The Manifesto of Max Azzarello: The Man Who Set Himself on Fire Outside Trump Trial Courthouse

I came across this article quite by mistake...sort of. It's the death manifest of Max Azzarello, ago 37 from St. Augustine, Florida. Never heard of him? Me either, but he's the guy who set himself on fire (and later died) outside of the  Manhattan courthouse on Friday where Trump's trial is take place. Normally, I don't pay much attention to thinks like this but for some reason it caught my attention. Perhaps it's because the only time we hear about people setting themselves on fire always happens somewhere else, such as in Nepal, China, or Algeria.

In those cases it was a Buddhist monk,Thich Quang Duc, protesting persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese Government  of Ngo Dinh Diem and, indirectly, by the Roman Catholic Church, set himself on fire in 1963. The second, in 2011, was a Tunisian street fruit and vegetable vendor, by the name of Mohamed Bouazizi. He set himself on fire as a way to protest oppressive government regulations and harassment by local police. 

In the former case, not much happened except some brief outrage and condemnation of the government and to earn some photographers a few good paychecks. In the latter case, it lit the fuse (pardon the pun) and ignited a massive pro-democracy movement throughout most of the Middle East known as the "Arab Spring" (in Tunisia, Bouazizi's death ignited the "Jasmine Revolution" to overthrow the authoritarian government of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and institute major democrat reforms). 

So what do these two "incendiary" acts have to do with Mr. Azzarello except three individuals, out of desperation, decided to turn themselves into human candles. At least, that was as far as I got initially. It's not often the police or the media allow manifestos like this to be published. Usually, the media gets a brief peek at it and publishes some intriguing but vague tidbits, and after a few days the story...and victim are buried without much fanfare and the briefest of public explanations.  Not in this case it appears. 

In the case of Mr. Azzarello, his manifesto was posted on a site called "The Ponzi Papers" which appears to be the project of one "M. Crosby". For whatever reason, "M. Crosby" published the political manifesto of Max Azzarello (who may have been one and the same). I am posting the link, which you'll find below, so you can read what Max had to say himself. 

Much of the manifesto is, well, "crazy stuff" and full of references to schemes by the rich and powerful, especially financial schemes on a global scale (which is the only level the elites play on). War and conflicts often have little to do what we're told they're about---democracy, freedom, ending extreme poverty, and so forth.

In reality, behind all the flag waving, patriotic sounding sound bites, photo ops and photo plants, they're almost always about gaining access to or control of economic markets, cheap and unregulated labor, or access to certain natural resources such as rare earth metals, gold, tin, oil, iron ore, and increasingly, fresh water. Everything else is designed to appease us---the masses---so that we'll go along.

However, what I found interesting, at least from my perspective, as a political and historical writer, is that Mr. Azzarello identifies today's government as being fascist and his actions as "revolutionary" act (I guess that would make his letter a "revolutionary manifesto"). A neo-fascist America has been a topic of interest for decades (my first introduction to America's transition was the 1980 book "Friendly Fascism" by Dr. Bertram Gross and "Trilateralism", also written in 1980, and edited by Holly Sklar. These two eye opening books (which I reread repeatedly) were followed by countless others, along with numerous academic papers and articles. 

I don't know where or how Max Azzarello came to his political realization, but obviously he must have read or watch many of the same sources (not to mention being an observer of certain recent events such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the January 6th protests). He claims many of his conclusions were the result of his intensive investigation of Peter Thiel and his venture capital firm, Founders Fund. Thiel was a co-founder of PayPal, Valar Ventures (a venture capital firm), Palantir Technologies (which specializes in software platforms for data analytics), and was an outside investor of Facebook.

Thiel is also a member of the Republican Party. He regularly gives to both Republican and Libertarian candidates through his private political action committee, "Free Forever". While gay, he is an avid supporter of strict border control, restrictive immigration policies, support for veterans, and backs an anti-interventionist foreign policy.

Azzarello claimed that Thiel, a conservative libertarian, was responsible for a run on Silicon Valley Bank and was a key figure in a massive financial "ponzi scheme" which adversely affected thousands for nothing more than a simple fat payday. 

Public records indicate that in 2023, Thiel's company, Founders Fund, advised corporate investors to pull their money from Silicon Valley Bank after their announcement that the bank needed to raise capital to cover losses by selling certain assets. That resulted in a run on the bank . Within 48 hours of disclosing the sale of its assets, the bank collapsed, resulting in the takeover by the FDIC. 

The FDIC later facilitated the sale of Silicon Valley Bank to First Citizens Banks while the FDIC kept control of approximately $90 billion in assets and securities in receivership. According to the FDIC, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank cost taxpayers roughly $20 billion dollars.

Despite claiming that he spent over 1700 hours in his research of Thiel and Founders Fund and producing a slew of information which he claims supported his allegations regarding a defacto "raid" on the bank.  Was Mr. Thiel the villain as alleged or just a investor protecting his and others money? I can't say I totally agree with Mr. Azzarello's conclusions of pure greed by Thiel, but I certainly do not agree with his "solution" in bringing attention to his efforts.

America needs results to its growing problems, not martyrs. That means we need to find ways to bring about term limits, removing Citizens United and the ownership of the two large political parties by Wall Street, serious tax reform, overhauling our education system, and stopping illegal immigration. We need voter approval on any tax, fee, or rate increases, at least at the local and state levels. It's our money after all.

We need stronger employee input in business through not just unions but non-union employee associations and the creation of more Employee Stock Ownership Programs ("ESOP") whereby the employees are the owners of the business they work for. We need to address climate change, dissolve defacto monopolies, end "wars and conflicts for fun and profit" and stop interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries.

We need to reform our political system so that those elected or appointed stop being partisan and start representing everyone in their district regardless of party. The political playing field also needs to be leveled so that the same rules expected of Democrats and Republicans apply to third parties and Independents. As it is, third party candidates and Independents are forced to jump through some outrageous hoops just to get on the ballot!.

For instance, instead of requiring three signatures (of the same party as you) on your application to run, Independents and third parties have to have dozens or more signatures! Also, while Independents are overwhelmingly the nation's largest voting bloc, they are rarely appointed to boards and commissions. Instead, most of these appointments go to the two corporate owned parties (with the party in power getting the lion's share).

These are but just a few of the changes we need if we're to restore our Republic, and it's going to take a lot of work and people. After all, we didn't lose the Republic overnight. Personally, I believe our freedom and the freedom of our children and grandchildren are worth the effort. Don't you? This is where Max missed the boat. A live reformer (or even "revolutionary") is better than a dead martyr.

So, without further ado, here's the link to Mr. Azzarello's "manifesto". I'm also including a link to a booklet written by the mysterious "M. Crosby" which you might find interesting entitled "The True History of the Work (Haunted Carnival Edition)":

I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial

The True History of the Work (Haunted Carnival Edition)

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Man sets himself on fire outside Trump trial

  

Mohamed Bouaziz

Thich Quang Duc

List of Political Self-Immolations

Founders Fund

 

Peter Thiel

Arab Spring

Silicon Valley Bank collapse explained: Whatyou need to know

It's Time For Real Change, But Can It Really Happen?

We need to accept that we're being played. All of us. We've become a nation of victims, alleged racists, and entitled brats. We must find ways to work together, preferably without the government's involvement as much as possible. This shouldn't be difficult since we have more in common than not, although the establishment media would have you believe otherwise.  A divided nation cannot stand for long.

Political offices which don't make laws or policy need to be non-partisan from the outset. Term limits need to be mandatory. Congress and the Presidency should be limited to 12 years. Four 3 year terms for the President; two 6 year terms for the Senate; and six 2 year terms for Representatives. In addition, all federal court positions, including the Supreme Court, should also be capped at 12 years. Citizens United has shown us just how out of touch the Supreme Court is.

We need to push for an end of partisanship. The election playing field should be level. Elections should be open to all individuals regardless of political affiliation. As it is now, Democrats and Republicans are only required to have three or five signatures to get on the ballot. Meanwhile, Independents (the nation's largest political bloc) have to have hundreds of signatures. Same goes for third parties.

Whatever goes for the Democrats and Republicans should go for anyone else running for office. Debates are largely closed to anyone not a Democrat or Republican (particularly at the national level, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan effort to rig the debates and keep out third parties and Independents). That needs to go. We need to hear from all candidates, not just a chosen two.

There needs to be total campaign finance reform, which includes eliminating the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United mistake. Corporations are not "people".  They are legal fictions. They are not entitled to the same (or greater) rights as you and me. They do not speak for their employees, customers, or shareholders (who each speak for themselves with their own vote and actions).

The Supreme Court declared in their decision that money was equivalent to free speech, except corporations had more "free speech" than you and I because there was no cap on what they could spin. Thus  their "free speech" was more valuable than that of ordinary citizens. 

Citizens United all but removed citizens from the election process by making it so expensive that common voters can't either compete with corporate donations or afford to run for office. No wonder Congress is referred to as a "millionaire's club", and the cost to run for a state and local office isn't that far off (the same can be said of the Presidency and Judicial system by the way).

What the Supreme Court did through Citizens United was to create a de facto "political class" of wealthy elites, leaving us as the "debt serfs" instead of the "Citizen Representatives" our Founding Fathers intended.

Term limits reduce lessens corporate influence. It also greatly increases the flow of new ideas and creates a closer connection between the voters and the elected. Term limits also reduce the possibilities of corruption. Rank Choice Voting is something we need to seriously consider.  It allows us to rank candidates without reference to a party. Where Rank Choice Voting has been tried, it's been shown to work. The highest ranked candidate wins. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

The public should control the purse strings. If we've learned anything about politics , it's that politicians can't be trusted with money, especially ours! Any proposed increase in taxes, fees, rates, or salaries of public officials, should be placed on the ballot and voted on by the public. It's our money and it should be our decision.

By the same token, citizens should be allowed to put referendums on the ballot. In 26 states plus Washington D.C., that's already a reality. However, in others states (like Kentucky), legislators fear it like the plague. The last thing they want is citizens putting their own issues on the ballot and bypassing them with a direct vote. Why?  I'll tell you what I was told.

As one senior Kentucky "Blue Dog" Democrat state senator once told me, "voters aren't smart enough to know what they what", which I strongly disagree with. I think we know exactly what we want, and I think that given balanced and accurate information on an issue, voters make pretty good decisions. The fear of professional politicians is being bypassed and losing their power and influence.

By the way, that "Blue Dog" Democrat also happened to be drawing two  pensions, one private and one public (we call that "double dipping"). He also sat on two Election and Constitutional Amendment committees as well as host of financial committees.  Think he had a vested interest in opposing voter referendums?

Any referendum would have put on a ballot, be it local or statewide, would be the result of a petition signed by registered voters after first being reviewed by either the County/City attorney general or the State Attorney General to ensure its legality and is properly worded to avoid any ambiguities or misunderstandings. The appropriate attorney general would also provide a public notice of the issue to be voted on that is free from partisan wording and is in easy to understand language.

If Citizens United can be viewed as "free speech" for corporations and the wealthy, then term limits, citizen ballot initiatives, and voter control of the purse strings are too! By the same token, prohibiting these things can and should be considered stifling the public's free speech.

As soon as a winning candidate is elected to office and immediately before being sworn in, should publically resign from their political party and announce their intention to represent all the citizens of their district.

In our "winner-take-all" political system and thanks to gerrymandering and in the absence of term limits, the winning party controls that seat for the next two, four, or six years (depending on the office). Only legislation which supports their particular point of view is supported.

Meanwhile, those who's candidate or party lost receive nothing or close to it in terms of representation. If you're a Democrat and the Republican wins, you're out of luck when it comes to being represented. Your interests are rarely if ever, considered.  In a "winner-take-all" political system, the losing side is literally without a political voice. Talk about taxation without representation!

Of course, we have to take a deeper look here. Both main parties, the Democrats and Republicans, don't actually represent common voters on the Left, Right, or Middle. They represent the interests of corporate cliques financing either side of the political divide. One might even say that they are above the artificial political divide whose sole aim is to keep us on opposing sides. The last thing they want is us united.

 It's about power to control wealth and wealth to control of power. Their lobbyists quite literally write the legislation which they then shepherd through the various committees with each adding earmarks or "pork" as the price of their signature (as an aside, Congress voted to make "pork" illegal in 2011, although it routinely ignores its own law).

Ultimately if enough (and the right) palms are greased, the bill, written for their benefit, becomes law. Your interests doesn't actually come into play. If it does by pure happenstance, it's immediately heralded as a "victory for the people". Yeah, right.

Nevertheless, hopefully your interests coincide enough with one side or the other to warrant your vote. At least that's what their campaign marketing tries to convince you of anyway. But it doesn't change the fact that the interests of the losing side aren't even seriously considered post election. But, most Americans, over 43% of them, have said "no" to both parties and switched to Independent while others have decided to join a third party.

Personally, I think politicians should renounce their political affiliation and take an oath that they will represent the best interest of all the voters in their district as I stated earlier. Until political parties (defacto extensions of special interest cliques) are eliminated, that's the best and only prospect of all the voters having a voice.

If we want change; really want it, we will have to make it happen. We are the only ones who can. Those in power have historically never willingly surrendered it. They've fought to keep it. They've imposed it. They've camouflaged it. They've traded one hand for the other, but they've never willingly given it up.

Most of us have been convinced by the establishment media that there is nothing we can do, so we sit back and do nothing. Bread and circuses. The truth is that we can do something---term limits, Rank Choice Voting, end gerrymandering, end Citizens United, enact referendums and voter initiatives, equal ballot access, and ending "winner-take-all" elections to name just a few.

We ultimately have the real power through our willingness to express our voice and our vote. We had it all along, but many of us have been intimidated into silence. Our Founding Fathers were too, by the greatest and most powerful empire on the planet, but they found their voice and courage. Now, so can you.

 

 If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

States with initiative or referendum

Blog: A Permanent Ban on Pork Barrel Spending

 

U.S. Term Limits

 

To End Gerrymandering, Change How We Elect Congress

End Gerrymandering

FairVote: Rank Choice Voting

Rank Choice Voting

 

End Citizens United

Understanding the Referendum Process

A 1973 Prediction From the World's First Supercomputer Predicts Civilization Collapses by 2040

 

I recently came across an interesting BBC news clip from 1973. The Club of Rome (a think tank similar to the Council of Foreign Relations) and comprises some of the world's leading business leaders, scientists, economists, academicians, and politicians, commissioned a study back in 1973, using the world's first supercomputer, which was housed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, better known as MIT, to predict where we will be in 150 years.

Accordingly, the supercomputer predicted that by 2040, civilization will all but cease to exist due to climate changes (natural and manmade), the erosion of natural resources, over-farming and depletion of the soil, over-fishing, pollution, and changes in population (rapid growth in poor nations and stagnation or decline in most advanced ones), economic and technological inequality, and so forth.

The study, using data from multiple academic disciplines along with statistical trends, were fed into the supercomputer on a specially written program model called "World3". World3 is a systems dynamic model which uses a variety of computer simulations based the specific data fed into it to produce a range of results.

In this case, the data pertained to population and industrial growth, agriculture and food production, climatic changes, rate of pollution, technology, non-renewable resources, and the anticipated limits of our ecosystem. The World3 model has been periodically updated to ensure the results are current based on the latest data available.

The results predicted that nations will have to reduce their economic independence and political sovereignty, while global corporations will expand their interlocking influence over many of these same countries to meet the new demands. The study also states that the world's quality of life, which naturally includes the variety and availability of food and medicine, will also likely decline for all but the wealthiest.  Let's briefly consider immigration.

Just within the last 20 or so years, we've seen a wholesale change in demographics globally. Europe, including the prosperous "democratic socialist" states in Scandinavia, as well as France and Germany, have been overrun by largely uneducated and unskilled "migrants" from second and third world nations.

These individuals haven't come in order to become part of their host nation and contribute to society, but as leeches; sucking dry the social safety net provided for by taxpaying citizens. Europe's open borders was intended to allow individuals from war torn countries to immigrate, and yet statistics have shown that only a small fraction of these migrants actually come from war torn countries. Most are coming from poor, but relatively stable nations.

 It's worth noting that a preponderance of those arriving (especially from the Middle East) are young and very fit males of military fighting age, leading some to suspect that they are militants being sent to set up terrorist cells and to radicalize other migrants. If that's true (and it likely is), then Europe may be unable to cope should violence breaks out. As it is, with approximately 50 million Muslims now living in mostly western Europe, their numbers alone are enough to ensure that the EU will support Muslim interests.  If so, what does this mean for Israel and its ally, the United States?

Many have attempted to impose their culture, values, and especially their religion on the host nation. For instance, demanding women alter their attire, cancelling popular festivals, not selling liquor, and dropping certain items from menus. This is especially true with the more radicalized of the migrants. Demanding that locals conform to their values and norms is not how immigration should work.

Sadly, the "leaders" (and I use that term in its broadest sense) in Europe have proved to be completely spineless. They're more afraid of name calling than doing the right thing for the country. The result is that Europe's very liberal social safety net is now strained to the breaking point, and yet the migration continues. One has to wonder what happens when their social safety net is no longer able to support this influx, and the citizens are either no longer able or willing to shoulder the tax burden.

Of course, the same thing can be said of the politicians here in the United States. Since the early 1980's, beginning under President Ronald Reagan, illegal immigration has become a political football.  Currently, there's an estimated 11 million illegals currently in the U.S., and like in Europe, taxpayers are having to pay the tab for the politicians cowardice.  Bear in mind too that immigration, legal or illegal, is just one of the factors.

We also have to contend with the spread of diseases and viruses, terrorism, depletion of freshwater, overfished oceans and dying coral reefs, changing climatic conditions, aggressive nation-states and the potential for regional war or even a covert conflict (which could include biological and technological warfare such as weaponized viruses or system wide hacks), an ageing population and decreased child birth in developed and well educated nations along with a "baby boom" in poorer countries. 

There is, as well, a growing stratification between economic and social classes (particularly America's Middle Class). Then there are the manufactured divisions along gender and racial lines., which are often stoked by the corporate media. We must not forget to mention the decline in global democracy.

A 2020 report from Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem Institute) in Sweden indicated that global democracy has declined from 54% of the world's population in 2009 to 49% by 2019. To make matters worse, the same report also pointed out that those living in autocratic countries went from 6% in 2009 to 34% in 2019. The world's largest democracy, India, has gone from being rated as "free" to "partly free" in a 2021 report from The Freedom House.

The U.S. is now classified as a "flawed democracy" and is increasingly viewed as a nation in a accelerating decline by many world leaders. It has ceased to be a Republic, and has morphed into a Corporatocracy led by an Oligarchic elite and dominates government at all levels. That, my friends, is not the definition of "socialism", nor is it "Communism".  It is, however, the definition of Fascism, albeit perhaps a new variant.  

The reports produced by many of these global think tanks and data analysis centers confirmed that America's decline includes those things I've written about countless occasions over the years such as divisive partisanship, rigged elections, gerrymandering, Citizens United and unlimited corporate money in politics, a lack of term limits, a biased media, and denying third parties and America's political majority-- Independents-- an equal opportunity to participate in the political discussion.

So, just how accurate has this supercomputer been since 1973? Actually, it's been pretty accurate thus far.  Specifically, in terms of population and economic growth and the world's overall quality of life as of 2020. The big question now is just how accurate it will be for the remaining 20 years. In case you're wondering just how much data this supercomputer can process, it can calculate more data in one second than an average human can in six billion years.

You'll find a link to the article below which includes a short video by the BBC, along with a couple other articles regarding the predictions. Check it out and let us know what you think. Is the world doomed by 2040 or will we survive? I've also provided a link to the Club of Rome's website in case you wanted to learn more about them along with additional links for more information.

 

A 1973 MIT Supercomputers Predicted the End of the World by2040

In 1973, an  MIT computer predicted when civilization will end

M.I.T.  Computer Program Alarmingly Predicts in 1973 That Civilization Will End in 2040

World3

The Club of Rome

 

New Report: The global decline in democracy has accelerated

Varieties in Democracy Institute

 

Gerrymandering: Herding the Sheeple or How to Nullify the Vote Without Really Trying

In my last article I wrote about the need for term limits. Voting alone no longer works, thanks to partisan gerrymandering and near unlimited funding of campaigns, politicians, and political parties by corporations (thanks to the Supreme Court's "Citizens United "debacle"). Between the three, voters have very little chance of removing corrupt or ineffectual politicians of either political party from office.

With no hope of changing the situation, voters have expressed their frustration in several ways. The first, and most obvious way, is that they simply choose to stay home. After all, why go the polls and vote when you know going in that the deck has been stacked against you? As a result, approximately 45% of those registered to vote don't. In the 2016 Presidential Election, 55.7% of registered voters showed up, which is pretty good. But the other side of that also means that just under half didn't.

Secondly, about 25% of Americans eligible to vote haven't even bothered to register. Meanwhile, countries like Malta and Belgium have a 95% voter turnout. India, which is the world's largest democracy with 911, 950,734 registered voters, had in 67.40% turnout in its May 2019 elections. Kind of embarrassing isn't it? Others have simply walked away from both corporate controlled parties which is one reason why Independent have been the dominate political demographic since 2008.

Of course incumbents and their respective parties love low turnouts. The fewer voters turning up at the polls mean that controlling the outcome is that much easier. Term limits, however, are not a panacea to fix our broken political system, but it is one important piece of the puzzle. Another tool that we need if we want to restore our Republic is to end partisan gerrymandering.

As an aside, the Republican firm, McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research and strategic services company, conducted a poll in 2018 to see what registered voters thought about term limits. They found that 82% of those polled wanted term limits. This included 89% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 83% of Independents. Not only that, but it seems race didn't matter either. 86% of whites favored term limits as did 70% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics.

In 2017 there was a survey conducted by the bipartisan group Campaign Legal Center (CLC). They wanted to know what people thought about gerrymandering. Perhaps not surprisingly, 71% of those surveyed want to end partisan redistricting of voting districts. But before we get into ways to stop this form of vote suppression, we need to talk about what gerrymandering is.

Pretty much everyone has seen a map of their voting district. Often they twist and turn; reaching here and there, and not making any sense whatsoever. Well, to those who hold power, they make perfect sense. It is, after all, how they keep power. To be more specific, gerrymandering is a way in which both of the corporate controlled parties are able to draw or redraw districts in a way to gain or keep control over a particular voting district.

They do this by drawing districts where voters are most likely to vote for their party's candidates. To do this they routinely break up neighborhoods by including or excluding certain types of voters, be they Democrats, Republicans, as well as low income, high income, and so forth. In doing so, they implicitly discriminate in various terms such as race, gender or education. As a "fun fact", with the majority of Americans now registered as Independents, each party tries to stick the other with the political "Old Maid" to help skew their opponent's numbers.

The end result to all this is that it enables a party to increase their chances of securing and keeping their party's hold on an office in a given area by several percentage points. Think of this way. Instead of voters picking who they want gerrymandering enables the parties to pick the voters who are likely to vote for them. Gerrymandering, along with near unlimited funding of parties, politicians, and campaigns, along with unlimited terms make up the illusion that you and I actually have a choice when it comes to voting.

Gerrymandering can, however, be eliminated, thus restoring some balance back to our elections. First, you need to understand that there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about requiring gerrymandering. In fact, there's a great deal which actually opposes gerrymandering; even making it unconstitutional since it denies some from having their voices heard not to mention denying equal representation. So "how?" you ask. Well, I'm going to tell you how.

What we want...and need...as a country is for all citizens to be heard. Therefore, what we need to do is create districts in which everyone gets an equal say in who we elect. We can do this by creating non-partisan commissions to redraw voting districts which are more reflective of those who live there. A Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) is separate from state legislatures.

IRCs are required to be transparent by publishing all their data research, holding public meetings, provide full disclosure of all contact by lobbyists, corporations, or politicians. The IRCs look at neighborhood compositions, including income levels, race and ethnic groups as well as registration to ensure balanced representation. The public is encouraged to submit information about their district to the commission, including proposed district maps.

Think IRCs could never work? Well, actually they do! In fact, voters in Colorado, Utah, Missouri, and Michigan have already approved the creation of IRCs while voters in California, Arizona, and Iowa have created similar types of commissions which have removed career politicians and their parties from the redistricting process.

Similar to an IRC, universities can be selected to create non-partisan districts as well. Typically the redistricting is performed by the mathematics departments using proprietary algorithms and data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. It wouldn't hurt, in fact, if the process be periodically rotated among different universities or colleges throughout the state in order to further ensure total impartiality.

There are some other options we should consider as well. One is called Open List Ballots. Candidates are listed together on a ballot by party. Voters can choose any of the candidates. The top vote getters win and the party gets a proportional number of seats based on the number of votes their candidate(s) receive. Another option is Cumulative Ballots. Voters get three votes each. They can assign their votes however they want. The top vote getters win. In both of these examples, five districts were combined into a single district so that the top five vote getters (one from each of the old district) win.

A third variation and one of the most popular is called the Ranked Ballots. Here, instead of just marking the ballot for the candidate of your choice, the candidates are listed together and the voters rank them (#1, #2, #3, etc). Depending in the number of seats available, the highest overall ranked win. A spin on this type of voting doesn't list the candidate's party registration so that no party has an advantage of the other. We'll discuss these in more detail in a later issue.

On an amusing note, some have suggested putting the names of the candidates on a slip of paper and drawn out of a hat. Others have suggested a similar approach except the names are drawn the way lottery or bingo numbers are drawn, out of a cage. I wonder if they realize that was the way draft numbers were drawn? Either way, I guess you can't get anymore impartial than that!

I have no doubt that there are numerous (and more serious) ideas. Perhaps one of you will come up with one. Nevertheless, partisan gerrymandering has diluted the power of our vote. It benefits no one but those who hold power and intend on keeping it regardless of what you and I want.

Partisan gerrymandering, along with unlimited terms and near unlimited corporate funding, has made the servants of the people their master. It's past time that we take back what rightly belongs to us.

As with all my articles, I've included my source links below. I've also provided you with several links to just a few of the organizations which are in the fight to end gerrymandering. I urge you to check them out and get involved.



The Supreme Court just said federal courts can't stop partisan gerrymandering

Here's how to fix partisan gerrymandering, now that the Supreme Court has kicked it back to the states.

Common Cause: How Gerrymandering Hurts Our Democracy and How We can Fix It

Brooking Institute: Gerrymandering and how to fix it

Cato Institute: How to stop politicians from Gerrymandering

End Gerrymandering

Campaign Legal Center: Redistricting

Common Cause: How Gerrymandering Hurts Our Democracy and How We can Fix It

How to buy Congress and influence People (or are politicians cheaper by the dozen?)

Last week I provided you with the names and a little background information about of the "Big Six" mega-corporations which control 90%+ of all media outlets, and thus, our opinion as to what's happening in the world. These same six corporations also affect out entertainment, and not just the news. We touched on how this impacted our opinion of events and of the media itself, which we broke down along age demographics. I think many of you were surprised at the hold a relatively small group of individuals have on what we see, hear, and read. These six corporations decided what's news, how it will be presented, and how to spin it for any agenda they're a pushing at a given moment. They also control how we relax, be it video games, sports, or some show on television. In this issue, we're going to look at the top corporate political campaign givers.

Given that two Supreme Court misrulings, Citizens United and the McCutcheon's cases have completely altered the political landscape by declaring corporations are "people" and money as "free speech", it's important to know who the average Joe and Jane Public are competing against (given the corporations can contribute what it want while ordinary "flesh and blood types" citizens are still capped). We will start with the premise that money brings with it not just power, but also access to power and influence. For the majority of Americans, seeking public office is simply out of their reach because of the high cost of elections. It's no wonder that Congress is referred to as the "Millionaires Club". So, without further ado, let's take a look at some of the top Fortune 500 corporations.

AT&T, the telecommunications giant based in Texas raised $3,022,815 dollars. Of this, Republicans received 38.9% while Democrats got 60%. The Bank of America, located in North Carolina, pooled $2,931,246. Democrats got 41.4% compared to Republicans who got 57.9%. The Las Vegas Sands Hotel and Casino in Nevada pooled their earnings totaling $2,885,417 and gambled 62% of it on Republicans and 36.6% on Democrats. DISH Network, based in California, donated 42.8% of its $2,604,920 on the GOP and 55.4% on Democrats. Chicago based Boeing Industries contributed 55.4% and 43.8% of its $2,805,418 on Democrats and Republicans respectively. IBM, based in New York, raised $2,598,586. The Republicans got 29.7% whereas the Democrats took 68.9%.

Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giant based in Maryland, contributed 54.7% of its $2,364,432 to Republicans and 43.7% to Democrats. The New York based telecommunications corporation Version raised $2,532,495. Democrats pocketed 67.2% of it; Republicans just 32.7%. The California based social media platform, Facebook, contributed 91.3% of its $2150,277 to Democrats. Republicans got a paltry 7%. Exxon Mobil, the Texas based oil and gas conglomerate, donated 63% of its $2,134,633 to Republicans. Democrats got only 36%. Another Texas based oil and gas giant, Western Refining, directed 63.4% of its $2,148,865 to Republicans while Democrats saw 35.3%. The Chicago located energy company, Exelon gave 60.6% of $2,106,413 to Republicans. Democrats saw just 38.8%.

The New Jersey pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson, had total donations of $1,981,003. Democrats got 52.2% compared to Republicans who got 45.4%. Pfizer, another monster sided pharmaceutical giant raised $1,943,348 and then donated 64.8% to Democrats and 34.8% to Republicans. General Electric, based in Boston, gave Democrats 56% of its $1,753,871 political finds. Republicans got just 43.2%. California located Intel, a technology corporation, put together $1,690,486. Republicans saw 25.4% of it while the Democrats saw 73.2%. Version, another high tech corporation, gave Democrats 67.3% and Republicans 32.7% respectively of its $2,253,405. Wells Fargo Bank, based in California with it $3,212,918 in available funds, donated 54.2% to Democrats and 44.7% to the GOP.

While these are some pretty impressive numbers, they're still chump change compared to the big spenders. Take Morgan Stanley for instance. This New York bases financial services company donated 54.9% of its $5,362,033 to the Republicans. Democrats got 44.1%. Another New York financial services and banking company, JP Morgan+Chase, contributed 54.5% of its allotted $6,173,244 to Democrats, while Republicans got 49.9%. Microsoft, the Washington base tech giant, had $7,222,345 to donate, and Democrats got 80.2% of it. Meanwhile, Republicans got 18.6%. Topping the list is Goldman Sachs. This New York based financial services corporation had $11,457,248 to donate. Hedging their political portfolio, they invested 52.2% in Republicans and 47% in Democrats. Now, if you think these numbers are mind boggling in both their size along with the amount of political favors and legislation they'll buy, sit tight. You haven't read anything just yet.

Did you know that just 2/3 of all individual campaign contributions come just 1/4 of 1 percent of voters? According to a CNBC article from April 2018, 30% of that money went directly to the candidate. The rest, called "soft money" contributions, went to groups who spent the money indirectly on behalf of the candidate or issue. So how much money are we talking about? Try $154 million dollars (and just the top 100 individual contributors). Of this, the majority leans Right or Conservative to the tune of $83 million dollars. $65 million leans Left toward Liberal candidates and causes.

Everyone has heard of the Koch Brothers, who are usually portrayed as the evil incarnate by the politically slanted media, however, they are far from the biggest contributors. They give just under a million dollars ($997,000) to Republicans, whereas fellow conservative Geoff Palmer, owner of GH Palmer Associates, donated $2,403,172 to Republicans. Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies gave $3.7 million to conservative causes and candidates. Steven Cohen of Point 72 Asset Management has given Republicans and conservative causes $3.4 million. Another partner from that same firm is Henry Laufer. He's not shy about spending money either. He donated $2.5 million to Democrats (I've got to get a job there!).

Now don't feel left out Democrats. You've got some big money behind you too. James Simons of the same corporations as Mercer, donated $3.2 million dollars to Democrats. The "evil villain" according to the political Right, George Soros, has given Democrats $1.4 million dollars. Now, compare those numbers with Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners who gave Democrats $6.1 million dollars. Barnard Marcus of the Marcus Foundation gave Republicans $5.5 million dollars while Fred Eyechaner of Newsweb donated $4.6 million to Democrats. George Marcus of Marcus & Millichap had $4.2 million for Liberals, and so the story goes. However, the two largest contributors haven't even been mentioned yet, so let's get to it!

Thomas F. Steyer of Fehr LLC is the top Democrat and liberal issues contributor. Steyer, who was born in 1957, is a hedge fund manager whose net worth is around $2 billion dollars. Steyer consider himself to be an environmentalist, philanthropist, and a liberal issues activist and fundraiser. His current political project is a campaign to impeach President Trump (of which he's donated some $10 million dollars thus far). But perhaps his biggest claim to fame is that he's the single largest contributor to Democrats and liberal causes in the amount of $16 million dollars. Obviously, that adds a whole to dimension to the old term "Limousine Liberal" doesn't it? However, as impressive at Steyer may be, he pales compared to the single largest private donor, Richard E. Uihlein. Uihlein is the owner of Uline, Inc, which is shipping supply distribution company, was born in 1945. Uihlein is a active contributor to Republicans and other conservative causes (he also has close friendship with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas). So, how much as Uihlein given? A cool $21.1 million dollars.

This is just a sampling of the ruling Oligarchs in this country. They are part of the elite one percent. Thanks to their wealth they can and do buy the kind of political access that the ordinary American voter can't even begin to comprehend. Not only do they have the instant and full attention of anyone and everyone in Washington, they are able to influence legislation. Through their lobbyists and friends in Washington, they can create or kill bills at the snap of their fingers. There's a reason that Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club".

Political parties really don't meant much to them, even though they may contribute to one party or cause over another. When you get down to it, they support those who can get things done for them, and that usually translates into making them more money or getting them access to resources somewhere. If it's a Democrat who can do that best for them, then they'll get with that individual. If it's a Republican, then that's where they'll go. Ultimately, it comes down to this---both political parties are part of a single corporate owned party with differing special interests groups each trying to get their agenda through. However, it matters not to which party holds the majority because money buys a lot of favors and it's doesn't care if you're "red" or "blue" (as an aside, red and blue make green, the color of money).

If the Democrats were truly the "People's Party" and meant everything they claim, there wouldn't be the first Republican in office anywhere in the country. If the Republicans were true to their dogma, then not a single Democrat would exist, certainly not in City Hall, our state capitols, and especially Washington. However, they do exist and they do hold office, and they do cooperate, especially on issues of mutual importance. That is to say, they cooperate on matters their corporate masters want to see accomplished. Now, don't get me wrong. I like money. It's pretty handy and has a lot of uses like paying bills and buying groceries. But, I don't like what it buys when it comes to government, especially when it's for the benefit of a tiny few.

American voters are capped by how much they can donate to political campaigns and issues. However, thanks to the Supreme Court's duel mistakes (Citizens United and McCutcheon), corporations have become "people" (I prefer to think of them as "Frankensteins") and money has become "free speech", I think voters have been locked out of the political process, especially when you consider that while we're limited in how much we can donate, these Frankensteins can donate however much they want. We can't begin to compete or offset the amount of money they can donate.

Of course, key players in Washington have made it clear that there will be no realistic campaign finance reform. Even if someone had the backbone to try, no committee chairman would dare let it pass out of their committee lest they face the wrath of their party's whip and leadership. Besides, the corporate lobbyists would ensure that the bill was rewritten or amended to their favor. I would imagine too that whoever tried to write a serious campaign finance reform bill would find their career blunted. They would likely get booted off all their committees, and find themselves with no money or help when it came time for reelection (and a good chance of facing a formidable opponent recruited by their own party).

So, just as real campaign finances reform would be good for America, so to would be an end to gerrymandering (rewriting district lines to the benefit of a specific political party to ensure reelection), reforming the tax code, imposing term limits, a balanced budget amendment, national single payer health coverage and stopping the Capital Hill/K Street revolving door (K Street is where most of the lobbying firms are located). I think requiring the politicians in Washington to be subject to the same laws they pass would be nice too, along with ending a lifelong salary with benefits after they leave office, security, and other high dollar perks. But none of this will ever happen as long a money dictates legislation and motives in Washington and elsewhere in politics.


The 30 Fortune 500 companies that have thrown the most money at Republicans and Democrats in the last decade

Here are the 2018 campaign's biggest donors... so far

Top Organization Contributors

Protesting to Stop Gun Violence: The Solution is Closer to Home/Book Review: Crashing The Parties

Apparently there are dozens of "anti-gun" protests happening all over America this weekend (March 24/25 2018) under the banner of 'March For Our Lives". Literally hundreds of thousands of individuals, most of them junior and high school age as well many who are in college, are showing up in towns, cities, and even the cesspool known as Washington DC to protest gun violence. I wouldn't be surprised to the final count is well over 1 or 2 million.

Being a child of the 1960's and 70"s, it brings warm cockles of my heart to see so many people take to the streets to protest for something they believe in. I grew up watch the Civil Rights marches; the anti-war protests, and later on, marches against gender discrimination. Most of the those marches were peaceful, or at least started out as peaceful, but ended up becoming violent when they clashed with the police or occasionally, the National Guard. Thus far, these protests against gun violence has been peaceful, which they should be quite proud of.

Nevertheless, my main concern over the marches is the issue itself and the proposed solutions being tossed around. There is no question that gun related violence is on the increase, especially with regards to attacks in schools. Many (if not all) of the attacks have come from a fellow student (or students). From all that I've read, these individuals were usually marginalized by their fellow classmates; treated as "odd" or "weirdoes" or whatever. They tended to be excluded from normal school events and functions. They had little positive interaction with their teachers too. They, in effect, went through school largely unnoticed, and when noticed, it was almost always in some negative way.

It's not uncommon for schools, and society in general to treat these individuals as being "mentally ill", which they're not; not really. They are simply different. Perhaps if this "difference" was channeled in another direction, these same would-be mass murders who, instead, become artists, designers, or even writers. Instead, they're drugged in order to control their behavior when in reality, it's simply so their parents or teachers don't have to deal with them.

Speaking of parents, another thing these kids have in common is that they tend to come from middle class or upper middle class families and are often left on their own. In fact, it's the parent who are often most surprised to see their child's picture and/or name of the TV screen as being the prime suspect, and their first remarks often include phrases like "we gave them everything", "we gave him his own space", and so forth. What, in reality, they are saying is that they were so focused on their own lives or those of their other children, those who needed their attention the most were ignored.

Many of these kids look elsewhere for some form of validation. They tend to embrace the negativity of which they're accused. A few emerge themselves into a "Gothic" persona. Some dive headfirst into the darker aspects of Heavy Metal or go the into a completely different direction such as fantasy, role-play. Hopefully, this will be limited to concerts or "Cosplay" events where they interact with like minded individuals who are often a marginalized. While this isn't ideal, it does help create some personal bonds and relationships which is much better than being alone and feeling like an outcast. I can't think of many things worse than being a teenager, and all that involves, and having no one of your own age to talk to. The lonesomeness and isolation would be crushing.

A few of these same kids also look to history (I believe the demonic duo at Columbine High School were guilty of this). The kids (and they really are still "kids") look to people like Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Stalin, or some other demented individual like Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, or some fictional characters like "Jason" or "Freddie Kruger" for inspiration. As crazy as it sounds to us, it makes perfect sense from their perspective. After all, most of the people were outcasts themselves. They were misfits; marginalized or ignored, yet they went on to command the world's attention.

The "how" aspect doesn't really matter to them, nor does the "why"; not really. All that matters is the results (and as we all know, mostly from personal experience, teenagers and even young adults don't always think things through to a logical conclusion). This really isn't about revenge, although I'm sure that comes into play if the opportunity represents itself. For a brief moment, they can garner the respect (or fear, it's the same thing to them) they've longed for, even if it means they must die in the accomplishment of it. I suppose them old adage than "any attention, even bad attention, is better than no attention" holds true here.

So, while I applaud the hundreds of thousands to young men and women taking to the streets to oppose gun violence, especially in schools, I don't think banning guns is the answer, although I agree that the system has to often failed to do proper background checks. So instead of demanding tighter controls on gun purchases, how about enforcing the ones already on the books? Also, instead of trying to regulate what kind of firearms someone has, how about focusing on requiring gun safety training so they know how to properly use them? Besides, we all know that even if guns suddenly were outlawed tomorrow, criminals would still have them and we'd look like a flock of sheep to a bunch of hungry wolves. Of course, the government would see us the same way!

I think the solution to gun violence in schools lies much closer to home; it lays in the way they treat their fellow students. It lies in the way that bullying---physical, psychological, and cyber--- is still allowed to happen without recourse. Yes, it's "illegal" but so what? So is stealing but it happens anyway, and no amount of signs is going to change that. The worse tolerance of bullying still comes from the kids themselves who allow it among themselves. They know who is doing it, yet they say nothing and do nothing, and then pretend to be so surprised when someone commits suicide...or shoots up the school.

Sometimes a solution is so simple it's overlooked. People, usually in desperation, tend to "paint with a wide brush" when a small one would do just as well or better. Stop the bullying and intimidation in schools, especially the cyber-bullying. Don't accept cliquish behavior; don't be a part of it. Don't ignore "gangbangers". Report them. Call the police if necessary. These are the purveyors of violence in society. They have no place in school or anywhere near schools, playgrounds, parks, or kids in general.

Lastly, don't tolerate attacks on teachers by some loser of a student, and don't allow them to interrupt the class. If they don't want to learn and want to remain woefully ignorant, so be it, but let them do it elsewhere. Students have a powerful voice in stopping this behavior. Teachers and parents need to take an active interest in everyone as much as possible. Don't assume drugging your child, even if a teacher or counselor, recommends it, at least not without a second or even third opinion; and be open to alternatives.

Let's start demanding that federal, state, and local officials in charge of reviewing gun applications actually do their jobs, and that means having the resources and proper training to do their jobs. Too many of these incidents are the result of someone in the chain dropping the ball. Lastly, taking personal responsibility to ensure their firearms are properly secured. Also, let's make sure those who own firearms are properly trained in their usage, including maintaining and cleaning them as well as gun safety. I think these steps will go a long way to cutting back on gun violence, be it in the schools or in general.

BOOK REVIEW
Crashing The Parties: A Proposal for a Populist Centrist Party That Can Break The Left-Right Divide and Save America
By M.D. Couturier

As many of you all know, one of the perks of this job is getting to review books, usually on current events, history, theology, and naturally, on politics. I've reviewed hundreds of books over the years on behalf of various publishing companies, as well as a few on my own. Some have been pretty good; a few were quite enlightening, and some not so much. Regardless, I try to make sure you get an honest assessment.

I was asked to take a look as Mr. Couturier's book, "Crashing The Parties"; a populist and centrist oriented booklet. I had the distinct advantage of long being a proponent of Centrism (and perhaps the best known Centrist activist and writer in Kentucky), so I was keenly interested in Mr. Couturier's booklet, which is only about 15 pages long. The book itself is very well written and obviously a quick read. Mr. Couturier does an excellent job in addressing a wide variety of topics in short but concise statements. The booklet starts off listing and then defining the three main tenets of American Populist Centrism, which includes the nation, the government, and the American People. He then delves into some well thought out tenants comprising his alternative to the antiquated Left/Right paradigm that we face today.

These include controversial topics such as immigration, jobs and the economy, and education. I am particularly pleased to see Mr. Couturier, a native of South Korea and now a US Citizen, address the issue of illegal immigration and once again re-embrace the concept of America as a "melting pot", and the need to make English our official national language. Mr. Couturier also addresses the need for election reform (such as ending gerrymandering) as well as national security and ending the role of permanent alliances, perpetual wars, and America as the world's policeman. He goes on to address many other hot issues, such as abortion, the role of prayer in schools, gun control, healthcare, the economy, taxes, and the need to revitalized labor unions in order to breathe life back into what's left of the middle and working classes. For all of these, Mr. Couturier should be applauded, but his treatise goes much further. I can't say that I completely agree with everything Mr. Couturier says (nor would I expect to), but he provides does provide for some well reasoned perspectives.

For anyone interested in current events from a fresh perspective, I encourage you to read Mr. Couturier's "Crashing The Parties". The read will be short, but the takeaway will be immense, especially if you're tired of the old retread ideologies of the corporate owned Democrats and Republicans or the bankrupt Left/Right paradigm. I think you will enjoy his ideas and his writing style, which are clear and to the point and more in line with the majority of Americans. I know I did.

"Crashing The Parties: A Proposal for a Populist Centrist Party That Can Break The Left-Right Divide and Save America" by M.D. Couturier is available from Goodreads and Amazon.

So Just How "Free" Is America Anyhow? : How America's "Freedom" Rankings Stack Up

America. It's often called "the land of the free" or the "torch of freedom in the world", and so on. People have been coming here literally since the beginning of the nation's history in their search for freedom. People from the world over have literally risked everything to come here. Of course, much has changed from when our Founding Father's decided it was time to strike out on our own, especially since the end of World War II and the rise of "America Incorporated". I thought it would be interesting to take a look at where America ranks in terms of freedom and other key factors,such as education, taxes, and incarceration, plus perhaps some other issues.

According the Freedom House's 2017 report, there are approximately 7.4 billion people now living on our tiny Planet Earth. That's a lot of people. According to the report, about 39% of those individuals are relatively free ("free" and "freedom" are, of course, subjective). 36% have little or no sense of freedom, while 25% fall somewhere in between. When broken down along national lines, Freedom House tells us that of the 195 countries in the world, some 45% are mostly free, while 30% have some degree of freedom, and 25% have little or no freedom (for the record, the Middle East---excluding Israel--and North Africa had the worse ratings, followed by Asia. 2016 was the 11th year of global decline in freedom while theocracy or religious autocracy had grown).

According to the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation, the United States is ranked overall in 17th place. Yelp, you read that right. The "Beacon of Freedom" in the world is 17th in the world, right there between former Soviet Republic, Lithuania (16th) and Denmark (18th). We are ranked as "mostly free", which I find rather embarrassing frankly. According to the report, large public debt (currently at 108% of the Gross Domestic Product or GDP) and budget deficits are the main reason. The regional leader in economic freedom is our neighbor to the north, Canada, which is ranked number one (not bad eh?).

Speaking of regional rankings, the U.S. is third, between Chile and Columbia, with the three of us trending downward. Globally, the world leader of overall freedom remains Hong Kong, followed by Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia. Ironically, the United Arab Emirates ranks higher than the U.S. in terms of overall freedom, in eighth place (do you think we should invade it and spread some more of that "American Democracy" around? Just asking). In terms of business and labor freedom, both are in decline due to over regulation by federal policies (also, in the case of labor freedom, we have to factor in the continuing decline of labor unions as well. An additional reason for the decline of freedom in the business sector is because the U.S. has among the world's highest corporate tax rates).

With respect to national security, let's look at the percentage of the General Domestic spending (GDP) on military spending, and where we stack up. All reports show that the U.S. ranks first going away when it comes to our military budget. The U.S. spends an estimated $611 billion dollars annually of our defense budget (and that doesn't include untold billions on various military and intelligence "black projects"). Our closest competitor is China, which spends around $216 billion on its military (again, not including any of its "black projects"). In terms of GDP percentage, the U.S. spends 3.3% of its GDP compared to China's 1.2%. Russia "only" spends approximately $69 billion (5.3% GDP) on its military while Saudi Arabia spends just under $64 billion (10% of its GDP). India and France spend nearly identical amounts, $55.9 and $55.7 respectively on their military, which makes up 2.5% and 2.3% of their nation's GDP. Little ole Israel spends $17.8 billion (5.8% GDP) to stay safe. Of note is that Great Britain spends 448 billion on its military, yet that is just 1.9% of its total GDP, the same as China. Mexico spends just under $7 billion on its defense budget, which is .06% of its GDP.

Regarding property rights, which have always been near and dear to the hearts of Americas (the ownership of property has long been key to the perception of having achieved the "American Dream"). Yet, while property rights are, in theory guaranteed, growing regulations at the local, state, and federal levels have resulted in uneven application of protection (such as the rise in crime and defense of property, habitability, landlord/tenet laws, fire protection, and zoning changes, including the so-called "eminent domain" law. Rising taxes on personal property, such as property tax, drainage/runoff tax, and school tax has made it increasingly difficult for some to afford their property). What about political freedom?

Well, as most of you (hopefully) are aware, the United States is not the "democratic republic" or Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers intended. Gradually, starting approximately with the end of World War II, corporate power has gradually increased its control and influence over the federal government, creating a "hand-in-glove" type of partnership; a Oligarchy or plutocracy if you will (by definition, this is also known as Fascism, which a symbiotic relationship between big business and government, resulting in a incremental decline in personal freedom, a decline in privacy, along with a rise in de facto police/surveillance state. So, where do we actually stand? According to the British based research company, Economic Intelligence Unit (EIC) report, the "Democracy Index", America ranks 21st in the world. We're just behind Japan and just above Italy (the UK is ranked 16th, just behind Malta and just above Spain). The report looks at 60 different indicators, grouped into five categories which measures voter plurality and security, political culture, and civil liberties.

The three largest Scandinavian countries (you know, the one's with that "failed" democratic socialist form of government we're forever reading about on social media), Norway, Iceland, and Sweden are ranked one, two, and three in that order. Denmark is fifth, behind New Zealand. Canada is sixth; Australia is tenth; while Germany is 13th. Mexico is 67th, and interestingly, Greece, the birthplace of Democracy, is ranked in 44th place. Russia is in the 134th spot, while China is close behind in 136th place, and the country which comes in dead last is...North Korea (queue fake gasp and shocked expression)! Another interesting point from this report, is that the U.S. is listed officially as a "flawed democracy".

Another academic and policy development used site is Democracy Ranking, an Austrian initiative which looks at a number of factors, including gender, education, economy, public health, and the environment to not just rank democracies or economic/political health of a country, but also examines the quality of a county's political freedom and how well society is served overall. According to their annual report (the latest released in 2016), the top ranked democracies are Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands (Holland), New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, and Australia. The U.S. was 16th and trending downward. A key factor in the success of any country, is the quality of its education system. So, where does America stand in comparison to the rest of the world?

In the areas of math and science, Asia took the top four spots (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan, tied with Taiwan, respectively). Canada was tenth. Germany and Australia were 13th and 14th, while the UK was 20th. The U.S. tied with Italy in the 28th spot, just behind Spain and just above Portugal (the U.S. was ranked 24th in reading, behind the U.K. and over Denmark). A similar report, published by the World Top 20 Project, lists Japan as number one academically, with continued improvements in the key areas of reading, math, and science. South Korea is ranked second, followed by the U.K. Singapore is fourth. Of note is Russia, which is ranked in fifth place and showing signs of significant improvement. China came in eleventh place, while America was ranked 18th, where the report indicated that there are glaring failures in the areas of early childhood and high school academic performance. In 20th place was Portugal, which had the list's worse high school graduation rates.

The next key indicator to a nation's overall health is its prison rates. How does America stack up in relation to the other major global players? Putin's Russia ranked fourth in terms of percentage of its population that is imprisoned (ranking just above India). Turkey is ranked seventh, while Iran and Mexico are ranked ninth and tenth respectively. South Africa, with its obscenely high murder rates (targeted mainly at its white Afrikaner population) is ranked 12th. The uber-polite Brits are 17th. Interestingly, Castro's "oppressive" Cuba is only 34th on the list and "head chopping" Saudi Arabia is ranked 44th. Even the "teargas throwing" Israelis are in the bottom 1/3 of list in 65th place (just above the Congo and Zimbabwe). The United Arab Emirates are 97th, while Scotland is 110th (I suspect they just throw back a few pints, arm wrestle and go home). Ireland is 132nd (they'll just whoop your butt then and there on the spot...and then buy the next round).

So then, who's at the top of this rather dubious list of most incarcerating nations? Well, that "honor" (cough cough) goes to the good ole U.S. of A. We lead the world in having the most imprisoned portion of its population, followed by China and Brazil. In our defense, however, the largest demographic of prison inmates are illegal immigrants who were convicted of drug charges and/or violent crimes, comprising just over 25% according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Illegal immigrants are arrested an average of seven times according to the GAO. They also account for approximately 37% of all federal sentencing's according to the latest (2014) statistics. According to the same report, illegal immigrants also make up just 5.1% of the U.S. labor force. Closely related to incarceration rates is poverty. According to UNICEF, the U.S. ranks second among industrialized nations, with just over 25% of all children under the age of 17 in the U.S. living in poverty. Of the 19 top industrialized nations, the U.S. has the highest rate of income disparity and poverty other than Mexico and Turkey. UN Poverty Index ranks the US 17th out of 19 countries. According to the OECD, the U.S. poverty rate is the highest in the developed world.

On the flip side of that question, which nations seem to have the happiest or most satisfied people? Well, according to the 2017 CNN Travel Report, the happiest people on the planet are the Norwegians! They are joyfully followed (skipping no doubt) by Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands (Holland), Canada, New Zealand, with Australia and Sweden delightfully tied in ninth place. The U.S. was less pleased with 14th place, while Germany was 16th. The U.K. had to keep their stiff upper lips with the 19th spot, which was still better than Russia in 49th place (who doesn't love a good Siberia rubdown?) and China in the 79th position (apparently they have a "Great Wall to Nowhere in Particular").

Now that was the 2017 CNN Travel Report, which is more or less not the kind of academic or serious study that we tend to look at. Let's look at the United Nation's "World Happiness Report 2017" and see if there were any significant differences. This report again gave the top spot to Norway, followed by Denmark and Iceland (damn democratic socialists!). In fourth place is Switzerland and Finland rounding out the top five. In seventh place was the ever so polite Canadians, followed by New Zealand and Australia (brilliant mates!). Last, in tenth place, is Sweden. The United States ranked 14th (again) , with Chile rounding out the top 20. So, not much of change overall.

So, there it is. America's "Freedom" rankings. There are other topics we can, of course, look at, but the results are generally pretty much the same. What does this mean in the great scheme of things? I think it shows another perspective of who we are as a nation. Perhaps too, it's how we are perceived by other nations. As Americans, we tend to see the world through a red, white, and blue prism. We see everything through a fixed set of ideals, which is fine so long as we understand that our values or national objectives don't necessarily apply to everyone else (this is especially true when we remember that we are now an Oligarchy). Other countries have their prisms too! While we tend to get miffed as a nation when other people with different values, languages, religions, and traditions come here and try to impose them on us, let's remember that we've been doing the same to them for years, or in some cases, for decades (which goes back to prism analogy). To borrow from a old Buddhist saying, there are many paths to the mountaintop.

We've seen America turned into a plutocracy, with a growing police state mentality. We've become more divided as a nation than at any time prior to the Civil War. We've basically allowed ourselves become divided along racial, gender, sexual, political, and even religious lines. We've stopped listening to each other to the point that some even go into meltdown mode when they hear an idea which differs from our own. We scream, destroy things, and pout if someone says something we disagree with. We would rather have no freedom of speech or expression than a civil discussion. We've stooped to calling people "racist" or "sexist" if we don't get the attention we think we deserve. Our every failure is always someone else's fault. In the end, we've been reduced into a nation of cliques. At some point, and I suspect sooner than later, "something" will happen and the crap will hit the fan, and that's when our Oligarch masters offer their "solution"---security for some but a police state for all.

Instead, we should accept that we are being played. Most of us even know we're being played but allow ourselves to get sucked up in the moment. We know the corporate media is manipulating us (96% of all media is owned by just six corporations). We know both of the two political parties are literally bought and paid for, yet if we listen to the media, we are expected to believe they are our only choices when they're not (Independents are the nation's largest political bloc and growing along with third parties such as the Greens or Libertarians. Meanwhile, the Democrats and GOPers fight for a larger piece of a shrinking pie). We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and start demanding answers from the "men behind the curtain".

It's time to demand term limits, an end to gerrymandering, an end to the "Citizens United" misruling and real campaign finance reform. We need to demand that Indies and third parties be included in our political debates, especially national debates since Indies represent the majority of voters! We need to demand a level playing field in terms of wages, hiring, and firing. We need to place an emphasis on the reuse of developed land instead of concreting over every green field, which would help struggling neighborhoods too, and so much more. But none of its going to happen until we come together as Americans.



Freedom House Report 'Freedom in the World 2017'


The Heritage Foundation: 2017 Index of Economic Freedom


Economic Intelligence Unit: 2017 Democracy Index


World Top 20 Project


Institute for Criminal Policy Research/University of London-Birkbeck: World Prison Brief


United Nation's World Happiness Report 2017