Today's Panicky Fight Over Instances Of Alleged "Hate","Bigotry," And "Fascism" In Trump's America Is Becoming Almost As Dangerous As Its Target(s)

I'm just going to dive right into the pool of hypocrisy here and say that I'm tired of hearing people complain about "hate" and "divisiveness."

On a recent segment, CNN's Chris Cuomo got mad at Hispanic conservative Chris Cortes because Cortes accused him of defending Antifa in an earlier episode. Cuomo snidely denied it and accused the guy of not reading what Cuomo actually said, which - according to Cuomo - was simply that some violence is morally justified if it is against hatred and bigotry. "...In the eyes of good and evil," Cumo said on the earlier show, "here’s the argument: ...when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters.” Later in the segment and then on Twitter, he cited World War 2 and violent episodes in the Civil Rights Movement as examples of morally justified violence against hatred, even going so far as to Tweet a photo of the Normandy landing with the caption, "Anti-Fascists disrupting a large gathering of white supremacists."

Actually, the second world war and America's role, in particular, was more about defending sovereign nations from invasion by a common enemy than it was fighting white supremacy, and the gathering of Nazis where the landing took place wasn't large enough because the Allies had tricked them into believing the landing would take place somewhere else.  At any rate, so what if he didn't say the word Antifa while defending violence against bigots? He didn't have to because the whole thing was in the context of him expressing his opinion on a matter concerning... ANTIFA! The whole monologue was commentary on and/or spurred by a story about a gathering which Cuomo described as, "peppered in a crowd were members of Antifa, or Anti-Fascists..." In that context, if he's not defending Antifa, then who is he defending? Because I don't recall the names of any other groups that fight hatred and bigotry relevant to his segment.

Now, I'm not sure I totally disagree with Cuomo. Antifa often seems to incite its own violent episodes, but for better or worse, violence has long been an effective agent of good and necessary change in human history at both a national and local level. One could make the argument that the American Revolution was first incited by localized violence. What I disagree with is comparing what's going on today with the landing at Normandy or the Civil Rights Movement.

The Nazis VIOLENTLY invaded their neighbors in the name of Lebensraum and, eventually, enacted a very obvious and very horrendous plan to exterminate as many Jews and other undesirables (to the Nazis) as they could. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, police were hosing down and beating black people simply for standing around where they weren't welcome. You could turn a corner in an otherwise nice little neighborhood and see a black man with a broken neck hanging from a tree. Children were being burned to death in church fires by white men that may or may not even stand trial and were just as likely to be exonerated by a "jury of their peers" because their peers were white. THAT is hate. THAT is justification for violence, in spite of another fact that Cuomo neglected to mention, which is that Martin Luther King - arguably the most celebrated and effective Civil Rights leader in American history - followed the example of Ghandi and others and insisted that there be NO  VIOLENCE in his marches and protests... even when it drew the ire of other civil rights groups and leaders like Malcolm X.

What we have today started as and, for the most part, still is a war of words that gets out of hand because at least TWO generations of people currently alive seem to equate hurt feelings with real, 100% unadulterated hate. Now, does that mean people should go around yelling racial epithets and other hateful slurs, etc? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But the European Jews in World War 2 and the blacks in 1960's Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago, and other cities across America were literally dreaming of a day in which the only things they had to put up with 99% of the time were the words of a few idiots and, yes, bigots, because humans are imperfect and will probably never fully purge some form of discrimination and hatred from their psyches. People like Cuomo and the Antifa punks think they're standing up for people's rights and nobly fighting to keep REAL Fascism from once again gaining a foothold, but by complaining so much about "divisiveness" and equating the Allies' fight at Normandy against the army of the violently racist Nazi Germanny with Antifa punks' attack on people in the street because they happen to be Republicans or Trump supporters is every bit as dangerous to our civil liberties as anything that President Trump and his supporters has said or ever will say outside of stated and enacted policy. Why?

Because it's setting a pattern AND PRECEDENT in which certain members of our society cannot say certain things or otherwise disagree with certain other members of our society without being guilty of "racism" and "hate," which - in some instances - the law already recognizes as criminal. In America, laws are meant to be made and unmade based upon the demands of the people. If enough people have decided that something should be illegal, then it becomes possible for government to make it so. That's why lobbyists exist. At this rate, within the next decade, people will or won't be allowed to say certain things to certain people based on things like their race and income while others will be forcefully protected and defended for the same reason. There are mild forms of this already on the books. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY. AT ALL.

And while I will always criticize Trump and others for dividing the GOP as a party into quarreling factions and bemoan the fact that members of different political parties no longer even have the same fundamental goals, the current complaints about divisiveness - which now come from both sides - are equally petty and dangerously myopic. We are a democratic republic. Being democratic means we can CHOOSE who we want to lead and how we want to be led, but if our choices are not sufficiently distinct and representative of people with distinctly different ideas and viewpoints, then why bother? If what I want is jelly and someone comes up and says, "Good news! You can choose between creamy and crunchy peanut butter," what's the point in giving me the choice? EITHER WAY, I'M EATING PEANUT BUTTER!

I was under the impression that we're supposed to value diversity, but there's no diversity in a group of weak-kneed sycophants that panic and compare others to Nazis and warmongers any time someone disagrees with them on a topic of some personal importance. There's no equality OR tolerance in a society in which distasteful, yet otherwise innocuous and incidental behavior is moderated, restricted, and punished by law based upon things like the race and income of the supposedly guilty parties and whether or not the behavior is directed at people of a different race and income level. And yet, that's where we're headed. I'm not defending a single thing that President Trump has said or done to date just by saying that the reaction to him and his mistakes and occasional idiocy have become or are quickly becoming every bit as consequential BECAUSE instead of it just being the acts and words of one man, no matter how powerful or how many he represents, it's the acts and words of the national community... the "mob," if you will... that ultimately has and was always meant to have the most power at the end of every day here in America.

Dear Fellow Republicans, Trump Supporters, And Patriots On Both Sides,

I'm a fairly loyal Republican, but if the president's assertion, "Mission accomplished," means that nothing was accomplished except to make Russia and Iran angrier and maybe set the next chemical weapons attack back, say... a few weeks, then sadly, I agree. Mission accomplished... I get why the attack wasn't more comprehensive and didn't hit specifically Russian or Iranian targets in the region (assuming there are any worth hitting), and if nothing else, Syria is of interest to the U.S. because it borders Israel, our most reliable Middle Eastern ally. However, Israel is no pushover and, as we've actually seen recently, is pretty capable of defending itself as it has more or less been fending off its more aggressive Muslim neighbors for decades - both with and without help. Furthermore, based on what I and most of us armchair pundits THINK we know, nothing is likely to change for the better in Syria or with Russian and Iranian relations short of a total Syrian regime change, which Obama officially helped make all but impossible short of Assad's death and which we probably can't seriously initiate now without blatantly breaking international law (and our own, probably), risking yet another violent and - this time - more globally consequential war.

Of even greater concern is this action's potential effects on our situation with North Korea, with whose own murderous dictator I think Trump too quickly agreed to meet next month. Shortly after that acceptance, Kim Jong Un made an unexpected trip (and very rare for Kim) to China to meet with its General Secretary and President Xi Jinping, whose limited cooperation in putting pressure on North Korea over its nuclear weapons program was then arguably put into jeopardy by Trump's ill timed and uneven application of trade tariffs. China, by the way, is not only a neighbor bordering Russia (and a pretty powerful one, too), but one that is known to vote with and/or in solidarity with Russia. While Russia's military might may be a little exaggerated, as I've heard some say, a military partnership with China would be greatly significant and not unexpected if keeps acting so provocatively without a solid, long term plan. Given his direct involvement in its planning and care taken to limit or avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, I even find it difficult to believe that a man of General Mattis' experience and reputation would've even agreed to do this if SOME kind of response wasn't warranted and if he thought he could get Trump to wait or consider an alternative. Like all the others, I'd bet good money, if I had it, that the year won't be much more than half over before we hear something like this along with rumors that Mattis plans to leave... just like all the rest.

A few minutes ago, I watched a report on Barbara Bush, who appears to be dying even though that wasn't specifically said, and it reminded me of the raw deal that Former President George H.W. Bush got in 1992 for cooperating with the U.N. and, in that case, wisely choosing not to try to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein - later done by his son and, in hindsight, at great long term cost, which too few of us predicted at the time... myself included. Many say that Trump's election and policies are a threat to our democracy, but I disagree. If anything, it's a symptom of the REAL threat, which I think started growing slowly after Vietnam and matured suddenly as of 9/11. That threat is US - the voters - and the stance most of us have taken on both sides of the aisle from which we are demanding purer and purer versions of our parties' general policies and refusing to accept imperfect, yet comparably solid solutions to problems and issues simply because they may come from the other side. The Affordable Care Act is a mistake that was all but totally unsustainable unless the Democrats stayed in charge of at least one branch of government after Obama and could influence more states with regards to their Medicare and Medicaid programs. Neither side wanted it except as a potential political tool that Republicans could fight with and Democrats could use as leverage and credibility if it failed to finally force through socialized medicine as the only option left. However, it was based on an idea by the conservative Heritage Foundation and probably not the total disaster it was described as on the campaign trails. It could have easily and more successfully been fixed or modified... even with minimal Democrat participation and approval... but that's not what our party promised voters, and so, in the end, its "repeal and replace" wound up being a massive embarrassment. All that was accomplished was the repeal of the mandate forcing people to buy insurance or pay a "tax" that would, unless I'm too much mistaken, conceivably go towards some of the government subsidies of still private insurers on the exchange. Now, if too much of the ACA stays in place without suitable funding, the situation could actually get worse without.

It may seem like I'm inadvertently slamming political competition and therefore contradicting myself, but when competitions such as our elections really depend as much or more on how many vote in what places as on the way those people vote, the integrity of that competition is in trouble. Just as Democrats probably did when pushing the ACA through unilaterally, too few of us on the right thought about those potential consequences. Instead of putting more thought into them and taking some responsibility for the potential impacts of our goals and how we try to accomplish them, we ALL are way too beholden to our parties and increasingly simplistic and inflexible ideologies. If (on both sides) we're not instinctively making too many broad demands of and blaming government for failing to give us what we want while we're lazily "waiting on the world to change," we're taking more and more of our frustrations out on our parties' more knowledgeable and experienced incumbents and replacing them with dogmatic and BLINDLY patriotic morons who probably can't even spell the word compromise, let alone fathom why - without it - our democracy is USELESS.  But as often as Democrats and Republicans, alike, claim to love America and superficially strengthen their arguments by trying to claim that the other side's agenda immediately puts democracy, itself, at stake, we voters are hacking away at it faster than anyone else could with our own extremism. We may as well choose which side we want our new benign American dictatorship to come from now because, judging by the behavior and rhetoric I too often see from others and have occasionally been guilty of, myself, all we ever do is vote the same way for the same things, over and over. Instead of acknowledge all the changes around us and look for ways to adapt, we look for people to blame for that change while looking for others we think can put things back the way they were.

Politics is like history. It's cyclical, so something like this has happened before. Unlike something like the formation of the Bull Moose Party, for example, I think it's been a longer time coming, the specifics are different, it seems to be succeeding, and with social media comes what seems like its never-ending perpetuation because absolutely NOBODY can truly be silenced or denied a larger-than-ever bullhorn. The reason Trump is a consequence of this is that, like the popularity of Bernie Sanders, in some ways (some of whose Midwestern supporters voted for Trump), his election represents the fact that having felt let down by our own parties, we're just doubling down and turning to more extreme candidates offering more extreme and less nuanced versions of the same general "solutions" we expect our parties to offer and implement in reaction to each and every issue. It didn't even matter in 2016 that, if you really listened to Trump, he wasn't and still isn't all that conservative. Ultra-liberal Elizabeth Warren, herself, got on Fox News recently to PRAISE Trump's tariffs and say only that they didn't go far enough and were not evenly applied. Even where Trump seems to be ultra-conservative on issues like immigration and deregulation, it doesn't seem to have dawned on anyone that - because he prides himself on being a deal maker - Trump may ultimately care more about bringing home "a deal" than whether it's really what he promised everyone, which certainly seems to be the case with this latest budget agreement. This is also relevant to my opinion that, were he not so egotistical, he'd realize that while the press IS biased and waging an unusually intense war on him, personally as well as politically, it's not one he can truly win. His reactions only fan the flames and his expectations of holding them more accountable are every bit as or more unconstitutional as any new gun regulation.

What mattered then and seems to matter most even now to Trump's base (which, in some cases, don't even call themselves Republicans anymore) is that he's a tough businessman with no prior political experience, so to them, that equates to near-total transparency when it comes to his intent, a different way of taking action because he's supposedly not bound to the Beltway's rules, and an all-but-ironclad guarantee that he will, in fact, DO something. Shortly before the election, I listened to a few supporters on the radio admit that while they had no idea if Trump would really succeed as a president or accomplish what he claimed, they were voting for him, anyway, largely based upon the fact that he wasn't the sort of entrenched "politician" that had talked down to them for years while never making anything significantly better AND wasn't afraid to say that, as President, he would represent the interests of America and of those that voted for him first and foremost. I became concerned because Trump's platform didn't really seem to go deeper or feature more than the broad strokes of a nationalist conservative agenda - a concern that I think the GOP's failure under Trump to repeal and replace, among other things, has since validated. Yet as far as I can tell, not only does it NOT matter to most of Trump's ardent supporters, but they are now prone to labeling anyone to whom it does matter a traitorous, intellectual "elitist," "RINO," or - most bizarrely - a "swamp" creature. 

As I see it, the bottom line is just that we're wasting a lot of time and money trying to discover and prevent further Russian "meddling" in our elections on behalf of our democracy because, in the end, I think we will have issued the final coup de gras all by ourselves!

Why Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions' & DOJ's Lawsuit Against California Over Sanctuary Cities Is Potentially DISASTROUS

Well, hell... Pardon my French, but apparently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a nightmare that convinced him that he had to, you know... DO his job as attorney general... and what does he start with? Suing California over sanctuary cities.

Now, I'm going to be very clear in saying that I want more secure borders and that there should be at least some consequences for California and the mayors and other officials therein which have not only sheltered undocumented and illegal immigrants, but warned those guilty of crimes when the feds were about to come after them and legally threatened employers with punishment should they cooperate in any way with the federal government under the Trump administration's efforts to detain and deport illegal immigrants, even those that have committed other crimes. With that said, I think those consequences should be doled out very carefully and only on a case-by-case basis .I disagree with what I'm hearing from pundits at Fox News in that I think this has the potential to turn into both a political and economic disaster, and here's why.

1. Whatever one's opinions on the matter, illegal immigration is not America's most pressing problem right now. At the very least, there other equally or more important matters on which the government could more effectively successfully act. As important an issue as immigration is or will be in the near future, it is one that needs comprehensive reform - bipartisan cooperation in the passing of legislation, not a lawsuit pitting the federal government against one of its biggest states and the fifth-largest-economy in the world. Even with gangs like MS13 and the shootings at the border that keep getting referenced, these problems are arguably as or more relevant to issues like gun and drug trafficking as to immigration, and as for the immigrants, themselves - on the whole - I just don't they present enough of a clear and urgent threat to warrant what Sessions is doing. At the very least, I don't think the GOP is going to be as successful at presenting them as great threats as it thinks it will and, in my opinion, should not be gambling in this way.

2. Again, California is the third largest state in the union with a massive economic footprint and has actually been threatening and/or asking to secede from the U.S. since before Donald Trump ever decided to run for office. Right or wrong, we've also long-since seen proof that judges and other state and court officials can successfully turn their activism into enforceable law regardless of the stances and desires of the Federal government. Besides the resources this state could bring to bear to fight the feds all on its own, it has a number of other, sometimes comparably wealthy and powerful states such as Illinois and New York that have stood in solidarity with each other on this issue - galvanized in large part, I think, by their mutual hatred of Trump and everything for which they believe he and his election stands. Were they to come to California's aid, I think Governor Brown is right when he says that it could potentially outlive the Trump administration, itself, even if Trump were to somehow get reelected. Like me, my fellow GOP voters are already upset about the time and energy that is arguably being wasted on the ongoing Mueller investigation, which has managed to hit just about everyone but its biggest intended target: President Donald J. Trump. At the moment, that's a fact whether you think Trump is guilty or innocent or that he will more clearly be incriminated sooner or later or not. We're already on the verge of seeing some of the perceived good of the administration's recent tax bill potentially undone by Trump's proposed tariffs, which are arguably being fought more more vigorously by Republicans (like outgoing economic adviser Gary Cohn, I think) than by Democrats, which is something that shouldn't be taken lightly by any Republican simply because they think the House Majority Leader and others are RINOs, "elites," or residents of the "swamp" that Trump is supposedly in the process of draining. However much we think is being "wasted" by the ongoing Mueller investigation could become nothing compared with what Sessions' lawsuit has the potential to become and to cost.

3. Politically, this suit could be even worse for coming right before the first midterm election since Trump's inauguration. Historically speaking, parties that hold the White House generally see a few losses during the first midterms, but as potent as Trump's unpopularity can be among conservatives and liberals, alike, we could wind up seeing a repeat of 2006, which was actually the second round of midterm elections during the Bush presidency. Essentially, this lawsuit isn't just going to be fighting a large state, but will in essence be fighting a very large group of people that probably represent more money and power in terms of the productivity of their labor contributions and, as Hispanics in general (since many legal Hispanic residents side with their undocumented brethren), their political weight as probably the fastest growing "minority" group in the country. The overall power that Democrats wield in this nation is still historically low, yet the party has recently seen some unexpected success in states like Alabama and is seeing significantly increased voter participation and fundraising right now in the large and often impenetrably conservative state of Texas. Even more of a threat to the GOP could be the number of Republicans retiring or refusing to run again dwarfing that of Democrats - a number that could go even higher before the Midterms in November if Trump has his way with the tariffs and the result is a trade war on top of continued losses in the market. That could mean that some of the blue collar jobs and increased bonuses in manufacturing and so forth that we've allegedly gained recently, particularly since passage of the GOP's tax bill, could be lost again. That's something that I don't think Trump or the party can easily withstand given that Trump won with fewer votes that Romney had when he lost in 2012 and did so in large part, I think, due to the absence of Bernie Sanders, whose supporters in the Midwest and Rust Belt were left with only Trump in terms of a candidate that seemed to care about their kind of American jobs.

More directly tied to the lawsuit and the issue of immigration, though, is the fact that the Democrat Party - which is already seeing small gains - relies largely on the support of minority voters, and of the various minority groups in America, Hispanics have arguably had the best relationship with the Republican Party given the support they got from the Bush family in Texas and the Cuban immigrants in Miami that have been opposed to any warming of America's relationship with the regime of the late Fidel Castro and his brother. However significant or insignificant it was to begin with, the GOP's relationship with Hispanic voters is one they will likely need in this year's and future elections, yet has already been damaged by Trump's and other's rhetoric on this issue. Given the number of other states that have been doing roughly the same things as California, this lawsuit could be the very thing the Democrat Party needs to rally its comeback in a big way, arguing that besides the moral implications, it could be construed as an attack on states' rights by the party that has championed them the most and a hypocritical one given Republicans' JUSTIFIED opposition to President Obama when his Justice Department decided to take action against Governor Brewer of Arizona and her treatment of Hispanic illegal and undocumented immigrants.

When Trump was first elected, about the closest thing he got to a compliment from most of the mainstream press was that he seemed to be the least ideological president in American history. Given that his election was largely about rejecting the status quo in terms of the way the federal government has been run by more experienced and "mainstream" politicians up to now, that perceived LACK of ideological attachment is something that Trump, who fancies himself a deal-maker able to bring both sides to the table, should be going to great lengths to continually validate and expand upon. This lawsuit being brought by Attorney General Sessions, who many in the Republican Party seem to feel should have been replaced months ago when he first recused himself from the Russia investigation, is about as partisan and IDEOLOGICAL as anything the administration could do. Like what many Republicans think the Mueller investigation to be, it has the potential to be yet another long, drawn-out, and even more costly attempt to solve what is, in terms of confirmed detrimental effects, a problem of exaggerated proportions, at best.

RE: Hillary's Book And Her Petty Attitude And Delusion

I never much liked Trump, but I am kicking myself for ever having voted for Hillary, who comes across in this article about her book as being arrogant, petty, and entitled. She first attributes her loss to the FBI Director's October 28 statement about reopening the E-mail case, but as I recall, almost every poll - the ones reported on, anyway - indicated that she would win right up to the evening of November 8. These calls for the end of the electoral college seem to pop up every so often, as well - usually after a political upset and by the loser. Ironically, the demographics of Clinton's popular vote win demonstrates why we NEED the electoral college to make sure that votes count in EVERY state, not just some of the states Hillary won, such as California and New York - both of which have some of the biggest cities and populations of people that not only vote on a regular basis and sometimes even lead political trends, it seems, but tend to be or be seen as somehow being more politically motivated and reliably DEMOCRAT, all for a number of reasons.

Her attacks of Bernie Sanders are really baseless and shameful. It was bad enough that the hierarchy in his own party is alleged to have tried to undermine and dismiss Sander's candidacy - which has actually generated a little sympathy from the right and from Trump, himself - but it is downright deceitful to suggest that Sanders didn't support her or didn't support her enough. For one thing, it was first and foremost HER responsibility as the nominee to "unify the party," not Sanders.' This goes to perhaps the biggest and only substantial criticism of her by pundits everywhere but Fox News, which was her allegedly excessive dependence on political surrogates.

Sanders was always a COMPETITOR that had no obligation whatsoever to drop out of the primary race earlier than he did. The fact that he got so far, allegedly without the typically big donations from big business and political PACS, validates his decision to keep fighting. It suggests to me, anyway, that had the DNC primary rules been different, he might have been nominated and given Trump a bigger fight on similar ground free of baggage. If anything, Hillary had it easy with only 2 other contenders for the nomination to begin with, and after the third one dropped out before January 2016, I think, Sanders was the only one left with whom she had to compete. And, again, what should have made it even easier on Clinton was the fact that Sanders was a candidate which even their own party saw as too "radical" and in which it had little if any faith.

What she needs to be asking herself is why she, as an arguably seasoned and experienced politician and former First Lady, did or could not "understand with the anger..." (as is erroneously written in the article) that really drove BOTH Trump's and Sander's popularity. The 2016 election was driven from top to bottom by a growing anti-incumbent and anti-establishment mentality. While Trump embodies and speaks to that attitude more literally, effectively, and with arguably more credibility as someone with zero past political and legislative experience, Sanders had been the longest serving independent representative in the House. As an almost unabashed Socialist, I think his supporters felt and probably still feel that he better understood the frustration of many Democrats when he was fearlessly criticizing the party and other candidates for always drifting to the center of the aisle during elections. He seemed to recognize and characterize this drifting towards a more moderate stance while campaigning as a sort of betrayal because, as his candidacy bore out, most of the party's younger and more engaged constituency has planted itself on the left and is waving at their party and waiting for it to finally accept them and itself as what they really are. After all, Democrats can surely see how the Republican Party has moved further right WITH its constituency and, in so doing, has managed to prolong its six or seven year winning streak despite historically LOW approval ratings even from within its voting ranks.

The worst part of this in my opinion, at least, is her audacity in saying that the damage done to her campaign by Comey and others "forever changed history," which is like saying that she was somehow preordained to win and would have had Sanders and others not dared to oppose her or say anything critical or unflattering in public. It's like her saying that she lost, in part, because she didn't "understand" the anger of the voters - as if it wasn't reflected on the news and in newspapers every day in living color. That's akin to someone saying they lost a board game that they had been playing for most of their life because they didn't know or understand the new rules and the other players. Well, duh... If that was the case, then she probably had no business running again in the first place. If Trump's administration were not as predictably chaotic as it is, I'd argue that she's the one that forever DAMAGED the Democrat Party.

Grown Men's Overreaction to All-Female WONDER WOMAN Screenings Nevertheless Highlights Potential Issue Surrounding "selective equality"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/grown-men-upset-movie-theater-180710371.html

I think it's fairly obvious that these guys' objections are much ado about nothing. Even if this is a case of "selective equality," it's hardly the most significant one. Besides, the Alamo is a PRIVATE BUSINESS with the same right to these kinds of events as the golf courses and clubhouses that sought to defend their all-men status in years' past. The only caveat may be that since it is for-profit and not associated with a specific religion or cause, the law might apply the same as it does to these Christian business owners wanting to deny service to homosexuals. Frankly, though, I think the law nowadays just does whatever it wants, especially with all of the activist mayors, governors, and judges we've seen lately on both sides of the political aisle.

That said, even if more good than bad comes of this, anyone who says this alleged example of equality is not "selective" is deluding themselves, regardless of whether or not people think it favors a sector of society that may be owed such favors. I think that with the law having basically done all or almost everything it Constitutionally can to at least try to ensure, protect, and defend equal rights and access (at least on a federal level), we're seeing people frustrated that their most "progressive" ideas are not yet fully embraced and are thus settling for opportunities to turn the tables... then, when confronted, perhaps, say, "Damn straight!" Though I'm a huge DC fan that cannot wait to see the WONDER WOMAN movie, myself, I worry that it might be a situation similar to that of a child that has no interest in something until he or she sees that one or more other kids have it. Then, that kid has to have it, too. While this might be changing or being allowed to change for any number of reasons, women and young girls have never really been the primary or most reliable audience for ANY superhero movie. Just from a business and marketing perspective, I don't think "girl power" is going to guarantee these films' long-term profitability. If they are profitable, it will be for the same reasons as movies with male superheroes, namely that they're just plain good. Period (no pun intended). The bigger danger is that Hollywood will get even more preachy and overindulge its obsession with rebelling against Trump and his so-called populist movement by putting political and social considerations over everything else, mismatching material with female and minority talent BECAUSE they are females and minorities and because there are such few in supply and hiring a man is suddenly out of the question. Shortly before the Oscars, I heard a film commentator on public radio say that he hoped a certain movie won Best Picture or something solely because he favored the message it might send.

Granting that there will always be a real subjectivity to the accepted quality of movies, if something like that happens, I suspect there will be a point at which audiences begin taking those considerations for granted and stop giving the otherwise bad or mediocre movies passes for those reasons. The eventual backlash could make women-made and women-centered movies look less profitable and potentially unfeasible to studios best equipped to make and promote them, particularly in genres previously dominated by male characters appealing to male audiences. It could defeat the original social and political purposes NOT because these were female-centered movies made by women, but because they simply put the wrong material with the wrong talent for the wrong reasons.
Thankfully, I don't see that as happening right this minute. Also, there has been more precedent of late, with women successfully directing movies in traditionally male-targeted genres ranging from the more recent ZERO DARK THIRTY back to the one-and-only PUNISHER sequel/reboot, which wasn't a huge hit but got a good deal of credit for being better than the man-directed original. One thing that I think activists pushing for more women in film tend to forget is that, in the industry's early, silent days, women were not only making the dialogue cards for silent films, but often writing the screenplays and serving as production managers. This, after all, is how Alfred Hitchcock met his beloved wife Alma.

WITH TRUMP'S WALL ON-HOLD, IMMIGRATION ISSUE A NO-WIN SCENARIO

Who else sees the immigration issue as I do - as a no-win scenario? Right now, funding for President Trump's wall has just been removed, albeit temporarily according to Trump, in hopes of increasing the chances of a budget agreement so as to avoid a potential government shut-down. I'm no expert on the matter, obviously, but from what little I do know, I can't help but play devil's advocate here. Unlike much of the populist GOP, I'm not convinced that most of these "undocumented" immigrants from Mexico and South America, anyway, are threats either to Americans' personal safety or their jobs, especially since (unfortunately) they tend to work jobs that many naturally-born Americans won't. For me, the problem is that everyone wants to judge based on morality, but that morality only ever seems to take the side of the American citizens or the undocumented immigrants, never really representing or serving the common good.

I never believed in Trump's wall or that Mexico would pay for it. The President talks about it stemming the flow of drugs, but those that don't get detected by border security are generally smuggled in via underground tunnels or via drops in the desert from low-flying airplanes, which cartel members in the States will at least try to retrieve in the middle of the night even as law enforcement tries to prevent it. At the same time, a judge has blocked President Trump's executive order to decrease funding for sanctuary cities and that just makes no sense to me. I'm against this being done by executive order instead of with Congress, but good or bad, is not the undocumented crossing back and forth across any national border a violation of existing law - "criminal" or not, and regardless of who does or does not enforce it? This seems to me to be a judge preventing the President from enforcing or, at the very least, strengthening a law or set of laws that BOTH are sworn to uphold unless and until it/they are amended or repealed! And, to be clear, we're not talking about an executive order that actually drives these immigrants away. All it does is decrease federal funding going to areas of the country whose local governments INTENTIONALLY ignore people's citizenship status or even go out of their way to protect these "undocumented" people. 

My opinion is that we do not need to be aggressively seeking out and rounding up undocumented immigrants for deportation, especially not from Mexico. That said, American society is increasingly dependent upon the federal government. Does that not require the government to have data which is as accurate as possible about how many people there are within its borders? If you know you're going to have to provide food for guests, do you not need to know roughly how many there will be? It's really quite simple, yet the same Democrats who seem to want what would inevitably a tightly controlled and super-standardized socialized healthcare system, employers to pay a higher minimum wage, and the rich to pay more in taxes - presumably to help pay for the increasing number of entitlements and social programs - do not seem to see the dangers inherent in the uncontrolled or, at the very least, unacknowledged growth and rate thereof of a population of people who not only pay ZERO taxes, but also BENEFIT from jobs offered by unscrupulously low-wage employers (who also don't pay taxes on those employees) and have been known to receive unemployment and other benefits traditionally reserved for legal citizens with or without forged documentation or refugee status. How does it benefit these people to let this situation go unchecked? 

Yes, with the proposed amnesty they get to stay in America... if they want to... but the reality is that many do not! Many cross back and forth, over and over again, and prefer it that way. This makes the suggestion of amnesty a proverbial TRAP and potential DETERRENT! Why? Because, unless I misunderstand, it might force these immigrants to pay taxes out of what wold likely be already low wages (particularly for the unskilled that only speak Spanish) from employers forced to offer legal and, thus, higher wages and pay taxes on those wages, which could impact the overall number of jobs available. The only real upside for these immigrants might be that they qualify for more government assistance, but that "upside" would almost certainly be short-lived as it would naturally and understandably spawn an even greater, so-called "anti-immigrant" resentment and put such amnesty measures at imminent political risk that would be difficult to defend against. Worse, it risks becoming an excuse for governments like Mexico's to quit trying harder to address the problems that drive their citizens out, in the first place. Ironically, Mexico allegedly has even stricter measures in place to keep people from South America out, but if only one side is expected to take responsibility for the problem of Mexican citizens feeling like they have to leave and get to America any way they can, regardless of laws or why they exist, then no would-be solution is ever really going to work.

Even after all of that, I do not believe in complaining about an issue without at least offering some semblance and/or part of a potential solution. As with other issues such as industrial pollution affecting climate change, I think the government should use more incentives than sticks to deal with immigration. If we don't want these people coming back and forth or staying without the same responsibilities, such as paying taxes, as American citizens, then we need to find ways of making the "path to citizenship" a little quicker and easier. I also think that the way in which we are guarding the border and trying to keep people out is making the task of crossing so harrowing and dangerous that it is backfiring by turning those that try and succeed into heroes, which has to be a factor in the number of Americans that sympathize and the number of sanctuary cities we see popping up or making themselves known since Trump took office. It also turns illegal immigration into an illicit, yet profitable underground business, with Mexicans that save money for years just to be "smuggled" across the border like so much product. Then, their chances of making it alive are too often no better than 50/50, creating even more work for law enforcement on both sides and an untold number of senseless tragedies which stir emotions and make this issue even harder to objectively address. At the end of the day, however, I am against letting these things convince us that, because these people aren't imminent threats, we should just bide our time and turn a blind eye until someone comes up with a compassionate AND effective solution.

In conclusion, I don't think such a solution exists. There will always be downsides and sacrifices. The goal should be deciding upon which downsides and sacrifices we're willing to live with, whether they come with amnesty or with increased (if not stricter or harsher) enforcement of current immigration laws. I tend to favor the latter, but unfortunately, I do not believe anyone has presented an effective way of better enforcing immigration laws with, as it is, acceptable and hopefully mitigated downsides and risks, etc. Until then, that is why this remains (IMO) a no-win scenario.

London Is Attacked Today, But CNN Is Obsessing On NON-EXISTING Evidence of Trump Collusion With Russia

Today, we've had a would-be Supreme Court Judge being grilled on Capitol Hill, as he should be, and yet another supposedly lone wolf terrorist attack with several fatalities and even more injuries perpetrated on Great Britain, our ally, and what is CNN doing? It's behaving like Fox by beating up on the ONE dumpy-looking Republican/Trump-supporter in every panel over the Russia scandal.

Yes, Russia's hacking of the DNC and any contact its government has had with Trump campaign and/or cabinet officials should be investigated IF they are people proven to have had significant influence on the campaign and/or Trump's overall agenda and form thereof (which is not Paul Manafort). That's just good, precautionary sense in my opinion. But contrary to the assertions of almost all of CNN's guests AND hosts, there is still no solid proof of Russia or Putin having played a serious, if any role in Trump's campaign or his actual election.

This started way back in the earliest of primary debates, when Trump made the idiotic mistake of complimenting Putin on his popularity and supposed success as a leader in Russia. Trump was already being treated like a joke, even by many Republicans, and one moderator, I think from CNN, actually opened a debate by asking point-blank if Trump, himself, thought he was a comic book villain! Naturally, it was construed as complimentary of Putin and his policies when it was meant to say that even potential enemies apparently have leaders more effectively representing their nation's interests than America's leaders have been representing America's. However, the way this thing about alleged collusion with Russia is being treated by networks and news outlets like CNN could prove every bit as harmful to the "integrity" of our democracy because - like Trump does, allegedly and ironically - it treats barely-incidental bits of information as fact while VINDICATING Trump by putting their bias on full display without there being one good thing to come of it. Suppose solid evidence were found and Trump was forced to leave office. Who takes his place? Traditionally, it's the VP or the Speaker of the House, and not only would both Pence and Ryan be motivated to continue pushing Trump's agenda, but because of his record as an evangelical and his stance on things like abortion, Pence is supposedly a bigger ideological threat to the left than Trump ever was! Even if Pence doesn't take Trump's place, what's to stop the same people that voted for Trump from electing someone just like him? By continuing to try to de-legitimize and/or oust Trump in this manner, they risk making him a political martyr and his "basket of deplorables" into victims of a political establishment that has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it doesn't give a damn about their votes unless its anointed person winds up in office.

I recall nobody on CNN or even Fox, for that matter, calling for an investigation into how or why Obama could suddenly negotiate with the Castros as leaders of a nation that probably wanted to help nuke us in the sixties and has a human rights record so bad that many of its people are STILL risking death in the Atlantic just to get to America. And yet, all the sudden, the interests of big business and Wall Street MATTERED to Obama and his liberals so long as it meant being buddies again with a former Communist enemy. Granted, the embargo on Cuba never amounted to significant changes in the way Castro's regime governed. Still, am I really to believe that America, as a whole, is going to benefit SO MUCH from restored economic ties with a tiny nation whose people still drive cars from the 1950's? And don't tell me Cuba's economic stagnation has been just because of the American embargo. What has been stopping China or even some other nation like North Korea (or Russia, for that matter, though it's technically not Communist anymore) from coming in and doing for their fellow Marxists what America wouldn't?