START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Republican War on the Disabled


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: GOP Greed, InsaniTEA, Maddow, Schultz, UN, Video )

TomCat
- 501 days ago - politicsplus.org
See 1st comment.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

TomCat S. (285)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 8:08 am
In the late 1980s, in response to protests by disabled Americans, who demanded access to public places and services that the rest of us enjoy routinely, moderate Republicans had a great idea that came to fruition as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It worked so well, that the UN sought to make it the standard for the entire world. Sadly, moderate Republicans have no influence in the party today.
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 8:46 am

There are times when I am so proud of this country, this is not one of those times. I have spoken about this to many that have prepared excuses for this embarrassing vote, on the submission I have at Care2. The only excuse is obstinate, intractable partisanship. They have used this very important step to stand as a world leader to show just how stupid our Senators can be...shame on them. Thanks for keeping this issue alive, TomCat.
 

Kit B. (277)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 8:47 am

May I say that photograph of republican Senators, is PURRfect!
 

Sue H. (7)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 9:16 am
Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. There is No Excuse for this disgraceful vote. They are holding America Hostage for their petty school boy whims. Shame!
 

Arielle S. (313)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 10:22 am
The photo is funny - the GOP not so much. What a sorry bunch of hard-nosed, unfeeling dorks....heaven forbid they should ever have to experience being disabled in any way (other than mentally as they already are, that is)
 

Edwin M. (366)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 10:49 am
What a fitting photo, these clowns have absolutely no shame and the only thing they'll understand is to vote as many of them out as possible. Start preparing for 2014
 

Jim Phillips (3206)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 11:42 am
Disgusting behavior on the part of the g o p pukes / teabaggers in voting this issue down! They, republican lawmakers, on Tuesday blocked a treaty to protect people with disabilities from discrimination.

Unbelievable!

The cartoon is very appropriate!

Ty, Tom.
.
 

Dandelion G. (399)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 11:51 am
I hope the people in whose State they live remember this vote. This should of been a no brainer. This was a slap in the face to a frail Bob Dole in the wheelchair, the first President Bush, and a host of others both Republican and Democrat who worked on this issue.

We, the USA, who have asked the world to raise it's standards to ours, we, who would not of had spent one penny to have said yes to this, have failed a great many.

The USA who use to raise the standards high for others to emulate, who were, as VP Hubert H. Humphrey had once said, "that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Those who voted no to this lack in both morality and sanity. I've never seen such a heartless lot in all my life. They will throw children, Elders, and the disabled under the bus for their own pig headed stupidity. That two men, both with purple hearts, one wheelchair bound and the other standing pleading how correct and compassionate it was, and still these Heartless Ones voted it down. Disgusting and shameful, and as an American leaves a bitter taste in my mouth!



 

David C. (29)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 12:07 pm
To the two that was willing to stand up for this, may I say for all of us, Thank you, you have show us what a GOP used to be.
Can I hope that we can find time to send them a thank you card!
 

Chris C. (131)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 1:10 pm
I received a ridiculous email from Sen.Johannes (R - NE) stating he was one of 38 signers. The email contained a bunch of stupid "rhetoric" explaining why he signed. I replied to his email with one of my own - telling him what I thought of him! I also just got off the phone to his office! I'm SICK of living in a red state with a bunch of REPUG do-nothings! We're better than that here. (The only thing that gives me pride is that I live in the same city as Warren Buffett! We also are circulating a petition in NE to get rid of our Election Commissioner, one of the first to try to supress the vote here. ) The GOP is in it's death throes...but, please hurry!
 

Yvonne White (232)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 1:33 pm
Right on Dandelion! "We, the USA, who have asked the world to raise it's standards to ours, we, who would not of had spent one penny to have said yes to this, have failed a great many."

 

Gloria picchetti (279)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 1:42 pm
Well now Bob Dole can see what his party is really like! And how does he expect the veterans coming home to be treated?
 

Aaron Bouchard (109)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 1:52 pm
Noted thanks for sharing
 

Dandelion G. (399)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 2:18 pm
Just so everyone will know who the idiots are that didn't vote for this. Here is the list. Pay attention next time they would like to be re-elected. It didn't at all surprise me to see Florida's Rubio on there. Pay attention to this one, he is being groomed for a future run at the White House.
Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
And one who I hope was sick or perhaps a coward as they didn't vote at all.
Kirk (R-IL)
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 2:41 pm
Just because a person has a disability doesn't negate the fact that they have to qualify for the job just like anyone else. If a disabled person applied for a job in our office the first thing we would look at is his/her resume. If the resume didn't support the position we had available we wouldn't hire him/her.

I guess I'm missing the point. Disabled people shouldn't be hired for a job they clearly cannot execute. There should be no difference between a person who is not disabled and a person who is disabled.

It always comes down to common sense in the work place. Employers want to hire the right person for the position. If the position demanded that a person be on the phone all day and the disabled person had a hearing impairment then they simply wouldn't be the best candidate for the job.
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 2:42 pm
sorry, once again, I'm unable to "note" this thread....Care 2 glitch I suppose.
 

cecily w. (0)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 2:47 pm
Thanks, Dandelion G.
Just to clarify that a few Republican senators are not braindead and also have the guts to stand up to Heritage Action for America. Here are the Republican Senators who voted in favor of the treaty:
Ayotte (NH)
Barrasso (WY)
Brown (MA)
Collins (ME)
Lugar (IN)
McCain (AZ)
Markowski (AK)
Snowe (ME)
 

Dandelion G. (399)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 3:24 pm
Very good Cecily, only fair, is why Snowe is leaving politics, she was tired of dealing with so many in her Party that were off the deep end.
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 3:30 pm
Common sense needs to be administered on this thread.
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 3:39 pm
These 38 demonstrated their inhumanity and desire to vote based on misinformation provided by some of the media sources no teacher would permit be cited by any student as reliable beginning in about 7th grade--ADA covers building more than jobs--ability to get into a Social Security Office, for example, when in a wheelchair. ADA does require in jobs the person have the skills to do the job before an accommodation is required of the employer by law. It also applies to schools, so students in wheelchairs can go to school--public places access affects far more with disabilities than any other area of the ADA.
 

Thomas P. (459)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 3:57 pm
Noted. Diane O....I agree with several of your points, but also with this that you said....you are missing the point. The points you made are salient, but they aren't the issue. The Americans with Disabilities Act is already established law in the US. This was a treaty that was voted against for purely political reasons (i.e., fear of getting primaried by a teabagger). Very sad though that 5 more Repubs, including 5 who served with Senator Dole, didn't have the courage of their convictions to bring themselves to vote for this. How utterly disgraceful.
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 3:58 pm
Thank you.
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 4:02 pm
Good points Thomas. McCain testified eloquently that this would mean our injured vets could travel to other parts of the world in their wheelchairs and know they'd have accessible transportation and access to hotels and other places they want to visit, for example.
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 4:08 pm
Sorry, Thomas, the bottom line is the bottom line. When companies are hiring people for a specific position, they need to have the right person in that position to perform well and get the job done. If that job can be filled with a disabled person I'm all for it. Double for it. But what this says to me is that companies need to make an "exception" for the disabled and give them a job whether they are qualified to do the job or not. From where I sit, as a small business owner, I would never hire someone to do a job they absolutely could not perform.

So, once again, I believe the owner of a company has every right to make the right choice for their company considering all aspects...such as hiring a woman, a man, a minority, a disabled person.....it is up to the owner of the company to consider all of these possibilities but the bottom line is to hire the most qualified person for the position. We've already been through the "hiring a minority" era which came back to burn us through massive law suits and thank God we are out of that era. So, now we are entering in to another category in the workplace of "having" to hire a disabled person even when they don't have the resume to perform the job.

I'm a realist to my core. I believe every category of individual needs to be considered for a position but the person who has the best resume for that position should be the one who gets hired. Period.
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 4:28 pm
To reiterate what the law actually says rather than what some prefer to pretend:
From Wiki:
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Great Seal of the United States.
Full title An Act to establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability
Acronym ADA
Enacted by the 101st United States Congress
Effective July 26, 1990
Citations
Public Law 101-336
Stat. 104 Stat. 327
Codification
Title(s) amended 42
U.S.C. sections created 12101 et seq.
Legislative history

Introduced in the Senate as S.933 by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on May 9, 1989
Passed the Senate on September 7, 1989 (76-8)
Passed the House of Representatives on May 22, 1990 (unanimous voice vote)
Reported by the joint conference committee on July 12, 1990; agreed to by the House of Representatives on July 12, 1990 (377–28) and by the Senate on July 13, 1990 (91-6)
Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on July 26, 1990

Major amendments
ADA Amendments Act of 2008
United States Supreme Court cases
Bragdon v. Abbott
Olmstead v. L.C.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

v
t
e

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990[1][2] (ADA) is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by President George H. W. Bush, and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.[3]

The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[4] which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. Disability is defined by the ADA as "...a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The determination of whether any particular condition is considered a disability is made on a case by case basis. Certain specific conditions are excluded as disabilities, such as current substance abuse and visual impairment that is correctable by prescription lenses.

On September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. This was intended to give broader protections for disabled workers and "turn back the clock" on court rulings that Congress deemed too restrictive.[5] The ADAAA includes a list of "major life activities."
Contents

1 Titles of the ADA
1.1 Title I—Employment
1.2 Title II—Public entities (and public transportation)
1.3 Title III—Public accommodations (and commercial facilities)
1.4 Title IV—Telecommunications
1.5 Title V—Miscellaneous provisions
2 Major life activities
3 Opposition to the act
3.1 Opposition from religious groups
3.2 Opposition from business interests
4 Quotations
5 Criticism
5.1 Employment
5.2 "Professional plaintiffs"
6 ADA case law
7 Resources
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

Titles of the ADA

Title I—Employment

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117.

Speech cards used by President George H. W. Bush at the signing ceremony of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on July 26, 1990.[1]

The ADA states that a covered entity shall not discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability.[6] This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, workers' compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Covered entity can refer to an employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee, and is generally an employer engaged in interstate commerce and having 15 or more workers.[7] Discrimination may include, among other things, limiting or classifying a job applicant or employee in an adverse way, denying employment opportunities to people who truly qualify, or not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of disabled employees, not advancing employees with disabilities in the business, and/or not providing needed accommodations in training materials or policies, and the provision of qualified readers or interpreters. Employers can use medical entrance examinations for applicants, after making the job offer, only if all applicants (regardless of disability) must take it and it is treated as a confidential medical record. Qualified individuals do not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs when that usage is the basis for the employer's actions.[8]

Part of Title I was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it pertains to states in the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett as violating the sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The provision allowing private suits against states for money damages was invalidated.
Title II—Public entities (and public transportation)

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165.

Access sign

Title II prohibits disability discrimination by all public entities at the local (i.e. school district, municipal, city, county) and state level. Public entities must comply with Title II regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice. These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

Title II applies to public transportation provided by public entities through regulations by the U.S. Department of Transportation. It includes the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, along with all other commuter authorities. This section requires the provision of paratransit services by public entities that provide fixed route services.

Title II also applies to all state and local public housing, housing assistance, and housing referrals. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with enforcing this provision.
Title III—Public accommodations (and commercial facilities)

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.

The ADA sets standards for construction of accessible public facilities. Shown is a sign indicating an accessible fishing platform at Drano Lake, Washington.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix A.

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is readily achievable, defined as "...easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of readily achievable calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment[citation needed], the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.[9]

On September 15, 2010, the Department of Justice issued revised regulations for implementation of Titles II and III, effective March 15, 2011.[10] The rules contain many new requirements for public accommodations, as well as an "element by element safe harbor."[11] Public swimming pool owners and operators must gear up for compliance with the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design with regard to existing swimming pools, wading pools and spas by January 31, 2013.[12] The Department of Justice published ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Accessible Pools - Means of Entry and Exit to help pool owners and operators understand the new accessibility requirements, application of the requirements, and longstanding obligations of pool owners and operators in connection with the new requirements.[13]
Title IV—Telecommunications

Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1934 primarily by adding section 47 U.S.C. § 225. This section requires that all telecommunications companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it led to installation of public Teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDDs (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Title IV also led to creation, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, of what were then called dual-party relay services and now are known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), such as STS Relay. Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who use broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed/typed words of a consumer and the spoken words of others. In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month.
Title V—Miscellaneous provisions

See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12201–12213.

Title V includes technical provisions. It discusses, for example, the fact that nothing in the ADA amends, overrides or cancels anything in Section 504.[14] Additionally, Title V includes an anti retaliation or coercion provision. The Technical Assistance Manual for the ADA explains it: "III-3.6000 Retaliation or coercion. Individuals who exercise their rights under the ADA, or assist others in exercising their rights, are protected from retaliation. The prohibition against retaliation or coercion applies broadly to any individual or entity that seeks to prevent an individual from exercising his or her rights or to retaliate against him or her for having exercised those rights ... Any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or interference, is prohibited if it is intended to interfere.
Major life activities

The ADA defines a covered disability as "...a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. Its regulations narrowed "substantially limits" to "significantly or severely restricts."[citation needed]

In 2008, effective January 1, 2009, the ADAAA broadened the interpretations and added to the ADA examples of "major life activities" including, but not limited to, "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working" as well as the operation of several specified major bodily functions.[5] The Act overturns a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that an employee was not disabled if the impairment could be corrected by mitigating measures; it specifically provides that such impairment must be determined without considering such ameliorative measures. Another court restriction overturned is the interpretation that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity must also limit others to be considered a disability.[5]

The ADAAA will undoubtedly lead to broader coverage of impaired employees. The United States House Committee on Education and Labor states that the amendment "...makes it absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability."[15] Required doctor visits may not be held against anyone with a disability.[citation needed]
Opposition to the act
Opposition from religious groups

The debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act led some religious groups to take opposite positions.[16] Some religious groups, such as the Association of Christian Schools International, opposed the ADA in its original form.[17] ACSI opposed the Act primarily because the ADA labeled religious institutions public accommodations, and thus would have required churches to make costly structural changes to ensure access for all.[18] The cost argument advanced by ACSI and others prevailed in keeping religious institutions from being labeled as public accommodations, and thus churches were permitted to remain inaccessible if they choose.

In addition to opposing the ADA on grounds of cost, church groups like the National Association of Evangelicals testified against the ADA's Title I (employment) provisions on grounds of religious liberty. The NAE felt that the regulation of the internal employment of churches was "... an improper intrusion [of] the federal government."[16]
Opposition from business interests

Many members of the business community opposed the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the Act had the potential to "...deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."[19] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."[20] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[21]
Quotations
President Bush signs the Americans with Disabilities Act into law

Remarks on the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (July 26, 1990)
Menu
0:00
George H. W. Bush's July 26, 1990 Remarks on the Signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Problems listening to this file? See media help.

On signing the measure, George H. W. Bush said:

I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.[22]

On the debate of what it means to be disabled, American poet Joan Aleshire stated in the book Voices From the Edge:

If the definition of disability is the inability to do the common daily tasks of life—getting out of bed, washing, dressing, eating, going to the bathroom—and working at one's age level in school, I've never really been disabled.[23]

About the importance of making employment opportunities inclusive, Shirley Davis, director of global diversity and inclusion at the Society for Human Resource Management, said:

People with disabilities represent a critical talent pool that is underserved and underutilized.[24]"

As Bush said, "the shameful wall of exclusion" would tumble down in other countries, too, had our Senate voted for similar protections and rights in other countries like the US already has.
 

Diane O. (151)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 4:38 pm
That was a long, arduous post, JLA. Bottom line: companies will hire the person who best qualifies for the job. After all, they are paying the salaries. Disabled or not.....a company will hire based on a personal resume.

Understand what I'm saying here, JLA. Companies will not hire a disabled person to say that they have hired a disabled person when that doesn't fill the job requirement of that company. If a disabled person absolutely qualifies for a position then, of course, they should be hired.

 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 4:47 pm
FactCheck: this article is about extending the ADA rights to other countries; and the ADA has ALWAYS required a person to be qualified to be considered for accommodations upon receiving a job offer.
 

Tamara Noforwardsplz (185)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 5:27 pm
Noted Tom. As I stated on another post regarding this issue, I think I have the Repuklicon flu because that is the only thing that explains why this makes me sick.
 

Mitchell D. (123)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 6:05 pm
Bunch of buffoons!
 

Penny C. (77)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 6:29 pm
Thanks.
 

Dotti Lydon (118)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 7:32 pm
Unable to NOTE this article? My ass. Able to post, yes. Thank you Dandelion and J.L.A. for the added info.
Excuse me Tom, you know to whom I am referring.
 

Robert B. (57)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 8:50 pm
Diane O., what exactly are you trying to say? Are you for ADA or against it. This article is not arguing about hiring qualified people. It's about giving a disabled person the same chance in life as everyone else. In other words if the disabled person qualifies for the job his or her disability MUST NOT be used as an excuse to not hire them. You act like someone is saying that a company must hire a deaf person to answer phones. Try to use a little common sense yourself on this thread and see the real picture here. Get with the program.
 

Robert B. (57)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 8:52 pm
P.S. , I live the photo. It describes these 38 republicans spot on.
 

John B. (215)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 9:10 pm
Thanks Tom for the great post and both video segments. The picture is quite apt. Wonderful comments and not much I could add to this discussion.The Teabaggers and the ultra-conservative Republicans suffer from a true medical condition called "Rectal Retinitis" which is the irritation of the nerve that connect the retina to the rectum which results in them having a Sh**ty outlook as to what path America should be taking. Read, viewed and noted.
 

PennyAWAY B. (122)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 9:36 pm
Sad and shameful, I feel sorry for Bob Dole and all veterans.
 

Michael Carney (205)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 10:39 pm
Yes, the picture definitely describes those 38 Republicans, and well, as those who defend them, you know who you are...
 

Shelly Peterson (213)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 11:15 pm
dOES ANYONE HAVE A CASE OF "MIDOL", THAT WE CAN SEND TO THE PERSON FROM VIRGINIA!!??!!..NOT that we have to help this person that "CHOOSES" TO PRETEND TO BE impaired and/or disabled, by "... missing the point" , after so many have explained....I guess negative attention is better than none..but most Psychologists agree that people like this do have a mental illness..but are employable, as long as they qualify for their job AND CAN GET ALONG WITH OTHERS AND NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE WORK PLACE!!................of course this is a social medium here...and it is okay to disagree, and have a differance of opinion......but to attack Tomcat and others that post..is just plain obscene , rude...and a form of insanity.............be a bully somewhere else..like on your OWN posts and fist fight with those commentors.......you're wasting all the oxygen and polluting the airwaves!
 

Susanne R. (248)
Wednesday December 5, 2012, 11:40 pm
The person from Virginia needs to familiarize herself with the ADA and with "reasonable accommodation." It's not just about JOBS. Here's a site she might want to visit: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Reasonable Accommodation

There are more important things in this world than running a profitable business and the accumulation of wealth, believe it or not!
 

Mary away T. (188)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 12:26 am
Shameful bunch of blundering idiots that voted against this, They should all be kicked out of office.
 

Lynn Squance (219)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 12:27 am
Senator John Kerry — "If the facts are against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then argue the facts. And if both are against you, just make it up." — Seems like the Republican/Teabaggers did just that! They made up this bogus claim of the UN trying to usurp American sovereignty. What a pathetic bunch of little people, if you can justify calling them people.

I find it interesting to note that the country which insisted on having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council could also be the country so concerned about the UN usurping its sovereignty. I also find it interesting that the country upon whose law the treaty was based could also be so concerned about the UN usurping its sovereignty. Steve Clemons layed it out well when he said "This is a branch of the GOP that doesn't represent all Republicans, but this is the pugnacious, obnoxious, nationalist wing that really resents any international deal making . . ."
.
And to quote Dandelion (Care2):

"We, the USA, who have asked the world to raise it's standards to ours, we, who would not of had spent one penny to have said yes to this, have failed a great many.


The USA who use to raise the standards high for others to emulate, who were, as VP Hubert H. Humphrey had once said, "that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." "

In my mind, with the actions of the Republican/Teabaggers in the US Senate, the US has shown itself unworthy of its own claim to be the "leader of the free world", for leadership must include ALL people, not just the ones deemed deserving.

If this is what it means to ask the world to raise it's standards to those of the US, then surely the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Remember Rome . . .

 

Lynn Squance (219)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 12:45 am
@ Diane O --- You're right . . . you ARE missing the point. First of all, this is about the ratification of an international treaty that is modeled on the Americans with Disabilies Act signed into being in 1990 by Daddy Bush. It is not about the ADA.

Second, as you said, "Just because a person has a disability doesn't negate the fact that they have to qualify for the job just like anyone else.". Nobody has claimed otherwise. However, under the ADA, if a disabled applicant with the correct credentials is turned down in favour of someone with much lower qualifications, then a company can be investigated and charged with discrimination. And I can tell you from personal experience, making reasonable accommodations for the employee is only AFTER the hiring decision.

Where did you get that idea --- listening to Faux Noise and Santorum too much?

This is not about making special rights for the disabled. This is about seeing that all disabled around the world have, at least in international law, a chance at equality.
 

Diane O. (151)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 2:33 am
I would like to see disabled people with good jobs. I promote that 100%.
 

Edwin M. (366)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 5:12 am
I wrote a message to one of my "temporary" senators (toomey) and informed him that I would show my appreciation for his vote on the International Disabilities Treaty by reciprocating in 2016 when he runs for reelection.
 

Pat A. (117)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 5:20 am
Green stars to Dotti and Robert and Susanne - tried to send green stars to TC and Lynn and others - sorry folks! Trying to send Edwin a star too - excellent comments!
 

cecily w. (0)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 5:35 am
The reasons the "Deplorable 38" voted against this treaty were:
(1) Paranoia that the UN would encroach on governing the U.S.;
(2) Alarm that the Heritage Action for America which would record Yea votes on the senator's score cards.

In other words,to these soul sellers, the plight of the disabled worldside is collateral damage.
 

Devon Leonard (54)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 8:31 am
This is one of the all time saddest injustices that Didn't need to, shouldn't have happened....... How apathetic and disassociated their souls must be to have voted as such. So much to learn, and so little time.
Thanx TomCat for posting, and I hope All these great comments are passed on to those with ears that hear....
 

TomCat S. (285)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 9:18 am
Thanks to all except the person who keeps trying to twist this into something it is not. Everything contained in the treaty is already guaranteed to all Americans thanks to the ADA. This was about America taking the lead in the world for something good. Kudos to Shirl and Cecily for listing which Republicans voted against and for it. Kudos to JL for sharing the text of the treaty.
 

pam w. (187)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 11:44 am
"Only eight Republicans, including Vietnam War veteran Senator John McCain of Arizona, voted with the Democratic majority in the Senate."

+++++++++++++++ And, speaking clearly and articulately....the rest of them are ASSWIPES who "miss the point."
 

Cam V. (417)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 2:15 pm
The Senate voted this down. THEY ARE CONTROLLED TOTALLY BY DEMOCRATS.
 

Thomas P. (459)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 2:25 pm
Cam V....these are the rules . It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, and it takes a full two thirds of the senate to ratify a treaty, which is what the senate "voted" on. The democrats have a majority in the senate, they do not control it, as you allege. And this just in.....every democrat voted for ratifying the treaty. I'm not sure what you are trying to say because it is totally devoid of logic. Without those pluralities, it is untruthful to say that democrats control the senate.
 

Diane O. (151)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 2:26 pm
Well, Thomas, you would be exactly right.
 

Diane O. (151)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 2:27 pm
My hope is that the atmosphere will change in congress after the 2014 election. The American people voted in November 2010 and it can happen again.
 

Dave C. (204)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 3:47 pm
...wonder what Christ, whom these conservatives claim to follow, would think?????

DOUBLE KUDOS FOR THOMAS P. FOR HIS RESPONSE!!!!
 

Shelly Peterson (213)
Thursday December 6, 2012, 5:09 pm
May WE wish for good things for America and all of us Citizens, not only in this 2013, which will lay the ground work for 2014....GOP:DO YOUR DAMN JOB FOR THE AMERICAN CITIZENS, ....OR GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

TomCat S. (285)
Friday December 7, 2012, 6:05 am
Thanks all. Very well said Thomas. I'm glad you beat me to it. Kudos.
 

Kit B. (277)
Friday December 7, 2012, 9:30 am

I really do not understand any one for any reason attempting to justify the abhorrent behavior of those Senators that voted against the ratification of this treaty. For goodness sake, this is the American Disabilities Act of 20years ago, that finally the world does recognize. Some times, i wonder if you Cam, or your buddy a self appointed "wonder girl" of knowledge, have clue about the United States and how the Congress (both Houses) works. Of all the myriad of things that come before the Senate this should have been a fully non-partisan vote. This is not something, Cam that democrats lost, this was voted for by democrats and many republicans, (5 short of passing the required 66 votes) therefore, your comments both here on the article I submitted leave you and your friend looking like uncaring, and ill informed fools.
 

Gene Jacobson (233)
Friday December 7, 2012, 10:32 am
These are people who are afraid of their own shadows and who see conspiracies behind every curtain. This law could not possibly infringe on American sovereignty. That is simply impossible. For that to happen, WE would have to allow it, and we never would. And those hypocrites know it. The UN is not a body that can invade us and make us subject to whatever sanctions they might impose, we would have to agree and apply any sanction ourselves. There is no world standing army to enforce UN dictates. Nothing can infringe our sovereignty but us. This simply extends rights to a class of citizens that NEED it around the world. We ALREADY do so through the ADA and have for years. This is the rest of the world catching up with what we have already done. It isn't new, it isn't even news, though the part about Santorum opposing it is perhaps, considering he has a disabled child whom he apparently regards as less than a full citizen or person. Disgusting behavior even for those jackasses in DC. Bob Dole deserved better than that, the last respectable republican to serve in the Senate, imo. The bunch since can't hold a candle to his vision and that picture describes them perfectly.
 

Dorothy N. (63)
Friday December 7, 2012, 6:10 pm
I owe SO many people on this thread Green Stars, TomCat most of all, but far too many to list...

I think one major issue (there are others, of course) with the Republican 'NO' vote here was that rights for someone other than themselves were involved - and that ANYTHING anyone else has is somehow something taken away from them.

It's a mental dysfunction among this group.

I spent some time poking around other videos and came across a Rachel Maddow tape which I looked up the transcript for, which had a lot of very interesting stuff on it, including this Republican 'NO' vote against equal rights for the disabled.

But this made me wonder (wild and random speculation on my part, of course, lol) about exactly why General Petraeus was fired on security grounds, and by whom it may have been initiated, and with whom this (apparently crazy and bullying) journalist may have been associated - and made FOX's role/interest in the Republican Party even more apparent, and while many others have probably seen this, I certainly hadn't, so I thought I'd bring this to the attention of others who, perhaps, hadn't seen this before either.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50087470/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Tuesday, December 4th, 2012
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show


updated 12/5/2012 11:19:49 AM ET

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
December 4, 2012

Guests: Claire McCaskill, Steve Clemons

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Ed. Thanks, my friend.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.

There was a strange bit of a bombshell in Washington today. A little
bit of bombshell news that came from an unexpected source.

Veteran investigative reporter Bob Woodward of Watergate fame got his
hands on an audio recording of the top U.S. commanding general in
Afghanistan meeting off the record with a FOX News analyst. The meeting
apparently took place last spring. It was General David Petraeus who was
at the time commander of all U.S. forces in the war in Afghanistan.

And on the tape, FOX News analyst says that she was asked by her boss,
by the chairman of FOX News, to pass along some very specific advice for
General Petraeus.
Advertise | AdChoices

(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)

KATHLEEN T. MCFARLAND, FOX NEWS ANALYST: He say that if you`re
offered chairman, take it. If you`re offered anything else, don`t take it.
Resign in six months and run for president. OK?

And I know you`re not running for president. But at some point, when
you go to New York next, you may want to just chat with Roger, and Rupert
Murdoch, for that matter.

Can I just say -- can I just tell him what I`ve suggested and that
we`ve discussed --

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY: Yes, sure.

MCFARLAND: -- is that next time you go to New York, you`re going to
stop by and see him?

PETRAEUS: Yes. I`d be happy. I would love to see him. I haven`t
seen him in awhile. So --

MCFARLAND: I think he would very much appreciate the conversation.

PETRAEUS: I would love to see -- yes, he`s a brilliant guy.

MCFARLAND: He`s simply brilliant.

PETRAEUS: He is. Tell him if I ever ran, but I won`t. But if I ever
ran, I`d take him up on his offer.

MCFARLAND: OK. All right.
Advertise | AdChoices

PETRAEUS: He said he would quit FOX.

MCFARLAND: I know. Look, he`s not the only one.

PETRAEUS: And bankroll it.

MCFARLAND: Bankroll it?

PETRAEUS: Or maybe I`m confusing that with Rupert. No.


(LAUGHTER)

MCFARLAND: I know Roger, he`s done OK. But no, I think the one who`s
bankrolling it is the big boss.

PETRAEUS: That might be it.

MCFARLAND: OK. The big boss is bankrolling it. Roger`s going to run
it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house.

PETRAEUS: Yes, right. OK.

MCFARLAND: We`re all set.

PETRAEUS: No, it`s never going to happen. You know it`s never going
to happen. It really isn`t.
Advertise | AdChoices

MCFARLAND: I know it`s never going to happen.

PETRAEUS: My wife would divorce me.

MCFARLAND: Right.

PETRAEUS: And I love my wife.

MCFARLAND: Tell her it`s a beautiful house.

PETRAEUS: We have a beautiful house. With his-and-her`s bathrooms,
believe it or not. I just want to live in it. I`ve never spent a night in
it.

MCFARLAND: I know. That`s the happiest marriage.

PETRAEUS: Keep your mitts off my dressing room.

MCFARLAND: My husband and I have had a very long and happy
relationship because we have completely separate bathrooms.

PETRAEUS: Isn`t that -- I mean, that`s the ticket.

MCFARLAND: It`s great.

(END AUDIOTAPE)
Advertise | AdChoices

MADDOW: And that is how the tape ends. That recording was made April
16th of last year. A week and a half later, April 28th, the president
announced he was nominating General Petraeus to head the CIA, which is to
say, right before the president announced General Petraeus as his choice to
run the CIA, the chairman of FOX News was urging the general not to take
the job, not to take any job short of being chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
saying he should resign from any other job short of that to run for
president instead, as a Republican against President Obama in this past
election. And it`s all on tape.

This is salacious almost to the point of prurient, right? I mean,
first of all, we`re talking about General Petraeus here, most famous
general in the country. Until recently, one of the most admired high
profile people in the country of any field. Long-time Republican fantasy,
potential presidential contender, the man who just resigned from running
the CIA in a sex scandal that we still don`t understand. We just know that
it costs him his job.

And here he is on tape talking about how he will have the FOX News
chairman run his campaign and the owner of FOX News will bankroll his
campaign and then he raises the issue of his wife, out of the blue. So,
there`s a certain level of salacious interest in this new tape because of
who is on it.

Beyond that, there`s the media factor. Here on tape is the FOX News
Channel trying to recruit a presidential candidate for the Republican
Party. The FOX News chairman, Roger Ailes, telling Bob Woodward at "The
Post" once Mr. Woodward was reporting on this, quote, "I thought the
Republican field in the primaries need to be shaken up and Petraeus might
be a good candidate."

He said that on the record, after being caught doing it on tape, which
means the FOX News Channel seriously is not like anything else in news.
They officially are just a media arm of the Republican Party. They are a
political operation serving the needs of the Republican Party.

And that`s OK, but we should stop thinking of them as something other
than that. It`s fine. It is OK to be that, but that`s how they should be
seen. There`s nobody else in the news who is like that.

And the fact we have this recording in the first place is itself a
fascinating little mystery. Who leaked to Bob Woodward the recording of
this off-the-record conversation between the top commander in Afghanistan a
week before he was named head of the CIA and a FOX News correspondent.
There were certainly not very many people in the room, so how did this
recording end up in the hands of "The Washington Post" and why?

Is somebody out to get Roger Ailes at FOX News? Somebody out to dance
on the grave of General Petraeus` public service career?

And relatedly, honestly, why did "the Washington Post" run this in the
style section? The style section. This is a lot of things. Stylish is
hard to see as one of them.

So, for all of these reasons, this audio recording is rather salacious
news. But buried under all that salaciousness, there`s also something
newsworthy here. Not just because the whole thing is juicy and weird and
about a residual sex scandal in a weird part of the paper, and about a
weird part of the media and a weird part of the Republican Party.

If you listen to the rest of the tape, what you ultimately get to it
is General Petraeus turning down this very kind offer from the FOX News
chairman to run for president and have FOX News support him all the way.
But in the way he politely turned down Roger Ailes` advice, General
Petraeus said something that I think might be very important about how the
U.S. government works now, and why a man such as himself might want a
particular job in Washington at a time like this.

Listen to this part of the tape. This is where General Petraeus makes
his argument for why not just the Joints Chiefs chairman job would be a
good job, but why in particular running the CIA would be a really good job
to get.
Advertise | AdChoices

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

PETRAEUS: An awful lot of what we do in the future, believe it or not
in Libya right now, perhaps --

MCFARLAND: Yes.

PETRAEUS: -- is with that organization can do.

We`re going to be retrenching militarily. Again, you`re going to take
big budget cuts and that`s going to be all about -- it`s going to be the
post -- sort of the early 1990s kind of stuff.

MCFARLAND: Yes. It will be the, quote, "peace dividend" after Iraq,
an after Afghanistan. It`ll be the peace dividend.

PETRAEUS: The other folks on the other hand -- I think are going to
be in a growth industry. Our intelligence community. Going to have to be.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MADDOW: General Petraeus telling FOX News in this meeting that he`d
be happy not just being named chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but also with
the CIA director job because he argues they are the same sized jobs or at
least they are going to be, arguing that the future of national security in
the United States is probably not with the military. It`s more like the
CIA. The intelligence community, that`s the growth industry, even as we
are retrenching militarily.

Military will be playing a smaller role. CIA will be playing a larger
role in the future. So if you really want to be in charge of what`s going
to be a bigger deal in America`s future, you ought to head -- head over to
become the head of the CIA.

That is apparently what is understood to be the new order of things in
Washington. It`s not necessarily the way things are supposed to be.

Tim Weiner, who wrote the definitive history of the CIA called "Legacy
of Ashes" gets at that fact in "The New York Times" this week writing,
quote, "Before 9/11, the CIA`s clandestine service never assassinated
anybody itself, though at times it tried, as in the case of Fidel Castro.
Since then drone air strikes against suspected foreign terrorists have
killed some 2,500 people, including civilians, without public discussion in
Congress."
Advertise | AdChoices

He also says, "Intelligence is the hard work of trying to know your
enemy. It is not the dirty business of political murder."

What the CIA has been through and what it means for our country is a
big change. And it is not a big change that we debated much as a country.

But this off-the-record, behind closed doors meeting between FOX News
and the man they were trying to line up to become the next Republican
nominee shows us in a way we haven`t seen before the degree to which this
is the common understanding of insiders in Washington. While those of us
who are theoretically supposed to be debating what our national security
posture is and how our country get done in the world by force have mostly
been left out of the discussion.

All but for "The Washington Post" style section leaking this tape as
if the most important thing here is General Petraeus revealing the
existence of his and her`s separate bathrooms at this new home.

We never had a national debate about whether the CIA should start
acting more like the military. The CIA started acting more like the
military. If there was ever a time that we might be able to go ahead and
have that debate, belatedly, it might be about to happen within the next
couple weeks.

Hillary Clinton is going to soon be stepping down as secretary of
state. Leon Panetta reportedly does not plan to stay on as defense
secretary for President Obama`s full second term -- although there`s
fuzziness around that. And, of course, the nation needs a CIA director
post-David Petraeus.

Now, "The Associated Press" is reporting that President Obama may
announce his pick for defense secretary within the next couple weeks and he
may make it in a high-powered package announcement along with his choice
for secretary of state. So, all these jobs coming up, State, Defense, CIA,
all will need to be confirmed by the Senate and almost of them may well be
announced at once and before Christmas.

Maybe this is the time to have the debate about the way our national
security is run. The debate we did not necessarily have before we started
making big fundamental changes to that system that mostly just still get
discussed behind closed doors. ...
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

TomCat S.

TomCat S.
TomCat's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 15
Stories submitted: 2476
Front Page stories: 2134




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.