Rolland Burris deserves to be Illinois's next Senator. He was legally appoint and when it comes to legal verses illegal, I'll take legal any day of the week. It's an interesting fact that laws are not only meant to forbid certain things, but are also meant to legally impower others. The economy is a good example. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would not be as rich as they are today were it not for our patent laws. These laws made those men what they are today. We even have the right to expect protection while we go about our legal activities. Abortion clinics are a good case in point on this one. They are not only not forbidden to perform abortions, they are legally empowered TO perform abortions by the law, whose protection they are entitled to. Rolland Burris is a Black man. I'm not color blind. To me this is a case where if you ignore race you are living in a fool's paradise. Asz a Black man living in Illinois, assuming I am, I would have certain political perceptions I would hope my representatives would be sensitive to. Now if there were say, ten Black senators in the US Senate, then this whole thing would not be an issue with me. But when I hear that Obama was the only Black US Senator and now he's gone, then my antenna goes up. There is ample legal precident as to while Rolland Burris's appointment should be honored. The main reason is because it's legal. As a legal action there are certain suppositions that other legal realities will follow. As I see it the US Senate under Harry Reid doesn't have the right to say "We will not seat Burris" any more than a resturant owner in the South after the Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964. Comentator after comentator in the news today and politicians alike all agree on one thing: that the Courts have consistantly ruled that such appointments are legal and must be enforced. Adam Clayton Powell is a clear example of such a ruling back around 1969. But take a look at President Bush. No one disputes his power to pardon people, even Dick Chaney and Karl Rove, if he wants to, and nobody has the right to presume the highest motives of the President despite the fact we all know he's guilty as sin. Now ten years ago people like Gloria Alred and even myself were saying that Bill Clinton should resign his Presidency for the sexual offences he has committed. We were wrong. Every man is entitled to his day in court, and that includes Rod Blagoiavitch. But consider one more example from the archives. In a college government book in the early 1970's it said that Supreme Court Justice Thurgrid Marshall was put on the Court as part of a political deal between Lyndon Johnson and Senator Eastland of Mississippi, who referred to Marshal as a "Nigger". Johnson agreed to give Eastland some Water project or something, if he voted for Marshall. But nobody would contest Thurgrid Marshall's right to serve on the Supreme Court.
Israel is now commencing its ground invasion of Gaza. Some sources say that Gaza has not been terroritorially been cut in half. It seems to me Israel's response is not only disproportionate, but aimed at the wrong people. Hammas doesn't represent the Palistinians. Fattah (or Fatwah or whatever) comes closser to doing that. Hammas doesn't represent anybody, but it makes a convienient whipping boy for Israel to oppress the territory of Gaza. We don't need any more killing and destruction. This will only harden the population against peace. Let me call on another memo from the EIB archives. I think it was in Robert Kennedy's book that Kennedy was arguing against the bombing in Viet Nam and said "We thought bombing in Germany would soften the resolve of the German people but instead it only hardened it". Those are his words and not mine. Bombs are a bad perswader of populations. The Arabs might not care about the Palistinians now but if things get bad enough there- - they'll begin to notice, and start using the Palistinians as postor boys for why Israel should not be allowed to exist as a nation. Obama is bending over backwards not to show the slightest sympathy for the Palistinians. In my frank oppinion he's done "too good of a job at this". Arabs who looked to him for hope may decide their rosey judgements on his Presidency were, shall we say, premature.
I've heard a lot of Al Franken bashing lately- - from people who call themselves liberals. But Franken is increasing his 53 or whatever vote lead in Minnisota, and it looks right now that he's going to be our new US Senator from Minnisota. I think his tenure in office will be a refreshing one. Minisotans have always been noted for their independant spirit.
In my oppinion of which was the stupidest political "gaff" of the year it would have to be Obama's statement about how "I could no more disown Rev. Wright than I would disown my own White grandmother" and then a few days later he "throws Rev. Wright under the bus". This is my Mc Laughlin pick. I don't think any honorable individual disowns his pastor, particularly one he's known and worked with for twenty years, merely because it's politically expediant. If there is one thing Christianity preaches against it's "political expediancy". Indeed the crusifiction of Jesus Christ was done, was it not, because it was "political expediant". I think this propensity of Obama to want to air-brush his own past is reaching Nancy Reagenesque proportions. I guess we can take satisfaction that he must be giving the World Net Daily crowd Whiplash, but this is small consolation if in the end one isn't able to find a dime's worth of difference between the foreign policies of George Bush and our new President Elect. One thing I was always told about John Kennedy is that he was a principled man who fought for what he believes in. People believed in taking risks for a noble purpose. Such values as courage and fortitude were routinely taught when I was young, but I guess they aren't any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment