A few brief and sullen meditations this week. Not much to say, really, but I’ll say it anyway.
‘Lection Show. Primary day was a bit underwhelming, to say the least. Not surprised to see Arlen Specter voted down. Just a bit too much political opportunism there to survive, I suppose. Never been very keen on him, I must admit. He was one of the decisive votes in pulling serious infrastructure spending out of the stimulus package last year, as I recall. And it’s hard for me to forget his spirited defense of Justice Thomas, whose bitter judicial philosophy (such as it is) we have been saddled with for the past two decades (and will likely have to live through for another two). John Murtha’s seat stayed in Democratic hands – that’s a disappointment to some.
So was Rand Paul’s victory in Kentucky, against an establishment candidate avidly supported by Cheney, McConnell and others. While Paul has gotten himself tangled into knots with some absolutist libertarian positions, he shares his father’s disdain for both of our useless wars. That, at least, would be an embarrassment for his party… and a well-deserved one, at that. He would also be one of the only truly anti-war senators. Hard to fault him for that.
What I can fault him on, though, is the logical outcome of his extreme libertarianism, which his recent comments illustrate. He’s troubled by what he sees as a heavy handed approach to BP by the administration, since that violates his sense of the total separation of the public and private spheres. For one thing, it’s amazing to me that he would consider what’s happening between Obama and BP overly intrusive or burdensome to the oil giant. If anything, it’s way too cozy and too permissive. Personally, I think they should break BP into a million pieces and cash each fragment in as a downpayment on the damage they’ve done through their greed and negligence. But Paul refuses to acknowledge human agency in either the BP undersea oil volcano, or the Massey Energy mine disaster, or I imagine any similar circumstance. “Accidents happen”, and when they do, government looks for people to “blame”.
In that respect, he sounds severely unhinged. But only because he’s willing to say out loud what many right-wing politicians and tea party “patriots” (i.e. former Bush voters) are thinking quietly to themselves.
luv u,
jp
These companies are falling all over themselves trying to limit their liability. Not surprising, but quite honestly, why should they be allowed to do anything of the sort? Is anyone going to limit the liability of every living thing along the Gulf coast? Can a limit be placed on how much people, birds, fish, an entire ecosystem, in fact, will be allowed to suffer? And what the hell happens when we try to place a limit on how much companies like BP can take in profits? Excess profit taxes always raise cries of socialism, unjust takings, etc. These guys have been making billions hand over fist for the last few years in particular with no limits whatsoever. But liability for a massive catastrophe like this – that can be limited, somehow? Ludicrous beyond belief.
Well, it is a Lieberman idea. He and retired male model Scott Brown have put this piece of garbage forward rather proudly, despite the fact that it is a.) almost certainly unconstitutional and b.) such a rabid overreaction to what has occurred that it can only be understood as a political stunt rather than any matter of conviction. What is it with these people, anyway? Where do they get this deep-seated hostility towards our legal system and our traditions regarding the rights of the accused? Are they originally from authoritarian countries and just homesick? It’s like the people in my neighborhood who chop down all of their trees – if they want to live in Kansas, why don’t they MOVE to Kansas? And if Lieberman wants to live in North Korea or Mexico, they’ve certainly got room for him there.