Elementary, My Dear Watson

The CBS show "Elementary" became one of my favorites. I liked how it brought forward Sherlock Holmes to the 21st century. I enjoyed many of the updates they made to the storyline, characters, and mythos of the character. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoyed "Sherlock" on the BBC, and it did pretty much the same work of bringing the characters forward to modern times, but it didn't stretch as far as Elementary did in recasting characters.

The biggest editorial decision Elementary made was to cast Watson as a woman. This led to the second biggest decision they made: to have Watson and Holmes just be friends and colleagues, like in the books, even though the characters were now male and female. Nearly every show on TV with male and female co-leads has a 'will they, won't they' vibe that, in most cases, ruins the show. People start "'shipping" the characters, talking about when they will get together, debating about how it will affect the show (spoiler: almost always negatively), and wondering if they will get married.

What I have constantly wondered is whether a TV show can simply present a heterosexual male and female being close confidants, working together, and having mutual respect for one another. This show finally did it. Through the current episode of season 6, Holmes and Watson simply respect one another's skill sets and intelligence and use their close working relationship to help them confidently delegate tasks. Sometimes Holmes takes more of the lead on a case and sometimes it is Watson. Sometimes one does the grunt work, sometimes both, sometimes the other.

Each has been shown to have a healthy sex life, but not with each other. Sometimes Holmes, due to his quirky behaviors, oversteps a bit into Watson's personal life, but she recognizes it for what it is (he has many personality quirks, bordering on autism) and knows it comes with the territory of being Holmes' friend.

Both characters have shown a 'got your back' attitude toward the other, as well. Each has stood up to both authority and criminals for their partner without hesitation. Both know the other person well enough to know when to lie, to tell the truth, or otherwise to defend the other when accused of something. Each has successfully defended the other against accusations, frame-ups, and possible physical assaults. They have each helped the other to move on from hard and painful life lessons.

I hope that, in the final few episodes remaining before the series is canceled at the end of this season, the writers do not force Holmes and Watson together romantically. I hope that the show remains one of the few to have aired where colleagues can just work well together, regardless of gender. I really liked this show and will miss it.

Addendum

The show was originally going out on a 13 episode order in season 6. However, the network upped that to 21. I hope that the writers don't fill those remaining 8 episodes with some sort of surprise relationship between Watson and Holmes for the series finale. I will admit I've been getting a bit of a vibe from the show that they might. Even if they do, the writers have earned my trust that they could possibly do it in a way that makes sense for, and respects, the characters as they have been presented for the previous five seasons. Here's hoping!

SPOILERS BELOW

One other choice the writers made that I thought was brilliant was introducing Irene Adler ("the Woman"; the one person to have bested Holmes) as also being Moriarty. Arthur Conan Doyle, writing in the era he was, would never have made the male protagonist's main antagonist be a woman, so it was nice of the modern writers to see the similarities between the one person (who wasn't named Moriarty) who beat Holmes and the evil antagonist that Professor Moriarty became and make them one and the same person. Plus, the woman who played Irene Adler in the TV show (Natalie Dormer) was a really good choice.

What's Being Done

Destroy education because uneducated people can't fight back.
Assault wages and savings because poor people can't fight back.
Cripple healthcare (or make it costly) because sick people can't fight back.
Foment racism and division because disorganized people can't fight back.
Assail the mind and senses because tired people can't fight back.
Control the rhetoric because confused people can't fight back.
Change the laws so the people can't fight back.

This is how you change a democracy into an authoritarian regime.

Trump Supporters

Trump supporters supposedly voted for him and continue to support him because he was not a mainstream government guy. He was the "religious" and "moral" choice. He spoke to them.

Yet:
- The religious choice didn't actually go to church (except for his THREE weddings), does not know the Bible, and does not act in a Christian manner.
- The moral choice has never been a moral person, doesn't follow the moral teachings of the Bible, and has done some decidedly amoral and immoral actions both before and since taking office.
- The candidate who 'spoke to them' has since done everything in his power to take money, jobs, healthcare, and voting rights away from those same people.

When a commandment of the Christian Bible says not to commit adultery, every indication is that Trump committed adultery, and these supporters have to take a twisted, convoluted approach to find justification for Trump's actions within the Bible, you've lost. Period. You are proving you aren't a Christian, you are proving that the reasons you claim to have voted for the candidate are false, and you prove that you want to have the things taken from you that he has taken from you.

I guess that is what it comes down to for me in the end-- these people claim to be Christian, claim to support Trump as the Christian candidate, and then act in what any outside observer can only say is a decidedly unChristian way. They aren't really Christians, are they? But Hillary Clinton, who does go to church regularly, does want to help the poor and needy, does want to follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith runs for office, they boo her, ignore her, call her a criminal, and shout her down. Hunh? Obama, who has been a Christian since at least his college years, went to church regularly, and actually had a minor scandal involving the pastor at his Christian church speaking badly about Muslims, is seen as a Muslim terrorist by these people. What? How can you have a scandal where you both ARE and ARE NOT Christian happen during the same election cycle?

And how do they continue to support a guy who takes jobs from them, food off their table, money out of their bank/mattress? I mean, Trump has, so far, proven that he has no clue how the economy works, how government works, and has managed to screw up nearly everything that has been a source of comfort and positivity in these peoples' lives, yet they still continue to support him?

At this point, I have to start questioning anyone who is still a Trump supporter's education level and intelligence. I mean, fool you once, shame on him, but fool you twice, three times, a dozen times, shame on YOU. You must be an idiot.

Fear and Loathing in America

In my experience, most hate and anger stems from fear: fear of the unknown, fear of consequences, fear of loss, fear of something. Lately, Americans and much of the world have been reacting in anger to a lot of different things: homosexuals and homosexuality, dispossessed people/immigrants, change. And I simply don't get why they are so afraid.

President Trump rode to power on a message of fear. He told Americans to fear immigrants, to fear gays, to fear Democrats, to fear change. He promised to do things to stem the fear. He was going to build a big, beautiful wall. He was going to send all the immigrants away. He was going to protect your job in an out-dated and failing industry. He was going to make America look to America first and foremost.

But, as has been proven by the world and by his first year in office so far, none of those things are things to be afraid of so he cannot enact his policies. Immigrants are actually vital to America's growth and continued economic dominance. Why fear immigrants? Immigrants start more companies than any other group of people. In addition, every non-partisan report you can find shows that by embracing immigrants you actually lessen the chances of terrorism. Those immigrants are too busy creating jobs, raising families, trying to fit, and being grateful for being out of the oppressive regime, war, or whatever caused them to flee in the first place to want to commit terrorism. And increasing the vetting process? Creating "extreme vetting"? I'm not sure that is possible. America already has the most stringent process that takes years and numerous background checks and interviews to make it through as it is.

How we treat those immigrants is important, though. If we just dump them in the rural south and expect them to be okay, then we might create home-grown terrorists. If we truly embrace them, however, the sky's the limit for them and for us.

Fearing gay people, transexuals, etc.? There is literally nothing there to fear. They just want to be left alone, to marry and divorce and live their lives just like everyone else. The world won't end, religion will be fine, and people won't see any more overt acts of sexuality that they are uncomfortable with and fear than they do right now. But they get the safety of the law on their side when medical emergencies arise when their loved ones die and other circumstances. All liberties that non-LGBTQ people take for granted now extend to all people. Period. That's a good thing.

The two political parties in America didn't use to fear each other. It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were simply people who had somewhat different priorities. They could sit down and work toward some common, middle ground and reach a consensus. Repubs would put up with a few more dollars going to a social program and the Dems would put up with an easing of regulation here or some more defense spending there. But they didn't fear and hate each other. It was all civil.

Somewhere around the 1990s, that really started to change. And, before Obama took office, the Republican leadership was already saying they would block anything he and the Democrats put forward, even if it was beneficial. So, we had eight years of works projects blocked, eight years of infrastructure proposals blocked, eight years of gridlock and bitterness. Now, with Trump in office, you have someone who can't get anything passed. And, the one thing the Republicans did pass will likely harm America and the very Americans they claim to serve. Why do they fear the common man so much?

What America needs more than anything right now is someone to lead us from a position of love and acceptance. Obama tried, but was blocked by right-wing rhetoric which, even when patently proven false, too many bought into. We need someone like a Reagan or a Clinton, who both made us feel good about being American and who were both able to build bridges between the Democrats and Republicans and get a lot of really good legislation passed. Or someone like a Kennedy, who got both sides of the aisle working together toward incredible achievements. The last thing we need is someone in office who may be unfit for the job, who definitely isn't smart enough for the job, and whose only position is of fear and loathing.

In your own life, look toward your fears and really evaluate them. Why are you afraid? Is there really something there to be afraid of? Can talking it out, researching it, or confronting it help you to move past it and on to something better?

Let's all try to be better. Let's all try to ignore the bombast and rhetoric that surrounds us on a daily basis. Let's all try to talk with people who challenge our beliefs and our assumptions -- and I mean really listen to them -- and see that maybe they aren't so different from us as we previously thought. Maybe then we can realize that we're all in this together, that we can ensure that it all works out, and that there isn't really that much to be afraid of.

Except spiders. Of course I don't include spiders. :-)

#MeToo and Sexual Predatory Behavior

I am concerned about the #MeToo movement and the subsequent firings of a plethora of men in a variety of industries, but mostly in Hollywood. I am concerned that these firings are happening with little to no investigation and, so far, no actual criminal filings or legal proceedings having happened.

I am all for getting abusive, predatory men out of the workspace so that women (and men) can feel safe. I applaud that, actually. But, and this is important, we have a system based on "innocent until proven guilty." I fear that the rush to judgment may cause some good people to lose their jobs with little more than an unfounded accusation of wrongdoing.

When I was in college, I was seeing a girl. We were not officially dating, we didn't go out, and we certainly were not exclusive in any way -- we just hooked up when it was convenient. One day, another girl asked the first girl to introduce her to me, which she did. This other girl and I hit it off very well and became something of an item. The first girl was hurt. I learned later from another friend that she was hurt enough that she told some of the other girls that she was going to go to the Dean and (falsely) accuse me of rape to "get back at" me. Luckily, all the other girls present were my friends, they realized that her doing that was wrong on many levels, and they talked her out of maliciously, and falsely, accusing me.

But, what if they hadn't? Even an unfounded accusation of rape would have likely changed my life forever! When my female friends told me of this, I know I turned all sorts of pale and was scared. Even the accusation without proof or substantiation would have likely ended my college career. That may have changed my entire life's path, my circle of friends, everything from that moment on. And that is just with an accusation. What if I was judged guilty without a hearing/trial and only on one person's (false) statement? Who knows how long and how hard I would have had to fight that accusation. I was very lucky to have such good friends who would stand up for me and talk her out of making a false accusation to simply get back at me for "dumping her."

So, having been on that side of things (or very nearly), I have a unique perspective on the fragility of position and I understand how malicious, unfounded accusations can change everything in an instant. Some of the men being accused today have had long-term rumors of their predatory behavior. Some have even paid financial settlements so that these activities will not come to light. In these circumstances, I agree that firing them is the right, and only, choice. There is existing evidence to show their pattern of behavior and wrongdoing to make this determination and act on it. In my opinion, they should also be charged and go to jail for their acts.

In some cases, however, I'm reading about nothing more than a couple of accusations with little or no substantiation. In some cases, it seems like little or no investigation into the matters has occurred. (I mean, really, is 12 hours enough time to do a full, "thorough" investigation into something that starts as a "she said, he said" situation?) Yet the man is fired and blacklisted immediately. What if some of these women are just jumping on an emotional bandwagon and using it to maliciously, and fallaciously, oust someone they don't like? What if there is no pattern of behavior or corroborating evidence (multiple witnesses, physical evidence like phone calls, emails, notes, etc.)? Do we summarily dismiss a man just because a woman accuses him? If anyone answers yes, then I start to get worried. Not every woman has pure motives and is telling the truth about assault, harassment, or rape. Not every man is a sexual predator, and just like no man should be believed without proof, neither should every woman be believed without some proof/evidence.

Also, what about a person's ability to change? In a few of these cases, I'm reading about accusations that are years, sometimes decades, old. If there are no new accusations, then maybe the man has changed? Maybe he has learned from his behavior and has changed it? Should we be firing and blacklisting someone who two decades ago was a lothario who harassed people but then, through some means, learned the error of his ways and changed? Isn't that a guy whom we want to keep around and maybe hear his perspective on things? Maybe he can shine a unique light on the situation from which other predatory males can learn something? I decry that the man was once this way, but I applaud him for changing, too.

Again, let me state clearly: if there is evidence that a man has committed any sort of harassment, assault, or rape, I want him out. I want him charged with those crimes, I want him to go to jail, and I want him blacklisted. But, please, take the time to fully investigate before simply throwing the man out. While I believe most women would not make up something as serious as a harassment, assault, or rape allegation, the fact that some women would makes me press pause and want to ensure we're all fully informed before blacklisting and ruining the life of anyone. I think we owe them that much, at least.

UPDATE

More quickly than I expected, a report came out that seems to mimic much of what I say here. The Aziz Ansari issue is in that gray area of only 1 person condemning him, and the reports indicating it is much more of a bad sexual encounter where Mr. Ansari either didn't notice or ignored her dislike for where things were going. Is this sexual assault or just a bad date/bad sexual encounter?

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/17/16897440/aziz-ansari-allegations-babe-me-too 

Trump Lies? Really?

I keep seeing posts similar to this in my FB feed:

"In my lifetime have I never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatened to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated." (This is a direct quote pulled from one of the most recent posts on FB.)

Really? "In [your] lifetime"? I guess you must have died before President Obama, eh? Because most of that stuff comes up within milliseconds of a Google search for Obama. Obama was threatened with death often (remember all those effigies burned and hanged? What about those carrying signs saying he should be assassinated? What about Ted Nugent's repeated calls for Obama's death?); slandered (the whole birther movement, among others); ridiculed, lied to, and insulted (too many times and topics to even list here, and most often by the Republican leadership in Congress); Michelle was threatened with rape, death, and racist name calling on a regular basis. For the most part, most people seemed to stay away from threatening or attacking the Obama daughters, so I guess that point stands out from the above.

I get it: you are a Republican, a conservative, or simply just a fan of Trump. You want to defend him. That's fine. But why say things that are so patently untrue and so easy to prove false? Is your memory so short?

There are plenty of things you can slam Obama for that are legitimate. You may not have agreed with the choices he made or the direction he took the country. But, why do you feel the need to exaggerate, lie, or otherwise overstate how bad your candidate has it when we literally just stopped eight years of some of the worst examples of all of that?

The other issue I have is that Trump brings most of it on himself. He makes wildly false statements, and then people get upset when the news and individuals call him on it. He exaggerates things that are easily proven as exaggerations, and people get upset when he's called on it. He simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth and, when the news calls on him to provide so much as one shred of proof for these stories, people get upset. Really? But they can't remember the exact same thing happening to Obama at nearly every speech he made? How about that famous time one of the Republicans interrupted his State of the Union speech by yelling "You lie!" at the top of his lungs? Or that time that the President called the Republican leadership into the Oval Office, talked with them about the health care vote, they were shown on video both entering and leaving the White House, and yet they claimed to not go at all, let alone talk with the President that day?

I don't care which party is in the White House. When a President lies, he should be called on it. Anyone who threatens the President with harm or death should be investigated by the Secret Service and possibly incarcerated. A President's words should always be scrutinized.

Simply put: If Trump is going to lie so often, so easily, about so many easily proved things, then he gets what he deserves.

On Racism

I don't get racism. The idea of condemning an entire group of people for real or perceived issues strikes me as odd.

If you were to take the skin off of any human being, you would be hard pressed to tell whether that person was white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else. Under the hood, so to speak, we are all virtually identical. The amount of melanin we have shouldn't be used to determine much of anything, except maybe how easily one will burn in the sunshine.

Think about it this way: most cars are fairly identical under the skin. Some have slightly bigger or smaller engines, some have slightly better or worse braking systems, some have some added bells and whistles, but, otherwise, they are all fundamentally the same underneath. It doesn't really matter if the shell of aluminum and plastic that makes up the body is painted white, black, yellow, or brown, the car will run the same.

Same with people.

The idea of race being a determiner for anything is a dream. It comes, primarily, from slavers during the triangle slave trade of the 1700 and 1800s and from Nazi Germany during WW2. The people behind both of those situations were biased and in the business of manufacturing differences based on skin color, and all of those opinions have been debunked over and over again.

When I was growing up, I had a bully who was black. HE was a dick, so I blamed HIM for being that dick. The vast majority of black people I've met have been non-dickish people. So too with whites, Asians, and Hispanics; I've met some individuals who were dicks to me, but overall the vast majority have been worthwhile people. Why would I paint an entire group of people with the same brush as one or two?

America is currently over 70% white. Statistically speaking, that means you are probably going to run into more dicks who are white than any other race. Should you, as a white person, be racially biased against your own race whenever you run into those occasional dicks? If you are not condemning your own race, yourself included, for a few dicks, why are you doing the same for another race?

If someone is a dick to you, be angry at that individual. Don't use your anger to paint with broad strokes an entire group of people who happen to look like that dick.

Proving Plutocracy

A "plutocracy" is one form of an "oligarchy" wherein the small group of people who run things is made up of the wealthy. While many have been sidetracked by the current administration's hyperbole and lies, the Republicans in Congress have been destroying the work of decades. And why are they doing it? Because their corporate, wealthy, billionaire masters pull their strings and tell them to.

The Republicans in Congress have started to destroy EPA rules and laws to protect endangered species and environments. What is most curious is that, in a representative democracy such as America, those in Congress are supposed to enact the will of the people they represent. And stats show that well over 80% of all people, regardless of politics, are in favor of protecting the environment and animals. So, why would Congress do these things?

Because big business finds it inconvenient. Big business wants to be able to log anywhere, to mine anywhere, to drill anywhere. They don't like having to submit EPA forms proving they won't hurt animals or the environment. They hate looking at all that potential in National Parks and Monuments and not being allowed to move in with big machinery and destroy it. They hate having to spend a little extra to make sure there is clean water to drink and fresh air to breathe.

And big business is who pays for the Republicans' to get into office. They are the ones who write the bills for Republicans and ask them to turn those bills into law. Big Business is the one pulling the strings. (This is not to say that Democrats don't get money from big business and the super-wealthy; however, the Republicans have a much tighter, pro-business/anti-regulation stance fundamentally, and big business can pull those strings much more easily for Republicans than for Democrats, who traditionally have a pro-environment, pro-regulation stance.)

The richest few, I think, believe that they will always have drinkable water and clean air to breathe. Of course, history shows otherwise; you may hurt the poorest first, then the middle classes next, but, sooner or later, the effects of unrestrained business will hurt even those who can afford the best, afford the necessities even as they sky-rocket in price and scarcity.

Clean water is good for everybody. Clean air is good for everybody. Protecting animal and plant species and environments is good for everybody. And here's why: most medications, including new discoveries, come from plants and animals. And, sometimes, those plants and animals are only found in the most delicate of environments. How many cures have we destroyed in the Amazon rain forest already, that we will never know about?

Did you know that without customers, most business fail? So, if the poor and the middle class don't have clean water and clean air, they die or move away and cannot buy your goods or services. Your business dies, just as your customers and customer base dies. It is actually in your best interest to be regulated.

Did you know that the regulation business employs thousands of people? By forcing existing businesses to regulate, the government created a ton of jobs and more economic wealth. By doing away with those regulations, business is killing other business and putting people out of work, weakening the economy and hurting their own customer base.

Republican leaders are going back to their constituents and finding them angry. They are being attack on health care, the environment, and regulations by members of their own party because they are not doing what their people want them to do. They are not listening. These leaders are fleeing from their own constituents, ducking out of meetings, and "needing" police escorts because they refuse to do the will of the people they serve.

The people have to take back control of Congress. If over 80% of people like the environment and want to regulate whether businesses can drill, mine, or pollute there, contact your representative by phone or (snail) mail/postcard. They cannot ignore a ton of phone calls and mail arriving at their offices. Be polite, courteous, and consistent in your message. And, if they don't listen, DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

#revolution

Where We Are

One of the things that frustrates me the most about this Nationalistic movement is that it is predicated on things that President Obama actually tried to do. He wanted to put a bunch of people to work on infrastructure. He wanted to get people training so that they could go from coal and gas to solar and wind (and others). He wanted to do a lot of things within the borders to get people working, get people spending money, and get people happy again.

And the Republicans blocked him every step of the way. They blocked his works bill for infrastructure every single time the Democrats put it forth... while refusing to bring forth their own works bill or work with Dems to make a bill they would pass. They blocked his bills for putting money toward re-educating people. They blocked nearly ever piece of legislation that the Dems put forth toward 'making America great again' and refused to help on bills that the Dems pleaded with them for bipartisanship. President Obama even put forth a moderate Supreme Court nominee nearly a year before leaving office, a person that many Repubs openly stated was a good choice and someone they would consider, and then the Repubs refused to do their job and, at the least, vet the candidate.

If you read pretty much any news that is not American news over the last 8 years, you would see that President Obama overcame the negative perception of the country built up over the previous 8 years of President Bush and got the world looking at America as a leader and innovator. The rest of the world praised Obama with his policies of sanctions against Syria, Russia, and others. The rest of the world saw those sanctions working and forcing the sanctioned countries to do things differently. You would read about how world leaders liked, praised, and enjoyed working with Obama, trusted him and his stance on things.

Now, those same leaders and news organizations openly mock the current American administration. They fear the isolationism and nationalism that the current administration states is its goal. They worry about the nationalists in their own countries as they surge because of the results of "BRexit" and the American presidential election. After America leading the way out of the recent economic collapse, the world fears that America's isolationism will stall that same economic recovery and even reverse it. Basically, the world is scared.

The current administration lies. It claims that Obama didn't try to do the many, many things he tried. It lies about who is at fault for where we are now. It lied about cleaning out the muck of Washington DC. It lied about cracking down on Wall Street (who it called liars more than once). The current administration uses executive orders when it doesn't need to. It threatens temper tantrums if it doesn't get its way, and seems to not understand how government actually works. The current administration is in constant attack mode against a press that is simply pointing out the many, obvious, provable facts that are out there. If they will lie about those things, what else are they lying about?

I can't help but imagine where we would be today if the Republican party had actually taken President Obama's many requests to work with him to heart and done it. Imagine how much better the ACA (Obamacare) would be today. Imagine if they had worked with him on his works bills and then helped pass it... we would be 8 years ahead on fixing old bridges, repairing old dams, maintaining old sewers, and fixing streets (among many other things). Imagine how the historically low murder rates and unemployment rates would be even lower if any one of Obama's retraining/education bills had been allowed to pass by the Repubs.

There comes a point where you have to set aside your differences, realize that things are failing, and work with the opposition to make it right. You have to realize that your constituents need you to lead, compromise, and do what is best for as many different people as possible, instead of needless throwing rancor and aspersions at the other party.

That, by itself, in today's political world, is a pretty revolutionary thought, isn't it?

Executive Orders

When you have both houses of Congress decidedly on your side, you shouldn't need to enact very many Executive Orders (EO). You can introduce actual legislation that Congress can pass through the two houses and make law. Whether you liked him or not, Obama passed legislation in the first two years of his presidency because most of Congress was Democrat. He didn't need EOs to go around a hostile Congress.

So, why is Trump going the route of EOs? Why is he trying to circumvent the law creation and enactment system in place? He should, like Obama, be taking advantage of the Congress being "on his side" while it is (historically, the Congress will change to Democrat control at the two-year mark). Is it because not all Republicans are behind him? Maybe they are seeing cracks in the visage?

One of the best parts of going through the legal process of law creation is that many eyes see the legislation and, often, they can find the loopholes and unclear sections, point them out, and it can be rewritten. The EOs are not currently going through that process. Instead, Steve Bannon is writing them late at night, doesn't understand legalese, and is making very poorly worded orders that are hard to follow and will likely be overturned in Federal court.

Everything about Trump's first few weeks in office smells fishy. Hell, it appears he is not even reading the EOs he is signing. The constant leaks from the White House indicate a house in disarray, where Trump doesn't even know the contents of the EOs he's signing. In one case, he apparently became upset after learning that Bannon made himself a part of the NSC in an EO. But Trump didn't read it before signing it, so didn't know that was part of the EO? If you were President, and signing something that would, effectively, become a law, wouldn't you read it before signing it? (one of many sources) There are even some who question whether or not Trump can read. Here's one video where the gentleman makes a pretty convincing, if circumstantial argument.

Also, the literal number one item on Trump's "First 100 Days" document was getting term limits for Congress in place using a Constitutional Amendment. Yet that hasn't happened. It hasn't, to my knowledge, even been discussed. Yet, this might be the most effective thing Trump could do, getting turnover of the many 60+ year old, male, white Congresspeople for younger people of various ethnicities, backgrounds, and sexes. People who actually understand things like the social media, the immediacy of news and information today, the Internet (remember the Senator who didn't know what he was talking about and thought the Internet was made up of tubes?), how science works, and what's really happening to real people in the real world. I mean, if you are in Congress for decades, making $250k+ a year, with free healthcare for life, and all the other perks of Congress, you may just lose sight of how an average American, making less than $50k a year, who has to buy his own healthcare (or risk going without), and doesn't get the other perks has to live.

These are, indeed, interesting times. It remains to be seen how long they will last or how they will end.

#revolution

Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell

What I learned in grade school, junior high, and high school is that if a person lies about the small things, they will lie about everything and they cannot be trusted with anything.

Trump has decided to lie. And he lies about the stupidest, smallest, least significant things possible. It makes no sense. If he is going to lie about things we can look out our proverbial window and see the truth of, then what will he do when something big and important comes along?

I accept he won the Presidency. I don't completely understand it, and I'm still shaking my head over the Electoral College's first chance to live up to and perform its duty as mandated in the Constitution yet refusing to do it, but I accept the results.

I cannot, however, accept the lies. I was always taught that lying is bad. Granted, we all lie every day... you know, those little white lies that everyone uses. How are you? Fine (but you're really not fine at all; you're sick, you're mentally exhausted, you're on your last nerve). Did I wake you? No (it's 3:30 am, and you were having that awesome dream where 1980's Adrienne Barbeau is throwing sandwich pickles at your bare feet, of course you were asleep).

If you voted for Trump because of religion, the lying must really gall you. I mean, most religions directly or indirectly say that lying is sinful. And yet he does it about everything. Even the most easily researched topics and least complicated areas. Why?

When I was younger, what I discovered was that the people around me that lied regularly and often usually lied at the biggest, most important times. If the teacher found out something, that person would lie to the teacher's face, accusing others or shifting blame. In one case, that person accused me and it took getting a half-dozen friends who knew I was elsewhere to get involved to shift the blame back where it belonged. In another case, someone I generally trusted, but played fast and loose with the truth, stole something of value from me that I never got back. The same person actually used a teacher's confusion over who we were to steal my higher grade in a class we both had with that teacher (still an acceptable grade, but lower than I earned; and, yes, this also points out the age and infirmity of that teacher who couldn't tell two similarly-sized, blond boys apart in his classroom).

If Donald Trump wants to lie about something as simple as the size of the gathering for his inauguration, what does he gain by it? I mean, it takes about 10 seconds to make a Google search and see pictures from a dozen or more inaugurations, and see at a glance that fewer went to his than to many others. So why state it was the largest ever? What does he get by doing that?

One person may have the answer. This was tweeted by Anna Rescouet-Paz:

Tweet posted by Anna Rescouet-Paz, January 21, 2017

That makes a lot of sense. This liar wants to set up the ability to lie again and again. He wants to make lying so regular, that those who listen to him will not know or, and this is the key part, question the lies he speaks. He wants to keep his base distrustful and aggressive toward everyone else. He wants to further divide the nation.

And he may succeed. Because the people who want to hear this are coming from an emotional place. They are emotionally invested in Trump and in his lies, and they do not want to hear or accept facts that run counter to that emotion. They believe that foreigners are bad, are going to kill them, and are taking their jobs, even when there is no evidence to prove it. They believe that other races are out to get them somehow, even as the fact of being employed by, or working with, other races has never been an issue for them. They believe that Trump can bring back jobs even though those jobs have been gone for 20 years and are never coming back, but new jobs for which they could retrain are already here.

I can't help but wonder what Trump and his administration will say if and when something big happens. What if we have another attack on our soil? Can we trust that anything said by him will be true? What if Russia pushes toward global expansion and world war? Will Trump tell us truly, or let the Russians do what they plan? What about North Korea and Kim Jong Crazy? He claims to have missiles now that can reach America... will Trump tell us if that is the case, and what will he say if he does?

To counter lies and misinformation, I get my news from a variety of sites. I read a little right, a little left, and a lot of foreign press (who, generally, don't have a dog in the fight). I try to find the consistent facts and I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I know I'm also fairly uncommon in my quest for truth and facts from news. I fear for the Average American who listens to his or her echo chamber and simply reinforces the emotional truth they already believe in, facts and evidence be damned.

I fear where this president could lead the nation, even while I cautiously hope he has an epiphany and realizes how big and important the job he just undertook will be. I hope I'm wrong about him, but history shows that lying liars usually just keep telling bigger and bigger lies until they are stopped.

Trump is the Man

I want this known: the legal process of electing a President has concluded. The Electoral college voted and, right or wrong, good or bad, it has chosen Trump as the winner with more than 270 electoral votes. I completely accept this. And, therefore, I completely accept Trump as our legally sworn-in President.

However, I disagree with nearly all of his platform as President. I think his plans, such as they are, will take the country backward in some cases and will actively harm the nation in others.

I absolutely do not agree with the whole "build a wall" plan. First, the Mexicans I know personally are hardworking, energetic people who want the American dream and go after it with gusto. They work hard, often 2, 3, 4 jobs at a time. They are willing to take on some pretty shitty jobs just to get work and make money, jobs that the average American sees as beneath them to work. Mexicans open businesses. They employ others. They have a strong work ethic, most I know are strongly religious, and most are strongly pro-family, and they are a tight-nit group. Just the sort of people you want immigrating to your country.

What we should be doing, rather than building a wall, is increasing talks and relations with Mexico. Getting more of them to immigrate legally. Looking for skilled workers, like programmers, managers, and builders, and entrepreneurs who want to open businesses and welcoming them in with open arms. If we do that, the need for a wall will virtually disappear and we bring more wealth into the country as they open those businesses and work those jobs here.

We don't need a nationalistic approach to jobs and trade. We just need to stop thinking that any trade deal with a country is better than no trade deal at all. We need to show countries, like China, that if they are going to cap and trade clause our goods coming into their country, then we will do the same to theirs. That will cause them to rethink their priorities, which allows us to ease trade barriers to them over time -- win win. NAFTA has been an unmitigated success for the countries involved; no need revoke it or back out of it. Is it time to look at possible tweaks and revisions? Sure. That is always a good thing, and all countries should do it from time to time. But backing out completely? That's the sign of someone with a narrow perspective or a lack of information, not a visionary leader.

In many cases, companies don't need to be actively harmed by taking jobs out of the country, they just need incentives to keep as many as possible within the country. We need to be looking at how to provide incentives for the companies to keep the profits here, in the country, without penalizing them. Companies are fairly predatory creatures and the seek out the greatest profits -- how can we incentivize them to keep a job in the USA with workers that make salaries and have benefits, versus giving that job to someone in a foreign country that makes 1/5 the salary and, often, has no benefits to pay? Well, as I roll from this into the ACA discussion, one way would be to switch to a universal, single-payer insurance system, which would take a huge chunk of money the company has to pay US employees out of the equation, closing the wage gap slightly between the US worker and the foreign worker.

Repealing healthcare? Why? Is the ACA (aka Obamacare) really that bad? Of course not. Any plan the Republicans come up with will mimic or copy much of what is in the ACA today. So why repeal the entire thing only to replace it with something that will, likely, be about 70-80% the same?

Trump has yet to make a truthful or verifiable statement about the ACA, and that seems to indicate that he either doesn't understand it or is willfully ignorant about how well it has worked. Is it great legislation? Hell no. It has way too many loopholes that need to be closed, it would be far better as a single-payer system, and we need to browbeat the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies that exist into lower prices and better service (as all single-payer systems around the world have done, to the betterment of the peoples' health in those nations). Again, tweaks and revisions are all that is needed. Hell, even Republicans are questioning the Republicans' desire to repeal this legislation without having a firm, verifiable plan that the people can read and comment on first. That's really all the Republicans need to do, too. Just present a better plan or a better revision to an existing plan and let the American people decide if it should be enacted. Maybe a repeal isn't needed. Either way, the American people will still think the Republicans are doing a good job leading the country and listening to its people. Right now, there are many who feel they aren't listening at all... even to their own like-minded constituents on this topic (and others).

His plans to deregulate the banking industry? Well, Clinton and "W" did that, and we achieved one of the worst financial collapses in the country, and it took years and re-regulation to dig out of it. Why do what has already proven not to work? Dodd-Frank is a good thing. It keeps the banking industry honest in its dealings with its customers and the nation. Deregulating energy companies so they can amp up production and go after harder and harder to reach energy reserves? Again, we've done that, many times, in the past. Each time it has achieved sick people, destroyed ecosystems (like drinkable water) and caused millions and billions in health, property, and clean up damages. Why would we ever do that again? It has proven not to work, time and again.

Questioning climate change? Well, here's the thing; every other nation (including China!) is leading the way to cleaner energy. Some countries, like India are actively promoting solar and wind at a massive rate. And, this is the kicker, they get most of the technology from the US. The rest of the world going green is actively helping the US economy. Now, imagine if the US stopped arguing over climate change and, instead, continued to add jobs and incentivize the green industries? Hell, we'd have thousands of new jobs, thousands more exports, and millions more dollars pumping into local economies. What if those areas where coal is played out and the mines are closed were where we built solar panel factories? What if where shale gas would be pumped, and ruining the local ground water, instead we built a large wind turbine factory? What if, in those area where oil wells are running dry, we built solar roadway production factories? What if we built desalination plants and water turbine and geothermal factories, employing people to make the technology of the future, rather than continuing to protect and prop up the existing oil industry? This is visionary leadership, not deregulating and allowing the gas and oil industry to plunder our national parks and monuments, clear-cutting forests, and destroying what limited drinking water resources the nation has.

The one area that I agree with Trump is that our federal government needs to be cleaned up. We absolutely need term limits in Congress to get turnover and fresh ideas. We need to do away with gerrymandering and rigged elections. However, I question how he is going about doing it. How is electing people who literally have no clue about the jobs they are nominated for (DeVos, Romney, Carson, et al) going to achieve success? How is having one of the architects of the last economic collapse in your cabinet going to help you "clean up the swamp"? It makes no sense.

So, I completely accept that this man is now our legally chosen President. As you can see, however, I do not accept his platform. I think it is narrow, short-sighted, and could harm the nation over time. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope he surprises me (and us), but his first, stumbling steps have not been promising.

How're You Doing?

If you voted for Trump because he was an outsider, how is that working out for you?

He hasn't even taken office, and he is already acting like an insider with his cabinet choices. And his improper statesman decisions are affecting the US's relationships with other countries. His lack of knowledge of protocol has already had a deleterious effect on Taiwan and China. His improprieties have seen him have a normal citizen (his daughter) in a formal meeting with dignitaries and a love-fest for regimes that the US is currently struggling against, like Russia.

If you voted for Trump because he promised to "drain the swamp," how is that working out for  you?

He hasn't even taken office, and he is already filling the swamp with new creatures, muck, and mire so as to make it as thick and uninviting as possible. It is as if he typed "opposite" whenever doing a search for someone to fill a cabinet position. He has already dropped his idea of trying to get Congressional term limits (one of the few ideas he had that I could get fully behind). He is already putting in place people who caused, or were a part of, some of the worst issues the country has had to deal with in the last 20 years as members of his cabinet.

If you voted for Trump because he was going to force companies to stay in the US, how is that working out for you?

He had to be reminded of his specific promise to 'force' Carrier to keep 'all the jobs' in the US, wasn't able to, said he managed to keep 1100 jobs in the US (which turned out to be about 720), and gave Carrier such lucrative incentives to stay that other companies are looking to it as a playbook for how to get tax credits and other incentives from the government. Saving less than 40% of jobs is not a viable plan to keep businesses in the US. His strong "35% tax" quickly became incentives and tax breaks instead.

If you voted for Trump because he was such a strong business leader, how is that working out for you?

More and more reports of how poorly run his actual business is, more reports of how his (mostly) silent business partners keep the business afloat, and more reports of how he just doesn't understand what the term 'conflict of interest' is or means.

Basically, unless you voted for him for his sexist and racist stances, you are probably already showing signs of disappointment as he goes against every plank and platform he ran on. I know the people who were pro-Trump on my FB feed and other places have been strangely quiet since he started to make actual decisions and ignored everything he supposedly stood for during the campaign. Which, in the end, means you voted pro-racism and sexism. How's that working out for you?

And he hasn't even taken office yet.

Jack Reacher Movies

A new Jack Reacher movie starring Tom Cruise is about to be released. I'm happy that the book series, one of my favorites, has made it to the big screen and that it has a major star attached. However, the star and his treatment of the subject is a problem.

The reason that Reacher is such an intriguing hero/anti-hero character in the books has to do with his size and his taciturn nature. He is tall, heavy, muscular, and has some very strong quirks; he doesn't own anything beyond what he carries with him, he doesn't have any real ID (until later in the series, anyway), he can't drive, and he doesn't use toothpaste (or floss or mouthwash)-- he simply uses a toothbrush, which is one of his few possessions.

His size is almost a character itself within the books. He rarely meets someone his own size, and he uses his size and physical presence to his advantage in the novels: frequently he can stop a fight from happening just by being so physically intimidating; sometimes he allows people to assume that because he is large, strong, and quiet, he must be stupid or slow; and he uses that great size and his attack-first mentality to end a fight before the opponent knows it has even begun. Not to mention how many women are attracted to him because of his size and physical features (even though he is not an attractive man, his size, confidence, and physicality make up for it).

Another big issue that comes up a lot in each of the books is his inability, and lack of desire, to drive. He comments frequently that he breaks cars, grinds gears, and just isn't very good at any aspect of driving. He is always giving the keys to someone else to drive him; those close to him just assume he won't be driving. The few times he is forced to drive in the novels, bad things tend to happen.

Reacher, in the books, is also so physical that many of the fights don't last more than a couple of hits. Reacher believes in hitting first, hitting hard, and ending the fight before it begins. He does this because he understands that the longer the fight goes on, the more chances to get seriously injured he has. Reacher is no dummy; he wants to stay as safe as possible and without injury. So, he will head-butt a person before they are expecting it. Or he goes for a debilitating one-punch/blow type of hit, like to a nose or the neck. When fighting multiple enemies, he will try to kill or maim someone seriously in one blow so he can turn his back on them and go after the next. He is a whirlwind of force and power, not to be taken lightly.

When Tom Cruise cast himself in the role of Jack Reacher in the movies, fans of the series were a bit surprised. Reacher is 6'5", Cruise is listed at 5'7" (some say he is closer to 5'6" or even shorter). Forced to make the best of an odd situation, Lee Child made a statement about Reacher's size being "a metaphor for an unstoppable force" and that Cruise's acting and status as a star could fill that gap. I'm not sure any fan really bought it or thought that wound up true in the first film. While Cruise can play bad-ass and has real acting chops (although he hasn't really used them for awhile now), he just doesn't come across as the physical person that Reacher just is.

The first movie contained multiple fight sequences, and all of them involved fairly complex choreography in which Cruise fought both single and multiple entities. Because no one would believe his little body could take people down in one or two blows, the fights were lengthy martial arts dances that just didn't fit with the character of Reacher, whose fighting technique is military close-fighting and street fighting techniques.

That first movie also showed Cruise in a complex, interesting, and dynamic car chase sequence, where Cruise's Reacher showed exceptional skill at driving. A total departure from the books in every way. The trailer for movie two also shows a car chase sequence in it, with Reacher once again behind the wheel.

While they tried to keep the physicality in place, Cruise came across somewhat laughable when he threatened people in the first movie. In the trailers for the second movie, I find myself smiling once again when he threatens people. When a 6'5", 250 lbs monster of a man threatens you it is simply different from when a 5'7" guy threatens you, even if that smaller guy knows martial arts and can kick your ass three ways to Sunday. On screen and magnified, it just doesn't look or come across the same way as in the books.

Lastly, Cruise is a pretty boy. Reacher isn't. As Cruise gets close to and seduces women on screen, they are reacting to how pretty he is, not to his sheer .... animal physicality and confidence. Again, it is believable that Cruise can get the woman because he's, well, Tom Cruise. In the books, it is almost always Reacher's actions that overcome a woman's lack of interest; he is confident, kind and courteous (in a military sense as well as just a "nice guy" sense), has a raw physicality, and is protective toward them.

I will probably not see the second movie in the theaters due to these changes, but likely will watch it on video later. While I'm happy that the character has made it to the silver screen, the changes to the fundamental nature of the character are off-putting to me. I didn't actually mind the first movie and thought they did a pretty good job of bringing the book's story to the screen. However, I was constantly taken out of my immersion in the film by Cruise's size and totally different take on the character. I'd like to see a movie with a more faithful-to-the-character portrayal of the character. I can see someone like an Alexander Skarsgard playing the role, as he is about the right size (6'4") and can act.

ADDENDUM (1/7/2017)

Finally watched the second movie. Beyond having some of the same characters, locations, and general plot beats, the movie looked little like the Jack Reacher novel it is based on. It wasn't a bad movie, it is just not Reacher. They have to rewrite and write around Cruise being so totally unfit for the part that it snowballs into changing large sections of the plot.

What's funny is that John Wick makes for a better Reacher movie than either of the two Reacher movies. While still not the size of Jack Reacher, John Wick has the intensity, economy of movement, and deadliness that a Reacher fan should enjoy.

To Honor or To Serve?

I was raised in a military family. I was raised in a military town. Part of my upbringing occurred on a military base. My father is a 20-year Marine veteran. So I understand service, sacrifice, and loyalty. Which is why, even though I personally find it poor manners and bad taste to sit, kneel, or otherwise ignore the national anthem, I will defend to my death your right to do it.

Others have said it better and probably more eloquently, but being an American is hard work. The rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights are difficult to live up to, not because they are confusing or hard to understand, but because they apply to everyone, including that person down the street, on the TV, or even in your own house with whom you vehemently disagree. Your rights end where that person's rights begin, and vice versa.

There is so much hatred and vitriol in our country right now. I simply don't understand why, except to say that it sells. I mean, would you really, truly listen to some of these pundits if what they were saying wasn't so outrageous? The extreme is selling and it is selling well. So much so that there are very few actual, legitimate news programs left. It has all become opinion pieces and entertainment.

Any time someone forgets that the rights conveyed by the first ten amendments apply to everyone, regardless of race, sex, orientation, or political leanings, I start to get worried and leery. That is a person who, often, either is uneducated, uninformed, or has an agenda. If the reason is one of the first two, you can explain how the Bill of Rights work, that it applies equally to everyone at all times (with a few caveats), and you educate or inform them, making them a better citizen. But those who either refuse to listen of have an agenda will twist, ignore, or obfuscate what you try to teach them and will continue to spout their hatred.

I'd like to coin a new phrase and a new movement, somehow: compassionate understanding. No matter how offensive what someone else is doing or saying is to you, try to be compassionate to the reasons and understand the motives. For example, maybe what Colin Kaepernick started offends you -- why? what about his protest movement is so offensive and why are you reacting so strongly? Why is such a simple, peaceful means of protest causing such a reaction to you? What is it about transgender people using the restroom of the sex with which they identify (and, quite possibly, dress and look like, too) causes you issue? Are you simply uncomfortable with the difference of a man dressing, looking, and acting like a woman? Are you a little uncomfortable with your own sexuality such that you think you might find such a man attractive when you otherwise identify as heterosexual? Is that transgender man harming you in some way with his choice? Why does another religion make you so fearful? What about it is causing you difficulty? Is anything that religion is doing really affect you in any way? What about that liberal person offends you so much? What about that conservative causes you so much stress and fear?

Let's step back, learn about those people and things we fear and distrust, walk a mile in their shoes, and see what the root cause of your discomfort really is. I think, in most cases, you'll find the problem really resides in you.

Netflix and ...

I think it is fairly clear that the public has spoken and voiced their desires. While many production companies keep creating their own online venues for movies and/or TV shows, the public has said, "We like the Neflix model. We want TV and movies under one banner, a variety, and at an affordable price."

It's funny to me how the movie studios, in particular, have responded. Many have created their own digital spaces and tried to get people to pay them to see their own movies. But none have been overly successful because the variety isn't there and the cost is either too high individually, or more than someone with a current Netflix subscription wants to pay.

In Canada, for a time, people were some of the worst digital thieves of any country. Canadians wanted access to US movies in a timely fashion and at a reasonable price. No one was providing that, however, so they turned to illicit means to get what they wanted. A few years back, Netflix finally made the jump into Canada after passing absurd legislative hurdles put in front of it and enter the Canadian market... and illegal downloading went down by huge numbers. Even though they were being given a lesser product than the full Netflix available in the US, it was still better than anything provided by Bell, Telus, or Rogers. And this same result has happened in other nations, as well.

In some cases, people in Canada, Europe, Australia, and others have found gray-area ways to get the full US Netflix to watch. This further shows that people WANT to pay for content, but they want that content when it is first released, not months later, and they want to pay what they feel is a fair price (which the $10/month average cost seems to be for most people). You don't read stories of people using IP masking and VPNs to access a company's own digital content, only Netflix (and, sometimes, Amazon's video and TV services).

Of course, the TV and movie production companies still are fighting it. They allow product into Netflix but on a limited basis, so that their own digital outlets can "compete." Some will not allow their "best" products onto Netflix at all. Some only provide TV shows (and sometimes even with commercials!) and others only provide movies.

At some point, they all need to survey the digital landscape, admit that they are wrong or that Netflix has won the battle, relent, and provide both TV and movies to the option that people increasingly vote for with their pocketbooks and clicks... Netflix. It is party agnostic, provides a good method by which to get the product, and people like it. Stop wasting any more time, effort, or money in creating a service that does what Netflix is already doing... just accept the money they want to pay you for hosting your content and let the audience enjoy your products!

None of the Above

In Brewster's Millions, Richard Pryor has to spend $30 million in 30 days in order to inherit $300 million. One of the things he does to spend the money is start a campaign to get people to vote None of the Above rather than choose between two bad choices.

In this year's presidential election, I sort of feel like Monty Brewster and want to ask people to vote None of the Above. But we know how that turned out, don't we? (Everyone thought it was just a smart political ploy and they started voting for Brewster instead.)

American politics are broken. The 12th Amendment basically ensures a two-party system. That being said, there is a precedence for a third (or more) parties possibly making a solid run and gaining the votes needed for a plurality.

This year, with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I'm praying for a third-party candidate run that I can get behind. It's not that I actively dislike Clinton; I'm sure she would make a decent President and would likely follow the successful path laid out by Obama. I am much less sure of Trump's ability to keep the country moving forward, as most of his speeches are in favor of regressive strategies. I'm also unsure, with the way that Congress decided to block Obama before he even took office, that the Republicans won't do the same to Clinton and the Democrats the same to Trump when one or the other is elected.

What I'm hoping for is some moderate Republican and Democrat to come together and run as a team. People with good ideas who can get the harder-line people from both sides to strive for compromise, rather than further fracturing the parties with extremist views.

Can you imagine how radical that thought would be? A Republican and Democrat on one ticket? The possibilities are incredible. It would show America, and other politicians, that compromise is possible and that we can agree on most things.

I guess that is what seems to be missing from these elections: the fact that most Americans agree on most things most of the time. Or, at least, that we can agree to disagree without it turning into something violent and extreme. It is possible for a life-long conservative to reach an agreement with a life-long liberal on a wide variety of topics. Neither will get all that they want, but each will get a little and each will give up a little and somewhere in the middle there will be a happy medium.

But, time is running out. A choice must be made. If you vote for Trump or Clinton, are you voting for the person you hate least? Is that a good way to vote? If you vote for a third party candidate now, are you just helping one side or the other to win or lose?

I've been doing my research, checking voting records and policy decisions, and trying to decide for whom I will vote. This year, more than any since I've been voting, is tough. But I have my ballot and I need to make a decision soon and get it in the mail. And hope and pray that it was the right one.

The Golden Rule ... Again

I can't help but notice that many of the countries that have accepted Syrian refugees and then treated them like crap, passed laws banning their ways of worship and dress, and generally allowing hatred and anti-Muslim/anti-Refugee/anti-"other" rhetoric to proliferate are the same countries that have then had issues with ISIS, with home-grown terrorism, and with the refugees causing issues.

Now, I look at Canada. This country has taken in some of the highest numbers of refugees, has tried its best to be welcoming and comforting to them, and has gone out of its way to show them they are valued. Areas like the East Coast, where population decline, poverty, and unemployment have been rampant, have been especially accommodating. And Canada, to-date, has had none of the issues these other countries have had.

Coincidence? I think not. By vilifying those who live in your country, no matter whether they are newly arrived or have been there for a long time, you foment rebellion and hatred. By trying to be kind, welcoming, and understanding, you foment tolerance, hope, and inclusion. This goes for every race, creed, religion, and gender found in a country, and is regardless of how long the people have lived there.

I hope that Canada can continue to be one of the shining lights in this time of need.

Too Long

The election cycle for President has become way too long. It is untenable and other countries' processes show that it doesn't need to be this long. Here are my thoughts on how to bring this under control:

1. Money.

All money raised by all candidates goes into a pot and is then distributed equally to all candidates, or the top 5 at least. In this way, money cannot unduly influence the results by having someone with a multiple million dollar war chest simply swamping someone with a much smaller war chest.

I also think that war chests should be limited, to limit the influence of money on politics. Not sure how to do that, though, except by above.

2. Primaries/Caucuses

First, pick a system and stick with it. Since there are laws against making a person show or tell their vote, this means that caucuses should be done away with (as they are a very public way of voting, where everyone in the room can see for which candidate you are choosing to vote). Secondly, all primaries should happen at the same time, across the nation, rather than over months. This gives no undo sway to any particular state and means the candidates have to travel to most states and get their message across equally.

Registered independent voters should get special ballots that show all candidates on it for a primary. 

3. Results

No results from any primary or election may be reported on or disclosed in any way prior to the last polling place closing. In this way, the east polls cannot influence the west's voting. Everyone can simply wait until the next day to see who won/lost.

4. Time

The election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (note: the wording is complicated because the month can start on a Tuesday or later day). This means the election is held November 2 through 8th, depending on when that Tuesday falls. I don't see any reason, whatsoever, that an election cycle, from declaring, to primaries, to DNCC/RNCC, to election, needs to last longer than six months. So, candidates must declare no later than May 1st. The primaries should be held two months later, in July, and the winning candidates would have four months to debate, set their agendas and platforms, and campaign.

5. Voting

The act of voting needs to be made more simple, but also as error-, fraud-, and influence-free as possible. Voting via the internet is an absolute requirement. I mean, if you can do your taxes online, you should be able to vote online. No matter how they vote, all voters should get a physical copy of their results in case of suspected fraud, by which they can verify who they voted for. For example, if you vote online, you should receive an automated email response that shows "These are the candidates and ballot measures you voted FOR:" and a list. If fraud is suspected, the voting commission can ask the voters in that area for their confirmations, make a copy, and recount the votes or check the results. This should happen with electronic devices at polling stations, or manual processes, as well.

6. Gerrymandering

We need to change the laws to do away with gerrymandering. By changing the district shapes and locations, parties have made it almost impossible for an incumbent not to get re-elected. We need politicians to have to sway voters of all stripes, so their districts should have a good mix of all parties in it. This moves everyone back toward the middle, rather than polarizing, and means we have a Congress and other offices that can work together, rather than a divisive group of far right or far left people who refuse to work together. Compromise is possible. It also means you may have a Democrat win a district that is predominantly conservative, and his/her message and voting record will have to reflect the population and the will of the people he/she is representing, rather than her own politics.

I think these are a good first step toward making the election cycle shorter and more fair. It makes people running for office have to actually campaign and it levels the playing field between all the candidates. I think you would also see the general public invest more of their time, effort, and interest in the election process, and would see a commensurate gain in voters each cycle. There may be more ideas that can be added that would further tighten up the election process. I'll add more as I hear, or think of them.

Has Hate Won?

I think, sometimes, that hate has won, that America will eat itself from the inside and splinter into  many smaller nations. American could become the new Middle East, with many nations constantly at war with one another over ideological differences. I think this way because of how people are talking, and not talking, to each other.

The recent shooting in Orlando is a tragedy. But, to me, the bigger tragedy is reading the posts filled with hate about the shooting. If you evince any sympathy for those who were killed, or if you think that America needs to look at its gun laws and make revisions, you are instantly vilified as "left," "Liberal," "Democrat," "stupid," and a bunch of curse words that amount to being a woman or being gay. On the other side of things, people are "stupid," "Conservative," "right," and "Republican." I definitely agree with the "stupid" axiom, as that is true of either side and how they are reacting. You also see a lot of Bible quotations espousing the killing of gays (but, as always, taken out of context), calls that we don't need more gun laws (or that we need to take away all the guns), that there will be more mass killings if someone tries to take away the guns, comments about the mental health, race, and religion of those who believe one way or the other. The hate, and how it is expressed, seems endless. And the goalposts of hate constantly shift and move whenever any rationality and love seeps through.

Which is why, as long as people are going to become rabid on topics, rather than talking them through and seeking compromise, hate wins. As long as people buy into this "us vs. them" rhetoric, hate wins. As long as people continue to teach that some groups are somehow "less" than others, be they a different gender, a different sexual preference, a differing religion, a different race, a differing political ideology, or whatever, hate wins.

I'm willing to bet that the gun enthusiasts and gun-banning advocates can reach common ground, somewhere in the middle, where closing the loopholes in gun shows, making background checks mandatory, and requiring some sort of gun safety course and/or licensing is required to get firearms. I think the two sides can even reach agreement that some weapons do not need to be sold to civilians, and should stay in the purview of the military and police. But it takes cool heads and a willingness to listen and put away the hatred to do it.

I think we can even agree that the person is at fault, and not the firearm, if we talk it through. I think we can figure out that not all people of one religion, nor all people of a particular race or creed, are filled with hatred. We can probably come to common ground and agree that this person did what he did and that he is to blame for it, not the victims or their lifestyle nor the person's religion or race.

But, right now, seeing all the hate being hurled at one another across such a silly divide, for all political divides are ultimately silly, makes me think that hate has won. That the population has fallen for it, and is spending too much time hating and vilifying each other rather than looking for solutions and growing our strengths.

I wonder what kind of community we could have if we stopped hating and starting simply disagreeing?