Monday, October 16, 2017

Star Trek grows up

So, 'Star Trek - Discovery's' episode "Choose Your Pain" crossed two thresholds last night. One, not exactly welcome and the other, a "it's about time!" historic moment.

The first, I alluded to last night. Cadet Tilly unleashed the f-bomb. If that wasn't enough. Lt Paul Stamet did so as well.

No judgment from me. It would be disingenuous for any of us to pretend we've never said it ourselves. Hell, I am a Sailor; you've surely heard the adage "cuss like a Sailor." In the past, 'Battlestar Galactica' got around it by saying 'frak.' But let's be serious, we ALL knew what they meant.

Some Star Trek fans have expressed their displeasure about the new series (for a variety of reasons). I will be the first to admit 'Discovery' is "not your father's 'Star Trek." In my opinion, this is a good thing.

By the time that 'Star Trek - Enterprise' met its untimely and unwarranted cancellation a lot of Trekkers (or if you prefer Trekkies) seemed to have grown weary of a continued presences of TREK for 18 years non-stop. Today's TREK is a bit more brusk, a bit darker, and now, a bit more adult.

The second threshold was one that 'Star Trek' has struggled with for a least three decades. In the 1980s, Gene Roddenberry himself promised that 'Star Trek's' inclusivity meant everybody, yet for gay Trekkers that promise seemed pretty hollow.

At a 'Star Trek' convention, Roddenberry promised fans that yes, gay people are valued members of the Federation and serving in Star Fleet.

Rick Berman, producer of the series, and torchbearer after Roddenberry's death in 1992 pretty much refused to let that promise see the light of day.

In 1991, 'Star Trek - The Next Generation' aired "The Host." In it, Dr. Crusher fell in love with Odon, a Trill mediator. In this story, we are 1) introduced to the Trill race and 2) learn they are a symbiotic race where the body plays host to sentient intelligence that is transplanted from one host to the next. When Odon, the host's body is damaged, an emergency transplant is performed to save the Trill symbiot.

Riker acts as a temporary host, but when a "permanent" host is delivered, the Trill host is a female, and this is a bridge that Dr. Crusher could not cross. No judgment here. A person is who they are, something Crusher rightly points out.

In subsequent years, TREK flirted with gay themes, always as a metaphor. They almost, almost, crossed the bridge in a DS9 episode involving Lt. Cmdr Jadzia Dax. BUT we have never seen an actual gay human on Star Trek. That is, not until last night.

Berman was always quick to point out that the TNG episode "The Outcast" was really about homosexuality. Thing is, we fans did not want a metaphor. We wanted TREK to boldly go.

Even we gay fans have wondered how to broach the subject and not do it in a way that smacked of tokenism. David Gerrold, one of my favorite authors, wrote an unproduced (at least on the "official" show) script entitled "Blood and Fire" that Roddenberry promised would be filmed. When Roddenberry died, Gerrold and his script found themselves "handed a hat" and walked unceremoniously out the door, not to return to the series again.

"Blood and Fire" included a gay couple.

Last night, we saw Lt. Paul Stamets and his mate Dr. Hugh Culber in a perfectly right-at-home moment in their quarters while brushing their teeth. Their conversation made it perfectly clear to us they are a couple. Hell, who knew that Star Fleet personnel wore pajamas in their off-duty hours? It was a ...

Perfectly innocent, perfectly human moment.

It's about damned time!

Tuesday, September 12, 2017


9/11 is over. I purposefully did not post anything about the anniversary of the attack yesterday. Why not?

We are all aware of the events of that tragic day. It was a horrible day and deserves remembrance, but I think, and I sure don't have an answer for this, I think our nation is grieving--and rightly so--but it seems to me every year on this date we rip a band-aid off of a physical and psychic wound.

I do not see how we can possibly heal as a nation when we do this. Maybe it is too soon. Heck, we still remember Pearl Harbor Day, 76 years distant, so what do I know?

I certainly am not suggesting we forget the events of that day, nor do I lay fault for any who feel a need to express their grief. What I fear is people using the day as a political soapbox or to raise a dagger of fearmongering.

All I am saying is I think we need to find a different way to honor and remember those we lost. 

What do you think?

Thursday, August 17, 2017

What moral equivalence?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I felt a sick feeling in my stomach as I watched all those men (and a scant few women) marching, chanting with their arms raised in a fashion best reminiscent of the Nazis. I am certain you share my feelings of horror watching these thugs marching down Charlottesville's sidewalks, torches in hand, chanting "my land, not yours. No more Jews." 

What the hell? My paternal Grandfather Robert Mappin answered the call, served, fought and was injured in WWII's Battle of the Bulge. My friend Beth's father served as well. My ex-wife's father joined the Army at age 15. Like so many of our parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents--and millions of others--they served to defend the principles we have long held dear. 

Equally galling was listening to Mr. Trump's saying "both sides are the same, both sides are to blame." Instead of calling out the Neo Nazis and white supremacists, he called some of them "good people" defending their beliefs. A President's duty is to take a stand against hate and intolerance. 

Our men and women fought against the Axis Forces, the ultimate tool of death and hatred. For Mr. Trump to compare white supremacists and Neo Nazis to freedom fighters is beyond outrage. 

A moral equivalence? 

After being pressured by Congress and thousands of Americans to say more, to take a firm stand, it took Trump two full days to denounce the homegrown terrorists. 

All was good, right? No. Mr. Trump took a stand against hate... And then, the next day, he practically retracted it all, repeating his original rants, laying the blame on both sides. 

I think every man and woman who has served in our Armed Forces felt incensed seeing these behaviors displayed by these thugs in Charlottesville. Is this what we fought for, served for, to see such an insidious movement gaining a toehold here on our very shores? Makes me ill.  

Have we learned NOTHING? 

Thursday, July 27, 2017

The voice of our childhoods

June Foray died yesterday.

She was 99 years old, just two months shy of being 100. For the younger generation, who will surely say, "who?" I feel a little sad for you all.

For those who remember Tweety bird's grandmotherly owner, yes her (June). For those who remember the "Flintstone's" first Betty Rubble (I do not), yes, that was June. Duddley Doo-Right's girlfriend Nell? Yep, her too! 

BUT her main claim to fame was her voicing the classic Rocky the Flying Squirrel--of "Rocky and Bullwinkle" fame... oh, and she was also the voice of Rocky's Russian nemesis, Natasha. AND she was the voice of Cindy Lou Who in the classic animated "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."

I imagine Ms. Foray did more voices than any of us can remember. In her 2009 aptly titled autobiography “Did You Grow Up With Me, Too?” she detailed her lifelong love of animation and film.

Foray was married to Bernard Barondess from 1941 to 1945. She was married to Hobart Donavan from 1954 until his death in 1976.

The world will be a little sadder knowing Foray is no longer with us.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Twitter? Or is it Twit-in-Chief

I find it a mixture of amusement and horrifying disdain that so many people are willing to side with the current inhabitant who is destroying our White House... and our country.

This morning, the Donald's twitter feed announced the military's new policy that would turn out or away transgender citizens wanting to serve in our nation's Armed Forces. 

Why should I even be surprised? The Donald has diligently worked to undo every policy from the Obama Administration.

1) What could a man who had five deferments from military service during the Vietnam War possibly know about serving one's country? Sorry, Donald, but going to a military academy as a youth does not make you an expert on serving one's country.

2) A lot of people are arguing that the military should not be subject to a "damned liberal social experiment." Hmmmm, I am sure a lot of people used that very argument when President Harry "the buck stops here" Truman desegregated the Armed Forces back in the 1950s. In retrospect, that seems to have worked out pretty well for us. I have a good many friends who benefitted his foresight.

3) 18 other countries have wrestled with AND resolved this issue long ago, so why do we always have to be the last nation to come to our senses?

4) I have a good friend who served our Navy well who joined when he was 19 years old. The Navy drummed her out of the service when they discovered he was a transgender woman. His Commanding Officer, his Lead Petty Officer and Chief all testified what a good Sailor she was. 

Didn't matter, regulations are regulations. The thousands of dollars spent on her training was all for naught and the Navy lost a good Sailor... Point is, there are a lot of good people serving OR who want to serve who now are looking at this prospect as a dim dream (in my humble opinion, the only confusion here should be the pronoun disagreements).

5) For obvious reasons, I have a strong belief that minorities, be it women, transgender, gay, lesbian, Muslim faith, Blacks, Hispanics and anyone else who want to serve our country should be allowed to do so.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Our history refined... truth be known

I am watching PBS' American Experience: The Great War. I used to think President Wilson a pragmatic pacifist, and a horribly racist man. While watching part II, I have discovered his administration was most expert at public manipulation that I suspect the Trump administration has emulated closely.

Prior to America's involvement in World War I, public sentiment was overwhelmingly against U.S. involvement. Once it became clear that mindset could not survive, Wilson's administration launched a public affairs effort to change the hearts and minds of Americans' attitudes.

Almost overnight, our government's stance changed from its isolationist, pacifist to one of aggressive participation. Propaganda posters and millions of leaflets were posted everywhere. To maximize the effort, the leaflets were published in English and 18 foreign languages.

Worse, President Wilson acted aggressively to squash public dissent with the passage of anti-espionage and sedition laws. Wilson would not permit public opinions that would endanger his efforts to bolster our military's ability to wage war.

It became clear to Wilson a strong effort to grow our military would be necessary. At the time, prior to our involvement in the "war to end all wars," the U.S. Armed Forces was ranked 18th in military might.

Conscription laws (the draft), long unpopular in our country (look at what happened during the Civil War--riots, imprisonment, and even public hangings were used to force those who wished not to fight or succumb to government policy).

Wilson's racist beliefs visibly manifested itself on the military registration card. The bottom left-hand corner had a tear-off section with the instruction that it be torn off IF the applicant was of African-American descent, thus formalizing (for the first time) a strictly segregated Army.

Blacks were seen as a problem. The thinly veiled belief was the fear made clear in a statement made by a US Senator from Mississippi that "once you draft a Negro man and give him a gun and tell him to fight with it, it is one short step for him thinking he should fight for his rights at home."

Pacifists and Conscientious objectors were characterized as unpatriotic and called "slackers." A movement to demonize Americans of German descent, even those whose ancestors had lived here as far back as the Revolutionary War, was put for both in public sectors as well as in government housing. German-Americans were forced to register letting the government know where they resided, worked and worshiped.

Encampments were created to house people who the government considered a threat to national security.

Does any of this sound familiar to today's readers?

The documentary is sobering. History books all t often white-wash our nation's past. One group shot photo showing the first battalions look like a lot like today's GOP (all white, all male).

I find all of this very troubling because 1) History classes in elementary and high school have not taught these events (or spent much time focusing on these particulars. 2) The documentary shows how easy we have been steered into war, and 3) How easy nationalism has shaped our behaviors and how we have treated minorities in times when our nation faced adversity.

The documentary is available for purchase... or go to your local library. I strongly urge you to watch this documentary to see our involvement in WWI and to see just how easy our government has found it to manipulate the public into going to war.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Vir has gone to the stars

Actor Stephen Furst Stephen Furst has died. He was a favorite of mine based on his performance as Vir Cotto on the science fiction program Babylon 5, but his career far predated that with his part in the movie Animal House and later on NBC-TV's St. Elsewhere.

Furst loved his fans and I have a funny story about Mr. Furst that will I forever hold dear. Ten years (or was it 15?) ago, my friend Sherri and I went to a Star Trek convention in Chicago. Furst was one of the scheduled guests. Back then I used to run nearly every day. Early that particular morning I slipped into the hotel gym and was running on the treadmill for about 15 minutes when Mr. Furst joined me on the treadmill next to mine.

I kept looking at him, thinking "I know this man, but from where?" ... and I could not figure it out... This went on for about 45 minutes. Silently, I left and went to my room and showered. After Sherri and I had breakfast we joined our friends from USS Magellan (a Star Trek group of which we were members at the time).

Later in the day, we went to the convention hall and spent our time listening to the guests speak. When Stephen Furst came on stage it dawned on me who he was.

Now here is why I did not recognize Mr. Furst, something he discussed while on stage, he had lost approximately 50 lbs. in an effort to better his health. He looked very different than his persona on B5.

At one point when he was taking questions from the audience, I stood up to ask him one and he stopped and pointed at me, "You! You're the dude that was running with me at the gym this morning!" When I nodded in the affirmative, and said, "Yes, that was me." He replied, "damn dude, you're a speed demon!"

I loved Mr. Furst on Babylon 5 and mourn his loss. He was a warm, personable comic actor. My condolences to his friends, colleagues, and family. He was 63 and passed away due to complications from diabetes. Rest in peace, sir.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Surprise, surprise, surprise

Sometimes, homophobia and racism (not to mention being thin-skinned) raises its ugly head in the most surprising of places.

I have been a long-time member of the science fiction FB page Science Fiction Multiverse. Its moderator is a bit of an egotist and likes calling himself "emperor of his domain (or something silly like that)." Heck, recently he was mad at Facebook for forcing him to use his real name instead of his self-title.

Today, he posted a story about George Takei--that's Mr. Sulu to you non-TREK fans--who called out some trolls who have been making scenes complaining the new Star Trek series isn't "white" enough, isn't "male-led" enough.

Now mind you the series has yet to air and already there are some fans... the fringe elements, if you will, who are loudly complaining about things for which they have no clue... and George rightly called them out.

The moderator of the SF group called George an idiot and I raised the question, "idiot?"

In his next post, he went on an on ad nauseum about how liberals, Asians, gays, etc. are ruining SF filmmaking. I merely replied, "Funny, I thought this was a page about science fiction films."

Next thing I know, I am cast out and blocked. Now (said in my best baby voice) "waaaaaah, I am so hurt."

I guess "his majesty" doesn't like it when people disagree with him, something I already knew to be true as I have seen him bragging about banishing other [former] members for "their transgressions."

I guess I was a little bit surprised, and maybe I should not have been. I tend to think--and it appears I am wrong about this--that science fiction fans, and especially Star Trek fans, are more forward thinking and less biased.

Anyone who follows TREK faithfully knows of the show's concepts of IDIC and respect for all things different. I remember the firestorm a few years back when the web series Star Trek Phase II - The New Voyages dared to air an episode written by David Gerrold that included two gay characters (Peter Kirk, no less).

Let's just say a whole lot of the comments were pretty base... okay, vile. So, I really should not have been surprised today.

I'd rather not have a debate going on about this... so please, if you have any comments, I don't want to read any incendiary comments belaboring the evils of conservatism (or liberals, for that matter). 

My point of even mentioning this incident was this: Upon noticing I was blocked, I immediately was struck by the words, "can't we all just get along?"

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Where is the outrage?

Where is the outrage? What in the hell is wrong with the GOP? 

Imagine if you will this scenario: Madame President Clinton knocks out executive order after executive order that clearly benefit the rich. 

Pretend Madame President invited the Russians into the Oval Office and forbade the American press from being present, BUT invites the Russian press instead (because you know, "that mean bad fake press has been mean to me"). 

AND imagine if Madame President invited the Russians for tea, cookies AND states' classified secrets? Sorry, no launch codes today, maybe the next time. Raincheck?

Now tell me, what do you think would be turtleneck O'Connell's reaction? WWPRD (What would Paul Ryan do)? 

You can bet your ass they'd be building the gallows and firing up the legal writers drafting up documents for impeachment. Hell, they probably had a version drafted the day President Obama took office... and for a President Hillary Clinton, all they would have to do is change the names and dates.

And what about GOP supporters who all voted for "anybody but Hillary (like my family members)?"

They'd be hanging Hillary in effigy. Right?

So again I ask, where's the outrage?

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

The great pretender

Did you watch Mr. Trump's address to Congress last night? I saw but a scant few minutes.

I did not watch or listen to most of his speech--and I wouldn't have listened to any if I had not needed to see the severe weather warnings scrolling across the bottom of my TV screen (my hometown was in a tornado warning at the time). 

My impression of what I heard? If I wanted to take the easy road, I would say he seemed more residential than in any time since he assumed office, but I am not so easily fooled. He certainly did a good job of pretending.

Again and again, he said all the right things and meaning none of them. How do I know that? He made so many claims of what he planned to do and in the short time since his inauguration did just the opposite. Drain the swamp, he said. Hardly. I think he meant the septic tank.

He has and surely will contradict his previous promises. Yes, I know, a lot--heck, most politicians do that. It's called pandering and man, did he serve up a deep dish of cheese last night. In any case, I needed my wading boots while reading his speech today.

A family member, someone who I respect, but rarely agree with, told me last night I need to give him a chance and that sometimes if we elect the wrong man (or woman), we'll get the chance to correct things four years down the road.

Thing is, what damage can this man and his political comrades unleash in four years? I shudder to think. If the GOP has their way, they are going to wreck everything just to appease their corporate masters and to the rest of us, screw you!

There is an old maxim that respect is not given but earned. Resident Trump has not yet crossed that chasm in my book.

Let's not mince words. I don't like Mr. Trump. I don't believe a word he says. I don't respect him. As such, he is merely the man occupying the Oval Office, but he has done absolutely nothing to deserve that honor (The same goes for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. None of these men have shown me that they share one concern for the people they claim to represent).

With no disrespect intended to Jackson Browne, he is the great pretender. I pray we don't suffer for it.

Another friend told me to knock it off by calling him "not my president." Sorry dear, but you do not get to tell me who shares my values AND this man definitely does not share mine. How could a man whose home is adorned with gold covering almost every inch? What can he and his billionaire cronies possibly know about you or me?

So I ask the question again, did Mr. Trump look presidential last night? Does it matter? He sure did a good job of pretending to look and sound like it. His supporters will lap it up with oohs and ahs, he's our savior. The press, still embarrassed that they built him up, will scramble to say he did, all the while he has yet to prove he has one single iota, one single shred of empathy for the average American...

For the foreseeable future, RESIST is my mantra.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Subversion in plain view

I'm not paranoid. Normally, that is. But I tell you we must stay aware, stay focused. I think our government--without mincing words, the GOP--is up to something. In the 10 past days, announcement after announcement has been made, multiple rushed hearings, and with more than 17 executive orders issued, and I tell you something is up.

And to be frank, I do not like it.

Operations in the Capitol are happening with lightning speed and you can definitely see how the GOP slowed things down to a snail's pace during the past eight years.

With each passing day, the Republicans' movements have been eliciting reactions that moved many of us to outrage to "now what?" And to "again?" and if we're not careful, indifference. I swear, the government, again the GOP, is planning on sneaking things through while no one is watching.

Don't believe me? In the past two weeks, the GOP tried to sneak a bill through late at night that would have limited the powers of the oversight watchdog committee while they thought no one would notice.... and they got their hands smacked for it.

But mind you, the party of no, who practice the maxim of "tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth," are up to no good.

The party who found 50 some odd ways to attempt to repeal the ACA is now sitting on the perch salivating as they pull the rug out from millions of Americans, leaving them without health care. 

"Trust us," they say. "We have a plan, but no details." This sounds suspiciously like a move right out of Donald Trump's playbook.

And they are hoping you and I are not watching what they are doing.

It seems DT and the rest of the GOP seem intent on digging a hole deeper one shovel load at a time, I am wondering how long the Not My President is going to be the Resident of the United States? Or if the party will go too far and alienate the American people. And I
find myself hoping, not long.

We must keep our eye on the ball. Our freedoms depend upon it.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a change

I know many friends who do not call themselves Democrats... or Republicans. There are many who say that neither party is any different than the other. For the most part, I disagree with that assessment.

BUT one thing that is apparent AND vital if the Democratic Party is going to gain ground after the 2016 elections, changes are are essential,,, imperative even.

We Democrats MUST prove we are different. We MUST hold the Republicans accountable for the policies and wholesale changes they are working so feverishly (in the dark of night even) to implement. 

We MUST get lobbyists' hands out of our pockets. Yes, I know that sound idealistic. We all know politics is not cheap.

We MUST build a unified message and stick to it. If we are to prove we are the party of the people, especially those who are in need the most, we must show them that. 

We MUST not let the Republicans divide us. And when the Republican policies hit the sh** fan as we know they will, we MUST not let them divert attention or blame us for their stupidity. 

Obviously, the Democratic Party has not done a good job getting our message out, but we MUST prove to the American people we are better. We must build a party that has roots, not only on the east and west coasts but the center of our country too.

My friend Matt says we must get as down and dirty as they have. One thing is certain, we cannot always play nice, but even when not, we MUST hold the moral high ground (you know, when they go low, we go high). Matt would say being nice has done nothing to promote our cause. He feels getting in their face is the only answer. Usually, I am a bit more pragmatic, but in this case, I wonder if Matt is not right? And I think he is.

That's a lot of ifs and we MUST start looking at the lower end of government appointees. We Democrats have gotten caught with our pants down all the while the GOP quietly took control of our school boards, our local city and county offices and our statehouses. It is going to take a long time to get ourselves back on equal ground. 

My hometown's mayor, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, is a candidate to serve as the Democratic National Committee chair. Mayor Pete is young, focused, charismatic, smart and very perceptive. The DNC would be well served to elect him. He has been a godsend to our city and has a lot of ideas to rebuild the party.

They always say change is hard. This is true even for political parties and completing these tasks is not going to be easy. 

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Cutting their throats

Today the N.Y. Times ran the article "Why rural America voted for Trump." Illuminating, disturbing, disheartening are three words I would use about rural attitudes.

From the article: "People in red counties resent the attention cities get - and [they] don't care for liberals."

My first reaction is we don't like them much either. From our viewpoint, they'd rather cut their own throats than accept any views differing from their own. But that is my first reaction. I don't like saying I do not like someone. I really don't. 

BUT I do not understand the "convicts." I jest about the nickname. Sort of. I look at one my brother's Facebook page and the word libtard is hurled around dozens of times. The venom is staggering.

To be honest, I cannot visit his page for all the bile. I suppose he might view my bleeding heart liberal stances just as offensive.

Second reaction: reading that sentence from the article, and I cannot help to detect an element of jealousy.

If the article is correct and rural folk think we city denizens get all the attention, they surely must know that their attitudes drove a large number of us to cities they claim to hold in contempt.

I know many conservatives think liberals are stupid. Just like many liberals think their opposites are backwater and ignorant. Do I think that? I'll be honest, some of them, I do.

It appears to me, that neither side wants to get to know each other AND listen to one another. It's easy to dismiss the other side; it's easy to dismiss minorities; it's easy to dismiss gays, lesbians, it's easy to dismiss Muslims; it's easy to dismiss lowly women; it's easy to dismiss [fill in blank] because no one is willing to get to know those they disagree with.

THAT is why we are in this boat we are in in Washington.

Bob Dole, not a man I have the greatest love for (but I do respect--at least before he endorsed the great divider, the Donald), once said something that pretty accurately describes the climate in Washington. He said in his day in Congress, members of both parties thrust and parried against the other side and when the day was done, they went out and had drinks, dined together, worked out at gyms together. He continued by saying none of that happens in DC anymore.

So we are polarized. We don't know one another. We don't trust one another. We don't hang out together. We don't talk. We don't listen. Which makes it so damned easy to say, "I don't like you."

Sad thing is: As a gay man, demonize me all you want, but I work. I pay my taxes. I pay my bills. I struggle to get ahead, just like a whole lot of us Americans, AND I put on my trousers one leg at a time. Just LIKE my conservative brothers and sisters do.

So until this happens. Democrats will be dismissive of Republicans. Republicans will do everything they can do to smack down members of my party. Conservatives will call us libtards (which, as I said is probably my brothers favorite insult) and liberals will view conservatives as dumb rednecks.

AND nothing will get done. Ever. We'll spin our wheels. We'll deny a President his chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and the new resident-elect will most likely find a Democratic Party taking the same tact that the GOP did with President Obama.

One conservative Navy Senior Chief with whom I have the utmost respect and I talk constantly. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that both parties treat (or mistreat) the others much like the old childish chant "you started it." We disagree often. We talk often but I think we have a golden rule. We LISTEN to one another.

Both conservatives and liberals... and let's not forget the moderates who are punished by both sides for straddling the fence... I believe want the same thing. We want security. We want peace. We want the best for our children and families and friends. We rarely agree on the means "of getting there," though.

My brothers went out of their way to torment me about the election. One wanted to tag my page, mentioning I felt butthurt (his words); another said they'd miss me at family gathers; another threatened to disown me. Odd thing is, my conservative Navy friends went out of their way to console me, even though they were happy with their candidate/party's victory.

The difference? I hate to admit it, but I am not close to my family. My Navy colleagues practice a long-held maxim: We in the Navy ARE family (I imagine the other services act accordingly). We may disagree but we respect each other and opinions are cherished.

When I mentioned to my brother Scott that Trump followers liked him because "he speaks his mind," I said I would appreciate if I was afforded the same courtesy. His response was he would if my opinions made any sense. Yeah, I just love the respect there.

THAT is why conservatives and liberals rarely get along. Even though we both harbors fears about the future, both sides would rather focus on differences and weakness and attack than work together.

While these are words I preach--believe me--I find them just as hard to practice.