LIBERTARIAN DUALITY SYMBOL

Within 24 hours of getting the first Tea Party nomination for a major political office in the United States, Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul already committed his first political faux pas in his equivocation regarding a key component of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In an interview last night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rand was pressed by Maddow to state whether or not he would oppose the key provision under the landmark legislation prohibiting private sector discrimination based on race.  Rand categorically denied that he was a racist and insisted that this position, based on Libertarian principles which philosophically oppose government intervention in the private sector, was the basis for his argument that this portion of the legislation was flawed and that he would not support it. 

Today, Rand backtracked from his political posture last night, now saying that he would not advocate for the repeal of the legislation, in whole or part.  He said that appearing on Maddow’s show was a “poor political decision” – inferring that her questioning was another Sarah Palin, liberal media “gotcha” moment.  He complained to Maddow about her line of questioning during the interview, claiming that the issue of private property owners’ rights under the law was “an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you bring up … You bring up something that really is not an issue.”

I like Rand Paul.  I don’t believe for one moment that he is a racist.  Neither does Rachel Maddow, and her questioning was not a hatchet job.  She is sincerely interested in how Libertarian purists might dismantle 235 years of constitutional interpretation and legislation.  I watched the interview, and her questions were fair.  Moreover, I think both Rand and his father, Ron Paul, are well-intentioned, intelligent anti-establishment politicians.  There is ample room for men of their intellectual and philosophical stature under the tent of American politics.  But their positions on serious political and legislative matters must be explored.

Unfortunately for Rand, that is why his alignment with principles of Libertarianism, and the Tea Party’s deep criticism of prior legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does make it an issue.  If the Tea Party candidates are going to run on a platform that advocates for the dismantling of any and all government regulation affecting private property rights, they have to accept the fact that critics have good reason to question their intentions regarding repeal of prior legislation, and what those actions would mean for ten’s of millions of Americans.

Most people are not familiar with Libertarianism – a modern, free market philosophy – it eschews government interference in any aspect of private life, while advocating for freedom of speech and behavior, so long as it does not harm anyone.  Of course, in theory, it all sounds very enticing.  I personally considered myself to once be a Libertarian. 

However, that all began to change after recognizing that those among us who have more “freedom” – as in money or power - will utilize that advantage in order to quash or interfere with the freedom of others to pursue their own goals and dreams.  What I often hear in response is that “life isn’t fair” – inequities will always exist.

If that is so, we are headed back to a time when robber barons and monopolists are allowed to manipulate and “game the system” for their own devices.  Wall Street’s domination of the finanical landscape is a case in point.  Once they have wrested complete control or dominated an intolerable degree of economic and political life in America, social unrest and anarchy will inevitably rule the day.  Case in point:  the colonial revolt against England in 1776.  I would think Rand Paul and the Tea Party might see the irony in that.

Even Adam Smith – author of Wealth of Nations, and the father of free markets – recognized that government intervention was a necessary evil.  For those of you who doubt this, read the book (here is a free online edition).  I did over thirty years ago. And I have read it several times since then.  Smith was a closet “socialist” (with a small “s”).  The principle underlying his whole theory was the overall social good would be elevated by HARNESSING – as in placing a bridle on – greed.  When you harness a horse – you keep it under control.  You do not let it run completely free. 

Libertarians think the horse should never be bridled; under any circumstances.  The law of unintended consequences will always come into play when you let a horse run wild.

For that reason alone, Rand Paul must accept the reality of having to go down the rabbit hole of American politics. 

 Just go ask Alice . . . or Barry Goldwater.

Duke Lacrosse Team Prosecutor Mike Nifong  - Complained of Fundamental Unfairness of Disbarment Proceedings While His Puppy Was Eating His Law License

Do you recall that ugly scandal involving players for the Duke University Lacrosse Team, where a stripper named Crystal Magnum – boy was Chris Rock ever right about keeping your daughter “off the pole” - accused several of the players of raping her at an off-campus team party? 

Remember the over-zealous Prosecutor Mike Nifong making racially-incendiary insinuations that the alleged rape was a hate crime – all for political gain – along with his other voluminous ethical violations? 

Of course, nothing was further from the truth.  There was never any crime committed that night.  Except, of course  – and I sincerely apologize to Duke University for not defending your actions - there was that unthinkable crime of underage drinking by college boys.  Oh, the horrors of it all . . .  

Earlier today, Crystal Magnum (did your mom really give you that name?) - that stripper who falsely accused those young white men of the rape – was arrested for allegedly beating the Hell out of her boyfriend, then throwing his clothes in bathtub and setting them on fire in an apartment.  While being taken away by police officers, it was reported that she then yelled at the boyfriend, “I’m going to stab you [MotherF&%ker].” 

She was charged with “first-degree attempted murder for communicating a threat” while in the presence of police officers, as well as five counts of arson, simple assault, identity theft, damage to property and resist, delay and obstruction of justice. Moreover, there may be three additional counts of child endangerment as a result of setting the fire in an apartment, presumably where the children were present. 

All proving once again that she really hates men – black or white. 

In a really twisted irony was Nifong’s response when confronted with news reports of Magnum’s arrest.  Nifong told a reporter who called him in order to comment on the matter, that he doubted the truth of those reports since he believed media reports “to be of questionable value.” 

I guess Nifong forgot about the fact that he didn’t hesitate to disseminate evidence of questionable value regarding DNA  and other legal issues to the media during the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case.

Karma’s a bitch – literally and figuratively speaking - ain’t it Mike?

There is something either very duplicitous or patently stupid in some of the Conservatives’ responses to the brouhaha over Senator Harry Reid’s comments several years ago about then Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s skin color and articulate speech-patterns.

Of course, Fox News commentators led the charge with their claims of a “double-standard”by Democrats in rushing to Harry Reid’s support, trying to contrast it with a dissimilar circumstance in 2002 when Senator Reid and other Democrats called for the resignation of Senator Trent Lott for his comments supporting Senator Strom Thurmond’s 1948 run for the Presidency on a Segregationist platform.  However, other Conservative commentators understood the obvious nuances in each man’s remarks, as well as the context in which each of them were speaking.

Harry Reid was simply stating something that even the most politically correct among us was thinking – Senator Obama epitomized the ideal of a “perfect black Presidential candidate”:  light-skinned, and extremely articulate (as well as handsome and intelligent).

Trent Lott was simply stating something that all racists believe:  this country was better off when it was segregated.

If the people over at Fox News cannot even discern something as obvious this, their intelligence has to be seriously questioned. 

So which is it, Murdoch’s minions?  Duplicitious or Stupid?!?

 Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing  on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics.  Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror. 

That is utter nonsense.  Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.

More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals:  profiling terrorists.  Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic?  Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post.  You just might  be surprised by my conclusions.

The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources.  That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people. 

Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime.  Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.” 

This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.  Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government. 

But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.

Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent.  On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us.  There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.

The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.

Dictionary definition   Pot Shot or pot-shot: n.  1)  A random or easy shot.  2)  A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack [So called because such a shot is fired by a hunter whose main purpose is to get food for the pot.]

When Lou Dobbs suddenly announced his resignation from CNN yesterday it came as no real surprise.  Dobbs had been slowly developing into the other proverbial “loose cannon” on the deck of the oldest cable news organization, and his populist rant was revealing a deep-seeded and incendiary paranoia that has only been matched by Glenn Beck in the past couple of years.  Ironically, it was CNN that inadvertently gave them their starts – and it was inevitable that the network would have to part ways with both of them (or vis-a-versa).  Advertisers were not going to be penalized by his unpredictable rants which tended to insult vast numbers of minorities that purchase goods and services around this country.  

Dobbs can certainly find greener pastures at Faux News Network, where he will continue to blame the woes of this country on illegal aliens and other boogie men.  After all, a valid birth certificate released by the State of Hawaii has thus far not dissuaded Dobbs from continuing to insinuate that President Obama, himself, is an illegal alien.  This only lends more credence to those critics who lam-bast him for his ”racist conspiracy theories”.  After all, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck , it must be a duck.

However, the final irony herein is that after years of taking “pot shots” at the Liberal Media, Dobbs is now blaming them in another non sequitur reference regarding the fact that he and his wife were outside their home when a bullet was fired in their direction.  Dobbs claimed that it was because of all of the hatred directed toward him by the liberal media, it inflamed someone to shoot at he and his wife because of his stance on illegal immigration.

Lou, double up on that Prozac tomorrow.  Officials for the New Jersey State Police played down the whole incident, stating that the likely source of the obviously stray bullet was from a hunters gun, and that the bullet went into the attic of Dobbs’ house. Now if someone really wanted you dead, Lou, you would make a pretty easy target.  I am betting you are not real fast on your feet, and you’re carrying enough spare tires around your gut to support a NASCAR team on race weekend.  A bullet flying randomly into an attic either came from a long way’s away, or was such a bad shot that it does not merit worrying about.  Trust me, Lou.  If the shooter can barely hit the broad side of a barn, even a target as big as you is safe standing out in the middle of your front yard.

Either way, I just think it’s funny after all of the nasty pot shots you have taken at people, races and cultures over the years, that you are now complaining about a stray bullet that was not even likely intended for you.  

Karma is strange.  Isn’t it Lou?

In today’s sports news, the Major League Baseball playoffs are overshadowed by the rumor that Rush Limbaugh may be seeking financial involvement in a proposed partnership to purchase the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise.  Limbaugh’s racially inflammatory outbursts have repeatedly brought his denials of racial prejudice into question.  However, his past association with the NFL and the media outlets have certainly left little doubt regarding their view that Limbaugh is ”radioactive” –  including his 2003 resignation as a commentator with ESPN’s Sunday Night Football.  That flap was over his comments about Donovan McNabb’s performance with the Philadelphia Eagles, with Limbaugh stating that all the media attention directed towards McNabb was merely because he was a black quarterback.

Now Limbaugh is being ostracized in various media outlets for these racist comments, and this is the basis for the present brouhaha over his proposed ownership interest in an NFL franchise.  Commentators are weighing in on this issue, and the consensus seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to Limbaugh’s involvement with the NFL.  It was reported earlier today that at least one NFL owner, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay, has publicly indicated that he would not support Limbaugh being part of any proposed ownership group  (of course, all of this is mere speculation given that the Rams are not even up for sale yet). 

In the meantime, and for the umpteenth million time, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson race towards another racially-charged incident and invoke racism in order to play the race card against an alleged racist!  (NOTE:  for the record, Limbaugh appears to be another “hooded” racist – for once, they are probably right).  However, both Jackson and Sharpton should finally realize that they are now irrelevant – in case they have not noticed, America elected a black President last year.  You guys need to sit down and SHUT UP.  Forever!

Nonetheless, everyone is missing a far more salient point . .

 The NFL’s real problem is not racism.  That issue is a throwback to the days when white players were payed far more than their black teammates, and head coaches were exclusively white.  Those days are gone.  No, the real problem with the NFL is the tarnished image it has earned, and the public perception it has garnered as a “safe harbor” for criminals and those who routinely associate with criminal-types.  And rightfully so.

One does not have to recount the voluminous stories regarding NFL players’ involvement, directly or indirectly, with murder, drugs, dog fighting, drunk driving, sports gambling, etc., to point out the obvious fact that the NFL is no church choir.  Rush Limbaugh would only provide plenty of additional fodder for this argument.

Just give me a moment while I load my cannon, Rush-lovers.

Going back just a few years ago, Limbaugh was charged in the State of Florida with one felony count for procuring oxycotin and other prescription pain-killers by means of “doctor-shopping” – - this is a method whereby an individual gets multiple prescriptions from different physicians without divulging to them that he is already being prescribed the medication.  In May of 2006, Limbaugh entered into a deferred prosecution agreement whereby he would be on a form of state-supervised probation for 18 months.  If he complied with all of the conditions set forth in the agreement, the matter would be dismissed.  Ironically, one month later Limbaugh was caught with a prescription for Viagra in someone else’s name.  Fortunately for him, it did not result in a revocation of the original agreement due to a legal loophole in Florida’s prescription laws. 

In any case, it has been less than one year since Limbaugh was on “probationary status” for a felony.  If the NFL were to allow him to become a member of a franchise owner partnership, what kind of message does that send to coaches, players, and the general public?   Being a racist owner is bad enough.  But an “unconvicted” criminal, too?

Subsequent to Representative Joe Wilson’s unconscionable outburst during the President’s speech on Health Care Reform to Congress, there is a pervasive sense of uneasiness rippling throughout the more sane quarters of the nation.  Americans are feeling insecure about the future, in spite of the fact that the economic and financial crisis has seemingly abated for the time being.  Moreover, with the rhetoric from The Far Right growing in intensity with each passing day, there can be little doubt that there is an undercurrent of racism attached to the daily bellowing by some of President Obama’s critics. 

The President has been dismissive of this “theory”, predicated in part by The Whitehouse’s unwillingness to be perceived as “playing the race card” – and rightfully so.  However, the reality has grown painfully more apparent from the very day The President was elected, and there is substantial evidence to support this claim.  President Obama and his advisers are naive to ignore this fact.

In the end, one cannot deny the not-so-subtle irony that the man who yelled out “You lie” to The President has a racist-tinged “vitae curriculum“.  He is a member of The Sons of Confederate Veterans, wherein he led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol. 

Moreover,  in 2003,  Senator Strom Thurmond (R – S.C.), the patriarch of the South Carolina Conservative wing, and a “reformed” segregationist, passed away.   Joe Wilson was a former Senate page for Senator Thurmond.  When a black woman named Essie Mae Washington-Williams revealed that she was the illegitimate child of Senator Thurmond, Joe Wilson publically stated that he did not believe her (he was quoted in The State newspaper), that he was appalled that anyone would dare besmirch the reputation of such a great man, and that even if it was true, she should have kept that fact to herself, stating (in reference to both Strom Thurmond and Thomas Jefferson):

“It’s a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina . . . [s]ometimes these things just go on.  These are heroes of mine. I really hope these would be heroes to future generations of Americans. (The stories) are … a way to diminish their contributions to our country’s existence.”

When the story later turned out to be true, a public uproar ensured wherein Joe Wilson was forced to apologize to Ms. Washington-Williams.  However, he remained unrepentant in his belief that she should have kept the story to herself.

Yet, the most important fact is that Joe Wilson is not alone in this perspective – his supporters are right there with him in his way of thinking.  

Rational-thinking Americans – which constitute the majority of our nation’s citizens, be they Democrats or Republicans – can agree to disagree on many an issue.   However, if we choose to ignore the reality of these racist undertones directed towards The President, we do so at ours and the nation’s peril.

Sometime tomorrow evening, seated at a picnic table on the South Lawn of The Whitehouse will be The President,  Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and  Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department.  They will be having a beer together in an attempt to heal racial tensions that have festered across the country this past week as a result of Mr. Gates’ arrest by Sgt. Crowley on June 16th for Disorderly Conduct/Disturbing the Peace. 

As an aside, I can already hear the comedians making light of the conversation with references to racial epitaphs being thrown across the table . . . but I will not even go there.

Overlooked in the unfolding media frenzy and public uproar over this unfortunate event, and now brought to light the day before “The Beer Summit”, is the paradox of an infrequent reference to those that try to do the right thing:

“NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED”

The only other “central figure” in this unmitigated mess will not be seated at that picnic table.  This person does not even drink beer, and she likely has nothing to further to say about the incident.  Can you blame her?  Her act of reporting a reasonably suspicious behavior, and the unintended consequences for her as a result of making an innocuous phone call, only further speaks to the truth of the above-referenced quote.