From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 14:26:14 PST

In <1993Jan8.193648.232@news.columbia.edu>, Robert Johnston writes:

>In article <C0JsDw.Iqo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
>>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>: If voting for laws that stops the process of people losing rights and
>>>: being treated as second class citizens is "Radical Liberalism", then
>>>: B'God, let's have more of it!  More Rights for everyone, or........?
>>>:
>>
>>>Laws won't change anything.  Laws protecting blacks have only allowed a
>>>small percentage any real success, and all statistical evidence is that
>>>blacks do live like 2nd class citizens.  I can start with unemployment
>>>rats, income, and health statistics to prove it.
>>

>Mike:

>Do you have something better to suggest? I would suggest a huge
>increase in spending on early childhood education, but I somehow
>get the feeling you wouldn't like that either.

I for one would like it *if* there were any correlation between spending on
education and quality of education.  According to the U.S. Department of
Education's "Digest of Education Statistics--1991," we are now spending three
times more per student *in inflation adjusted 1990 dollars* than we did in
1960.  There is no evidence to suggest that increased funding for education
improves it.  All it does is make it look like you care.  Caring doesn't
guarantee results, unfortunately.

>>Actually, the more legal rights a group has the less tolerant the general
>>public tends to be.  Two examples:  (1)  America has much less restrictive
>>abortion laws than in Europe; however, Europe is much more tolerant of unwed
>>mothers.

>I didn't know that "europe" had any laws on abortion. If you meant
>Ireland and Poland, I suggest that you check a map of europe and
>find the other countries there.

True.  However, I think we know the point he is trying to get across.  Is it
really necessary to pick nits?  I don't know if his statement was factual or
not, but I think it's clear what is meant by his statement.  You're quibbling
with semantics.

>>(2)  The Americans with Disabilities act requires a large number
>>of handicapped parking places at new facilities, and I have heard a large
>>amount of grumbling from people about the excess spots ( also noticed more
>>non-handicapped using handicapped spots ).

>I have heard many people who were very glad to have a handicapped spot
>available, so they didn't have to walk a couple of hundred yards on
>bad legs.

>Are you saying we should get rid of anything that some people
>grumble about? I didn't know youe were an anarchist.

I could be wrong, but it sounds as though you are implying that minorities
need protection from the whims of the majority--a doctrine with which I whole-
heartedly agree.  But why, then, is it fine and good for a majority of the
people to pass coercive laws against a minority just because the minority is
not as politically weak?  If it isn't acceptable for 51% of the people to
take parking spots away from the handicapped, why is it acceptable for 51%
of the people to vote in favor of taxing some other minority or of denying
them the same rights that the 51% who passed it enjoy?  That's what we do when
we pass laws by the "democratic" process.  In that respect, it's not much
different than two cats and a mouse voting on what to have for lunch.

>>The general feeling is 'well,
>>you have your rights and will get nothing more' when rights are legislated.
>>The black community is just one example of 'rights' gone astray.
>>

>It is a mistake to equate the black community with publicity seekers
>such as Al Sharpton. Should I equate conseratives with Buchanan,
>or Duke? In any group there will be those who are out there for only
>money, fame, and power.

True.  Unfortunately, they are the ones who get the media attention.  In the
black community, for example, there could ten Martin Luther King disciples
who follow his teachings and beliefs (reasonable I might add), and one Al
Sharpton spewing hate.  Guess who will get the media attention as being the
"representatives of the black community?"  Even though the majority of the
"group" (I hate that word, individualist that I am) is reasonable and peace-
ful (and wants to work together to find solutions), the one unreasonable boob
spewing hate is cast as their "leader."  Sad.

>What do you mean by rights gone astray? As far as I can tell, this is
>meaningless, racist inuendo. Correct me if I am wrong.

By your Sharpton example (a good one, I might add), I think you know what he
meant.  The "civil rights" movement and the feminist movements have (at least
in *perception* if not in reality) as evolved from a reasonable request for
equal opportunities to white-hating or man-hating militants.  I don't think
that's how most civil libertarians or progressive women think; however, it's
certainly true that the media usually paint the Sharptons of the world as
the representatives of the black community (as if blacks voted for him?) or the
Molly Yards of the world are the representatives of all female thinking.  I
don't think that the overall meaning of the movements have changed, but that
the people who claim to lead the movements have become spiteful hatemongers.

A good case in point happened in Denver a couple of years ago when the KKK
held a demonstration.  Most people--black, white and everything else--held
peaceful vigils denouncing the KKK and holding up pictures of Dr. King.  Most
of the civil rights demonstrators were very well behaved.  However, a few
agitators took to violent protests, throwing rocks, bottles, and whatever
else they could find.  The police had to come in with riot gear.  The KKK
refused to retaliate.  The KKK now had ammunition, and the media helped them
do it by focusing on an "opposition" consisting of the hundreds of punks who
became violent--not the thousands who peacefully demonstrated.  The peaceful
majority were ignored again.  Apparently, peaceful demonstration doesn't get
the ratings that a riot does--again, the truth be damned.

I think that's what the above "rights gone astray" quote meant.  That is a
conclusion which can be easily derived if you only read the quotes of the
so-called "leaders" of the movement.  If you talk to the typical and average
blacks or women, you'll see a desire for equality--without the hate of a Sharp-
ton or a Duke.  It's the average Joes and Janes of the movements who reaffirm
my faith in humanity.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51