When Kentucky Bluegrass Smells like Stinkweed: More Kentucky Corruption

Over the past several weeks now, I've been sharing with you the results of my research into the politics of money; who's giving it and who's getting it. We've looked at the key industries which donate the most, and the largest individual donors (and no, the Koch Brothers and George Soros aren't even in the top ten. by the standards of the really big donors, they're paupers). In our Capitalistic world, everything has a price, not the least of which are politicians especially since the gross error of a out of touch (and perhaps naive) Supreme Court which upheld Citizens United (Citizens United vs. FEC in 2010).

As I'm sure you know, this "supreme" mistake declared money to be equal to "free speech" and turned corporations into "pseudo-people" ("Frankensteins" as I call them) with the same rights as us mere flesh and blood mortals, except more so. While you and I are capped as to what we can give, corporations aren't. They're free to give what they want, when they want, and to whom they want; essentially taking ordinary citizens out of the picture. Adding in all that lobbyist do on behalf of their corporate masters and the revolving door between Wall Street, E Street (where most lobbying firms are located in Washington DC), and Capital Hill, it's no wonder that we're an Oligarchy; a plutocracy. It seems that politicians only have time for us every two, four, or six years, when they don their "common folk" apparel, adopt their well practiced populist patter and force themselves to mingle with the ordinary citizens out here in "Flyover Country".

My last article discussed Kentucky being named one of the most politically corrupt in the nation and some of the common dirty tricks used by candidates running for office, especially those used in my home state of Kentucky. I thought it would be interesting to discuss a few more of those tricks. But first, since we've previously discusses the major donors at the federal level and the role of military contractors and their beneficiaries, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the key lobbyists in Kentucky. So, let's take a look shall we?

There are approximately 20 "high dollar" lobbyists in Frankfort, Kentucky's state capital, who represent around 720 corporations and associations. First on the list is John McCarthy, the former top generalissimo of the Kentucky Republican Party and regular sight at the Jefferson County Republican Party meetings (McCarthy was the former Kentucky GOP Chairman). McCarthy's clients include Altria (Phillip Morris USA), the University of Louisville and Bardenwerper Talbott and Roberts, LLC, a law firm which represents land real estate developers. McCarthy earns $315,003 for his efforts. In second place is the former State Auditor and Secretary of State, Bob Babbage. Babbage, a Democrat, represents clients like Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Aetna, Cash Express, and Novo Nordisk Inc, which is a Danish pharmaceutical company.

In third place is Patrick Jennings. His clients include UPS, Swedish Match AB (a manufacturer of tobacco snuff, cigars, smokeless tobacco, lighters, matches, etc), and Consumer Healthcare Products Association (does anyone else note the irony here?). He earns $281,626. Forth place belongs to Ronny Pryor. Pryor's top three clients are Molina Health Care, LifePoint Hospitals, and the Hospital Corporation of America. Next, at number five, is Karen Thomas-Lentz. She represents clients like EPIC Pharmacies, Swisher International (a manufacture of cigars and other tobacco products), and the Kentucky Liquor Retailers Coalition, for which she makes $209,073. Coming in at number six is Sean Cutter. Sean's clients include the Jefferson County Public Schools, the Kentucky Distillers Association, and EQT Corporation, which is in the oil and gas exploration and pipeline transportation business. For his services, Sean earns $201,380.

In the seventh spot is John Cooper, whose main clients are Toyota, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Kentucky Medical Association. For his efforts, Mr. Cooper is paid around $193,405. In eighth place we have Leigh Thacker. Ms. Thacker represents the Kentucky Press Association, the Cigar Association of America, and the Outdoor Advertising Association, for which is earns $182,667. Our ninth place goes to Kevin Payton. His top three clients are Fidelity Investments, the Outdoor Advertising Association as well, and FanDuel, Inc., which is a daily fantasy sports provider and sports bookmaker service based in New York City. Kevin's brings home $172,200.

Completing our top ten is Chris Nolan, whose three clients are the Kentucky Distillers Association, Maximus, and RAI Services. Chris earns $170,847. In case you're wondering, Maximus is a information technology services company which provides business process services for government healthcare and human service agencies. It's focus is on administering government based programs such as Medicaid, child support enforcement, welfare-to-work programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicare. RAI Services is Reynolds American Incorporated, whose chief business is tobacco products.

Some other notable mentions include Rachel Bayens, whose clients include Louisville Regional Airport Authority, CVS Health, and Anthem, Inc. She makes $122,654, which is nothing to sneeze at! Greg Brotzge who represents Sullivan University, the Kentucky Paint Council, and the Kentucky Bluegrass Cannabis LLC. His income is $114,734. Jason Underwood's clients include Legalize Kentucky Now, Delaware North Companies which is a global food and hospitality company. It's also involved with gaming, sporting and entertainment businesses, and Sazerac Company, an alcoholic beverage company.

While only the top three clients are listed here, state lobbyists typically handle 25 or more clients. Meanwhile, lobbyists in Washington may handle fewer clients, their dollar volume is much much higher, as are their incomes. It's not uncommon for lobbyists in Washington to earn well into the seven figure salaries with some seriously great perks, which is why most politicians and senior staffers on Capitol Hill set their sights on E Street almost from day one (or sooner) of their careers.

Nevertheless, lobbyists spent a record setting $8.4 million dollars in Frankfort to insure they got the proper amount of "free speech" spread around to Kentucky politicians. That's three years in row where lobbyists have set a new spending record. Who "spoke" the loudest to legislators? That would be Altria (Phillip Morris USA), the tobacco company. They spent a record $332,000, outspending everyone else to make sure they were heard loud and clear.

That message included easing restrictions on tobacco advertising and stopping any tax increases on tobacco products. Another big spender was LG$E and KU Energy, which lobbied hard to reduce what they have to pay for excess energy created by consumers who generate their own electricity from solar panels and windmills. Apparently their $116,858 wasn't enough and House Bill 227 failed.

Sadly, while businesses and professional associations are well cared for in places like Frankfort and Washington, ordinary citizens lack any full, or ever part-time lobbyists to protect our interests. Even if there were, it's highly doubtful they could come anywhere near to matching the money that would be needed to offset what businesses are prepared to spend; even unions are grossly outspent. Meanwhile, even politicians with the best of intentions (I've known a very few and I'm sure you have too) have to raise money to get and stay elected. Today's campaigns have all but squeezed out anyone who isn't a millionaire, or at least well-off, and that's just local and state elections.

Federal elected offices are completely out of reach of most everyone (and really, even appointed offices which are often given based on the one's ability to raise and donate money). So, when we look at the quality of people in office, just remember that these are far from the best and brightest America has to offer. These are those who were willing to sell themselves for corporate money...and the corporate chains which go along with it. It is not a place for those who think and act for themselves.

As you'll recall from my last article, we discussed some of numerous "dirty tricks" campaigns engage in. There are literally hundreds of little "gotchas" campaigns play on each other. Most are usually harmless and designed to liven up the otherwise monotonous days and evenings that campaigning can become, though a few can be pretty annoying. However, there are numerous other, not so humorous, things which unscrupulous candidates, their managers, advisors, and/or volunteers do which are unethical in the least or totally illegal at the worse.

Surprisingly, one of the more common, and certainly unethical things is hiring or otherwise bribing someone to run in your race as a "ringer". Usually, but not always, this happens in a Primary. The reason is actually quite simple. First off, primaries tend to have a low turnout, therefore it's important to make sure to get your supporters out and keep your opponents at home. The next best thing is to split the vote. That's were getting a "ringer" or two to run in order to divide the vote for your opponent. More specifically, it's useful to divide an anti-incumbent vote. How many times have you seen a unpopular incumbent "somehow" win? Well, it's usually because they get people to run in the race and focus their efforts against the incumbent's strongest opponent. It's also a great way to get the weakest candidate the advantage. We'll look at both situations.

As an example, I know of an instance where a well known and pretty strong candidate ran for an open seat (meaning there was no incumbent). That individual was known for being honest and seriously interested in helping the people in the district as well not one known to do as they're told. However, a "good ole boy" clique didn't want that. They needed someone they could "own". So while they found someone to run, they knew that individual couldn't win. So, they got two others to run and concentrate their efforts against the better candidate, which, in effect, meant the better candidate was running against three individuals rather than just one, and just before the election, both of the "ringers" dropped out and encouraged everyone to support the weaker candidate. Unfortunately, this technique often proves to be successful.

A similar example is when a unpopular incumbent faces a strong challenger. When attempts to buy them out of running fails (like offering to help get them a board or commission position, promise to get snow removed from their neighbor's streets, fix their sidewalks, drainage, or pave their street), the incumbent will often employ a ringer or two. From there, it's pretty much the same as above. Often times, a ringer won't show up at a debate out of fear of getting caught. However, they sometimes do, and when they do, they're fairly easy to spot since they don't go seriously after the incumbent (they may make a few little jabs at them, but nothing too serious).

In another instance I know about, a candidate appeared at one of those so-called newspaper "endorsements". Of course, I'm one of those who believe the media should simply report the news, not try to manipulate or push their agenda like they do with their "endorsements", but nevertheless, this candidate appeared along with his opponent and another individual who turned out to be the ringer (and an obvious one at that. He played in the same local band as the opponent's brother!). So, after introductions, the questioning by the panel started. It didn't take long for the opponent to show their complete absence of any knowledge of issues. While the better candidate knew their stuff, the opponent didn't have a clue. Most telling, however, was that the ringer had no responses at all! When asked for their opinion on an issue, they would shrug their shoulders and say something like "I don't know" or point to one of the other candidates and say "I agree with him".

Never once did the newspaper interviewers, whose jobs are to ask tough questions and investigate, ever question the cavalier attitude of this mystery candidate. They never bothered to check this individual out (which even a casual inquiry would have revealed they identity). So, at the end of the interview, the opponent and ringer walked out together...laughing no less! When the "endorsements" came out a few days later, there was no or little mention of the ringer, and while generally good comments were made about the better candidate, it was the opponent who got the endorsement! Of course, what helped was that the opponent candidate's actual answers were changed.

Remarks they made in the interview were deleted or altered, and in a few cases, misapplied from the better candidate. How can that be? Simple, someone didn't want the better candidate to win, and that meant no "endorsement" Of course, eventually everything comes out with the wash as the expression goes. It was discovered that one of the interviewers (allegedly) got a complimentary membership of some sort...after the election. While there's really nothing "illegal" about any of this, it's quite obviously unethical, which should tell you all you want to know about the opponent and those backing them.

Since then, and as a result of other stories, I've encouraged candidates to avoid newspaper endorsements. Yes, some may be honest, but you never know. Secondly, those doing the interview rarely if ever reveal their names to the public and never do they reveal their political registration which the public deserves to know; they need to know the political slant of those making the endorsements in order to know how seriously the "endorsements" should be taken. Lastly, I've campaigned to not only have this information made public, but also to record and release the interview itself unedited, either in video form on the newspaper's website, or simply print a complete transcript of the interview. Until newspaper's become as transparent as they tell everyone else to be, candidates should avoid the interview.

Again, there is nothing unusual here. It's not uncommon in today's world of politics, but that doesn't make it Ok. Most endorsement processes don't permit other individuals such as campaign managers or advisors to be in the room, and most definitely no recording devises. The claim is that they would try to "coach" their candidate with the answers or intimidate their opponent by recording devises (or more likely, embarrass their own candidate who may come off looking or sounding like a dork). Personally, I think it's more a matter of catching the interviewers in the act of playing politics in what's supposed to be an unbiased and honest process.

There you have it friends. This is how the game is all too often played, and I haven't even scratched the surface yet. I go back time and time again to stress that we need to undo decisions like Citizens United; we need to implement serious campaign finance reform; we need term limits and an end to gerrymandering. We need a level playing field when it comes to allowing third party and Independents the opportunity to run for office, or even a seat on the Board of Elections (in case you forgot or didn't know, Independents are the nation's largest political bloc with 44% of all registered voters, and growing. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are stuck in the 20% range and shrinking overall). Unless we do, Kentucky and America will remain an increasingly corrupt duopoly amid a ruling Oligarchy of plutocrats. In short, we will continue to lose our Republic and the freedoms which go with it.



Kentucky's GOP former chair is now top paid lobbyist in Frankfort

These 20 lobbyists were among the highest paid people at the state capital in 2017

Lobbyist spending tops $8.4 million in Kentucky legislature

Following the Money: Greasing the Political Machine

I've been writing of late about who are the biggest recipients of military contracts, the largest campaign contributors in the US (sorry but the Koch Brothers and George Soros were way down on the list), and the current trend of Millennials, the largest demographic in America, away from capitalism in favor of Democratic Socialism, Communism, and even Fascism. Meanwhile, Generation Z, who are following the Millennials, seem to be headed in the opposite direction, although they are still relatively young and not fully integrated into job market yet. What I've been looking at is segments of the ruling Oligarchy and, based on Millennial trends, which way America might be headed. Are we headed toward Left leaning Fascism or Right leaning Fascism?

Of course, as I explained in numerous articles, Fascism is hard to define, especially when we use the outdated modes of a "Left/Right" model. It's a merger of State and Big Business. In theory, it's suppose to be a "equal partnership" but as a matter of practice, the State became dominant. Today's fascism differs in that the State has become more of a junior partner. Fascism also, as you should know by now, borrows from the history and traditions of its host country, which is why the Fascism of Italy was different from the Fascism of Spain or Hungary, or the Fascism of Romania or that of Germany or even Argentina. Nevertheless, overall, Fascism takes on a Right Wing tilt since its essentially nationalist, militaristic, and regressive. That is, it has a feudalistic quality to it.

The notion of America becoming "Socialist" or Communist is absurd. Why? Because under both systems there would be little to know capitalism. Do you think for one minute that the 1% are going to surrender their wealth and power, then you're either naive or serious out of touch with reality. Wall Street and the big banks or financial giants which dominate the economic landscape like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, or Morgan Stanley are not going to agree to be absorbed by the government. It's just not going to happen, especially when they are part of the ruling Oligarchy.

Under Communism, there is no private enterprise while under Democratic Socialism. the State severely restricts corporate power. The Supreme Court's great error---upholding Citizens United which made corporations "people" (I refer to them as "Frankensteins") and uncapped the genie in the bottle by declaring the money was equitant to "free speech" and thus couldn't be restricted ensured that corporations would dominate politics openly. Of course, we mere flesh and blood types are still restricted in what we can donate. There's no way we can amass the kind of money that corporations donate.

In addition, corporations employ thousands of full time lobbyists who have basically unlimited funds to cater to nearly every need. In addition, they politicians have come to rely on lobbyists to help write and interrupt bills, provide legislative research and summaries. Of course, then there's all those really nice perks! Besides, most politicians leaving office end up as a lobbyist or consultant along with a handsome six figure salary (in addition to the lifetime salary and benefits they take with them when leaving office). As the American People, well, we don't seem to have any lobbyists working on our behalf.

So then, who are these political errand men and women who work at the behest of these corporate "Frankensteins"? Well, let's look at what industries they represent since that will give an idea at the who the power brokers are. Coming in the top spot is Legal Industries which often represent special issues or groups which typically have a very specific agenda. They donated on behalf of their employers $64, 577,411. Interestingly, 70% of this went to Democrats in Congress with Senator Claire McCaskell (D-MO) getting the highest percentage (these are all based on 2017/2018 election cycle figures) at $4.7 million dollars. Senator McCaskell sits on the Armed Services, Financial, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (as a ranking member) committees. The second spot was various private trust funds and retired wealthy individuals. Together, they contributed just under $60 million dollars, with 54% going to Democrats; Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) got the single largest share though--$3.4 million. Cruz sits on the Armed Services, Judiciary, Rules and Administration, and Commerce, Science and Transportation committees.

As an aside, while not an "industry", the AARP, a senior's oriented advocacy group, falls into this group since it's comprised of these often well-to-do retirees . The group has approximately 37 million members, although those numbers have been declining. In 2010, AARP donated $27.9 million dollars to Congressional members. However, by 2014 that number had dropped to $8.9 million.

Next is the Securities, Investment and Financial industry. They gave just under $50 million dollars. 54% of it went to Democrats in Congress, with Senator McCaskell getting the biggest chunk with $1.7 million. Coming in fourth was the Real Estate industry, which donated $42,328,934, of which 52% went to Democrats. The single largest winner was Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who sits on the Finance, Veteran Affairs, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (as a ranking member) committees. Senator Brown did well with the fifth place contributor, Health Professionals, too.

Health Professionals ponied up $34,528,421 with 51% going to Democrats. Senator Brown was the biggest recipient. The Health Professionals as an industry consists of medical doctors and surgeons, pharmacists, nutritionists, and psychiatrists. During the 2015/2016 election cycle, they gave $136 million to candidates and causes, which, while down from the 2012 total of $154 million, still was nearly three times what the top commercial banks gave.

While we're on the topic. Health Services and HMOs was ranked 30th on the list. They donated $8.9 million dollars, of which 51% went to Republicans. Nevertheless, our ole friend, Senator McCaskell was the financial winner. Hospital and Nursing Homes was 31st with $8.7 million dollars raised, and our other ole friend, Senator Brown getting the lion's share despite 56% of the money raised going to Democrats.

Leadership PACs took the sixth spot. These are PACs established by current or past Congressional members as well as others political types who prominent (and influential) enough to raise the big money. Leadership PACs are designed plain and simple to buy friends and influence agendas. The money can be used to pay individuals not eligible by other means, airfares, raise the politician's profile, pay for events, and argument lifestyles. On average politicians work 12 hour days, however, only 2 to 3 hours are actually spent on genuine issues. The rest is spent raising money for either the party and/or their Leadership PAC. During the 2017/18 election cycle, Leadership PACs raised $32,151,705 dollars. When broken down, just 38% of the money went to Democrats while Republicans raised the other 62%. Who raised the most? Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN) with $524,200 dollars.

Next is the Insurance Industry. They pitched in $30,227,987 dollars (nice to see a part of your premiums being well spent isn't it?). 59% went to Republicans, but ole Sharrod Brown (D-OH) go the biggest piece of the pie . Eighth on the list was Liberal/Progressive and Democrat leaning groups. Though not quite an "industry" per se, they do act similar to one nevertheless. As you might guess, the GOP got none of the $26,793,098 raised. The biggest beneficiary was Doug Jones (D-AL). Senator Jones serves on the Special Committee for Aging, Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committees.

By the way, the Republicans/Conservatives have one of these "industries" too. However, it's ranked in the 38th position. It raised from conservative groups $6,965,929, and yeah, all of it went to the GOP. Who was the biggest beneficiary? Why that would that Senator from the Lone Star State, Ted Cruz. You might also like to know that Republicans benefited the most by the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" mistake. In 2012, GOP and conservative groups raised and spent $65 million dollars, which pales compared to the $105 million they raised during the 2015/16 election cycle.

Lobbyists are in ninth place. The lobbyist industry represents businesses trade associations, and special issues as we've discussed. As a group, they've raised just a little under $20 million dollars with 55% going to the GOP and the remaining 44% to Democrats. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) got the most. He also did the best with our tenth spot industry, Pharmacy and Health Products. That group coughed up $16.5 million dollars. So what's so special about Senator Casey? He sits on the Finance, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry committees (he also sits on two of the same committees as Senator Brown).

The list covers the top 50 industries in terms of the money raised and who benefited. Rather than list the remaining 40, I've included a link to the site in case you'd like to check it out for yourself. However, I thought it was interesting that certain names kept appearing. Senator Jones made five of the other top spots, including the Internet industry, Electronics Manufacturing, and Education. Sherrod Brown showed up three more times, Business Services (such as management consultants, marketing and advertising, or shipping companies), the Entertainment Industry (TV/Movies/Music), Public Sector Unions. Finally, ole Claire McCaskell. Senator McCaskell appeared seven more times! Some of these included Publishing, Non-Profits, and Health Services.

By now, you have to be wondering about military contractors, gaming, commercial banking or the oil and gas industry. While most of these are included in other industries such as through as subsidiary or fall under lobbyist industry, they also contributed based on their prime industry. Defense Aerospace gave $9.3 million dollars, of which 58% went to Republicans while Defense Electronics gave $5.9 million dollars . 59% of that went to the GOP as well. Air Transport donated $9.1 million, of which Republicans got 63%. Casinos and Gaming Industry bet $5.3 million dollars, with 52% of that going to Democrats. The commercial banking industry deposited just under $15.4 in the hands of Legislatures; 65% of that going to Republican accounts. The Oil and Gas industry did slightly better at $15.9 million dollars with a whopping 84% going to Republicans.

Now for those who think unions are on par with big business, the Building Trades Union industry raised just $8.6 million dollars (coming in 32nd place). As usual, 80% went to Democrats. As mentioned earlier, the Public Sector Union industry, in the 27th spot, raised $9.1 million while in 25th place, the Transport Union industry donated $9.4 million dollars, all of which is chump change compared with, say, commercial bank or the oil and gas industries. As someone who is a former union state chairman, vice chairman of the national local, served on several national committees, a local labor council, and active in politics for well over 40 years, unions are, in my opinion, making a grave mistakes by supporting just one party; writing a blank check as it were rather than supporting individual candidates regardless of political party.

Unions are in decline and have been for decades. They are in such bad shape, they've resorted to supporting illegal immigrants just to get new member dues. It seems to me they need friends on both sides of the aisle. I would go as far as to says unions need their own political party like every other industrialized country has. I've witnessed Democrats openly making fun of unions and disrespecting unions in general. They fail to use union products or even display the union "bug" on their campaign material, and yet unions endorse them, give them money, and supply volunteers. Once elected, they may or may not support union causes (usually the latter) whereas candidates who are active union members, who use union made products and have the union "bug" who happen to have an "R" or "I" behind their name barely get an audience. Personally, I think it's a grave mistake.

Lastly, there are a few other industries which bear mentioning. The Women's Issues "industry", which is a collection of various groups ranging from equal pay, abortion rights, women's education and voting, domestic abuse, and so forth) raised $12.9 million, and gave 90% of that to Democrats (with McCaskell getting the majority of it). The Pro-Israel "industry" (lobby really) came up with $8.5 million, and while the GOP has historically done the most for Israel, gave 72% to Democrats. Also falling under the category of an "industry", Human Rights groups raised just a little over $6 million; 87% of which went to Democrats, and finally, the Telecommunications Industry, which donated just over $9 million dollars. 53% of the going to Republicans.

So, I'm sure you found some surprises here as did I. Nevertheless, out of these top 50 industries, I didn't find one which was specifically related to the common everyday working American. Perhaps you could make an argument for the Human Rights or Women's Issues "industries" or maybe the unions. Even so, it pales to the other industries and what they've contributed, however, this is obviously not a Republican or Democrat issue. Perhaps symbolically, of the 50 industries listed, the split was 50/50 between parties as to who got the most money. It's a "money-running-amuck" issue; the legacy of Citizens United. Nevertheless, you can easily see how the average American feels to overwhelmed and "outgunned" by such huge sums of corporate money. When coupled with gerrymandering and unlimited term limits (and nearly unlimited money for campaigns), it's pretty easy to see how we've lost our Constitutional Republic to the plutocrats who make up the ruling Oligarchy. The only question is what are we going to do about it?



Open Secrets: Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2018 Cycle


Top Lobbyists 2017: Hired Guns


Washington's top paid lobbyist firms and who's paying them

Temperance: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Temperament. I think it's the key to success. The best educated individual can be a complete disaster if they fail to understand and adapt to the nuances of a particular job. I'm sure you've heard the expression about a "clash of personalities". Well, there is also the clash of social environments, whether it be in business, the classroom, or (and especially), in politics. One has to be adaptable and sociable to be successful. It has long been said that politics is the "art of the possible" or "game of compromise". It was the great former US Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn who once said "to get along, you have to go along" or John Kennedy's famous remark that "success has many fathers but failure is an orphan". We are face to two main choices for president in November, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (there are to other individuals worthy of consideration too, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, however for the sake of brevity, I will focus on the first two).

What kind of person is Hillary Clinton? We've all seen her, either in person or on TV. To some, she comes across as friendly, genuine, and honest while others see her as hateful, arrogant, vindictive, and as crooked as a snake's back. Let's briefly take a look at Ms. Clinton. She was born Hilary Diane Rodham on October 27, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois and raised a United Methodist in a conservative middle class household with other two siblings. The former Brownie and Girl Scout was a Barry Goldwater volunteer in his 1964 Presidential campaign and strongly anti-communist like Goldwater like her parents, their minister, and their friends.

In 1965, she attended Wellesley College, where she majored in political science and was president of the college's Young Republicans. She supported GOP centrists John Lindsey for NYC Mayor and Ed Brooke for US Senator in Massachusetts. Her attitude toward social issues changed, and she soon found herself as supporter of the far left Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Nevertheless, she interned at the House Republican Conference and helped GOP moderate Charles Goodall's efforts to elect another moderate, David Rockefeller. She attended the 1968 GOP Convention but was disappointed by Richard Nixon's portrayal of Rockefeller and "veiled racism". She cemented her departure from the Republican Party with her senior thesis on radical organizer Saul Alinsky's tactics on community organizing (as First Lady, access to her thesis was restricted). She graduated with a honors BA in Political Science in 1969.

After graduation, she held a variety of typical jobs before enrolling in Yale Law School where she served on the Yale Law Review. She was allowed to work on cases involving child abuse as part of her studies. She worked on Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee of Migratory Labor. She interned for the law firm of Treuhalf, Walker, and Burnstein in Oakland California which was then known for its work on constitutional rights and civil liberties issues (allegedly, two of its four partners had links to the Communist Party). She received her law degree in 1973, while she was dating Bill Clinton. The two campaigned together in Texas on behalf of Democrat George McGovern. She also worked for the Children Defense Fund. By 1974, she served on various committees during the Watergate Hearings (and fired for unethical behavior according to her former boss, General Counsel and Chief of Staff, Jerry Zeifman), afterwards returning with Bill Clinton to Arkansas to teach law courses at the University of Arkansas. She continued to remain involved in child advocacy issues throughout the 1970's into Bill Clinton's election as Governor. In 1979, she became the first female to made a full partner at local law firm, from where she would continue to earn more money than her husband until his election as President. During this same time period, there was several questionable investments such as Whitewater Development Corporation and cattle futures, which would haunt the Clintons for decades.

That brings us to the point where the Clinton's entered the White House, with its ups and many downs, including disclosure of Bill's numerous affairs throughout the years and failure of a national healthcare plan, which was headed up by Hillary. After the Presidency, Hillary ran successfully for US Senator from New York and then made her own run for President; ending unsuccessfully against an unknown upstart, Barak Obama. Hillary struck a deal for Secretary of State as part of an apparent deal to support Obama's run against John McCain, the Republican Senator of Arizona, Navy veteran and former POW. Her tenure as Secretary of State was marred by serious controversies over the decline in relationships with Europe, Israel, Russia, and China and efforts to revive the Cold War, the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other individuals in Benghazi, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the disintegration of Syria, increased illegal immigration and expansion of the drug cartels, as well as a failure in judgment concerning her mishandling of government emails and refusal to use secured servers, FBI and Senate investigations which revealed a complete lack of empathy, sense of non-culpability, misjudgment, self-entitlement, and arrogance. More recently has been the shadow of "election rigging" in her Primary race against Bernie Sanders due to dumping of email exchanges involving her campaign and DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was since been forced to resign.

"The Donald" as he is known, is an icon of glitz, overindulgence, glamour, New York City street smarts, brashness, and yes, arrogance. Trump is also known for his overreach, misjudgments, high dollar bankruptcies, abrasiveness, and hyperbole. He is the epitome of the New York real estate tycoon and star of his own "reality" TV show with its catchphrase, "you're fire" a part of our lexicon. He founded a now defunct university to teach people how to be successful, authored numerous books, and even has board games (I have several of his books and the board game. He was also required study during my undergraduate days while working on my degree in international economics, along with some of the other modern day "robber barons" like Carl Ichan and T. Boone Pickens).

Donald John Trump was born with money. His father ran a small but successful real estate development business, but it "the Donald" who turned it into an empire. He was born June 14, 1946, the fourth of five children, and grew up Jamaica Estates in Queens. He attended an upper-class "prep school", Kew-Forrest. By age 13, he had enrolled in the New York Military Academy and obtained the rank of captain. Trump went on to attend Fordham University in the Bronx before transferring to the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a BA in Economics. Trump didn't serve during the Vietnam War; having received several deferments, first because of "heel spurs" and then because he was enrolled in college (Bill Clinton also received deferments and didn't serve). Later, however, he was found fit and though he received a high draft number, was never drafted.

While attending Wharton, Trump had already begun to try his hand in real estate, beginning with the revitalization of the Swift Village Apartments in Cincinnati, Ohio. By 1971, he had moved to Manhattan and jumped into what would become a very successful career and soon developed a reputation for bold, over the top projects which usually involved properties no one wanted and turning them into highly desirable (and profitable) developments, such as the Commodore Hotel which was later to become the Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Bonwit Teller department store which became the site of the Trump Plaza, other investments weren't always as successful. While Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy, some of his holdings, including a few casinos have been included in one of the four chapter 11 bankruptcies filed. Trump revamped the Wollman Rink in Central Park, $750,000 under budget and operated the ice skating rink for one year with all profits going to various charities.

Despite the setbacks, Trump continued expanded his empire into boxing promotion, golf courses, the "Miss USA", "Miss Universe" and "Miss Teen USA" beauty pageants and even a football team, "New Jersey Generals", in the now defunct USFL. Trump is no stranger to controversies. In addition to the bankruptcies, Trump has been involved with several lawsuits beginning in 1973 with the Department of Justice over claims of housing violations, the Trump University (later named the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC), the various pageants and television networks, including NBC and Univision), and several others. Then there are the personal spates with individuals such as Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg, and more recently, Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Nevertheless, Trump keeps rolling along with financial interests in books, a magazine, board games, modeling management, mortgages, air shuttles, perfumes and cosmetics, television production, vodka and steaks, bottled water, an online travel search engine, men's accessories that include watches and clothing, catering, a line of coffee (and yes, even a line of ice cream), plus investments in banks and financial institutions, construction equipment, hedge funds, and even substantial shares in Facebook. All told, his estimated net worth is somewhere between $2.9 and $3.3 billion, give or take a hundred thousand here or there (to be fair, neither Hillary or Bill are exactly paupers. They have an estimated net worth of just over $32 million for Hillary and $80 million for Bill---that's a lot of cigars). Much of Hillary's income comes from speaking fees which are all in the six figure range, along with heavy investments in banks, hedge funds, pharmaceutical and financial services companies as well as in telecommunications.

Politically, Donald Trump has been a member of the Reform Party during the days of Ross Perot, a Democrat, and a Republican. He appears to base his political affiliation more on his personal relationships than on any ideology, such as with the Clintons and the Reagans, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, which isn't unexpected for a businessperson. Trump has, on occasion, left based on personalities too, such as David Duke's or Pat Buchanan's involvement with the GOP. He has also given freely to various political causes and candidates. However, when it comes to ideology, Trump considers himself a "populist" and appears to be fairly conservative, especially on foreign policy, gun control and social issues like illegal immigration and pro-life, with a ban on late term abortions. He supports "traditional marriages" but isn't necessarily opposed to same-sex marriages. He favors the death penalty on capital crimes. Trump supports lowering the corporate tax from its current 15%, replacing Obamacare with a as-of-yet undefined "free market" program, opposes Common Core and supports school choice with local and/or state control. He would like to see improvement, if not overhaul of the VA system. He favors "fair trade" and considers himself a "protectionist". He calls NAFTA a disaster to US businesses and unions, and opposes the super-secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and calls the EPA "a joke". In foreign policy, Trump defines himself as a "nationalist" and while preferring non-intervention, believes that if we must be involved, to be aggressive and decisive, especially when dealing with terrorism. Trump would also halt immigration from nations currently involving with terrorism and all individuals seeking to come to this country must be thoroughly vetted and be willing to swear allegiance to America. As stated before, Trump strongly opposes illegal immigration and believes immediate action needs to be taken.

So, there we have it. Two former and possible future friends, bucking to become the "CEO" of America, Inc and manage this country on behalf of the Oligarchs, with whom both have not just close connections, but could actually be considered a member of. Both are well educated, successful, intelligent, wealthy, and have the arrogance to go with it. Hillary Clinton has the skill of a lawyer. She has political expertise, both as the wife of a former Governor and two term President, but in her own right as a Senator and Secretary of State. Donald Trump has a very keen business sense, exceptional negotiation abilities and can get "down and dirty" with the best of them when it comes to deal making or making a political stand. He is on personal terms with most of the world's elite. That means he can talk with them on their terms as friends, not as a term limited politician.

Hillary has suffered through a troubled administration and now, with the email revelations regarding the DNC Chairperson and her former opponent following on the heels of Senate hearings over Benghazi, illegal gunrunning, and the deaths of a US ambassador and CIA personnel (and her infamous "what does it matter" quote when questioned about the deaths), an FBI investigation regarding serious security violations concerning her mishandling of government emails (not to mention possible ethics improprieties between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton), Hillary has some culpability and honesty issues. She has demonstrated a rare arrogance and capacity for lying (even for a politician and Beltway insider), a surprising lack of empathy given her early and admirable advocacy on behalf of youth, when it came to military, veteran, Secret Service, or other government personnel along with a significant sense of self-entitlement. Maybe it was her earlier loss to a inexperienced and nameless contender (Obama) that stole her moment in the sun which has harden her, or the unwelcomed but politically necessary association with his often hapless administration that she feared would tarnish her (as it ultimately did). Perhaps it's her public humiliation by the repeated indiscretions of her husband or too many under-the-table behind closed door deals and compromises which has warped her integrity. Politics can do that to a person, especially if you make your living inside the Beltway.

So, what about "the Donald"? He too has much to answer for. It certainly wasn't his fault to be born rich or faulted for his excellent education (we all should be so lucky). Personally, I don't think he should be faulted for being a successful businessman, after all, that's part of the American Dream right? Without question he has made serious mistakes. Yes, he's had public martial issues, but then he's a public man, and none of his former wives have anything negative to say about him (he wasn't a drunk, a drug addict, child abuser or even a playboy). His children have all turned out terrific. They too are well educated, as down to earth as they can be, and each are rather successful on their own. Yes, he is vain. Yes, he has an ego the size of the Grand Canyon, but he also has a sense of humor about it too. No forced or faked laughter here. He has proven to be generous with this time and with his money. He has made so business mistakes, but then that's the nature of what he does. The trick is figuring out what went wrong and not doing it again, which he is very good at. True, he doesn't have the political experience that Hillary has.

He is a CEO. He is used to snapping his fingers and getting what he wants done...pronto. If you have an issue or question, fine, but Trump also expects you to prove a solution too. Whiners, excuse makers, and bellyachers won't do. In business, that's fine, however, this is politics. People don't jump because you say so. Things neither happen as you want or as fast as you need. People take credit where it isn't earned and place blame where it isn't deserved. There is a whole lot of give and take (mostly take), especially when you're dealing with individuals who are nearly as rich or powerful as you are and have egos that match yours. But, given "the Donald's" history as a dealmaker, it might just work. Given his attitude toward "the art of the deal", Trump may get along just fine with individuals like Russia's Putin or North Korea's Kim...or Congress. I'm sure ISIS and others out there will give pause.

This election cycle, amid America's deep disgust of the sellout of our democratic republic to the Oligarchs, wage inequalities, encroaching police state, endless wars-for-profit, declining quality of life, the illusion of the fair elections, and so on, will prove historic in not just whether a woman or a non-politician will be elected to President, but which direction will we go. Both candidates have very different ideas for us. One is very similar to what we've had for the last eight years. The other is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in many ways. Both choices contain a great deal of unknown too. As Betty Davis once famously said in her role as Margo Channing in the 1950 movie classic 'All About Eve"', "fasten your seatbelts. it's going to be a bumpy night" and it's still a long way till November.


Hillary Clinton Fired for Lie, Unethical Behavior form Congressional Job
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss


On the Issues: Hillary Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm


2016 Net Worth for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton
http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/hillary-clinton/


Bill Clinton's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/bill-clinton-net-worth/


On the Issues: Donald Trump
http://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm


Donald Trump's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/donald-trump-net-worth/

Understanding the Politics of Politics

I think everyone will agree that our political system is broken beyond repair. Candidates who claim that somehow they will go---or return---to Washington or wherever and "make the listen" or some other nonsensical promise of reform is either delusional or simply pandering to you, the voter. We are far removed from any cosmetic changes or tinkering as we are from the government our Founding Fathers intended. In fact, we're not even the democratic-republic they originally established. Instead, we've become a oligarchy which caters to the 1% and their transnational corporations. The system was changed along the way to create a near permanent political class, thanks to election rigging--gerrymandering by name---and as well as unlimited terms in office.

The costs of campaigns themselves have all but eliminated the ordinary man or woman from running (as it was intended. It has certainly ensured that the most qualified individuals are eliminated from running), and thanks to the un-Supreme Court's "Citizens United" misruling, corporations are now considered "individuals" except they have more rights than flesh and blood citizens. The High Court ruled that money equals free speech with one exception. You and I are limited in the amount of "free speech" we can contribute to candidates while corporations have unlimited "free speech". All this, of course, happened while we were busy watching so-called "reality TV"; waiting to see who got the rose while we got the "prick". We were busy playing with our video games, watching sports, and doing whatever as long as we remained blissfully distracted...just as they intended. But that's not what I want to discuss about right now, although we will come back to it shortly.

What I want to discuss is something basic. One of the core principles behind our break with ole King George was our lack of representation in Parliament. I'm sure you're familiar with concept of "taxation without representation". It the nation that we had no say in how we were being governed while we were "illegally" taxed. We also have the right---I would say responsibility---to actively participate in how we're governed. At the very least, we need to vote.

The largest percentage of the population is now registered Independent. Most of these individuals were former moderate leaning Democrats or Republicans who were disenfranchised from their respective political party. Today, the majority of Americans have no confidence in our political system, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. The polling number have been in the gutter for decades now, regardless of who is in office or which party controls the House. While Indies are the largest single political "party", followed by Democrats and at a distance last, Republicans. Pollsters are predicting that within the next 10 years, there will be more registered Independent voters than Democrats and Republicans combined. Yet, instead of paying attention to this trend, the leaders of both parties still spew forth the same old rehashed ideas "solutions" which haven't worked in the past and show no signs of working now or ever. We're expected to pick from their choice of cookie cutter candidates; acceptable only to the status quo for their willingness to do as they're told.

So, let me ask you this. Did you know party primaries are paid for out of your tax dollars? Yelp, regardless of your registration or even if you are registered at all, a portion of your tax dollars go to pay for both party's primaries. So, if you're registered as a Republican or Democrat, I suppose it's no big deal (except for the fact they didn't ask you first). Still, at least you can vote in your party's primary and have a say in the outcome. But what if you're a registered Independent? In most states (like Kentucky), that's just too bad. You don't get to vote in either primary but you are still taxed. Same goes if you're registered a third party. Several attempts have been made to change this, but as you might guess, the political status quo is quite happy with the current set up. Hardly fair wouldn't you agree?

Now here's something else. The Board of Elections is set up with a Democrat and Republican representative to serve as check against any electioneering misdoings. This is at the state level all the way down to each county. These are appointed by the local county clerks. Yet, there is no representative for Independents or third parties. Why? Their pay tax dollars just like everyone else. Why should they be denied a representative? As some of you may know, anyone who wants to run for office as Democrat or Republican, must have the signature of three people from the same party sign their application (and, depending on the office, the same district). However, if you're a Independent, you need anywhere from several hundred up to a few thousand signatures of currently registered voters. I fail to understand how that is in any way fair. All it does is further entrench the status quo---which is ultimately the main problem in today's politics---by rigging the system to keep people out.

Now, let's talk money for a moment. As everyone knows, money is the lifeblood of politics, and since the not-so-supreme Supreme Court's Citizen United misruling, corporations are not only considered to be the same as you and me, but are in fact considered more than us mere mortals. You see some politicians have declared that money, specifically money given to political campaigns, is equivalent to "free speech" and should be protected under the 1st Amendment. Now it doesn't take a political scientist to put two and two together and come up with a money bomb. What I'm talking about is that while flesh and blood "individuals" like you and I are capped at how much money we can donate to campaign, these new corporate "Frankensteins" given life by these nine so-called "Justices" can give as much as they want, meaning they have more "free speech" that we do. And for the record, it was politicians on both sides of aisle who benefit from this national slight.

As you might have already guessed, practically all of the billions of dollars donated by these "Frankenstein" corporations (and yes, unions) go to the duopoly known as the Democrats and Republicans, the two branches of the Oligarchy Party. As for third party candidates and Independents, they are pretty much left to their own devises when it comes to raising money. That means they have to depend on self-funding and grassroots efforts to have an chance at winning. Of course, most voters are so brain washed or conditioned to vote straight ticket, or at least, one of the less of the two evils rather than "wasting" or "throwing away" their vote. Seriously? Voting for the "lesser evil" is somehow better than voting for a change? How's that? I guess some will argue that it's better to vote for the devil you know than the devil you don't know. My question is why vote for the devil at all? If we're going to rid ourselves of this oligarchy which now controls America and restore the democratic republic of our Founding Fathers, we are going to have to step outside of our pre-conditioned comfort zones. Change is not going to come from the status quo. It's in their interest too---not yours.

Lastly, I want to address the issue of endorsements. Everyone knows endorsements are made, in part, because those doing the endorsing agree with the candidate on at least certain key positions, and in exchange for the endorsement (and usually a financial donation to the campaign), the candidate will continue to promote that particular issue. Political back scratching plain and simple. So what does it mean when newspapers endorse candidates? What's the quid pro quo? What do newspapers gain---"good government"? No, seriously, what do they get? I often wonder, but that's not the issue here.

My opinion is that newspapers, or even the media in general, should not be endorsing anyone. They should do their homework and print the unvarnished facts. That's it. I think most people these days are able to make an informed decision about who to vote for without the media trying to manipulate their vote. Besides, what if NBC, FOX, MSCBN, or for that matter, ESPN or the History Channel started making political endorsements? What if radio jocks and talk show hosts started endorsing candidates based on their own special interests? Silly right? Well, that's point. Print a short bio on the candidate along with their positions on the various issues, their campaign website for more information, and let the voters decide for themselves.

So, do you want to make a difference? Contact your Secretary of State or County Clerk and demand equal representative for Independents and third party voters, and while you're at it, tell them you want equal treatment for Indies and third party candidates. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Get involved or support an Indie or third party candidate. Remember, the big money is going to support the status quo and the status quo is what's wrong with America, so consider giving your financial donations to an Indie or third party candidate. Better yet, run for office yourself! You'll most likely need to start local, like the school board, but the closer you are to the electorate, the more of a difference you can make. Lastly, endorsements. Newspaper endorsements aren't worth the ink they're printed on. Media reporting should be balanced and backed up with facts, not subtle innuendos. It's not the media's job to influence elections based on their agenda. Also they should publish, in their entirety, all election interviews with candidates. No more paraphrasing, "misquotes", or misattributions. Better yet, film it and post it unedited. Nevertheless, ultimately the only endorsements which matters is the voters. With your help, we can and will reclaim America.

Fissures

I've been writing about this for years. In the beginning, most of the pundits and self-proclaimed "political experts" blew me off; I was seen as one of those "alarmists" or "extremists"; all gloom and doom. However, most of those criticizing me at the time were on the ideological Right (and no doubt were hyper-sensitive because "Dubya" was in office and looking like the world's biggest jackass). Well, times have changed and it turns out that I may have been right all along (and thank you Obama for assuming the jackass mantle).

To briefly recap, several years ago I wrote about how America appeared to be breaking apart. There's an old saying that every revolution contains within it the seeds of its own destruction; something about a revolution can and will be exploited to the point where it becomes almost absurd. For example, we took the phrase "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" from our Declaration of Independence. and reinterpreted the role of government basically staying out of lives and allowing the opportunity to self-pursuit to requiring the government to provide it for us, and to do so as it defines it while removing any reference to a "Creator". We took the concept of each individual having the right to defend themselves; their family; their property and turned them into something approaching the criminal, while we took the criminal and turn them into some that was somehow disadvantaged by society and in doing so, made them victim.

We took the concept of "cruel and unusual", which the Founding Father's conceived of as meaning torture, and redefined it as meaning no death penalty for those guilty of committing violent crimes, which, again, many of our Founding Father's supported. We created a democratic republic which emphasized the sovereignty of the individual, divided into three roles, the legislative, judicial, and executive, with the role of Congress to be the central branch since it was closest to the People (the office of President was actually conceived of being mainly ceremonial), and now we have an oligarchy---rule not by of and for the People, but by and through a small elite class of the super wealthy. We are morphing into a fascist or corporate state with an Imperious federal government supported by a police state mentality. And the list continues.

We took the notion that America was a country where one could, with some hard work, maybe an idea, and perseverance, perhaps achieve something beyond their previously imposed limitations; if not for themselves then maybe for their children. Individuals came to America; learned English, often before leaving the Old World or on the boat over; they seemed to practice their English on anyone and everyone. They wanted to blend in. They left behind many of their customs; petty bigotries; and found ways to blend in. Some even changed their names or even religions. They wanted beyond all else to become American---not hyphenated Americans; not partial Americans, but ordinary Americans, and they tried to install this into their children. Not so now. Now, we've come to celebrate the hyphenated-American. Now we're expected to "press 1 for English". Now we're expected to accept foreign customs and traditions. It's even become common place to see individuals walking around in the native costumes as if they're flaunting their separateness. America is home to every nationality, ethnic group, and religion in the world. But what made us different is that we added this uniqueness to the "American Stew". Not so anymore. Those coming here now revel in their differences; they're encouraged to remain separate.

What happens to a country when this sense of disunity is allowed to grow; to fester? For a time, nothing. However, within these cultures which remain outside the norm of society, the grains of old hatreds remain, be it against different clans, tribal groups, religions, or ethnic populations. And as with all hatred left unchecked, it grows until it can't be contained and those inflected sooner or later lash out. We're already seeing it in the form of centuries old prejudices with the same centuries old form of retributions. Lost is the respect for laws and traditions of their new homeland and in its place is transplanted animosity toward others. Soon, one group or the other, not feeling a bond to its new home, will as first ask---perhaps even humbly---for exceptions based on traditions or laws belonging to another world, and in many cases, another time with incompatible values. Eventually, they will not just insist on these exceptions, but will demand that its laws should be equal with or even supplant existing laws of the host country or threaten not only non-compliance, but bloody and prolonged violence.

So too will others who fail to adapt to the native language of their host nation. They will plead tolerance and patience for the old or for the young to learn, and it's often granted out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but adoption never comes. Instead, it becomes more entrenched, and then they argue that it would be too cumbersome; too costly; or in some way "discriminates" again them by requiring them to learn the language of the nation where they now live, and instead, the native population is forced to adapt. And again, the bond is left broken. As I often said, "a common language is the thread that bind the tapestry of a nation together". A common language provides a sense of community; a bond among the citizens of a nation. It fosters commerce. It helps to establish a sense of common heritage. Without it, we begin to develop separately; one nation merely becomes transplanted onto a different soil, that's all.

At the same time, many of these groups find themselves impoverished. Partly because they weren't prepared either emotionally, educationally, or financially for their transition to a new country (this is, in part, because they've come illegally with the intent of blending into many of these non-integrated communities and, therefore, not having to make any of the necessary adjustments). However, for the others, they are given the opportunity, at taxpayer expense, and the educational and financial resources--such as low or no interest loans, wavier of certain taxes, automatic government assistance with government contracts, etc---and yet, they prepare only for their own ethnic groups. They insist on either themselves or their children to be taught in their native language only. They demand to be taught their country's history or heritage; not that of America's. Unintegrated , they remain often poor, dependent on others, and often find themselves taken advantage of, even within their own group.

Within this, we have the earlier racial or ethnic groups who are now replaced by these incoming groups. They see themselves set aside from taxpayer based aid, previously taken for granted as a self-assigned "entitlement". For those unprepared, they find themselves hopelessly lost. A sense of abandonment set in as the government redirects its limited attention and resources. Within this sense of abandonment comes a new sensation---anger, but not at themselves for depending of the public handouts and thinking it could and would go on forever, but anger at those who replaced them, and at the same time, a lashing out at those who formerly ladled out the gravy from the public trough.

At first, this is expressed in the form of trying to impart "guilt" for some imagined or ancient slight; without or with proof that it ever affected them. They will continue to insist on their privileged priority while claiming the others had in fact acting out a "privilege" because it was not, nor likely has ever been, in the position of having to depend on handouts. Interestingly, for those who had taken advantage of the opportunities previously afforded them and became successful financially (usually through education), they feel little sympathy for those of the group who they now view as "lazy" or "social leeches" and leave the group, though some remain to try to foster internal change while others only manage to serve as leeches themselves rather than as leaders or positive role models.

Nevertheless, ultimately the result is the same. Fissures develop. Soon the fissures become divisions; often, if not always, irreparable divisions. While these can for a brief time be held together through an increasing successions of rights, authority, and autonomy, the end rarely ever varies historically. The country either breaks apart peacefully; perhaps to enter into some form of loose federation (like the former USSR or UK, or it fragmentation is violent, long, and bloody like the Hapsburg Empire or Yugoslavia). Given the tendency toward religious, racial, and ethnic enclaves, and the nature of the cultures involved, I strongly suspect ours will be more like the latter. Can this be avoided? Certainly, and historically, it has. However, to avoid this fragmentation requires both a sense and understanding of the dynamics of history, but also the political will to insist that past loyalties are just that---past. America is about starting anew. It's about adding one's culture to the American melting pot, and it also means speaking a common language. Without it, America's "Exceptionalism" is no more and no better than those whose "Exceptionalism" has turned to dust.

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.

Tyranny and Television

It seems that we're increasing, as Americans, attempting to embrace the past rather than the future or even the present. There was a time when we looked to the future in our home lives (The Jetsons, Star Trek) and in our public lives (NASA, World's Fair, sound barriers, moon landings, etc). Nostalgia television is more popular than when most of these shows aired originally. Now, it seems we're lost. We stuck living our lives vicariously through other people's lives (so-called "reality" TV); various talk shows where we watch "celebrities" babbling out their opinions on various, sometimes trivial or useless issues that are none of our business to begin with (and in doing so, implicitly inferring what we should think too) instead of us coming to our own opinions; or watching complete strangers airing their dirty laundry while we ogle, incite, and judge; idiotic "court" TV like divorce court, small claims court, or whose-the-daddy court, and so on. Basically shows about people who've made some really stupid decisions or asses out of themselves while we set back and amuse ourselves at their expense. Look at Saturday morning lineup for kids. What a bunch of junk. At least we had cartoons and shows which made sense, and where the production quality was pretty decent. We wouldn't have wasted ten minutes on any of these shows today. What happened?

Have we dumbed down not just the quality of our kid's education but network television too? Here's a thought. Grab a schoolbook---math grammar, science, history from, say, 1955, from any ole high school, and compare it to one today. Which one is more difficult? The answer should be obvious, and they didn't have calculators or computers. Yeah, we may have access to more information but that's useful only if we know what we're looking for, and what to do with it once we have it, and that goes back to what kids aren't taught today which are critical thinking skills. Some would call it common sense. Kids graduating today from high school can barely spell. Most are on an eighth grade reading level. Their math skills aren't much better, and forget about history, science, and geography. American students tend to rank near the bottom when compared to other countries.

In a 2013 international academic test, the PISA, US students scored below average in math and science and slightly above average in reading while most of the Asian countries scored at the top (with China coming in on top). Germany ranked 12th while the US was 28th, just behind tiny Denmark and just ahead of Spain. Countries like Estonia, Vietnam, Ireland, Finland scored higher than America. Poland came in 9th place, so I guess they're now sitting around telling jokes about us for a change. And while poor countries and poor students scored poorly as expected, money didn't seem to make much difference. Countries which spent less per student didn't necessarily do worse than countries which spent more per student as the result showed. The key results seem to have been better early preparatory time, better trained teachers, adaptability to the student's ability, and, oh yeah, discipline.

Maybe that's why everyone wants a college degree these days. Not because of the higher education and more developed knowledge and thinking skills, but a BA or BS degree will generally get you something equivalent to a high school degree from the 1950's. And another thing, not every kid needs to go to college. Yeah, it's great for certain individuals, especially those pursuing certain disciplines like economics, English, or engineering, but for others, they would be better off pursuing a career in the trades, and there is nothing wrong with a "blue collar" degree. First off, most of fields in the trades are in high demand. We need carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers, and the like. Secondly, they pay well. Damn well. In many cases, an experienced plumber or electrician can earn more than a lot of individuals with BA or BS degrees (or in some cases, more than some with a Masters degree) and they can do it in less time and way cheaper (imagine 1/3 of the school debt and same or better earning potential).

Perhaps there's a stigma in this country against those in the trades. Not so in other countries, especially Germany. Germany has a highly developed to track educational system which directs students either into the trades or into university based on ongoing academic and aptitude tests as well as personal interest. Germany also has one the world's best developed apprenticeship programs in the world whereby students spend part of the day working on theory and the rest of the day doing hands on work, often at the sites of potential employers. The result is one the most successful academic system in the world, as well as maintaining the most powerful economic engine in Europe, and third overall in the world. German students, by the way, tend to rank near the top academically, regardless of which track they're on.

Back to television, how many shows are actually intellectually stimulating? Most are nothing more than commonplace formula based writing with names or genders, or (occasionally) the professions differing, but little more. Most of this can barely hold the attention of the average 10 year old (perhaps that's why they spend so much time with the faces buried in their IPods). Most of today's television shows leaves us in a mental stupor. How much real "news" are we really getting and how much is just so much tripe? It's a wonder we all don't walk around with a glazed look in our eyes and drool dripping down our chins. Is this then what we've become? Has our educational system so dumbed us down that today's "opiate", to borrow from Marx, is designed to perpetuate the process?

Of course, the best way to control a population is to keep them occupied and uneducated. Is that not, perhaps, what's actually going on here? Are we intentionally being kept busy with, as the Roman's would say, "bread and circuses"? Most of us are so overworked; so overwhelmed with the day's events; so concerned with just keeping the job we have, that all we want to do is come home and turn on the "boob tube" or "idiot box" as we used to call it, stick some food in our mouth and "tune in and turn off". After all, if we're so exhausted from the day's work; so fearful of our job being off shored or losing our insurance or pension or 401k; and we feel so powerless by what we're seeing or reading in the corporate news, that all we want to do is be mind numbed until we blissfully fall asleep in our recliners or couches, what does government or corporations have to fear from its citizens? And if a government doesn't fear its citizens, then its citizens will soon come to fear their government. Sounds like control to me, albeit a subtle and somewhat indirect form of control, but control nevertheless. What do you think?

I wish I could say that I was the first to think of this, but I'm not. It's been said a thousand different times in a thousand different ways since time immemorial. However, I think the very best expression of this idea was said by one of History's most evil tyrants, France's Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre was the one of the leaders---perhaps the single greatest leader---of France's Great Revolution. He started off with good intentions as most tyrants do---freedom, liberty, and brotherhood and the end of a bloated and corrupt monarchy. He is remembered as the originator of the "Great Terror" which took thousands of lives (along with the assistance of the crooked grin of "Monsieur Guillotine") and precursor of the rise of Napoleon, whose reign claimed the lives of millions. It's from Robespierre, we are warned that, "(t)he secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant". With polls showing an 85% disapproval rating of Congress---a near consistent rating for the last several years and lower than head lice and cockroaches I should add with my own smirk---most countries would be sweating bullets (take that anyway you want) if their disapproval rating gets above 15%, I have to ask: what will it be America? What will you chose to do?


US scores stagnant, other nations pass by us in latest international test
http://edsource.org/2013/u-s-scores-stagnant-other-nations-pass-by-in-latest-international-comparison/52052#.VBOlEZtAKzU

Top US students fare poorly in international PISA test scores
http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

Congress somewhere below cockroaches, traffic jams and Nickelback in America's esteem
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/congress-somewhere-below-cockroaches-traffic-jams-and-nickleback-in-americans-esteem.html