Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Not Call it Progress?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:40 PM
Original message
Why Not Call it Progress?
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction. After it was proposed to Congress by then-President Dwight Eisenhower, Senator James Strom Thurmond sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep it from becoming law. His one-man filibuster consisted of 24 hours and 18 minutes of readings from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Washington’s Farewell Address, and various phone books. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster.<1> The bill passed the House with a vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower signed it on 9 September 1957.

Because of opposition and amendment of The Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope.
It did however open the door to later legislation that was effective in securing voting rights as well as ending legal segregation and providing housing rights. In particular, it established both the Commission on Civil Rights and the office of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Many segregationists wanted to delay the vote of the bill.



The Civil Rights Act of 1960 addressed some of the shortcomings of the 1957 act by expanding the authority of federal judges to protect voting rights and requiring local authorities to maintain comprehensive voting records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

...a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or actually vote.

The Senate's debate over the passage of this bill actually started on February 29, 1960 in Moscow. However, a group of 18 Southern Democrats divided into three teams of six in order to be able to create a continuous filibuster wherein each member would only have to speak for four hours every three days. This system resulted in the longest filibuster in history, lasting over 43 hours from February 29 to March 2. On the morning of March 2nd, only a fifteen-minute break was allowed before the Senate sat for another 82 hours. By the time the 24-hour sessions were called off by majority leader Lyndon Johnson, the Senate had sat for 125 hours and 31 minutes minus a fifteen-minute break.

The act was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1960



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 purported to prohibit discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, but it had several loopholes. Title I barred unequal application of voter registration requirements—-but did not abolish literacy tests; Title II outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce-—but exempted private clubs without defining "private"; Title III encouraged the desegregation of public schools, and authorized the US Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation—-but did not authorize busing as a means to overcome segregation based on residence; Title IV authorized withdrawal of federal funds from programs that practice discrimination-
http://everything2.com/title/Civil+Rights+Act+of+1964



Much more effective in terms of ensuring equality at the polls was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which abolished the poll tax and other means of keeping blacks from the voting booths.



The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6)<1> outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the United States. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibited states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."<2> Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.<3> The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965


Natoma on current Health Care Reform legislation -
"It's a start"



"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there."- Barack Obama



start (stärt)
v. start·ed, start·ing, starts
v.intr.
1. To begin an activity or a movement; set out.
2. To have a beginning; commence. See Synonyms at begin.
3. To move suddenly or involuntarily: started at the loud noise.
4. To come quickly into view, life, or activity; spring forth.
5. Sports To be in the initial lineup of a game or race.
6. To protrude or bulge.
7. To become loosened or disengaged.
v.tr.
1. To commence; begin.
2. To set into motion, operation, or activity.
3. To introduce; originate.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/start


prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)
n.
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progress


pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
(more)
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progressive


per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5.
a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perfect

end (nd)
n.
1. Either extremity of something that has length: the end of the pier.
2. The outside or extreme edge or physical limit; a boundary: the end of town.
3. The point in time when an action, an event, or a phenomenon ceases or is completed; the conclusion: the end of the day.
4. A result; an outcome.
5. Something toward which one strives; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
6. The termination of life or existence; death: "A man awaits his end/Dreading and hoping all" (William Butler Yeats).
7. The ultimate extent; the very limit: the end of one's patience.
8. Slang The very best; the ultimate: This pizza's the end.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/end












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because it will prove to be our undoing for 2-3 election cycles.
The negatives of this legislation far outweigh the positives.

By the time it gets through the Senate, it will be wholly CORPORATE with no further progressive alterations.

BIG MISTAKE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Why not, instead of calling it out and stomping on it, call it Progress?
because you don't want to?

"Many segregationists wanted to delay the vote of the bill. This complaint was significant because if time ran out as it had on different occasions no bill could be passed. The passage of the bill was almost practically guaranteed and they were just delaying the inevitable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Wow! That's pretty low, now people who are against this bill are segregationists?
Holy Cow! That's just ... unbelievable. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. That can't happen... they can only pass the House reconciliation bill. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I'm leaving in 10 Minutes going to pleasanton to stand in front of
McNurney's office, a Dem so far voting no. It's not my district,
but a district once removed.

How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. At least now I know you were intentionally rude to Frenchie. And...
I looked on the front page of GDP. This is her only OP on it. Contrast that to "other" posters and you were completely unfair to accuse her of spamming. And you have a LOT of nerve telling her to get off this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. And so rude ..the post got deleted.
Glad I missed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mortos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I am so tired of the negativity and childish bullshit on DU
This is a step. A progressive step. It is not perfect because there is no way the insurance companies and big business who own our government would ever let a single payer bill go through and the American Sheeple are too fucking stupid to vote for and strongly support something that will benefit them if Rush and Fox tells them not too.

Why do you think Republicans oppose this? Why is Fox bashing it 24/7? Why have the insurance companies spent tens of millions to try to get people to vote against it? Because it is a small fucking step that will show Americans that the government can do something good for them and that it will benefit them. Once they find this out, hopefully...hopefully, they will realize they don't need to be slave wage earners and this can be used as an example to say, "Remember when you were told how bad this was going to be and look what it did for you."

Seriously please stop the constant carping and bashing and do something to support our President. You don't have to but it would be helpful as opposed to what most of you are doing now which is extremely harmful and non-productive.

Something is better than nothing and nothing is what we have gotten for so long.

I think Frenchie's example is a good one. The initial legislative measures for civil rights were symbolic at best but that lead the way to better and more comprehensive bills in the next decade (that's 10 years).

Coming to DU lately has been the blood pressure equivalent of visiting Free Republic but worse because I thought the people here understood what we were trying to accomplish and had some faith and patience.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. WTF? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Ironic, considering you're also on the computer.
Not to mention you pop up in every HCR thread. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Rich, isn't it? Wonder how he'd like it if we told HIM to get off the computer.
He'd probably accuse us of telling him to STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Her, actually, but you're right.
It seems quite a few of the loudest complainers here do little or nothing to change the situation, all while berating others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. No, it was "a he" NOT me ... I had no part in this awful exchange.
I respect Frenchie and an honorable opponent. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Hello_Kitty's profile says she's a woman.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. OK, I stand corrected.
Please excuse me - in my zealous nature I was worried that folks would think it was me because I can be a smart ass at times ... but I do respect Frenchie and everyone else here.

This HRC debate is getting caustic and many of us are getting "touchy" and worried that we are becoming too acerbic.

Thanks for clarifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. No problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Are you telling Frenchie to STFU? Hmmmm? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Because it's a step backwards
Mandates, regressive "cadillac" taxes, exemptions for the sickest of the meager means, "loop holes" to cancel policies, prohibitions on drug price negotiations, . Just because someone called it health care reform, doesn't mean it is. This bill mandates that people buy policies from insurance companies. It does NOT establish that they have a right to access or a right to care. It establishes that they have an OBLIGATION to buy. That's a step backward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thank Goodness you are almost out of breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. This bill does not meet the definition of "progressive"
You see, by "continuing steadily by increments," finishing the healthcare debate would have been an "increment." The next "increment" would have been jobs, although I understand that a jobs bill has now landed on Obama's desk.

Constantly revisiting civil rights legislation over and over and over is not called being "progressive." It's called spinning your wheels in the mud. You remain stuck in the mud until someone gives your car a push.

And that's where we are at now in terms of actual healthcare reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. Because I still have some respect for the word.
This is not progress, it is a step back to serfdom. Welcome to the new world, same as the old world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. more turd polish
knu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
21. Excellent post. This is 45 years worth of progress. Those who against it are not progressives
They're just teabaggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
26. Because this legislation doesn't further entrench insitutionalized racism
and reward the proponents and practitioners of segregation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. No Shit!
I wasn't making a literal comparison...
Just saying that sometimes the bill you want,
ain't the first bill you get....but progression
is key!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. But you're still trying to roll out the ole "Mission Accomplished" banner
The comparison is fairly apt. Saying this is progress would be very much like rewarding the folks the profited from slavery and maintained jim crow. I don't get the contrasts to efforts like Social Security, Medicare, and/or civil rights. All those lifts may well have been incremental but it is hard to argue that Social Security started by reinforcing elderly poverty or the precursor civil rights bills doubled down on jim crow rather than doing too little to reverse it.

This bill willfully avoids root causes and mostly in an effort to maintain the sacred cows of the employer based system, maintaining industry profit centers, and state based regulation plus maintaining an insane anti-trust exemption for the industry that was willfully scrubbed by the Senate.

Covering the 32 million is great except most of these people aren't going to really get helped because we lost track of the inarguable fact that most people don't have coverage because it is unaffordable for them. Single wagers from as little as a little over $8/hr up to realistically at least $18/hr are going to get hammered even with the subsidies. Failing to deal with individual affordability means thin ice for sure.

The idea that costs are ok even for larger employers has also made the thing a clusterfuck because now that is the baseline being drawn for cost but lower wage earners are increasingly getting choked out for a policy they can't real afford to use even if they can keep on the wheel with the premiums.

Also, obligation is not a rest stop on the way to a right. We got off way on the wrong track and lost sight of quality, affordable healthcare for every American and got stuck on people showing up at the ER and costing policy holders money, involving "stakeholders", and not rocking the boat.

This is the same king of progress Esau made by trading away his birthright for a bowl of Jacob's stew aka hollow and very, very, very short lived.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. people will be helped......
Edited on Sat Mar-20-10 01:33 AM by FrenchieCat
Even those who don't like this bill admit it.

As for the rest of what you have to say, I totally disagree.

We've been so caught up in the day-to-day shenanigans, on both sides, that the truly historic nature of the moment has been missed. A great American injustice is about to be addressed. More than 32 million people, who lack health insurance now and live in constant fear of chronic disease will be helped--not immediately, but gradually, as the provisions of the bill kick in. Countless millions of others will never have to worry about losing their insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because chronic illness has caused them to exceed their lifetime "cap." A system of exchanges will allow individuals and small business seeking health insurance to enter the market with the same power as major corporations. This is a big deal.

And a big problem for Republicans who, yet again, have chosen not to participate in the extension of a basic human right to all Americans--the right to health care--a right that is common throughout the rest of the civilized world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x231420
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Wouldn't it be nice if it addressed that
It should would be nice if the bill actually addressed the basic human right to health CARE. Instead it merely addresses the basic human obligation to purchase health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
33. There is no comparison between the ongoing Civil Rights struggle and this
institutionalization of an entirely private industry that is also exempt from anti-trust laws which the government has refused to enforce for 30 years.

Further you've drawn false conclusions from erroneous facts. What made what civil rights we do have happen was this;



From 1965.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. From 2010
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Appeal to sympathy is no argument and this is exactly why we need real reform
this giveaway will only make it worse for those in real need because we will not have the resources to help. But the stock prices of the corporations will soar.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. It is about people......
Even if you don't get that,
the person that matters in your photo does.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. That's exactly right, it is about people and it is people that this monstrosity
will cause even more pain.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC