Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul distorts disabilities act, again

Makin' it up again?

Via Think Progress, top tier GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul has now published an op-ed in a Kentucky paper clarifying his views of the proper relationship between government and the private sector.

Paul's piece is getting attention because he hails the idealism of Martin Luther King and explains why restaurant owners shouldn't be forced to ban smoking. But what's also interesting is that in the course of denying claims that he opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act, he floats a widely-debunked distortion about it:

Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses.

For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn't it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office?

Yes, but it's highly unlikely that a "small business in a two story building" would ever have to put in a "costly elevator." The Americans With Disabililties Act specifically exempts most buildings of this size:

(b) Elevator

Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities.

As John Cook noted recently, Paul has repeatedly floated this scenario, even though it's been debunked. And he continues to do so. He wants you to fancy him a serious political thinker, but he either can't bother to get the facts straight or just keeps makin' it up.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 7, 2010; 10:17 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Helen Thomas unlikely to hold her plum press seat

Comments

You'd think that if he can't be bothered to do the research himself on this myth that maybe one of his "new" staff members might inform him of the actual language in the law.

Whatever, it just makes Conway look that much better as long as the good people of KY are informed.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 7, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Good work, Greg. (Look at you hitting the law books!)

Posted by: wbgonne | June 7, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Nice word Greg.

Rand Paul: Once a liar, always a liar.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 7, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Rand Paul has been making a list of all of the businesses crushed by the elevator-installing hand of Big Government.

Really? That's the rationale for keeping government out of problem-solving in a complex society? Over-elevating?

Dumb Asssses.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 7, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

From Paul's op-ed:

"I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians. I cheer the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who argued that slavery was unconstitutional 20 years before the Civil War. I cheer Lerone Bennet when he argues that the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution should have derailed slavery long before the Civil War."

What a load of cr*p. The reason we had slavery in the United States is because it was written into the Constitution. Habeas corpus? Habeas corpus couldn't help the slaves because they weren't people according to the Constitution; they were the PROPERTY of their "owners." Property fetishists like Rand Paul were exactly the types of people who argued for the continuation of slavery based upon the property right of the slaveowners. I have no doubt -- zero -- that Paul would not have supported abolition back when it mattered. Just like he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Want proof?

"In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state. For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option. Think about it - this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?"

You see, the government should ensure that consumers have information nor guarantee a healthy air quality because that impinges the property rights of the business owners not to do those things.

Rand Paul isn't an "idealist" (which I'm sure he settled on after two weeks of focus-group testing). Paul doesn't account for the reality that we now live in a close country with dwindling resources that must be conserved. Paul may be a fantasist and a property rights fetishist but he is no idealist. His conception of liberty is property. Just like the Supreme Court held that corporations are people and speech is money. There is a hierarchy of Constitutionally protected interests: 1) life; 2) liberty; 3) property.

Rand Paul may be many things, but he d*man sure isn't Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 7, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Edit:

"the government should [not] ensure"

Posted by: wbgonne | June 7, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn't it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office?

Yes, but it's highly unlikely that a "small business in a two story building" would ever have to put in a "costly elevator." The Americans With Disabililties Act specifically exempts most buildings of this size:

(b) Elevator

Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities.

....................

It is clear, by now, that Rand Paul qualifies as an American With A Disability, because his elevator does not go all the way to the top. In fact it appears to be stuck in his basement.(AKA His Arse)

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

admin note:
you guys really need to keep your links updated & reciprocate among wapost blogs. For instance, none of the other wapost blogs link to plum line (having checked 44, Fix, Klein). Klein goes so far as to continue linking to the long defunct white house watch, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/ nearly a year after it went dark.

Put some interns on it or something.

thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon1 | June 7, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

It is clear to me that Rand Paul thinks business owners and corporations should be exalted far above people. And that laws should be fashioned that allows business to do whatever makes them profitable with no regard to the affect it has on the society at large.

Posted by: SteelWheel25 | June 7, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This is a great example of the kind of disingenuous stupidity the Republican Party has offered America while it picks our pockets.

Posted by: vigor | June 7, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If Rand Paul is Sarah Palin's and the Tea Party's shining light, they've just shown their colors as "me first"-ers -- and anybody with a handicap, or of a different skin color, better not be uppity. I hope the WaPo syndicates this column.

Posted by: AdventurerVA | June 7, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Wonder what Mr. Paul would think should a business establishment ban all individuals who happen to believe that the Civil Rights Act and Disability Act are "unconstitutional"?

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Posted by: parkerfl1 | June 7, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

O/T


U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe


Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher#ixzz0qAqw6ZuR

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 7, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

High unlikely but not improbable. Note the catchall phrase "unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities."

Posted by: batman267 | June 7, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Why have we not seen much coverage of this in the media? You may wish to devote some research and coverage of it. It looks like Rand Paul may be trying to avoid being properly certified to practice as an Ophthalmologist.

He Certified Himself!!!

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=rand_paul_practicing_medicine

"Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky who is an ophthalmologist, has been practicing medicine for the last five years without a nationally recognized certification for his specialty. While this is not illegal, it's certainly unusual. While all physicians are required to graduate from an accredited medical school and pass a state licensing test, specialists normally seek board certifications, essentially an additional training and practice in their chosen field. Once a physician has obtained their certification, they need to renew it every ten years.

Today, Zach Roth reported that Paul created an alternative certification board for his specialty in 1999. More notable, however, is that Paul apparently allowed his own American Board of Ophthalmologists certification to lapse in 2005, which means he's been practicing for the last five years without the nationally recognized credential, an aberration within the profession.

"Over all, about 85 percent of all practicing physicians are board certified," Beth Ann Slembarski, the administrator of the ABO, says. "Ophthalmology has a higher percentage than that, we're upwards of 95 percent. Once someone is board certified, there is about less than five percent of people initially don't re-certify." Slembarksi says that doctors who decline to re-certify usually do so when they stop seeing patients, shift their focus to research, or leave the country. "

R

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Sargent - you lying, liberal hack. You can interpret the word "small" to make your argument - but it doesn't hold water.

Idiot.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | June 7, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

rand paul exemplifies the mainstream of republiconism. No thinking, no research, no homework, just empty shoot from the hip nonsense that is easily shown to be a fraud to anyone taking 20 seconds to fact check.

Posted by: John1263 | June 7, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

joesmithdefend,

Here is what Rand Paul said in his op-ed:

"For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability?"

The law clearly says that NO, a small business in a two-story building -- BY LAW -- does NOT have to put in a "costly elevator."

joesmithdefend, you are not only WRONG on the facts, but your comment was obnoxious and specious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 7, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Your citation is to Title III of the ADA, and not to Title I (the employment section). There might still be a question as to whether Paul's scenario is entirely corect, but arguably the answer with regard to a Title I claim might not be as clear as you assert.

Posted by: willdd | June 7, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

OT:

* Crist on claim knew about Greer's contract: 'It is just wrong' *

At his first public event this morning near St. Petersburg, Gov. Charlie Crist denied the charge by Jim Greer's lawyer that he personally signed off on the Victory Strategies fundraising contract: "It is just wrong. It is sad when people in a desperate situation say desperate things, but that's just not the case." (Those comments echo what he said on CNN's State of the Union this weekend.)

When asked why he didn't heed calls for a forensic audit of the parties finances, Crist said, "We did have people look at the money at the party." He got in his car on the way to the next event before answering who those people were and what they found.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/06/crist-on-claim-knew-about-greers-contract-it-is-just-wrong.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 7, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

According to Rand Paul's interpretation: in order to avoid having to install elevators, small businesses should always hire Rand, and Quitter Palin, for only first floor jobs.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

If Rand Paul ever thought before he spoke, it might occur to him that there isn't enough real estate in the whole world so that everyone can have a one-story office. His hometown of Bowling Green isn't that small, never mind a megacity like New York or Chicago.

Posted by: angelas1 | June 7, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The Tale Of The Myopic Ophthalmologist.


http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=rand_paul_practicing_medicine


"Most ophthalmologists become certified through the American Board of Ophthalmologists, a national professional organization that is recognized by the American Medical Association and the ABMS. As Roth chronicles, Paul apparently set up an alternative certification organization in response to a change in rules at the ABO that forced younger doctors to recertify every 10 years, while older doctors were grandfathered in with lifetime credentials. (A variety of certification boards adopted time-limited certification in the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to the ABMS. Today, all board certifications are time-limited.)

Interestingly, Paul dissolved his alternate board a year after it was founded, before reinstating it in 2005 -- the same year he allowed his ABO certification to expire. It is unclear if Paul has been certified by his own board.

Paul's work as a physician has been central to his campaign; indeed, the second paragraph of his election bio concerns his work: "Dr. Paul and his family live in Bowling Green, where Rand has practiced medicine and performed eye surgery for 17 years. Rand owns his own ophthalmology practice, which employs 3 full-time staff members." A call to Paul's campaign office was not immediately returned. "

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed.

Man, it's gonna' be a great day.

Posted by: etpietro | June 7, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"but arguably the answer with regard to a Title I claim might not be as clear as you assert."

You may be correct, but Title I clearly provides for undue hardship which is defined as an action that is "excessively costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business." In Paul's scenario he says that installing an elevator "threatens their economic viability" - I would think that would then qualify as an undue hardship.

The other thing I don't understand about Paul's argument is who is saying that they have to have an office on the second floor? Where does the ADA prohibit someone from having an office on the first floor? I can't figure out his point.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 7, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Shorter etpietro: SCREW DISABLED PEOPLE! HAHA YEAH!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 7, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

All, looks like Helen Thomas is a goner:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/helen_thomas_wont_hold_her_sea.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 7, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

@etpietro : If R. Paul wins in Kentucky, it only proves what Mencken said applies to residents of that state:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Any candidate for federal office that won't do interviews with the national press obviously has a lot to hide from voters. Rand Paul has said some pretty outrageous things. He needs to straightforwardly say what his stance is on amending or interpreting civil rights legislation, the ADA, states rights, the government's ability to make war on another country, the federal reserve and the gold standard for starters, or he will be rightfully defined by his former statements. I can't wait to see the debates with Paul in them. Get the popcorn.

Posted by: srw3 | June 7, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

etpietro - Is "cackling" what you do? Shrill, foolish...

v.trans.: 1. To make the shrill cry characteristic of a hen after laying an egg.
2. To laugh or talk in a shrill manner.
v.tr.
To utter in cackles: cackled a sarcastic reply.
n.
1. The act or sound of cackling.
2. Shrill laughter.
3. Foolish chatter.

You own the description.

Posted by: habari2 | June 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"The reason we had slavery in the United States is because it was written into the Constitution."

That is quite incorrect, and in fact nearly the exact opposite of the truth. We had slavery because the Constitution did not address it in any meaningful way at all. It was a very contentious issue which the founders essentially decided to ignore in order to get a constitution that could be ratified. There are only three places in which the topic of slavery is even remotely touched upon. First, in the 3/5ths clause, which was not an endorsement of slavery, but rather a compromise simply recoginizing the fact of its existence. Second, in the fugitve slave clause, in which the laws of one state were prohibited from invalidating "service or labor" required under the laws of another state, a clause which obivously anticipates conflicting laws regarding slavery. And third, in the clause allowing Congress to ban the importation of slaves beginning in 1808.

That's it. No where in the constitution was slavery "written into it".

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 7, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

for joesmithdefend:

Challenging is fine; doing it stupidly is, well, just stupid. There is nothing in the law that keeps a business from giving an employee a ground floor office - Randy's piece suggests his "solution" is an alternative to the law.

And the meaning of your moniker - are you joe smith defending the defenseless, like Randy Paul, or are you defending joe smith, whoever that is?

Here are some reasonable questions:
1) What if the firm is only on a single upper story with no 1st floor office? - what is Randy's "solution" there?
2) Who owns the building - the business hiring the disabled individual or do they lease from the owner - and who is responsible for making the building accommodating?
3) If the business is quite small, they might be hiring by word of mouth for a variety of reasons. If hiring by word of mouth, they won't interview disabled people unless they can handle the situation.
4) I doubt most disabled people would hit a small business in a small building with such a costly renovation compared to the revenues of the businesses or the value of the building. If they did, a lot of judges would likely throw the case out.

Randy's example is quite silly but great for rallying around the self-pitiers who like to come up with all these scenarios that are more unlikely and less important than the bubbles they like to ride until they burst.

Posted by: swatter | June 7, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed."

- etpietro

and what will you say if they lose?

Posted by: vigor | June 7, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Folks;

It is Kentucky, where Crazy Leaders Are Exalted:

Ron Paul is a perfect Kentucky replacement for Jim Bunning.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's muzzle must be slipping, someone notify Mitch McConnell.

Smoking in restaurants? Now there's a cause whose time has come. With smoking at its lowest in population and esteem and even many smokers glad to be able to eat a meal without getting a headache, Rand Paul wants to bring back hanging clouds of tobacco haze.

Paul, why don't you stop shooting yourself in the foot and just shoot yourself in the mouth and get it over with.

Smoking stinks. So does Rand Paul.

Posted by: Noacoler | June 7, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh, forgot to mention additions to Randy's example.

Imagine a business with a sidewalk in front: wouldn't it be cheaper to have an office in the street under a tent than to FORCE the business to put a ramp in the sidewalk? (oh, that's right, that wouldn't be the business owner's responsibility)

Imagine a business with stairs leading up to the front door. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a shed for the disabled worker at the bottom of the stairs than to build a ramp to access the office? Office meetings could be held outside to accommodate the disabled person, or a virtual connection.

An outdoor window-washer type lift might be the cheapest solution, and kind of fun for everyone in the office.

Posted by: swatter | June 7, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Paul continues to shoot himself in the foot. Cost cutting by reducing the military does not go over well in KY. The Tea Party is the gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats. I thought if he would stop shooting himself and win, now I believe he will lose a very conservative state to the Democrats. Crist (where does he caucus) will win over Rubio and getting rid of Lowden possibly will have Reid retain his seat. Other than beating flawed candidates running horrible campaigns (Deeds and Coakley) the only win the GOP can point to is beating the investment banker Corzine in NJ. Hoffman in NY23 lost for being a flawed candidate, that seat I think will go to the GOP in the next election.

Posted by: jameschirico | June 7, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

so he's a shallow empty suit. what a shocker

Posted by: SDJeff | June 7, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The exception to the rule has in itself an exception which makes the example which does not invalidate Mr. Rand's example, though it still remains an unlikely scenario. Those of you calling him a liar are strictly incorrect.

However, Mr. Rand was stating an example, a bad one perhaps, about the overreaching use of governance in the private sector by the way of the ADA. This is still a very true problem with the ADA guidleines (which typically get codified and enforced by the states).

I am an architect that has to deal with the requirements of these laws on a daily basis. While I don't have a problem with accomodating the disabled, the ADA is a very poor way to go about it. What has occured is that the judgement of design proffessionals has been subjugated by a set of one-size-fits-all requirements that do not deal very well with the reality of specific building circumstances.

A tremendous amount of time, energy, and money is consumed trying to accomodate requirements that frequently defy common sense when applied to specific buildings. The agencies involved in reviewing building plans are ruthlessly strict and are seldom moved by practical arguments. The rules are oddly very strict yet also very vague. In the course of designing a building there are frequently questions that arise of the applicability of the laws that leave room for interpretation which leaves the designer, owner, and constructor at the mercy of enforcement officials who, as stated above, are ruthlessly strict but also may vary in interpretation from one agent to the next.

Much of the ADA seems to formulated in such a way to create opportunity for lawsuits as much as it is for accomodating the disabled. I don't really follow Mr. Rand very much, but I agree that the ADA legislation has caused a great deal of additional expense and abuse to the private sector unnecessarily. I see it quite frequently as a design proffessional. Who do you really want designing your buildings? Architects and engineers who have spent years training in the practice or Washington politicians?

Posted by: hgm011 | June 7, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

After Rand Paul becomes their next US Senator:

To honor him, they are going to adopt a new state motto on their license plates:

Kentucky: We Don;t Need No Stinkin' Sanity.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

And DNA evidence makes it clear, that some people have been falsely convicted of murder, but Rand still supports the death penalty.

Rand is very selective, about which rare exceptions bother him, enough to want to change the laws.

He can live with wrongful executions, but not the wrongful installation of a business elevator.

He is a nut job.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 7, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Just imagine... he and the Swag-Hag speaking together in the same room about the same subject??? What would it be.... maybe puppies??....maybe granola?... maybe how to build a ghetto fence??... maybe what kind of binoculars can be used to see far, far away like Russia from Kentucky??... who knows??

You can bet your last three bucks that the IQ in whatever room they inhabited together, would be less than a bag of BB's....

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | June 7, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Randy Ru Paul continuing to float this debunked scenario is just like Sarah Palin continuing to float her Bridge to Nowhere lies long after they were fully debunked as well.

Tea tards of a feather...

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 7, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

To hgm011:

I sympathize with your predicament and understand generally that different buildings might warrant different solutions, but your suggestion to let the professionals do what they know how to do ignores the unfortunate reality that many will not do what is necessary - we see clear examples of that in the finance industry and oil industry. Perhaps rewriting the rules with more industry involvement to improve them and promote consistency would help, but just as individual architects differ, officials will differ also, even with better rules. It's probably also not possible to regulate consistently and at the same time accommodate all possible scenarios.

Posted by: swatter | June 7, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"That's it. No where in the constitution was slavery "written into it"."

Yet, you noted 3 nstances where it WAS written into the Constitution, albeit in politically correct language b/c they knew even as they did it, that slavery was abhorrent. Not to mention that the 13th Am (the one outlawing slavery) would be a waste of time otherwise.

You want to know where Rand Paul would have stood on slavery antebellum: Just read Justice Taney in Dred Scott. Slaves are property and property rights are above all. Even though "property" is mentioned only once in the Constitution and only that if the federal government "takes" property from a private citizen it must provide compensation. The rest of thee claptrap about the Const and the sanctity of private property, upon which Paul's entire philosophy is based, is ... well, claptrap.

It's very easy to say today what you would have done 50 or 150 years ago. The question is where do you stand on matters of individual rights and liberties TODAY. No doubt, 20 years from now Rand Paul will be claiming that he "really" supported the ADA and no-smoking rules and food labeling. Rand Paul is a pseudo-intellectual and a coward who runs from history.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 7, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps rewriting the rules with more industry involvement to improve them and promote consistency would help"

Letting the oil companies write their own regulations didn't turn out so well.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 7, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

To Swatter:

I suggest that the way to handle it is not to create a massive multi-level bureacracy and enforcement structure, but to leave that ADAG design guidleines exactly as that, guidleines. Then leave it to the courts to determine that applicability or not. If a designer purposely deviates from the guidleines and creates a situation severe enough to create a lawsuit, let him defend himself and his proffesional decisions in court. The strictly enforced rules now hamper effective design solutions, add costs to buildings, and create opportunity for frivolous suits where strict compliance has not been obtained yet does not violate the intent of the law, which is to assist the disabled. I have seen many thousands of dollars of demolition ond rebuilding of new construction based on very minor construction tolerance deviations. The likelihood of a lot of this kind of re-work actually impacting the ability of a disabled person to use the facility is considerably less than the circumstances of Rand Paul's scenario.

As to your point #4 above, don't be to quick to dismiss the idea that there are people out there perfectly willing to hit all kinds of businesses with lawsuits. There are certainly lawyers willing to try and judges willing to hear the cases. This again comes from teh fact the the laws are explicit in their requirements yet difficult to comply with or properly interpret in reality. I would be far better to remove the strict compliance of the rules and allow the courts to hear cases where actual damage or denial of service occurs and let the designers and owners justify their deviance. I trust our jury system to make sense of the case and judge fairly.

Posted by: hgm011 | June 7, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed.

Man, it's gonna' be a great day.

Posted by: etpietro
-------------

Here is the essence of today's conservative politics. To the conservative, politics is not a means to help the country, or help the citizens. It is a means to make people one dislikes feel bad. It's vindictive, petty, and has a main purpose of inflicting defeat on one's enemies (who happen to be fellow Americans).

For etpietro, the answer to "why would it be a good thing for Rand Paul to be elected?" would have nothing to do with policy, governance, etc; rather the answer is "because it gives the finger to liberals."

Posted by: hitpoints | June 7, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Frederick Douglass is spelled with two "s"es, Mr Rand.

Posted by: jbison | June 7, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Paul makes sense. Liberals don't.

Posted by: thebump | June 7, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 wrote:

O/T

U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher#ixzz0qAqw6ZuR

==============================

Mr. Manning appears to need a dictionary so that he comes to the proper understanding of whistle-blower.

A whistleblower exposes corruption. An idiot exposes clandestine operations that may not have turned out as well as expected.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | June 7, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

""Perhaps rewriting the rules with more industry involvement to improve them and promote consistency would help"

Letting the oil companies write their own regulations didn't turn out so well."

This actually works fairly well with most building codes. The model codes are written by industry experts and are adopted by local authorities with the ability to modify the model codes to suit their particular region. While I don't always agree with the content of the codes (for the same reason as I dislike the ADA) at least with building codes you can deal with local authorities and it is a lot easier getting an exemption to deal with the nuances of a particular circumstance.

The debate about more regulation vs. less regulation really stems from a host of other debates; wether or not you trust people to do the right thing or not, the belief that you can prevent bad things from happening vs. dealing with the situation when bad things do happen, governments are more expert at industry better than the industries themselves, etc.

My experience with governments (and I have been and still am a government contractor) is that they are too large, inflexible, and actually become more concerned with their own processes, procedures and structure than they are with the people they are supposed to be serving. There is also a huge distortion effect on the marketplace when governments attempt to regulate them. These distortions often create the circumstances by which disreputable companies thrive in.

Do private industries do bad things? Sure, it happens, but the marketplace will take care of those with bad practices eventually. A marketplace distorted by governance can actually create protected abuse such as the case with Fannie/Freddie.

I would rather have less regulation and let the courts and juries here cases where actaul damages occur and let the merits of the accusation and defense be heard. It is far better than trapping people in byzantine rules where predatory lawyers find plentiful hunting grounds. At least with private industries, there is recourse when there is a failure. With governments what can you do? Voting out politicians? We do this on a regular basis yet the problems with government still exist. Good luck trying to hold a federal agency responsible for failures. Remember all of the criticism of FEMA during Katrina, yet here we are with the BP oil spill and where is FEMA? Fannie and Freddie? Business as usual it seems.

Posted by: hgm011 | June 7, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed.

Man, it's gonna' be a great day.

Posted by: etpietro
-------------

Here is the essence of today's conservative politics. To the conservative, politics is not a means to help the country, or help the citizens. It is a means to make people one dislikes feel bad. It's vindictive, petty, and has a main purpose of inflicting defeat on one's enemies (who happen to be fellow Americans).

For etpietro, the answer to "why would it be a good thing for Rand Paul to be elected?" would have nothing to do with policy, governance, etc; rather the answer is "because it gives the finger to liberals."

Posted by: hitpoints | June 7, 2010 2:07 PM
====================================

All conservatives are not built the same. This isn't bloods vs. crips gang warfare. This is America, and what is best for "we the people" needs to be hashed out amongst our delegates and put into place.

If the majority of KY voters lean toward a "southern sympathizer" and vote for Rand Paul, he should be welcomed into the debate and treated professionally, and I would in no way be surprised that history has repeated itself.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | June 7, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed.

Man, it's gonna' be a great day.

Posted by: etpietro
-------------

Here is the essence of today's conservative politics. To the conservative, politics is not a means to help the country, or help the citizens. It is a means to make people one dislikes feel bad. It's vindictive, petty, and has a main purpose of inflicting defeat on one's enemies (who happen to be fellow Americans).

For etpietro, the answer to "why would it be a good thing for Rand Paul to be elected?" would have nothing to do with policy, governance, etc; rather the answer is "because it gives the finger to liberals."

Posted by: hitpoints | June 7, 2010 2:07 PM
====================================

All conservatives are not built the same. This isn't bloods vs. crips gang warfare. This is America, and what is best for "we the people" needs to be hashed out amongst our delegates and put into place.

If the majority of KY voters lean toward a "southern sympathizer" and vote for Rand Paul, he should be welcomed into the debate and treated professionally, and I would in no way be surprised that history has repeated itself.
__________________________________________

Just to add my 2 cents. Too much politics now seems to be spitefull and out of the desire to inflict suffering on "the other side". That said if Mr. Paul is elected the choice of KY voters of course must be treated with respect. But Mr. Paul's arguments are woefully lacking in logic and facts. Poor arguments are not deserving of respect or equal time. They need to be disposed off quickly so good arguments may flourish. When errors are pointed out and arguments refuted they need to be left behind. Not peddled to sympathetic ears as if they're valid as long as you agree with the arguers overall philosphy. That's called propaganda and propagates lazy thinking.

Posted by: kchses1 | June 7, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

What is it with the rabid Right and making things up? Do they all go to a class somewhere to learn the technique? Or are they born that way to compensate for the lack of brains?

Posted by: AverageJane | June 7, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

kchses1,

"Too much politics now seems to be spitefull and out of the desire to inflict suffering on "the other side".

I agree with you on this. Partisan politics has gotten to be too much like rooting for your favorite team regardless of what the management and players are doing behind the locker room doors.

"But Mr. Paul's arguments are woefully lacking in logic and facts. Poor arguments are not deserving of respect or equal time."

I would disagree that his argument in THIS particular case (ADA) is lacking, only that the facts of his example are not very well suited to make his case. Not a smart tactic, but then it is hardly unique to Mr. Paul to use a bad example. You call it what it is and move on, as you said.

and to the poster hitpoints, I see a lot of rather pointless petty ranting from the left side of this thread as well. Pot meet kettle?

Posted by: hgm011 | June 7, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If elected, the simplicity of mind that Paul brings to serious policy issues is a further guarantee of China's ascent and the demise of the US. Reduce taxes, maintain entitlements, complete laisez faire and keep on borrowing from China, and if China refuses, there is always India, I suppose. A very sad commentary on American politics. Which is more serious, too much central planning or too much democracy?

Posted by: colon1 | June 7, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul can claim he's "Tea Party" all he wants, but he talks like the business-as-usual Republican politician. It just the same old procedure of repeating untruths long after they've been shown to be lies: Bush/Cheney's WMDs, "swiftboating", we're winning in Iraq, etc. Don't be fooled; he's just more of the same.

Posted by: jaynashvil | June 7, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

TO: thebump
“Paul makes sense. Liberals don't.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Between psychos, all of you make sense to one another.

Now don’t complain when people call you a racist.


Posted by: lindalovejones | June 7, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I would disagree that his argument in THIS particular case (ADA) is lacking, only that the facts of his example are not very well suited to make his case. Not a smart tactic, but then it is hardly unique to Mr. Paul to use a bad example. You call it what it is and move on, as you said.

and to the poster hitpoints, I see a lot of rather pointless petty ranting from the left side of this thread as well. Pot meet kettle?

__________________________________________

I agree with the last point.

I think the proper point that Mr. Paul and others need to make isn't that the ADA shouldn't be inficting these conditions on business'. Taken as a single law it has a logical point similiar to other anti-discrimination laws in that lack of access to work or commerce prevents people from fully participating in society and that it is the proper place of gov't to guarantee such access (not success but access). Nor that it's provisions are especially onerous. I suspect they aren't and one would be hard pressed to find many examples of how they put someone out of business. But that the sum total of these laws and regulations have gotten to the point where in the life of our country's economic maturity that we are approaching the point where we can no longer afford the small incremental costs that we once could easiy afford. That is a different argument but one I think we need to start considering.

Posted by: kchses1 | June 7, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Paul appears to be an eye doctor who doesn't use his eyes to read what the laws he attacks actually state. He suffers from a disability of impotent thinking.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | June 7, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is the fraternal twin of Sarah Palin. They share one brain, full of ignorance and mouth!

Posted by: Maerzie | June 7, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

He's an idiot but smart enough to tie into the long-standing GOP ploy of just making stuff up and blindly claiming it to be true regardless of all logic.

Like Palin, Rand Paul has a fart for a brain.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | June 7, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

kchses1 writes:
"...But that the sum total of these laws and regulations have gotten to the point where in the life of our country's economic maturity that we are approaching the point where we can no longer afford the small incremental costs that we once could easiy afford. That is a different argument but one I think we need to start considering."
--------------------------------------------------------

As in the recent BP blowout?

As industries become more complex, and/or as industries become less and less influenced by consumer decisions (re: health care), regulation not only props up the capitalist system but occasionally must augment weak demand-side effects on product quality and often is the sole influence pushing social costs not captured by capitalism.

It's "inefficient", if by inefficient one means, the allocation of resources to produce a service. But even the most cursory of historical study shows that it remains vital if we as people care more about society than simply efficient transfer of funds into goods regardless of the effect on workers, those living near factories, etc.

Hgm011 points out how annoying and inflexible ADA regulation is, and it's possible that it can be improved upon without falling into a rubber stamp process; but it's still significantly better than no regulation at all for those who need wheelchair ramps, etc.

Posted by: iamweaver | June 7, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

hgm011: you suggest that the ADA is a case of overregulating, and that the courts should be trusted to resolve the really important issues. The ADA is hardly perfect, especially when it comes to older buildings that have to be brought in to compliance at later dates, but as to new construction, it hasn't been much of an obstacle to a thriving construction industry over the last couple decades, so where's the problem? I don't see the courts involved in any significant ADA lawsuits in recent years, so it must be working out just fine.

You can't just let the courts handle it. Without a law establishing a right, there's nothing for the court to enforce or interpret. A vague standard would be a nightmare. You couldn't build anything with the uncertainty that it would be found by a court to violate the law at some later date and have to be torn down. ADA compliance can be ascertained during the permitting phase. That's not possible in a court of law, so again, nothing could be built, or financed, if its legality could only be determined in some potential lawsuit brought at some unknown time in the future.

that's the problem I see with most libertarian nonsense. they give us attractive slogans, but their alternatives are unworkable and absurd. ideological purity elevated over practicality, workability, or even tolerability. Paul would have told blacks in Nashville that the government had no business making the lunch counters serve them. He thinks they would have done that on their own if given just a bit more time. They hadn't for decades, so why would anyone think it wouldn't take decades longer? Blacks should elevate libertarian principles over the right to eat lunch in public for decades? absurd.

Posted by: JoeT1 | June 7, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

One thing is for sure what ever Rand thinks its much better than what the idiot's in the white house are doing i can't believe the stupidity and imcompetsnce of the Obama administration.

Posted by: samuellenn | June 7, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Like father, like son. As usual, Paul's unrealistic rambling fails to mask his being a mouthpiece for the ugliest in big business. His lies and distortions are failed attempts to mask his racism, oppostion to basic rights for people with disabilities, and economic justice for Americans who are not in the elite.

Posted by: revbookburn | June 7, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

lol. Washington Post and Think Progress: the tag team of stupid tries to take down leading-Conway-in-every-poll-since-December-2009-and-outraising-him-too Rand Paul. Better have the hankies ready in November because y'all leftist loons are completely out of touch with Kentucky.

Posted by: d35820 | June 7, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

How about the government regulating women's bodies? How about the government requiring your kids to profess they belief in God? How about the government telling you who you can marry? How about the government telling what you can drink or smoke in the privacy of your own home?

Come on Rand Paul! Say it loud and say it Proud! Pro-choice? Anti-Prayer in school? Pro-Gay marriage? Pro-Drug legalization?

Or are we talking about a nuanced position??

Posted by: thebobbob | June 7, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Apart from the point made by Sargent there is another thing about Rand Paul that strikes you forcefully when you watch the clips of him on YouTube. The man is a terrible bore.

Posted by: diving6 | June 7, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Oil firms would not be as profitable without the many tax subsidies, tax exemptions, and other such actions that Tea Bag Terrorists like Rand Paul support.

It's time to end all such corporate subsides and disallow all the corporate exemptions for Big Oil.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 7, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is a libertarian like most others. Interested in protecting his liberties and no one else's.
This thinking was prevalent about 150 yrs ago, but as a country and a society we chose to change our ways for the better.
It is heartening to know that his way of thinking is now such a small part of our discussions, that it is rightly treated as peculiar.

Posted by: challuch | June 7, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

High unlikely but not improbable.

Posted by: batman267
_______________________________
Now THAT'S what American English has come to. Highly unlikely = very improbable. Not improbable = probable, or at least not unlikely. Do you have any idea of what you're writing?

Posted by: luridone | June 7, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I am going to be cackling with delight next November as Rand Paul becomes a U.S. Senator and all of the loons here -- including the biggest loon of all Greg Sargent -- engage in much weeping and gnashing of teeth that their attempts to smear him completely failed.

Man, it's gonna' be a great day.

Posted by: etpietro | June 7, 2010 11:45 AM
________________________________
If Paul becomes a Senator from Kentucky, all it's going to do is embarrass the people of Kentucky, and thoughtless lunatics like you, who champion the stupid and the intolerant.

Posted by: luridone | June 7, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

What is it with the rabid Right and making things up? Do they all go to a class somewhere to learn the technique? Or are they born that way to compensate for the lack of brains?

Posted by: AverageJane | June 7, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

__________________________________________

We all do it as children to get what we want. Some of us are admonished for it and learn the "golden rule".

Others like Paul are encouraged to continue on with this behavior by parents who see absolutely nothing wrong with saying anything to get their way, or to enrich themselves.

Posted by: challuch | June 7, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"One thing is for sure what ever Rand thinks its much better than what the idiot's in the white house are doing i can't believe the stupidity and imcompetsnce of the Obama administration.

"Posted by: samuellenn | June 7, 2010 6:28 PM"

Using words like "stupidity" when you can't even spell "incompetence", or correctly use a capital "I" when referring to yourself, or forgetting the elitist apostrophe if using the contraction for "it is", or using the elitist singular apostrophe for the plural "idiot's", does nothing positive for your pro-Rand Paul gibberish.

Posted by: kingcranky | June 7, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

40 lashes for myself in using "idiot's" when I meant "idiots".

See, that's the danger of Rand Paul, the stupidity is contagious.

Posted by: kingcranky | June 7, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

The problem with "small government" "Libertarians" like Rand Paul, Ayan Rand, et al. is that they refuse to distinguish the difference between being a PRIVATE CITIZEN having personal and private THOUGHTS about issues and the government, ON THE ONE HAND, and being PART of the federal government (as Rand Paul wants to be) and VIEWING its federal roles vis-a-vis PRIVATE individuals, BUSINESSES, institutions and other such entities as GENERAL SOCIETAL issues (of legal, civil, and personal nature) that must have oversight, ON THE OTHER HAND...

Otherwise, if you don't believe the federal government has any oversight role in society, why do you --- Rand Paul --- believe in living IN a society anyway, where people come to your eye surgery clinic with FEDERALLY subsidized insurance/payment plans?

Shouldn't you live like a man without any recognition of these artificially constructed and instituted and ENFORCED conventions, laws, norms, etc. that all CIVILIZED SOCIETIES put in place?

I

Posted by: HerLao | June 7, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I was a volunteer for an organization in Austin, Texas whose purpose was to make cultural events more accessible to the handicapped.
One part of the organization’s effort was to work with theaters, museums etc. to try to make sure there were, for example, handicap accessible and usable bathrooms.

The effort was to balance the needs of th handicapped with the reality of the building or site.
There are, incidentally, all sorts of grants and loans from private gifts to government loans and grants available for just this sort of thing.

After all driving a small museum or theater out of business does not make it "more accessible."

The kind of logic and example that Rand is using proves he doesn't know diddly about how the act is implemented in the real world.

It might be added that most commercial multistory buildings have freight elevators already.

Posted by: MarBarton | June 7, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

The ADA has greatly improved the lives of millions of Americans with very little cost to society. Accessibility requirements are clear, straightforward and logical. Paul is certainly wrong about the details of the law, but he isn't a lawyer.

I'm more concerned about the general libertarian philosophy he is talking about. If the government can't tell businesses that they can't discriminate as to who can get into their stores, then why should the government have the right or legal authority to tell drug companies, food growers and oil companies what is safe? Libertarian philosophy is interesting and fun to talk about, but the practicalities of whether, for example, the government should provide police and fire services seem to confuse the pure libertarian who considers all government activity outside of military defense suspect.

In truth, it is amusing that both libertarians and communists share a blind sided devotion to a political philosophy even though they are nearly often at opposite polls. Paul is an example of someone who forms a conclusion and then chooses the facts that supports his philosophy; that's backwards.

Posted by: bw1951 | June 7, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

The truth is that many politicians, legislators and even judges have distort the disabilities act and making difficult for the Community of People with Disabilities. The community has to stay alert on these papers of opinions between government and the private sector. The fact is that the idealism of Martin Luther King does not accommodate to the realities that the Community of People with Disabilities still face today. Business should step up to face responsibilities but I do not agree to use the National Professional Certification in Customer Service from the National Retailer Foundation to test Children's in areas that the Children are not expose at school level yet. Shouldn't we think about the economic viability of consumers who do not any fancy loophole? Small Business can declare much of these expenses on their book as an investment and they can declare them to on income taxes.

Posted by: ecurra19 | June 8, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company