1 Boring Old Man

After Explaining a Provocative Remark, Paul Makes Another
The New York Times
By KATE PHILLIPS
May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — Rand Paul, the newly nominated Republican candidate for Senate from Kentucky, touched off more controversy on Friday by calling the Obama administration “un-American” for taking a tough stance with BP over the company’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A day after he was forced to explain remarks he had made suggesting he was not fully supportive of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Mr. Paul set off yet another round of Twitter, cable television and e-mail chatter by lambasting President Obama and his aides for insisting that BP be held accountable — and pay — for the oil spill cleanup and damage.

“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Mr. Paul said, referring to a remark by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar about the oil company. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”

His Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, the state attorney general, has begun soliciting campaign donations by citing Mr. Paul’s recent statements. On the BP remarks, Mr. Conway said on Friday: “Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability.” Also in the Friday interview, on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Mr. Paul extended his belief that too much blame was being laid at the feet of business, by alluding to the deaths of 29 workers at a Massey Energy mine in West Virginia last month. “We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”

By Friday afternoon, Mr. Paul’s campaign had canceled his scheduled appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program.

Strangely enough to me, it’s about "rights." Rand Paul is crusading for the "rights" of businessmen to run their businesses without interference. If a restaurant owner doesn’t want to serve food to black people, Rand Paul would be fine with putting up a sign that says, "White Only." After all, it’s his restaurant. And if a Mine Owner doesn’t want to be strapped with a lot of expensive safety regulations, that’s his "business." Even BP, who has fought hard for the "right" to cut corners and create the biggest mess in the history of the oceans [a very long history], they’re within their "rights." In Paul’s frame of reference, there should be no consideration of the "collective" good. That’s socialism, or Communism, or un-American-ism.  He’s a chip off the old block, Ron Paul. His father has more style, less smirk, but the music is the same. Ron Paul is touted to have the most conservative voting record in Congress, but it’s more than that. He is simply anti-government – he votes against everything. And, by the way, Ron Paul appears to be something of a racist himself.

I’ll bet that Rand Paul doesn’t think of himself as a racist. He sees himself as a champion of free enterprise and the rights of the businessman. I expect the whole Tea Party movement thinks the same way – fighting for "rights." In the rural county where I now live in Georgia, there’s a lady from the Tea Party who goes to all public meetings, usually speaking out. At the last Commissioner’s Meeting, she stood wanting reassurance that she could pray at the courthouse on the National  Day of Prayer without being arrested after reading about a judicial decision in Wisconsin. Truth is, she can pray at the courthouse every day if she wants to without being arrested. As I drove past the local Technical College yesterday, the marquee announced this month’s Tea Party meeting – a discussion of the options for a changing to a multi-commissioner government coming up on the ballot. Nobody came to the endless public meetings last year about this change, but you can bet that the auditorium will be packed for the Tea Party version.

I guess we should’ve seen all this reactionary stuff coming when we elected a black President. Some of it would’ve been there with a woman, or even if it was a white Democrat/Liberal guy. But it’s hard to refute that having a black President has turned up the volume. We had slavery for almost a century, then racial segregation for a century. Now, we’re only 50 years into version three. In this country, women have only had the vote for less than a century [1920]. Rights come slowly here in the New World.

Sometime in the latter part of the 1960’s, my wife and I were driving to visit our parents. I was at that point a moderately long haired jeans wearing sort – as obviously a Democrat/Liberal/whatever as I am today. I was no hippie, being more of a Civil Rights type from the earlier 1960’s. At the time, I was an Internal Medicine Resident, very soon to be a father, and about to be Air Force Officer [but I didn’t yet know that]. We lived in Memphis and were making the trek across rural Mississippi to see my wife’s parents in Northern Alabama, then on to see my parents in Chattanooga. We stopped at a roadside restaurant in Mississippi. We were in a hurry, so I ran in to get some carry-out food.
      The waitress at the to-go counter looked at me and said, "We don’t serve hippies."
      I said without thinking, "I don’t want any hippies. I want two hamburgers."
      She smiled and said, "What do you want on them?"