Rand Paul's New American Animal House

Rand Paul's scurvy view of how the Federal Government should interact with private business on racial matters is not the only danger associated with the cruel, demented politics of Kentucky's Republican Senate candidate.

Dating back to the 1850s - almost 160 years ago now - progressive ideas entered mainstream American political currents. (In 1852 Massachusetts passed a law making it mandatory for children to attend school, the opening bell for a century and a half of government activism.)

The progressivist Abolitionist Movement of the 1840s and 50s culminated in the Civil War of course, which Libertarians, radicals all, would not have brooked.

And, the grand sweep of the 14th Amendment would be nothing but a ghostly promise in Paul's haunted American house. Due process? Forget about it.

Rand Paul and his war-of-all-against-all fellow-travelers would have none of this government activity if elected in 2010.

I wish this were an exaggeration, but everything from racial equality to women's rights to pure food and drug laws would be swept away by the Libertarian lunatic fringe. The Interstate Commerce Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, wildlife conservation and land preservation, unionization, the building of railroads and the interstate road system, public transportation, the space program, pollution control, regulation of dangerous narcotics, the prohibition against selling alcohol or tobacco products to children, and a thousand other activities our governments regulate - they too would be swept away.

One can see this philosophy virulently at work in the Libertarian Supreme Court's Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission decision this past January. It gives businesses license to buy elections, pure and simple. They can fly the flag of "Free Speech" all they want, but it's flying over a parade designed to work against the individual work-a-day citizen's true interests.

Rand Paul's is not the philosophy of a man running for high office but running for the position of top dog in the bull sessions of a right wing frat house.

His (lack of) thinking comes to us draped in the regal robes of fiscal responsibility and in expensive suits, when indeed such thinking is an impish child born on a beer-sticky floor during a farting contest.

Paul would thrust us all into an Animal House of ethnic hate, filthy air and water, child neglect, drug and alcohol abuse. Laws? Who needs 'em as long as the budget is balanced.

Here he comes, Rand Paul, selling his medicine show swill to the people of Kentucky, a poverty-stricken state sorely afflicted by environmental devastation created by the coal companies who have also had the good conscience to bust the people's unions as government stood aside in Libertarian glee.

Kentucky has the highest cancer rate in the country.

Kentucky is the state with the highest proportion of adults under 65 without teeth.

It has an adult illiteracy rate of about 40%.

Kentucky ranks 47th in the nation in percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree.

17% of the population lives in poverty, over 684,00 people, up from 14% in 1995.

Kentucky's ground water upon which a great majority of its citizens rely for drinking ranks last in the United States for purity.

All this Rand Paul and his non-compassionate cohorts vow to stand aside and watch.

Libertarian? Death merchants.

As the old bumper sticker said: The Moral Majority is Neither.
.

The Virginia Reel - Gay Rights in the Old Dominion

Virginia has ripened recently into a "purple state," although its legislature can't see fit to include one of the most basic human rights - that of sexual orientation - in its laws.

It fell recently to a less-than-enthralling executive directive by Governor Bob (for Jobs) McDonnell to articulate the state's position on discrimination against gay people employed by the state.

This followed a letter from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to Virgina's public colleges that contended those institutions lack the legal authority to protect their gay students and employees from discrimination, and advised all colleges to “bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia.” (The law on the books does not explicitly protect gay people.)

McDonnell's letter countered with: “Therefore, discrimination against classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited … I hereby direct that the hiring, promotion, compensation, treatment, discipline and termination of state employees shall be based on an individual’s job qualifications, merit and performance.”

This schizophrenic behavior within the same administration demonstrates what happens when a legislative body cannot define and then defend human rights. One executive says no; one says yes. A simple change in the executive branch therefore could damage or could help the march toward full rights. The craps shoot is always present.

Why do so many legislative bodies lack the courage to move forward on gay rights?

The broader question remains: Why isn't the fundamental right to be free from discrimination and hate crimes for any group recognized by acclaim? Who stands in the way? Most people reading this post likely embrace the notion that no one, for any reason, as a group or class, should be subjected to discrimination, intimidation, or violence.

 Our history is littered with sad and often bloody struggles for equal rights and equal protection.

When my oldest daughter was about 13, the 85th anniversary of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was being celebrated. I explained to her that my grandmothers, born in the 1880s and 90s could not go into a voting booth until then. It was as if a big sign had been hung at the polling places: No Women. When I say my daughter's eyes were as big as saucers, I do mean it. It was inconceivable to her.

It wasn't so inconceivable to me. People of the post war generation remember well the Civil Rights struggle clearly. It was not a movie, a book, or photograph in a magazine.

Now when we see the water fountain signs from as recently as the 1960s that say "No Colored," we are rightly shocked, disbelieving, and feel revulsion. (Although we have probably collectively forgotten signs that said No Irish Need Apply - or Italian, or Chinese, or Japanese, or Mexican, or "Bohunks." A Bohunk is a derisive term for people of Eastern European ancestry.)

Today, though the signs are not clearly and officially painted and posted, nevertheless they hang on courtrooms and marriage bureaus, in police departments and bars, schools and insurance companies, hospitals and adoption agencies.

The signs say "No Gays." Read carefully. The message is there. Only the language is less overt. The sentiment is the same.

Lyndon Johnson, the President who stepped boldly forward to push through Civil Rights legislation in the mid-1960s said:

What convinces is conviction. Believe in the argument you're advancing. If you don't, you're as good as dead. The other person will sense that something isn't there, and no chain of reasoning, no matter how brilliant, will win your case for you.

...