Skip navigation

I meant to do this as a blog of the week but I got distracted by the awesome incarnate that was Robin Hood.

So alas a couple more weeks had passed, and thus no blog, well now, there is one.

This blog talks about three related topics.  About positions of honesty, about lies, about morality and about the fundamental principles of how we govern our lives.

Now I could talk about Rand Paul, and perhaps the topic that he discussed, and one day I might just do that, but that is not the point of this blog, not about Civil Rights…per se. That is not the direction I want to go.

Now a couple of weeks ago it came out that Richard Blumenthal, who is running for Senate, lied or ‘mis spoke’ about his service in Vietnam.  He would address the acquisitions at a gathering of sympathetic veterans at a Veterans of Foreign Wars chapter in his home state…gee sure seems like he misspoke doesn’t it?

But, certain Veterans at the meeting came up and applauded him, saying that he was a great guy and a great supporter of Veterans.  And there was not a word of condemnation but nothing but an over flowing of support.  Now if he is good to Veterans and their Veterans groups that is a good thing, I applaud him for that.

However, he was outed as not being a Veteran of the Vietnam war, that he never went, that he had an exemption.  So what Foreign war did he serve in? The war of the fluffy pink dinosaurs? So why is he given a speech at a VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS PLACE, of which he is a member?

But lets run this down for a second, could you imagine if a Republican had done this, if a Conservative had done this, of George Bush had done this, had lied about serving in the military or his specific service, they would be roasted!  That would be the end of them and their credibility.  And rightfully so.  And maybe this will do it for him as well.

But meanwhile you have Rand Paul, someone who was giving his personal opinions that the Government should not regulate who buisnesses or people assosiate with in their personal lives.

Thats it.  His deeply held belief, but apparently you cannot have that, you cannot do that, you cannot have that belief!  Then the next day he apparently came and said, look I would have voted for the thing anyways, and by the way I said I would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr.  Oh but now he is flip-flopping!  He did not believe it and he really is as bad as any other politician out there!

WHOA!.  Hold the presses!

First of all, how can that be a flip-flop, he said that he would support and liked nine-tenths of the bill.  But there was only one specific part that he did not agree with, but he would vote for it.  Flip Flopper!

Have you been paying attention to the political landscape lately? Have you ever heard of compromise?

But looking deeper into this you have virtually in the same week, two back to back weeks you have it being discovered that someone lied about their service, and then ran to the VFW about it.  And then in the other corner you have someone giving their honest, most deeply held belief, that has nothing to do with the campaign, and then suddenly he is the one who is wrong.

That it does not matter if he would have voted for the Bill in spite of this, it does not matter if he is a racist or not, just because he has this opinion is damning enough to a startling number of people.  Oh he is a racist, oh he wants to bring the KKK back, oh all of this is just code and now that he is out there he is trying to cover himself.  And they read into his motives stuff that is just plain not there.

But just because Mr. Blumenthal is a ‘nice guy’ he must be defended no matter what he does, but how dare Mr. Paul step outside of nice political debate.  Which I will be explaining later.

This is just further evidence that we are in some very deep kimche folks.

If someone cannot express their honest political opinion, and have it accepted at its face value then nothing can be done.  People will be afraid to express it, because they will be afraid to express it when they will be ridiculed and broken wide open if they dare say anything outside of the norm.

Look, of course I have a problem with racists and bigots.  But I would much rather have that opinion, and all opinions, out there for the world to see then for it to be hidden in the shadows.

Because that is what this society, and the law, seemingly does.  Buries the truth and buries the opinion.  You will be afraid to speak, or intimidated, or cowed, or balk in it when the hot chick in class gives you a disapproving look.

Honesty is a fundamental principle, to speak without fear is a fundamental principle.  And we MUST restore it.  A racist can come up to me and say, hey I hate all the blacks, and I can say, ok, I disagree with you, I will not associate with you, and I condemn that position, and if you try to put it into action where you actively discriminate against people, then I will boycott you.

That’s all, that is all the battle field of ideas requires.  That you express your opinion, I express yours, and then we move on.

Or not, maybe this is not the way.  But I do know that we have a right to speak freely, and we should be honest people, and with us hiding who we are and what we believe we are destroying that, and not advancing society.



  1. About Rand Paul. The thing with political beliefs is that…it’s politics. People will and do flip flop on them. To hold Political beliefs as if they were religious beliefs is dangerous, short sighted and narrow/close minded.

    I applaud Rand Paul for having an open mind and willing to question his political beliefs. We all need to be like him in that regard. Maybe he didn’t consider some of the arguments people made against him? And now that he heard them, he has reconsidered his position. I too did this when my Political Science professor told us what was included in that bill.

    At first when I heard that one section about businessmen I cringed and felt the same way as Rand Paul did. But I started asking myself. Is government not supposed to insure equal rights? Are we not entitled under a capitalist society to any service or product as long as we are able and willing to have it?

    So shouldn’t government ensure that the only determining factor to weather or not we can use a service or product other than common sense restrictions (Like a child eating in a Bar or a Man pooping in a Woman’s public bathroom and such) is our ability to pay and willingness to pay for it?

    • But that is the thing. What is the greater or greatest right. IN principal I personally agree with you. I would not deny a black, gay, lesbian, asian, or anyone else from participating in my buisness if they wanted to. That is not for me to decide or to do. However i the first Amerndment, our greatest rights granted, includes the right to assemble, which implies the right to associate. No one picks your friends for you, no one…in the end…picks who you marry in this country. And what makes buisnesses so special? what makes corporations so special? Why can’t a white guy join the all black dance club that is at the local high school? Corporations are special because they are, seemingly, against governments. I mean Stossel is right that no one picks who you associate with so why with buisness, which in the end just lets these rascists hide in the closset.

      That is what is required, which right do you want to respect more.

      As for the other, you are right about that, I have recently run into having to revaluate my political positions myself and seeing the practicality of things.

      • All black dance clubs are illegal where I live. They can’t even keep a homophobe out of the school’s “Gay straight Alliance.” So you might want to find another example for future reference ;).

        I personally think that the bill of rights applys to individuals, so I don’t really see a conflict here.

        • colfoley
        • Posted June 14, 2010 at 2:35 am
        • Permalink

        No its a perfect example, just because your state is whacked does not make them any less…whacky….which that is whacked.

        Of course the bill of rights applies to individuals…but what are groups composed of:?

  2. actually I always though that the government only facilitated commerce by holding everyone accountable to the law….government never should have the right to tell a person how to run his business or who to conduct business with….so if a business owner refuses to do business with somebody….that is his right and the customer can find someone who will do business with him….a business owner has the right to refuse to do business with someone or a group of someones irregardless of motive….however like Rand Paul said it is a bad business model and his business will eventually collapse under the weight of his discriminatory practices as more and more people refuse in like fashion to for example do business with a racist

    so yeah government facilitates commerce by holding everyone accountable to the law….meaning that you’re free to conduct business as long as you don’t commit any crimes….but refusing to do business with someone or a group of someones is not a crime

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: