Dirty Laundry

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it." — Ron Paul.

You won't see me quoting Texas Congressman Ron Paul very often, but I agree with him here.

He is of course talking about whistleblower site WikiLeaks, their release last week of 250,000 American diplomatic cables, and the subsequent criminal investigation of the WikiLeaks editor in chief, Julian Assange.

I'm confident the world won't be ending any time soon, but most of the media is acting like Assange is some kind of real life Dr. Evil... or the new Osama bin Laden. But I tend to see Assange as a little less sinister and a little more egotistical, ambitious, and naive. He thinks he's going to crush the American government? Jon Stewart has a message for Assange:

"I think you’re underestimating how cynical Americans are about our government already. We’ve engineered coups in Chile, Iran, Guatemala, et cetera. We sold arms to Iran and then used the money to fund Central American revolutionaries. We sell weapons to our enemy’s enemy, who somehow always then becomes our enemy and forces us to defend ourselves from our own weapons. That happens a lot. In fact, you know what we call that? The number 8."

And you can count me among the cynical Americans. Out of all the leaks I've read about, I already knew some of it, strongly suspected most of it, and was mildly intrigued by a few revelations. I have no idea how these leaks will impact other countries like Russia, but I'm sure they have a lot in common with us. As Anne Applebaum on Slate put it:

"In the absence of a political culture that abhors corruption, in the absence of prosecutors who pursue it, this is just another in a long series of sensational scandals. Berlusconi parties with Putin? So what, he parties with everyone."

The most I hope for is that future politicians might think ahead, just a bit, and consider the possible blowback when all their dirty laundry and egregious acts are leaked. Maybe they'll realize that the best approach is to be honest and transparent? Maybe I'm thinking like a radical again...

These leaks could be healthy for us, or they could be used to justify more censorship, new espionage laws, and more vilification of the truth tellers.

Meet Rand

I know my blog posts have been a little sparse this month. I'm not sure what my problem is. Maybe I've caught that infectious anti-incumbent fever that's been going around. Achoo!

Actually, I've hardly paid attention to the elections this week, but people are making a fuss about them, so I guess I will too.

So there's this guy Rand Paul, political neophyte son of Republican Congressman Ron Paul -- no relation to RuPaul, who won a Republican Senatorial primary race. Calm down Kentucky teabaggers. It's a primary race. He's not a Senator yet!

But, no doubt, Rand is the man of the teabaggers: "I have a message. A message from the Tea Party. A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

After watching that Rachel Maddow interview, does anybody have any doubt that there is a strong racist vibe with the teabaggers and their candidates? If the creepy "take our government back" line is a racist dog whistle, then the rest of that interview was a racist bullhorn. Rand couldn't even give a straight answer to the Woolworth's lunch counter conundrum.

Hey Rand, it's really not a brain teaser. Most of this country agrees that it should be illegal for a business to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or disability. Rand tried to compare it to a business owner discriminating against those who openly carry a gun. Well, I think the man doesn't know real discrimination. You can choose whether to carry a gun or not. You can choose what day you want to carry a gun. You don't get to choose your race, color or disability, and though you can change your gender and religion, it's certainly not something you do flippantly.

Rand tried to say that the civil rights issues that Rachel Maddow brought up were "red herrings." Well if Rand ever makes it to the Senate floor, then his positions on the Civil Rights Act and the 20-year-old American's with Disabilities Act are not inconsequential footnotes. As a Senator, his beliefs get translated into laws! That's the way it works!

Nobody wants to re-fight the civil rights battles of the last century... except apparently Rand Paul and the teabaggers. As a person with a disability, I do feel threatened every time some politician feels more empathetic toward the "free speech" of a business owner versus the basic rights of the disabled. I know it's hard for libertarians to understand, but in 1990, a federal law increased my rights.

The small government types don't comprehend this. Government had to write the rules to protect my rights. Free markets can't, won't, and aren't designed to do such things. Bob Cesca explained the flaws of libertarianism better than I can:

Libertarianism, which both Ron and Rand Paul famously embrace, suggests the free market is a significant and vital component of liberty. Private businesses are capable of accomplishing everything, and government can't interfere or regulate those businesses in any way. The free market will police itself. Just leave it be.

Private industry can pave roads, educate children, put out fires and protect our streets from drunk drivers. It can shuttle our kids to corporate schools and back, it can provide clean water to our homes and they can guarantee our meat and vegetables aren't contaminated with diseases. And by the way, in a nation that's 70 percent white, private businesses can choose to do all of these things for white people only. Private businesses can provide everything we need, but only offer those services to white people.

And these businesses, according to libertarian ideology, can form monopolies if they want to. As we're all painfully aware from the health care debate, monopolies occur even in our current government-regulated system. Imagine what would happen in a totally unregulated free market.

And really, after witnessing what has happened with the banks in the last year, and the BP blowout last month, we should all realize that businesses need to be regulated diligently. Leaving them to run amok is dangerous!

Ezra Klein has a few more questions for Rand Paul:

Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors?

Hmm... wouldn't want the nasty government telling businesses not to hire illegal immigrants, would we teabaggers? Now there's a conundrum for Rand.

4/20 Dude

Ok, I'm a day late. I guess I just didn't get around to finishing this post...

Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, to decriminalize the possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and the not-for-profit transfer of up to 1 ounce. The bill, dubbed the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, marks the first time in decades that Congress has considered removing criminal penalties for marijuana.

Last month Frank issued a statement about marijuana legislation:

To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these things and enforcement of the age restrictions should be firm. But criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.

Are politicians finally catching up with the public opinion on this issue? I think it's rather silly to put marijuana users in jail considering the fact that many leading politicians including Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, George Pataki, and Barack Obama have admitted using the drug. If any of those politicians think people should go to jail for smoking pot, well, then they should turn themselves in first.

You can use this handy online form to contact your member of Congress and ask him or her to support the personal use of marijuana.