Thursday, December 11, 2008

BlagObama Senate Seat Fiasco

For those of you who have read my other posts, you know that I am a Conservative. You also know that I think a lot. I have to, to get it right. I am still gathering information about the Blagojevich abuse of power allegations. I read the indictment submissions on The Smoking GUn, and they are devastating, and very graphic.

This whole Senate Seat for Sale scandal is not only disgusting, but illustrative of the seedy political arena President-Elect Barrack Obama willingly jumped into on his way from Hawaii to the White House. I have no evidence yet that Obama was involved in this, though there is that possibility. Here is why I think this:
  1. David Axelrod, Obama's Rove (chief political advisor) said Obama had spoken with the Governor about this. He was on a TV show, it was taped, and it was dug up after the revelation of Blago trying to get whatever he could for himself and his wife to relieve the financial pressure on his family, due to his only being a governor. I guess that doesn't pay enough for him.
  2. A reporter at a local Illinois TV station reported the day after the election that Obama was scheduled to meet with the governor the next day, to discuss filling the impending vacancy. I have not seen any confirmation that any meeting actually took place, but then, I'm a consumer of news, not a producer of it. I'll await any confirmation.
  3. Governor Blago indicated on tape when discussing the matter that Obama wanted candidate #1 (That lady, Valerie Jarrett?) to fill his seat. He said that they were only willing to give him future appreciation. Blago wanted money, so he swore about Obama that he was a M-F-, and he repeated it in different conversations. How did he know that they would only offer appreciation, if he didn't talk with someone about some sort of compensation?
  4. Obama did not display outrage, disgust, or other anger that his still-warm Senate seat was up for bid by the governor. He said it was an ongoing investigation, so he could not comment on it. Really? Not even to say that it was a travesty, and he totally condemns that type of shameful corruption? Why not?
  5. Obama has helped Blago get elected over the years, as Blago has helped Obama over the years to do the same. The press is trying to say that the two of them travelled in different Democrat circles in Illinois, though I doubt there are different circles in that state. To quote Lincoln, a House divided cannot stand. Neither can the Illinois Democrat party.
So I have yet to see proof beyond reasonable doubt that Obama is involved with this thing, but the doors for going down that path are open. One thing that gets lost in the sauce is the presumption of innocence. I have held to it in this case, as much as I would like to indict him myself. In another related idea, there is nothing in my mind wrong with governor Blagojevich getting input from different sources, including the potential Senators, on who should get the seat. There should even be room for discussion, political considerations, and even favoritism. Where the line is clear as day for me is when compensation for the selection is either sought, considered when offered, or the unspoken rule during said discussions. Clearly, Governor Blago was in this for his own financial benefit.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Is Gay the New Black?

I was just reading an article on some news website, and saw the headline above. I don't even have to read the article to give the answer: NO, by no means is "Gay the new Black".

One does not need to be gay to know that being gay is a choice or lifestyle one can make or hide. Even if you grant that Gays are genetically wired to not be straight, if the desires are not acted upon, if the lusts are not fulfilled, one can easily hide their homosexuality. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean one is effeminate. There are strong, big, successful Gays that don't give the outward appearance that they are gay. I occasionally hear of athletes who are outed, and people seem shocked! Shocked that such a talented, often masculine guy, or very feminine gal is lesbian.

But let's talk reality here. Who doesn't know that I am black? I once had a conversation with a well-intentioned white brother in Christ, who asked me, after I divulged my lineage as including my white mother and black father, if I identified myself as black or white. After my spontaneous laughter subsided, I told him to look at me, think about it, and ask me again if he still needed to. My race is as obvious as the nose on my face. No, in fact, it is more obvious, because if one is nearsighted, and has no glasses on while looking at me, they may not see my nose, but would still see my race. I have no choice. I cannot hide my race casually.

Sure, there are those who can "pass", but they still have the genes inside them. Michael Jackson may be able to obscure his race chemically or surgically, but his kids show his genes. So do pictures from his younger days. But for the rest of us average Joes, our race is set and obvious. As America mixes races more thoroughly, our descendants will all be a happy shade of brown; some more, some less. But Gays will continue to have the luxury of choosing. Choosing to openly be gay, or to hide their activities that define them as Gay.

So don't dare compare being Gay with being black. Compare being Gay with being a Liberal, or with any other group of Americans defined by their actions and beliefs. Gays were not brought to this continent in chains against their will. Gays may have come on ships, and some slaves may have been Gay, but they were not captured, sold shipped and auctioned because they were gay. Blacks have struggled mightily for civil rights which mostGays have always had. This brings up the issue of tolerance, which I will not expound upon here. Suffice it to say, Gays have been tolerated, but that is not enough these days for them. They want acceptance and normalcy to be conferred on them, which goes way beyond tolerance.If we grant special rights based on lifestyle choices, where does it stop? Which group will get special rights based on their particular lifestyle choices?

Let's suppose daredevils demand the right to low insurance rates, just like non-daredevils are given. Or that smokers demand acceptance of their lifestyle choices, so they should be able to smoke wherever they choose. Or that professional race drivers be allowed to drive on the roads and highways at speeds they have proven themselves to be able to safely drive on the track. Or that Republicans should be able to pay lower taxes because that is their lifestyle choice. I think the point is clear: no special rights for groups defined by their actions and feelings.