Brief Gripings

Hooray for monthly posting schedules!
...?
Or no.

Now, the situation may have changed since last I knew and rendered this irrelevant (interesting things have been happening in very quick succession so you never know).
But whatever:

Roland Burris, for accepting the senate seat proposed to him, either:
A. Is crazy
or
B. Has no clue what's going on

But nobody can figure out which one because all the wrong questions are being asked, and all he ever says is "Hey, it's completely legal!"
Well, we all know that. But that's the whole problem! Since it's legal, he'll probably eventually get the seat. But if he had had any dignity, he would have refused it, because whether Blagojevitch has the power to appoint someone to the senate does not change whether he deserves that power.
Thus, we are stuck in one of those frequently occurring and oh-so-puzzling situations where the law presents a stark contrast with morality.
People aren't saying that Roland Burris shouldn't be seated because they just don't like him or because they think it's not legal, but because they think it's not right.
So back to what I was saying: The interviewers are asking the wrong questions.

If you're an interviewer and are reading this (as if that is likely to happen...), here's a suggested question:

"Overlooking the ridiculousness of this hypothetical situation, what if Adolf Hitler came back from the dead? And what if he was somehow elected -- through an entirely legal and normal means -- to the position of Illinois governor?
Would you accept an appointment to the senate from him?"

If he says yes, we know that we are looking at case A. If he says no, we know that we are looking at case B.
If he dodges the question, well, he's a politician. Not to be too stereotyping, but... that's what they do.
And then we would still be confused.


...That's it for today.

:::Source expected
:::05.01.09
:::STOP