into their pockets and pull out whatever money remained and hand it to us, saying "Here, give this to the Crown to pay its damnable taxes and restore things as they were". I hope we can avoid their disappointment.


Black Hebrew Israelites



The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story


How the Covington Catholic firestorm reinforced America's divisions

The Muting of Free Speech in America

Our Founding Fathers were big fans of free speech, and with it, freedom of expression. In fact, the only profession specifically mentioned by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights is publishing. They wanted us to have the ability to say what we pleased without fear of retribution by the government. In their day, writing or saying something about the Crown, the British Government or its representatives could get you arrested and thrown into prison. In some cases it could get you tried for treason and either hanged or shot! Nowadays, you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you...or can you?

Actually, your free speech comes with some strings; in many cases and places, those strings look more ropes and gags. For instance, in China the media is controlled by the government. While it gives writers, editors, and TV anchors some wiggle room, they are still highly monitored. What they say or how they express themselves is subject to censorship. If it continues, they may be suspended or completely denied access to any type of public forum.

How can that be you ask? Simple. They are permitted the right to "serve the greater good", and that good is the opportunity to speak on behalf of the government, which is, after all, serving the greater good. Therefore, to speak or express something against the government is to speak against the greater good, and, of course, we intuitively know that's a bad thing...right? While the West (thanks to ancient Greeks) believe that every citizen had to right to speak their mind (a "natural right" they would say), some countries believe that rights are granted by the State; they aren't inherited by God or simply for being human.

The State is therefore believed (or accepted) to be the purveyor of rights and the enforcer of duties and responsibilities. Therefore, would could even argue that the State also establishes social norms or values by elevating certain behavior while condemning others. In some countries, such as England, this continues. British social media activist Tommy Robinson was recently silenced for reporting on a Muslim rape gang which preyed on British girls as young as 9 years old, which the government had issued a media blackout on after the story was originally reported on.

Robinson was reporting on the super secret trial of the 27 member "bang-gangers" via his cell phone to followers globally when he was arrested, tried (without an attorney), sentenced to 13 months behind bars, and sent straight to prison, all within an hour! Why? Apparently the British government had decided what its citizens should know, and what they shouldn't know. I'm sure it was for the greater good. Meanwhile, in other countries, religion is seen as being the sole purveyor of rights and enforcer of rules and responsibilities. With the State, its authority lies with its ability to enforce its will on the people. This is usually some form of coercion, which could be by voluntary acceptance or it could be by force of arms.

In the case of religion, its authority come from some deity (usually seen as omnipotent; a paternalistic all seeing and all knowing being). As with all religions, this deity allegedly made its intentions and requirements known through a select few, which expanded to select clique. This usually results in the institutions being established to promulgate it accepted dogma. Quite often these "rules" get distorted as times change. Some rules get embellished beyond their original intent while others lose their relevance, and new rules are "revealed" to the benefit of a few.

More recently, we've seen a new players on the block: corporations. In a Capitalist World, corporations have mostly replaced the State and religion as the determiner of values and morals. The world that corporations inhabit consists of millions of businesses of all types; each trying to making money. That means, at some point, that they have to sell something. Maybe it's a product. Maybe it's their expertise. Almost anything can be bought or sold. This means billions of dollars change hands every day...and night.

Over time, several corporations gained net revenue greater than some countries. They span global borders. In fact, they've evolved to where they are transnational; corporations without a country. They have no national loyalties. No sense of national pride outside what marketing requires. Their customers are the world. Many of these corporations have grown not just larger than some nation's economies, but large enough that they influence (or indirectly control) these governments. They help set policy, both domestic and international. They help write legislation and bill summaries. They even control a country's national economy based on their use of local resources and exports (and sometimes imports).

An acceptable norm (created by corporations) is advertising. It sells everything, and I mean everything. Most of all, its sell self-esteem. It tells us how to look, how to act, what to eat, what we should own, how to feel, what to think, and every other human emotion and desire. In short, it helps to create our values. But, it can do so much more than just that. It can even own us.

By continually telling us what's in and what's out, it manipulates how we should feel about ourselves at any given moment. This just doesn't include clothes, perfume, cars, hairstyles, or where to eat. It dictates what is politically acceptable and what's not. Take for instance that in the United States, just six corporations own 96% of all media outlets. That means these six corporations can decide what is and isn't news; what we see or hear, and how it will be presented to us. They can influence our opinions on any topic they want simply by the way they spin it.

By their constant harping against one politician, product, or individual they can all but destroy their credibility. By the same token, presenting the same in a positive light can elevate them to near sainthood! While they've been doing this for quite some time in politics, it's only been since Citizens United, that they've been given the green light to step out of the shadows and openly buy the government they want...and we apparently deserve.

If we look at the last election as an example, corporations, often through the media, presented Hillary Clinton as some female George Washington. Despite the continuing leaks through alternative media outlets about a "pay-to-play" State Department, illegal gun sales, claims of treason, repeatedly lying to Congress, a rigged primary, and so forth, it seemed to the gushing reporters that Hillary could do no wrong.

Meanwhile, the cutout Republican candidates were all presented as "serious challengers" (cue laugh track); each having their day, we were all led to believe that Hillary was the anointed one merely awaiting the mere formality of elections before ascending the steps of the White House to receive her crown. All Hail Caesar! As it turned out, there was no candidate who wasn't a cutout, Donald Trump, although the media tried with increasing frustration to make him look like the court jester, the American Public didn't buy it. Apparently, this time, voters weren't for sale.

So Hillary lost the election and the corporate media has lost its mind, along with it facade of impartiality. Hardly a day or night goes by without the media taking pokes at Trump (even LBJ and Nixon didn't have it this bad in the 60's and 70's). Even television shows again, produced by divisions of these same corporations) pump episode after episode on biased content at everything right of Truman. Usually it's in the form of innuendos, but increasingly its "in-your-face" comments.

More than a few times the comments are uncalled for (and many say disrespectful of the office). Several late night talk show hosts and so-called "comedians" have been particularly hateful. One individual, Samantha Bee, even referred to the first lady as a "cunt", and even the likes of actress Sally Fields apparently thought that was an insult...to the definition of the word! Can you imagine saying that about Michelle Obama? There would be demands for a Congressional hearing!

Shock comic Kathy Griffin even posed with a bloody severed head of Donald Trump! If that was Hillary, the Secret Service would have grabbed and bagged her! On the other hand, Roseanne Barr Tweeted some personal comments about one of Obama's former aides, and her top rated show, "Roseanne" was cancelled immediately. Tim Allen's top rated show, "Last Man Standing" was cancelled for its conservative oriented comedy. Why?

How is it that one type of dialogue is acceptable and another isn't? Since when does personal comments made by an individual result in a television show (especially a top rated one) being cancelled? Was it the comment itself, because if so, network executives need to watch more of their own programming. There are far worse things being said on the shows, and not just on personal social media accounts. Perhaps it's because the comments reflect the opinions of corporate executives. Perhaps they condone the hateful, rude, and inappropriate remarks.

Perhaps too they're trying to restrict free speech, or just a particular form of speech based on its political orientation; an orientation they just happen to oppose and want to deny you the opportunity to hear. Maybe it's because you might not be "offended" by it as they think you should; you might even laugh at it, or worse, agree with it! Corporations have become highly paternalistic after all. They seem to know what's good for us (and an awful lot about us), which they often convey through the apparatchiks and nomenklatura of government and other social organizations they own.

Sadly, we see this same behavior on college campuses and elsewhere in society today. Whereas college was once the bastion of free speech, it's become the citadel of censored speech and safe spaces. Nowadays, free speech is only afforded to what the majority accepts as the politically correct speech. Differences of opinion or even of facts, are often shouted down or even occasionally violently assaulted. Nothing must be allowed to burst the bubble...or echo chamber. Of course, we often tend to see this behavior reinforced by corporate dependent institutions, performers, and other so-called "trend setters".

What we end up with is a society which calls itself "free" while having imprisoned itself behind a wall of safety glass; it looks open but it has limits. A society like that is no better than those living in a theocracy which believes itself somehow privileged, secured in its own self-righteousness. By the same token, how does this kind of society differ from Stalinist or Maoist forms of Communism? Their citizens were taught about the immorality of the West and its never-ending attempts to corrupt the ideals of Soviet style Marxism. Of course, its people were never allowed to experience the other side, unfiltered. What was presented were distorted caricatures of the West. Is that all so different from what we're seeing now? In the end, it doesn't matter if Fascism leads with the left boot or the right.


Sally Fields Has An Epic Response To Samantha Bee's Comment About Ivanka Trump


Samantha Bee insults Ivanka Trump with obscene phrase

'Roseanne' canceled at ABC

25 US Mega Corporations: Where They Would Ranks If They Were Countries

30 largest and most powerful companies in the world


The Transformation of American Democracy to Oligarchy

Ending School Violence By Changing Attitudes

What do you think about the recent student "walkout" over gun violence, particularly in schools? Its seems that few things fail to attract kids these days like a good issue (or excuse) to protest or riot. Donald Trump's election, and later, his inauguration, are two quick examples. Young adults and students, which comprised both Millennials and the up and coming "Generation Z" ,were quick to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon, whipped up by the devastated Hillary camp who couldn't believe she was denied her coronation after doing so much to...I mean "for"...America , that the Left went on a rampage which has yet to let up.

The corporate media was also pretty fast to jump into the fray. After all, they had been trying to swing the election to Hillary for over a year, and then....on national TV for all the world to see...was made a fool of by the American People (who obviously don't know what's good for them). Heck, "if" it really had to be someone other than Hillary, surely the American People would chose one of the pre-selected and pre-approved Republican candidates, but nope! The American People had to go and pick someone who was an actual outsider and not someone who claimed to be in one of the sound bites. For shame America. For shame on you for thinking for yourselves.

I remember growing up in the 1960's and 1970's. We had protests a plenty! If you had a cause, we had your protest lined up and waiting! Seriously though, we did have our protests, and riots. Most of the protests were over the war in Vietnam (as well as the expansion of the war into Laos and Cambodia with the possibly at one point of even stretching into Thailand where Americans bombers were flying out of). America had come to see not just that the war was unwinnable as it was being fought (with politicians playing general), but also with the knowledge (especially after the 1968 Tet Offensive) that the military and government had been lying to us all along. Few saw any sense in going off to war to die for lies, or corporate profits for that matter as our eternal "War on Terror" now bears witness.

We also had our protests over issues such as voting rights, worker rights and job safety, equality in pay, fairness in hiring, the environment, Native American rights, forced busing, and gay rights. The riots were more the result of civil rights and "police brutality" as it was called then. However, these protests and riots were based on widespread social issues, and regardless of your opinion on any of these individual issues, freedom of expression was always at the forefront. Something else which was at the forefront was the belief in individualism. By that I mean the expansion and protection of the individual from the government. People believed the government was one of many tools to make life better. We valued individual responsibility and the expansion of personal rights and responsibility.

At some point (I'm not quite sure when or where) that all started to change. We began to think that government was "the" tool to needed to solve all our problems. Instead of organizing at the grassroots level to get things done, we demanded government do it for us. If there was a problem, government had to provide the fix. Of course, the more we've come to rely on government, the more dependent we become on it and the more unwilling or resistant we became to acting or thinking for ourselves. We, in effect, forged our own chains. Our servant has now become our master.

Meanwhile, the bond between government and corporatism has become stronger, to the point where it's almost indistinguishable where government leaves off and corporate control begins. Of course, there has always been a revolving door between the corporate world and government, but with the passage of "Citizens United", the revolving door has been removed and replaced with a breezeway. Corporations are now "people" with not just all the rights of an individual, but more so, especially when it comes to free speech.

Free speech---the 1st Amendment--was something that was greatly cherish by our Founding Fathers. They understood what it meant for the people to be denied a voice. Well, somehow, money---and it possession of it---has been determined to be "free speech" except that ordinary flesh and blood types like you and I are restricted in the amount of "free speech" we can donate to the candidate of our choice, but not so the corporate "Frankensteins", who are free to donate whatever they like. Corporate lobbyists now even help write the bills that legislators vote on. At the very least, they provide the research and they read the countless and voluminous bills on behalf of the legislators; they even provide a summary and recommendation as to how to vote. Awfully kind of them don't you think?

Political campaigns, especially at the federal level, has become far too expensive for ordinary Americans. Congress and the Presidency are a multi-millionaire's club. The last Presidential election cost approximately $2.6 billion dollars. The total cost for those running in 2016 election cycle for federal offices was $6.8 billion dollars. Given that, while the salaries are pretty good, as are the benefits, there's simply no way ordinary Americans can run for these offices. In fact, those running and being elected are simply those with the most money in what's become a popularity contest rather than a race about issues.

These individuals have little in common with us. They live in a completely different world. I'm surprised they even breath the same air. They don't understand what the average American goes through daily just to get by. They are exempt from many of the same laws they pass. They even function under a different set of laws. Washington politicians have become a de facto separate class; a political class beholding to their financial sponsors. Let's face it friends, we---the American People---are not represented in Washington. We get the illusion of choice while Wallstreet and "K" Street lobbyists decide what's good for us.

I really can't blame them, at least entirely. Nature...and politics...abhors a void. We've been content to watch TV, play video games, play on our "Smart" phones, and so forth. Very few of us are involved in our schools or neighborhoods. We tend to vote party line instead of actually trying to understand the issues (and letting the politicians decide what the issues are). Then too, who can blame us? We struggle through work; worry about keeping our jobs or benefits (if we even have any). We're too tired or frustrated by the time we get home to listen to all the hateful chaos on the news. We have to deal with traffic, crime, rising gas and food prices with little or no hope of a raise, and then government, cable, and utilities are always trying to find ways to gouge more money out of us (without our input I might add...as if it would actually matter). It seems it never ends doesn't it?

Of course, this is changing. The majority of Americans are now registered Independent (43%) while the Democrats and Republicans are left fighting over a shrinking piece of the stale pie. The corporate owned media, which functions more like the propaganda ministry of Hitler or Stalin continues to lose their audience, acts as if Indies and third parties (which are also growing) don't exist. Meanwhile, government seems to continue to spiral out of control as we become ever increasingly a police and surveillance state with fewer and fewer rights or choices...all for our own good naturally. Such is life in an Oligarchy.

One key issue, as I've previously written several times, has been gun control. It seems we are experiencing more and more crime, especially gun related crime, be it from a hotel window connected to a casino, shopping malls, churches, or schools. Then, when (or "if") we're provided with explanations from officials, we tend to rarely believe them; such has become our distrust of authority. But of all of these, which are equally terrible, it's the schools that get to us the most. I suppose that's because we expect our kids to be safe in school, so when guns show up, we become scared and angry.

Yet, while school is no place for guns, the fact is that our children haven't really been safe in school for a long time now have they? Schools have long had metal detectors due to the invasion of our schools by those carrying knives, guns, and weapons. Then too, we've seen an infestation of our schools with gang bangers and bullies. In truth, between the wannabe "Al Capones", it's the common bully who is the biggest problem, be it face-to-face or cyber bullying. Obviously signs saying "no guns" or laws against bullying doesn't work. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before some kid got sick and tired of it and takes matter into their own hands.

So, when we see these students marching out of school demanding that guns be banned from school (they already are) or some draconian law to revoke the 2nd Amendment, I have to wonder where the walkouts were to get rid of the bullies? Where were they when they saw or heard about some kid getting verbally or physically assaulted by another student? What did they do? Watch? Nothing? It's the same thing when they see a fellow student disrespect or attack a teacher. Most whip out their cell phones to videotaped the unfolding tragedy just to post it online (and usually you can hear other students egging the punk on; cheering and laughing). Where were these same "moralistic" kids then; the ones demanding further gun control?

Government intervention is not always the answer. In fact, it's rarely the answer. Personal responsibility should be the first step taken to correct any problem. I applaud these students for at least putting their "Smart phones" down long enough and look up and see the world as it is; the real world. Their more militant grandparents would be proud of them for that at least. Ending violence is a worthy cause. However, punishing the majority for the acts of a tiny few is rarely, if ever, the right decision. These students need to reexamine the root cause for the violence in school which is bullying and allowing fellow students to feel alienated. This includes not taking steps to end attacks on teachers, fellow students, and permitting gangbangers in their schools. This is called taking responsibility, and it's through taking responsibility that we can not only take our schools back, but our government too.





Election 2016's price tag: $6.8 billion



NCES: Bullying Fast Facts



Bullying Statistics



Thousands of students walk out of school in nationwide gun violence protests

Listening Is Not The Same As Understanding: Intent Beyond Words

Since the defeat of Hillary Clinton and election of Donald Trump as President in November 2016, things seem to be getting really strange. For instance, there has been a marked increase in the number of violent protests, demands for "safe space" on college campuses and even in the workplace where, mostly, Millennials can retreat from what they find to be "offensive" speech; that is, speech which differs from their narrow echo chamber perspective, Ironically, college campuses are no longer safe for rational discussion or free speech if one side has an opposing position. There have been dozens of individuals, primarily conservative and a few even "controversial" according to the corporate media's definition of the word. Rather than allow these individuals the opportunity to speak in college provided forum, they are boycotted, protested against (usually involving some form violence) or shouted down by bull horns, air horns, or some other disruptive behavior.

The irony is that most universities and college campuses, while generally open institutions for public discussion of ideas, where basically conservative up through the early 1960's. They tended to have a strong, often financial, relationship with state and especially the federal government, corporations, and so forth. To be more specific, these institutions of higher learning received government funds---in the hundreds of thousands of dollars---to conduct tests, research, and experiments for the Department of Transportation, NASA, the Food and Drug Administration, and especially the US military and the alphabet soup network of national security agencies. In fact, the US military was (and remains) the largest provider of grant money to the colleges and universities. Corporate businesses such as IBM, AT&T, General Electric, Shell, Exxon, dozens of other oil and gas companies among many others would do so as well. In fact, for a few lucky schools, one of these multi-billion companies would pick up the tab for an entire department and/or underwrite scholarships, institutional improvements, and so on. Obviously, there was quite the symbiotic relationship government, business, and academia. Of course, today, we can add numerous high technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, and Raytheon.

However, while this relationship have remained largely the same down through the decades, academia began to open up starting in the mid 1960's. Students took a more active interest in world affairs and our role in it. Students protested, held sit-ins, started petition drives, occupied administrative offices, etc over various social issues such as Civil Rights, the Vietnam War, the draft, gender equality, as well as the universities role in these issues; and occasionally forcing the school to divest themselves from certain weapons research programs or from companies which fragrantly polluted or engaged in animal testing for instance. In a few cases, during the Vietnam War, they forced military and CIA recruiters off school campuses while demanding the addition of courses in, for example, African, environmental or women studies, community organizing, and a more well-rounded explanation of historical events and individuals devoid of popular social mythology. They went even further by demanding that individuals the institutions found "offensive" be allowed to come and speak. Nowadays, this demand to hear and understand both sides of the story are being drowned out by individuals who are ill-equipped to handle the reality of the world. Let's take a brief look at some of these individuals.

Perhaps the most infamous has been Milo Yiannopoulos of (formerly) Breitbart News, a conservative internet news site. Milo describes himself as a conservative gay man and he is known to bask in controversy. I guess you might call that his stock-in-trade. He's encouraged his followers to harass or ridicule various individuals or issues on the political Left. However, tables were turned recently when Mr. Yiannopoulos found himself uninvited from several speaking engagements over security or content on some occasions. However, most has been due to threats of protests and possible violence if he was allowed to speak. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Milo or his "act". I suppose he's a lot like the radio "shock jocks" of the 1980's like Howard Stern (I didn't care for them either). Given all the recent cancellations, Mr. Yiannopoulos has found that his stock has declined. Not so much because he's a self described conservative gay man as to the fact that mainstream America has had an opportunity to hear the content of his past talks and didn't like what they heard. Regardless though, if he's invited, he should be allowed to speak. If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't attend. It's like not liking a particular TV show. Instead of demanding that the network take it off the air, which would deny others who do like the show the opportunity to watch it, why not just flip the channel or go for a walk or something?

Another individual is Conservative writer Ann Coulter. Ann has been invited to speak at several universities only to find herself uninvited at the last minute for pretty much the same reasons. Again, Ann Coulter is not one of my favorite people. To be honest, I can't stand the sound of her voice or even to look at her, but that's just me. I know a lot of people---mostly guys---who simply adore Coulter. Good for them. However, I have no interest in listening to her speak, either in person or on one of those "talking head" shows, nor do I care to listen to conservative author Ben Shapiro, TV host Glenn Beck and others. But that doesn't give me the right to deny others the opportunity to hear them. I simply either mute their segment, turn the channel, or go brush my teeth. Of course, there are those on the Left I feel the same way about (such as everyone on The View or Keith Olbermann---blah). The point is that we are willfully losing the common decency of free speech, particularly free political speech.

Free and open political dialogue is key to the survival and growth of any democracy. It's only under totalitarian governments do we see political speech curtailed or denied all together. Our Founding Fathers depended on the open discussion of ideas in order to bring about this nation. In fact, it was the acceptance of differing opinion that enabled the City-state of Athens to become the world's first sustained democracy. Listening to what people say doesn't obligate you to accept their point of view. However, it does require that you maintain an open mind and that you are in position of critical thinking skills; to be able to listen objectively to an argument and balance what is being said with your own values. This doesn't mean shouting them down because they're the "bad guy" and might say something you actually agree with (Heaven forbid!). It means having a civil and rational exchange of ideas and of opinions. It's through this dialogue that intellectual growth occurs; where solutions happen. Unfortunately, whenever we watch politicians we often see them trying to talk each other down. On talk news shows, everyone seems to try and talk over one another (in fact, it seems to be encouraged). In the movies, on TV, and especially in video games, the person who talks the loudest seems to "win", and when that fails, it's the person who acts like the biggest bully and successfully intimidates the other person. Of course, should that fail, out come the weapons, and again, it's usually whoever has the biggest baddest gun that gets the booty (take that in whatever context you want. They all apply).

There's plenty of blame to go around. We have the dumbing down of the schools in general critical thinking skills in particular. We, as a society, have stopped teaching civility; common manners and respect. Kids somehow have to think that they can "demand" respect through a gun or other weapon. Bull crap. Respect is earned. It's based on individual integrity and to get respect, you have to give respect. As a society, we've been told that we don't have to be responsible for your actions. Somehow, perhaps magically, the State will assume any blame. After all, we are a nation of victims right? The State even steps in to absolve you of your responsibility to and for your children. Next, we've created a society where we should be protected from whatever we don't like it, which, I suppose, is part of the dumbing down process.

We've created a society where mediocrity is rewarded (have any doubts? Who gets paid more---athletes or teachers?). We're told that if we succeed, it was a collective effort that made it happen, therefore, everyone is "entitled" to a piece of your success. The group is more important than the individual. I hate to break it to you, but you come into this world an individual and you go of this world as an individual. What you do in between is learn how to cooperate with others, and you do this by learning to listen, take personal responsibility, and treat others with dignity and respect. The great 1st century Jewish Philosopher, Hillel was asked once to describe the whole of the Torah while standing on one leg. His response was brilliant. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. All else is commentary". We would do well as a society to remember this.



Inflammatory and Turned Away


A conservative speaker was uninvited from campus. And then re-invited.

A Texas University Just Cancelled Its Commencement Speaker

Ann Coulter's Berkeley speech off; police still plan for protesters

Bureau 121: The Sony Hack Fallout

This really wasn't the article I was planning on writing. Actually, I thinking about a summary of the year's major events---more than ample material there! As some of you may know, I'm a big movie buff, especially when it comes to Mel Brooks or those great movies from the 30's and 40's. In fact, Americans in general love their movies. We've had a love affair with Hollywood since the days of Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, and Tom Mix, which brings me to the subject of this article. Last year, in 2013, some 1.34 billion movie tickets were sold, generating just under $11 billion dollars in revenue.

Movies have always allowed us the opportunity for escape. It magically allows us enter another time and place; to voyeuristically participate in the lives of characters we long to be or of those we love to hate. Movies have helped us transport ourselves from the everyday drudgery of our ordinary lives into a realms of enchantment, if only for a few hours. Movies have also brought us together, be it a couple on their first date or a nation during a time of war, a national tragedy or economic depression. A key part of this, perhaps an essential part, has been the leeway we've given moviemakers to tell their stories. It is imperative that the actors, as well as the writers and directors be allowed to explore their creativity; to push the boundaries as far they can go.

Naturally, they sometimes go too far; beyond the bounds of good taste or credibility. But we've never tried to restrict their creative licenses. Sure, we've censored them. We've rated them. We've edited them, We've toned them down, but all for content based on the audiences or perceived morals of the time but rarely have we prohibited them solely because of the subject matter (though some were not made due to the political or alleged political leanings of a writer, director, or producer during the mid 1950's during the "Red Scare"). I would say that's because we place such a high value on our freedom of speech as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, but that would only be half true since the same sense of artistic freedom of expression can be found in Europe and in most other countries throughout the world; perhaps even to a far greater extent than our own, though they too have faced their own censorship due to political or religious intolerance.

But, now we have a new wrinkle we must consider. In today's interconnected world, amid all the tension, are there some topics that are simply out of bounds? We all remember what happened when author Salman Rushie wrote his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses", which enflamed some in the Moslem community and resulted in a price being placed on his head. Or when a few newspapers published cartoons which some Moslems felt were insulting to their Prophet Mohammed, resulting again in threats of violence against the various cartoonists as well as any newspaper which dared to run these allegedly "anti-Mohammed" cartoons (yet cartoons, TV shows, movies insulting Israel, Jews, America, or even Hindus and Buddhist were deemed perfectly acceptable to the same Moslem community).

Recently, Sony Pictures Entertainment produced a movie---a supposed comedy---about a bumbling talk show host and his producer who are hired by the CIA to killed the leader of North Korea entitled "The Interview". I guess someone at Sony thought this would be a hoot. Apparently, North Korea wasn't amused. Using a covert military cyber-hacking unit called "Bureau 121", operating under the euphemistic name of "Guardians of Peace", launched a hack attack on Sony, first hacking the movie studio's emails and releasing some embarrassing emails written some of the studio's senior executives about a few popular actors, producers, directors, and others. The emails rattled some cages; doubtlessly upset a few very powerful people in Tinseltown. Aside from some red faces and several groveling apologies, no serious or lasting damage was done. However, that was just beginning. The Guardians of Peace demanded that "The Interview" not be released. Any theater that did so would apparently be targeted for some sort of attack. The warning extended to anyone living near the offending theater, so one would naturally assume a bomb of some sort was implied.

As a result, five of the major film distribution outlets and at least three theaters chains announced they would not show the movie, scheduled for release this Christmas. Sony followed by stating that the movie would be withdrawn and not shown in any format at any time. Game over. Sony took quite a financial hit in the process. But the impact is really more than just about money. For the first time a foreign government has, through a military operation, attacked a US corporation; in this case to prevent release of a movie which its find objectionable. Now, I'm no fan of big corporations in general, and I certainly would not go see this movie for several (and hopefully obvious) reasons. But should a foreign government have the ability to dictate the release of a film, or a song, or a book, outside of its own domestic market?

During WWII, there were numerous propaganda films produced worldwide, although the US produced the lion's share by far, followed by the British while 90% of the films produced by Nazi Germany for instance contained no political content. Russia produced a few while the Italians and Japanese produced little of any consequence. During the Vietnam War, Hollywood released several anti-war films (including several about the Korea War, and by extension, Vietnam) while only one movie presented the war in a positive light (John Wayne's "The Green Beret" which was a box office dud). Still, there was no attempt by any side to prevent to production, release, or distribution of a film such as threatening to blow up studios or theaters. China is believed to have a similar military cyber-hacking unit as well and is thought to have been responsible for several attacks on US government agencies as well as financial institutions, yet not a peep out of them about any anti-Communist Chinese movie ("The Manchurian Candidate" comes to mind), book, or script.

I do have to sympathize with the North Koreans though on one point. This movie, even though it's billed as comedy (questionably given the previews I've seen), was about the assassination of their current head of state, their "Beloved Leader" Kim Jong-un. I wonder how Americans would feel about a North Korean or Chinese movie or book portraying the assassination of the President (ok, feel free to substitute Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton for Obama to put it in the proper context)? How would the Russians feel about a movie, even a knee slapping comedy, about bumping off Vladimir Putin? Somehow, I don't they'd care too much for it. See my point?

The question remains, as much as we in the US and in the West value our freedom of expression; as much artistic license as we believe we should allow, is there now a line that shouldn't be crossed given the connectedness of the world today? Where once a country could have poked fun at a culture, or a race, or even a religion, now to find that same content dangerously unacceptable? We have become far more sensitive for instance in how we portray Native Americans. Should this be extended to other nations and cultures as well? If so, shouldn't that be reciprocated? No more anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist movies by the Islamic countries for instance? No more negative portrayals of Hispanics, blacks, Asians or whites? No more Irish or German or French or Italian jokes or caricatures? How would this be enforced? Would it include songs? What about books or standup comedy routines? What about previously issued material? We can certainly buy most of the Nazi propaganda films, such as "Jud Suss" or "The Eternal Jew "online.

Or alternatively, was this attack by the North Koreans simply a new weapon in their arsenal? They have made it abundantly clear they would attack us, South Korea, the Japanese, or anyone else they pleased anytime they wanted too with full impunity. Is pulling this movie merely giving in---surrendering---to their demands, and if so, what do we do the next time (and there will be a next time) they demand something else? Many in Moslem community have been offended---perhaps rightly so---by what some in West and in Asia have said, written or drawn, but have made it clear that they are well within their bounds to portray Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians, or any non-Moslem as they please. Should we or Israel or India then follow North Korea's lead? That just doesn't seem quite equitable to me.

We also need to consider whether pulling this movie is a surrender our freedom, in this case our freedom of speech. If so, what's the difference between this and bowing to terrorism in any of its other forms? What freedom will they, or someone else like them, demand next? At what point does freedom of expression give way to respect and tolerance or face down threats to those same freedoms? It is a brave new world indeed, but are we brave enough?

Sony cancels December 25th premiere of 'The Interview' after terror threat



Sony email hack: what we learned about greed, racism and sexism



The Sony hack: how it happened, who is responsible and what we've learned

Newspaper Endorsements

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Recently, I was sent a link by a reader to our town's newspaper and an "endorsement" interview for the office of school board. What was unique was the fact the interview was filmed and posted on the newspaper's website, under it's "Opinion" section, and what's more, the narrator conducting the interview provided the name of everyone present, including those on the Editorial Board. Now, why that may not sound like a big deal, it is, in fact, quite a big deal for us. For as long as I can remember, the Editorial Board, until recently, rarely, if ever filmed the interview process and posted it, and heaven forbid, provided the names of the interviewers present.

Since 2004, I've been on a campaign regarding the endorsement of candidates by the media. As some of you know, I've been active in politics for well over 35 years, and over the years I've heard numerous stories about the interview process. Many cited it as biased or unfair or outright lies. Personally, I just thought they were just mad because they didn't get the endorsement; "sour grapes" as they say. However, it wasn't until I first ran for office that I learned firsthand what they meant. Not only were my comments misconstrued, some taken out of context. Take for instance one question concerned drainage, a major issue in my part of the county. I was asked what I would do about overflows and flooding. Not only did I provide a very detailed answer based on my interviews with key country sewer and drainage supervisors, I suggested that after the election, those of us elected to represent this part of the county should form a mini-caucus to examine long term approaches to fix the drainage and subsequent flooding matter once and for all. In their endorsement, the Editorial Board took my statement out of context and then accused me of trying to "balkanize" the Metro Council! Oh, and my opponent, who had little knowledge the extent of the drainage issue, suggested digging deeper ditches!

Another key issue at the time was the Fairness Ordinance which related to non-discrimination regarding sexual orientation. I strongly supported it, as did the Editorial Board, while my opponent didn't, and while I was constantly under attack by his supporters, that issue was never addressed by the Editorial Board. Meanwhile, additional comments on other various issues were misattributed, and although my knowledge on other topics exceeded that of anyone in the room that day, I didn't get their endorsement (fortunately, however, the Fairness Ordnance passed). Naturally, I wasn't too bothered. Given the newspaper's lack of popularity, especially in my part of the county, not getting their "endorsement" has usually been considered a blessing. What disturbed me the most, however, were the misquotes, omissions, and failure of the Editorial Board to even mention who was present; something I thought the public was entitled to know. Apparently, some of those grapes weren't as sour as I had originally thought.

When I ran for office a few years later, I wasn't even interviewed; never questioned once about my position on the issues while my opponent, a long time incumbent with something of a declining and lackluster record, was automatically endorsed, and again, without further explanation to the public! Now, up until then, and before I was a candidate, my "Letters to the Editor" were routinely published. It got to the point where I sometimes was even given the byline and had a section all my own, complete with an illustration! Not bad. But, after I started questioning the endorsement process all that stopped. All of my "Letters to the Editor" were ignored. My posts online were deleted almost as quickly as I posted them. I became a persona non grata as far as they were concerned. I guess I was supposed to simply disappear like everyone who had publically complained had before. Of course, I didn't thanks to you dear readers, and that was the start of Another Opinion.

You see, what I was questioning wasn't whether this or that candidate should be endorsed, but whether a newspaper should be endorsing anyone. To me, it was the role of the media to provide the public with balanced and impartial news. What we didn't need was a newspaper trying to manipulate public opinion and force their agenda on them, whether that agenda was Liberal or Conservative, which they appeared to be doing as I saw it. What I believed, and still do, is that newspapers, which are the only news oriented medium which "endorses" candidates, should provide the public with basic information about each candidate; their position on key issues in their own words; how to contact them, and then back off and let the public decide for themselves who to vote for. It is my opinion that we don't need to be told what to think or how to vote. Besides, how would feel about Fox, ABC, CBS, or even CNN endorsing candidates based on their board of director's political agenda? Not particularly happy I bet. That's not the role I want to see for the media, be it print or electronic.

Therefore, I began my campaign to end endorsements by the media, in particular newspapers---a self-appointed role they took upon themselves as "the public's protector" well before there was a literate or connected America and long before the days of radio, TV, the Internet, or alternative media and other means to obtain information. Just provide the public with a balanced picture and let them make up their own minds. Barring that, what We the Public deserved was to see the interview process unedited. Let us see and hear from the candidates themselves. Secondly, tell us who was present. Who are the individuals "judging" the candidates allegedly on our behalf; what are their names and what are their roles at the newspaper? Lastly, in partisan elections, the public deserves to know the political affiliation of those individuals. If only Democrats were being "endorsed" was that because those making that decision Democrats too? To do otherwise is complete dishonesty in my opinion.

You see, what I've been after is nothing less than fairness of and honesty in the "endorsement" process itself. We are going to the polls to choose individuals who will represent us; who will make decisions regarding our jobs, our schools, our roads, our police; our taxes, our social safety net, and in some cases, whether or not to send our husbands, wives, sons or daughters off to war. I am not asking much, but what I am asking for we deserve to know. If you agree that as voters, we deserve to see the interviews with the candidates unedited; to know the names of those allegedly "judging" the candidates on our behalf; and lastly, to know what vested political interest they have in making their recommendations, or better yet, to simply give us the basic facts and allow us make up of own minds, then please contact the editorial boards of your local newspaper or other media outlets if they make "endorsements" and demand it. Otherwise, perhaps it's time we start looking for endorsements from ESPN. At least it would be more entertaining!


And on a Personal Note...

First, I want to thank all our many readers around the world for their years of loyality. Without you, A/O would have never have become as successfull as it has. To reflect our success and growth of Another Opinion, I am pleased to tell you that A/O is now officially incorporated! Yelp, we're all legal now, which will allow us to further expand into different avenues. And to reflect, I want you to know that we will continue to provide you with the balanced and honest content you've come to expect from Another Opinion. We will continue to remain a Centrist non-partisan blog, which remains ranked among the top 25 in the US, and we promise to provide you with the same top notch bookreviews, guest articles, and polls that we always have. So, thank you ever so much our dear readers for making this possible.