Stossel okay with racism

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
There was a time, years ago, when I liked John Stossel. Now I think he's gone completely around the bend.

[ame="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005200033"]Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act[/ame]

<snip>

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

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.
 
Someone else can respond to this better than me but I get the point he is making. He is not saying he's ok with racism he's arguing that the government should not tell private business who they must do business with.

In most parts of the country if someone is dumb enough to put a White's Only sign up in front of their store or restaurant they would be totally ostracized as would people who shop or eat there. If someone wants to pay the costs to start a business and is dumb enough to put a Hispanics Only sign up and limit their customer base well that is their prerogative.

While there are obviously still racial issues in America the country has come a long way since 1964 so I get what he is saying.
 
cawacko said:
Someone else can respond to this better than me but I get the point he is making. He is not saying he's ok with racism he's arguing that the government should not tell private business who they must do business with.

In most parts of the country if someone is dumb enough to put a White's Only sign up in front of their store or restaurant they would be totally ostracized as would people who shop or eat there. If someone wants to pay the costs to start a business and is dumb enough to put a Hispanics Only sign up and limit their customer base well that is their prerogative.

While there are obviously still racial issues in America the country has come a long way since 1964 so I get what he is saying.
Click to expand...

There are parts of rural PA and points south, WV, VA, etc. where people would be perfectly fine with a restaurant or store that refused to serve Hispanics or blacks. You probably wouldn't run into this in SF.

Here's a quote from an article I read today. Douthat was writing about Rand Paul but this could easily be applied to Stossel.

"No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.

This was all that [Rand Paul] needed to admit, after his victory in Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, when NPR and Rachel Maddow asked about his views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “As a principled critic of federal power,” he could have said, “I oppose efforts to impose Washington’s will on states and private institutions. As a student of the history of segregation and slavery, however, I would have made an exception for the Civil Rights Act.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24douthat.html?ref=opinion
 
Whatever happened to liberals being the people who understood nuance?

I agree with the quote in Post 8 and I think it's unfair that the left won't acknowledge that it is basically what Rand Paul is saying.

I don't agree with Stossel's conclusion that we shouldn't have the CRA, but the whole point of this discussion among people who care about the Constitution has nothing to do with outdated notions about race and everything to do with fundamental ideas about individual rights and personal property.

I think he and Rand Paul have been abundantly clear, and people are free to feel uncomfortable with their opinions differing from theirs, but after plenty of very complete explanations, to continue to brand them as something they are not is simply disingenuous.

It's demagoguery. Which I personally like to define as using false information on the assumption that people are dumb enough to believe it.

I have said before that I think philosophical discussions are a liability that don't really belong in campaigns for public office, but the unfortunate part of that is that it causes an intellectual race to the bottom among candidates. Candidates feel more compelled to give us the blandest, most simplified, least principle-oriented explanation of their policy positions.

And candidates who do not conform to that are subjected to ridiculous hypothetical scenarios to question their credibility, when in fact they are often being more forthcoming and more credible in revealing their motivations than the average candidate for public office.

I accept unequivocally a candidate's responsibility to shut up where they might injure themselves, but there's got to be an extent to which we can reject the reign of assumed political correctness over legitimate political speech.

The kind of attack on Rand Paul is a statist kind of rhetoric, by the way. Not specfically liberal or conservative, though. The rhetorical approach is: "If you question an act of government, you must be questioning the entire institution or intent of the act of government."

This is stifling debate, insight, and criticism of public policy decisions. If we have a society and institutions that want to drown out facts with intimidation, we're going to lose a lot of our liberties.

...Unless there are enough people fed up with it to ignore the noise, which there sometimes may be.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
shouldn't it be? is there anywhere in the constitution that tells us we can't be racists?
Click to expand...


People can hold personally racist views, and there's not jack shit the government can do about it. I see racism routinely on message boards and cyberspace.

The application of the interstate commerce clause, however, is settled case law. You can't run a business, engage in employment, housing, or customer service, and violate discrimination laws with respect to skin color, ethnicity, or gender. Period.

It's an appalling view that Rand Paul and John Stoessel have. It took the federal government to end jim crow. Southerners weren't doing it. And with respect to Cawacko's point, few people are going to hang a "whites only" sign up. Racism and discrimination can, and does, go covert.
 
The Courts have already dealt with issues based on the same type of positions espoused by Paul and Stossel. If they want to claim private businesses have the right to discriminate, I suggest they bone up on cases like the following.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) - a thinly-veiled racist action using the cover of interstate commerce. The motel admitted to practicing racial discrimination before the Civil Rights law and stated it intended to continue its policy of not serving blacks.

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) - U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause, to ban racial segregation in the restaurant.

Shoney's restaurant chain ordered to pay $105 mil. to black employees, applicants - $105 million racial discrimination settlement

Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits

In 2007, the court approved a $54.9 million settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express. The settlement requires FedEx to reform its promotion, discipline, and pay practices.

$50 Million, Less Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Paid to Class Members in December 2005 in Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
 
Cypress said:
People can hold personally racist views, and there's not jack shit the government can do about it. I see racism routinely on message boards and cyberspace.

The application of the interstate commerce clause, however, is settled case law. You can't run a business, engage in employment, housing, or customer service, and violate discrimination laws with respect to skin color, ethnicity, or gender. Period.

It's an appalling view that Rand Paul and John Stoessel have. It took the federal government to end jim crow. Southerners weren't doing it. And with respect to Cawacko's point, few people are going to hang a "whites only" sign up. Racism and discrimination can, and does, go covert.
Click to expand...

the 'jim crow' laws were a state government design, therefore, the feds had every power to do something about it. what power does the fed have to compel a private citizen to do the same?
 
christiefan915 said:
The Courts have already dealt with issues based on the same type of positions espoused by Paul and Stossel. If they want to claim private businesses have the right to discriminate, I suggest they bone up on cases like the following.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) - a thinly-veiled racist action using the cover of interstate commerce. The motel admitted to practicing racial discrimination before the Civil Rights law and stated it intended to continue its policy of not serving blacks.

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) - U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause, to ban racial segregation in the restaurant.

Shoney's restaurant chain ordered to pay $105 mil. to black employees, applicants - $105 million racial discrimination settlement

Denny's Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits

In 2007, the court approved a $54.9 million settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express. The settlement requires FedEx to reform its promotion, discipline, and pay practices.

$50 Million, Less Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Paid to Class Members in December 2005 in Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
Click to expand...

the age old fallback of liberals and conservatives....'but the courts said'

the courts are not always right. need proof?
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Whatever happened to liberals being the people who understood nuance?

I agree with the quote in Post 8 and I think it's unfair that the left won't acknowledge that it is basically what Rand Paul is saying.

I don't agree with Stossel's conclusion that we shouldn't have the CRA, but the whole point of this discussion among people who care about the Constitution has nothing to do with outdated notions about race and everything to do with fundamental ideas about individual rights and personal property.

I think he and Rand Paul have been abundantly clear, and people are free to feel uncomfortable with their opinions differing from theirs, but after plenty of very complete explanations, to continue to brand them as something they are not is simply disingenuous.

It's demagoguery. Which I personally like to define as using false information on the assumption that people are dumb enough to believe it.

I have said before that I think philosophical discussions are a liability that don't really belong in campaigns for public office, but the unfortunate part of that is that it causes an intellectual race to the bottom among candidates. Candidates feel more compelled to give us the blandest, most simplified, least principle-oriented explanation of their policy positions.

And candidates who do not conform to that are subjected to ridiculous hypothetical scenarios to question their credibility, when in fact they are often being more forthcoming and more credible in revealing their motivations than the average candidate for public office.

I accept unequivocally a candidate's responsibility to shut up where they might injure themselves, but there's got to be an extent to which we can reject the reign of assumed political correctness over legitimate political speech.

The kind of attack on Rand Paul is a statist kind of rhetoric, by the way. Not specfically liberal or conservative, though. The rhetorical approach is: "If you question an act of government, you must be questioning the entire institution or intent of the act of government."

This is stifling debate, insight, and criticism of public policy decisions. If we have a society and institutions that want to drown out facts with intimidation, we're going to lose a lot of our liberties.

...Unless there are enough people fed up with it to ignore the noise, which there sometimes may be.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of fucking horseshit.

First, Rand Paul opposes (or wait, what's his position today) the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disability Act and the Fair Housing Act. You can pretend that discussion of his views on these anti-discrimination laws are "philosophical discussions" if you want, and I suppose they are to able-bodied white boys, but they aren't to the disabled, people of color and women.

Second, candidates aren't at all required to run away from the principles or to articulate specific policy positions except, as in that case of Rand Paul, the candidates actual principles and policy position are way outside the mainstream and unacceptable to a majority of voters.

Third, the Rand Paul fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness. Nothing. It has everything to do with Rand Paul having a "philosophy" that is outside the mainstream. And that's fine for Paul to hold those views and to run as a "principled libertarian" but the rejection of those views ins't an exercise of political correctness.

I would go on but frankly I'm getting nauseous reading your garbage. You and Rand Paul aren't victims of anything other than your wrong-headed ideology. Get over yourself.
 
Stossel's what happens when you put principal way too far in front of practicality. The only thing we can be certain of in life is that we're wrong. When your ideology leads to something so obviously absurd, it is not a slight against you to reexamine things.
 
christiefan915 said:
Then he shouldn't have said: "But it should be their right to be racist."
Click to expand...

are you kidding me? you just agreed with my post to allow muslims to build a mosque by ground zero....however, using your logic in this thread...no muslims should be allowed to build there because people have a problem with muslims...

just because someone agrees that people have a right to be a muslim, a racist, a black panther.....doesn't at all mean they think it is ok...
 
You can't make people not be racist with a law. The question here is property rights. The position that a person has a right to exclude others from their property is not an acceptance of racism as being morally correct. Likewise, the position that a person has a right to control their body through the use/abuse of drugs, abortion or even suicide is not an acceptance of those acts as morally correct. The position is based on tolerance of even those views you abhor, which is the core of liberal (not leftist) philosophy and individualism.

A true individualist must abhor racism or any sort of discrimination because all are based on judgment of people based on their group identity and not them as individuals.

I understand you don't agree with that. But don't slander the man.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the age old fallback of liberals and conservatives....'but the courts said'

the courts are not always right. need proof?
Click to expand...

No, I don't need it. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is proof enough for me.

So you think Paul could succeed in overturning what all these others failed to do, that is, if he intends to follow through on what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top