A Warning and a Call of Respect.
First, I want to thank David Anderson for this comment:
I have no particular regard for Senator Kennedy, his record, or his work. That said, I wish people would not use a tribute thread to attack him. It is disrespectful to the feelings of those who admire him. My condolences to his family and many fans. I think Tennessee did a fine job at DP with an appropriate tribute. I also congratulate U. I. on a well put together piece. I would also commend this [article] to friend and foe.
I remember when President Reagan died when I was a writer for Daily Kos, and many of my liberal friends there took the opportunity to refight old battles they had with him, and to denounce him anew. I said then it was not appropriate, and that was not a very popular opinion. I was accused of abetting a haliography of Reagan, when all I wanted is to respect the man and the family, no matter my vehement disagreements with his policies. And in my own way, I am sure I have showed the same disrespect at times, like when Jerry Falwell died. It is all too tempting to forget that our political adversaries are in fact human beings with families and friends and admirers that love them, as polarizing politics of the last twenty years if not longer make that appear impossible.
Conservatives will face this dilemma again when Presidents Carter and Clinton pass away, and we liberals will face it again when Dick Cheney and George W. Bush pass away. I think it is helpful to remember how you felt when a loved one died, and then imagine how you would feel if someone said to you about that loved one what you want to say about a dead political adversary.
Finally, unconnected to Mr. Anderson or the late great Senator Kennedy, I wanted to repost a comment I just made to Steve Newton’s post over at Delaware Libertarian.
If Mucho Cowardo dares to engage in such activity, it will only have the opposite affect. I may be fired from my job, but that will only mean I will have MORE time to expose CRI and anyone and everyone connected to it.
Dave Burris and Charlie Copeland, if you both think this fool is only hurting your cause, then it is in your best interest to take immediate action to denounce and stop him, especially if he is someone connected to you. If you have no control over him, then all you can do is denounce his comments and actions, and I accept that.
But if he is someone acting at your behest (and his identity will eventually be discovered, especially if he engages in the type of activity he says he will engage in), then all bets are off.
I will not be intimidated. None of my colleagues at Delaware Liberal will be intimidated. And I think it is safe to assume that you, Steve, will not be intimidated. If those behind CRI cannot stand the criticism and debate of their actions, opinions, work and funding, and their only recourse is this naked threat of intimidation meant to silence that debate and criticism, they prove our point.
I will add the most amusing aspect to all of this: Mucho Cowardo (nee Macho Camacho) is attempting to out all of us who criticize the Caesar Rodney Institute, and now threatens to harass us at our workplaces, doing this all under an pseudonym. The irony. As I have said elsewhere, we are rapidly approaching the point where I will embrace a key teaching of the Old Testament.
Finally…..something put religion back into the liberals!
Shut up 12monkeys, many liberals are religious.
12monkeys, only an idiot would say that liberals are not religious. That kind of polarizing rhetoric, that your opponent is not religious or does not follow God, is precisely the kind of rhetoric I speak of here, the kind that strips the humanity from our political opponents. David Anderson is a perfect example. He is a religious man, but his interpretation of his religion and his translation of that interpretation into his political beliefs is something I vehemently disagree with. BUT, does that mean he is not religious, or that he is not sincere in his beliefs, or that he is not a good person?
NO. We just disagree, strongly at times.
Oh, my bad.
Does David use the word “cunt” in his blogging?
How about “rounding them all up”?
LOL, can’t even stay on topic. What an ass.
Just trying to figure out the boundaries of “respect”…
Teach me, O Del Dem…..I am but a worm!!!!
Go play in one of your sandboxes.
Like I said 12monkeys, since it appears you are illiterate, I have been disrespectful and wrong.
I think the time to argue with a person’s actions are when they are alive. I criticized Reagan and I criticize Bush and Cheney all the time. When one of them dies, I will withhold my criticism out of respect for their families and loved ones. At some later point, criticism will be fair game again.
I thank David for his restraint and his kind words.
I love it when morons come in and get up all in our shit. F’ing amazing.
You are welcome and thank you for receiving the statement with the intent I had when I wrote it. One thing that I did admire people like Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neil, Howard Baker, Jesse Helms, Orin Hatch, Bob Dole, and the like for is the fact that they did not live one dimensionally. As Brian said they could be your best friend after hours and warriors on the floor. Business is business it is not personal. Too many people forget where to draw the line today. I think hours after the word of someone’s passing is a good time to allow reflection not fall into battle formation.
That is just my view. No one is bound by it, but it helps me to live a happier life. Who wants to be angry or bitter all the time? I like being happy.
It is a side affect of treating your political opponent as an enemy.
I kept very quiet when Reagan died. And I hated that man. I used to think he was the worst president we’ve ever had. But I tried to lay low during that hagiographic orgy.
DelDem — you mean like the false charges directed against Robert Bork by the last and least of the Kennedy brothers at the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court?
“Strom Thurmond/Jesse Helms/Billy Graham is burning in hell tonight.”
Huh, none of those three actually killed somebody,
I would think your complaint would involve atheists talking about “hell” as a metaphysical place.
False charges? Robert Bork is on the record with rulings that support every charge Kennedy made, with the exception of a position on evolution. So “false charge,” singular, is about the best you can do. Oh, and whine about it, of course.
Let’s let these oh-so-religious folks crap all over dead Teddy. It’s like dealing with dry drunks: this is their last chance to yell, and they need to make the most of it. Answering them is like giving them more alcohol: it doesn’t allow them to sober up and it fuels the nastiness.
Actually, he was not. But by your own admission, Teddy was a lying sack of shit who intentionally demonized his opponents with false charges.
Kennedy’s dead now; let him burn in peace.
Classy, callerRick, real classy.
Ignore callerRick (and Hube) as he continuously sets his bait with outrageous statements, rarely addressing the topic or willing to discuss.
Actually, he was. As explained, the vast majority of those charges were not false — they were strongly worded (demonizing, in your eyes) expressions of what the principles Bork espoused would lead to in practice. Your use of the word “intentionally” is unsupportable by evidence, unless you’re a mind-reader. But since when do politicians have to live up to your new-found standard of not demonizing their opponents?
For that matter, since when do we have to care whether you folks and your hero Judge Bork think we must stick to “the intent of the framers”? What’s the intellectual justification for your puzzling complaint that civil rights amendments to the Constitution — passed using the process framed in 1787 — failed to live up to the framers’ intent? The founding fathers themselves, though they were intensely concerned with setting up a framework for republican government that would allow a beleaguered nation to survive, expressed no intent that their specific framework continue unaltered. With the glaring exception of Madison, most delegates to the convention were pragmatists and horse-traders, not mouthpieces for political principles, which is why we have processes not just for amending the Constitution but for calling another Constitutional Convention if necessary. Those are not the acts of men who expect their framework to stand unchanged for all time.
While many conservatives rail against Roe v. Wade, RwR rails against Marbury v. Madison.
I get twitchy when I hear arguments based on what the framers intended. The framers intended only landed white men to vote, although they were smart enough to make the framework flexible to allow for a changing society. Why else would they make the Constitution amendable?
Apparently, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope.”
Let’s see.
My party chairman is Michael Steele.
My preferred candidate for Senate here in Texas is Michael Williams.
My preferred choice for VP last year was Condi Rice or Bobby Jindal, and in 2000 was JC Watts.
Yeah, sounds like I’m out looking for a white guy to lead me.
Oh, and as for Marbury, I think it was rightly decided — something that cannot be said about Roe (and that is according to many LIBERAL scholars, too).
And UI, you are correct insofar as you go — but given that there are no amendments justifying the latter-day departures from the text of the Constitution, I view those departures as illegitimate.
Rhymes WIth Spigot:
Do you think all those candidates support your passionate wish to repeal anti-discrimination legislation?
Do you think that they would like to see police stationed outside private businesses arresting black people for trying to enter them or have sheriffs throwing black families out of their homes for the color of their skin, as it would be in your dream of America?
Gee — nice misrepresentation of my position of anti-discrimination laws.
“I view those departures as illegitimate…”
If you expect that to carry any weight, you’ll have to go to law school and get appointed to the judiciary.
Actually, RwR, your mechanism for stopping or preventing discrimination does have a potential state as A1 provided above.
Your idea, if I understand it correctly, is that the above should be allowed to happen, but that you as a consumer also have the responsibility of voting with your feet. So a black man trying to enter a whites-only facility would be trespassing and subject to arrest. As long as there are enough whites to support that business operating in that way, it would all be perfectly legal.
Am I wrong?
You’re absolutely right, LG.
There was no misrepresentation, Rhymes With Grime.
In your fantasy world, private white businesses would use state law enforcement to enforce their “right to discriminate,” including evicting black families from “white-only” apartments, denying them medical treatment in “white-only” hospitals and doctors offices, and throwing them out of “whites-only” restaurants, gas stations, or other private retail establishments.
This is your position as stated repeatedly in previous threads. I am only bringing it up here again to remind people of the ugly racist ideas that are the foundation of your commentary here.
“A Call of Respect?”
Riiight, just like you folks “respected” Bob Novak when he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer….
your call for respect would be more credible if you (the left) were not using the death of Sen Kennedy as a tool to pass legislation (Health Care and Immigration reform).
Passing a good health care legislation would honor his memory. Take that lame talking point somewhere else.
pandy
please explain what part of my 31 word post is a “talking point”?
No rebuttal for me, I notice. Please notice, too, which party resorted to emotional charges that have no substance.
All 31 words – especially coming from conservatives who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan. You guys have a lot of nerve talking about using someone as a tool.
Pandy, do words have any fixxed meaning for you or are you just a parrot repeating the days talking points (which apparantly include calling and contrary arguement a “talking point”)
Yeah — instead i got the Master’s in political science with a focus on the Constitution and Constitutional law, to go with my undergraduate degree in history.
Just like the ObamaCare plan has the potential for turning into rationing and death panels, LG.
“instead i got the Master’s in political science with a focus on the Constitution and Constitutional law, to go with my undergraduate degree in history.”
Which means that your opinion is worth exactly the same as that of anyone else in the street. Why stop halfway? Go for the judgeship!
And you still haven’t answered for anything Bork said, or showed how Kennedy’s statement was incorrect, as opposed to impolitic.
Just like the ObamaCare plan has the potential for turning into rationing and death panels, LG.
Not even remotely. One is a natural progression, the other is a right-wing fantasy… actually they might both be right wing fantasies.
I defer to the leader of the Republican Party.
When will the Delaware public take some real action against the right wing thug liar Rush Limbaugh “wanna be”, Rick Jenson? For two days, he has referred to Oregon as a “single payer state? A huge lie. In fact there is NO state that has had a Governor sign onto Single Payer although many state legislators sent the legislation to the republican Governor.
Two: Death Panels in Oregon. Another huge lie. This story came out as a result of the Death Panel wing nut Sarah Palin and some looney used the “death panel” to support Palin outrageous, untruthful scare tactics.
If Carper wants to know why 80% of Delaware citizens who signed up for his tele call believe the lies about health care, point the finger at WDEL Jenson, and other down state right wing talkers using the extreme talking points put out by the republican party to further confuse the public on this controversial debate.
Pandora – Seems to me like the left is using Kennedy’s death to score political points.
RWR – can we quit with the death panels crap? It’s nowhere in either bill.
OTOH, I completely agree with you on rationing. It’s the logical progression of Obamacare policies.
Gee, anon — what “action” do you want taken? Knee-capping? Pipe-bombing? Assassination? One could argue that your comment is simply the start of a slippery slope towards violence — just like you folks argue about criticism of Obama.
Mike W. — You (and liberalgeek) clearly don’t get the concept of sarcasm.
Rhymes With Spigot: You clearly don’t get the concept of racism.
Actually, I do — and unambiguously condemn it as evil. That’s why I’m a Republican — the Democrats have been and remain the single largest purveyors of racism in the USA.
and unambiguously condemn it as evil.
…Unless it is done by a private business or landlord. In which case you reserve only the right to not do business with them.
And he wants the state to enforce right-to-discriminate laws. So black people have the privilege of paying taxes to support police and other public infrastructure for white-only businesses. THAT is Rhymes With Spigot’s dream.
In Rhyme With Slime’s world, equal rights are even more evil than racism.
No, I condemn racism as evil unambiguously.
I also accept the right of others to engage in actions that are at odds with my personal sense of morality — and to be protected by the state when they do so.
But I find it interesting — you seem to have no problem with insisting that racists have the privilege of paying taxes to support police and other public infrastructure that will be used to force them to do business with individuals with whom they have no desire to do business. What’s the difference between that and what you condemn?
For that matter, your hypothetical makes it appear that you don’t to have any problem with making whites pay taxes to support police and public infra-structure for black-only (or Asian-only or Mexican-only) businesses.
And while we are at it, we already use taxes paid by the public at large to support police and other public infrastructure that is used by private, members-only institutions. Where is your objection there?
And worse yet — I pay taxes to support police and infrastructure that you use, even though you won’t let me freely enter your home because you don’t like me. Seems like just as much of an injustice as the situation you object to.
Face it — you really just want to control how people use their own private property if that use does not conform with YOUR morality.
And by the way, anonone — why do you object to government enforcing trespassing laws? Have you got something against private property?
Nice try at switching the subject. I believe we were discussing businesses and landlords – but you know that.
Of course, Rhymes With Slime knows ALL those arguments are absurd, but all can see that he thinks skin color should be a determinant in whether or not somebody is “trespassing” or not.
Fortunately, the United States and the rest of the civilized world have outlawed the ugly evil of discrimination that he so longs for.
Yeah — owners of private property. What is your problem with the use of trespass laws to protect the rights of private property owners?
If you don’t want to rent to me because I am a Republican, I’ve got no problem with the law allowing you to do that — and your evicting me at the end of my lease if you so desire. I simply apply the same standard to racial and religious discrimination as well — after all, I don’t have anything resembling a moral right to use your property if you don’t want to do business with me.
If you own a business and you decide to reject my money and order me off the premises because I am a Republican, I believe you are well within your rights to do so. And I believe that you should have exactly the same right to do that because I am white, Christian, and heterosexual. I have no moral right to force you to do business with me.
And anonone — I don’t “long for” racial discrimination. I am repulsed by racial discrimination, and condemn it. I simply believe in the liberty of business and property owners to determine who they contract with — including the right of those individuals to make those choices based upon morally repulsive grounds.
That’s utterly ridiculous. What if you live in a small town with only one doctor, one pharmacy, one movie theater, one grocery store – I could go on and on. You’re trying to mask bigotry in the name of liberty… and you’re failing miserably.
Rhymes With Slime:
If you were truly “repulsed by racial discrimination” you wouldn’t advocate for using the power of the state to enforce racial discrimination against men, women, and children. Your advocating for the enforcement of trespassing laws based on skin color is what is truly repulsive.
Your argument that the state should view property rights as more important than the human right not to be discriminated against on the basis race, ethnicity, sexual preferences or any other congenital property is repugnant and reveals the shallowness of your values and the darkness of your heart.
Furthermore, the mere fact that you equate being discriminated against because you are a republican, which is a choice, to being discriminated against because you’re black, which is not a choice, is just further evidence of what an intellectual lightweight you truly are.
No, pandora, I’m not. I’m trying to promote liberty in the name of liberty, even when the exercise of liberty results in choices I oppose..
But since you obviously know nothing about what generally happened throughout the South during the days when the Democrats used government to impose their vision of racial segregation on everyone, let me tell you what happened. A thriving African-American business sector sprung up, supplying most, if not all, of the services to the black community. You developed black institutions that stood in the place of those they were denied by the racism of the Democrats. But one of the “benefits” of the coming of non-discrimination laws was that most of those businesses and institutions were destroyed by the newly desegregated white businesses.
But beyond that, you seem to presume that most white people are racists, and that most businesses would be closed to minorities. I submit to you that the assumption you make is wrong — and based upon your own racial bias. I, on the other hand, recognize that most people of all races would reject such segregation — and that businesses that tried to impose it would deservedly whither and die. In today’s society, segregation would undoubtedly carry with it the seeds of its own destruction and the marginalization of its practitioners.
Exactly, pandora. It really is a waste of time on a certain level to even engage this dinosaur, but anybody who is new to this blog should see how despicable and indefensible his views really are.
Kudos to you and LG for jumping in here!
No problem, A1.
Anonone — is the enforcement of trespassing laws against people because of their politics any less repulsive to you? After all, aren’t political participation, freedom of association and free expression also human rights? Why allow for the violation of those human rights?
But beyond that, I would argue that the human right not to be discriminated against exists only in relation to the government.
Oh, and by the way — I find it interesting that you implicitly support religious discrimination, based upon your exclusion of that from your list.
And let me correct one assertion you make –I do not advocate “for the enforcement of trespassing laws based on skin color”. I advocate for the enforcement of trespassing laws against those who a property owner deems unwelcome on their property. It does not matter what the basis of the property owners decision is, nor is it the place of government to decide if there is a sufficient basis for for the decision of the property owner to seek the enforcement of that race-neutral law.
Slimey Rhymey, your argument that you’re “trying to promote liberty in the name of liberty” is simply sick. The only liberty you’re trying to promote is the liberty of white property owners over everybody else. You would deny all others the liberty and freedom to choose where to live, shop, seek medical care, go to school, etc. based on the color of their skin.
And your advocation of separate but equal economies as some kind of idyllic panacea is simply beyond the pale.
Slimey Rhymey, political party affiliation and religious belief are choices – skin color is not. You should learn to tell the difference. And “the enforcement of trespassing laws based on skin color” is exactly what you are advocating. Anybody can see that. What do you think the signs that read “whites only” meant?
No, anonone — you have it all wrong (but then you usually do).
I am promoting the right of all property owners, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc, to control their property and choose with whom to do business. I’ve never advocated for whites to be the only folks to have such a right.
I would deny no one “the liberty and freedom to choose where to live, shop, seek medical care, go to school, etc based on the color of their skin.” What I would do is deny everyone the “freedom and liberty” to force others to do business with them against their will.
Furthermore, I don’t advocate “separate but equal economies”. What i did was point out that hisorically, in places like pandora’s proposed town where all businesses are segregated, the free market inevitably filled the needs for the goods and services that were denied by segregation. Unless the laws of economics have changed (and they haven’t), they would do so again in the rare places where such complete segregation existed.
And anonone, if you think I am advocating “whites only” institutions, you are wrong.
Quite the contrary, i have argued that any business owner should be permitted to discriminate for any reason — whether innate qualities like race, chosen qualities like political affiliation, qualities that straddle the two like religion — as a part of their right to control their property.
I’ve specifically argued in the past that if black business owners wanted to cater exclusively to the African-American community, they should be permitted to do so. I’ve also argued that if gay business owners wanted to cater exclusively to the gay community, that should be their right.
But you also forget that I have argued that any of those configurations — whites only, blacks only, gay only, etc. — are economically nonsensical in addition to being morally repugnant. What’s more, I’ve argued that they contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction, based upon the moral repugnance that i and most other people feel for such discrimination. Those who segregate their businesses would ultimately segregate themselves out of existence — and why on earth should government protect such business owners from the consequences of their own immorality?
I can’t believe I’m admitting this, but I agree with RwR. This is where I’m a staunch libertarian.
Bring on the attack, A1!!!!
Slimey Rhymey, “whites only,” “black only,” “gay only” – it is all the same ugly discrimination that you advocate for.
Clearly, property right are more important to you than human rights. Your opinion that the right to liberty and freedom is proportional to the amount of property one owns is… well…I am running out of adjectives to describe the vileness of your beliefs.
Fortunately, western society and civilization have moved on from the rank views of people like you, and we are certainly better for it. You can try to disguise your racist leanings with pretty words and obfuscating arguments, but we can all see it for exactly what it is.
And Mikey – just shut up before you hurt yourself – you really should learn to think before you write.
OK Mike and RWR, but let’s not forget a pretty important point here: during the Jim Crow era in American history it was not only allowed to practice segregation, it was mandated by law. You could not decide, in Alabama, to open a restaurant that catered to all comers regardless of race, because the government said that was illegal. It had to be “whites only” or “colored only.” In other words, that pure libertarian fantasy of a world in which segregation would be forced out of business by the free market never existed, because the government itself enforced the segregation.
Likewise, with respect to the existence of an alternative African-American community with its own institutions and traditions, RWR is both right … and wrong. Yes, African-Americans created such parallel institutions, and many enjoyed considerable success against the odds. But… during that period Black businesses were perpetually under-capitalized because they could not access loans on the free market (government-mandated segregation again) and black schools were funded at a lower rate… by the government. This could conceivably be argued to be a representation of what the people were willing to accept via their elected representatives, except that the power of government was used in the form of poll taxes and literacy tests (along with lynching and other intimidation tactics) to prevent huge segments of the population from ever voting.
It was government and not free markets which created and enforced “sundown” towns.
So the problem is more nuanced than this discussion is allowing: when the people with the prejudices control the power of government to enforce those prejudices (whether they are racist or religionist prejudices) then the free market is restricted from ever solving the inequities.
So while I would tend to prefer a libertarian solution of getting the government out of all this so the free market could work (as in same-sex marriage), the reality is that for many issues we have to accept the immediate step of forcing the government to enforce the original meaning of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence as a necessary pre-requisite toward getting to a place when repairing distortions created by ignorance and fear–and then magnified by horrible government policies–can be entrusted to to American citizens and the free market.
Thanks for added perspective, Steve. I really do straddle this issue because I do believe it should be anyone’s RIGHT as private citizens to be racist/sexist/homophobic/classist scumbags. It’s also their right to be ostracized as racist/sexist/homophobic/classist scumbags.
anonone — property rights ARE human rights.
Mike — thanks for the support on this one.
Steve — I agree with 90% of what you said. I’m arguing that we have reached the point where government no longer needs to fix the problems of de jure segregation that was created and maintained by Democrats (and their paramilitary terrorist wing, the KKK) for generations. The interesting issue is that the same party that rejected the freedom of owners to use their property as they saw fit by mandating segregation that prevented them from doing business with all comer now rejects the freedom of property owners to use their property as they see fit by forcing them to do business with all comers. What they fail to see is that true freedom requires that property owners be permitted to choose who they do business with free from all state coercion.
On, and anonone — remember your argument here the next time you take a “pro-choice” position on abortion. After all, your logic would lead to the conclusion that you want the maximum number of dead babies possible, with blood running in the gutters outside of the abortion clinics — and that you consider that situation to be a good thing..
Uh-oh, Mike — that is the argument that I’ve been making here for some time. Anonone and the rest can’t distinguish between that and the celebration of state-enforced racism.
Rhymey, Property rights are NOT human rights. Property ownership does not give one person more human rights than a person without property. And abortion has nothing to do with this topic – nothing. Quit obfuscating.
Mike, people have the right to believe and say whatever they want – they don’t have the right to discriminate against other people for skin color, etc. and have the government enforce that discrimination for them by force of law.
Do you think, for example, it would be perfectly acceptable for white landlords to use the power of the state to evict black families from their rental property because of race? Or have “white only” hospitals? Because that is what Rhymey is advocating. I don’t think that you believe that, but do tell us.
Steve, is it your position as a Libertarian, that public businesses should be able to hang “whites only” signs on their doors and have a “right to discriminate” enforced by law through state agents?
A1 if you cannot figure out my position from my statement above (particularly in reference to the last clause of your question) then you are either much less perceptive than I have previously thought, or are grandstanding with a rhetorical question. I suspect the second.
Your assertion that “Property rights are NOT human rights” is strident but unsupported by most western political theorists, who see security in property rights as the essential cornerstone of individual political liberty–that’s why much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is concerned with the security of property rights from the State.
Moreover, you choose only the easy cases for your straw man arguments. If I have three small children and I am renting an apartment attached to my house, should I have the power to not to rent it to a convicted two-time pedophile? If he has “served his time” does my refusal to do so represent discrimination that the State should prevent, overriding my responsibilities as a parent to keep my children safe?
Likewise, if a Hmong family which intends to conduct live animal sacrifices on my property as a part of their religious rituals wants to rent the place, and–aside from the obvious public health problems–I am an anti-vivisectionist–do I have the right to refuse them space if they will not be bound by an agreement not to exercise that particular religious liberty on my property?
Dp “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs represent unacceptable discrimination in your intellectual world? How dare I, as a business owner, set standards for the dress I will accept in my customers?
There was a restaurant called “Twins” in NYC about five years ago. It is no longer there. The marketing idea was that all the waiters and waitresses would be twins, preferrably identical. The restaurant was forced to close after a Federal court ruling when a non-twin applying for a job as a waiter there sued them. Unacceptable discrimination or a legitimate business marketing idea ruined through State intervention?
If property rights are not fundamental human rights then all the eminent domain crusades that have occurred here are meaningless, because property is not your innate possession, it is whatever the State decides to let you hold onto for a limited period of time. India removed property rights as a “fundamental right” from its constitution about thirty years ago, and today is having tremendous upheavals over the State’s unfettered ability to seize farmland that has been in certain families for centuries in order to pursue government development plans–no due process required and no appeals.
RWR–if you would stop overstating your case you would go farther. The idea that the KKK was the “paramilitary terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party does extreme violence to any legitimate understanding of both the KKK and the Democratic Party in American history during the last half of the 19th and first half of the 20th Century. In some places at some times, sure. As a broad national generalization? Completely unsupportable and unnecessary to account for what happened.
Steve,
Although I agree with you in the fundemental argument when it comes to the definition of property. However, the key has and always been the human factor when it comes to it. If a business owner can refused to do business based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc, it allows the bigots (on both sides of the argument) to create a scenario that this country doesn’t need. As with any law, it is open to interpretation and the scenario you provided regarding the restaurant illustrates that however, if that was allowed, than all someone would have to do is create an “Aryan Restaurant” or a “Black restaurant” and would find a loop hole based on the fact that it could be a marketing perspective. Although I say, let the twins be, it creates the wrong precedence and will only negate the progress we’ve made with the civil rights movement.
I’m not entertaining the issue that RWR spouts. This adds to the fire of why I will never align myself to the right at this point as in the famous words of Obi Wan Kenobi- “You are Lost… You have become that which you have sworn to protect against”. This is why there will be no resurrection of the GOP anytime soon and as far as I’m concerned, If I don’t see it in my lifetime, than I’ll die a happy man.
from one of Teddy’s Biographers…
New York Times Magazine’s Ed Klein: “I don’t know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask people, “have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?”
Steve,
No, I couldn’t figure out your position as a Libertarian from your original comment here. It sounded to me like what you were saying was anti-discrimination laws were needed today, but that in a Libertarian utopia, the government would be discrimination-neutral, and that it would be perfectly acceptable for someone to hang a “whites only” sign on their business establishment, and the state would enforce that “right”.
In regards to your most recent post, the examples that you cite are not relevant to this discussion.
Why?
Let me make this absolutely clear: we’re not talking about discrimination against people because of their behavior or beliefs or choices. We’re talking about government enforcement of discrimination against people because of their biology or the circumstances of their birth.
We’re not talking about discrimination against people who choose to commit criminal acts, such as pedophiles.
We’re not talking about discrimination against people who choose to perform animal sacrifices.
We’re not talking about discrimination against people who choose to not wear shoes or shirts.
Get it? Can you see the difference? Do you see the word “choose” in each one of those? Human beings don’t “choose” the color of their skin, where they are born, their gender, etc.
Discrimination against other people by businesses or in commerce solely on the basis of their biology or the circumstances of their birth is wrong. It should remain outlawed.
Too bad about the Twins restaurant concept. Tough luck. Yes, it was unacceptable discrimination in the same way that hiring only females as stewards on airlines was also unacceptable discrimination. Would a restaurant called “White Brothers” which only hired white male siblings for waiters will be acceptable for you?
Property rights are NOT human rights. Property has no rights. A right to own property may be a “fundamental right,” but my point is that owning property does not grant a person more inalienable human rights over somebody who doesn’t own property. Nor should a person who owns property be able to use the power of the state to deny others their fundamental human rights, including the right not to be discriminated against. A person who owns a piece of property should not have the right to refuse to sell it to someone solely because of their skin color or write into the deed that it can never be sold to a black person; both were legal commonly accepted practices for much of our history. Property ownership necessarily needs to be governed by law, and those laws should rightfully include prohibitions against discrimination based on skin color, ethnicity, etc.
As I have pointed out in the past, Rhymes With Spigot espouses the exact same arguments about property rights that slave owners used about their slaves prior to the Civil War. From his alias to his website, where he has several posts about discrimination against white people but none about discrimination against anybody else, it is pretty clear what his agenda is.
I am truly surprised that you would provide his repugnant arguments any legitimacy or support.
anonone
A1
Your unfortunate assumption that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest on this issue, or anyone who attempts a more nuanced position is being racist actually prohibits a discussion.
Your assertion that my examples are not germane does not in fact make it so.
No, RWR does not make exactly the same arguments as slaveholders made antebellum. In that you are as incorrect in your history as he is. You actually need to read “Cannibals All” or other tracts by George Fitzhugh [the primarily political philosopher defending slavery from the 1840s] or Eric Foner’s remarkable treatments of the anti-slavery movement which points out that most of the successful political rhetoric against slavery as an institution was as racism-based as the arguments supporting slavery.
There are two arguments about slavery that you are conveniently conflating into one: whether forced labor is ever, under any circumstances, acceptable, and then–if you answer even a conditional “yes” to the first question–what determines who individually and as a member of a group shall be placed into slavery. Your arguments, far from being historically based, are as polemical in nature as those you accuse RWR of making, and are equally deficient in historical basis.
See–I can make sweeping assertions, too.
I have a sufficiently long track-record, both personal and professional, of working against discrimination that I don’t feel obligated to answer for it to you.
Steve wrote: Your unfortunate assumption that anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest on this issue, or anyone who attempts a more nuanced position is being racist actually prohibits a discussion.
Not “anyone,” Steve. I don’t think that you are racist in any way, shape, or form, and anything that I wrote that could be interpreted as such is being interpreted incorrectly.
I do think RWR constantly espouses positions that are blatantly racist in spite of his denials.
Your assertion that my examples are not germane does not in fact make it so.
And a silly assertion like that doesn’t make them not germane. 🙂 They are, in fact, most germane. None of your examples deal with discrimination based on biology or circumstances of birth. We both know that equating “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs as on par with “whites only” signs is absurd.
I don’t want to get into a discussion about antebellum “slaves are property” arguments; that is a side track, and not the thrust of the discussion. The “slaves as property” was indeed one argument put forward by slave owners; I did not say it was the main argument.
My question to you remains: In a Libertarian government, would the government use the power of the state to enforce laws allowing property owners to discriminate against other people based solely on biology or the circumstances of their birth? Or would it enforce anti-discrimination laws like we have today?
It cannot be neutral.
*crickets chirping* Steve?
I’m done arguing with you on this issue — you intentionally misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I am saying, which is indicative of bad faith on your part.
However, I would like to offer a correction of two claims you make.
1) What “Rhymes With Right” is my unusually spelled last name, which begins with its only vowel and then ends with an unusal combination of consonants. After using the explanation that it “rhymes with right” to teach students and others the correct pronunciation, I began using it as an email. It was only natural that I would us it as the name for my blog as well.
2) I have condemned discrimination against minorities repeatedly on my blog. But you are right, I have said more about discrimination against whites. Why? To point at the failure of our government to truly provide equal protection of the laws — and the hypocrisy of some so-called “civil rights leaders”. Remember — “man bites dog” is a more interesting story than “dog bites man”.
Charlie Pierce puts its best:
“A country with a Robert Bork deciding on the issues of its liberties would be a smaller, more vicious place. The Senior Senator stopped that from happening. What’d your senator do today?”
Eric Foner? Seriously Steve? The man writes high school history textbooks for college students.
Mr. Rex a bit ignorant. http://www.ericfoner.com/
Maybe Rexie will attack Hofstadter next.
Rhymey claims: “It was only natural that I would us it as the name for my blog as well.”
Sure, in spite of the obvious racist overtones. How convenient.
“I have condemned discrimination against minorities repeatedly on my blog.”
Last time I looked, it was only discrimination cases against white people, not minorities. You couldn’t show any that indicated discrimination against blacks. Maybe you added a token one since I last mentioned this.
And a guy who wants to repeal anti-discrimination laws claims I “misunderstand and/or misrepresent” what he’s saying. How precious. No, Rhymey, I just hold up a mirror, a light, and a magnifying glass to your views so everyone can see them for what they are.
Looks like Steve is ducking the questions.
“Obvious racial overtones”? You must be fucking kidding! You are the only person in five years to comment on racial overtones. I suppose that you think my last name also contains “obvious racial overtones”, too, because my german ancestors had the audacity to pick one that rhymes with the English word for a particular race. You, anonone, are a perfect example of the sort of liberal who is draining the very charge of racism of any meaning at all!
And as for your claim that I’ve never condemned racism or discrimination involving anyone other than a white person, let me correct you:
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/129477.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/283536.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/133698.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/140667.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/144740.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/130753.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/110533.php
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/166377.php
I could point to others, but won’t. I also have pieces about anti-Semitism and sexism. But yes, I do post more pieces about discrimination against men, Christians, and whites than against other groups precisely because they are “man bites dog” stories — and because the arguments in favor of that discrimination would be utterly rejected in the reverse by every decent person.
None of the links that you listed concern discrimination against blacks. They only complain about perceived racist behavior against black repubs Rice, Steele and Thomas (mostly erroneous) and some ancient Democratic history. So my point stands.
Oh, and sorry about your last name. I get it. And so does everyone else.
I get it — black Republicans don’t count. Thanks for the confirmation that you are the real racist here. Democrats made it a point of honor and pride to lynch black Republicans in the 1800s and 1900s — and you seem intent upon justifying/committing such lynchings into the 21st. In short, you are just another Democrat sheet-head.
You know, anonone, I’m getting even more pissed off at you as I think about that comment above. Your position is that only blacks who know their place (as defined by Democrats) and stay in it deserve to be defended from racist attacks. More proof that you Democrats have not changed a damn bit since the days when you defended slavery — and my ancestors founded the GOP and joined the Union army to put an end to that vile Democrat institution.
With you, Rhymey, black republicans are clearly the ONLY blacks that count.
Did you cite any posts of yours about discrimination against blacks? No.
Did you cite any posts of yours about racism directed toward any Democratic blacks? No.
And all of your examples about racism directed towards Rice, Steele and Thomas are more contrived than real.
I know that you’re still hating that we have a black President who is also a Democrat, but when you come out of denial of that fact you’ll see the utter ridiculousness of the rest of your comment.
I don’t hate that we have a black president. Indeed, I do not even accept the very notion that we have a black president. We have a president who happens to be black There is a big difference in the two positions — you define him by his race, while I view his race as an irrelevancy. As such, I treat him as president, while you treat him as a black man. I submit to you that your position is the racist one.
But then again, your recent comments make it clear that you are, in fact, a racist who believes that racism is acceptable when directed against uppity black folk who stray from the policy positions spoon-fed them by the DNC. Your position is the same as the Kluxers in their heyday as the paramilitary terrorist wing of the Democrats.
I have, in fact, established my bona fides as having condemned racism against blacks. That you don’t like the blacks I defended is your problem. Now go back to ironing your sheets and soaking that cross in gasoline like a good Democrat.
Rhymey wrote “Indeed, I do not even accept the very notion that we have a black president. ”
I believe that.
As for the rest of your ridiculousness: meh
Gee, all you have to do to reach the conclusion you wanted to make was ignore the next sentence or two — “We have a president who happens to be black. There is a big difference in the two positions — you define him by his race, while I view his race as an irrelevancy.”
When I look at Barack Obama, I see a man. You see a black man. And yet you somehow want to define my COLORBLIND position as racist, and your color-conscious one as not. That is truly rich.
But i will agree with you on one minor point from earlier — I do hate that we have a president who is a Democrat. But not to worry — as is always the case in our system of government, that WILL change.
When you saw Secretary Rice, you saw a black republican.
When you saw Justice Thomas, you saw a black republican
When you saw Chairman Steele, you saw a black republican.
You can’t claim not to see color when you love to write about “racism” toward black repubs.
You really make this too easy, Rhymey.
No, I wrote about racism directed against African-Americans who dare to exercise their civil rights — usually by those who claim to be advocates of civil rights and opponents of racism.
You, on the other hand, approve of racism and bigotry directed towards such uppity black folks and are the very sort who argues that they brought the racism upon themselves by daring to be Republicans — the very position taken by your party’s paramilitary terrorist wing, the KKK, for decades.