The Insecurity of Security: The Assault on Privacy and the Surveillance State

The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states. It didn’t take long before this confederation was replaced with a constitutionally driven democratic Republic, which is where it remained, with some slight adjustments via amendments, for 248 years.

Starting sometime after the end of World War II in 1945, when, at its political and economic apex, the country began a slow but determined transition from a republic into what it is now, a neo-fascist corporatocracy under the direction of an extremely wealthy and powerful oligarchy as President Eisenhower warned us in his farewell address (President John Kennedy would later echo the same warning).

Some have likened this to the feudalism of Middle Ages Europe. If you think of global corporations as modern versions of feudalistic fiefdoms it makes sense. Like their feudalistic predecessors,  who quietly influenced rulers, modern corporations exercise a similar control over today’s governments. To be successful requires a strong surveillance apparatus and ability to manipulate the public.

Most surveillance states use a myriad of excuses to acquire their power. But most often it centers on “public safety”. During the early years of the French Revolution in the 1780’s, Robespierre headed the Committee of Public Safety which he used as a steppingstone to the governing National Convention (eventually becoming its President).  

It official purpose was to undercover those hostile to the revolution and its stated goals of  “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”, the creation a constitutional republic, ending absolutism and the class system, or establishing equality under the law along with individual rights.  

However, as Lord Acton famously said, “power corrupts, and absolute powers corrupts absolutely”. Thus, it was this Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre which served as the driving force behind the infamous Reign of Terror which introduced as many as 17,000 to bite of “Monsieur Guillotine”.  

Just weeks after Adolf Hitler assumed power in January 1933, the German Reichstag (or “Parliament”) mysteriously caught fired and burned to the ground. Many suspected the Nazis of being behind the blaze, but there’s never been any hard proof. A mentally impaired Dutch communist, Marius van der Lubbe, wondering around the smoldering ruins. He was arrested, tried and convicted.  He was executed by guillotine on January 24, 1934. Both sides alleged a "false flag" attack. 

Nevertheless, not ones to let a manufactured crisis go to waste, the Nazis used the occasion of the fire to request and obtain approval to implement the “Enabling Act” or as it was officially known, the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich”, on March 23, 1933.

The Enabling Act served as the beginning of quick end to the Weimar Republic and with it, democracy in Germany. Of course, it was passed in the name of national security (after all, the symbol of German democracy, the Reichstag, had just been attacked). Like another similar act passed 68 years later, few knew exactly what was in it. But, among other things, it allowed for emergency laws to be implemented without the review or consent of the Reichstag (Article 48). 

Ultimately, all opposition political parties and newspapers were banned. A nationalized security apparatus and secret courts were established, and it granted the Chancellor dictatorial powers which could be renewed every four years (with the death of President Paul von Hindenburg, the offices of Chancellor and President were merged into one.  The new office was that of “Fuhrer und Reichskanzler” or  simply “ Office of the Fuhrer”).

In 2001, Congress enacted the “Patriot Act”, following the cowardly attacks of 9/11. Interestingly, the Patriot Act bore many similarities to the Enabling Act. For instance, the creation of a national security office (“The Office of Homeland Security”), it authorized warrantless widespread “spying” on U.S. citizens via existing intelligence agencies (including keeping secret files), the creation of the secret courts (aka “FISA” courts).

Importantly, it also permitted (some would say “encourage”) certain corporations to monitor customers/users, and employees (this was especially true for internet based companies) and so forth while granting these corporations legal immunity. So, apparently you could break the law as long as you were doing it for the government.

Of course, none of this is new historically. At its peak, during  the reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian, it was said that a young naked virgin could walk the length of the Appian Way at midnight without fear of being accosted.  Why? Because every ten or so feet stood an armed Roman soldier. As an aside, in 49 BC Julius Caesar used the claims of "public safety" and "order" to have himself declared dictator as did the Roman General, Sulla, earlier in 82 BC. 

It was also because there were curfews imposed and restrictions on possessing weapons and punishment of crimes were severe in the extreme. The ancient Romans understood that people will often sacrifice their freedoms for security just as they understood that businesses required order and stability to function, which benefited the state. To me, this begs the question of whether such actions as the Patriot Act, stripped of their nationalism, was more for the benefit of state and big business than the security of ordinary citizen.

Today, we find the internet remains stifled with de facto censorship hidden behind cute euphemisms like “community standards” (which has often left me asking “who monitors the monitors?” and “why are certain comments censored and not others?”).

Governments and corporations are pushing for increased measures not just to track us, but also to monitor our financial transactions. Ideally, they would like to do away with currency and reduced all transactions to a series an electronic blips. Not only would a company be instantly paid (great for the bottom line), but big business and the government (which are increasingly becoming one in the same) can constantly monitor how much money you have, where it came from, what you spent it on, where you’ve been or what sites you’ve visited.

Personally, I don’t think it’s any of their damn business. However, my opinion seems to be increasingly a minority one simply based on age attrition. Millennials and to greater extent, GenZ, don’t have the same sense of privacy as do Boomers or Gen X. Repeated studies have shown that they are more than willing to share personal data, seeing more as a commodity than something to be protected.  

Is that because they are so comfortable with technology, having literally grown up with it? Possibly. Gen X, Babyboomers, and older generations seem to place a greater value on privacy. We’re more likely to protect certain information and who we share it with. We seem to place more importance on our “space”, be it physical or cyber. But then, we’re on the decline while Millennials and Gen Z are ascending politically and economically.

For corporations and the government, ever in search of more data, this is portrayed as a boon. Given this level of access, companies can now “cater” to individualistic buying habits, thus improving their bottom line while the government can more easily calculate exactly what you owe in taxes and then automatically deduct it from your bank account. 

Even your health will be monetized. Imagine coming into the world and the first two things you received are a social security number and a genetic health test in order to determine what markers you’ve inherited and to predict your health cost to employers or society. This health information will be traded between your bank, employer, insurance companies, and even the government to determine an overall health risk score. The lower the score, the lower premiums and taxes you'll pay and the more desirable you are to employers. I'm sure you will be able to buy temporary "high risk riders" for occasional wild and wooly weekend or for vacation. 

Examples would be like,  do you enjoy high risk activities like bungee jumping or motorcycle racing? They’ll rate it on your high risk rider, and you’ll pay higher premiums for it. For those who do it often or professionally, the rider will be permanent. Let's say you require a special diet for a health issue. But try to buy something not on the recommended list and see it declined on your debit card (as well as notated in your health record for not following their guidelines). 

Have inheritable health issues like diabetes, heart disease or high blood pressure? Then could face possible higher tax rates, rejection of insurance, or being prohibited from certain jobs.  In addition to your employment and financial history, your overall “health score” rating will now play a part in your credit worthiness and employability.

In our fast approaching cashless society,  I can even envision the day where credit card companies, retailers, and public utilities will automatically deduct as pre-determined amount from your bank account before you even see it. You’ll get a brief text message alerting you of how much “net money” you have available to live on.

Your friendly taxman or woman will notify you and your bank by text the first of the year advising  of how much was deducted from your account based your income (as reported by your employer) and your personal information on file.  Thinking about deductions? Anything that can’t be electronically verified will be disallowed. There’ll be no more “estimated values”.

Crime rates are often cited as the reason for more cameras on street corners while infrared camera drones are becoming more commonplace. As of 2021, there were 71 million public surveillance cameras in use, an increase of 21% from 2018.  Businesses increasingly use bio-matrix programs to analyze nearly everyone walking in or by the business. It’s not uncommon for private residents to have surveillance cameras to deter would-be criminals.

In the sleepy backwater city of Louisville Kentucky for instance, there are 141 “Flock” cameras being used to read license plate numbers of suspected stolen cars (carjackings are a serious problem and growing) as well other vehicle infractions such as speeding, parking issues, or paying tolls.  Another 139 Flock cameras are expected to be added over the next few months. Louisville Metro Police access the camera’s database an estimated 18,000 per month!

Do you think it will be long before all this information will be tied into some database in the “Cloud” and accessed by government agencies, potential employers, insurance companies, and law enforcement? The Patriot Act has already laid the groundwork. Federal agencies such as the NSA have more than ample resources to carry it out and store it while the Office of Homeland Security would have no trouble managing it.

Wall Street and Washington have a symbiotic relationship already based on the control and consumption of resources, including data. In fact, as we’ve often discussed, there’s abundant research to confirm our former Republic is now a corporatocracy, functioning under the auspices of a tightknit superrich oligarchy (some prefer to call it a kleptocracy or plutocracy, which is just as accurate).

These are issues which may sound as if they belong in the realm of science fiction or won’t arise until sometime in the distant future. The reality of the matter is that these are issues which exists in the here and now thanks to the technology’s exponential advancements and our failure as a society to come to grasp the legal ramifications, let alone the moral implications.

At what point does personal privacy end? How far will we accept so-called “national security "interests into our lives? When does technology stop being a convenience and becomes our master?  Specifically, at what point are corporations or the government entitled to access of our personal information without our consent or is allowed to use it in making decisions about (or for) us?

As I said earlier, they will always have an excuse. Soon they may not need one. From my perspective, this is simply a new form of serfdom. It reminds me of a quote from Russian author, Fydor Dostoevsky, "The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he is in prison". To preserve our humanity, we should always be in control of our personal information regardless of whether we wish to protect it, sell it, or trade it without fear of retribution or coercion.   

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

The Rise of Neo-Feudalism

The Road to Neo-Feudalism

How the Covid-19 Pandemic Reveals American Corporate Feudalism

 Committee of Public Safety

Enabling Act of 1933

How the Patriot Act Compare’s to Hitler’s Enabling Act

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

Louisville to install more than 100 additional Flock camerasto enhance public safety

The Private Life of Generation Z

 

 

The Importance of Getting it Right: America's Domestic Dilemma

Right now there are some very powerful groups working non-stop around the clock to pit us against each other every way possible. They manipulate what we watch, listen to, or see as much as possible. After all, just 5 mega corporations own 96+% of all media. They've totally ignored the fact that nearly half the country is registered Independent---43%. Nearly half the country wants nothing from the corporate own uniparty.

Remember this too. The Nazis came to power under the banner of "law and order" and national security with just 43% of the total vote. Lacking a majority, the Nazi's were compelled into a coalition government with industrialist Alfred Hugenberg's conservative German National People's Party (DNVP) in order to take power.  But once the Enabling Act was in place by March 23,1933, the ill-conceived  response to the February 27th Reichstag fire allegedly started by "Communists agitators", the German Republic was all but over.  And it took Hitler just 52 days.

The Democrats and Republicans are both minority parties with roughly 25% of registered voters each. but you wouldn't know it from the media or how the country is run. They've created a two tier legal system and a political class system. They've quietly overthrown our Republic at the behest of a neo-fascist corporatocracy led a super rich oligarchy (or kleptocracy if you prefer, it really doesn't matter. The results for us are the same), and while we were busy playing on our "smart phones" or watching some reality show.

Freedoms are routinely and gradually  suppressed in the name of "national security" in order to protect the populace from scapegoat enemy.  Historically it's been the "Jews", Protestants or Catholics, blacks, Chinese, the Irish, and so on. But, it need not be a group, it can just as easily be a abstract idea; a "catch all" if you will. For instance, "socialism" and Communism" are typically bandied about as if they're one and the same, which they're obviously not. But none of that really matters as long as you're made afraid of it. Why?

The corporate state will always employ a "us versus them" mindset using every resource they have available in order to make and keep you afraid of something. They will use that fear to justify their existence. It will be the foundation of their control.

Let me ask you a question. What do the following laws all have in common? The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which, among other things, prohibited the use of child labor, created the 40 hours work week, and provided for a minimum wage, the National Labor Relations Act, of 1935 (aka "the "Wagner Act") or the Social Security Act of 1935. Any guesses?

What about Title VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on age, race, gender, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation, or the 19th Amendment (passed in 1919) giving women the vote?  How about the Federal Unemployment Act of 1935 which provides unemployment benefits to out of work employees or the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 which gave Native American tribes more control of the extraction of natural resource on tribal land. Give up?

Every single one of them were labeled either "socialist" or Communist. Every. Single. One. Most of these were passed during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, which didn't go unnoticed by the powerful industrial elites of the time who ridiculed Roosevelt as a "traitor to his class" (he came from a wealthy upper New York family), as a closet socialist or Communist (take your pick). Wall Street did everything it could (legal or not) to defeat, or at least delay these laws, but ultimately failed. But, can you honestly say your life would be better off without most or all of these laws?

But it doesn't end there. Not by a long shot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and "War on Poverty" initiative  signed by the Democratic President, Lyndon B Johnson, was vilified as being a Communist plot to destabilize the country as was the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  The Consumer Product Safety Act, Clean Air and Clean Water acts on 1972, all of which were signed by Republican arch conservative Richard Nixon, were also hailed as being "socialist". Of course, "Obamacare"  which help provide critical medical care for those without any (in many cases because their employer couldn't afford to offer any).  

 It's the same in every totalitarian government.  Different actors. Same script.  As Nazi propagandist genius, Joseph Goebbels, once advised "publicly accuse your enemy of doing what you're already secretly doing". Our "Enabling Act" arrived  in 2001 under the flag waving title of "The Patriot Act" and  we've never looked backed despite the slow transformation of the U.S. into a surveillance state. Fascism, in all its incarnations---populist, traditional, benevolent, or religious, all ends the same. It's about control.  

Fascism, which is really just another name for corporatism, can declare itself as  being "liberal" (China, North Korea, East Germany, North Vietnam, Somalia, Yemen, and others were labeled as "Democratic Republics"). The famous quote (erroneously attributed to author Sinclair Lewis) said that fascism, when---not if--- it comes to America, "will be wrapped in the flag  and waving a cross" as well as "American fascism, when it eventually arrives, will be government of, by, and for profits." Sounds a lot like today's Oligarchy doesn't it?

Echoing that statement, James Waterman Wise Jr , author of numerous books including "Our Bill of Rights: What it Means To Me" and "Thomas Jefferson: Then and Now" penned in the  Feb. 5, 1936 edition of Christian Century (considered the flagship magazine of mainstream Protestantism since 1900). He remarked, "If fascism comes, it will not be identified with any 'shirt' movement, nor with an insignia, but it will probably be 'wrapped in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution".

These "friendly fascists" might claim to know the "Will of God" and promise to return us to time of more traditional family values. Such is "friendly fascism". It may claim to be socially conservative if that is what it takes to get your compliance just as easily as it claims to be "all inclusive". But regardless of its outward message, Fascism will always ultimately insist on your total and unwavering compliance.

The assault on our nation has been a gradual one. It creeps forward in one place and makes a strategic  but temporary retreat in others areas, but overall, their agenda always advances. It's a process known as "incrementalism" or "gradualism". Notice for instance how the educational system have been "dumb down". Did it happened over a month or even a year? Nope. It's been happening over decades.

Schools have gone from teaching critical thinking skills to teaching "Critical Race Theory". Some of these same schools are now encouraging "gender selection" by kids who barely know what "gender" means! Worse still is that the parents don't even have to be notified. Schools and libraries are trying to ban certain American classics such as "Huckleberry Finn", "Tom Sawyer" , "1984" and "Animal Farm", "Of Mice and Men", "To Kill a Mockingbird", and "A Farewell to Arms" . Even "Little Riding Hood" and Anne Frank's "Diary of a Young Girl" have fallen to censors!

Meanwhile, liberals claim that books about race (especially those placing certain racial minorities in a positive light), history books offering a different perspective of events, as well as books about sexual orientation and gender are being banned by schools and libraries at the same rate.

This, of course, raises the question as to where books should be banned at all? Perhaps we should go back to the age specific criteria for children is strictly enforced just as all decisions made about students should involve the parent.  After all, isn't the ultimate objective to encourage kids to read, develop their critical thinking skills, expand their intellectual horizons and help make them responsible citizens?

People are expected (and in some places, mandated by law) to play along with other people's fantasies by referring to a biological male  who "identifies" as a female as "she/her" or by female who believes they're a male as "he/him". Even more oddly, some don't even want to be referred by a gender specific pronoun since they're "gender fluid" and want to be known as "them/they", but it gets weirder.

There are those individuals who "self-identify" as animals---dogs, cats, whatever---and they want to be treated that way. Some even show up in school dressed as the animal of their delusion...err..choice... and wants act, be talked to, and even fed from a bowl at lunch  (I wonder if they go outside to the restroom, sniff other people's butts, or if they've figured out how to lick their privates yet?).  

Anyway,  I don't care who or what someone believes that are, although much of this I believe is a cry of attention or simply a mental illness. It's really none of my business, but why must I have to reinforce their self-delusion and play along? What about my moral compass?

In the long run, all the corporate state cares about are workers just smart enough to do their jobs, but not smart enough to challenge their authority, and certainly not individuals who think for themselves. Those people are dangerous.

If we're are pitted against each other, then we won't be paying attention to what they're doing. In a short order, the mask will slip and then drop completely and you can bet they won't bother even asking for our support or anything else.   They will demand and you will comply.

In that same instant, when they finally stop pretending to care about rising gas and food prices, the environment, unemployment, high taxes, or having an open border, you will have to decide for yourself, for your family, and for grandchildren yet unborn if it's better to stand on your feet and take a unmovable stand as a free man or women to fight for democracy and a return of our Republic, or to live forever on your knees having never knowing freedom ever again.  Remember, no decision is still a decision by default. But for those who come after you, it will be far too late. The decision will have already been made for them by your inaction.

As  Dr. Klaus Schwab of the globally powerful and influential World Economic Forum recently said, when speaking about the WEF's "Great Reset Initiative", that "you will own nothing and be happy". Another aspect of the "Great Reset" is to create a more "sustainable planet" by promoting greater economic deregulation of businesses, and in particular large transnational corporations (of the corporatocracy type) and  giving them a greater role in global governance "at the expense of government".  Does that sound like "socialism" or "Communism"? Not to me. In fact, it's almost the textbook definition of fascism.

There's no question that America has slipped into a corporatocracy under the leadership of a group of mega-rich oligarchs. They thrive on creating chaos and promising us order. Their sole goal is control, be it assets, resources, or us as their economic serfs, forever chained to debt. Our "worth" determined by our credit rating and to afraid to speak up for ourselves for fear of losing our jobs.  A roadmap is already being laid out for us and those who follow who will "own nothing and be happy". Will you willingly go down that road or will you fight to preserve our democracy and for a return of our Republic? We have to get this right the first time.  

 

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!

 

Dept of Labor: Summary of Major Laws of the Department ofLabor

The Sinclair Lewis Society

World Economic Forum

openDemocracy: Conspiracy theories aside, there's something fishy about the Great Reset

Great Reset

25 of America's most unexpectedly banned books

Independent Party ID Tied for High; Democratic Party for NewLow

 

The War in Afghanistan: Who Benefited? Who Didn't?

Here's something you likely won't hear from the corporate media. Although we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, we left it largely the same way we found it---backwards, corrupt, and in the hands of the Taliban. So, who benefited and who didn't?

We were told that the ones responsible for 9/11 were in Afghanistan, and the Taliban run government was aiding and abiding them. Well, that was true...to a point. U.S. and Western intelligence identified Osama bin Laden as the mastermind, which was likely. This son of a wealthy and well connected Saudi family had previously "declared war" on the United States, although no one seemed to notice or care.

Al Qaeda launched several attacks on U.S. and Western targets, mostly in Africa and low security targets in Europe such as a disco in Berlin which was frequented by American servicemen and women. When that failed to adequately get our attention, he changed tactics. This time he focused on a high profile target in the United States---the Twin Towers

Bin Laden recruited 15 fellow Saudis, 2 from the UAR, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt for the mission, and sent them off into the belly of "the Great Satan" where our overconfidence became their best weapon. It's also where 2,996 innocent people going about their daily business people died. In their place, a blind and deaf patriotism was born along with about a dozen conspiracy theories (by the way, that just because it's called a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean it isn't true).

Saved from a failing presidency, George "Dubya" Bush went from an approval rating low somewhere in the subterranean sewers of Washington DC to calls for another face to be added to Mt. Rushmore. In all the vengeful anger and patriotic fever of the moment, we allowed the so-called "Patriot Act" to take hold; a document about as "patriotic" as the Enabling Act of 1933 following the Reichstag Fire (and just as spontaneous too).

Over the next 20 years the United States and its aid dependent allies delivered Hell from above and below. An estimated 243,000 Afghani and Pakistanis died as death was delivered with UPS efficiency from above and below. 70,000 men, women and children died as a direct result. The bad guys lost at least 53,000, but that's only a guess. Apparently "holy warriors" don't keep statistics, or at least make them public.

On the other side, U.S. and coalition forces lost at least 70,600 with about 22,773 wounded. 2,356 of these were America's future. God only knows how many bear scars you can't see.  Of the 70,600 total, 65,596 were part of the Afghan Security Forces, with an additional 16,500 wounded.

By comparisons, Russia lost over 15,000 of its sons and daughters during the course of its 10 year war in Afghanistan with thousands more wounded. Russian military personnel managed to kill an estimated 90,000 Mujahedeen fighters which were heavily supported by the U.S., (it's said this was partly in revenge for Soviet support of the NVA and Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Knowing the NeoCons, it probably was).

At the same time, over one million Afghan civilians were killed, not including those killed in the subsequent civil war which followed the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 though the takeover by the Taliban in 1996.

Not to be outdone by the Western "crusaders", the Taliban is believed to have destroyed approximately $500 million dollars worth if infrastructure affecting 13 million people in 116 districts. It left 92% of population "food insecure" and some 3 million children facing severe malnutrition. Take that infidels! 

Just since our withdrawal in May 2021, some 400+ has been murdered by the Taliban (is it still "murder" if the Taliban claims it was acting on orders from God? Guess to the dead or their families it doesn't really matter does it?). Of course, there's always the billions in U.S. military equipment left behind which suddenly made the Taliban the fifth largest military in the world. Who should the Taliban thank for that little "gift"?

Ironically, despite the majority of Americans demanding an end to war in Afghanistan (54%) by 2021, nearly half---46%--- now believe the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban's new and improved "We-Say-So" government represents a threat to U.S. national security.  Ah the fickle masses!

Meanwhile, women are being regulated back to their pre-infidel invasion third class status as school for women and girls is cancelled and women are fired from their jobs. Those who own businesses face closure. Those who speak out risk public beatings, acid thrown in their faces, or stoning to death. If only the Taliban could reach the same level of  Iran's enlightenment (sarcasm intended).

What about the American People? Aside for the deaths and injuries whose cost are beyond measure, most don't realize that our 20 year long fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq was paid for solely on credit. Can you guess who is picking up the tab? 

Best estimates put the damage to U.S. taxpayers at around $2.2 trillion dollars (or $300 million per day). With interest, some estimates put the cost at $6.2 trillion dollars by 2050 (good luck with that Millennials and Gen Z). You might be interested to know that during the Korean War, President Harry Truman temporarily raised the top end tax rate on the rich to 92%. During Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson raised it to 77%. So what did ole "Dubya" do? President George Bush lowered the tax rate on America's richest to 8%.

So, who benefited from the 20 years we spent in Afghanistan? Well, it's hard to say. The Afghani people certainly didn't. They suffered mightily under the Soviet invasion and its nine year occupation. They suffered under the Taliban's occupation.

America's invasion and occupation was almost as bad, except there was a measure of gender equality while we were there.  Women and girls could go to school. They could work, own property, and do other things females get to do in the modern world; you know, like they were ordinary people and stuff

In addition, women and other Afghanis could also freely vote, although the Taliban and other Islamic extremists did their best to try and prevent it. Nevertheless, there was a measure of democratic freedom which is rare in the Middle East.  Unfortunately after we left (or rather, as we left), democracy came to quick end and the 10th Century returned in all its ugliness as the Taliban picked up where it left off.

The American People didn't really benefit. Sure, we were given a target to vent our anger on following the cowardly attacks of 9/11. But along the way, we were betrayed by some of our regional "allies" (I'm talking about Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency and its Prime Minister, Imran Khan) and various tribal chiefs (most had to be bribed to show any measure of loyalty).

We could have had bin Laden and many more of his key commanders much sooner had those in Imran Khan's government not help finance, arm, train, hide, and provide intelligence to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which would have saved a lot of innocent lives on all sides. It's a shame how some individuals put their greed for personal power and wealth before the wellbeing of their own people. But, at the same time it exposes their moral weakness for all the world to see.

While extracting our revenge, we failed to notice the underhandedness happening here at home. Sure, we came together as a people. We closed ranks. We hung out flags.We cheered at the playing of our national anthem. Patriotism was back in vogue again. We hadn't been this united since December 8, 1941, the day after another cowardly attack which caught us with our pants down and our cockiness up.

Perhaps it was this unity which concerned certain individuals and groups. After all, a united America was something they didn't want. They had spent lots of time, effort, and money to keep Americans divided. After all, divided, frustrated, and confused was how to control us. United and we were suddenly dangerous. United and we just might focus our manufactured anger away from each other and on those who sought to destroy our Republic and turn it into a neo-fascist corporatocracy.

So, without even completely reading it, a document that had been drafted primarily by corporate lobbyists was rushed through Congress and passed. It was given a euphemistically optimistic sounding name of "the Patriot Act" as if questioning what it was or what was in it was somehow unpatriotic.  A few lone voices in the political wilderness tried to warn us but were quickly silenced. The surveillance state was born.

The "Patriot Act" effectively declared a never-ending war based on a loosely defined term--- "terrorism" where rights for individuals cease to exist under the pretext of national security. Gone too were all the usual checks and balances we've come to expect such as accountability, limits on search and seizure or judicial oversight.

The enemy was now whoever the State said it was. Those arrested under "FISA" can essentially disappear. Under "FISA" you have the right to absolutely nothing whatsoever. It combined all the elements of McCarthyism's "Red Scare" with aspects of the KGB's early morning knocks on the doors and George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984". 

Obviously, the American People didn't benefit, so again, who did?  Wall Street benefited. The Pentagon spent $14 trillion dollars, with roughly half that going to defense contractors (according to one report, since 2001, payments made to defense contractors have risen 164%). The majority of money spent went to just five corporations---Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, and Boeing, but other companies such as General Electric and Halburton made out alright too.  

Thanks to our new "surveillance state", spy agencies saw their budgets balloon, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Security Agency (NSA), as well as the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Agency (NRC), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), along with the various intelligence arms of the various U.S. military branches. Naturally, off the book budgets, the so-called "black budgets", likely were increased. Much of this was used to fund various covert research/development and operations carried out by "independent" contractors. 

Meanwhile, Congress and other government officials benefited. Defense contractors reportedly spent over $2.5 billion dollars over the past 20 years and employed over 700 lobbyists. On average, members of Congress had three lobbyists each just from Defense industry. We the People had none. This is the "free speech" Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) talks about when defending Citizens United.

So, if you want to know who benefited from our 20 year venture in Afghanistan and Iraq, now you know. It wasn't the Afghani People or the American People. The ones who benefited from the war which claimed tens of thousands killed or wounded, and billions of dollars in destruction were defense contractors and their de facto "employees" in Congress. This is just one relatively small example of the power and control Wall Street has over government. 

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out 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 anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Timeline: Major attacks by al Qaeda

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks

Taliban Destroyed, Damaged Infrastructure in 116 Districts:IARCS

A year later, a look back at public opinion about the U.S.military exit from Afghanistan

The cost of the Afghanistan war, in lives and dollars

CFR: Pakistan's Support For the Taliban: What To Know

ACLU: Surveillance under the USA/Patriot Act

Watson Institute: Costs of War

 

Are We Still the "Land of the Free"?

America. Land of the free and the home of the brave. We've heard that refrain since we were children. There is no doubt that America is the home of the brave. We have one of the strongest militaries in the world, if not the strongest. We're not the largest, at least not in terms of manpower. That honor belongs to the China. We don't have the largest armor or mechanized military either. That goes to the Russians.

However, we do the best trained, best equipped, and most technologically advanced military in the world. We have the most powerful naval and air capability of any country, and while we don't have the most ground troops, if you were to include all those citizens who've decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights, I would argue that we are the best defended country in the world bar none! But what about "land of the free"? Just how "free" are we really?

Here we are, in the first quarter of the 21st Century, and as Americans we find ourselves being challenged on multiple fronts when it comes to our freedoms. We have those who are aggressively trying to curtail our right to own and use guns, be it for hunting, sport, or self defense. There are those who would restrict our right to free speech and freedom of expression as being inflammatory.

Thanks in large part to the events following 9/11 and the passage of the so-called "Patriot Act", our freedom of movement has been restricted as has our right to individual privacy. What's worse is that not only does the government monitor every electronic keystroke or word spoken, even corporations routinely spy on us. Of course too, corporations are now regarded as "people" with not just the same rights as flesh and blood human beings, but actually greater rights, especially when it comes to "free speech" which has been equated with money, and their "right" to donate nearly unlimited amounts of money to parties and candidates while we remain all but muted.

The result is that corporations can literally buy and control parties, candidates, and the entire electoral process, which is exactly what has happened. America is, as everyone should know by now, an Oligarchy; a neo fascist partnership between government and Big Business. We are left with the illusion of choice along with corporate controlled media---the modern equivalent to the Ancient Roman "bread and circuses"---to distract us.

The Oligarchy is not limited to America. It is nearly global in its scope (as one would expect of multinational corporations). How do we stack up against other countries when it comes to the various measurements of freedom? Where are in terms of education, income or healthcare? Can we still claim the title of "land of the free"? The first thing we need to understand is that America is not the largest "democracy", at least in terms of population. That distinction belongs to India, whose government is based on the British model (as are all other democracies in the world). The United States has a population of about 327.2 million people while India's population is roughly 1.337 billion (as an aside, Mexico, which is also a democracy, has a population of 129.2 million, making it one of the largest democracies in the world as well). Not what you expected I bet.

So, how do we stack in terms of overall freedom? Well, according to the World Population Review edition for 2019, the freest nation in the world is New Zealand. The "Kiwis" scored the highest across the board, which looked at personal, economic, and "Human Freedom" which includes incarceration, poverty, crime, etc. Next up were the Swiss, followed by Hong Kong, Australia and Canada. Denmark and the Netherlands were tied in sixth place, Ireland and the UK were tied in eighth place. Taiwan was tied with Norway in the tenth spot. In fact, we didn't even make it into the top 15. The U.S. came in 18th place, tied with the Swedes but ahead of the island nation of Malta.

To be fair, I looked at another report to get a better gage at where we stand. After all, how could the "land of free" be in 18th place? So I reviewed the Heritage Report of Economic Freedom for 2019. The U.S. did a little better, at least in part. We came in 12th place. The freest nations in terms of economics belonged to Asia with Hong Kong and Singapore taking the top two spots followed by New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia. Ahead of us came the UK, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, and Iceland. A key component in today's global economy is technology, so how did we do?

The U.S. News and World Report listed the top ten nations in terms of technology based on R&D, patients, and innovation (all of which, of course, tie into education which we'll look at shortly). In tenth place was Sweden. Next came Switzerland with Russia in eighth place. The seventh spot went to Singapore then the UK. Germany was fifth, just behind the Chinese. South Korea took third place. The United States got the silver medal with second place. Who got first place in technology? That went, perhaps not unexpectedly, to Japan. How about education?

A nation's success is closely tied to its quality of education. Unfortunately, the United States wasn't just number one or even number two, but we didn't even make it into the top ten. According to the World Population Review for 2019, the U.S. is ranked over all 24th place, just behind France and ahead of Hungary. The top spot went to China, followed by Hong Kong and Finland. Other countries ahead of us included Australia, all of the Scandinavian nations (excluding Sweden), Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, Germany, Canada, Slovakia, Estonia, and Poland. Among scores in reading, math, and science, we were near the bottom of the industrialized nations.

Issues such as poverty and nutrition are major factors affecting education, as are other issues such as crime and a stable home life. So, I turned my attention to those to see if they could affect our low rankings. According to a 2017 report by Quartz, America has the second highest poverty rate of any industrialized country, just behind Israel and ahead of countries like Spain, Greece (with its massive "migrant" problem), and Italy. The report went on to look at other factors like gender equality, obesity, renewable energy development, employment and infrastructure which I found interesting.

For the U.S., this was pretty much a mixed bag. In terms of obesity, which is partly a product of poor food choices, food availability, and nutritional education, we finally ranked number one...sort of. We were ranked as the most obese nation among industrialized nation with 36.4% of the country overweight, beating out New Zealand , Hungary, and Australia. Of course, obesity greatly affect your health and life expectancy. Again we were number one in terms of amount spent per person on healthcare at around $9,500 compared to Germany which spends about $6,200 per individual.

In terms of healthcare, the U.S. has the least number of available hospital beds (which, by extension, translates to access to overall care). While we had 2.9 beds available per 1000, France had 6.2 while Germany had 8.2. South Korea had 11.7 while Japan had 13.2. When it comes to life expediency, we are again at the bottom of the list of industrialized nation. The average life expediency for Americans was 78.8 years while for every other country on the list it was in 80's. In Israel, it was 82.2 years. In Italy it was 83.3 years, and in Japan, which tops the list, it was 83.7 years.

When we look at gender equality, the U.S. ranked last with the number of women serving on corporate boards of directors (including that of president and/or CEO) with an average of 16.2% On the other end was Iceland with 44%. Norway had 41% and France had 37%. Denmark, Germany, the UK and Belgium all had 27%.

In terms of energy, Americans have full access 24/7/364, despite an ageing, and in many cases, outdated electrical grid. However, what we don't have is access to renewable energy. Not only are we dead last, even Europe and Central Asia ranked higher than us (12% compared to 24.3%). The world, on average, gets 20.9% of its energy output from renewable sources. With respect to our infrastructure (roads and highways, bridges, sewers, etc), we again ranked last. On average, just 0.6% of our GDP was invested in repairing and/or updating our existing infrastructure. Australia, on the other hand, invested 1.9% of its GDP. Canada invested 1% of its GDP as did South Korea, Japan and France.

Another important factor to consider when looking at a nation's overall wellbeing is how affluent that country is. We've heard a lot about income inequality in the U.S., but just how bad is it really? According to the World Economic Forum, it's pretty bad. In fact, it's actually worse than we know. Despite America's overall prosperity, that wealth doesn't extend down to everyone. The WEF reported that of the top 30 industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked toward the bottom in income equality; 23rd to exact. It's wasn't just wages paid in which the U.S. lagged, but also in terms of its social safety net.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, CEOs, Presidents, and senior officers earn, on average, 271 times the salary of the average employee, not including perks (it's been as high as 299 times back in 2014. In 1978 it was "just" 30 times). The Middle Class, which was once the backbone of the nation, is now a mere shadow of its former self. In its place, we now have a poor/working poor/treading water divide and yet it still shoulders the bulk of the nation's taxes.

The WEF also reported that the U.S. performed worse of all 30 industrialized nation when it came to "inclusion development index" which includes age, health, gender, poverty, sustainability, and distribution of income. It also reported that the top 1% took home 26.3% more income as the entire remaining 99%. The Middle Class has seen a paltry 7% growth in income since 1995. In fact, the top 1% control over 40% of America's wealth while the richest 10% controls a whopping 70% of the nation's wealth.

An interesting side note is that the U.S. has among the lowest number of organized workers among industrialized nations, at just 10.6% of the total workforce. Only South Korea and Turkey ranked lower. The highest was Iceland with 91.8%. Canada and Ireland have 26.5% while the UK has 24.7%. Germany's union membership is 17.7% while Japan's is 17.4%. Quite obviously we need to do more to protect workers and small business owners. They have traditionally been the Middle Class of this country.

All in all, it certainly appears that we have some serious problems. With the recent rise in stifling free speech of some groups but not others by Far Left groups as well as the media (including social media platforms), attempts to restrict or prohibit gun ownership, monitor our movement, as well as the constant attacks on our privacy, we are in a bad place as a nation.

Discussions of "silent coups" and "character assassinations" (or even actual politically motivated murders), once the domain of the lunatic fridge just a few decades ago, is now commonplace. Distrust of the government, the political duopoly, and media are now seen as reasonable. The usurpation of our democratic republic by an Oligarchy is accepted as a fait accompli with a collective shrug. I seriously doubt our Founding Fathers would be proud of this nation if they could see it now. Not so much for how far we've fallen from what they had hoped for us as for our complacency; our apathy.


World Population Review: Education Ranking by Country 2019


World Population Review: Freest Counties 2019

Heritage Foundation: 2019 Index of Economic Freedom

Top Ten Countries for Technological Expertise

Forbes: Which Countries Have the Highest Levels of Labor Union Membership?

The richest 10% of households now represent 70% of all U.S. wealth

Replacing Your Driver License With A National ID Card: The Day of Big Brother Has Arrived

"Ihre Ausweise bitte"! These were once words that could make the bravest man or women tremble in fear, for they were the words used by Nazi Germany's feared Gestapo, or secret security police. Often, ordinary Germans and others under German occupation, would be randomly stopped and ordered to produce their identification papers. These papers were required from anyone at any time, but mainly when traveling. It appears that many of us may soon be hearing the English equivalent soon, and for those without their proper "identification papers", prohibited from traveling by plane, bus, or train anywhere where we would cross state lines.

It appears that there are several states which are non-compliant with recent changes brought about by Homeland Security (which I usually call "Reich Security", which as you'll read shortly, may be a better description). Beginning on January 22, 2018, individuals from nine states will be prohibited from traveling across state lines with their photo driver's license as their only form of ID. Residents from Oregon, Maine, Montana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, and Pennsylvania will be required to produce a second form of photo ID to pass new security measures being implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is overseen by Homeland Security.

According to TSA officials, this second form of identification can be a military (or VA) photo ID, passport, or permanent resident card with a photo. The reason, we are told, is the result of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which requires that all federal agencies must comply by only accepting photo identification which meet specific minimal requirements established by the ACT. Those requirements include have a color photo of the individual; the incorporation of "anti-counterfeit" technology onto the card which would prevent any alterations to the card, and a background check on everyone issued one of these "enhanced" driver's licenses. I guess we should be grateful we're not required to pee in a cup or submit a DNA cheek swab! In short, you're freedom to travel is being restricted; not so differently than the way totalitarian governments have been doing it.

Many of us "oldsters" remember a America where freedom could be defined by our ability to travel anywhere we wanted to anytime we wanted. It was touted in just about every bus, car, train, or airline commercial or in countless magazines. It was one of those selling points the US used to publicize to the world, especially those behind the Iron Curtain. Well, apparently not anymore. According to the change, those in the nine "non-compliant" states will not be immediately affect (the remaining 24 states plus Washington DC are currently compliant), although TSA recommends residents obtain a passport in case they intend to travel before their state legislatures pass appropriate legislation. However, their respective states must be brought into compliance by 2020 (maybe we'll get "lucky" and we can simply have chips implanted which can be updated on a regular basis as needed). So, just what is the REAL Act of 2005 anyway?

The 2005 REAL ID Act was passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, as well as other domestic terror attacks in order to provide a more enhanced and secure form of personal ID than a simple state identification card or a driver license. These new ID cards must include the individual's photo, full legal name, current physical address, gender (which is going to be interesting in California), date of birth, license number, bar code, and signature. It will also include, height, weight, disability and veteran status. They must also be tamperproof. New applicants will also have to provide proof of citizenship, legal authorization (ie: a "green" card), or a birth certificate, along with a second form of ID which includes a photo , full legal name, and date of birth. Finally, the REAL Act requires that all states must share its database of licensed drivers with all other states, as well as federal agencies (hence the reason these new ID cards are being called "National ID" cards).

I can't help but think of the Enabling Act of 1933. For those of you unfamiliar with the Enabling Act, this was piece of legislation was enacted shortly after the election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 following the burning of the Reichstag (the Reichstag is the German version of Parliament or Capitol Hill). The newly elected Nazi government declared that the fire, which nearly totally destroyed the Reichstag, was the result of Communist backed terrorism (by sheer dumb luck, a mentally unstable young man by the name of Marinus van der Lubbe was found wandering through the rubble, identified himself as both a Communist and a Jew, "confessed" to the deed). As a result, the Enabling Act was hastily passed to clamp down on all those deemed as possible terrorists or sympathizers, as well as those deemed "enemies of the state".

Thus began the building of "detainee" camps for "re-education" and "rehabilitation" which, of course, ultimately became concentration camps. Initially this included common criminals, prostitutes, junkies and drug dealers, drunks, gays, as well as opponents of Nazism such certain members of the clergy, political activists such as those who were anti-Nazis or pro-democracy, and union leaders. In short order, it expanded to include Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and so forth. It would end with Slavs, Jews, and Gypsies. Instead of rehabilitation, there was extermination.

Obviously I'm not saying anything like that could or would happen here (at least since our imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941). However, it was out of the Enabling Act that arose the Gestapo and that dreaded phrase, " Ihre Ausweise bitte"---"Your identification papers please" . It also gave certain Reich agencies the right to detain, arrest, and hold individuals without charges for an undetermined time at their discretion. Even next of kin need not be notified. Sound familiar? It reminds me a lot of the Patriot Act out of which came the REAL ID Act.

For those of you who think I may be "over reacting", I can understand that. However, I assure you that I'm not. I'm simply pointing out similarities, and explaining what this REAL ID Act will mean for not just the traveling public, but for all of us since it will be a de facto national identification card. I was only half joking when I said earlier that I was surprised that it didn't require that we provide a sample of our DNA! In truth, I fully expect it will come with a tracking devise implanted or encoded in it, and why not? Our smart phones do. Our cars do, along with other electronic items. Why wouldn't this too not come with tracking technology? Of course some believe, and perhaps rightly so, that this type of technology combined with a National ID card will not only cut down on the possible terror attacks, but also make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to arrive and stay in the US.

There is already serious talk from the business and technology communities about microchip implanting. In fact, some companies have already begun the process. As usual, it started as being purely voluntary. Those who stepped up first got something trivial like a coffee cup or day off (as an aside, studies have shown that Millennials have shown a willingness to surrender some private information for these little trinkets). Then, slowly, it became "strongly" suggested and finally a job requirement (similar to the way they did direct deposit I suppose). The data being stored is primarily work related--- name, date of hire, entry access, etc. In time, it will include your complete financial and credit history, as well as your military or criminal records, medical and private information. Maybe even your DNA history will be added; what you're allergic to or what genes you carry that make you susceptible to certain cancers or heart conditions (which obviously could affect your employability since it could impact your cost to the company in days lost and insurance costs). Like it or not. Accept it or not. The day of Big Brother has arrived.




Driver Licenses From Nine States Won't Be Valid IDs for Domestic Flights in 2018



The REAL ID Act: Are You Ready for a National ID?



TSA to stop accepting some states' drivers licenses in 2018

So What Are the Odds? A Look at a Recent Poll on Government Reform, Privacy and Wall Street

It has been said, both on air and in print, that Donald Trump's election as President is proof positive that America is at the very least a "right of center" country now, but is it? A poll done by the (admittedly) liberal leaning Progressive Change Institute seems to claim that America is actually moving toward becoming a democratic socialist nation (whatever that actually means). I've taken a look at the results, and based on the responses, it would appear those surveyed would support measures to take this country to the Left...a lot...but that's far different from saying we are already there. For instance, the poll shows 71% would favor corporate disclosure of all money donated to political campaigns and on lobbying (including "soft" or indirect donations). When broken down by registration, 77% Democrats favor full disclosure while 62% of Republicans did. 77% of Independents, who are the nation's largest voting bloc and growing, support full financial disclosure. So, while it sounds like a "no brainer", bear in mind that corporations actually control the government at all levels, which is why we are now a de facto oligarchy. So, what are the odds of this happening? Not much I'm afraid.

Speaking of money, 58% of those surveyed favored breaking up big banks and other financial institutions, like those responsible for the near total financial collapse, who received taxpayer bailouts over the objections of those same taxpayers thanks to their political lobbying and the "revolving door" between government and Wall Street. So what the odds it won't happen again? A fool's wager. These same money and power brokers were also successful in defeating efforts at enacting financial reforms. In fact, several of the these corporations took the taxpayer bailout and paid themselves multimillion dollar bonuses. Nevertheless, the survey question broke down with 71% of the Democrats favoring the breakup along with 51% of the Republicans and 50% of Independents.
Of note is that when the same question was modified slightly by asking about breaking up financial institutions deemed "too big to fail", the results were a bit different. Slightly less, 55% favored ending "too big to fail" banks and other corporations, which broke down to 61% of Democrats and 60% of Independents. However, only 47% of Republicans supported the idea. I wonder why? Could be their dominance of these boards of directors? So, what are the odds? By the way, on a related question, 67% favored ending the ability of Wall Street and other corporate firms to deduct government fines and penalties from their tax liabilities.

Yelp, you read that right. Breaking the law and getting caught is considered just part of the cost of doing business, and it's tax deductible. As for the breakdown, it was a majority across the board---68% of Independents, 64% of Democrats, and 70% of Republicans agreeing. So, what are the odds of that little loophole being closed? I would say between slim and none. Most of these laws exist to appease various grassroots groups. Since corporate lobbyists usually write these bills outright and submit them to appropriate individual, the wording to bypass its intent is always incorporated into the bills. If not, then a rider is tacked on near the end the legislative process to circumvent any real change. However, should the occasional bill get through, corporations get a "free pass" thanks to loopholes mentioned above which allows them to write off any fines or penalties simply as another expense like any other.

How about this one---ending gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is how political parties (and certain key political players) get to ensure their party (and themselves) keep control of a given district. They do this by periodically redrawing districts to ensure as many of their fellow party members as possible are included. This gives them a statistical advantage come election day, and it's not the Republicans or Democrats responsible for this political version of "numbers racket". Both parties cooperate with each other in the process, especially if this means capping or limiting the growing influence of third parties and Independents. So, who are in favor of ending gerrymandering? According to the poll, 73% of those who responded wanted gerrymandering stopped. Of this, 81% of the Democrats and 70% of the Republicans agreed, along with 67% of Independents. So, what are the odds of both corporate political parties willingly giving up the ability to control or at least strongly influence election outcomes? Remember that power is never willingly given up.

Well, if we can't get corporate money out of politics and we can't end gerrymandering, how about trying to increase voter turnout? One of the questions asked about enacting a Comprehensive Voter Empowerment Act (CVEA) which would make election day a national holiday; perhaps even making it part of a three day weekend and/or making Saturday election day. It would also automatically register everyone as of their 18th birthday (registration would be left blank). The idea is to find ways to increase voter participation. Not unexpectedly, 56% of those surveyed liked the idea of the Comprehensive Voter Empowerment Act. 78% of Democrats favor the CVEA, compared to 50% of Independents. Interestingly, only 38% of Republicans liked the idea. When asked simply about election day being a national holiday and a day off, only 45% overall supported the idea. When broken down, 61% of Democrats still supported the notion. However, 54% of Republicans opposed it along with 46% of Independents.

So, what are the odds of something like this happening? First, you have to understand that while political parties talk about increasing voter turnout, the truth is that they oppose it. Why? Because they are less able to control election outcomes with larger numbers, be it for an issue or candidate. They know approximately how many people they can get out to vote based on a wide variety of factors (popularity of a candidate and voter demographics---which has their own set of factors---not to mention transportation availability and road conditions, weather, "hot topic" issues, etc). They know how many they can expect from their side and from the other side, and how much they have to have from the swing voters. The larger the numbers, the harder the outcome is to manage. Sometimes, when they're unsure of the outcome, political parties will insert "ringers" into the race; be it the opposing side's primary or sometimes into the general election. I know, not only have I've seen it in my nearly 40 years of political experience, I've had it happen to me when I ran for Metro Council. The idea is to draw voter from the stronger candidate by confusing voters through disinformation in order for the handpicked or clique candidate to win.

On the topic of personal privacy (which I strongly support), 71% of the respondents favored restricting what the government (including the NSA, FBI, and other security agencies) and well as the Internet has access to and can collect. In nearly a unanimous response, 71% of both Republicans and Democrats agreed along with 73% of Independents. Let's face it, nobody wants to be spied on. Interestingly, previous polls claim to show that Millennials value privacy the least among the various age groups. Some claim that the under 30 Millennials would willingly surrender practically any piece of personal information in exchange for anything up to or greater than a Subway sandwich coupon.

Personally, I disagree. Millennials are the first totally digital generation. They're use to sharing information. It comes automatically to them. However, I think they are just now becoming aware of the potential damage they are doing to their credit ratings and employment potential, especially as they become more directly integrated into society. So, what are the odds that these socially awkward digitally connected young adults has thought this through? What about all those little wannbe anarchists and radicals we see and hear about? I think they will shortly learn what it means to have an FBI, NSA, Homeland Security file on them, especially when they seek investment capital, apply for grants or loans, passports, and so forth. America is, as I've said before, an Oligarchy, and with that we are increasingly becoming a police or surveillance state. Under the "Patriot Act", ordinary American Citizens can be stopped, searched, questioned, and held on the most flimsy of "probable cause" excuses. They can have their property search and/or seized, not mention their assets frozen. In some cases, they can be held in undisclosed secured locations without the benefit of notifying a loved one, friend, or even a lawyer...indefinitely. Why would anyone willingly give the government and their corporate overlords additional ammo (pun intended)?

The poll included quite a number of other questions, but the responses were mostly all just as interesting. It seems that, at least among the respondents, there was quite a bit of agreement between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Naturally though, we aren't the ones controlling how the government is run. We're just merely the voters. However, if the results of this, and other polls are correct, it appears that if we were in charge things would indeed be quite different. But then, what are the odds?

Want to know more? You can check out the poll at Progressive Change Institute