What If We Had A Straight White Male President?

In the world today, it seems that the farther from tradition your point of view is, the better it must be. Left-wing is the new right-wing and to disagree is often considered either discriminatory or politically incorrect.

I walked into a bookstore on my break from work. It was quiet since there were only 3 or 4 other customers. As I browsed I noticed some tasteful nude calenders and postcards. But some were not so tasteful. All the books had titles like "How To Play It Straight--Or Not", "Coming Out Of the Closet" and "How To Love Your Gay Brother."
It would have been nice in there were any books on themes that interested me, so I asked the girl behind the counter, "Um, gay the theme of this bookstore?" She said, "Yeah, queer." I started heading toward the door and she raised her eyebrows at me as if to say, "Do you have a problem with that?" I tried to smile and not sound rude when I replied, "Well, I'm straight."
Good thing I was leaving because the other customers were giving me weird looks and it wasn't like I wanted to offend them in their gay bookstore.
As a disclaimer, I am not homophobic, and I don't look down on gay people or desire to hurt or offend them. I actually know some gay men who are nice, good people. It's up to them, and that's that. The only people who bother me are the ones that shove their sexuality in my face and get overly defensive about what really should be a private matter.
But if there had been a whole bookstore dedicated to the benefits of being heterosexual, would that be alright with the gay population? Or is it now a case of discrimination against the majority?
Another example is the Black Reel Awards, better known as the Black Awards, which began in 200o and were designed "to annually recognize and celebrate the achievements of black people in feature". That is good and well, but what if there had been a "White Awards"?
Of course, it is arguable that black people have been overall subject to more racial discrimination than whites have. But is this kind of logic promoting racial equality or making it more unachievable?

An experiment was done in Australia where a Chinese imigrant and a white Australian went to the same Chinese computer dealer with identical laptops for an identical problem. The white man paid 7 times what the Chinese man paid. The conclusion was that imigrants are in fact more likely to charge white people a higher price, just for being white. It was dubbed as reverse descrimination.

American women did not have the constitutional right to vote until the year 1920. The New Zealanders were ahead and won the right in 1893. Australians in 1902, Finland in 1906 and the French women waited until 1944. Male chauvinism been prevailant in many societies for centuries and has only changed significantly in the past 200 or so years. It is generally agreed that both sexes are equal and should be treated equal, but I was sometimes wondered if what some Women's Rights activists want is to be equal to men, or to be surperior.

The world has changed an awful lot, especially over the course of the 20th century. Some things have been good changes, like granting women the right to vote, abolishing slavery and what. But while the good aspects of these changes are celebrated, is anyone looking at how beneficial to society some others actually are?

Let's take a woman's right to have an abortion for instance. It's usually seen as a good thing, but what has it done to the demographics in some 1st world countries? In Japan 20 years from now, there will be so many people over the age of 65 that the working population will have no way to support them, and this will be the case all over the 1st world sooner or later.

I also think that some people are more concerned about having a woman president or a black president for the first time than they are about electing someone who does the job well. If the best candidate really is a woman, or a black man, that is fantastic, but the best person for the job should be more important than the headlines. I mean, Margaret Thatcher happened ages ago, and no one says much about that.
It's clearly a matter of pride for Hilary Clinton, who has even began to refer to herself as Hilary Rodham Clinton lately. At the same time, people are more impressed with politicians who appear to have good marriages. As if we haven't noticed that sneaky Rodham between Hilary and Clinton lately. And no one could possible be fool enough to believe that, in spite of Monica Lewinsky and everything, they have a really good marriage!

Anyway, this post was just a vent about how ironic everything is getting lately. I am not saying my point of view is really accurate, or even worded very well, what do you think?