Thursday, May 20, 2010

Rand Paul and Racism

Everyone's heard about Rand Paul's interview with Rachael Maddow. Now the media is dong their best to paint the guy as a racist. What kind of racist vitriol was he spewing? He said that the civil right's act should have only limited the government from discrimination. What all of these race baiters refuse to mention is that the reason for most of the discrimination in America before the civil rights act was due to the fact that the government supported it with laws and policies. The free market was starting to push back against the racists so the politicians of the time saw what was going on and decided that they had to do something to save face and claim credit for America "getting over" racial discrimination.

The pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. Now if you don't think that things like affirmative action are good for this country then you're a racist. If you agree with the new Arizona law then you're a racist. If you don't agree with or you criticize the president you're a racist. Meanwhile, foreign leaders can come to the front lawn of America and criticize us.

Luckily, the pendulum is swinging back. I think that people are starting to wake up. They're not just putting their heads in the sand as soon as they hear a red herring that they don't think that they can argue with. Now people are recognizing the red herrings and they're calling people out on them. People realize that we don't need laws that tell us how to think or what to do. These days, without government laws to cement their position, a restaurant wouldn't survive if it had a sign on the door that said "we don't serve such and such race". Everyone with any common sense who doesn't spend all of their time apologizing for succeeding realizes this.

"Judge each man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character." - MLK

I think about that quote every single day. The more I get racism shoved in my face the more it comes to mind. Martin Luther King must be rolling in his grave. The first thing we need to do to get this country back on track is to start ignoring the "race issue". Yes there are still racists out there. They're now in the minority. There are a lot more people who want to accuse people of racism to further their own agenda. If we start rolling our eyes at people who bring it up at all then it stops being an issue. If it remains an issue then the results could be very very scary. Just look at the video I posted a few days ago. That's what happens when you let racism take center stage.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

That quote from MLK, if you think along the lines of affirmative action, do you hire someone who's more qualified or do you hire someone who is less qualified but need to fill a quota because of the color of their skin? The Reverend King was a great man. Equality for everyone!

Conservative Scalawag said...

Of course let us remember who created affirmitive action - Nixon.

But you said it well, people are tired of the race baiting, and the PC garbage. Paul is right, laws such as this violate others rights, in the name of giving rights to others.

And while racism is wrong, one has the right to be a racist. As I have the right to not eat at their restuarants, shot at their stores,and not purchase their product. Since I disagree with such behavior.

That is called the freedom to choose.

Bitmap said...

When it comes to hiring it should not just be the content of the applicants character. It should also be the quality of their output.

I would prefer a brain surgeon who cheats on his wife and is the most skilled in his field over a faithful man who is of only average skill.

I think if you own a business then you should be able to set whatever policies you want regarding customers and employees. The marketplace will decide if you can be successful with those policies.

PKS said...

"Now if you don't think that things like affirmative action are good for this country then you're a racist. If you agree with the new Arizona law then you're a racist. If you don't agree with or you criticize the president you're a racist."

And if I don't agree with you, I'm deluded. Or one of the "sheeple" (very original, btw). Or I "get my news from mainstream media". Or I'm "a troll".

For somebody who uses a whole lot of ad homenim attacks as a substitute for actual arguments, you sure get your panties in a knot when somebody does an ad homenim on you.

Kettle, meet pot. Notice your chromatic similarity?

russell1200 said...

"What all of these race baiters refuse to mention is that the reason for most of the discrimination in America before the civil rights act was due to the fact that the government supported it with laws and policies."

Really? How do you know this? Seems like both elements were involved and it would be pretty hard to apportion a weighting in any sort of accurate way. Are you going to take a laundry list of offensive actions with one column being government sponsored, and the other column being actions by non-government sources, and do an analysis based on word count?

The Urban Survivalist said...

When have I ever resorted to attacking someone because they don't agree with me? I could care less where you get your news. I've used the word "sheeple" three times in three years. Once was in a silly post. The other two times it was a generic discriptor. I don't think that I've ever referred to anyone as a "troll". Hell, I don't even moderate comments. I encourage dissenting viewpoints. I've been pretty scalding in response to some news articles but I get pretty pissed off when people completely ignore facts or try to twist existing facts to fit their world view/agenda and then pass it off as "news". Kind of like when Rachael Maddow tries to paint a Rand Paul as a racist.

Really? How do you know this? Seems like both elements were involved and it would be pretty hard to apportion a weighting in any sort of accurate way. Are you going to take a laundry list of offensive actions with one column being government sponsored, and the other column being actions by non-government sources, and do an analysis based on word count?

You're oversimplifying. When the racism is government sponsored then it makes it OK for the general public to be racist. The laws forced the government at the time to be racist. Not that there werne't a lot of people who really were racist. The government was just enforcing laws that were on the books. "Everyone doesn't agree with me so I'll just make a law" is the mentality that got us to the point where the Civil Rights Act was passed. Two wrongs don't make a right.

russell1200 said...

The problem with completely "neutral" laws in some settings is that they are not uniformly enforced. Thus the more proscriptive laws.

An example (that I learned of from the WSJ) was that in the South they used to use the vagrancy laws to round up people, and send them off to the mines to work. Some of the mine owners had an enormous fatality rate.

These laws were more heavily applied to blacks than whites. Why? The law was neutral after all. Blacks in general did not have the money to fight the system. More importantly, even though in theory they had the right to fight the system, they could not get anyone to listen to them.

So even though the vagrancy laws were race neutral in scope, they were used in a very uneven fashion. Prescriptive (in result) laws are an attempt to get around this problem. That these laws are not always well thought out, and are often abused is true. But that you here so much about their abuse is an indicator that the party complaining has the political capital to do something about it. And thus, counterintuitively, could be taken as a sign that they are still needed.

Mr. Paul has an awfully tin ear for some running for election in a southern state.

The Urban Survivalist said...

That's the thing. Back in those days peaceful protests were becoming commonplace and the general populace was really waking up to what was going on in the south. These "protester on demand" organizations were really starting to organize. They were bringing to light many abuses of the law just like the one that you're talking about. I think it's great that it happened and that's how the American system is supposed to work. The problem comes when people start getting laws passed to "fix" some of these issues. Like you said, many of those new laws come with their own problems. Especially when it gets to the point where they can start passing 2500 page bills that no one even has the chance to read.

Information is power. You don't need laws for everything. We just need a free an open debate along with the knowledge of what's really going on. The federal government is there to protect our rights. That includes the right to property and the right to be an idiot as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Hurting someone's feelings doesn't count.

Anonymous said...

Bravo! Well spoken. As a soon to be 69 year old but forever an American of Mexican Decent I do battle daily with those that see a racist behind every bush.
I'm getting weary; seems like I'm the only one who "Gets It".

Also, the pendejo (dumb ass)on the video is talking out of his *ss. He wouild promptly be tossed into a Mexican prison if he went there and said the same **it aabout Mexico.

The Urban Survivalist said...

That's the beauty of this country. You've got the freedom to talk out your ass among other things. Part of being free is having to deal with crap you don't like.