The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Gokul43201]

However, his comments about civil rights [denial of services based on race] come to mind as an outlier.

I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think his position on that issue is also one that is as close to a traditional libertarian position as I've heard from anyone in Congress. Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

That is how I understood his comments as well.

It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town.

Let there be no mistake. We moved beyond this decades ago and his position is all about violating the rights of the individual.

 

[mheslep]

Oh good question. I think there are many cases. Back later ...

Hmmm. Well I'm finding it difficult to come with answers. Hard to find who supported who back in the primaries. The Tea Party Express (a wing that endorses, other wings won't endorse) endorsed a Democrat for the House (Idaho) early on, but them later reversed and picked up the Republican instead.

 

[mheslep]

Ivan, exactly how did you read Gokul's post:

...Loosely recounting what he's said, I believe he insists that government itself should not engage in bigotry, but neither should it legislate against private entities doing so, as long as said entities do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

(highlights mine)
then agree that is indeed Paul's position:

That is how I understood his comments as well.

and then go on to equate the above with

It was this sort of attitude that brought the Federal troops to the South during the civil rights struggle. He would have us turn the clocks back 100 years to the day when "niggers" were run out of town...

 

[CAC1001]

Compared to his Primary opponent, Grayson, I believe he is. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, says he would have voted against the Iraq War, and says medical marijuana ought to be a states' rights issue that the Feds should not have a say in. On all these specific cases, I believe Grayson held a more statist - and more mainstream Republican - position.

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Also I wouldn't myself call those socially-liberal positions (except for the medical marijuana issue), just a different branch of conservatism. Remember there are different types of conservatives, for example there are your conservatives who emphasize a strong national defense and military intervention overseas when needed, then there are your conservatives who claim we should be much more isolationist, and that we don't need a military with a bunch of overseas bases and so forth as we have.

One type of conservative is okay with the Patriot Act, others see it as an affront to liberty. and so on.

 

[Char. Limit]

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Also I wouldn't myself call those socially-liberal positions (except for the medical marijuana issue), just a different branch of conservatism. Remember there are different types of conservatives, for example there are your conservatives who emphasize a strong national defense and military intervention overseas when needed, then there are your conservatives who claim we should be much more isolationist, and that we don't need a military with a bunch of overseas bases and so forth as we have.

One type of conservative is okay with the Patriot Act, others see it as an affront to liberty. and so on.

Erm, going with the definition of statist as preferring to restrict both personal and economic freedom...

The USA PATRIOT act is exactly fitting the definition of statist. So I don't see the conflict here.

 

[BobG]

How was support for the Patriot Act and Iraq War statist...? Also I know Paul is very pro-life as well.

Being pro-life could be a consistent libertarian position. It's a position that depends on when one believes an entity becomes a person with certain inalienable rights and when that person becomes a citizen with even more rights.

While pro-life is most often associated with conservatives, it's not a purely political question, nor necessarily a religious question.

 

[WhoWee]

Did anyone see Paul on Parker-Spitzer yesterday? QUOTE]

Other than to satisfy a curiosity - does anyone watch this show regularly?

 

[WhoWee]

The Tea Party has been calling for a common sense approach to spending since day one. Sometimes, the Left and Right see the same statistic and interpret the results differently. This is a recent development that we can actually monitor for specific responses.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/11/oregon_us_students_lag_behind.html
"Among the 56 countries that participated in the international math test, the United States ranked 31st, falling behind most industrialized nations with about 6 percent of students nationwide at an advanced level of math achievement. The percentage of U.S. students with higher math skills was most similar to scores in Russia and Spain, according to the data released Wednesday by professors from Harvard, Stanford and the University of Munich.

Taiwan was at the top of the list, with nearly 30 percent of its students reaching an advanced level of math skills. Hong Kong, Korea, Finland and Switzerland rounded out the top five. In each country, more than 15 percent of students reached the top level in math. "

I'll guess the Democrats will call for increased spending on education and Republicans will start talking about vouchers. The common sense approach might be to evaluate and compare the differences in curriculum, study habits, minimum standards/expectations between the US and the top 5 achievers.

We might also take a look at whether teachers in those countries are protected by unions and take 3 to 4 months off each school year.

 

[BobG]

The Tea Party has been calling for a common sense approach to spending since day one. Sometimes, the Left and Right see the same statistic and interpret the results differently. This is a recent development that we can actually monitor for specific responses.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2010/11/oregon_us_students_lag_behind.html
"Among the 56 countries that participated in the international math test, the United States ranked 31st, falling behind most industrialized nations with about 6 percent of students nationwide at an advanced level of math achievement. The percentage of U.S. students with higher math skills was most similar to scores in Russia and Spain, according to the data released Wednesday by professors from Harvard, Stanford and the University of Munich.

Taiwan was at the top of the list, with nearly 30 percent of its students reaching an advanced level of math skills. Hong Kong, Korea, Finland and Switzerland rounded out the top five. In each country, more than 15 percent of students reached the top level in math. "

I'll guess the Democrats will call for increased spending on education and Republicans will start talking about vouchers. The common sense approach might be to evaluate and compare the differences in curriculum, study habits, minimum standards/expectations between the US and the top 5 achievers.

We might also take a look at whether teachers in those countries are protected by unions and take 3 to 4 months off each school year.

Or a completely different trend could be discovered that would indicate a solution completely different from vouchers or a general spending increase or a change in teacher employment practices.

Looking at TIMSS scores (which may include different countries, hence a different ranking), the US is a little higher at 11th for math and science scores.

A more detailed look at the US statistics shows:

Asian Americans have scores similar to Asian countries (i.e. very high).
White Americans have scores similar to the best European countries.
Hispanic Americans have scores similar to lower ranked European countries.
Black Americans have scores similar to the worst European countries.

All of which is higher than most of the world.

That means the differences could be genetic (except then Hispanic scores would be similar to Latin American scores and Black scores would be similar to African scores), it could be cultural, or it could be economic (i.e - Asians are more prosperous and attend schools in the best suburbs, followed by Whites, etc), or some combination of factors.

The simplistic answers given as campaign slogans are usually overly simplistic - and wrong. And entire movements based on simplistic answers are usually wrong.

 

[WhoWee]

Or a completely different trend could be discovered that would indicate a solution completely different from vouchers or a general spending increase or a change in teacher employment practices.

Looking at TIMSS scores (which may include different countries, hence a different ranking), the US is a little higher at 11th for math and science scores.

A more detailed look at the US statistics shows:

Asian Americans have scores similar to Asian countries (i.e. very high).
White Americans have scores similar to the best European countries.
Hispanic Americans have scores similar to lower ranked European countries.
Black Americans have scores similar to the worst European countries.

All of which is higher than most of the world.

That means the differences could be genetic (except then Hispanic scores would be similar to Latin American scores and Black scores would be similar to African scores), it could be cultural, or it could be economic (i.e - Asians are more prosperous and attend schools in the best suburbs, followed by Whites, etc), or some combination of factors.

The simplistic answers given as campaign slogans are usually overly simplistic - and wrong. And entire movements based on simplistic answers are usually wrong.

All anyone needs to do is peek in the window of any graduate program in the country.

My guess is that the countries achieving the best results are probably challenging all of their students equally - not just teaching at a level to reach a standardized test score and handing out diplomas based upon attendance.

IMO, we need to raise the bar. Unfortunately, it has to start at an early age.

 

[BobG]

All anyone needs to do is peek in the window of any graduate program in the country.

My guess is that the countries achieving the best results are probably challenging all of their students equally - not just teaching at a level to reach a standardized test score and handing out diplomas based upon attendance.

IMO, we need to raise the bar. Unfortunately, it has to start at an early age.

Your opinion is based on a guess?

Hopefully it's a common sense guess, in which case the Tea Party would approve.

Actually, that categorization would apply to both parties. The more public attention a topic is given, the more likely objective approaches to it will disappear. We're not exactly a rational voting public.

 

[WhoWee]

Your opinion is based on a guess?

Hopefully it's a common sense guess, in which case the Tea Party would approve.

Actually, that categorization would apply to both parties. The more public attention a topic is given, the more likely objective approaches to it will disappear. We're not exactly a rational voting public.

My wife is an educator and I have 4 kids - monitor homework on a daily basis. The attitude of the school system is to stay focused on the "prize" - above average standardized test scores.

Let's ask a few PF members who hail from the high achievement countries (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea) to comment. If you are from one of these countries - please shed some light on the subject.

 

[Al68]

Being pro-life could be a consistent libertarian position. It's a position that depends on when one believes an entity becomes a person with certain inalienable rights...

This is a good point, as I certainly consider a fetus to be a person, and to have certain inalienable rights. But the "pro-life" position is that a fetus has a special right that none of the rest of us have: the right to force another person to host them against their will. Those inalienable rights, even if a fetus is considered a person, do not include the right to force another person to act as host. As heartless as it sounds, a fetus exists parasitically, and requires a host to live. No person, fetus, baby, or adult, is entitled to force another person to host them.

One could argue that a baby after birth also requires a host, and that's true, but after birth, that host can be someone besides the mother, and we have plenty of volunteers.

and when that person becomes a citizen with even more rights.

Eligibility for citizenship must necessarily be determined by law. The U.S. Constitution says a person must be born in the U.S. or naturalized. So a fetus isn't eligible. But that's still irrelevant, since a right to force another to act as host isn't a right of citizenship, either.

 

[BobG]

This is a good point, as I certainly consider a fetus to be a person, and to have certain inalienable rights. But the "pro-life" position is that a fetus has a special right that none of the rest of us have: the right to force another person to host them against their will. Those inalienable rights, even if a fetus is considered a person, do not include the right to force another person to act as host. As heartless as it sounds, a fetus exists parasitically, and requires a host to live. No person, fetus, baby, or adult, is entitled to force another person to host them.

One could argue that a baby after birth also requires a host, and that's true, but after birth, that host can be someone besides the mother, and we have plenty of volunteers.Eligibility for citizenship must necessarily be determined by law. The U.S. Constitution says a person must be born in the U.S. or naturalized. So a fetus isn't eligible. But that's still irrelevant, since a right to force another to act as host isn't a right of citizenship, either.

I don't subscribe to the idea that a fetus is a person with inalienable rights at the moment of conception (even if I can understand some reasons many people would). I think that would occur at the time human concsiousness occurs - something that would admittedly be hard to define as happening at some particular day of development. I'm not terribly unhappy with the idea to allow early abortions.

None the less, no one forced the mother to act as a host. The very existence of a baby was a consequence of choices the parents made.

The argument that a fetus doesn't have the right to force another person to host them is really an argument that the mother should have the right to change her mind and undo the past after the fact. It has the same validity as saying a person should have the right to return their house back to the seller with no hit to their credit because the buyer couldn't have foreseen that the housing market would tank and leave them upside down on their mortgage; or to return their losing lottery ticket back to the 7-11 for a refund because they changed their minds.

Not that abortion should be banned in every case, but it's not a valid option for the majority of cases.

 

[turbo]

None the less, no one forced the mother to act as a host. The very existence of a baby was a consequence of choices the parents made.

There are thousands of women in war-torn areas in Africa that would beg to disagree with you. I can see where your argument is going, but it is blind to some realities.

 

[Al68]

None the less, no one forced the mother to act as a host. The very existence of a baby was a consequence of choices the parents made.

Another good point, at least in the case of consensual sex. But does the mistake of the mother entitle the fetus to a right that no one else has? Even if so, one would have to acknowledge that such a right is above and beyond the rights claimed by the rest of us.

The argument that a fetus doesn't have the right to force another person to host them is really an argument that the mother should have the right to change her mind and undo the past after the fact.

An abortion doesn't "undo the past". Nothing changes the fact that a fetus existed and perished because the mother refused to (continue to) act as host.

In case you can't tell, I despise abortion. And I agree that the existence of the fetus, and its being hosted, and a moral obligation to continue to host it, is a result of the mother's actions in many cases. I just can't advocate the imprisonment of women for the purpose of protecting a supposed right of a fetus to use its mother as a host against her will.

In addition, even if we buy the argument that abortion should be restricted because the mother implicitly consented to act as host by having sex, then any anti-abortion law would have to exempt cases of non-consensual sex. As a practical matter, this would render any such law unenforceable.

 

[CAC1001]

Erm, going with the definition of statist as preferring to restrict both personal and economic freedom...

The USA PATRIOT act is exactly fitting the definition of statist. So I don't see the conflict here.

I'd have to disagree.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'd have to disagree.

Could you please explain why? I think I explained why. I believe that the USA PATRIOT Act extended government control over our personal life. According to the Nolan Chart, statism is increasing government control over personal or economic freedom. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is statist.

Your counterargument?

 

[Astronuc]

I heard an interview with Condoleezza Rice yesterday. I was recorded earlier in October this year.

Here are her comments on the Tea Party in which she rightly indicates that it is a diverse movement.
http://fora.tv/2010/10/18/Condoleezza_Rice_Extraordinary_Ordinary_People#chapter_19

She also points out that many people feel excluded from the process in Washington and that the conversation in Washington is not the conversation out there in the rest of the nation.

While I disagree with her on some points (particularly foreign policy), I admire her for what she has accomplished, especially given the starting point. The entire interview is worth listening to.

 

[WhoWee]

Your opinion is based on a guess?

Hopefully it's a common sense guess, in which case the Tea Party would approve.

Actually, that categorization would apply to both parties. The more public attention a topic is given, the more likely objective approaches to it will disappear. We're not exactly a rational voting public.

John Stossel found a unique way to discuss the topic - there was a mixed reaction.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...pcakes-asians-whites-blacks-latinos-bucknell/

"This week, I held a bake sale -- a racist bake sale. I stood in midtown Manhattan shouting, “Cupcakes for sale.” My price list read:
Asians -- $1.50
Whites -- $1.00
Blacks/Latinos -- 50 cents

People stared. One yelled, “What is funny to you about people who are less privileged?” A black woman said, angrily, “It’s very offensive, very demeaning!” One black man accused me of poisoning the cupcakes.

I understand why people got angry. What I did was hurtful to some. My bake sale mimicked what some conservative college students did at Bucknell University. The students wanted to satirize their school’s affirmative action policy, which makes it easier for blacks and Hispanics to get admitted.I think affirmative action is racism -- and therefore wrong. If a private school like Bucknell wants to have such policies to increase diversity, fine. But government-imposed affirmative action is offensive. Equality before the law means government should treat citizens equally.

But it doesn’t. Our racist government says that any school receiving federal tax dollars, even if only in the form of federal aid to students, must comply with affirmative action rules, and some states have enacted their own policies."

 

[IMP]

[/B]I think affirmative action is racism -- and therefore wrong. If a private school like Bucknell wants to have such policies to increase diversity, fine. But government-imposed affirmative action is offensive. Equality before the law means government should treat citizens equally.

But it doesn’t. Our racist government says that any school receiving federal tax dollars, even if only in the form of federal aid to students, must comply with affirmative action rules, and some states have enacted their own policies."[/I]

Affirmative action is most certainly racist, that is obvious.

 

[WhoWee]

Affirmative action is most certainly racist, that is obvious.

The real question is this - has affirmative action yielded the desired results? Have minorities reached their full potential, have non-minorities reached their full potential - or have we just lowered the standards for everyone and subsequently lost our competitive edge? I think the later is the case.

 

[BobG]

The real question is this - has affirmative action yielded the desired results? Have minorities reached their full potential, have non-minorities reached their full potential - or have we just lowered the standards for everyone and subsequently lost our competitive edge? I think the later is the case.

Has affirmative action yielded the desired results? No, not if affirmative action is supposed to be the entire solution. It addresses only one part of the problem and can't possibly achieve economic and educational equality for all races and genders. It does not solve the economic problems of people raised in poor neighborhoods. It does change the outlook for minorities in poor neighborhoods (i.e. - there are realistic chances for escape to a better life) but that only work so well since it competes against other issues that encourage an outlook of hopelessness. The message that minorities need to move themselves out of bad situations rather than rely on the government is a healthy one.

Has it caused us to lose our competitive edge? No. It hasn't reduced academic achievement for anyone. Asian Americans and white Americans still have the same academic achievement levels as before. Affirmative action has failed to raise Hispanic and black academic achievement to the levels of white Americans. This is something affirmative action is incapable of doing by itself.

And the importance of economic background deserves extra emphasis. I don't think it's necessary for middle class minorities to gain extra benefits through affirmative action. They are not at a competitive disadvantage once their families have attained middle class status and they have moved out of the poor neighborhoods.

In other words, at some point affirmative action programs have to start a transition towards dealing with the problems of economic disadvantages instead of racial disadvantages. Affirmative action is a plan with a phase I, but no phase II, or III, or IV, etc. That's a real problem - but a problem with a different solution than just eliminating affirmative action. Affirmative action is something to be eliminated once we move on to the phase II.

 

[mugaliens]

Here are her comments on the Tea Party in which she rightly indicates that it is a diverse movement.
http://fora.tv/2010/10/18/Condoleezza_Rice_Extraordinary_Ordinary_People#chapter_19

Although I don't agree with all of her foreign policy, I've always admired and respected Ms. Rice, and listened to her interview in full earlier this week. I also reviewed her comments on the tea party.

Yesterday I came across http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&feature=related", and as a conservative who has never attended any tea party convention or supported them, I was quite surprised, as it says a very different story than the way they've been portrayed in the media. Naturally, this raises the question of what the media's true agenda may have been in their off-center portrayal of the tea party and other grassroots movements?

By the way, I spent 6 weeks in Birmingham in 1996, have come from the deep south (Florida and Loisiana), I fully expected to find myself in a very backwoods area. I was surprised to find this simply wasn't the case! In face, it was quite enjoyable.

 

[WhoWee]

Although I don't agree with all of her foreign policy, I've always admired and respected Ms. Rice, and listened to her interview in full earlier this week. I also reviewed her comments on the tea party.

Yesterday I came across http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE&feature=related", and as a conservative who has never attended any tea party convention or supported them, I was quite surprised, as it says a very different story than the way they've been portrayed in the media. Naturally, this raises the question of what the media's true agenda may have been in their off-center portrayal of the tea party and other grassroots movements?

By the way, I spent 6 weeks in Birmingham in 1996, have come from the deep south (Florida and Loisiana), I fully expected to find myself in a very backwoods area. I was surprised to find this simply wasn't the case! In face, it was quite enjoyable.

The Bill Whittle youtube is a very good look at the basic Tea Party logic. The political leaders and main stream media (IMO - CNN especially) went too far in their assault on the Tea Party - and there was substantial push back that caused people to unite.

IMO, people who live in D.C., NY, and LA (in particular) are out of touch with the average American. I also think the entire debate of Wall St vs Main Street has hurt the career politicians.

 

[mheslep]

The Bill Whittle youtube is a very good look at the basic Tea Party logic. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke" , conservative philosophy. The Tea Party didn't invent it. They conserve it.

 

[Evo]

IMO, people who live in D.C., NY, and LA (in particular) are out of touch with the average American.

People that live in those cities would be considered educated, cultured, and politically savvy. Therefor the "average American Tea Partier" would likely not fall into those categories, from what you've said.

 

[mheslep]

Right.

 

[Evo]

Right.

So you agree. Or do you disagree with Whowee?

 

[Astronuc]

IMO, people who live in D.C., NY, and LA (in particular) are out of touch with the average American.

The difficulty in that is defining average. There is a spectrum of cultures and understanding, and trying to determine an average doesn't help.

I also think the entire debate of Wall St vs Main Street has hurt the career politicians.

Agreed. And the media hasn't helped, but rather aggravated the situation.

 

[CAC1001]

People from the big cities are no more "educated, cultured, and politically savvy" then those who live outside the cities. You will find intelligent, educated, cultured people both inside and outside of the big cities and people who are as dumb as a box of rocks both inside and outside of the cities.

 

[CAC1001]

Could you please explain why? I think I explained why. I believe that the USA PATRIOT Act extended government control over our personal life. According to the Nolan Chart, statism is increasing government control over personal or economic freedom. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is statist.

Your counterargument?

I would say it is a very large document (something like 10,000 pages of legaleze!), so it is a bit over-simplifying to just declare the whole thing statist. But it is a document that has been hotly debated, and which is closely watched by various groups both within and outside of the government (from the GAO to the ACLU) for any sign of abuse.

Some parts of it just consolidate and clarify laws that were already on the books for years, other parts of it do skirt close to violating the Constitution from what I understand, which is why the PA is closely watched and debated. It is an imperfect piece of legislation, but it's not some draconian Big Brother bastion of blanket power that represents a blanket loss of civil rights. However, like other pieces of legislation, it does still need to be monitored for abuse and over-reach (sort of like eminent domain for example).

Parts of it have been successfully challenged in Court, it has been questioned, and modified based on judicial review. It is subject to open debate, opposition, and all the checks and balances of a functioning democracy.

 

[Evo]

People from the big cities are no more "educated, cultured, and politically savvy" then those who live outside the cities. You will find intelligent, educated, cultured people both inside and outside of the big cities and people who are as dumb as a box of rocks both inside and outside of the cities.

Exactly.

I was pointing out that making broad, sweeping generalizations that can't be backed up is wrong.

To claim that people that don't live in big cities are somehow more qualified is just downright wrong, no?

 

[Gokul43201]

People from the big cities are no more "educated, cultured, and politically savvy" then those who live outside the cities.

Don't have any statistics to cite right away, but what would you like to bet that people living in big cities are no more educated than people living in small towns?