SOME WORDS ON THE RACHEL THING

Honestly I try to avoid certain subjects because they tend to be lightning rods for controversy and I think life's too short for bullshit, but still some things I just have to comment on. Rachel Dolezal has been on the radar because she essentially lied about her race and as a result it's led to a discussion on identification, race, and so on. In her latest interview, with Matt Lauer she said that she identifies as black. Okay let me tell you why I have a problem with this.

There is a huge difference between identifying with something and actually being it. You can identify with whatever you want but that doesn't change what you, or who you are at your very core. The fact is that she is not black she is a caucasian woman, end of story. She spoke in her interview about the "black experience" and I'm wondering what the hell that means. Let's put a focus on that for a sec, blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years, seen as less, treated unfairly, discriminated against and made to fight for their basic human rights, is this the "experience" she is referring to?  Perhaps someone can explain to me how she was a part of that experience in her middle class upbringing.

In her interview with Lauer she stated that she as a little girl would draw picture of herself with a brown crayon. Does using a brown crayon qualify a person as being black? I drew self portraits with a red crayon but it doesn't make me Satan. I find her bullshit offensive because I have studied enough about civil rights struggles to know that this kind of move is, unwittingly or not, a huge slap to the face of every protester that was made to suffer major indignities during the Jim Crow era.

Let's put it in perspective, she identifies as black and feels that she has to lie about her race, she even claimed that an African American gentleman was her father. So does this mean she thinks she can make a difference in race relations by lying? It's clear Rachel doesn't know a whole hell of a lot. John Brown was a white man that was willing to take up arms in the 1800's in order to abolish slavery. Brown was influenced by black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglas and Soujourner Truth. John Brown did not identify as black, Brown did have a belief in freedom.

My point: RACHEL YOU ARE WHITE, MUCH LIKE YOU WHERE WHEN YOU SUED HOWARD UNIVERSITY AS A WHITE WOMAN FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION.

50 YEARS LATER AND THE MYSTERY STILL EXISTS

It's going to be 50 years since the JFK assassination and the mystery still exists. A special on reelz, that will be coming out in November, talks about the possibility of the murder having been an accident involving a secret service agent. While I find this fascinating I will not lie in that I find it morbid to say the least. Kennedy has been gone for nearly 50 years so any theories will stay just that, theories. My favorite is the possible part played by LBJ and his people.

The Kennedy assassination marked a dark and sad moment in American history, the end of innocence. Kennedy was the ray of hope for everything that was good from progress to a new direction in civil rights, one never previously traveled. Kennedy was a once in a lifetime shot, the charisma, youth and looks of a special man. Kennedy was the last president to have young children, he represented growth, something special and elegant.

Camelot is gone and there will never be another, never let it be forgot that there once was a place called Camelot. Let Camelot rest, let it stand out, a memory that could have been the best must once and for all be put to rest.

WHAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN

After the verdict of not guilty came down I was angry as hell. I can't imagine another person walking free after committing a crime. The death of Trayvon Martin could have been avoided, and no one person can tell me otherwise. George Zimmerman had all the power to avoid what ended up happening but he did not. This is the last entry I plan to write on this subject but I hope it will be the most powerful one. The one right that was violated above all others was a kid's right to life. I don't know any details about Trayvon personally and I don't claim to, nor do I know any details about Zimmerman either.

When Trayvon Martin was killed, every single negative factor conspired in order to make that tragedy a real one. One man's boundless ignorance and hero complex along with other factors made that night a possibility. Was it right? Rhetorical question as anyone with common sense knows the answer to that. Trayvon should still be alive and Zimmerman should be in his house watching Observe and Report while thinking about the release of GTA 5. The way reality went, the ideal scenario is only the dream. There are calls to action with regards to justice, civil rights, and gun laws. This country has a sharp division on opinion.

What we as a civilized society should not allow is real civil unrest and violence to break out. It was one man's antagonistic nature that created this incident, let's not allow that same nature to permeate our society. What our past leaders taught us was that we can make a peaceful stand in order to effectively get our point across. Those leaders, men that gave their lives, would not allow inflammatory rhetoric to take over. Let's think logically and change the game in a civilized manner. Violence and anger will not bring back Trayvon, and they sure as hell won't change the fact that Zimmerman is free. A call to action and a proper display of fact will change a lot more. In 1963 one man spoke of a dream, if he were alive today he would probably speak peacefully about the wrongs in this situation and attempt to do something about it.

The more violence and inflammatory language we use, the less difference we will make. Until there is a real effort to bring about real justice, everyone screaming for justice will simply be a member of an unorganized mob. Violence and ignorance got us to this point, let's allow common sense and intelligence to bring us out of it.

THE DEBATE

I finally understand the meaning of the red equality sign. To be honest I think this is a sign of progress in the debate over gay marriage. This entry is not to fight fiercely for gay marriage and certainly not to stand against it. I am a firm believer that things should always be talked out in a civilized manner and that this is the kind of debate that's allowing ignorance to reign supreme. The fact is that you have two sides taking extreme views one way or another with not as many people taking a common sense view.

It doesn't mater if you agree or disagree with gay marriage but it does matter how you defend your view. I can't really support the argument against it because it generally cites the bible as the principal source of moral authority. You can read the bible and quote it as often as you want but, how many members of congress and of the bible belt have been caught violating the very biblical principles that they cite? The fact of the matter is that you cannot use one source as the way to firmly stand against an issue.

Let's really study morality for a second and see what we come up with. If you have a gay couple and they lead a quiet and respectful life, and are upstanding citizens, are they immoral on the basis of being gay? Is it okay to have orgies, threesomes, and sex in public if you are straight? I have heard the whole it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve deal but once more I say let's all look at the facts. Do we really know that the bible story is true? Everyone has their own set of beliefs from Muslims, to Jews, to Christians, to Atheists but said beliefs are somewhat theoretical and based on more assumption of record than proven and verified.

I think it's also fair to ask if people against gay marriage are living under the assumption that you chose to be gay. It has not been proven if being gay is genetic, a choice, or a matter of conditioning in a specific environment. I think it's fair for gays to want a fair shot at legalizing gay marriage but from state to state it's a debate that's going to vary. In a way I find myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly's sentiments that it's a state matter and it should be decided as such.

Some places are more liberal than others and I understand that making this a federal issue is more about benefits issues for same sex partnerships, going beyond the whole recognition of a person's chose to openly love with someone of their own gender. Gay marriage, equality, and recognition are all a part of the new civil rights debate that much like the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's will rage on for a long time to come.