#MeThree

I remember it well. I was working as a grill cook at McDonald’s in the mid-’80s when the incident occurred. I was innocently flipping some burgers when a co-worker left her assigned cash register up front and appeared directly beside me for a quick swig of pop (what Iowans call their soda). This was a very common practice in our industry because an employee eating or drinking in front of customers was considered non-professional and even a bit rude. The female colleague knelt down, took a sip, and asked “if there was anything she could do for me.” I glanced down at the considerate co-worker while thanking her for her thoughtfulness, but I declined the offer. (I prefer doing things my own way.) My colleague then gazed squarely at my crotch and in a seductive manner repeated, “anything?”

At that point I fully understood the situation was not simply about filling the ketchup dispenser or fetching some cheese out of the walk-in cooler. Once more I declined. I had no interest in the girl beneath me, and she was well aware I had a girlfriend (another co-worker who eventually became my lovely wife). That was that. I’m not sure if I was a victim of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, harmless flirtation, crude humor, or something else that day. At the time I didn’t think much about the unwarranted and unprovoked advance. Looking back, I still don’t. However, I think my experience decades ago surely meets the criteria for joining the #MeToo club.

All kidding aside, I think the #MeToo movement is a joke. I truly am not making light of the seriousness of those who’ve been raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed. The #MeToo campaign itself though is guilty of just that by unwittingly lumping together the unsubstantiated, weak, and even false claims of abuse with the admitted and proven cases of sexual abuse. There are currently millions of members who’ve joined the club; however, I would suggest that legitimate claims of abuse make up only a small percentage of the colossal total. As a society we must be careful not to instantly jump on the bandwagon or play judge and jury.

When an allegation is made publicly it’s impossible for the accused (guilty or not) to escape a life long sentence of being stigmatized. A wise man once said, “Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?” Actually, that quote did not come from the wisest of men – it came from President Trump – and it, of course, came by way of a tweet – but the content was spot on just the same.

Recently, for every valid claim of sexual misconduct there seems to be just as many lacking in credibility which inevitably tarnishes the entire #MeToo campaign. For example, a Los Angeles filmmaker has just gone on record accusing her former photography professor of sexually abusing her in 1999. She claims she was in his classroom, sitting at a desk, when the renowned teacher asked for her attention. The naked professor then walked directly towards her and placed his erect manhood in her mouth. She said the encounter was very brief before she ultimately pushed him away and left the room. The filmmaker said, “He committed oral rape against me.” Oddly enough, the woman admitted to keeping in touch with her former teacher via e-mail even after graduation. She continued requesting recommendations and asking for advice several years after the incident. That seems more like a #Regret moment to me. Likewise, last month a fairly famous actor was publicly accused online of sexual abuse because he didn’t turn out to be what his date had anticipated leading up to their one night together. The woman deeply regretted the experience since she was left with only negative feelings toward the celebrity after their consensual tryst.

Also muddying the waters a tad, as far as I’m concerned, is a recent decision made by a 2016 Olympic gold medalist. We know for certain she, along with countless other gymnasts, was sexually molested by the U.S. team doctor. The Olympian is now on a crusade to spread a message of empowerment to children who’ve possibly been sexually victimized themselves. She recently said, “I do a lot of school visits. I’m trying to communicate to these kids that they have a voice, and if something doesn’t feel right, they should speak up and ask questions.” The decorated gymnast went on to say, “I feel like I have a voice, and I feel like I have a responsibility.” That is all well and good, but also during this time the crusader chose to model for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue – even posing “tastefully” nude for assumingly a predominantly male viewership. I think the gold medalist gave a losing performance with her recent decision to pose especially considering her desire to be a role model for children. What I glean from the confusing message coming from the Olympian is that being victimized is not okay, but being objectified is fine.

These certainly are confusing times, so I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised to find the subject of sex to be perplexing as well. David Brooks, writer and political commentator, proffered his thoughts on that very topic just last month (1/19/18) in The New York Times. He penned, “Over the past 100 years or so, advanced thinkers across the West have worked to take the shame out of sex, surely a good thing. But they’ve also disenchanted it.” This is clearly evident today with the integration of “friends with benefits,” sexting, and the surge in lovers opting to live together without the commitment of marriage. Then there’s the millennial generation (and beyond) who’ve shockingly determined oral sex really isn’t sex, and they are content with engaging in sexual relationships before committing to a boyfriend/girlfriend status.

The prominent writer concluded his Op-Ed piece with a couple of keen observations and some pretty sound advice: “Sex is seen as a shallow physical and social thing, not a heart and soul altering thing. One unintended effect of this disenchantment is that it becomes easy to underestimate the risks inherent in any encounter. It seems that the smarter we get about technology, the dumber we get about relationships. We live in a society in which loneliness, depression and suicide are on the rise. We seem to be treating each other worse. The guiding moral principle here is not complicated: Try to treat other people as if they possessed precious hearts and infinite souls. Everything else will follow.”

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking as well in regards to sex in America. Lately, I’ve been pondering why exactly millions of people would respond to the #MeToo campaign and why they’ve waited until now to come forward. I have concluded all men are pigs. I think a better answer though may be that we are in a season of angst, division, and rebellion. The time is ripe for protesting – regardless of a movement’s legitimacy. I think a great number of the #MeToo club’s members may just be longing for inclusion. Our human nature, at its core, is to belong.

God indeed created us with an inbred craving, but that hunger can only be satisfied by Him. From the time we are born, we errantly search for other things in trying to make us feel whole. I understand it can be extremely tempting to participate in something so big – so trendy – just to fit in. This may be the case for an Oscar winning actress who was recently quoted in People magazine (2/19/18) as saying, ‘I went from thinking, “I don’t have a story” to “Oh, wait, I have 100 stories.” I think a lot of people are having these reckonings with themselves.’ I’m sure most of us have stories of a sexual nature we could tell – whether good, bad, or indifferent – but that does not mean they are all #MeToo worthy.

Advertisements

Immigration

Immigration is not a topic I’m at all passionate about. I certainly have my beliefs and opinions on the matter, and I surely have concerns about our nation’s safety, but I’m not overzealous when it comes to immigration policy, illegal immigration, and immigration reform like a majority of politicians and their constituents appear to be at this time. President Trump, during his first State of the Union address, presented a plan for conquering a problem that has been debated for many, many years. Trump’s immigration proposal calls for what he deems as the four “pillars”: constructing a border wall, granting legal status for the so-called “dreamers,” reducing the family-based immigration system, and replacing the lottery system-based Diversity Immigrant Visa Program with a merit-based system.

The consensus amongst politicians seems to be that any immigration reform must start with securing our nation’s borders. I would venture to say most Americans agree with that sentiment. How to go about it is where people tend to branch off in different directions – turning the issue into a politically partisan situation. Republicans are generally in favor of a wall being built across our southern border while the majority of Democrats are opposed. A short decade ago both parties appeared to be united in favor of constructing a barrier between the United States and Mexico. In 2006, an overwhelming, bipartisan Senate majority, which included Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, were in favor of building a fence along the border. Today, it’s about building a wall which apparently is one of the sticking points for Democrats.

What good is either a fence or a wall if it can easily be breached? I recently came across a brief article on that very subject. It was just a snippet and buried deep within the pages of The Washington Times, but it was there (1/19/18) nevertheless. Prototypes of President Trump’s proposed wall has been deemed highly effective. Military special forces and U.S Customs and Border Protection special units spent three weeks trying to get past said prototypes without any success. The tactical teams utilized an array of tools and climbing gadgets including torches, saws, and jackhammers, but they found the walls’ astounding heights and durability too difficult to breach. I’m not too enthused about the cost of “the great wall,” but our government has added to our national debt in the past on more frivolous things (e.g., the Iraq War). Hey, isn’t Mexico suppose to pay for the wall anyway?

The President’s second pillar deals with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. I too have some compassion for the “dreamers.” They had no choice when brought here illegally by their parents. However, I feel much differently about the parents – the ones who blatantly broke the law and are totally responsible for putting their children in the predicament they are currently in. This unfortunate situation is neither President Trump’s nor Congress’ fault. I do not understand why illegals (and those avidly lobbying on their behalf) have so much trouble comprehending that breaking the law is wrong.

I’ve been accused of being legalistic…which I proudly am. I believe we have laws for a reason, and if they’re broken there should be consequences. Not all laws are wonderful, and some may not even make all that much sense, but when they are on the books then they need to be obeyed. Therefore, I think illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote in our elections or receive in-state tuition at our colleges. How many other nations would go to extreme measures, and willingly risk political division, catering to the illegals in their country? Some would surely argue – but that’s what makes our country so special and America so great. I don’t think turning a blind eye to lawbreakers is what makes America great.

President Trump’s remaining two pillars are mostly about reducing the number of immigrants coming into this country and having a better idea of who exactly the ones are being allowed to enter. I view these scaling back efforts as acceptable tweaks to our current immigration policy. Using the proposed merit-based system should take some of the guesswork out of who we’re actually welcoming in to our country. I’m well aware Lady Liberty possesses an inscribed plaque, attached to the spectacular statue’s pedestal, which indeed reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…,” but don’t we already have enough citizens like that legally living here?

It has been reported that Democrats, and even some Republicans, are repulsed by the possibility of Congress finally resolving the immigration problem with President Trump at the helm. Supposedly, their distaste for Trump supersedes passing any immigration reform, and giving their leader a bipartisan victory, even if they would’ve supported such a plan in the past. I hate to imagine any of our elected officials being that vindictive and petty. When giving his State of the Union speech, the President presented his proposition as “a fair compromise” in which “nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs and must have.” Trump went on to say, “These four pillars represent a down the middle compromise, and one that will create a safe, modern and lawful immigration system.” I concur, although I’m still not at all passionate about the topic of immigration.


Catching Up

We’ve got some catching up to do. Hopefully, we can effortlessly pick up from where we previously left off. Like catching up with an old high school chum you haven’t seen in ages. You know what I mean. The type of relationship where the conversation flows without missing a beat even when there’s been no contact with one another for up to years at a time. I haven’t written for a while because I’ve been a very busy guy these past several months. There were crossword puzzles to solve, craft beers to sample (so many brews, so little time), Netflix to watch, and then Christmas came along. Admittedly, those aren’t very convincing excuses for neglecting what I typically enjoy doing and am usually quite passionate about.

The truth is I needed a reprieve: some time away from the slew of partisan political talk consuming our nation’s media. I was exhausted from reading, watching, studying, and then painstakingly having to decipher the actual truth in what was being reported by our melodramatic media from the accusations, partial truths, and even a few bold faced lies. I hungered for a life void of daily negativity, disappointment and anger, and I realized I could no longer pen my thoughts on current topics and keep my sanity. I opted for the latter, and in doing so I found more peace, more contentment, and even a new hobby or two. Ignorance truly can be bliss. Not knowing about the daily exaggerated “firestorms” was utterly refreshing. However, I think I’m now ready to get back into the fray and rejoin society, regardless of how errant many of its members appear to be happily existing, but this time without any lofty expectations of the human race.

I have found that having a SENSIBLE political discussion is an anomaly. There are still only two major political parties in this country, but now there are factions within both the Republican and Democratic parties which only further complicates matters. These days hardly any member of Congress completely agrees with the other elected officials in their own coalition – which would probably be fine in some other existence except unfortunately that “independence” as of late has not led to compromise or making America an even greater place. I have also found that many of President Trump’s supporters are impassioned minions willing to follow their leader into the abyss if necessary. Meanwhile, a majority of Trump haters are going to continue to hate even if a few of the President’s policies happen to align with one of their own darlings (Bernie Sanders). By the way, I certainly hope the Democrats can do better than Oprah in 2020. (I suppose she’d be a bit better than Kanye though.)

What I’m trying my best to impart at this moment, and have been attempting to convey since the launch of my blog, is that we all should be open to the possibility that there could be some legitimate ideas and reasonable arguments coming from the other side. One party or person (except for Jesus, of course) does not have a monopoly on the perfect (or even best) solutions to EVERYTHING. For instance, I’ve never subscribed to the notion that the Republicans’ “trickle-down theory” works. That very belief appears to be the basis for the recently passed U.S. corporate tax cuts. However, CNBC reported last week (1/24/18) that Starbucks announced the company will use some of their savings (more than $250 million) from the aforementioned tax cuts for giving their employees raises, company stock, and expanded benefits. The renowned coffee chain joins Wal-Mart, Apple, Comcast, and American Airlines who’ve already made similar announcements regarding their newfound tax savings.

Therefore, I find the newly enacted U.S. corporate tax cuts to be at the very least beneficial to some working-class folks – not just the wealthy. There is one thing we now know for certain: by implementing the radical tax cuts, the Republican Party doesn’t seem too concerned about adding billions of dollars to our country’s national debt. The GOP can no longer claim with a straight face to be the “fiscally conservative” party. The Republicans’ tax reform plan is definitely far from perfect, but it’s surely not a complete disaster either. Nothing would please me more in this political climate than to hear both sides of the aisle admitting as much. Maybe then I won’t need another reprieve in the future. Well, until we meet again. It’s been nice catching up.


Saying Goodbye

My wife left me yesterday. It wasn’t entirely unexpected either. In fact, we both knew it was coming since she’d been talking about it for some time, so I let her go without putting up a fight. I must admit I am somewhat surprised that neither of us seemed all that sad or concerned when saying goodbye. We’ve been married for almost 30 years, for crying out loud, so you’d think my wife’s departure would have been quite the ordeal, yet in actuality it was a far cry from an emotional farewell. I suppose the missus leaving me really wasn’t that big a deal since my lovely wife will be back home, from a business convention in Vegas, tomorrow.

Saying goodbye isn’t as cut and dried as one might think. Bidding a fond adieu is actually a tricky concept. When saying goodbye to someone, we are not assured of ever seeing that person again. That’s a sobering thought, but it’s certainly true. We assume we’ll meet again in this lifetime, but no one is promised tomorrow. I have an aunt who routinely goes out of her way to say “see you later” instead of goodbye. I think her preferred choice of words is a superstitious attempt at fooling Mother Nature. I believe she’s even alluded to that in the past. To each their own.

The airport can be such a sad place, with countless goodbyes being said. On the other hand, the airport can be the happiest place on earth (no offense Disneyland). It’s a place where one can witness numerous reunions with loved ones, relieved embraces of military personnel returning from deployment, and an abundance of authentic ear to ear smiles. So much happiness can be found within the confines of an airport. I reckon train stations and bus stops evoke similar feelings although I’ve never experienced either of those places firsthand.

George Bailey, Jimmy Stewart’s beloved character in It’s A Wonderful Life, boasted that the three most exciting sounds in the world are “anchor chains, plane motors, and train whistles.” I don’t doubt that is true, for those who are desiring to set out on a new journey, but that’s surely not the case for any loved ones left behind. In the summer of 2007, I had the mindset akin to that of George Bailey when my wife, my son, and I uprooted from Iowa, to Arizona. I longed for a new adventure – an opportunity to chart a different course – a chance to explore the unknown. I did not give a lot of thought at that time as to what my mother and father, or anyone else for that matter, might’ve been going through because I was solely focused on what was ahead…not on what was being left behind.

Remember when you were a kid, and your parents used to say once in awhile, or maybe quite frequently depending on the amount of grief you gave them, “just wait ’til you have kids of your own”? It was almost as though the people raising you were actually taking some comfort in their hopes of getting sweet revenge one day. Our folks were surely angry, frustrated, or disappointed when such statements were made. Regardless, as it turns out, I’ve recently found their ancient warnings to be profoundly correct. The shoe indeed is on the other foot. I’ll soon be experiencing what my parents were forced to experience when saying goodbye to them 10 years ago.

I can now fully empathize with my folks because after spending the past decade in Arizona, my son has decided to move back to Iowa. He has grown extremely weary of the desert sun and is looking forward to the Midwest’s changing seasons, rainstorms, and even the snow. His mother and I are very fond of Arizona’s sunny days, the dry heat, wearing shorts yearlong, and NO SNOW. We’re used to having our only child living just twenty-two minutes away from us, but soon he’ll be 1,187 miles away. I’m truly excited for my son. I admire his independence, as well as his courage to try another path, but I’m not too happy about saying goodbye. That’ll be a tough one.


I Miss Dave

Once again, I’m guilty of overestimating the common sense of the citizens of this great country. I’m a bit perplexed by the public’s response to President Donald Trump’s firing of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey. I know by now I shouldn’t be surprised about anything regarding politics, or the American people, but I really want to be an optimist. If I remember correctly (and I do) not so long ago the majority of Democrats were calling for Comey’s head because he supposedly had cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. Trump and the Republicans weren’t too thrilled with Comey either after he eventually cleared Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing just two days prior to the 2016 presidential election. Now, apparently everyone is enamored with James Comey. Oh my, how things quickly change when trying to rewrite history.

This whole sordid mess began in July of 2015, when the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use during her tenure as our nation’s Secretary of State. The matter had seemingly been put to rest, but Director Comey resurrected the mild scandal on October 28th, 2016, by way of a letter to Congress. He informed them that the FBI was reviewing additional emails for possible violations committed by Clinton. Many Hillary supporters blamed Comey’s ill-timed announcement for Clinton’s loss to Trump in last year’s election. However, I’d argue that Comey’s final letter to Congress on November 6th, 2016, actually did more damage to the Trump campaign than his previous letter did to the Clinton camp. Declaring Clinton’s innocence of any criminal wrongdoing (less than 48 hours before ballots were to be cast) surely worked in Hillary’s favor in regards to garnering any of the remaining undecided voters.

Regardless, if there was one thing both sides of the political arena could agree on, a short six months ago, it was their bipartisan dislike of James Comey. His unconventional actions were controversial, confusing, reckless, and quite possibly grounds for dismissal. Yet, after President Trump’s recent firing of the FBI Director, many (from both sides of the aisle) who once despised Comey are now suddenly very supportive of him and irate at Trump for letting him go. What’s there to say? Trump haters are gonna hate.

I presume that’s also the reason for all the hubbub out there concerning President Trump and Russia. Yes, I know there’s those pesky reports about the Trump administration’s possible ties to Russia. Yes, the timing of James Comey’s dismissal could be construed as a tad suspect: he indeed was in the process of ramping up his investigation into Trump’s possible past association with Russia. Comey’s recent firing shouldn’t be too worrisome for Trump haters since Arizona Senator, John McCain, immediately called for another investigation into the Russia situation. (I wonder who’s paying for all of these investigations.)

Look, I couldn’t care less if the President, or those in his administration, had previous business dealings with Russia. Haven’t the majority of those vociferously opposed to Trump been preaching to the public that globalism is a great thing? What probably frustrates me the most about this country is that we are so quick to come to a conclusion before receiving all of the information. In essence, we come to the conclusions WE WANT…based on our emotions rather than the truth. If it is ever proven that President Trump is (or has been) in cahoots with Russia then I will be the first in line demanding his resignation and lobbying for treason charges to be brought against him. Believe me.

There is one thing we know for certain at this time concerning Trump’s possible ties to Russia. Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show, has found President Trump guilty. There’s no mistaking where David Letterman’s predecessor stands on this issue. This is not fake news. In fact, last week Colbert went on an extended tirade about the President, and then he proudly confirmed what he had previously said the very next evening. Some on the right have demanded an apology from the liberal host, but Colbert continues to stand by what he said. After calling Trump a “pricktator,” among other things, Stephen Colbert then told President Trump, “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c**k holster.” Letterman’s replacement sure has turned The Late Show from what was once a respectable, highly entertaining talk show into a biased, anger filled political program.

Many on the left think Colbert’s joke was hilarious, and they are pointing to the First Amendment in defense of his right to say what he said. I can’t argue with the latter. However, I would like to ask those who’ve sided with Colbert, and think the joke is funny, this one simple question. What if during President Obama’s presidency someone had said Obama was a “c**k holster” for Bashar al-Assad? Funny? Former President Obama did indeed draw that infamous red line in which Assad fearlessly crossed without any repercussions whatsoever. So, would that joke about Obama have been hilarious? Of course not. Just because we are allowed to publicly say something so crude and tasteless certainly does not mean that we should especially when it comes to disrespecting those elected to the Oval Office. The older I get, the less impressed I am with our country’s freedom of speech. Boy, I sure could use a dose of Letterman right about now.


It Really Isn’t A Bad Word

I was only a teenager for a good portion of the 1980s, and I wasn’t much interested in politics back then, but I find myself longing for those days when compromise wasn’t considered such a bad word amongst politicians. Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, worked together for the good of the country. Although the men differed immensely on policy, Reagan and O’Neill were adamantly opposed to a polarized atmosphere and very committed to the advancement of the United States. The leaders of the competing parties embraced a style of government that first and foremost had its citizens’ best interests at heart. That brand of government demands at least some compromise which is sorely missing in today’s political spectrum.

The art of compromise has been drastically waning in modern times, most notably with the inception of the Tea Party, but now the negotiation process is all but dead due to the recent actions of the Republican controlled Congress. Last Friday (4/7/17) Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as the newest Supreme Court Justice, but only after Congressional Republicans were able to manipulate rules in the Senate to their advantage. The change reduces the longstanding 60-vote threshold down to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate. This dangerous change, known as the “nuclear option” because it “blows up” the traditional rules and bipartisanship that were once coveted in the Senate, means there is no longer an incentive to include the other political party in our federal government’s decision making process. How ironic considering this is the first time in our nation’s history that an elected President does not boast a political or military background, but instead he prides himself on being a top-notch negotiator.

I completely understand the Republicans’ way of thinking, and attitude, behind their shady maneuver to bypass the Democrats altogether (at least in the foreseeable future) concerning their agenda. The Democrats mirrored those sentiments not so long ago (2013) when Harry Reid successfully led the charge to change the rules, so his party could appoint lower-court judges and Cabinet members without any Republican support. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Payback is a b***h.

I said I understand the Republicans’ thought process, but I certainly do not agree with their vengeful act. The change in Senate rules takes compromise off the table and basically allows whichever party controls Congress to pass anything and everything without the checks and balances proffered and cherished by our Founding Fathers. That being said, I am the furthest thing from a constitutionalist. I think the U.S. Constitution is so frequently misinterpreted (e.g. the Second Amendment) and fairly difficult to decipher with the inclusion of the numerous Amendments added throughout the years. I truly believe it’s impossible to know for sure how our Founding Fathers would view and respond to the issues of today. However, I am positive of their desire to always hold our elected officials accountable to their constituents via checks and balances; hence, the reason for our 3 branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

All of this nonsense, over something as elementary as filling a vacated seat in the Supreme Court, simply because no one from either party was willing to compromise. A seat that had been left open since Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death over 14 months ago. Let me be perfectly clear here. I think former President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Merrick Garland, should have been confirmed before our 44th President left the Oval Office. I think – oh boy, here we go – based on the Constitution – Obama had every right, as well as legal authority, to nominate Merrick Garland and to have the Senate hold confirmation hearings on Garland’s behalf. However, the Republicans disrespectfully refused to even consider the highly qualified man in hopes of winning the White House in November (an unlikely scenario at the time). Their bold gamble paid off…but at what expense? The Republicans won, for the time being, but the nation lost when the “nuclear option” was implemented.

Both parties had opportunities to compromise in regards to filling Justice Scalia’s seat, but both sides are more concerned about the D or the R that comes after their names than what’s best for the people. Senator John McCain from Arizona (I’m embarrassed to say) insisted, prior to the Senate rule change, that anyone who thought the revision would be beneficial was a “stupid idiot” and a “numskull,” yet McCain ultimately aligned with his party and lent his support for the ill-conceived change. Why can’t somebody in our federal government – anybody – just do the right thing? To be fair, three Senate Democrats: Joe Donnelly (Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) did put pettiness and partisanship aside by giving President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, their endorsements.

I certainly thought both Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch would’ve had a much easier time receiving bipartisan support and Senate confirmation since they tend to be more moderate than extreme (like Scalia was). By the way, the late Justice Scalia was UNANIMOUSLY confirmed in 1986, and he was politically as far to the right as possible. This just goes to show how divided today’s Congress really is and how unwilling they are to compromise. I would have been fine with Garland, and I’m fine with Gorsuch. If pressed, I’d admit to having desired a more socially conservative judge, rather than a liberal one, to replace Scalia. However, the U.S. Supreme Court should be entirely about the law and not about political party affiliation.

After Donald Trump took office, I was actually hoping the President would utilize his unpredictability by nominating Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, as his choice for the Supreme Court. I recognize that course of action would have been unconventional, to say the least, but I was rooting for a miracle nonetheless. I doubt if the vast majority of the population even considered such a thing, especially those supposedly representing us in Washington, D.C., but I think a generous move like that would have gone a long way in revealing Trump’s (hidden) bipartisan nature, and it would have gone a long way in immediately uniting Congress and possibly the country. Compromise is crucial – for a successful marriage – for an effective business negotiation – and for the U.S. Government…if it genuinely cares about its people. It really isn’t a bad word.


Who Was That Guy?

Who was that guy speaking to Congress and to the American public on Tuesday night? He clearly resembled President Donald Trump, but he appeared to be much different than what we are used to seeing. During his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Trump seemed to be calm, caring, and dare I say…presidential. The normally brash businessman came across as a unifier and even showed glimpses of humility during his hour-long speech. I like that guy.

Early on in his speech President Trump said, “While we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.” And toward the end of his address he said, “We are one people with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same great American flag. And we all are made by the same God.” Those were some very assuring words from our President (yes, our President). Could this be the so-called “pivot” that at least half of this country has been waiting for since after he won his party’s nomination – after his victory in November – after his inauguration? Probably not.

Trump is who he is, and many of his supporters are fond of his candidness and political incorrectness. The problem is, more often than not, the former reality star does not know when to quit or when to stay silent. For example, just one day prior to his heartfelt speech to Congress, President Trump accused former President Obama of being the mastermind behind the recent protests against the current administration as well as the leaks coming from the White House. During Monday’s interview with Fox News, when asked whether he thought Obama himself was arranging protests, Trump replied, “I think that President Obama is behind it because his people are certainly behind it.”

I believe whenever an allegation is made against someone then the burden of proof is solely on the accuser. (Like our justice system.) Therefore, some evidence must be given to lend credibility to one’s claims or else it’s only senseless chatter. Trump’s accusations against Obama, at this point, fits the bill. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the former President’s behalf, and I highly doubt our nation’s first Black President is secretly organizing anything against the current Trump administration. Say what you will about Obama’s policies, but former President Barack Obama is a classy guy.

What wasn’t so classy were the actions of some during President Trump’s first address to Congress. Apparently, some lines had already been drawn before Trump even uttered one word. A handful or so of lady Democrats reportedly dressed in white attire to show their disapproval of Trump’s assumed stance on women’s issues. A couple of the women then repeatedly gave the President a thumbs down, in melodramatic fashion, while he spoke about repealing and replacing Obamacare. It probably didn’t really matter what Trump was talking about because haters are gonna hate.

I always find it a bit humorous, although in a bleak sort of way, observing Congress when the President is speaking. Watching one side of the auditorium stand and applause while the other side sits in disgust is fascinating. Politicians often talk about their concern of a divided nation, especially during this past election, and many of them even offer advice (usually to the other party) as to the best way of unifying the country, yet Congress openly shows their divided state, for the entire world to see, simply by the way they’re seated during the President’s address. This behavior is certainly nothing new, and it goes both ways, but I think our country would best be served if politicians were forced to amalgamate instead of adhering to the status quo. Have any of them ever heard of leading by example?

I agree with many of the things President Trump had to say on Tuesday evening including his take on illegal immigration. I think he asked a legitimate and thought-provoking question of the elected officials seated before him concerning illegal immigration that I too would like to have answered. The President said, “To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this one question: What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or their loved one because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?” Unfortunately, I think those who need to do the most soul-searching on this issue are the ones who are making a career out of being anti-Trump and have ignorantly lumped illegal immigrants in with legal immigrants.

The two main reasons I consistently hear in defense of not deporting illegals are because it breaks up families, and we need them in our labor force for a healthy economy. The first argument is a valid point because it does break up families. However, it is certainly not the government’s fault. The lawbreaker need only look in the mirror to see who’s to blame for his or her family’s sad situation. I think the solution to the second argument is so simple to solve, but I have not heard one elected official mention anything like it amidst all of the bickering and partisanship in Congress. My common sense approach would be to replace each deported illegal immigrant with a law-abiding person from the waiting list that we’ve heard so much about. If 500 illegals are sent back to where they came from then 500 people that have been doing it the right way, patiently waiting their turn, would be rewarded by being allowed to make the United States their home.

Like it or not, President Trump has softened his stance regarding illegal immigration. He has decided to keep a few aspects of former President Obama’s executive order including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I would think Democrats should be thrilled with the President for taking a more centrist position on this issue. Trump is first and foremost a businessman, so it should be of no surprise to anyone that our 45th President tends to view his presidency as a four-year stint (at least) of negotiations. A good businessman (heck, even an average one) knows not to start a negotiation without allowing for a bit of wiggle room.

It appears the travel ban President Trump signed into law via executive order will now be negotiated as well although the courts will likely have the final say in the matter. I’ve been a proponent of Trump’s temporary travel ban, for the sake of our national security, since he proposed the idea during his campaign. There were definitely some flaws found with the President’s order soon after the ban was announced, but some kinks should be expected when implementing something new. Anti-Trump people skewed the President’s order as hateful and racist, but I viewed it as just another way of trying to keep America safe.

Immediately after the President enacted the ban, the media began referring to the Trump administration as “turbulent,” “a mess,” and a “train wreck.” Of course, Trump responded with a little nonsense of his own by insisting his presidency is “a fine tuned machine.” I think the actual truth lies somewhere in between. As hectic as those first couple of days were, I appreciate the fact the President held true to his campaign promise concerning timetables. He publicly berated Obama, while on the campaign trail, for giving advanced notice to our enemies around the world. Nobody can accuse President Trump of doing that in this instance.

I agree with many of the policies our new President has either enacted by way of executive order or has implied during his short time in the Oval Office. However, I respectfully disagree with his plan to increase defense spending by $54 billion. We absolutely should take care of our veterans, but I don’t see the need for making our military bigger, better, and stronger than ever before like the President desires. The United States already has the greatest armed forces in the world without having to waste money that could be used in a more constructive manner: like using those funds to jumpstart the proposed $1 trillion infrastructure plan or having a financial cushion in place while Congress is attempting to modify Obamacare. I’m well aware that at times President Trump offers a mixed bag policy wise, but we should not take his every word literally because his background is indeed in business, not government, so he truly is a negotiator at heart. Regardless of Trump’s policies, I sure hope to see that guy more often.