Rand Paul: Better Than Bunning

So it appears the Tea Party actually managed to field a candidate on a major party ticket. With Rand Paul's win in Kentucky's recent Republican primary for Senator and MLB hall of famer Jim Bunning's seat, someone with Tea Party (and Sarah Palin's) support might actually go to Washington. I guess the apocalypse is coming sooner than I thought. Just kidding...sort of.

(Before I get to Paul, let me start with Bunning. The guy is borderline senile. Although once a fearsome presence on the mound, he has been arguably one of the weakest and most ineffectual Senators in history, except when it comes to single-handedly blocking unemployment benefits. Also, I'm pretty sure the only legislation he ever introduced had something to do with retired baseball players. In 2006, Time Magazine named Bunning one of America's five worst senators. He hasn't done much to improve his reputation since then. His retirement couldn't come soon enough, but I digress...)

Rand Paul is not a bad guy. Neither is his dad. They just have some radically impractical ideas based on a vision of how our founding fathers would have wanted America to turn out. I realize the Pauls just want to go back to simpler times, when most Americans were farmers, we basically produced everything we consumed and the federal government largely stayed out of certain affairs over which it now has influence. I can understand that. But, for better or worse, those days are gone and they aren't coming back anytime soon.

Over time, America has grown and with this growth has come experience through crisis and knowledge about how best to keep our country safe, stable and strong. At certain points along the way, our predecessors felt it necessary to give the Federal Reserve the power to regulate the financial industry, establish a federally regulated education system, limit corporate expenditures in elections and make it easier for historically oppressed minorities to enter the workforce. These things happened, and for Mr. Paul to openly criticize some and call for the abolishment of others is both impractical and insensitive but most importantly a waste of time. Don't even get me started on his use of free market principles to defend BP, a massive foreign corporation whose regulation-skirting caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history. In American waters.

What scares me most about Rand Paul is that his message strikes a chord with people, even me sometimes. Most Americans want fresh faces in Congress who won't uphold the status quo and follow the party line. We want new decision makers making new decisions. (I'm trademarking that.) But I don't think some people realize that although they agree with Paul's take on America's problems, they really aren't going to like his solutions. What we need are realistic minds representing us in Washington, not backwards idealists too wrapped up in colonial nostalgia and anti-government passion to actually be an effective lawmaker at the national level.

I have to give Rand Paul credit for sticking with his gut now that he is in the limelight instead of falling in line with the Republican establishment. But I don't think he is good for the country at a time when we need real solutions and not what-if pipe dreams. Hindsight's 20/20, Mr. Paul. Let's hear some practical ideas.

A Dark Place: WTUs "Worse Than Iraq"

Ensuring the medical and mental (I would argue even financial) stability of veterans should be a basic and essential function of the United States government. It's really not that difficult: No man or woman who has ever served in combat wearing an American uniform should have to worry about proper medical care or homelessness. Ever. So why are so many veterans not receiving the medical attention they need? How is it possible that almost one quarter of America's homeless are veterans?

Ever since the Washington Post exposed the despicable conditions and practices at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (unfortunate naming, Walter Reed was an American pioneer of modern medicine) people have been paying more attention to how we treat our veterans. We've come a long way since our regrettable treatment of soldiers returning from Vietnam, but our government still has work to do. A recent New York Times story shined a light on what the Army has created in the wake of scandal: Warrior Transition Units, or WTUs.

Instead of a traditional hospital setting, WTUs were intended to offer a more relaxed and personal rehabilitation experience for soldiers suffering from both physical and psychological battle wounds; an apparently novel concept for the VA. Problem is, they don't seem to be working. Reports indicate that instead of receiving adequate and individual care, soldiers are being neglected and abused, pumped full of meds and left to aimlessly watch TV, drink or use illegal drugs. What kind of rehab centers are WTUs supposed to be?

These might be isolated incidents, but is it really normal that one of these WTUs in Fort Carson, Colorado has had seven patient suicides since it was established in 2007? Is it just coincidence that numerous patients and doctors have reported seriously injured and traumatized veterans are being treated as harshly as if they were still in boot camp? Reports of over-medication and even illegal drug abuse also seem to be common in WTUs. This is not the environment in which our injured veterans should be preparing to return to society as healthy and stable citizens.

War is serious, and helping veterans of war should be taken just as seriously. We should expect that ALL returning veterans need our help; if they don't, that's great, good luck to them. But if they do, the U.S. government should do everything reasonable in its power to make sure they get proper treatment, care and attention on an intensive and individual level. Regardless of their condition, addiction or financial situation, we should have the best of the best making sure all veterans who reach out for help are met with respect and open arms.

Instead of forcing returning soldiers-in-need to enter time-specific and sometimes inadequate VA care programs, the government should be flexible around individual needs and provide more alternatives, such as footing the bill for certain private doctors, psychiatrists or treatment centers if they aren't willing or able to provide these services. Maybe we can start paying for it by firing some of the bitter scumbags currently staffing WTUs and disrespecting injured Army veterans.

You can tell a lot about a people by the way they treat their returning soldiers. These are the men and women who physically, not metaphorically, protect us from harm. If you are willing to risk your life for your country and its people you deserve the full benefits of the state. Far less worthy expenditures of tax dollars clog our fiscal drain on a daily basis; I think we can make some room to spend here.

Generation Common Sense

My generation is suffering due to the failures and short-sightedness of those before us. How do we stop this from happening again? Reform, of course. Change what went wrong in the past so it doesn't happen again in the future. Makes sense. But how do we guarantee that we don't allow ourselves to fall into another situation just as catastrophic, or worse, in the future? No retroactive policy reform is going to do that.

Only education can give us the long-term stability we desperately need. Education = rational debate and elections = more effective governance = a stable, productive and powerful America. If we become smarter, so too will our leaders. Too many big decisions are put off by elected officials too scared to do anything good for the country in the long-term if it means displeasing voters in the short-term. This (and gerrymandering) has been the nature of the beast for basically all of American political history. This model, however instinctive and logical, needs to go.

America needs more politicians like the ones our forefathers envisioned: men both enlightened and practical, faithful and humanistic, steeped in both tradition and progress. True patriots who felt a duty to serve their country, unafraid to make hard decisions when necessary. Someone who puts the good of the country over their own political fortunes without hesitation is a representative in the noblest sense of the word. Where are these people?? Politics and government in America was never meant to be synonymous with corruption and ineffectuality in the public mind. People like Sarah Palin should not be as influential as they are and issues like race, abortion and gay marriage should not keep us from doing what needs to get done. I refuse to believe this is the America George Washington imagined. (In fact, Washington warned of the distracting and divisive nature of political bickering between parties in his farewell address.)

We can easily recruit men and women closer to this mold if we start basing our opinions on facts and not blind, distorted logic. This can be difficult; everything you read is manipulated in one form or another, from the source down (even this). But education doesn't mean a bachelor's degree, it means knowing how to sift through the bullshit in order to find truth in whatever it is you're reading, hearing or watching. Every American can educate themselves through balanced, thoughtful analysis of current events and by resisting the urge to hear one point of view and settle on it.

Basically, we need more Thomas Jeffersons and less Joe Wilsons. More Paines and less Becks. More enlightened pragmatists and less ignorant opportunists. Elections and politics in general should be fueled by factual and relevant dialogue, not stereotypes, hot button issues, unsubstantiated claims, flip-flops, one-liners and regurgitated rhetoric. Am I wrong? I mean, I know there have always been idiots in American politics, but don't you think our founding fathers would be just a little disappointed if they saw how divided our country remains over issues that are irrelevant to what really matters?

Arizona Cracks Down On Illegal-Looking People

I can't say I agree with this new law in Arizona, which looks like America's toughest immigration law since we put quotas on immigrants from certain Eastern European and Asian countries in the 1920s. Nevermind that it basically turns police officers into immigration officers and will inevitably lead to charges of racial profiling, it is blatantly unconstitutional. But while the East Coast liberal in me cries out for the blood of racist morons, the conservative in me says it's about time somebody did something.

Let me explain. The problem with Arizona attempting to enforce its own immigration policy is that, according to the Supreme Court, federal immigration law trumps state law. However, Justice Hugo Black included in the opinion of the seminal case Hines v. Davidowitz (1941) the following caveat:

"And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation...states cannot...enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."

And there lies the real problem. As of yet, the federal government has failed to enact a "complete scheme of regulation" dealing with illegal immigration. In the absence of specific and relevant federal law, and in the midst of some of the worst drug related crime in the country's history, Arizona finally decided to take matters into its own hands.

Now I don't think, like some, that Arizona is just backwards. But it does seem as if Arizona voters, albeit rightfully tired of the bloodshed and kidnappings associated with illegal drugs coming from Mexico, short-sightedly put people in office who overstepped their constitutionally granted powers. Passing this bill was a desperate act on the parts of elected officials under pressure to respond to a serious issue when the federal government failed to do so.

Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the driving force behind this new law, has been widely quoted as saying "illegal is not a race, it's a crime." I agree, but I don't think this naive and weirdly egalitarian view of the issue matches up with the practical implications of the law. At the end of the day, it will be up to police officers on the streets of Arizona to determine whether or not an individual appears to be present in this country illegally. While I don't think Arizona cops are going to arrest every person of Hispanic descent in the state, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how this could create a slippery slope toward unwarranted arrest and detention.

The law's broad language, discriminate scope and unconstitutional foundation make me confident it will be overturned in court. But the elephant in the room is that the federal government must act. Congress needs to come up with a realistic, bipartisan solution to illegal immigration that keeps our borders secure and our cities free from drug violence. At the same time, any solution must also distinguish between immigrants who already contribute socioeconomically (they do exist, and after monetary punishment should be given the opportunity to become citizens and pay taxes) and those who are just plain criminals. If the feds continue to drag their feet, more states will follow Arizona's lead. I'm not proud of what has happened in Arizona but I'm mindful of the bigger issues that created this situation in the first place. Hopefully we'll be able to look back on this and say Arizona was responsible for getting the federal government to finally act on illegal immigration.