Rand Paul, the ultra-conservative candidate in Kentucky who openly embraces and courts the "Tea Party" and gets their votes, came out, earlier this week against the Civil Right Act of 1964--though he says, of course, that he abhors discrimination--and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The boy's an idiot, folks, pure and simple.
And a demagogue, don't forget that. Mr. "I'll say anything to these Right Wing wackos, to get elected".
And there are tons of blogs out there ranting about this and it's certainly in the news so I'll make this brief.
We have to keep in mind that doing away with both or either of these things, the Civil Rights Act and/or the ADA, would be taking us backward, not forward, in any progress the country has made for the less-advantaged.
What really gets me is that the Right Wing nutcase reporter, John Stossel, agreed, on television that "Private businesses ought to get to discriminate..."
From The Osterley Times:
STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.
STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law.
KELLY: What?
STOSSEL: Because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.
What's scary, shocking and disturbing here, about this, is that Stossel's report, when seen on television, gives more than a little bit of weight to it, when seen by other Right Wing conservatives and/or business owners or, actually, any other racist jerkwad out there watching the crap Fox puts on the screen.
Remember that old idea as a kid that "if it's in a book, it must be true"?
As we mature, we realize that's patently untrue.
BUT IF YOU SEE IT ON TV??
People really would feel justified and supported in believing this nonsense if some idiot reporter from New York City or Washington, DC says it's so, right on his own television set.
This starts to get scary.
Naturally, it was on Fox "News" but holy cow, how completely, totally and utterly irresponsible. They've outdone even themselves.
So to all Americans out there, even and including the Fox channel and the Tea Party leaders and followers, I ask you (beg?), please don't take us backwards. Let's continue to progress, as a country, and improve things for the people and not just the corporations and wealthy.
Here's hoping.
With that, let's try to have a great weekend, y'all.
Posts
2:00PM Water Cooler 11/12/2024
1 hour ago
16 comments:
Stossel is libertarian, not conservative--although he is probably farther away from liberals and conservatives than they are from each other.
It is astounding how difficult it is for most people to wrap their minds around libertarianism, and this is a perfect example--anyone who opposes a civil rights law must be racist or an idiot.
...or in talking to a conservative, anyone who thinks we should legalize drugs is either an idiot or a druggie, or anyone who wants equality for gays must be a pervert.
Libertarianism is the idea that government should exert minimum control--shrinking government in all aspects, not just the ones that won't bother you. I don't do drugs stronger than alcohol, but I absolutely think drugs should be legalized.
Repealing the civil rights act is consistent with libertarianism, although it probably wouldn't be a high priority for me, there are worse and more intrusive laws. Most of the gains since the civil rights act aren't due to the law--they are due to people becoming more educated, and in many cases by working with Blacks. The law may have been useful as a catalyst, but repeal of the law will make very little negative difference now.
No, Stossel is an idiot, through and through.
I understand--and have for some time--the difference between "Libertarians" and Republicans, to be clear, in case you're assuming I'm part of that group.
But truly, anyone who opposes civil rights laws must be either a racist or an idiot--or both.
You should come to Kansas City and see how racially divided this city is. And I can guarantee you that, if we didn't have civil rights laws, specifically and most especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this city alone would be far worse than what it is.
Given human nature, unfortunately, you sometimes--too frequently, in fact--need laws from and through government to make people do the "right thing". And that right thing in this case is not discriminating.
Sure, government here in the States should be a bit smaller but Libertarians and conservatives and Republicans, all, didn't learn how much government we need when a lack of government recently--most specifically due to the Republicans and Geo. W. Bush & Co.--got us miners killed in coal mines, a wrecked US and world economy and now the largest environmental disaster in the nation's history.
Libertarians still want to stick with that?
Nothing like not learning from even recent history, eh?
mr
I tire of the trendy people who declare their "Libertarianism".
It's clear they think and feel this because it's politically very cool--literally "PC"--to say it.
Trendy gits.
They've learned nothing. They seem to know very little, sadly.
mr
Calling Stossel conservative is evidence that you don't understand the difference, unless conservative is redefined to "disagrees with me". Everything I've seen from Stossel has been consistently libertarian-smaller government always, not just when it suits a conservative (or liberal) agenda.
One of the things that affirmative action and defacto quotas do is to reinforce the message that blacks aren't quite as good as whites--if it weren't for quotas, that person wouldn't have their job.
Occasionally that's even true.
Note I'm not claiming that blacks are more likely to be incompetent than whites.
A much bigger problem is that blacks are typically concentrated in areas where the schools are sub-par. The solution here is just about impossible with the current unionized public school system--We either need to let poor people escape the public education system (vouchers) or we need the ability to promote and reward (and punish and demote) public teachers based on effectiveness instead of for how long they have shown up most days. Teacher's unions vehemently oppose both of those ideas.
At least with private sector unions, if they screw up the product or make it too expensive you can buy a Toyota instead.
Who decides what the right thing is, and more importantly how to get there?
You mentioned in another post about the US not being one of the top places to do business--this is in part due to over regulation. Industrial accidents have dropped substantially since the advent of OSHA--but they were dropping at the same rate before OSHA. It isn't possible to have perfectly safe industry and still produce anything.
When OSHA comes to inspect, they WILL find violations in almost any plant, no matter how conscientious the management is--unless the inspector has been paid off. There are amazingly stupid things that are violations--many of your household appliances and standard household cleaning supplies would be OSHA violations. You can't use an extension cord for more than 30 days. This means that OSHA has become a shakedown scheme rather than about actual safety. Civil penalties do more to keep workplaces safe than government regulations.
How far into the Democrat's control of congress, and into the Obama administration do you get to blame Bush? Often the wrong regulation is worse than NO regulation, and a major part of the economy is due to "OMG, crisis, crisis, we've got to make another regulation, don't bother reading it, just vote!!!" Not just now, but for the last couple of generations.
Read through this, above, again.
If you do, you'll see you misread and assumed I called Stossel Conservative.
I didn't.
And I have news for you, everyone--with the exception of George W. "I screwed up a nation and a political party" Bush--in the Republican Party has been calling for "smaller government since, what? Ike? How is it you or anyone else, thinks this is a new call and that it's exclusively "Libertarian"?
As for the US and not being one of the top ten countries to do business--so you'd rather have us be like China, apparently, where the worker--you included unless, as I've asked before, you're wealthy and living off a trust--are not protected from the company and its cost-cutting, etc., so you could be hurt, maimed or killed in an industrial accident or so the waters, air and Earth are so polluted it's actually killing the people around there? Is that what you're saying? You'd prefer that?
The fact is, the countries that keep their air, water and soil cleaner, into the future, are going to be the ones that succeed and thrive, not the ones that make the most widgets but destroy the people and the countryside.
That's some twisted logic.
You asked "Who decides what the right thing is, and more importantly how to get there?"
The answer is, since there are about 350 million of us, the government, led by science, research, intelligence and common sense, hopefully, and the American people themselves. That and by what is just "right", period.
I will tell you, I will blame George W. Bush for as long as there are troops in Iraq, still dying for oil and no good reason.
I will blame George W. Bush as long as we have huge debts because--I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten--we had something of a budget surplus--remember that word?--before W came to office. After him, and his creating the Homeland Security agency--growing government--and his arbitrary, internally and internationally illegal Iraq War, and his spending and his giveaways to the wealthiest of the country and to his buddies and pals in corporations, we've had debt every since.
I will blame George W. Bush until the big banks no longer owe the American people a dime.
And that's all extremely fair and reasonable. He created those messes. They were done on his watch because people--like you?--voted for him and that's what he did.
That's how long I'll blame George W. Bush.
The blood of more than 4,300 American Soldiers are on his and Dick Cheney's and all in his administration's hands.
That's how long.
mr
You said
"that the Right Wing nutcase reporter, John Stossel"
Do you have a definition of right wing other than conservative?
Conservatives claim they want smaller government, but all they really want is to shave the left side down a bit. Libertarians want vastly smaller government. The exact percentage varies, but we don't even start discussing when to stop cutting until about 50%.
I'm not defending Bush at all, I didn't vote for him and don't support the gulf war. But the things that Obama is changing are the wrong ones--He hasn't got us out of Iraq, he hasn't done anything about Don't Ask, Don't Tell (minor in the scheme of things but also trivial for him to fix) and he's starting huge new spending commitments when we can least afford them.
Both of them statist power-seekers.
Yes, indeed, but I patentl didn't say Stossel was either Republican or Libertarian, as you said.
You're talkin degrees of shrinking government now and while you're saying a 50% decrease, I've not seen that in any Libertarian declaration so that's up in the air.
The Republicans would insist they're in the same vein as Libertarians.
The fact is that the Republicans are badly fragmented, to begin, then there is the Tea Party, which takes people from Republicans, both, and then, finally, there are the declared Libertarians, further splintering the group and yes, Right Wing.
It doesn't portend good for you all.
I'm patently glad you didn't vote for Geo. W. Bush. The way you've defended the Right and attacked the Left, I assumed, frankly, that you did. You'll notice I never said it so give me that credit.
DADT is the least of this President's issues or problems, for sure.
This President (O) is having to, by necessity, put so many bandaids on so many problems, it's no wonder he has to lean on "government" so much. Come on, the nation's--then the world's--economy very nearly collapsed. What do you want/expect him to do? NOT use government to solve problems? Surely you don't think that would be a good idea. Now they're thinking, too, that we're about to go into a "double-dip" recession. Do you suggest he pull a Herbert Hoover--as the Republicans seem to be suggesting--and sit on the sidelines? Surely not.
At least he's created the deficit commission. I honestly don't think he created that for show and that they will, in fact, apply what they find and sugggest to problems.
The fact is, you and I both recognize and agree that we need to cut spending and shrink government. I think that could and likely will come out of that commission.
I'm sure you and I both agree that one of the first things that needs to go, out of Congress, is "earmarks" and that absurd spending.
So I'm "left" and Liberal and you're "right" and Conservative and we share these things.
All Americans need to stop polarizing ourselves ala' Fox "News", put the country first, work together and solve our problems.
That is what we need to do.
mr
You are backpedaling like a politician on what you called Stossel.
I haven't seen the libertarian government size expressed in percent--but if you look at the functions of the federal government that libertarians think are improper, there isn't much left. Most of us think the commerce clause should be about commerce between states, and not an excuse to bypass the 9th and 10th amendments.
If you're going to insist on calling me conservative, you may as well go back to teabagger. It is obvious you are using it as an epithet rather than as an accurate description of political views.
The politicians who are successful in our two party federal system are almost universally statist, and out for power and prestige rather than service. They may adopt some libertarian coloration, but liberals are easier to fool, actual libertarians know the difference.
first things first--what the hell are you doing up this late?
Second, I haven't backpedaled once.
Not once.
I called John Stossel a "Right Wing, nutcase reporter", period, proving my point and repudiating anything you're trying to accuse me of so, really, let it go. I didn't say he was a Republican or anything else. Move on.
And then, I don't know why you think it important to assume I'm using anything as an "epithet" or any pejorative term. Is "conservative" so bad? Isn't that a person that wants to shrink government? Since when does that go against what you have stated? You seem to either have a chip on your shoulder or want to assume that I have nothing but negative things to think or assume about you and that we have to be political enemies.
We're Americans. Can we not work together? Do you have no desire to find any common ground at all?
You're for our success. I'm for our success. Is that not sommon ground?
Is fighting each other paramount to you?
Surely not.
Unfortunately, too many Senators and representatives in Washington are out for themselves, first, above all else.
We need to demand of them that they stand for the country, first and last.
I stand by what I said earlier:
"So I'm "left" and Liberal and you're "right" and Conservative and we share these things.
All Americans need to stop polarizing ourselves ala' Fox "News", put the country first, work together and solve our problems.
That is what we need to do."
Can you talk about us working together instead of "us vs. them"?
I challenge you.
mr
If you do, you'll see you misread and assumed I called Stossel Conservative.
If you consider that calling him conservative and calling him right-wing are completely different, we're going to have to spend some time figuring out common ground in language before we can get to common ground politically. Same for calling me right wing or conservative. It isn't primarily that I consider it insulting, it is that it hinders communication.
Extreme conservatives want to create a theocracy based on the Bible, "one nation under (Christian) God". The places where they want the government to meddle in the affairs of citizens is often different than the places the liberals do, but they both want to increase government power at the expense of liberty. Moderate conservatives tend to add liberal control points faster than they shed conservative control points.
Libertarians want to minimize the control points, not merely trade one for another.
You are focusing heavily on the relatively trivial common ground between libertarians and conservatives, buying in to the conservative attempts to co-opt the popularity of libertarianism without actually embracing the core ideas.
You and I have some common ground. George Bush was an awful president, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan any more, and we should not have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think we also agree on the futility of the drug war.
The semantics of these terms is completely, totally and utterly unimportant to me but you seemed to demand it, with your calling out Libertarian vs. Conservative and then the degrees.
With this, then, we can drop all that. What's important are what problems we have and how we can solve them, as a country.
Dear Mr. Kevin: Thanks for the post on Rand Paul. Having travelled extensively in the South in the era of segregation (as a 10-year-old in 1960 it was quite jarring to see "white only" signs everywhere), I can fully understand people's anger that Mr. Paul questions the 1964 Civil
Rights Act--one of the finest legislative accomplishments of the 20th Century. But, I think it is important to recognize that he is not a racist in his rationale for so doing--he simply has totally extreme views on private property and of the rights of the owners of such property. From having worked as an undercover investigator for the ADL in 1983-1986 and having met lots of real, vicious racists, I think that it is important not to "cheapen" the word racist by attaching it to people like Mr. Paul. Sincerely, Respectfully and In Christ, Ernest Evans
Dr. Evans,
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
HE'S AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
OF COURSE HE'S A RACIST.
Holy cow. Let's be clear on this.
mr
Hotels and restaurants could discriminate against people of color and he is against the government stepping in and saying you can't do that?
What is not racist about that, sir?
mr
Hotels and restaurants could discriminate against people of color and he is against the government stepping in and saying you can't do that?
What is not racist about that, sir
There are a lot of repulsive things that should nevertheless be legal.
We have progressed far enough as a society that these places openly discriminating will be few and far between. The law can no longer accomplish much, as the important parts are attitudes, rather than fear of punishment. I would like to know which businesses are serving blacks only because they are legally required to, so I know to eat somewhere else. I will not willingly give those people my money, and I'd rather it were all out in the open so I can better identify them. As it stands now, restaurants can effectively and discretely restrict blacks by giving them consistently crappy service, and I will never know.
Believe what you will. You will, anyway.
The fact is, discrimination needs to be illegal, period. There are plenty of people who would be only too happy to serve only one color, if they had their way.
mr
Post a Comment