[kj] New Interview with Jaz Wherein He Discourses/Rand Paul.

[Devacor at aol.com]

I will have to say I was very pressed for time when I did the last  
post/email. 
 Much of what you are commenting on isn't nec 'him', but his  taking 
(libertarian) party line. 
 and as I said (very summarized) we can let our backgrounds and  belief 
systems 'prejudge', color, and view certain situations in a way  that may not 
always be the true case. 
 
 for instance ive been having this long discourse with this very  militant 
vegan- I was making the statement that (grassfed small farmed)  organics 
could actually sustain the planet- there are even experts he  trusts and values 
that say this and yet he cant put his mind around it to  accept it- because 
he's too locked into the vegan viewpoint and it goes  too against how he 
view things. this isnt exactly the same situation, but  just making the point 
about our stances. 
 
I could guarantee you, if you sat with him (Paul) and discussed this  out, 
you would find he's not quite this racist pig you may think he is.  You may 
not totally agree with his stances, but I think you would get a  little 
better understanding. Actually he was down for about 15 mins at  this lobbying 
event I was at in senate- I was kind of keeping my eye on  him to see how he 
came off. Seemed cool and had the most ethnically  diverse staff out of 
anyone and seemed to interact with them more then  anyone else did with 
theirs/most down to earth. 
 
I overall like and agree with the libertarian concept (if I had to  give it 
a thumbs up or thumbs down--not discussing point by point what I  like or 
dont like) but I think total party line can be a little clumsy in  some 
areas- 
 biz and the world has changed a bit from 1800 to 1900 to 2000  plus. I'm 
not opposed to going 'old school' but I think they need to think  on a 'happy 
medium' in some areas. 
 
And standing for 'affirmative action' or wanting biz to be able to  hire 
who they see fit- neither of them get to any root of racism or  injustice. 
 
and im coming from a background much as yours- my grandfather was in  
politics and worked on some of the earliest green and  civil/equal/human rights 
campaigns and modes of thought- along with my  chief mentor working on MLK's 
staff. that's where im coming from.  

I mentioned that he (paul)  won the campaign, meaning this  instance wasn't 
some red alert issue once he explained it out- its whether  you agree with 
it or not (the essence of it, not all the wordings). - like  abortion/ pro 
choice or pro life- the stance is the stance, it doesn't  sink a candidate 
out of politics. 
 It wasn't an issue like george allens 'macaca' flap or cruising  for dudes 
in the mens bathroom at an airport, which totally derailed  people. 
 
and yes I agree a good thread- and believe me I do understand where  you 
are coming from ...
 
take care
 
A
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
In a message dated 4/9/2011 4:10:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
saulomar1 at yahoo.com writes:

[BTW, if my earlier reply sounded pointedly personal, I  apologize, it's 
just that I use "you" the way those 'other people over  there' use "one". More 
appropriate, yep, but it's hard changing old  patterns....)
 
 

> ..your 'analogy' is just based on your own personal opinion  and 

speculation.

That statement, considering you are  not aware of my knowledge-base for 
replying or the breadth of my  awareness of the general issue of 
civil/equal/human rights, makes that  statement above, ironically, in effect strictly YOUR 
personal  opinion AND speculation.  I'll assume then that all our opinions  
and speculations are worth acknowledging. 
 
Also, Victory, like Might, doesn't equate to Right.  What  are you implying 
by "BUT he won..." So? The number of people who  liked him over the other 
guy was NEVER an issue, neither in my  comments nor in yours. So I don't get 
how his winning has anything  to do with 
proving/validating/justifying/or-whatever re: his position on  the topics. Elections by definition are 
popularity contests ONLY.  Nothing to do with how right/wrong a candidate's 
positions  are.
 
It's truly simple the distillation of Randy's utterance:  Govt. shouldn't 
act out its (meaning, OURS) racism in the public square,  actions, programs, 
institutions, similar-&-etc. but private  individuals, initiatives, 
policies, and concerns (meaning, everyone, and  everywhere else not covered in Civil 
Rights Act -i.e. the public sphere,  not just "private businesses") should 
be allowed to make up their  own mind on the matter, to follow whatever 
their biases beg and paw at  the insides of their hosts' chest cavities for. 
 
As he stated that he prefers it, one way they (the  "privates") would be 
free to make up their minds would be  for/on behalf of racism. He's against 
it, sure, he calls racist  descrimination " bad business" [an offensive and  
dismissive trivialization, to be sure] "BUT." Enough said.   How many more 
criminal or  present-day-historical examples does one need to see that 
decentralizing  the protections against racism and discrimination is both giving  
permission to, and a ploy to get away with, local bigotries to have free  
rein.  Further, making it a local/state issue takes the a victim's  right of 
redress further away from the federal court system and swerves  it through the 
local/state courts, who are all the more steeped in the  local culture and 
traditions that gave cause for such court actions in  the first place! 
 
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo) 
 
 
 
And in case you're tempted to think I'm speaking out of my ass,  so to 
speak, well so IS HE! He says so himself! (2:03 of vid) Please  don't hold me to 
a different standard than you do  him.

 
I'm just tired of bigoted pigs dressing up as  lil'-innocent-"who, me?! Ah 
cood nevah..."-types trying to fuck  the people the moment their trusting 
backs are turned. 
 
 
[This is really a nice thread to pursue because it really begins  to expose 
the truest, most curdling feelings behind different sides  of the issue, 
the feelings that believers will really stand up and die  for. Or that "some" 
("Earl Grey, please; thank you.") will march in  front of Barack, and his 
wife, and his children, the dog, and the  Capitol by the 
thousands-n'-thousands with machine guns,  assault rifles, and clips - and some really stupid 
signs to  boot!]





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20110411/c3cedca5/attachment.htm>