Thursday, May 20, 2010

Bigots and Barmies in The Big Tent

Today is Thursday, 20 May 2010.

I knew Rand Paul couldn’t keep it in his pants. Sooner or later, he’d just have to whip it out and wave it about.

I’m referring, of course, to the Confederate flag.

From Rand Paul’s recent interview with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal:

“Question: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Rand Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and I'm all in favor of that.

Questioner: But...?

Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.”

In Rand Paul’s “mind”, businesspersons who refuse to serve certain people because of their own personal race (or other) hate aren’t immoral or illegal, just short-sighted entrepreneurs. And it’s obviously hunky-dory with Rand, so long as no “public funding” is involved. To a Randite, property is always more important than people.

Hypothetical: a restaurant which proudly displays the Nazi/Klan-style sign: “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone”. How will customers arrive? By driving or walking on publicly-funded socialized roads or sidewalks. Who does the restaurateur expect to protect the business? Publicly-funded socialized police and fire.

Every business receives the benefit of public funding, directly or indirectly, and thus by law and ethics may not discriminate.

Like father, like son. Ron Paul uses an old wink-and-nudge code euphemism, “international bankers”, which fellow anti-Semites know means “FILTHY CHRIST KILLING JEWS!” Randy uses a similar subterfuge: “I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners … bad business decision …But … I believe in private ownership”. His fellow white self-worshippers know what he means.

Rand later expanded on his views on The Rachel Maddow Show:

Maddow: "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"

Paul: "Yes. [My bold italics.] I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires."

The boilerplate about freedom of speech is a red herring. The proof of the pudding is in “Yes”.


The Republican Party is indeed a Big Tent.

And that Big Tent includes the vaporous Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, who opposes the pending nuclear arms control agreement with Russia.
“Obviously, we’re agreeing to keep our missile defense to the point where it does not render their weapons useless”.

Senator Moonbeam has either not done his homework, or is a bald-faced liar. Were the Russian Federation to launch a nuclear strike, there would be so many incoming warheads and decoys that no humans could successfully operate a missile defense system. Only computers would be adequate to the challenge. Providing they were artificially intelligent, of course.

The only problem is that there are no extant artificially intelligent computers, and no logical reason to believe there ever will be.

But there are DeMented Senators.


Post a Comment

<< Home