What's Ron Paul REALLY About?
Ron Paul bills himself as a libertarian, and speaks loosely of libertarian philosophies. He may seem to some like a man who believes in individual liberty, smaller government, and the Constitution. In truth, that’s simply not the case. This is a point-by-point refutation which demonstrates that Ron Paul is actually a clever bigot who has no problem with the government telling people what to do with their bodies and lives.
One of Ron Paul’s most famous claims is that just about everything is a State’s Right. It’s surprising how many people don’t bother to follow that statement out to its logical conclusion. Dodging admitting to your personal biases and bigotry by calling it a State’s right is clever enough, but the dodge remains disingenuous, because that just means that the State’s legislation will take your rights from you instead of the Federal government doing so. It does not provide for any liberty. Moreover, it excuses the Federal government from acting on one of their most important responsibilities, which is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the masses. Those Constitutional guarantees found in the Bill of Rights are not to be abridged. Not ever, under any circumstances. Since it is a Federal Constitution, it most certainly is incumbent upon the Federal government to protect the individual’s civil liberties. It most certainly is not within that agency’s prerogatives to require that the individual chase after those guarantees 50 times, once in each state. According to Ron Paul, though, (and I have this from him directly) that’s exactly what U.S. citizens would be “free” to do. Meanwhile, individual citizens are still subject to the whim and will of the majority until they procure those Constitutional guarantees for themselves — once in each state.
Why would a freedom-loving man do such a thing? Let’s get past his rhetoric and get to the truth. The man is not comfortable with gay people.
Eric Dondero, former Senior Aide to Ron Paul from 1997 through 2003, reports (see Eric Dondero’s Ron Paul Statement) that Ron Paul slapped a gay supporter’s hand way. He also refused to use another prominent gay supporter’s bathroom, going so far as to tell Dondero to find some excuse to go to a restaurant, so he could use the bathroom there. (It apparently hasn’t dawned on Dr. Paul (a physician) that gay people in San Francisco use public bathrooms, nor that he isn’t going to get HIV from shaking hands.)
I also watched a concealed camera comedy episode in which Sasha Baron Cohen (a slapstick comic well-known for Punk-ing people) acted as though he was coming on to Ron Paul. Paul was livid, flustered and clearly homophobic in his responses, shouting “He’s queer, he’s crazy! … He took his clothes off! This interview is over!”
Actually, Cohen didn’t take his clothes off. He dropped his pants (underwear on,) after making a comment about lighting some candles and having been a dancer. It was obviously not a sincere come-on, and he didn’t lay a finger on the much older man. He was actually several feet away. But Dr. Paul was so busy being homophobic that he couldn’t even recognize the obvious Cohen set-up. Apparently neither Ron Paul nor his staff did their homework, or they would have known that Cohen is prone to such stunts.
The bigger point, though is that the reaction of Ron Paul in the situation is hardly the character or aptitude of a man suitable for the presidency. What makes it worse is that, asked about it in an interview, Ron Paul conveniently edited himself, reporting only that he said “this interview is over.” He knows his bigoted remarks won’t go over well, and tries to conceal that truth about himself.
So we see the real reason why Ron Paul claims it’s a States’ issue . He doesn’t want to be seen as the homophobic bigot he actually is, so he shuffles these things off, instead of actually standing up for the rights of ALL citizens to live their lives as equals in the eyes of the law. But his voting record tells a different tale. He had no problem voting FOR the the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” but now claims that it’s a state’s issue. Ron Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The man’s voting record is pretty clear. Ron Paul is no friend to gay people, or anyone else who doesn’t fit into his conception of what is acceptable. He just doesn’t want to admit it.
You’ll note that he has less of a problem telling others what to do when it comes to his Pro Life platform, though.
For a man who claims to be a proponent of freedom, he would like to tell a woman what she must do with her own body, what pains and responsibilities she must carry. There’s a LITTLE more room for such things in the status quo, but within the world that Ron Paul says he would like, there would be NO support for a pregnant mother from the government, and yet that same government would demand that she carry an embryo full term, care for that fetus in her own body, bear the sore body, the nutritional requirements, the safety requirements, etc. and then be put through the rigors of either raising a child for the next 18 years, or the emotional pain and distress of adopting that child and always wondering what happened to him/her. The final hole in his position is that he would trust the woman to do all of that responsibly, REQUIRE that she do so, and yet he would not trust her to make up her own mind as to whether or not she’s up to doing so. All of this, in a world already overrun by 7 BILLION people… because Ron Paul would force his religious beliefs upon us all. To go all the way into this is a huge topic in and of itself, but suffice it to say that for every happy ending, there are thousands of children raised unwanted, feeling the sting and suffering from the resentment of being unwanted. That is no way for a child to grow up. Yes, Dr. Paul, there are quality of life issues far more important than the existence of it… and the choice simply should not be yours to make OR impose upon others.
Ron Paul doesn’t really believe in that States’ Issue line. He’s smart enough to realize that it would never happen here, and that if it did it would be entirely dysfunctional. He’s luring voters in on a false notion, with false hopes that he, as president, would be entirely unable to deliver. But it SOUNDS good to a people who are feeling overwhelmed by complex government.
Initially, the libertarian perspective that Ron Paul claims to offer sounds inviting. He says he doesn’t want people to pay taxes, wants no overbearing federal government, no war on drugs, no wars abroad. But in truth, he’s not advocating any of that. Despite claims to the contrary, Dr. Paul voted to authorize George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But it’s not just that he’s playing both sides. He’s dodging the hard questions by pushing it all to the States, who will allow THEIR majority rule to impose the very same things on everyone.
Is state rule even an actual majority? Likely, not. The ones to make the rules will be those who have the time to invest in lobbying (at a state level), and those politicians who have squeezed their way into office. There, at a state level, the EXACT same thing will happen that is already objectionable now — except without the benefit of the federal government stepping in when the States are out of line or get heavy-handed. What then?
Under Ron Paul’s “States’ Issue” philosophy, if you don’t like the way a state’s laws are, you can TRY to change them. Or you can move, and HOPE to find a state where the laws are more favorable to the way you want to live. That may prove slow and costly, if it’s possible at all — especially if you own your home. Now let’s see how it works in practice. In practice, let’s say you want to stop slavery, because you see it to be morally wrong to own a person. You may be able to do so there in Illinois. But in Georgia, they don’t want to stop slavery. So in Georgia, if you’re black, you’re chattel. How does that happen? Because that’s the way the state wrote their rules! Think it can’t happen that way? Think again. There are copious volumes of laws at a state, county or local level which are blatantly unconstitutional… and still being enforced every day. If you think the US Supreme Court is overrun with cases now, just imagine if the States could legislate away rights all they want.
Then there’s the whole Evolution thing.
Ron Paul has gone on record as not believing in the theory of Evolution. How this man was able to become a physician and still impose his religious beliefs on science is beyond me. Had he acknowledged that his Creator could use Evolution as a means of creation, that might have made a bit of sense. But to claim that Evolution is invalid in the face of evolution itself happening all around us? The man is simply too inflexible in his beliefs to acknowledge the proof that’s right before his eyes… and that makes him a dangerous choice.
Thoughts from another Ron.
Ron Paul, Racist?
Not so certain on this one… but it isn’t looking good. His newsletters came out with decidedly racist comments, and they were written in the voice of someone claiming to be him, in the same small town where he lives. But now Ron Paul is denying that he wrote them, and says he doesn’t know who did. And that bothers me. We’ve already seen him to conveniently edit out his homophobic slurs, so we know he’s prone to doing so. More importantly, though, if he can’t manage to control his own newsletters and what is put out in them, is this really the man we want running our country? I can hear it now: I don’t know who did that, but it wasn’t me! Yeah, right, Dr. Paul.
My Personal Take
So far, it’s been the facts. Now I’d like to editorialize a moment. A flat tax is a good idea. The rich paying the same PERCENTAGE of tax is only fair. But no taxes at all, that’s simply not reality. As President Obama said in last night’s State of the Union address, the government should be there to provide that which the government can do better than private industry. What sorts of things? Roads, for starters. Libertarian roads would be a nightmare. I’ve seen what that looks like in Africa. No thank you. Lots of other things. Water delivery and sewerage systems, for example. Do you REALLY want a lack of standards on that? (But of course that wouldn’t actually happen. The states would put their own in place, as they do now. But there wouldn’t be any oversight, any Clean Water Act to keep a greedy industrial state from dumping toxic and lethal waste and byproducts into the water table, the rivers, the oceans, no Clean Air Act to keep the skies cleaner…
These are only points, though. The overall point is that we are now a nation of 312 MILLION people, on a planet of 7 BILLION people. We’re no longer 13 colonies with a population in the thousands. It’s simply a complicated matter to have that many people living together and have them do so harmoniously. Ron Paul wants to make it seem like it would be so simple… but once you get to the point of allowing the Tyranny of the Masses, it wouldn’t be simple any more. Not at all.
Reciprocity won’t address the issues either. If you’re free to grow and smoke your own MJ in your house or yard, that doesn’t mean the next county over won’t decide it is illegal, and arrest you for the smoke on your clothing. Think it can’t happen? In New Orleans, you can go into a drive-through and get a quart of margarita, alcohol and all. You can sip or chug away while driving. But the very next parish (county) over is Dry, no alcohol sold or allowed. They don’t want all that amoral, lawless, godless partying going on in THEIR back yards, no sir-ee, Bob!
To conclude:
In short, Ron Paul’s lying to you. He’s promising what he can’t deliver, and sidestepping the very real issues that affect millions of Americans every day, by summoning up the imaginary notion of it being a States’ Issue. There are definitely plenty of problems in this country, things we need to fix and change. But those changes won’t come by waving Ron Paul’s magic “States’ Issue” wand. They’ll come from a lot of hard work and coming together for our common goals, as we have done throughout the history of this nation. There’s ample room for freedom in the system as it is now — far more than if you had to fight for your civil rights 50 times instead of once. Don’t drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid.
Everything important that I’ve ever done, every adventure, romance or accomplishment, has started with a decision I hadn’t even realized I made until after I’d made it. When I committed to my partner for the first time, I didn’t even recognize I’d done so, or exactly WHEN I had done so, until years later. Going to Africa was the same way. It’s an indication of significance, then, that I just realized I’ve another unwitting decision.
I was in a Kroger store for the first time in several months, enjoying the familiarity and quality of their private label brands (after months of tolerating Stater Brothers’ mediocrity.) Picking up my favorites brought me to the frozen food section, where I found the Private Label German Chocolate Cake ice cream. The carton was scarfed up mindlessly and deftly added to the cart. It wasn’t until the next aisle that I realized what I’d done. I’m getting a bit ahead of the tale, though. Allow me to go back a bit.
Years ago, I was involved with a non-evangelical vegetarian. (That’s the kind that makes the choice for himself, so he doesn’t feel the need to preach or convert anyone.) During one of our discussions, I was presented with a notion that defied the food triangle of my youth. According to Tony, we don’t actually need to eat meat to be healthy. I’d never thought about it much one way or the other, so I had to take a bit of time to do so before responding.
“But you’ve got to have protein, ” I insisted, and Tony calmly explained that it’s available through plenty of other non-meat sources. It made it a bit easier to grasp because he’s an ovo-lacto vegetarian (which is to say he eats eggs and dairy products, but nothing that’s got a face or ever had a pulse.)
“Well, alright, then, but…” and at each objection, he calmly and confidently explained why I was mistaken. I suppose it was about 1o or 15 minutes of that before I came to The Irrefutable Argument.
“If we don’t have to eat meat to survive and be healthy, then the only reason to do so is so we can enjoy a certain taste in our mouths for a few seconds?” He nodded, silently agreeing, allowing me a few moments to let the wheels spin. It was in those moments that I came to the realization that a few seconds of a taste sensation simply was not a good enough reason to end a being’s life. And that’s how I came to be a vegetarian.
Jump ahead some years to yesterday, to a discussion I’d been having with Synthian Sharp, (of Exit Ophelia, and “How I Became An Elephant,”) about my distain for preachy vegans. Somehow that led into it not being okay to cause suffering indirectly either, to talking about how dairy products cause the milk cow to endure a life of misery, cause the disgusting meat practice of turning that dairy cow’s offspring into veal, of how even the most free-range of chickens still ends up laid out at 4 years of age and thrown in a fryer very prematurely, and how literally millions of male hatchlings were cruelly and brutally destroyed because of their gender. I was defensive, pointed out that I was already doing plenty — a lot more than any meat eater. “And besides, I justified, you drive cars that run over animals, use fuel that pollutes the planet, harming all earthlings… It’s not like you’re not doing things that cause misery too.”
That found the limit to Synthian’s patience. “OOOOHHHH HOLY FUCK… NO YOU DIDN’T!!! 
You’ve got to be kidding me. – Really??? the Tu-Quouque??? From you?”
Point by point, he proceeded to lay waste to my defense of eating eggs and dairy: ” If you’re not ready to state very clearly and loudly already, the very DRAMATICALLY reduced carbon footprint in veganism as compared to vegetarianism, then you’re just unaware. – That’s not an insult. Its a fact. – and you either want to learn it, or you don’t. – If you (sic a vegetarian) still support grain-fed factory farming… your carbon footprint as a whole is on average 18 times that of a vegan. That’s just the way it is.
“Fun facts from a side conversation elsewhere: Organic is good. But isn’t a global killer. It doesn’t get to be a first priority, because if everyone goes Organic, the world still dies. You cannot feed an American level of meat animals and still have a planet. It’s just math. 11,000 a day die of starvation. You feed 5 times what it takes to solve world hunger to American meat animals. It takes 2500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat. And 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. At the same time it takes the same fossil fuel to produce 1 hamburger patty that it takes to drive an SUV 20 miles, and meat animals are a larger contributor to greenhouse gasses than all of the cars in the world combined. That’s before we even start in on deforestation, hormones, disease, ldl cholesterol, and ocean depletion… Organics save the individual. Not the world.” And there had me, dead to rights. But I wasn’t quite ready yet, still needed time to stew on what he’d presented.
The conversation died off, and we started up on something else the next day, the previous day’s intense discussion seemingly forgotten. Which was earlier today, actually. And that all led me to be pushing my cart down through the frozen food section when I suddenly realized that my beloved German Chocolate Cake ice cream was also a dairy product, just like the milk I’d elected not to put in my cart this time. It wasn’t until I was putting the ice cream back that I realized I had already decided to eat vegan.
People say it’s about a choice. It’s not. Repeat: It most certainly is not about choices. It’s about making a decision. Whether it’s quitting smoking, taking a trip to Europe, moving to Africa, becoming vegetarian, or moving on to eating vegan, it’s always about the decision to act. As Harry Chapin said, “When in doubt, DO something.”
You can do it — whatever it is. The reasons, excuses, protests and procrastinations all fade away, once you’ve made the decision to act. May all of you find that you’ve made unwitting decisions, for all the right reasons.
Post-script regarding veganism: It’s not a matter of choice. We have no choice — not if we want to survive. And if we insist on marching forth childishly, insisting upon taking what we want simply because we want it, we’ll take the rest of the planet down with us. Yes, it is just that serious.
FOR FURTHER READING:
Think we can’t get what we need from plants, or that it will be complicated and difficult? Check out The Emperor’s New Protein: A Whole-Foods, Plant-Based Reality Check
Here’s info about what we do and don’t need in our diet, and what foods provide it: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html (similar to the link above)
This link dispels the myth that eating flesh is natural to us: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
What about the planet? How does it matter? 7 BILLION people on earth now, and more every day. Check THESE facts out!
RELIGION: What about the Bible? What do scriptures say? The BIBLE is pretty clear, actually, about that we’re not supposed to eat other living beings.
And the Qur’an? No, the Qur’an doesn’t get that specific about not eating meat. But think about this: In the holy city of Mecca, it is forbidden to kill ANYTHING… and Muslims are instructed to say “Bismillah” before killing (which means “by permission from God”, because all beings belong to their Creator, and we do not have permission to kill them other than as instructed within Al Qur’an.
Finally, I strongly encourage you to watch Earthlings for free, online, narrated by Joaquin Phoenix.
The planet CANNOT sustain 7 billion people if we keep on insisting on eating meat. Moreover, we don’t need to eat the flesh of another living being. What remains is that we choose to, that we WANT to. I want to do a lot of things, but am mature enough to refrain from doing so because it isn’t right. I WANT to go and grab up the money at Walmart. I could live for the rest of my life on what they have in their safe in one day! But I won’t… and not just because I’d likely get caught. I won’t because it’s not okay for me to steal another’s life/livelihood to improve my own coffers. So what makes it okay to steal another being’s life if you don’t have to? It’s not. Do the right thing. Walk the talk. It really DOES make a big difference — in the world and in how you feel about yourself as well.
When T-Mobile promised 3G coverage at my cabin in 29 Palms, I was very pleased. I could use their services and ditch Sprint. But when the phone showed up, the service was 2G or slower. After a long annoying conversation with 3 levels of “technicians” they sent an email to their Engineers, with promises of an answer within 72 hours… an answer that never came.
When I phoned back, they said they would “escalate” the ticket, and call me back in another 72 hours. Meanwhile, I’m informed that a similar complaint was made in Sept. 2010, and the result was that there was “no budget” to fix the towers so they would provide the service advertised on the map. (Right, multi-billion dollar company, but no budget to provide what you advertise.) That was over a year ago, and they STILL haven’t modified the map to accurately reflect their coverage area, though they KNOW it doesn’t service my cabin in 3G.
Today they called back, the 2nd 72 hour notification revealing that the Engineer supposedly checked out the tower but everything is working fine. OBVIOUSLY NOT. I’m still getting 2G connections! But regardless, once again, they won’t be doing anything about it. They’re pleased to inform me that I’m within my 14 day “Buyer’s Remorse” period, so they’ll take it back without a penalty or Early Termination fee. How bloody civil of them. But there is no “Buyer’s Remorse” going on. I haven’t changed my mind about their phone, nor the services promised.
Quite simply, they’re STILL lying about their coverage area, and when they get caught, after wasting several hours of my time, all they offer is to take the phone back and wash their hands of it? T-Mobile knew– over a year ago — that they do not have 3G service here. Indeed, there is not 3G coverage until 4 miles from here! Though it’s an easy thing to do, and though they were informed well over a year ago, T-mobile has declined to change the map. They’re continuing to sign people up based on their claim of 3G coverage that isn’t true, and offering nothing by way of compensation (or even apology) when they get caught in the lie.
I’ve turned them in to the FCC and FTC, but expect little or nothing will be done about it. Generally speaking, such agencies are already in their back pockets, or such nonfeasance wouldn’t happen in the first place.
If I try stealing from them and just give their stuff back when I get caught, is that okay for me, as like it is for them?
When I first heard those words from Jon Larson’s musical, “Rent”, it was so profound to me that I sat there stunned, and don’t remember any of the rest of the show.
“The opposite of War is not peace. It’s Creation.”
What? Huh? What do you mean? Of course it is…
Wait, war is a huge, horrible, massive destruction. Peace is simply the cessation of that destruction. He’s right. The opposite of war is NOT Peace. And then the profound truth, the implications and ramifications of the second half of the quote slowly began to dawn upon me. Creation. Making, building…
At the time, I applied the notion to Palestine, and swiftly realized that if it were applied, rather than peace treaties, we’d be CREATING shipping routes, helping them to be able to grow their own food, take their own goods to market autonomously, so they weren’t at the whim and under the control of Israel… and then BOTH nations could have prosperity and sovereignty.
In the years that have passed since then, I’ve come to see this has many, many such applications, that it’s a universal truth.
Today is the last day of 2011. It’s been a very busy year for me and the entire world. We’re one day away from what some think may be the end of the world (according to the Mayan calendar.) I don’t give such unlikely prophesies much weight, but I DO know that if we don’t stop warring with our planet, it will be the end of the world as we know it.
I woke this morning at 6 am, with the above epiphany in my head, immediately rushed to write it down, to refine the idea a bit… and to share it with you, the rest of the world. The way to achieve peace on earth is to stop living in Dog EAT Dog fashion, to switch over to Dog FEED Dog lifestyles, in which everyone helps each other, guides and lifts each other up towards prosperity.
Know this: You cannot build walls and fences high enough, or guards and weapons strong enough, to stop the ravages of war. No Homeland Security can protect us. If it were able to do so, the price would be our very own liberty, and that price is far too dear. I don’t know of anyone willing to be locked in an airtight box for that kind of peace. All attempts to gain peace by destructive means are inherently doomed, destined to fail. (As the bumper sticker notes, fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.)
The ONLY way we can have a lasting peace is if everyone has prosperity, so they don’t need what we have. And as we share that prosperity with others, we build bonds and come to understandings that will keep us from fighting over differences in religion or beliefs. When it comes down to it, ALL living beings want the same things… and that isn’t at all hard to understand.
Prosperity is not mutually exclusive. Like the highest forms of love, it doesn’t cost to give. We have plenty on this planet, even for all seven billion of us. There’s still more than enough for us and for ALL sentient, sapient beings. No one has to do without. No one has to lose life or possessions, liberty or sovereignty, for this road to peace. We simply have to treat each other well, understanding and trusting that as our brothers and sisters gain, so do we.
Help each other up, please. Be loving to all creatures. The only road to peace is through universal prosperity.
I invite your comments and discussions below.
Perhaps Dog-Friendly Reno-Tahoe will hire Lynn Jones?
A few weeks ago, baggage handler Lynn Jones, who worked at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport, noticed a dog scheduled to be shipped which was in so very poor a condition that she feared the dog might not survive the flight. She took it upon herself to pull that crate from the line. Her supervisor viewed this as insubordination and fired her for being unwilling to do what he considered her job. We disagree. She was doing EXACTLY her job. If it didn’t require a human’s judgement, a machine could do it… but that’s another subject.
The dog has been given proper veterinary care. Beyond that, the records are deemed confidential by a Nevada privacy law. But the issue of Lynn’s job remains.
The aftermath has been furious. Hundreds of emails and phone calls have barraged the airport authority. That would be fine, except that the Airport Authority has NOTHING to do with the matter, as the baggage handler is employed by a sub-sub-contractor.
Clearly, the Reno-Tahoe Airport is very dog-friendly!
Quite the contrary, it turns out that the Reno-Tahoe Airport is a VERY dog-friendly environment — so much so that one might even call it a dog-friendly lifestyle! Employees bring their canine companions with them to work. There’s a dog park there at the airport. They even received top award last year from the Nevada Humane Society! When Krys Bart, the airport authority’s CEO, heard about the incident, she was livid, and phoned ATS and the airline which contracts ATS to resolve the situation properly and immediately. It was the airport police who called the animal shelter and got the dog veterinary treatment in the first place. The people at the airport authority are the good guys, amongst the heroes in this tale.
Phone calls to the companies responsible are apparently working, though. ATS finally phoned Lynn on Monday. No, they didn’t offer the job back… but at least they’re listening. They claim to have opened an investigation (that and a quarter USED to get one a dial tone at pay phones.) After such harsh handling, it’s understandable that she would be hesitant to take the job back at this late date, even if they offered. Even on Monday, ATS was trying to say that she walked off of her job, when it has been said all along that her supervisor told her she was fired and to leave.
Brian Kulpin, VP of Marketing & Public Affairs for the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, provided us with a lot of good information (some of which is provided below) as well as contact information for the real culprits, ATS:
ATS is contracted by the airlines themselves and the Airport Authority has no control
over a contract between these two private companies. It was, however, the Airport
Authority that, along with Ms. Jones, stood up for the rights of this canine, as noted in the
news article. The Airport Authority Police Department prevented the canine from flying
and contacted Animal Services to obtain their expert help.
The CEO of the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Krys Bart, contacted both the corporate
headquarters of ATS and the local manager to express her extreme concern over this
incident as soon as she was made aware of it. ATS has announced they are investigating
the actions of all employees involved with this incident.
It should also be noted that Reno-Tahoe International Airport was the second airport in
the nation to install a dog park and fosters a canine culture where dogs come to work with
employees. The airport has been a long-time supporter of the Nevada Humane Society, a
no-kill shelter, and this past year worked closely with them to expand their operation onto
airport property.
The safety of all of our customers, including canines, is the number one priority of the
Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority.
To express your opinion on this issue, we encourage you to contact ATS directly by
phone at 314-739-1900 or via web at www.atsstl.com.
Best Regards,
Brian P. Kulpin
Vice President of Marketing and Public Affairs
Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority
The real culprit is ATS
Now that the media and Krys Bart have put the pressure on, I see that ATS is backpedaling, trying to tell us all about how they are animal friendly. Lots of happy smiling faces on that website… but the truth seems to be a bit closer to that they use people and don’t know OR care what happens to them. Why else would it take more than 3 weeks for them to get around to even asking Lynn for her side of the story?
Let’s stand by the good guys at Reno-Tahoe airport, and let Lynn know we’ve got her back! The way I see it, Lynn was the only ATS employee who acted appropriately in the whole situation.
Echoing Brian’s sentiments, we encourage you to contact ATS directly by phone at 314-739-1900. Demand that Lynn be reinstated, with back pay, and that the supervisor be removed from that position. You shouldn’t have to lose your job for doing the right thing!
EDIT: Behold the power of the pen! ATS has offered Lynn her job back, with backpay. She’s hesitant to accept it, concerned that she may get backlash from the supervisor who fired her originally. ATS promises that won’t happen, and has gone so far as to call this a “training opportunity” and donated $5,000 to the Nevada Humane Society. But the question remains: WHY is that person who fired her, who was so indifferent to the dog’s condition, still working there as a supervisor? Phone in, and demand that the supervisor be removed from that position!
Someone said it’s not all COPs who brutalize, just the majority. The rebuttal to that brought about the stream of thought that you find here. I may edit it into something more comprehensive, but for now, it is being presented unaltered. Bear with the first couple paragraphs, as they set up the rest. By the time we reach the end, you’ll have analysis of the problem(s) with our country, as well as proposed solutions. I invite intelligent discussion.
It’s not the majority OR minority of COPs. It’s the system overall. MOST interactions with COPs are not inherently negative or brutal. The one that had the sense to locate and retrieve my cell phone for me wasn’t anything but nice — to me and even to the thief. The one who pulled me over for an illegal U-turn I made but didn’t even write up a warning ticket (said “Unless you’ve got a bunch of Federal warrants or are planning to kill the president, I’m not going to give you a ticket.”) was pretty cool. I could recount lots of others. The PRICKS that cuffed me WAY too tight and threw me in the back of the squad car with 3 other people (nowhere near enough room, bad angle on the cuffs, etc. and the ones that arrested me for daring to rest a cup on the ledge of what they called The Shrine at the Alamo, they’re part of the problem, but not the majority.) Like everything else, including us, the Majority is silent, goes about their day-to-day lives without incident. BUT… when it goes bad, it goes bad in a big way.
“Power corrupts…” and these days there’s far too much Them and Us in police/civilian relations. But I’ve also found that addressing them like people helps a LOT. I don’t mean “Hey, man.” Just the tone, not starting off adversarial or expecting an issue. I’m not saying it’s okay to have to walk on eggshells, worried that you’ll encounter one that wants to be Yessir’d and makes your life hell either way.
I cut ‘em (police officers) a bit of slack because the simple reality is that most people lie to them, most people take it out on them for doing their jobs, and most people forget that these are the same guys who will risk their ass to come to your aid, lay that cop car down alongside your body if you’re on the ground in the middle of the street (to keep you from getting run over,)… Most of them didn’t start out looking to abuse power. They started out wanting to help people, chase bad guys, etc. Then the System took over, and the first thing they were taught is that EVERYBODY is a suspect, EVERYBODY did (or is about to do) something illegal, and the very notion that The Law must be obeyed.
Oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of PEOPLE worship that status quo and find irrational comfort in the structure of The Law. They’ve ALL been brainwashed into believing that respecting The Law is imperative, essential, and inherently Right. Holding to that makes them feel secure, (along with working a 9-5 job for 40 years in hope of a gold watch, etc.) There’s no accounting for that. I don’t know why they’re so willing to give up Freedom for LIberty. I just know that I am not okay with it. I don’t know where the outrage is or went to. I just know that I can’t tolerate it. I don’t know where their rational capacity went to. I just know that my mind will not allow me to be shackled to such an unlikely master as The System.
“The System, it needs some correction, my friend…” Richie Havens sang that song when I was a young child. This is not a new problem. It’s like some have said, we’ve been sleeping… lulled into acceptance. So it stands to reason that it’s going to take a bit of impetus to enact change. An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion stays in motion. They fear the change we represent, because it makes them insecure, because they don’t know what we will do to their safe world, what the world will become if we take charge and change it. The MAJORITY that we need to change isn’t just the 1%. It’s the other 99%, the ones still sleeping. (Remind you at all of The Matrix? Rather adept analogy, isn’t it?)
None of that reasoning and analysis makes any of it right. But it does make it expected. There will be fighting. There will be bloodshed. Through it all, though, our best tool (not weapon) is to remain peaceful and unarmed. Damaging property is not civil disobedience, it’s violence — even if that property belongs to the 1%, stolen from the 99%. Remember, they became the abusive 1% only because we allowed them to in the first place.
Nancy Reagan Occupies the Statue of LIberty. The gesture is not lost on us.
The most important change must come from within our own selves, from We The People. Right now, we may BE the 99%, but only a small fraction of that 99% is OWS. Occupy and the 99% movement are an alarm sounding, trying to wake up the rest of us, the rest of the 99%. It caught on, and the violence on unarmed protesters fuels that. The moment we lose that Peaceful tool, we’ll simply be criminals that the police are protecting them from (because that’s much less threatening than a revolution, and because they fear change, and because they fear taking responsibility for enacting that change.) Many of the 99% have been choosing the security of that Status Quo structure for their entire lives. They’re going to need some irrefutable reasons AND assurances that their world will be better IN THEIR EYES before they come on board. It’s our job to wake them, and to know and show them that it’s a good thing we’re offering.
So the #OWS focus needs to get off of police abuses and back onto the real enemy, Wall Street, big corporations, etc. We aren’t going to change the 99%’s perspective by railing against COPs, because (to many of them) COPs represent security, order, safety, and are deserving of (irrational degrees of) respect, the same way that military personnel can do little wrong because THEY put their lives on the line in a placed that most of the 99% would never willingly go. What has to change is the Halliburtons of the world, the Goldman Sachs, etc. Even the Wal-Marts do have some value, in that they bring about lower prices, allowing people to eat in an economy overwhelmingly burdened by the profiteers. There will always be profit (because without it there is little motivation to risk or work.) But corporations must not be allowed to make it unfairly, on the backs and at the unreasonable expense of the 99%. (“I understand you have to make a profit, but do you have to make it all on me?!”) Some of the problem is in the percentage of profit. Some is from the method of deriving that profit (buying from China, where there is no EPA, etc.)
How far back do we need to look until we find a time when Corporations weren’t the problem? Back when it was the Railroads, they were seen as evil by many (who resented them taking land, making humans lay track, even giving the manual labor jobs to immigrants who would work for less.) Were they inherently evil? Not sure if that’s the case. How else would we have gotten railroads, which were largely responsible for the expansions that gave us this quality of life? Certainly not by unorchestrated strings of track. Certainly not on the budget of the Everyman. And if we leave it to the government, then we bitch about the taxes. If we leave it to private industry, then we bitch about profiteering. Does Richard Branson provide the answer? I don’t know. But I DO know we need to have more than just an axe to grind and a bad attitude. We need to figure it out, know not just that we’re dissatisfied, but also what we would do with it if we had control back. Until we do, we’re going to be a legitimate threat to the safety and sense of security (even if that’s a false promise) of the rest of the 99%.
It seems to me that we need those with large sums of money to be involved in improving life. And THEY need a reason to risk what they have. Put a cap on what any one person can hold, and you’ll find that they no longer have enough liquid to invest, nor the greed to risk that which they have. Corporations’ stockholders will likely feel the same way. So we can’t just dump the whole system. It came into existence born of Necessity, the mother of Invention. What we DO have the right to do is to control the way by which they make their profits, and the extent to which we give them free rein, bailouts, exemptions, etc.
As Guy Kawasaki has pointed out, nobody ever decided NOT to invest because they feared having to pay taxes on their gains. So that’s amongst the first places to start. Let these corporations, which make large sums in capital gains, resolve the national debt and health care reform. Some will quickly complain that Corporations are owned by stockholders, who are likewise people, part of the 99%. The simple truth is that MOST of a corporation’s stock and executives are held in and by the 1%. They can easily afford to make less profit. That they pay taxes in exchange for the ability to profit from our nation, this seems no less than fair. IMO, corporations should pay ALL the taxes, and on an inversely sliding scale; The LLC that provides structure and protection for the self-employed Everyman pays the least. The multi-billion dollar phone companies, which make their sums off of each and every one of us, they pay the most (so it behoves them not to make a killing on each of us, as that will just raise what they have to pay back in taxes.) Large corporations which make large profits are the next step down from there. They gain the most, so they pay the most for that opportunity… and so down the line. The Everyman, he pays nothing, because that’s part of the basic promise of this country. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are not guaranteed by our Constitution, but they should be. They were the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the very REASON for the founding of this nation, and so they should always have been the foundation of the Constitution. I suggest we make that change as well.
Finally, Corporations are not people. They are a tool, a fabrication, an artificial “entity”. They do not get the Bill of Rights, nor do they get a political position or opinion. They do not get to influence politics or law. They simply must operate within that law, which must be made to serve the needs of We, The People. This is the environment in which they must turn a profit.
Can a corporation still perform its purpose, still benefit us all, under those circumstances? Can they make a profit when they have to pay all the taxes, and have no right to change laws? Certainly, they can. The margins will be more reasonable, the methods less frivolous. But the laws will still protect their interests to a reasonable degree, because people will still have stock in those corporations. But they will not be able to rise to dominance the way that they have done to this point. We have awakened, returned to sanity and control over our own destinies. Their era of free rein (and reign) must now be past. What will take its place is what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the first place — a government of, by and for the People. And that will not fail or betray us.
– JT
COPYRIGHT 2011 SpectreWriter — All Rights Reserved. If you want to share this, please share the LINK, but do not copy & paste all or part of the text without my permission. Thank you.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The first concept to understand is that this is a restriction that We The People have put upon our government, something we specifically deny Them (it, really) permission to do. The BIll of Rights does not restrict citizens. It is not a magic bullet that allows you to insult me in my home without recourse, for example. Likewise, the right to peaceful assembly refers to public lands (and private lands with the owner’s permission) but it does NOT suggest, require or imply that one can drop in at Elton John’s estate and have a camp-out.
Now to the distinction between Rights and laws. Rights are inalienable. They are not privileges that the government (supposedly representing the will of The People) can grant or withhold. They are absolute. Therefore, the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech are both sacred, cannot be taken or restricted in any way by any government.
Some may say “That restricts Congress, but not States or cities.” The 14th Amendment saw to that loophole. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The first aspect is obvious enough; Federal protections are restrictions against state governments as well. The Due Process aspect is also important, as we shall soon see.
In 1855, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively defined Due Process to state that “it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The [due process] article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.” So when the cities say that Occupy Denver protesters are violating a city ordinance that prohibits occupying the park overnight, they’re attempting to do just that — to circumvent Due Process (which requires the involvement of an unbiased Judicial Branch.) This is why those ordinances are trumped by the Constitution, why I’ve written that the 1st Amendment itself is their permit, and all the permit they need.
So you see, no one needs permission from the government to have a peaceful assembly on public land, nor can a state or local government get around that by making it illegal to do so, no matter what the ordinance may claim or state. LIkewise with the freedom to express oneself, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It makes perfectly good sense that the state capital lawn should be a location at which one would gather peacefully to petition the government for redress of grievances, including (but not limited to) objecting to the carte blanche that corporations have gotten from that government.
Please feel free to link to this article. Get the word out, so people understand that what Occupy groups are doing is both lawful and within Constitutional guarantees.
How To Resolve the National Debt and Increase Jobs In One Fell Swoop
Dear Mr. President, and esteemed members of Congress:
For years, this U.S. citizen has watched our government run a paper chase around one very simple fact: We don’t MAKE anything anymore. Without a product, we cannot expect to make money within the country or within a global economy. That simple fact cannot be avoided.
Now I see a second attempt to throw money at the problem (during the Obama administration,) and simply cannot be silent any longer. As Guy Kawasaki pointed out in a recent blurb, no entrepreneur has ever decided not to engage his idea because there would be taxes or competition. Cutting the payroll tax isn’t going to motivate, and a tax cut for hiring the long-term unemployed may mean well, but companies should be free to hire based on merit and suitability for the job that needs to be done. All of these machinations are just that — another impotent paper chase. What we need is to solve the aforementioned root problem. read more…
We live in a world full of people who do despicable things, perform atrocities to each other, and to other earthlings even more readily. To make matters worse, the U.S. and world economies are struggling to recover, leaving many people homeless and in need. The Good Samaritans of this world are sometimes the only thing that keeps some of us getting up every day… and now the City of Orlando has taken it upon themselves to arrest people for providing the homeless with a meal.
There’s something seriously wrong with our society when an elected government becomes the oppressor of those who would feed their fellow man. No amount of excuses or reasoning can begin to justify such laws and enforcements. read more…