GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge

[Keystone Phil]

I think it's pretty clear what he's getting at: if State X acts in "determining the best interest of the disabled child," said state can argue that they were acting under the direction of the UN Treaty.

[Insula Dei]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child - a proud rejection it shares worldwide only with Somalia.

[anvi]

Once again, I'm not impugning his motives..  But Santorum's piece offers characterizations that are both self-contradictory and false. 

He claims on the one hand that the treaty would have sufficient power once ratified to enable the UN to dictate outcomes for disabled American children as opposed to elected representatives and parents.  But a few short paragraphs later, he claims that the treaty is not powerful enough to force other governments to implement legal protections.  With regard to its binding nature on domestic law, the same treaty can't be both powerful enough to overcome U.S. statute law and not nearly powerful enough to obligate statutory recognition in other countries.  In fact, the treaty gives every nation in the UN the option to reject the recommendations that the Enable committees might make if complaints were brought to it, so it dilutes no one's sovereignty, not that of individual states and hardly that of parents. 

There is also a conflation of the treaty's language regarding its provisions being in the best interests of the child with an attempt to override the parents' wishes; the treaty is about preventing institutional discrimination against disabled children, not taking away parents' choices about a child's education.   As long as equal educational opportunities are available for children, the parents are free to choose whatever they wish regarding their schools, and if parents found that some school district did not offer equal educational opportunities for their child, the treaty would back them up, not impede them.

Next, Santorum praises the provisions of the ADA but opposes the Enable treaty's provisions, despite the fact that the latter pretty much did serve as the model for the former, it seems on the sole basis of the specific clause about parents in the ADA.  If that's what's really at the heart of this, which I suspect is the case for Santorum, then why not make ratification of the treaty dependent on attaching a reservation with the desired language inserted? 
 

[Keystone Phil]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

Yeah, America is only two decades ahead of the curve - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

[DC Al Fine]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child - a proud rejection it shares worldwide only with Somalia.

Because countries like Bangladesh have such stellar records on child labour

[k-onmmunist]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child - a proud rejection it shares worldwide only with Somalia.

and south sudan now, apparently.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

Yeah, America is only two decades ahead of the curve - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

Nobody's claiming otherwise. The ADA language was the model for the language in the treaty in question. The problem is that certain elements in the United States are currently opposed to a treaty graciously extending worldwide the protections that disabled people have enjoyed in this country for twenty-two years on the basis of an easily corrected and frankly paranoid misinterpretation of the treaty's in fact negligible effect on domestic homeschooling law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

So you like creating more useless UN bureaucracy?  I'll grant that quite a few of those who rose in opposition to this treaty could use some more tinfoil to keep those black helicopters they think are out there from detecting them, but I have yet to hear one thing this treaty would have actually done other than let the countries that sign up to it feel good about themselves.  The UN could accomplish the same thing without the useless bureaucrats by passing a declaration.  Oh wait, they already did back in 1975 when the UN adopted its Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons.

[Badger]

You tell me - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/santorum-un-disabilities-treaty-would-ve-had-bureaucrats-unseat-parents.html

Doesn't sound like ignorance to me.

It is. It really is.

Santorum obviously doesn't hate his daughter or disabled persons, but he's apparantly in thrall to the "black helicopters are coming" anti-UN midset (which I'm sure he'll write about extensively at his new gig with WND) to throw a largely toothless effort to raise international standards regarding the rights of the disabled.

But this shouldn't be about Santorum. Yes, he led the charge, but the disgrace is equally shared among about 80% of Republican senators.

[anvi]

...but I have yet to hear one thing this treaty would have actually done other than let the countries that sign up to it feel good about themselves.  The UN could accomplish the same thing without the useless bureaucrats by passing a declaration.  Oh wait, they already did back in 1975 when the UN adopted its Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons.

Declarations are only statements of value.  This treaty creates an investigative committee to which complaints can be brought.  As I've noted several times, it's true that the recommendations of this proposed committee are not enforceable.  But there is still some value in bringing cases of institutional discrimination against disabled persons into the open light of day for attention and scrutiny, because it puts public pressure on such institutions and the countries in which they exist.  Institutional discrimination can persist far more easily when no one is looking, and when there are not sufficient numbers of eyes looking in individual countries, having a UN committee to turn to may be very important for those who find themselves victims of otherwise unscrutinized inequitable treatment.  It at least helps people a lot more than just sitting around and railing about "useless bureaucrats."  But, we didn't ratify the treaty, so it's all moot anyway, isn't it?  I, for one, have to quit looking at this thread now -- it's a real bummer.  

EDIT: I can't help but add one note.  Santorum's idea of attaching human rights conditions to bilateral treaties is problematic at best.  Lots of bilateral investment treaties have actually featured the elision of human rights concerns at the behest of the investor.  And even when attachment of human rights stipulations in bilateral treaties can be effective, that effectiveness usually ensues from both parties to the treaty having already well-developed institutional commitments to the rights in question.  The best insurance that human rights stipulations can be more effective in a bilateral treaty is if both parties are signatories to an international convention.  Passing up that opportunity by failing to ratify this convention, in actual practice, reduces rather than enhances our ability to influence other countries with regard to discrimination against the disabled. 

This outcome was really just wrong.  It's quite frustrating. 

[Brittain33]

Those that say Rick Santorum is waging a War on the Disabled should be really ashamed of themselves.

Yes, let's not forget who's the real victim in this whole fight...

No, the real victims are the people you want to use as props to, yet again, launch a ridiculous attack on someone you dislike.

"Hateful" Rick Santorum actually just noted that the UN was "well intentioned." Doesn't sound too conspiratorial/hateful to me. That's more than can be said about most of the people here...

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child - a proud rejection it shares worldwide only with Somalia.

Well your attack is clearly non-partisan, just "America sucks", since that Convention was over 23 years ago.....I wonder why all the subsequent sessions of the Senate still haven't ratified it?  Maybe the cutsie feel good name doesn't justify what's inside? Same with this treaty. 

So we're against children's rights and hate the disabled, right, Gully? 

[anvi]

America doesn't suck.
But the reasoning that led to this rejection does.
We certainly don't hate disabled people in other countries.  
We just don't particularly care about them.
After all, opting out of being on a committee to hear about their plight is a really effective way to wield our influence.  

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

America doesn't suck.
But the reasoning that led to this rejection does.
We certainly don't hate disabled people in other countries. 
We just don't particularly care about them.
After all, opting out of being on a committee to hear about their plight is a really effective way to wield our influence. 

(insert long string of curse words)

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

[Landslide Lyndon]

If the Republicans who voted against the treaty aren't a bunch of cowards then words have lost their meaning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/06/senate-republicans-profiles-in-moral-cowardice/

To begin with, a shocking number of senators changed positions on the treaty at the last minute, without telling disabled groups (including many disabled veterans’ groups) of their reversal.

Foreign Policy reported that the United States International Council on Disabilities and many other groups “had been assured by numerous GOP senators that they would vote in favor of ratification” before they in fact voted “no.” Josh Rogin writes:

    Several GOP senators actually RSVPd for a reception held at the Capitol Tuesday morning to honor Dole, a disabled veteran himself, for his decades of work on behalf of the disabled community. [Kansas Sen. Pat] Roberts, along with Sens. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) all planned to attend the ceremony honoring Dole, but didn’t show up and then voted “no” on the treaty.

    Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) actually did show up to the Dole event, but then voted against the treaty anyway.

In fact, Roberts and his Kansas colleague Jerry Moran voted “no” after personally promising Dole they would support the treaty.

Before the vote was to be taken, Dole rolled in a wheelchair onto the Senate floor, where, as Roll Call’s Meredith Shiner writes:

    One by one, Senators of both parties approached [Dole], with former colleagues gently resting their hands on his shoulder or reaching out to his left hand. … Then, one by one, after Dole was wheeled off the floor, most Republicans voted against the measure. Many members did not register their “nay” votes verbally, instead whispering their opposition directly to the clerk or gesturing their hands from their chairs.

These senators shook Dole’s good hand, looked him in the eye and, once he left the floor, turned their backs on him, on his fellow disabled veterans and on disabled people throughout the world. They did not stand tall and proud against the treaty. No, these senators “whispered their opposition” or “gestured from their chairs.” (Remember that senators, no strangers to C-Span, know that the network’s microphones can pick up their votes if they wish to be heard.)

These were not the actions of men and women who were proud of their vote. These senators knew, privately, that their vote was wrong. And yet, pathetically, they did not have the courage or the decency to say so. It was nothing less than moral cowardice, a failure that should shame them for the rest of their lives.

[Keystone Phil]

Those that say Rick Santorum is waging a War on the Disabled should be really ashamed of themselves.

Yes, let's not forget who's the real victim in this whole fight...

No, the real victims are the people you want to use as props to, yet again, launch a ridiculous attack on someone you dislike.

"Hateful" Rick Santorum actually just noted that the UN was "well intentioned." Doesn't sound too conspiratorial/hateful to me. That's more than can be said about most of the people here...

Ok, Phil, here's what I don't get. The politicians you choose as your favorites, like Berlusconi and Santorum, are known for being bullies who roll over their opponents. Take a lesson from people like krazen and Sam Spade–you need to own that this is your preference. If you talk about how great someone like Santorum or Berlusconi is, when they pull stunts like this, then you need to be triumphalist and not complain that people aren't being fair to the poor guy. Santorum pounds his adversaries into the dust, like in this case - he doesn't play the victim himself. People aren't going to have sympathy that his critics are "mean" to him after he torpedoed a treaty defending the rights of the disabled. He did this, you should take pride or call out people who disagree with him for being weak. Not many people have a second act like Santorum did - Rod Grams and Conrad Burns lost in the same election and they're footnotes to history. Santorum's out killing treaties in the Senate and running for President as not-Romney.

I already know your response to this, but I don't care--if you think jerks make the best elected officials, then recognize that jerks can't be victims. Harry Reid is a jerk who takes no prisoners, and there's not a soul who would be taken seriously for saying "stop being mean to Harry!"

This hard on for me that you have really has to end, dude. You love when the subject is twisted into something about me. I feel like you use it to get out your anger on people like Santorum. You know, since you'll never actually confront these people, you feel like you've accomplished something by trolling one of his fans on the Internets.

First of all, time for a reality check: Berlusconi isn't one of my favorites. Did I like him before? Yes. If you've followed anything I've posted on the subject, though, you'd see that I've wanted him to stay away. I rooted for his resignation last year. And I've always been more fascinated by the guy than anything else. So, yeah, brush up on some facts.

Secondly, there's nothing "bullyish" about Santorum's tactics here. Advocating against something like this doesn't make him a bully just because high profile groups/individuals with disabilities were for it. It doesn't make him an enemy of the disabilities community. This wasn't done because he doesn't give a damn about that community. He simply has a different take on how said community would be best served.

You don't like him. Get over it. That's all this is with you. I've never once stated that Santorum isn't an in-your-face figure. I know he is. I've acknowledged as much. I admire that he's no-nonsense and doesn't back down. That said, it's totally irrelevant here. It's just another attempt at tearing down someone you loathe in a very unfair manner. Own that, brittain. Embrace it. And while we're on that, instead of going off on a tangent about....uh...me...why don't you answer the question I posed earlier; the question that several here avoided but eventually answered: does Santorum hate the disabled? Does he hate his daughter? Is he throwing her to the wolves? Put up or shut up, brittain. I'd prefer the latter but it would be nice if you actually practiced what you preached and owned up to smash mouth tactics instead of whining about others.

[anvi]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

[Franzl]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

All Democrats voted in favor of the treaty, not to mention that Democrats have not had 67 seats in the Senate at any time in recent history.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

All Democrats voted in favor of the treaty, not to mention that Democrats have not had 67 seats in the Senate at any time in recent history.

When?  Yes, I know they haven't had that many seats but surely in modern times there have been enough moderate pubs to go along.........oh well.

[Franzl]

Maybe they should follow our lead, anvi?

They are following our lead.  The provisions of the treaty are modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  But when we're asked to do nothing more than have a rep on the Convention Committee the treaty proposes to hear and adjudicate cases of discrimination on an international body, we concoct a bunch of abjectly bulls*t reasons, and that's exactly what they are, bulls*t, just so we can give a big vain fat middle finger to the UN.  That's not leadership.  That's just us acting like a bunch of rutting asses, claiming to be models of human rights while overtly blowing off disabled people around the world.  This isn't a partisan point.  Ask Bush 41, ask Bob Dole, ask John McCain, ask George W. Bush, who instructed his UN ambassador to be a signatory to the thing when it was first proposed.

This outcome is really bogus.  Totally f*#king bogus   That is all.

Why hasn't it been subsequently ratified.....we've had libs leading the Senate more than long enough to get it done, anvi?   I guess what I'm objecting to hear is the title of the thread.....both parties are to blame.

All Democrats voted in favor of the treaty, not to mention that Democrats have not had 67 seats in the Senate at any time in recent history.

When?  Yes, I know they haven't had that many seats but surely in modern times there have been enough moderate pubs to go along.........oh well.

Here's a list of who voted for and against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Very interesting.......thanks, Franzl.

[Franzl]

Very interesting.......thanks, Franzl.

No problem, my (not all that grumpy) friend

[Indy Texas]

Secondly, there's nothing "bullyish" about Santorum's tactics here. Advocating against something like this doesn't make him a bully just because high profile groups/individuals with disabilities were for it. It doesn't make him an enemy of the disabilities community. This wasn't done because he doesn't give a damn about that community. He simply has a different take on how said community would be best served.

You don't like him. Get over it. That's all this is with you. I've never once stated that Santorum isn't an in-your-face figure. I know he is. I've acknowledged as much. I admire that he's no-nonsense and doesn't back down. That said, it's totally irrelevant here. It's just another attempt at tearing down someone you loathe in a very unfair manner. Own that, brittain. Embrace it. And while we're on that, instead of going off on a tangent about....uh...me...why don't you answer the question I posed earlier; the question that several here avoided but eventually answered: does Santorum hate the disabled? Does he hate his daughter? Is he throwing her to the wolves? Put up or shut up, brittain. I'd prefer the latter but it would be nice if you actually practiced what you preached and owned up to smash mouth tactics instead of whining about others.

The only people Rick Santorum and others like him give a damn about are his own family and his little clique of like-minded people, none of whom are the sort of people who have ever depended on binding legislation or non-binding resolutions to protect their rights. Bella Santorum will never have to worry about whether accommodations for people like her are codified into law or not. Her family is wealthy and she will always be able to afford whatever care she needs.

What's sad is that Rick Santorum thinks other disabled children don't deserve the same opportunities for proper care that he can pay for his own daughter to have. He thinks he's some sort of saint because he and his wife didn't terminate their pregnancy when they found out it would result in a severely disabled child. That's not such a big sacrifice to make when you have no problem at all paying for her care. If I had a disabled child, my finances would be severely strained and I would probably have to rely on some sort of government subsidy to ensure they were cared for - the sort of subsidy that someone like Rick Santorum would be fighting tooth and nail to get rid of. And he'd have the nerve to act like he was somehow defending families by doing so.