Newspaper Endorsements: Not Worth the Ink

The following is a reprint of an article which I've published in one form or another every election cycle since 2001. This is as important for our present as it is for our future. Please consider sharing with your family, friends, and contacts.

There was a time when newspapers were the ever vigilant "crusaders" of public interest, albeit self-appointed and as often as not, the creators of their own hype (see "Yellow Journalism"), however, society grew up.

Today, we have instant access to information the world over, and with it, the ability to do own investigation of candidates and the issues which are important to us.

For years, I campaigned for release of unedited transcripts of candidate interviews and full disclosure of the interviewer's names and political affiliations. The public has a right to know exactly what the candidate said, what their positions are, as well as the slant the article, or so-called "endorsement", was written from. I've been involved in politics for over 35 years. To many times over those years I've come across candidates who were misquoted, misattributed, or the "correct" answer inserted while the gaffs were carefully removed. Today, we have a partial solution with a few of the interviews being taped and made public unedited, but not full disclosure from those doing the interviews or making the endorsements. That remains hidden. You, the voter, have a right to know.

As I have done for years, I urge readers to take a few minutes to do their own research and make their own decision about who to vote for. The Voter Guide is one such resource for you to consider. If you find that you happen to agree with a particular candidate's positions mentioned , fine. Then support that individual as a volunteer, with a financial contribution or with your vote. But do so as an informed voter. Don't let anyone think for you. Ever. The role of the media is to present the facts in a impartial, balanced and fair manner, not to attempt to manipulate or sway public opinion to suit its own political agenda, even if they think it's "for your own good". Only you can decide what's in your own best interests. Can you imagine Fox, CNN, ESPN, CBS, ABC, or even Public TV making a political endorsements? Neither can I. Forget about your newspaper's endorsements. Remember that endorsements are merely personal opinions, and not always the most informed ones at that. Think for yourself. Do your own research. And then vote. America is counting on you.

Stars, Bars, and High Crimes

An apology should be my first order of business dear readers. You see, normally I try to write my articles on a regular basis, about twice a week, however, I'm slightly late. The reason you see, is that like many of you, I was mesmerized by the recent happenings in the news. Maybe "mesmerized" might not quite be the right word. It was more like that combination of terror and being awestruck. I guess the closest description I can give is what it must feel like for some field mouse watching a hawk swooping down on it with wings spread, talons outstretched, and having nowhere to run; its fascination and fear rolled into one.

To what I am speaking is, of course, this mass hysteria over the Confederate flag, which has now expanded to Confederate statues in state capitols, parks, and even cemeteries. There was almost an influx of air as individuals elected to represent the people rushed to remove the Southern Cross, as it's properly called, from every flag pole they could find. This was followed by retailers promising to remove anything which bore the vile image or any of the great leaders of the "Lost Cause" from their shelves. Hell, even Warner Brothers removed the Confederate flag from "The Dukes of Hazard's" bright orange "General Robert E. Lee", which, by the way, is no longer going to known as the "General Robert E. Lee". Now, there's talk about removing the remains of some of the greatest military and political leaders in American History---Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jefferson Davis, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and others---simply because they defended a cause they believed in, which ended 150 years ago (and this desecration includes their wife's graves too if they are buried in the same plot together). There is even some wanting to remove street signs and names of schools which bear the name of some long dead Confederate. Meanwhile, apparently a few "white haters" have started vandalizing Confederate statues and tombstones of fallen Confederate soldiers (I won't used the politically correct phrase, "tagging" since it implies some harmless fun, which this isn't).

Why I wondered? Why would there be so "much to ado about nothing"; this "tempest in a teapot" to borrow from Bill Shakespeare. It seems it all got started when some photographs appeared online of our most recent mass murder celebrity, Mr. Roof. It seems that there are two or three pictures of Mr. Dylann Roof, alone, holding a small Confederate battle flag. One picture, as I recall, taken on a beach, shows where he had written "88" in the sand---a referenced to the Hitler and Nazis used by white hate groups. Well, ok then. If this individual wants to be identified as Neo-Nazis or whatever, that's fine. I don't think there's any doubt that this was a hate crime to begin with and should be treated accordingly.

The Confederate flag---the "Southern Cross" if you will---is a part of American and Southern heritage, whether some like it or not. Yes, it has been used by hate groups and individuals, but so has the original 13 Star American and Gadsden flags, not to mention our current national flag. Should be ban them? If not, please tell me why. The American flag has flown over many acts of hated such as they attempt by the US Government to extinguish an entire population. I am, of course, referring to Native Americans. The government in Washington spent decades coming up with schemes to deprived Native Americans of their resources, then the lands, and finally, their lives. When those failed, they put them on reservations, and systematically stripped them of their traditions, their culture, and their languages. The fact that any still exist, let alone practice their religion or speak their original language is a testament to their tenacity as a Great People. What about the conquest of the Southwest and war with Mexico? What about the imprisonment of the Japanese and Germans in concentration camps during and after World War II? Care to talk about our treatment of Pacific Islanders after the war and the use of their native islands for nuclear bombing practice? I don't care how much you try, no group will be successful in whitewashing American history no matter how hard they try. There are still too many witnesses and descendents of witnesses.

Yes, some have been successful in convincing people that the War between the States was fought solely over the issue of slavery, but

no matter how hard people try, they will never be able to bury the truth. But because of hate groups, some have come to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of black hatred, but it's not. Nevertheless, let's talk about that for a moment. The war itself was fought over several issues, of which the two most important was the right of the state over that of the federal government in determining laws and over economics, where the industrial North sought to dominate the mostly agricultural South, which had depended on slavery and manual labor to compensate for its lack of industry. Slavery, however, was only a tiny fraction of the South's actual workforce. Less than 4% of the entire Southern population owned any slaves at all. Of that, around 1% was the stereotypical "Tara" plantation. Most slave owners worked side by side with their slaves (the average of which was three), and ate the same food. Living conditions were usually not that different between slave and master. Many Northerners, especially manufacturers, supported slavery because they had a business interest in it. As an aside, did you know that Confederate generals Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnson, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee, and J.E.B. Stuart were not slaveholders? Or that approximately 80% of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners Or that Confederate President Davis said, after the war, that everyone knew slavery, as an institution, was doomed? Most thought it would be gone within 10 to 12 years.

Maybe you didn't know too that Lincoln originally did not oppose slavery as long as it held the Union together, or that he thought the races would never get along together and intended to propose returning freed slaves to Africa or to relocate them out West. The famous "Emancipation Proclamation, issued by Lincoln following the bloody battle of Gettysburg applied to states which had succeed from the Union and not to the slave states which remained. Why? Simple military strategy. Stalemate. Freeing the slaves meant there was no one to bring in the crops. Therefore, Southern soldiers were forced to leave to tend the fields to keep their families from starving. This improved the odds for the North of winning. So, with only 4% or less of the population owning slaves, do you really think that 96% of the, mostly poor, farmers and merchants, left everything to fight for the 4%? No, I don't either.

Speaking of symbols, in those pictures I mentioned, Mr. Roof was wearing a Gold's Gym t-shirt. Are you prepared to call Gold's Gym

"racist"? Should we ban it too? I oppose all hate groups of all types---KKK, Neo-Nazis, La Raza, Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers. I'm offended by what they do, what say preach, and, yes, by some of the items they wear. Shall we ban their flags and symbols too? After all, some of these groups openly admit to hating one race or another. The head of the New Black Panthers reportedly said that everyone whose ancestors owned slaves should be killed, while others think descendents of former slaves should receive compensation. Personally, I find this intriguing. Since slavery was introduced in America by the Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Dutch, are these included? What about Native Americans? Some owned slaves while others became slaves. Then there are the Irish, Scots, and Germans, who were kept as slaves (not serfs mind you) by the English. Of course, there the numerous free blacks who owned slaves. Should those who fought to free slaves get some sort of credit? By the way, how would account for those blacks who were never slaves or came here later? What about those who can prove multiple slave ancestry or those for whom there are no descendents? What about people of mixed race (70% of all US blacks have some white ancestry by the way)?

Maybe we should start at the beginning and go after those African tribes who captured and sold their fellow Africans to the white slave traders? Of course, we'll need to include the Arabs (who, along some African tribes, still carry on the practices today). If we really want to be back to basics, what about the Bible and Koran? Both condone slavery, not to mention, gender discrimination, mutilation, and enslavement, as well as ethnic and religious genocide. That ought to solve the problem don't you think?

By now, I think you'll agree to the absurdity to this flag matter. The issue was the cold blooded murder of nine individuals. Not a flag. Not a statue or headstone. Not even a t-shirt. So what happened? Who would benefit from all those racial distraction? Well, Obama and a bipartisan Congress passed the mostly super secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, it appears, essentially surrenders US foreign trade policy to global corporate scrutiny and would allow corporations to sue nations over trade policies in international court if those policies negatively affect corporate profits or are too restrictive. Obama was also able to issue an new executive order in make it easier for illegal immigrates to enter and remain in the US. Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, thus ensuring that it isn't going anywhere (with little resistance by the GOP). Oh yeah, and the Supreme Court made gay marriage the new land of the land (again with little reaction by the Republican Party). Hmm.

Now, you don't think this flag hubbub was actually to distract and misdirect the American People do you? Well, if you are, you'd be right. This is what Washington is good at, especially when it's trying to avoid any public outrage until after the fact and has an opportunity to prepare a cover story. Right on cue, all the Right and Left wing groups have come all out in force about how the fight was won but there's more to do, especially as the other side is trying to undo this recent victory or how the fight was lost due to unconstitutional low blows and with you on their side (along with a modest donation), the struggle can go on. How convenient. I wonder dear friends, how long the American People are going to continue to buy into these deceptions; this sleight-of-hand legislation? How much longer we will allow ourselves to pick from pre-determined "choices" handed down to us by Washington? When will realize that these divisions of the American People are both mostly artificial and intentional in order to keep us from uniting and focusing on the real "enemy"? When will we come together and make our own choices and take our own actions? I wonder.

What do you believe?

How religious is America? What would be your best guess? According to a survey taken in August of 2014 on behalf of the Religion News Service, America is in the midst of a "great decline" among the mainstream churches. In 1994, 94% of those who attended church identified with that church. Today, that is about 85%. Church membership is down from 69% ten years ago to approximately 59%. Speaking of church attendance, that's down to about 53% in 2014 compared to 62% in 1994.

The role of religion has declined too. In 1994, 88% said religion was important in their lives. Today, only 78% say it's important. In terms of relevance, that too has declined, albeit not significantly, from 79% to 70%. However, what may actually be a more important indicator is the result of five Gallup polls averages which shows that overall religious importance has declined from 78% to 69%. That is significant. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 53% of those surveyed said they were satisfied with religion's role in public life. While that is a majority, its certainly isn't a commanding majority, especially when you consider than in January 2001, that number was 64%, and a year later, in 2002, that number was 68%.

How does that break down along demographic lines? This is an important question given that religion has been interwoven into the

fabric of America since Jamestown, and religion is still reflected in the voting booths. 9 in 10 Americans believe in God; that's 92%. Going back to "the Greatest Generation" of the WWII era, that number was 96%. Between 1953 and 1967, it was incredible 98%. Women tend to believe in God more than men (94% to 90%). Older Americans too believe in God more than those between 19 and 29---94% to 84% (perhaps older populations are simply covering their bases!). The most interesting aspect of the poll was how the percentages changed when the respondents were asked if they believed in a "Universal Spirit" or a "higher power". That number jumped by 12%. This would seem to mean that while there's a strong belief in a Creator, fewer identify with the more dogmatic version of organized religion.

Millennials (ages 18 to 33) are the next big demographic wave to hit as we've often discussed on this blog. With 50% of them self-identifying as independent, Millennials have no love for the current social/economic/political system. This includes the two party duopoly, the corporate capitalist economic system, with a split between small "L" libertarianism and democratic socialism (with the later getting the slight nod), as well as discrimination of any sort, including gay marriage, or interracial mixing. They are the most diverse of all the generations (43% are non-white). They tend to vote Democrat, though they are not aligned with the Democrat Party; they just like the more liberal stance of Democrats on social issues than the GOP (for instance, 68% favor gay marriage while 69% support legalization of marijuana). So it should come as no surprise that Millennials have little positive to say about religion; at least organized religion. Millennials have proved to be both optimistic about the future and on the whole, willing to roll of their sleeves and get to work when they find an issue or cause that's important to them. They are also the most technologically connected of any generation. They've never known a time without handheld electronics, computers, or social networks. They are also more inclined to delay marriage and have the largest percentage of debt (mostly school loans).

When it comes to religion, 36% say they consider themselves as religious, with almost 30% say they are not affiliated with any religion (read "organized religion"). This compares to 21% of Gen X (ages 34 to 49), 16% of Boomers (ages 50 to 68) and 9% of the Silent's (69 to 86) who say they aren't religious. When they are affiliated with a religion, few are members of conservatives churches since the majority are liberal to very liberal on social issues. 58% of Millennials say they believe in God, while 28% say they believe, but they're not entirely sure actually exists, and 11% say they don't believe in God at all. Compare this with 69% of their older Gen X brethren, 73% of their Boomer parents or 74% of their Silent generation grandparents.

So, what's the takeaway here? I think it's the realization that religion---particularly mainstream organized religion---will likely decline as Silents and the first wave Boomers (those born between 1945 and 1964) age out. Non-organized religions, especially non-traditional faiths like those which emphasis spirituality (Native American, Wiccan), as well as Buddhism or even moderate Islam will continue to take hold due to the increased internationalization of the average American continues amid the decline of the once dominate WASP (with the increase of Hispanics, remember most are Catholic and while some are embracing Protestant churches, most remain, at least nominally, Catholic). What is expected to remain stable is the traditional mostly conservative and socially active black churches such as the Baptists, and AME.

In addition, Millennials do not support church activism when it comes to politics. Again, I think we can, therefore, expect the

role of the religious Right to decline inasmuch as their influence on political matters. For some, this will be viewed as a very bad thing, however, with the largely left of center and even somewhat democratic socialist ideals held by Millennials, the conservative Right as we know it now may become marginalized to a more localized role and off the national stage as a key player. The only way they can avoid this is by adjusting their political plank on social issues to the middle or even slightly center left. This will certainly mean a complete overhaul of the Republican and/or Tea Party as well as a strong commitment the ideals of the Constitution which, at least, the libertarian Millennials support. However, at present, with the near stranglehold the far Right has on the Republican Party (and increasingly on the Tea Party), change may not be possible until the GOP and/or Tea Party accepts that its ideals are out of touch with most Americans. Therefore, the strategy has to be adapt, change or die (as an aside, please recall that America is now governed by a oligarchy comprised of the 1% and a few key corporations, so that too will have to be addressed regardless of all other considerations).

On another level, religion, regardless of denomination, has served as a basic foundation to establishing and maintaining a moral foundation for most Americans. America was founded on Judeo-Christian values along with ideals from the Enlightenment. Religion laid out a set of broad guidelines or boundaries of behavior; or what's acceptable and what's not, which was usually reinforced by our parents and the schools we attended. Americans have always turned to religion when times were rough, either personally or for the nation as a whole. It has been a guiding light or safe harbor. It's also provided inspiration for us individually and for us as a nation. How does the decline in religion impact this? First, I think it's instrumental in defining our moral compass. Just look around you or watch the television and you'll see what happens when people lose their moral guideposts. I guess you can say that this system of Judeo-Christian values and ideals of the Enlightenment helped to create the American character.

Because of the all the trauma and societal betrayals by the government, legal system, education system, and churches, we've lost the ability to trust our institutions. In fact, there is very little institutionally speaking that we have any faith in (perhaps our military is all that's left). That's not to say America is becoming atheist. We still crave a spiritually rudder. That's clearly shown by the nominal levels of those who claim to be atheists as shown in the surveys, not to mention the strong numbers of those who are looking outside of mainstream religions. I think too that the expanse of science has played a part. The more knowledge we as a species acquires, the further back we push back the veils of superstitions and myths, and yet, we still cling to the idea if not the belief in God, and I think we always will. Personally, I find God in the beauty and complexity of life; from the simplest of life forms to the vastness of the Cosmos. I also think that because of the cross pollination of ideas and cultures through technology and globalization, we're gradually learning to accept that there is more than one path to reach what we commonly refer to as God, and that can only be a good thing. Ultimately, we are one species; more similar in our aspirations, emotions, and fears than not. We will either evolve together or we shall perish together.


5 Signs of the 'Great Decline' of Religion in America
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/08/01/five-signs-great-decline-religion-america-gallup-graphs-church/

U.S. Satisfaction With Religion Settling at Lower Levels
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181532/satisfaction-religion-settling-lower-levels.aspx

Poll: 9 in 10 Americans Still Believe in God
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/belief-in-god-poll_n_872059.html

Millennials in Adulthood
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/

Generation Atheists! Millennials to religion--get out of politics!
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/04/were_raising_a_generation_of_atheists/

When Enough is Enough?

With all the scandals which has rocked the Obama Regime, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment from the Right. But, as I recall, there was talk about impeaching George W Bush too, just as there's considerable chatter about the removal of Holder, Boehner, Pelosi, or whomever. That would be the logical thing to do, that is if we were dealing with an otherwise legitimate government. However, we're not. This is not the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers. This is not the government guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not the form of government we celebrate the creation of on the 4th of July. It is not a government which represents the will of its citizens. It is, however, the type of government that our Founders warned us about. At present, our voices and our votes count for little. What matters apparently is money, for its money which the Supreme Court said represents free speech. It also money which equates to access, and with access comes power; something "We the People" are denied.

What should we do then? How should a people express their dissatisfaction with a government which no longer serves the People, but instead, bows to the will of artificial entities rather than flesh and blood? Our Constitution, while pandered to by those who go through the motions to serve, is still much in force by the People for whom it was written, gives us the answer. It tells us that if the government fails in its duties, then we have both the right and responsibility to modify or change that government.

Since our votes and Will count for little thanks to the misrulings of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis McCutcheon and Citizens United, and district gerrymandering by Congress and state legislatures, how about another tactic for your consideration? We as Citizens have the right (for the present) to protest. However, we are expected to do so within certain restrictions; restrictions designed in part to take the "sting" out of the our collective voices since all too often the representatives are either not there or fail to even notice us unless they happen to catch mention on one of the local news channels. Certainly not very effective, and since money is not only "free speech", but also access, what if we took it further still to make our point?

Specifically, what if we took our signs; our demands; our voices to the very street and indeed, in front of the homes where "our" so-called representative live? I'm sure there may be some sort of hoops to jump through, but would that get their attention? Would that make up for our lack of "free speech"? I just might be worth it. What if we expanded it to include the residences of their staffs? Do you think they'd make their boss aware our displeasure? If not, I have no doubt their neighbors would.

As for lobbyists, who are little more than errand boys and girls on behalf of the one percenters and corporations, perhaps they too should know our displeasure with plans to move jobs overseas, harm the planet, or get taxpayer based welfare. The names of their presidents and boards of directors are publically available. Use it. Make our displeasure felt not just at public parks, on street corners, or at memorials, but where they live...literally. When they get tired of having their dirty laundry paraded in front of their neighbors, they'll get the message.

Remember, we are no longer a democratic republic; the government given to us by our Founding Fathers, or as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed, "of the people, by the people; and for the people". The government is an oligarchy. Officially. A government responsible to the top 1% wealthiest individuals and to a small clique of banking and corporate elites. In short, Washington no longer represents Mainstreet America. It represents Wallstreet.

In a land where the rule of people has been supplanted by the weight of the dollar, is this how America must act? Our Founding Fathers would have said yes. However, the decision is yours to make America, once you've decided enough is enough. Think about it.