The introduction of the American transgender community and the issue of access to public bathrooms reminds me of how absolutely beholden to the extreme and the absurd the left has become.

Most of my life I have had to hear, ad nauseam, about how extreme and unreasonable the conservative voter had become.  According to the media, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party, the Republican Party had become a slave to the religious right and the Moral Majority.  Every four years, the Democrats would drag out the same tired old slogans about Republicans putting homosexuals in jail, outlawing abortion under all circumstances, re-introducing Jim Crow, and forcing old people to eat cat food by taking away their Social Security.  The United States has elected three Republican Presidents during my voting years, including Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes.  Never once was legislation introduced by a Republican President or Congress that called for curtailing Gay rights or closing down bathhouses and bars (in hindsight, closing the bathhouses during the onset of the AIDS crisis would have been a good idea) and the right to have an abortion has never been attacked by a sitting Republican President.  So who are the extremists after all?

The last few years, the LGBT (I'm leaving off the last few letters because I'm not sure if "sexually fluid" has been accepted as part of the identification) community has made tremendous strides in successfully passing legislation to protect Gays in the workplace and in the military.  The problems started when no one seemed to know when the campaigning should stop.  Our culture has had a certain argument forced upon us regarding the definition of a legitimate community.  Certainly Gays and Lesbians constitute a real part of the American family, but what about the "sexually fluid"?  Also, the leather community seems to believe it deserves a separate mention, as does the S&M crowd.  Sadly, Gay Rights organizations have wasted no time in taking up the fight for these groups.  I'm left wondering, why does everything have to be about sex, for goodness sake?  Previously, we had communities based on ethnicities.  Now we are told to respect the neighborliness of  "Jimbo, the Dildo Queen", who just got hired and shares a cubicle with you.  Get ready, because EVERYTHING about these people has to do with sex and how they like to have it.  Thank goodness I don't have that problem.  Sadly, you aren't allowed to have an opinion on any of this, otherwise you are a BIGOT and a Homophobe.  Sound familiar?  Its sorta like the a redux of the "your a RACIST" campaign.

Interestingly enough, the extremists on the left may have picked an argument that they can't win.  Early last year, we were introduced to the subject of the "Transgender" individual.  Former Olympic Triathlete Bruce Jenner announced to the world that he had spent the better part of his life in absolute misery, because he was a woman trapped in a man's body.  Most Americans were somewhat familiar with the phenomenon, but even liberal estimates put the percentage of transgender persons in our society at .03 percent.  Somehow this tiny number, carried like a flag of emancipation by the newly named "Caitlyn" Jenner, became one of the most important subjects in our cultural conversation.  At every opportunity, Caitlyn Jenner and other transgender activists spoke of all the suicides in our schools.  I graduated in a class of over 800, and we had no suicides in our school; neither did my sister and brother who graduated from the same school at different years.  I spent a bit of time asking everyone I came across the same question, regardless of age: "Did you have any suicides in your High School, and do you know if it was because of the transgender issue?"  The discussion never got off the ground, because no one could recall suicidal kids back in the 70s and 80s.  Isn't it interesting that the suicidal kids only pop up when the subject becomes common conversation?  I imagine someone with a bit of common sense might deduce that this was just another way for lonely  kids to get attention.  The issue really took off when the transgender community started demanding that anyone who self-identified as the opposite sex, be given access to the restroom for said opposite sex.  In other words, I could walk into the woman's restroom and watch ladies using the facilities, and the only excuse I need is to say, "I'm a woman inside".  There was an effort to convince the transgender activists that maybe this option should be reserved for individuals who had embraced life as their true sex, so that the person going into the women's restroom, masculine or not, would at least have the appearance of a woman.  As usual, this compromise was ignored.  Now, Target has adopted the policy of allowing persons who claim transgender status to use whatever restroom they like, and some school districts are preparing to make the change as well.  The Federal Government has waded into the debate, the Obama Administration quick to identify this subject as a "Civil Rights" issue.  Did anyone think to suggest the idea of a third, unisex bathroom?  Yes, and again, unacceptable to the LGBT lobby.

Its time to re-introduce common sense into the conversation.  This issue is so absurd, I don't know what else to say.  Was Bruce Jenner somehow injured by using the men's facilities all these years?  A couple additional facts about two of the more famous transgender persons in our society:  Cher's son Chaz, who previously we knew as Cher's daughter Chastity, refuses to complete the surgery and have the penoplasty (the creation of an artificial penis), because she wants to wait until researchers are able to create a penis that "works just like a real one".  We were led to believe that every minute of Chaz's life as a woman was torture, and yet he decides to keep his vagina, the one thing that most identifies him as a genetic woman?  Caitlyn Jenner seems to be having the same problem.  He refuses to have his penis removed because he wants to "continue using it for sex."  Its a bit confusing to me.  So he was suicidal all these years being stuck as a man, and yet he is holding onto the most masculine appendage on his body?  In truth, I'm beginning to think that all this, "I spent my entire life suicidal because I was stuck in the wrong sex", is a bit of the old, "me thinks thou protesteth too much".  Thankfully a number of states have taken then Federal Government to court over this issue.  Its time we returned sanity to our society, before the "Bronies" start asking for special bathrooms.      

The media is driving this election season right off a cliff.

The media in the United States has found it difficult to cultivate a reputation of non-bias. The political right accuses the media of actively promoting liberal candidates and causes, and the left either points out the conservative sympathies of the dominant Fox News Network, or scoffs at hearing the same complaint once again.  I was raised in Europe in a multi-cultural household (meaning French-American), and my brother and sister and I developed an international perspective to life at an early age.  I have always attempted to stay abreast of political developments in far-off places, and chose an occupation that would ensure a healthy dose of unique environments to live in and absorb.  In particular, I have enjoyed international politics.  That being said, I rarely commented about politics in other countries unless I had accrued some living time in said location.  I may devour the statistical results of Burkina Faso's last Congressional election, but I will keep my comments to myself.  Why?  Because the political events in most foreign countries do not directly impact me (I said most, not all), and frankly put, it's none of my business.  I have spend two decades of my life battling against the specter of "The Ugly Anerican", who continues to expect everyone in Paris to speak English and to have a McDonald's on every street corner of Tbilisi.  I refuse to add to the problem by telling people how they should run their own country.  In fact, except for providing basic information, I rarely notice U.S. media editorializing about foreign elections (the unavoidable exception being any French election which includes Marine Le Pen and the National Front political party).

That being said, we certainly are not given the same courtesy.  Yesterday, while vainly training to reach "Radio Classics-148" on my Sirius Satellite radio without getting distracted on the way (I failed), I caught a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) commentary on the current U.S. political scene.  The announcer was forgettable, and his material shockingly predictable, but it still managed to infuriate me, which I'm sure would please Mr. BBC if he knew.  The first "fact" regarding the 2016 election that I managed to get from the commentary was that "ignorant, racist" (my quotation marks) people were voting in droves, hence the success that Donald Trump has enjoyed to date.  On the left, Bernie Sanders has also enjoyed a surprising level of popularity, but his voters were "young, thoughtful college students determined to have their say".  The BBC, picking up where NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and CBS left off, has no problem expressing its own opinion regarding U.S. politics.  I'm so ancient, I remember a time when the media at least made an effort to appear unbiased.  The commentary continued to insult, repeatedly referring to Donald Trump's political ideology as "racist and bigoted".  I don't recall Ted Cruz being mentioned much, but I belief Kasich was introduced as the only moderate in the Republican field, so therefore obviously having no chance whatsoever.  The commentator mentioned Hillary Clinton, barely disguising his sadness regarding her high negative ratings and continued problems with "server-gate".

I should have anticipated what the BBC had to offer beforehand and kept that dial moving until I reached "Dragnet" or "Johnny Dollar, Insurance Investigator".  Instead, I listened to the entire commentary and was reminded of just how stupid the British people must think we are, as they ponder how in the heck we managed to defeat them in two wars.  If I had been delivering a commentary instead of Mr. BBC, my perspective wouldn't have taken long to share.  Donald Trump, who I DO NOT support, is on the receiving end of a angry and frightened electorate's attempt to change the direction in which our country is headed.  Contrary to the smart folks at the BBC, I do not believe that the "bigot and racist" voting bloc has finally showed its strenth in 2016.  The simple truth is that changes are taking place in the United States that are subtlety impacting the way our children are raised and the way in which we represent ourselves internationally.  The current administration has been determined to steadily increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon Washington DC for a paycheck, for programs regarding elementary education, and to make moral decisions without really taking into account the perspective of the majority of Americans.  The Obama Administration has purposely politicized the government to the point that career civil service employees either jump on board the entitlement express, or retire.  The Justice Department and the FBI have been told what and who to investigate, just as the IRS, with a brand-new politically appointed Director, starts harassing Conservative political organizations and lining up their supporters for audits.  President Obama has decided that he is just too intelligent to be burdened with the Constitution, so instead of working with Congress, Executive Action is used to handle controversial issues.  As for our international standing, the free world has been effectively without a leader since 2008.  Actually, the Obama Administration did decide to impact one particular foreign environment: Iraq.  Because we unexpectedly removed our troops (and military instructors) in 2010, ISIS took full advantage, crossed back into Iraq from Syria, forced military engagement with the Iraqi Army outside Tikrit, and when the scared, untrained 17-year old Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and ran back towards Baghdad, ISIS was on the receiving end of a military weapons and supplies haul like has never before been seen.


These are just some of the reasons that the American people are voting for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  Both men are considered to be outside the GOP establishment, which has avoided standing up to this Administration at almost every opportunity (there is no shame in being called a "racist", Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker of the House Ryan, if the accusation is FALSE).  The American Conservative voter is demanding change, and will not relax until steps are taken to address the obscene national debt.  Jeb Bush never got off the schneid because conservatives want change.  The Democrats are flirting with "Chairman Mao" Bernie Sanders but will eventually rally behind Hillary.  Seems to me they are only interested in turning back the clock, some of them to the days of Marx and Engels.

I began this long post with a complaint regarding the media, and I will try and end on that note.  We can't control what decisions are made by the press and media, and they would ignore our advice regardless.  They are the ultimate elite and understand economics, foreign policy, and the human heart so much better than the Unwashed Masses.  What I dream of is a media that presents the news, full stop.  Who decided that we needed editorials anyways?  When did some network corporate genius come along and decide that we were too stupid to understand the events taking place in our world, so they needed to EXPLAIN it too us.  In 2008, the European media fell in love with Barack Obama, and instructed Europeans (including political leaders) to love him as well.  Nothing else can explain the blind loyalty with which the EU has supported a president who took office with no military experience, unable to understand any language but English, and having never really had a job.  So BBC, following in line behind most U.S. media, has discovered that the voters who have chosen Donald Trump and Ted Cruz to fight it out for the nomination, are crusty, angry, ignorant racist bigots.  Let's see how far this gets them as the election heats up.

PS (WANTED: A non-political news service that gives me the news, and has enough faith in me to assume that I can figure out the details on my own.)

Something to consider....President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Link: A. Hillary Clinton is running for President.
          B. Flaws of New Start Treaty

Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States in 2016.  These things occur in steps: first the candidate must make a public announcement, usually accompanied by a Hollywood-produced video of babies, puppies and lots of Old Glory.  Then the candidate must run for their political party's nomination, in a series of primary elections that take place across the country.  Once the primaries are complete, the party meets in a pre-selected city for the nominating convention, where the votes are tallied (candidates earn delegates according to their percentage of the vote in each respective primary) and a nominee is announced.  The count takes place on the third night of the four-night spectacle, which allows the party to put together a fourth night, jump-start "pep rally" for all of the delegates and volunteers and party faithful.  Then the candidate runs for president against whoever was chosen by the opposing party.  Ideally, our system is designed to allow for multiple parties to participate, which could result in four or five candidates running in the general election.  But the system has allowed itself to be molded, shaped, prodded, and morphed in a manner that really only makes it reasonable for the participation of two political parties, and in the end, two presidential candidates.  In the United States, we have the Democratic and the Republican

Party.  We also have the never-say-die Libertarian Party, which can never get traction because of their lack of financial support for ad campaigns, and the wink-and-a-nod agreement between the GOP and the Democrats to keep the libertarians out of any debates.  This guarantees no press exposure, no major newspaper editorials, and no chance whatsoever of being competitive.

For everyone already familiar with our political system, I appreciate your patience slogging through the above paragraph on our electoral process.  The majority of my readers are not American, and I never assume that they understand the way we run our business.  As for the primary process, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  This is not Hillary's first attempt to win the nomination.  In 2008, she started the primary season as the candidate to beat, only to be upstaged by Barack Obama.  I can only imagine how frustrating this loss must have been, as Clinton really appreciates everything happening according to plan.  Clinton was supposed to be president in 2008, not 2016; but these are cards she must play.  What I found to be the most amusing was that some political analysts (and personal friends) actually considered the possibility that she wouldn't run.  Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a long, long time.  Anything short of her own Administration will be considered a lifetime disappointment, at least in her own eyes.  You see, Hillary comes from the generation of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was either fighting in Vietnam, or protesting the war while in college.  Actually, Hillary Rodham was such a bright student and potential future leader, that in 1974 she was a chosen as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernie Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and it's historical grounds and standards.  During that same time, Hillary was dating Bill Clinton.  Once they were married, though, it quickly became apparent that his political ambitions would come first.  But Hillary made it obvious as First Lady that she was interested in policy, not White House Tours.  Her run for the Senate surprised no one, although her choice of locations was up in the air for some time.  Then, after losing the Presidential nomination to Obama in 2008, Hillary made the strategic decision to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.  I think that this was a mistake, but how big a mistake is yet to be seen.

The GOP will go through a much more contested primary season, and at this point, its anyone's guess if the nominee will be Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, or someone else.  The Democratic nomination, though is Hillary's.  Forget the "draft Elizabeth Warren" campaign, or the conversation about Martin O'Malley; it's just a bit of distraction to make the Democrats appear as if they really are holding a competitive primary.  What is the first thing any sincere voter should do when considering a candidate?  Why, look at their experience.  Hillary served almost nine years as a Senator, representing New York State, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's first term.  She chose not to continue as Secretary of State during Obama's second term.  Evaluating Hillary's performance as a Senator is not difficult.  She voted as any liberal Democrat would, which is what was expected by her New York constituents.  She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and then explained that she, like so many of her fellow Democratic Senators, had been lied to and tricked into believing that Iraq posed a threat, when it didn't.  If you really want a look at Hillary's record, her time as Secretary of State is a treasure trove of information.  First and foremost, Hillary stayed behind the scenes during the Obama apology tours, that were such a highlight of his first term, which is a bit odd, considering that she was Secretary of State.  When it came to the

Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov 

sign documents for Entry into Force of the New START Treaty.

New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin and Russia, though, she was highly visible. Clinton was highly supportive of this treaty, which was intended to get the United States and Russia back on track to diminishing the nuclear stockpiles that had been accumulated during the Cold War.  Unfortunately, this treaty, like any treaty that would be approved by Putin, required almost all of the sacrifice to be on the part of the United States.  Plainly said, the New Start Treaty virtually eliminated any remaining advantage we had over the Russians, and severely limited our ability to protect our allies in Europe (especially eastern Europe).  No matter how you look at this treaty, it is a victory for Russia.  The treaty is a loser for the United States, and I have yet to hear anyone bring this fact to the attention of its number one supporter, Secretary Hillary Clinton.  Also during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the Arab Spring bloomed right under the noses of our State Department, without so much as a fart coming out of Foggy Bottom.  We were unprepared in Tunisia, unprepared in Egypt, and boy, were we out of our league in Libya.  The events of the Arab Spring are an indication of a State Department that had become solely reactive in its actions.  Why? Because its focus was elsewhere. 

Another very sensitive issue deals with Secretary Clinton's creation of a private server, from her home, not just for her use, but for the use of certain members of her staff.  Law requires that all of those emails must be saved, but many weren't.  In fact, it appears as if two members of Secretary Clinton's staff reviewed the emails from the personal server to separate the ones that were personal and not related to government business, and to destroy them.  Wow.  Actually, no emails should have been destroyed, period.  Anyone want to bet that at least a few of those emails had "Benghazi" written in them somewhere?  It shows terrible judgment for someone who, at the beginning of her career in politics, was involved in the Watergate Investigation, during which a president destroyed tapes so they wouldn't be politically or criminally incriminating.  And now she orders two of her staff to destroy emails?  I don't think we've seen the last of this scandal.

In general, I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a president.  I believe she is an egomaniac, but what politician isn't?  It might actually be a useful trait for the job.  She is very intelligent, and appears to have boundless energy.  In no way have I seen any justification for questioning her patriotism.  Economically, I believe her policies would be much more to the center than the Obama Administration.  I'm convinced that one of the first things she would do would be to put together a panel to fix whatever is broken about Obamacare (or dump it altogether).  I don't see her being taken to the cleaners again by Putin, and she has gained substantial experience on the international stage.  My strongest disagreements with Hillary Clinton would be in the realm of foreign policy.  I believe that her international perspective is very left-of-center, and the world has become too dangerous for anything less than a strong, pro-military, "America-first" policy.  We are no longer in a position to trust first and verify later, and we must never waiver in our commitment to Israel.  For these reasons, and to a lesser extent, some of the issues mentioned earlier in this post, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.