Thank you, Bush the first for signing it. (See? When confronted with the facts, I can play nice…)
Thank you Tom Harkin and all legislators that voted for it.
Without it, I wouldn’t have been able to keep my first health insurance job, or get the others…thus literally saving my husband’s and my ‘financial’ lives, at a time when that was vital.
Without it’s indirect influence I would not have visited accessible theaters, both film and live, accessible libraries, museums, church sanctuaries…some had to get accessible because of this law and some saw the writing on the wall and did it themselves.
But, 20 years later I still I live in an apartment complex that has still denied me a bar in the bathroom. Previous buildings also denied it.
(here’s hoping I get a positive answer from apartment buildings already set up that way.)
And Rand Paul? I wonder…if you ever became a wheelchair user thru accident or illness, would you quietly agree to work on the first floor of a building without an elevator or quietly listen to a play in the theater lobby?
I. Think. Not.
If I was in the room with you now, wherever you are, I’d tell you in no uncertain terms to shut your lousy face about the ADA (Except I’d use curse words. And be unrepentant about them.)
And Mr. Jeb Bush? You may be the GOP Dauphin and all that, but I’d imagine your father is a bit peeved at you for supporting a guy who spits on something your father signed.
Trust, but verify. That’s what I’ve been trying to do this evening regarding Rand Paul and his views on the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. After Rachel Maddow’s takedown of the gentleman, It’s taken me nearly three hours to find an original interview that she may have based her assertions on. but I have found it…It’s very, um, illuminating. Listen on through to the end. Link is here if you cannot see the video
And, from CNN, His Democratic party opponent Mr. Conway, puts Paul back in his place, at the video linked at CNN (you may need to allow cookies for session if you want to see the video link. ) I’m quite comfortable saying that I figure Rand Paul himself on a day to day basis would be courteous to any constituent affected if he actually had the power to make the above laws dissapear.
And, lets be fair. Mr. Paul has said that he agrees with a legislative solution to discrimination, as long as it’s the big bad government that has enacted laws or policies that foster discrimination.
I’m also quite comfortable saying that I believe that up in Washington, where all he’d have to deal with is his own ideology, rather than a trip back in time to: “We’ve decided not to serve your kind here…” he’d push for the modification of these laws to protect private discrimination. He wants, he says, to protect the rights of private business owners. A *consequence* of what he says he wants to protect is the sanction of private discrimination. You own a grocery. Minorities, gay people and gimps want to patronize you. But, it’s more important to you to make an example of your deeply held views on private ownership, than to take their money. So, in order to show that you own what you own and government interference be damned you refuse them. To show that you can, and are allowed to do so per your interpretation of our system of government.
You own a haircut joint. You own a bar. You own a fitness center. A party hall. You get to decide who can patronize it. Never mind that it’s the nearest such place to a minority, gay, or gimpy customer..(or any other group you find a reason to ban )
Mr. Paul states that he, being a decent guy, has accessibility features that would permit the visit of a constituent with disabilities. He suggests moving a new hire with disabilities to an office on the first floor rather than installing a 100,000 elevator. But having been the victim of an apartment complex that *wouldn’t* move me to the first floor when the single elevator in my building developed a serious ongoing malfunction (and yes, like his hypothetical elevator, the management whined to me that it would take 100K to fix. ) I don’t take kindly to that simplistic illustration.
Mr. Paul, the reason we wrote these laws is that not everyone is…decent.
Private enterprise (Insurance Companies? Banks? Oil Companies, Mining companies, Big Pharma) have shown time and time and time again that most of them will not self-correct for decency’s sake if left to their own devices. Legislation is therefore in order. Some of them (allegedly) cause death in the course of their day to day business, and only correct after the fact.
There’s your freedom.
And Mr. Paul, lets take this down to street level for a moment.
If you became disabled…
Would you calmly accept a business owner’s denying you access to a business that you feel you *need* to frequent, never mind one that’s just a *want* to frequent.
I’d bet you wouldn’t. But I’d also bet that you’d *buy and build your own* similar business, rather than publicly admit to a change of heart on your ideas re: legislation on civil rights.
That’s what you need to truly understand the disturbing nature of this argument.
You know what? I’m out of freakin’ adjectives. I can’t be decent, so I’ll be offensive, (watchers, take your hand away from food and soda)
He just makes me puke.
Update: I inadvertently deleted a comment from this blogger with an opposing viewpoint, because it had listed twice, so in order that they be heard, I’m reposting the comment here, and linking to his site.
His comment here read as follows:
Indeed private businesses, organizations and individuals should be able to create rules for or refuse service to whomever they choose. That includes allowing or refusing service to those that are white, black, brown, gay, straight, handicapped, obese, retarded, cross dressing, transsexual or whatever type of irrelevant characteristic you can conjure up. Not only that but they should be able to allow or refuse smoking, guns, dogs, drugs or anything else on their private property. At the same time, all competing businesses should have the right to do the exact opposite to attract those that don’t approve. If the offending business can’t attract enough customers, then they go out of business. That is how freedom works. Maddow can’t seem to fathom anything other than the use of violence (government) to force her subjective views on everyone else. What an evil excuse for a human being.
Updated above to linkback to CNN video of Paul’s Democratic opponent response.
First, I’ll list what I do give inagural planners a pass on:
They cannot guarantee enough accessible viewing spaces because there is no way to estimate how many people with disabilities will be attending…
That being said, there is a major difference between ‘You may be turned away because all available accessible viewing spots are full,” and, “We had to stop accomodating at some point and well, I guess you folks will be faced with several large obstacles standing between you and attending this historic event…so your best informed choice may be staying home….separate from the rest.
Word is that security concerns mean that people with impairment or disability who wish to attend the inaguration are being advised that there will be no accessible parking, closed roads and bridges, uneven grassy pavement (At the mall)...while there will be two drop off points for people with disabilities they are far from their designated seating (meaning blocks away)
Other bloggers have brought this up, and my concern is the bigger picture…
If any other minority was facing a similar type of hurdle (limited access with some features or setups actually working against them) there would be an outcry.
I hear *crickets*
One simple and innovative solution to the drop off point issue mentioned by another blogger, would be to obtain, security sweep and security clear some accessible busses to move people from the original drop off point to the accessible seating….and the answer seems to have been “its hard.”
Of *course* change of any kind is hard.
It’s what you folks campaigned on and what you are striving for.
ADA doesn’t get suspended just because *its hard.”
No one should be encouraged to stay home because ‘it’s hard.”
to hit myself over the head with so I can just forget I read this…
…this “opinion” in the LA times
Let the economy adjust
By Steven E. Landsburg
Our assigned topic for today is, “What’s wrong with this economy?” My answer is, the same things that are always wrong with it: bloated government, a badly designed tax system and an excess of regulation.
Addressing those fundamental problems would do far more good than shuffling a bunch of checks around. If you really think the economy needs a jump-start, let’s try suspending the Americans with Disabilities Act for a year.
What always cracks my *** up about this sort of idiocy is it always comes from people who think the ADA will never apply to them or help them.
*Anyone* is one serious car accident away from being a new quadriplegic, who could, perhaps, have the career they had pre-accident…*If the ADA as originally written* was available to them.
When will these turkeys get it? Impairment isn’t blue/red, conservative/liberal or beholden to any ideological position.
Everyone needs the ADA, because they could lose opportunity to work, an existing job, or the place they *live* without it.
The main reason for opposition to the ADA comes from those who just refuse to imagine it could happen to them.
Thankfully, there is a counterpoint paragraph in the op ed which reads:
Stimulus doesn’t stop adjustment
By Jason Furman
…We can debate whether the economy is slipping into recession or about to rebound. We can debate whether the best tools are for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates or Congress and the president to apply fiscal stimulus. And we can debate the most effective forms of fiscal stimulus. But to argue that the downturn could be solved by temporarily permitting discrimination against people with disabilities is just daft.
Thank God, a bit of sanity.
Blame the economic downturn on the ADA?
That first columnist best not come around for sympathy should he have a disabling accident.
for some great testimony from Thursday’s hearing.