Taking a rough poll of opinions this a.m. If you consider yourself a Democrat...

[Baitball Blogger]

...how many associate regulation with equality? Assuming we are a country of laws, does that mean that all laws should apply to everyone equally?

As I see it, this is not happening as it should. People who already have it good, generally abuse their power to get even more. This is why the federal courts and legislators have to continue finding methods to remedy the imbalance in our societies. Of course,those who abused their positions don't recognize that there was an imbalance in the first place, which is why civil remedies are sometimes mistaken for "entitlements."

Perhaps we're being too kind and should make it clear that these civil remedies are directly related to their overreach?

Personally, until those who are abusing their power aren't made to understand that they're responsible for the inequities in society, we are going to continue to have this disconnect where Republicans keep asking for less regulation and Democrats keep asking for more.

In general terms I realize this statement is over-simplified, because I suspect that many Democrats who embrace the idea that regulation = equality, would have difficulty with the idea when it comes to local law. So it comes down to this question this morning: How many would take leadership roles in your own community, with the idea of pulling rank? Or how many would see that these local leadership roles are the first opportunity to establish a stable and equal society? The latter is not so easy when you might have to apply rules that clip your own wings.

[Bunnahabhain]

1. You do realize

regulations could enshrine inequity? For instance established players in a market often are in favor of regulations that would create barriers to market entry. The thought that "regulations" = equality is a pretty flimsy thought.

No idea what these "civil remedies" are you referenced either.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Totally agree with your observation.

The last twenty years has seen a total flip-flop, away from civil rights regulations that were the hallmark of a Democratic leadership. Today, Republicans have had their effect on all three levels of government by deregulating everything that once protected individuals, or passing laws that are sure to continue imbalances.

Perhaps I could make it clear that I am referring to civil law regulation = equality.

Good point.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Civil remedies.

Some of the civil remedies from the past include Affirmative Action. Though there is a trend to weaken them, I think it is a mistake because I see inequities occurring today which do cut along race lines.

But I believe that programs such as Obamacare, can be seen as civil remedies to ensure that everyone has access to basic human rights needs.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. The law is not applied equally at all, the idea of doing so deeply offends the 'faith

community' as Obama made hyper clear in his many sermons about how Sanctified straight people are and how inferior gay people are.
Regulation equals equality is bullshit, regulation equals regulation which might create justice or injustice depending on what is being regulated and how. The slave trad had regulations galore. It was the opposite of equality.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. I think we will have as much difficulty defining "regulation" as we would defining "government."

I would qualify that we need "good" regulation, in order to protect people from sanctified social mores. Those are social mores that not only include sanctified straight people, but also sanctified perceptions that we often associate with "white privilege."

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Regulation is not really the word for it. We need strongly enforced civil rights laws

on the Federal level. The only legal discrimination in the country is against LGBT people. Straights care so little about that that when we mention it they start talking about something else. Every time.

[Bunnahabhain]

9. Nice stereotyping

Some "straights" do care and do not change the topic when it comes up.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The very post I responded to did not speak of what I brough up and wanted to shift

to talking about racism. Read the post. Did not respond to what I said. Wants to talk about white people. Changed the topic.

[Bunnahabhain]

11. So this means all "straights" are like that? As I said...

[Bluenorthwest]

12. You keep coming back carrying this word 'all' which I did not use. Why is that?

Do you mind if I point out that YOU are refusing to discuss what I brought up, and instead you want to rewrite what I said and hound me about it? Change that subject. And no, of course most of the people I love are straight people, duh. The ones who are like that are like that.
Got anything to say about the points I made? Would you like to insist that straight culture is fair and just to those unlike themselves? Good luck with that argument.
I said much. You changed the subject to shit I did not say. So if the shoe fits, wear it and hop away with your sign that says 'all' and see if you can find any takers.

[Bunnahabhain]

13. So let me ask you...

If someone said, "Gays are flamboyant" would you read the word "all" in there or not? I think we both know answer to that. When one makes a statement about a category it is usually assumed the statement is about...the category. The "all" is implied.

Do you want the simple solution here? You simply admit that you are human and either employed a stereotype or did not properly express your idea the first time. No one in black helicopters will come circling; it's okay. If you did not mean to stereotype I apologize for thinking you did but my read was the reasonable one.

As to your substantive portions I generally agree even if I would not phrase them in quite so hostile a manner.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. So even when directly asked you refuse to discuss the points I brought up and insist

on hounding me about shit you imagined. You are what I meant when I said they care so little they change the subject. YOUR community maintains laws which violate our equal protection under the law daily, constantly and you want to write about something you think I said, and also about what you think I would say if someone said something else.
I think you are offended because I correctly say the 'faith community' opposes the equal protection of all Americans under the law.

[Bunnahabhain]

15. Wow

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Did you miss where I said I generally agreed with your substantive portions? And as a completely godless person why in the hell would anything you say about "faith community" bother me in the least? My comment on hostility certainly is proved and I think you are so twisted with it you cannot even notice when someone is not arguing with you. And as to the comment "YOUR community..." yeah, why would I ever think you lump all cisgenders into one boat?

smh

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Wow is right. Raving in the face of simple comments. How would I know if you

are religious or straight or gay or whatever? You are be wildly rude, personally combative and you claim you are not arguing? You entered this conversation hurling an accusation based on your own inference. Not even a question, a full frontal attack. But you are not arguing. You are labeling me as hostile and twisted, but you are not hostile? Your aggression started this whole exchange, I'm being polite and you are raging away and making demands and placing labels.
The straight majority mistreats the minorities among them. Whining that YOU are the offended party is cute, but lacks any actual foundation. Shows entitled behavior, but has no foundation.
You have a nice day.

[Bunnahabhain]

17. I think...

if this is you being polite I do not want to see any escalation.

You have yourself a good day.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I have never spoken with you prior to today, you came at me with accusations and

never let up. You have used name calling and many adjectives to avoid speaking about the actual topic, oddly this is what I noted many members of the majority do when confronted with the injustices that exist, they want to change the subject.
Read what you wrote to me, very mean, aggressive and just uncalled for. Also, not once did you speak about the subject at hand. You changed the subject. Just as the OP did. Just as I said is commonly done.
Enjoy your stay here on DU.

[Bunnahabhain]

20. You have a good day

and I hope you notice if I state agreement with your substantive input if it should happen again.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. That wasn't a change of topic. That was trying to point out that our problems

are coming from the same people. It was an attempt to find common ground.

[Bunnahabhain]

8. In this case I think "good"

might well be influenced by one's POV. I am sure there are many religious folks that do not think equal marriage rights fall under "good regulation."

I think maybe you want to get down to something more fundamental here. Based on what I have read in your OP, such as, "Step up and pull rank," you seem to feel it is the proper role of government to enforce a progressive ideology on society. Is that not more what you are getting at? I would say this should be the goal of anyone that votes Dem.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. "Step up and pull rank"

This is reference to how Republicans lead. They assume that they have a divine right to lead, and rank has its privileges. The thought that they might have to make a decision that would be adverse to their interests is unthinkable.

Democrats are better at considering the needs of all people--including the ones they may not know personally. Republicans, on the other hand, are selective about who they want to bestow favor.

"Good regulation," for a Democrat, should be one that protects everyone, including those that Republicans would exclude.

[Bunnahabhain]

24. Good regulation

protects everyone? Are you sure about that? I mean I think some form of affirmative action is good but it most certainly does not protect everyone. In fact, if you exam what was happening in California, it is quite clear affirmative action there was actually hurting Asian students.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Affirmative Action will have to be reaccessed on a continual basis.

But our Constitution has been interpreted to protect the interest of minority groups. The best, and easiest explanation I found on the net is as follows:

Although not explicitly mentioned a number of provisions of the constitution have been found to protect minority interest. The best example is the 14th amendment which provides in part that every citizen is entitled to equal protection of the law (ie the equal protection clause). This clause was used to hold segregation illegal and a number of other civil rights issues.

Remember, just because something is not explicit in the constitution's text does not mean it is not part of constitutional law. For example, Miranda rights are not in the constitution explicitly, but in Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court found that the Miranda rights were the only way to prevent compelled self incrimination prohibited by the 5th amendment.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090213092402AAlR8Ka

In today's America, there are governments which promote inequality by developing relationships and networks with private individuals in the community. It is a modern day version of racketeering. (My website will soon be update to explain how it happens.)

As long as these inequities continue in society, there will always be a need for civil remedies.

[Bunnahabhain]

26. I'm not sure

what this has to do with what I said. The example was used to demonstrate that sometimes a regulation has to not protect, in fact damage, certain parties in the name of equality. Since you mentioned government contracts, stipulating a certain portion must go to female and minority owned business obviously damages businesses not owned by women and/or minorities. However, do you not think this is a good thing to foster female and minority owned businesses?

You have to face the fact some individuals will get hurt when regulation is imposed to address inequality but that is not to say it should not be done.

[Baitball Blogger]

27. What I see from you is a strong desire to resist all regulation.

That is not, typically, a Democratic position.

I cannot agree with you because I live in a community where all regulation was put aside and I saw what happened. It allowed the government to break many constitutional safeguards, and gave them power to create a dual society. One was allowed to lie and cheat to get ahead as long as they pushed the city's agendas. Local lawyers protected them, aggravating the inequities in the society.

So, to those people who were harmed by this local, deregulated process, deregulation made absolutely no sense. There was no one in authority to turn to for recourse. Only the federal government has the power to fix these egregious abuses.

[Bunnahabhain]

28. Where did I say that?

In fact I stated several times I was for these regulations. What you see from me is a strong desire to shake you of your vision of unicorns. "Good regulation" can hurt some parties whereas you have defined it as regulations that "protect everyone." What I see from you is a strong desire not to acknowledge reality. The simple fact of the matter is that since inequality is a societal issue fixing it might damage the interests of some individuals. I am willing to accept this to fix society but do not fool myself into thinking there will be no collateral damage.

[Baitball Blogger]

29. I believe the way to ameliorate collateral damage, is to expose the warts

that created the need for civil remedies in the first place. I mean, get down and name names.

For example, my life has been greatly inconvenienced by the secrecy that goes on in communities where inequities exist. I've seen it all. City managers have been given the approval to make contact with private organizations; when it all blows up in people's faces, lawyers will be quick to slap confidentiality clauses on settlement agreements; they will lie about who it applies to; people will spread rumors that it is a gag order, when it's not; secret meetings will take place in the community where some people are invited to, and others will be excluded and treated like a pariah. Gossip is spread around about the truthseekers in order to dehumanize them. They can't defend themselves because people are generally gutless, and easily frightened--so, no one will step up to tell them what's going on.

The point is, that the group that is benefiting greatly from the imbalances in society get to protect their secrets. So when the civil remedies are finally approved, people don't know the facts well enough to understand why they were needed. This makes it harder on the injured parties.

I have a better grasp on reality than you realize.

[Bunnahabhain]

30. Well

if you know about these secret meetings they're not too secret...

Also, none of this contradicts the problem with the definition of "good regulation" you put forth. It actually seems you are agreeing with me now that there will be collateral damage by good regulation to fix societal inequality?

[Baitball Blogger]

31. What I have seen and experienced for myself is that

right-wingers are quick to blame minorities for taking their JERRRBBSS. They are very adept at pointing at civil remedies as an "injustice" to their own race, without recognizing why they were needed in the first place. I'm saying that the privileges (cheating) that they've enjoyed for so many decades needs to be exposed and widely known. It's the only way that minorities will get a chance to use those opportunities to their fullest without worry of getting sabotaged.

[Bunnahabhain]

32. I think

you're getting into tinfoil hat theories now. If I understand you correctly you feel that right-wingers hold secret meetings to sabotage minorities?

Either way your comments have no bearing on what I said and I think you are agreeing when I say some individuals might be damaged through civil rights legislation designed to correct a societal injustice.

[Baitball Blogger]

33. Oh My God.

You are trying very hard to misrepresent what I'm saying.

I had a personal experience that I relayed to you. The point of sharing that information was to reinforce my point, that when it comes to civil remedies, one must expose the whole truth of the injustice that required the civil remedy in first place. You must name names. It's the only way to establish cause and effect.

By sharing my experience I was able to show you how it was possible for the other side to keep the evidence of their transgression out of the public domain. However, in this particular case, they were not too successful because there was a trail of public records available to attest to the malfeasance that took place. The documents weren't easy to find and actually tedious to put together, but fourteen years later, their secrets were finally exposed.

From there my point moved to a general statement: Once the truth of what caused the original inequity is widely known, it will make it harder for the party that caused the injury to whine about the remedy. They will have to recognize that the civil remedy is a response to an unfair situation that they created.

And no, I couldn't possibly agree with you on this point, because I'm making the exact opposite argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Nope, been an indie since 2009

I credit the POTUS for that, removing single payer from the table was the last straw.

[mick063]

19. I will let George Washington answer this

from the link:

Washington had several reasons for not running again. There was his promise not to seek unfair power as a government official and his desire to avoid being, as he wrote to Trumbull, “charged . . . with concealed ambition.” There was also his “ardent wishes to pass through the vale of life in retirement, undisturbed in the remnant of the days I have to sojourn here.” Washington’s early promise and the lure of retirement were reasons for his declining to seek a third term.

Perhaps even stronger than those factors were Washington’s feelings about the country’s heated political climate. “The line between Parties,” Washington wrote Trumbull, had become “so clearly drawn” that politicians would “regard neither truth nor decency; attacking every character, without respect to persons – Public or Private, – who happen to differ from themselves in Politics.” Washington wrote that, even if he were willing to run for president again, as a Federalist, “I am thoroughly convinced I should not draw a single vote from the Anti-federal side.” For Washington, the nation’s political parties had soured discourse and created a climate in which, as he predicted in his 1796 farewell address, “unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.” Referring to the Democratic-Republicans, Washington wrote, “Let that party set up a broomstick, and call it a true son of Liberty, a Democrat, or give it any other epithet that will suit their purpose, and it will command their votes in toto!”

We have no great leaders anymore.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. Sigh. Nobody talks like that anymore.