A truly despicable NYT Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times has a truly despicable editorial by Ross Douthat about Rand Paul.

First, let's talk about some of the meat.  Rand Paul has expressed reservations about the government's statutory power to intervene in the private sector.  And it's clear that some such interventions would be an overreach, "wrong" on balance of power/privacy/"what is "right", issues, and probably unconstitutional.  For example, if spoiled rock-stars petitioned congress to pass a law forbidding red M&Ms, we could all disagree with that.  If congress forbids racial discrimination, I would support that, but Rand Paul thinks that falls into a grey area.

How about congress (I'm using lowercase to be non-specific) forbidding home schooling, gay sex, cigarette smoking, or smoking pot?  Is that o.k.?  I think many would argue that this is in a grey area and it may be best for them to refrain from such a law.

How about congress forbidding abortion?  Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an overreach, an abuse of privacy. 

How about Congress passing a statute forbidding alcohol?  By precedent, we know that that would be an unconstitutional overreach, since it required a constiitutional amendment.

So, there clearly are limits to what congress can do regarding the private sector.   While I believe that Rand Paul draws the line in the wrong place, his basic intellectual argument is sound.  Those criticising him have not (to my reading) adressed the issue intellectually, just emotionally.  Yes, racism is bad, but not everything done to prevent racism is right.

Now, what's really despicable about the editorial?  Guilt by association.

It isn’t surprising that two of the most interesting “paleo” writers of the last few decades, Francis and Joseph Sobran, ended their careers way out on the racist or anti-Semitic fringe.

What?  Just because a few writers with similar opinions were wackos has no relevance to Rand Paul.  This is a truly sleazy line of attack and unworthy of some two-bit blogger like myself, let alone an editorial in a major national newspaper.

Douthat refuses to argue with the merits and demerits of Paul's opinion, and reverts to craven guilt by association.  It's a lame editorial.  BTW, Douthat is conservative, not a "typical" NYT liberal.

Frank Rich Editorial about Rand Paul

The Sunday New York Times features an editorial by Frank Rick about Rand Paul, entitled "The Randslide and Its Discontents".  As one one expect from a liberal NYT columnist, it isn't favorable.  But one section about Paul's views is interesting, because his views seem reasonable, and would appeal to progressives.

Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Educationand the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.

It’s also in keeping with this ideology that Paul wants the federal government to stop shoveling taxpayers’ money into wars. He was against the war in Iraq and finds the justification for our commitment in Afghanistan “murky.” He believes that America’s national security is “not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”

Many progressives should agree with a lot of this.  Earmarks are bad, agricultural subsidies are (generally) bad.  Those who wish to pass local laws to legalize marijuana or assisted suicide might support Paul's views on drug enforcement.  And of course they'd support his views on the wars.

So I'm really not sure what Frank Rich is doing in his editorial.  Naturally, he goes on to call Paul a racist - it's pretty much a requirement nowadays.  But, ultimately, either Rich didn't think things out at all, or he's up to something really devious.

Poor Political Advertising

Yes, I know there's a lot of deliberately bad, or just plain bad political ads out there.  The "YES" ads for California Prop 16 reach especially high levels of deceit.  I'm both impressed and dismayed. 

Here I single out one local group's campaign literature in particular, even though it's a cause I support!  San Mateo County will offer up Proposition E.  In a nutshell, it is a $150/year parcel tax on residents of the Cabrillo Unified School District to support local schools.  I'm not big on taxes, but a small parcel tax to support local schools seems well worth it.

One major support group for E is Friends of Cabrillo Unified Schools. (FOCUS)  My complaint is, if you look through that web site, it barely mentions the $150 parcel tax!  Well, if you search on "tax", you do pick up one page, "Resources", which does have the word tax, which links to the fact sheet, which details the $150 tax.  So, technically you can find the info, they just make it really hard.

I just received a nice printed flyer in the mail from FOCUS, and nowhere does it mention the word tax!  It does say that "An exemption is available for senior citizen homeowners", which implies to careful readers that this involves a parcel tax.  But no direct reference.  I'm really sad to see this borderline deception - it may tilt me to vote against this measure that normally I'd support..

Why can't we have an honest and forthright discussion that treats voters as adults?  Say that this is a parcel tax, it is small, it all goes to support local schools, there are fiscal protections, and ask people to support it.

Here's a discussion forum in the local paper about the measure.

I disagree with McCain and Lieberman

I often agree with Senators McCain and Lieberman, who are more-or-less centrists (by US standards) and are more willing to cross party lines and compromise than many.  And, I'm not against trying non-citizen terrorists as enemy-combatants with less rights than US citizens.  However, I disagree with their recent proposal to try US citizens, such as Faisal Shahzad as enemy combatants.

For better or worse, Faisal Shahzad is a US citizen, entitled to all the rights in the US Constitution and relevant state laws.

But, I'd like to point out the following:  Shahzad, as a US citizen, allegedly "levied War against the United States" and "adhering to their Enemies", and, if true, is guilty of treason.  If the facts support it, he should be changed as a traitor.

"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason" and it's a capital offense.