Puerto Rico

wikipedia.org

Puerto Ricans are by law natural-born citizens of the United States and may move freely between the island and the mainland.^[23] As it is not a state Puerto Rico does not have a vote in the United States Congress, which governs the territory with full jurisdiction under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950. As a U.S. territory, American citizens residing on the island are disenfranchised at the national level and do not vote for president and vice president of the United States.^[24] Congress approved a local constitution, allowing U.S. citizens on the territory to elect a governor. A 2012 referendum showed a majority (54% of those who voted) disagreed with "the present form of territorial status", with full statehood the preferred option among those who voted for a change of status, although a significant number of people did not answer the second question of the referendum.^[25] Another fifth referendum was held on June 11, 2017, with "Statehood" and "Independence/Free Association" initially as the only available choices. At the recommendation of the Department of Justice, an option for the "current territorial status" was added.^[26] The referendum showed an overwhelming support for statehood, with 97.18% voting for it, although the voter turnout had a historically low figure of only 22.99% of the registered voters casting their ballots.

Digital Divide in Rural America - Note for a discussion, E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."

By Deepak Dobhal, VOA [original article contains photographs and a video]

image from article

Central Nebraska

Kathy Starr recalls how, decades ago, her mother-in-law bought a dishwasher, even though her house had no access to electricity. Rural electrification was finally coming, even though for years nay-sayers had said it was economically infeasible.

Seventy years later, Starr awaits another technological marvel to transform rural life - high speed internet.

At present, she has a wireless connection, slow and unreliable. What electricity did for her mother-in-law’s generation, Starr says, broadband internet would "do the same thing for us."

Starr's Cedar Top Ranch, where she lives with her husband, is 8000 hectares nestled in the sparsely populated Sandhills region of Nebraska. Wander across the property, behind a huge shed for farm equipment, and the pervasive quiet of the land is broken by the lively sound of children. Cedar Top is also home to the Starrs' son, Scott, his wife, Raberta, and their nine children, ranging in age from two to 22. All seem to thrive in rural life, but each generation has its own set of grievances about unreliable internet.

For Ashley Starr, 18, it’s about connecting with friends on social media. For eight-year-old AJ, he wants information on how to fix his dirt bike. Scott needs to upload data about their cattle to their website. And Raberta wants to make sure the children get the best education they can.

In the village of Tryon, the closest populated area to Cedar Top Ranch, resident John Broyant doesn't go online. If he has a question, he asks his grandchildren for help. “I'm the CEO of the family and I don’t want to bother myself with the internet,” says Broyant, sitting in the courthouse in Tryon, where the Starr children go to school.

However, as a county commissioner, he's keenly aware that broadband is linked to the county’s survival. He loves the Sandhills way of life, but is practical about change. “If you are going to go forth into the future, you’ve got to keep up with the technologies. Otherwise," he says, "you're going to get lost."

McPherson county, which boasted nearly 2500 residents a century ago, has less than 500 people today. Tryon, it's largest village, has less than 100 now, and not even a grocery store.

About 150 kilometers east of Cedar Top Ranch is the small town of Broken Bow, in Custer County, Nebraska. Unlike many of its counterparts, the town is thriving, attracting new, diverse residents and investment. Melissa Garcia, past president of the Custer Economic Development Council, says access to fast speed internet played a huge role in the town's revival.

Broken Bow 's internet capacity also allows for residents to telecommute to companies around the country, while taking advantage of the low cost of rural and small town living.

"We've got connectivity at the level where they can be in a basement seven miles from town and still working," Garcia says.

Broken Bow attracted more than $300 million worth of capital investment in the last five years, a sharp contrast to the waning fortunes of small towns across America.

As businesses thrive, a secondary economy grows as well. Cynthia Huhman, a radio announcer, also works as a social media marketing consultant.

"If we're not giving (our children) opportunities to experience 21st century skills and problem solving using that, then all we are doing is holding them back."
- Melissa Garcia, who returned to her hometown to raise her family.

Connected with the world, Broken Bow resident Kenna McCaslin stays true to the traditions of Western rodeo. Some fear access to high speed internet could disrupt a way of life. Kenna's mother, Anne McCaslin, disagrees. "It's how you use the internet that's important," she says, echoing parental concerns everywhere.

In the coming months, the metaphoric road between Cedar Top Ranch and Broken Bow - indeed, the rest of the world - is set to shrink. Below are the men who are ushering in a new era [video of the men].

Poll: Despite Political Divisions, Americans Still Love America - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."

voanews.com

Image from article, with caption: "Participants carry an American flag during the 4th of July parade in Santa Monica, California, July 4, 2017."

Political divisions run deep in America, but most Americans would not choose to live anywhere else, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey of social trends showed wide-ranging divisions between Americans on issues like culture, the economy and the future of the nation, but most people agreed on one thing: America is a decent place to live.

According to the poll, 28 percent of respondents called America the single best place to live in the world, while another 54 percent said America was among the few best places to live or above average. Eighteen percent of those polled called America average or below average.

More than one third, 35 percent, of poll respondents said they feel confident that life will be better for their children than it was for them; a level not seen since 2001, when 49 percent said they felt confident. The last time the question was asked, in 2014, 21 percent said they felt confident.

Fifty-seven percent of people said the economy in their area was either good or excellent, while 30 percent said it was fair. Thirteen percent called the economy in their area poor.

Political divisions growing

While the poll shows Americans are largely optimistic about the country's future, the results indicate political divisions are growing and are not confined solely to policy concerns.

An overwhelming majority of those asked called America either totally divided (21 percent) or mainly divided (59 percent), while 20 percent called the country either mainly united or totally united.

Issues like gun control show a clear split between the two ends of the ideological spectrum. According to the poll, 77 percent of Republicans say they are concerned the government would go too far in restricting gun rights, while 18 percent worried the government would not do enough. Democrats showed almost the exact opposite opinion; 24 percent to 71 percent respectively.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said immigration strengthens the country, while 28 percent said it weakens the United States.

The results show a shift in sentiment from 2005 when the same question was asked and 41 percent agreed that immigration strengthens the United States, while 28 percent said it hurt.

The change in sentiment is due almost wholly to a shift among Democrats. In 2005, 45 percent of Democrats said immigration strengthened the country. In 2017, that number jumped to 81 percent.

According to the poll, 55 percent of respondents said they are comfortable with societal changes that have made America a more diverse country, while 24 percent said the changes have made them uneasy.

These numbers also show a direct link to partisanship. More than 75 percent of Democrats said they felt comfortable with the changes, but less than one-third of Republicans agreed.

The poll surveyed 1,200 people from August 5-9. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 2.82 percentage points.

The new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey of social trends showed wide-ranging divisions between Americans on issues like culture, the economy and the future of the nation, but most people agreed on one thing: America is a decent place to live.

According to the poll, 28 percent of respondents called America the single best place to live in the world, while another 54 percent said America was among the few best places to live or above average. Eighteen percent of those polled called America average or below average.

More than one third, 35 percent, of poll respondents said they feel confident that life will be better for their children than it was for them; a level not seen since 2001, when 49 percent said they felt confident. The last time the question was asked, in 2014, 21 percent said they felt confident.

Fifty-seven percent of people said the economy in their area was either good or excellent, while 30 percent said it was fair. Thirteen percent called the economy in their area poor.

FILE - An employee works on a factory floor at a Stihl Inc. production plant in Virginia Beach, Va, May 25, 2017.

Political divisions growing

While the poll shows Americans are largely optimistic about the country's future, the results indicate political divisions are growing and are not confined solely to policy concerns. 

An overwhelming majority of those asked called America either totally divided (21 percent) or mainly divided (59 percent), while 20 percent called the country either mainly united or totally united.

FILE - Protesters yell after Phoenix police used tear gas outside the Phoenix Convention Center, Aug. 22, 2017, in Phoenix. Protests were held against President Donald Trump as he hosted a rally inside the convention center.

Issues like gun control show a clear split between the two ends of the ideological spectrum. According to the poll, 77 percent of Republicans say they are concerned the government would go too far in restricting gun rights, while 18 percent worried the government would not do enough. Democrats showed almost the exact opposite opinion; 24 percent to 71 percent respectively.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said immigration strengthens the country, while 28 percent said it weakens the United States.

Diego Rios, 23, of Rockville, Md., rallies in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program outside of the White House, in Washington, Sept. 5, 2017.

The results show a shift in sentiment from 2005 when the same question was asked and 41 percent agreed that immigration strengthens the United States, while 28 percent said it hurt.

The change in sentiment is due almost wholly to a shift among Democrats. In 2005, 45 percent of Democrats said immigration strengthened the country. In 2017, that number jumped to 81 percent.

According to the poll, 55 percent of respondents said they are comfortable with societal changes that have made America a more diverse country, while 24 percent said the changes have made them uneasy.

These numbers also show a direct link to partisanship. More than 75 percent of Democrats said they felt comfortable with the changes, but less than one-third of Republicans agreed.

The poll surveyed 1,200 people from August 5-9. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 2.82 percentage points.

"The only articulate creatures in America today are barking dogs."

image from

Such is the utterance, by a person of a certain age, speaking, sotto voce, next to another person of a certain age in a Washington, D.C. metro.

Which got me thinkin':

The spoken language in America has degraded to the point that few members of any generation in The Land of the Free can complete a sentence without muttering the verbal tic "like."

Why?

Maybe it's because we Americans, living in an era/area/error/terror increasingly "controlled" by "precise" communications -- via computers, etc. -- psychologically need a vocal-chord breathing space where we can be "spontaneous" and "imprecise."

Like, you know what I mean?

Is it not ironic, however, that in our effort to find our "free language space," we New Worlders use a meaningless term (yes, "like") repeated ad nauseam by our very own "societal controllers" such as Facebook (that seeks your "opinion" with your expressing "like") and financial "expert" analysts on tee-vee (who provide "advice" by expressing their "like" of this-that stock)?

Like, like, like ...

What would Ike has said about all this? :)

image from

The Politicization of Everything - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
Sept. 24, 2017 6:11 p.m. ET

2926 COMMENTS

image (not from article) from

Healthy democracies have ample room for politics but leave a larger space for civil society and culture that unites more than divides. With the politicization of the National Football League and the national anthem, the Divided States of America are exhibiting a very unhealthy level of polarization and mistrust. [JB emphasis]

The progressive forces of identity politics started this poisoning of America’s favorite spectator sport last year by making a hero of Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner” before games. They raised the stakes this year by turning him into a progressive martyr because no team had picked him up to play quarterback after he opted out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers.

The NFL is a meritocracy, and maybe coaches and general managers thought he wasn’t good enough for the divisions he might cause in a locker room or among fans. But the left said it was all about race and class.

All of this is cultural catnip for Donald Trump, who pounced on Friday night at a rally and on the weekend on Twitter with his familiar combination of gut political instinct, rhetorical excess, and ignorance. “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired. He’s fired,’” Mr. Trump said Friday.

No doubt most Americans agree with Mr. Trump that they don’t want their flag disrespected, especially by millionaire athletes. But Mr. Trump never stops at reasonable, and so he called for kneeling players to be fired or suspended, and if the league didn’t comply for fans to “boycott” the NFL.

He also plunged into the debate over head injuries without a speck of knowledge about the latest brain science, claiming that the NFL was “ruining the game” by trying to stop dangerous physical hits. This is the kind of rant you’d hear in a lousy sports bar.

Mr. Trump has managed to unite the players and owners against him, though several owners supported him for President and donated to his inaugural. The owners were almost obliged to defend their sport, even if their complaints that Mr. Trump was “divisive” ignored the divisive acts by Mr. Kaepernick and his media allies that injected politics into football in the first place.

Americans don’t begrudge athletes their free-speech rights—see the popularity of Charles Barkley —but disrespecting the national anthem puts partisanship above a symbol of nationhood that thousands have died for. Players who chose to kneel shouldn’t be surprised that fans around the country booed them on Sunday. This is the patriotic sentiment that they are helping Mr. Trump exploit for what he no doubt thinks is his own political advantage.

American democracy was healthier when politics at the ballpark was limited to fans booing politicians who threw out the first ball—almost as a bipartisan obligation. This showed a healthy skepticism toward the political class. But now the players want to be politicians and use their fame to lecture other Americans, the parsons of the press corps want to make them moral spokesmen, and the President wants to run against the players.

The losers are the millions of Americans who would rather cheer for their teams on Sunday as a respite from work and the other divisions of American life.

Appeared in the September 25, 2017, print edition.

The Abbie Hoffman of the Right: Donald Trump - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."

David Brooks, New York Times

Abbie Hoffman image from

Trump image from

Excerpt:

After World War II the Protestant establishment dominated the high ground of
American culture and politics. That establishment eventually failed. It tolerated
segregation and sexism, led the nation into war in Vietnam and became stultifying.
So in the late 1960s along came a group of provocateurs like Abbie Hoffman,
Jerry Rubin and the rest of the counterculture to upend the Protestant
establishment. People like Hoffman were buffoons, but also masters of political
theater.

They never attracted majority support for their antics, but they didn’t have to.
All they had to do was provoke, offend the crew-cut crowd, generate outrage and set
off a cycle that ripped apart the cultural consensus. [JB emphasis]

The late 1960s were a time of intense cultural conflict, which left a lot of wreckage in
its wake. But eventually a new establishment came into being, which we will call the
meritocratic establishment.

These were the tame heirs to Hoffman and Rubin. They were well educated.
They cut their moral teeth on the civil rights and feminist movements. They
embraced economic, social and moral individualism. They came to dominate the
institutions of American society on both left and right.

Hillary Clinton is part of this more educated cohort. So are parts of the
conservative establishment. ...

This establishment, too, has had its failures. It created an economy that benefits
itself and leaves everybody else out. It led America into war in Iraq and sent the
working class off to fight it. It has developed its own brand of cultural snobbery. Its
media, film and music industries make members of the working class feel invisible
and disrespected.

So in 2016, members of the outraged working class elected their own Abbie
Hoffman as president. Trump is not good at much, but he is wickedly good at
sticking his thumb in the eye of the educated elites. He doesn’t have to build a new
culture, or even attract a majority. He just has to tear down the old one.

That’s exactly what he’s doing. Donald Trump came into a segmenting culture
and he is further tearing apart every fissure. He has a nose for every wound in the
body politic and day after day he sticks a red-hot poker in one wound or another and rips it open.

Day by day Trump is turning us into a nation of different planets. Each planet
feels more righteous about itself and is more isolated from and offended by the other
planets. ...

Of course Donald Trump is a buffoon. Buffoonery is his most effective weapon.
Because of him, a new culture will have to be built, new values promulgated and a
new social fabric will have to be woven, one that brings the different planets back
into relation with one another.

That’s the work of the next 20 years.

***

Abbie Hoffman Was No Donald Trump, Letters to the New York Times
SEPT. 27, 2017

To the Editor:

Re “The Abbie Hoffman of the Right,” by David Brooks (column, Sept. 26):

Calling the late Abbie Hoffman a buffoon and comparing him to President
Trump sullies the reputation of a 1960s activist who was a leader of a youth
movement that changed the course of American history.

Yes, Mr. Hoffman was a master of “political theater,” but he was no buffoon. Mr.
Hoffman took to the streets of a divided America, risking life and limb in opposition
to the Vietnam War, racism and police brutality. He lived a simple, self-sacrificial life
and faced trumped-up charges as a member of the Chicago Eight. What risks for his
beliefs has President Trump taken?

PATRICK O’NEILL, GARNER, N.C

Tyranny of the Minority - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."

Michelle Goldberg, New York Times

Image from article, with caption: A protest in December outside the Pennsylvania Capitol while electors in the Electoral College arrived to cast their votes.

Excerpt:

Our Constitution has always had a small-state bias, but the effects have become
more pronounced as the population discrepancy between the smallest states and the
largest states has grown. “Given contemporary demography, a little bit less than 50
percent of the country lives in 40 of the 50 states,” Sanford Levinson, a
constitutional law scholar at the University of Texas, told me. “Roughly half the
country gets 80 percent of the votes in the Senate, and the other half of the country
gets 20 percent.”

The distortion carries over to the Electoral College, where each state’s number of
electors is determined by the size of its congressional delegation. This would matter
less if the United States weren’t so geographically polarized [JB emphasis]. But 
America is now two countries, eyeing each other across a chasm of distrust and 
contempt. One is urban, diverse and outward-looking. This is the America that’s
growing. The other is white, provincial and culturally revanchist. This is the 
America that’s in charge. ...

I recently had the chance to ask Gov. Jerry Brown of California what might
happen if we have more elections like 2016, where a majority of voters and a
supermajority of Californians are thwarted. Polls already show a third of
Californians favor secession. Could that fringe movement become mainstream?
Brown said it was “not beyond the realm of possibility” that the country could
eventually break apart, even if he doesn’t think it’s likely. ...


Conservatives are often unmoved by complaints that our system is
undemocratic, arguing that America was intended not as a democracy but a republic.
But if this was true at the founding, it’s probably not how most Americans
understand their country today, when “undemocratic” is considered a political
epithet.

Before Trump, there was enough overlap between popular will and electoral
outcome to make the issue largely semantic. Now it’s existential. Certainly, we need
checks on the tyranny of the majority. But what we have now is the tyranny of the
minority. ...