My brain is in a holding pattern.
It's difficult to "live in the now", right now. I don't find it thearapeutic to recall and/or dwell upon;
the bailouts, which were an undeniable debacle...
followed by the ham-fisted mishandling of the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies...
followed by the astonomically expensive, yet infinitesimally effective 'stimulus' package...
and capped by the mother of ham-fisted, expensive, government debacles; the passing of ObamaCare.
This current political funk is further exasperated by the general misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of Rand Paul's statements in regards to a specific aspect of the Civil Rights Act. (Essentially, the question is, 'Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of race?')
Rand Paul and the libertarian's contention is, no. The government should not intervene to that degree into private business's business.
Paul is in a camp that views the question as broken down into a more general ideology of, "Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from doing something?"
Whereas the other side views the question as, "Shouldn't the Federal government do as much as it can to stop bad things from happening?"
The media and seemingly the general public's general characterization of some of the basic tenents of libertarianism demonstrate how far the pendulum has swung in the direction of government intervention.
Which is disheartening.
In regards to racism, I don't know if it's an underlying differing of perception in regards to racism in general between the different political factions or what.
If one can accept that the Libertarian's view racism as an abhorrent, unacceptable aberration. Then it's possible to comprehend the audacity of the statement.
It's a statement that believes in a more advanced, evolved society and that the free-market arm of such a society would shun and effectively banish an outwardly racist business.
Do those so offended by Paul's opinion think that a racist business venture would be able to endure and prosper? Do they really think that racism is still everywhere?
It's all moot anyway as Rand Paul stated that he would never try to repeal the Civil Rights Act or even try to repeal any portion of it. Furthermore, to cap the mootness, I fully expect Rand Paul to be sworn into the Senate right alongside Dick Blumenthal.
The entire Paul brouhaha was just another temporary foray into the left's eternal battle against their favorite foe, the straw man of racism.
Meanwhile, they continue to be humiliated by the law of unintended consequences.
As Charles Krauthammer points out, one of the reasons we are currently in the middle of one of the worst 'man-made' environmental catastrophes in history is because the environmentalists have successfully made it damn near impossible to drill anywhere else.
So therefore, I sit and I wait. I wait to see what November brings. I wait to see if the focus will remain on Rand Paul's lack of political savvy or more finger pointing about finger pointing or more worthless yet massive government 'feelgood' programs and the like or maybe some good ole' gridlock.
I fear that it is too naive to hope that everything'll swing towards the cold reality of Paul Ryan's number crunching and matriculation into the school of Chris Christie's 'we can no longer afford to keep everyone happy' approach to government.
I don't want to become so disenfranchised with government's business as usual that, when the true meaning of 'unsustainable government program' becomes clear, I won't even be able to muster enough righteous indignation to say, "I fuckin' told you so."
This current political funk is further exasperated by the general misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of Rand Paul's statements in regards to a specific aspect of the Civil Rights Act. (Essentially, the question is, 'Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of race?')
Rand Paul and the libertarian's contention is, no. The government should not intervene to that degree into private business's business.
Paul is in a camp that views the question as broken down into a more general ideology of, "Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from doing something?"
Whereas the other side views the question as, "Shouldn't the Federal government do as much as it can to stop bad things from happening?"
The media and seemingly the general public's general characterization of some of the basic tenents of libertarianism demonstrate how far the pendulum has swung in the direction of government intervention.
Which is disheartening.
In regards to racism, I don't know if it's an underlying differing of perception in regards to racism in general between the different political factions or what.
If one can accept that the Libertarian's view racism as an abhorrent, unacceptable aberration. Then it's possible to comprehend the audacity of the statement.
It's a statement that believes in a more advanced, evolved society and that the free-market arm of such a society would shun and effectively banish an outwardly racist business.
Do those so offended by Paul's opinion think that a racist business venture would be able to endure and prosper? Do they really think that racism is still everywhere?
It's all moot anyway as Rand Paul stated that he would never try to repeal the Civil Rights Act or even try to repeal any portion of it. Furthermore, to cap the mootness, I fully expect Rand Paul to be sworn into the Senate right alongside Dick Blumenthal.
The entire Paul brouhaha was just another temporary foray into the left's eternal battle against their favorite foe, the straw man of racism.
Meanwhile, they continue to be humiliated by the law of unintended consequences.
As Charles Krauthammer points out, one of the reasons we are currently in the middle of one of the worst 'man-made' environmental catastrophes in history is because the environmentalists have successfully made it damn near impossible to drill anywhere else.
So therefore, I sit and I wait. I wait to see what November brings. I wait to see if the focus will remain on Rand Paul's lack of political savvy or more finger pointing about finger pointing or more worthless yet massive government 'feelgood' programs and the like or maybe some good ole' gridlock.
I fear that it is too naive to hope that everything'll swing towards the cold reality of Paul Ryan's number crunching and matriculation into the school of Chris Christie's 'we can no longer afford to keep everyone happy' approach to government.
I don't want to become so disenfranchised with government's business as usual that, when the true meaning of 'unsustainable government program' becomes clear, I won't even be able to muster enough righteous indignation to say, "I fuckin' told you so."
3 comments:
If Paul had a (D) next to his name, they would think nothing of what he said. If he were a Democrat, he could get away with saying that "George Bush hates black people" without one mention of him being an ass while he swims through Union-donated gold coins with the Honorable Grand Dragon from West Virginia.
I tend to believe in the spirit of Paul's original statement. I believe private businesses should have every right to deny service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They should also be able to hire whomever they want.
That is....they should be able to up the the point that they accept public funds for any reason what-so-ever (even though I am not big on giving out public funds either).
Just remember, Consumers have the power to destroy businesses that are not wanted.
Post a Comment