[kj] New Interview with Jaz Wherein He Discourses at Length on a Variety ...

[sade1]

Context and our proven human/cultural/ethnic tendencies here are everything: 
America.

Fire may be bad, it may be good, may be used to create warmth BUT you never give 
the Pyro the Zippo. 


The only time you wink-wink & a nod-nod for the pyro to be given the Zippo is if 
you want his Pyromanic ass to have the Zippo, and of course it will always be in 
a way that provides such enabler overly-intellectualized plausible deniability:
                             "What, me? Oh no, i never thought he'd starta fire 
- again. Nooo... I just thought he should have the same right to, and the actual 
hands-on empowerment therefrom, owning a Zippo, like everyone else. (what can be 
wrong with that?). I'm innocent." 


And the media did jump on it, at least the tv morning news shows, the BBC tv 
news here in US, on En Contexto (tv), online it was Cnn, Msnbc, BBC, Guardian, 
Truthout, ReaderSupportedNews, and i think it may even have appeared on Deutsche 
Welle news.
It got coverage, alright. And I don't recall nor even inferred from the whole 
mess that it was ever dismissed as a non-issue.


________________________________
From: "Devacor at aol.com" <Devacor at aol.com>
To: gathering at misera.net
Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 6:12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] New Interview with Jaz Wherein He Discourses at Length on a 
Variety ...


Libertarians are for limited gov't
Which is why Ron and Rand support our lobbying efforts for small farms/organics 
as they believe gov't doesn't needing to be hypermandating farms- farmers know 
how to farm. 


Same goes for business- they are against hyper mandating and regulation- in this 
instance they arent for affirmative action. Which the initial reaction to that  
is it may seem racist or good ol' boy- but its just saying that gov't should 
stay out of the process and businesses should be able to hire the best person 
they see fit for the job. 

 I can see up and downs with both- downside with aff action is possibly hiring 
people for jobs who arent the most qualified for the position and it 
'discriminates' against a more qualified individual- downside of no regulation 
is that it could turn into (race/sex) discrimination. 


If I don't recall  the media jumped all over this, but after it was actually 
explained out it turned into a non issue. 




 
In a message dated 4/8/2011 7:32:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
saulomar1 at yahoo.com writes:
There's that interview where he elliptically asserts that whatever the civil 
rights laws, that (private) business should not be bound by them and should be 
able to discriminate (for and) against the public as they, um, "see fit." Taking 
it to its logical conclusion, anything but anything private that is categorized 
as "for profit" in some way can thus be considered a commercial interest and 
will thus be empowered to DISCRIMINATE. 


>

>Can't remember his other positions, but  can look into this even more.

>

>D'oh! did I say discriminate? I think he may have wanted us all to hear-think 

>"discern." Ha! 

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20110408/7147526c/attachment.html>