The Imperial Bulletin has moved!

Hi everyone. After much consideration, I have decided to move my blog over to my main domain, Imperial Kingdom. This site will now be located at blog.imperialkingdom.net. As great as Blogger is, it doesn't give me much freedom over the coding and presentation of my blog. I have gotten much better at HTML, CSS, and PHP during the three years I have had this blog, and I've decided that I would rather have greater control over the code, structure, and appearance of my blog than is possible with a premade Blogger template.

So head on over to the new Imperial Bulletin!

Happy (politically correct) Thanksgiving!

An elementary school in California has forbidden kindergarteners from dressing up as pilgrims and Indians this Thanksgiving. According to some parents, wearing headdresses and pilgrim hats is "demeaning" and "a racist stereotype."

I can think of a lot of things that are demeaning, and wearing pilgrim and Indian outfits isn't one of them. Headdresses, beads, and vests are a simplified way of representing typical Native American clothing, just as pilgrim hats and collars are a simplified way of representing what the pilgrims wore. There's nothing bad about wearing a headdress, so how is it insulting to Native Americans for kids to wear headdresses? What is demeaning about acting out a historical event?

Political correctness has gotten way out of hand. Things that should be simple and fun are forced to become bland, meaningless, and pointless.

Have a great Thanksgiving, and don't let the PC police ruin it!

Defense lawyers deserve the money

An investigation by the Boston Herald shows that Massachusetts defense lawyers make, on average, twice as much as prosecutors. It seems that many people, from reporters and editors at the Herald (the headline is "Scales of injustice") to District Attorneys to victims' family members to the (mostly) brainless and cruel people who leave comments on the Herald's website, are outraged at this. I don't see anything unjust about it, however.

People who bash defense lawyers need a reminder about the Constitution of the United States. According to the Constitution, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A founding principle of this country is that it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty person to go free. Defending the constitutional rights of the accused is the most basic part of the Americcan legal system and is one of the noblest jobs I can imagine.

Plus, despite the Herald's use of words such as "whopping" and "megabucks," defense attorneys don't make huge amounts of money. The article cites the sums of money that various lawyers made in 5 years while acting as court-appointed defense attorneys. The amounts are all between $200,000 and $600,000, which is pretty good, but hardly exorbitant for a 5-year period.

The article mentions that the budget of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has gone from $95.5 million in 2003 to $185 million last year. As an ardent opponent of big government spending and taxation, I admit that it's generally not good for any part of the government's budget to increase. However, the Mass. state government spends at least $869 a year for its unjust universal health care program. This, not defense lawyers' salaries, is what people should be complaining about. The government should be spending $0 on health care each year, because people should be responsible for paying for their own health care, just like any other product. I cannot understand why people throw fits over defense lawyers being compensated for the difficult, brave job they do, yet seemingly have no objection to welfare programs that give people free money for doing no work whatsoever.

Defense lawyers' pay should not be decreased. They earn every penny of it. Preserving defendants' constitutional rights is one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for.

Maybe Obama's not that bad...

I have to admit, Obama has done one good thing as president-elect so far: expressed his support for Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, a Democratic senator who endorsed McCain for president, is chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee. The other Democrats are trying not only to get him ousted from the committee but also to stop him from caucusing with them.

This really exemplifies the hypocrisy of many liberals. The Democrats like to profess their tolerance for people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, nationalities, economic classes, et cetera. But as soon as one person has a different opinion from them, they exclude that person. It seems like most liberals strive for a nation diverse in skin color, sexuality, and language but uniform in opinion.

To his credit, Obama stuck up to the bigoted majority of his party by saying he thinks Lieberman should be allowed to stay as chairman. I wonder if there will be any more pleasant surprises from the president-elect.

The creepiest website ever

Have you seen Obama's new website? It's called Change.gov and it's probably the creepiest website I have ever seen. From the Obama quote at the top of the layout to the countdown to his inauguration to the additional Obama quotes at the top of each section, it is just unsettling and reminds me a little bit of 1984. Even creepier than the design of his website are Obama's ideas. Change.gov goes into detail about a plethora of his political positions, on a variety of issues. I could never list all of the items I disagree with, but here's a sampling:

First off, he lists "Women" as one of his categories under "Agenda," but he doesn't list "Men." Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children."
So he will steal people's money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.

"The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses."
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he'll also discriminate against people who don't have babies!

"Obama has introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year..."
Stealing more money...

"Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts." There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families."
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That's just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!

"He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections."
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.

"Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education."
More theft...

"Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year..."
And even more theft...

"Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence."
How sexist! He equates "violence against women" with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.

And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year" (under "America Serves").

But then he changed it to... "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

Obviously, it's never good when the president thinks people don't have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn't really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.

Buying the election

Left-wing socialists across the country have been opining that Republicans did so badly in the election because conservatism is a dying, obsolete philosophy that Americans are beginning to abandon. Well, they are wrong. I know the real reason why conservatives did so badly on November 4th - because liberals bought the election.

Take Barack Obama, for example. He spent $573 million, while John McCain, who accepted public financing, spent only $293 million. It is simply not right that one candidate can have a half-hour long infomercial on all the major networks and the other candidate cannot.

Another great example of liberals buying the election is Question 1 - the initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax. It sickens my heart that Question 1 was defeated 70% to 30%. There would have been no drawbacks to eliminating the state income tax and a huge benefit, namely people getting to keep their money! However, because opponents of Question 1 raised $4.5 million and supporters raised only $431,000, the government theives were able to run deceptive TV ads to brainwash the people of Massachusetts into making the irrational, immoral choice.

It is sad that people are so easily influenced by propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. The amount of money a candidate or group has should not affect their chances of winning an election. I believe that campaign spending limits need to be implemented. I don't believe in public financing because the government shouldn't spend money on anything but the military, the justice system, and roads, but I also don't think campaigns should be able to spend as much as they want. Financial arms races are a waste of money, time, and energy and are collectively self-defeating. To ensure fair elections in which people have a chance to make their own decisions instead of being brainwashed, the government needs to limit the amount of money campaigns are allowed to spend.

Sources for stats:
Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
SouthCoastToday.com

Some good news

After my (appropriately) depressing post about the election yesterday, I thought I'd recap the few good decisions voters made. Yes, I said that America did the wrong thing on almost every choice, but "almost" is the key word. Here are the few things voters did right:

• It looks like Proposition 8 is going to pass in California! I'm very pleasantly surprised that a state with such a liberal reputation is actually trying to put an end to gay marriage. Marriage is not a right, and the voters have every right to ban it. I hope the state government doesn't somehow try to overrule the people's decision like Massachusetts did.
• Arizona and Florida approved resolutions to ban gay marriage, too.
• Nebraska voted to end affirmative action. This discriminatory practice is insulting and unfair to people of all races and genders.
• Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. Committing suicide does not hurt anyone and is not immoral, so there is no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to do it if they choose to.
• Colorado rejected an amendment that would define "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization." In philosophy, a person is defined as a rational, autonomous being. Fetuses (and babies, by the way) are therefore not persons, and to define them as such would be contrary to the rules of the English language.

Four long years

The 2008 election was the worst election in American history. Voters as a whole made the wrong choice on almost every race and ballot initiative in the entire country.

We'll have a socialist-leaning president who will continue to decrease people's liberty and property rights. Massachusetts voters had an opportunity to halt the expansion of government theft and oppression, but, brainwashed by the media and the multi-million dollar ad campaign from government moochers, they let the chance slip by. The magnificent, fun sport of greyhound racing is no more. Kerry and Kennedy are still the Massachusetts senators, depriving all Republicans in this state of representation. New Hampshire, which was supposed to be the only state in New England with a remnant of sense left, elected Jeanne Shaheen the taxing machine to the Senate.

Needless to say, I am extraordinarily disappointed in the people of the United States. All true Americans need to remember that although times are bad now, we must keep fighting and never give up. This will be a terrible four years, but hopefully the majority will realize the mistake they made and will vote differently next time. Every socialist nation so far has deteriorated because there is no incentive for people to work. America is clearly headed in this direction, with Obama as president and a Democratic Congress that will eagerly agree to do anything he asks. Don't lose hope. Eventually America will realize that socialism is not the way to go.

Defeat Obama

Unfortunately for conservatives, the presidential race features a liberal, left-wing Democrat, Barack Obama, running against a moderate, centrist Republican, John McCain. Although the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket brought some much-needed balance, I cannot feel enthusiastic about either of the major party tickets.

Actually, that's not quite true. I am enthusiastic about Obama, but in exactly the opposite way that most people in Massachusetts are. His tax and health care policies are un-American and unjust, and I am creeped out at the prospect of him becoming president. Yes, Obama stands for change, but his kind of change is exactly the opposite of what America needs. The concepts of freedom, individualism, and private ownership of property have been steadily eroded in America through the passage of the 16th Amendment (1913), the Social Security Act (1935), the Durham-Humphrey Amendment (1951), the Brady Bill (1994), the Patriot Act (2001), and countless other governmental actions. Obama would only continue this disturbing, unacceptable trend.

John McCain, on the other hand, might not decrease Americans' liberty any further but he certainly would not increase it either. His moderate stances on immigration, the economic bailout, and Social Securty make him a poor representative of the Republican Party.

The two candidates in the race who would actually fight for freedom and justice are Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Although neither one has a chance of winning, a vote for either Barr or Baldwin is a statement that you believe in the Constitution and want to stand up to big government. Voting for a third-party candidate is also a protest against the unjust two-party system, in which minority views (which are often the best views) are ignored and the two major parties try to become as similar as possible in order to alienate the fewest voters.

If you want to vote for the best candidate, vote for Barr or Baldwin, or write in Ron Paul. If you want to vote for the best candidate that actually has a chance of winning, vote for McCain. Although I am not endorsing a single candidate, I encourage voters to do whatever it takes to prevent an Obama presidency.

Vote yes on 1

Question 1 on the Massachusetts ballot would eliminate the state income tax. The tax would be reduced by half next year and then eliminated for good the year after that. The Massachusetts state budget would be reduced by 40%, to the same level it was in 1999.

I am strongly in favor of voting YES on Question 1. Government at all levels has gotten too big, spends too much money, has too many social programs, and passes too many unjust, oppressive laws. There is no reason why the state government's budget should go up every year. There is no reason why its budget should not be the same as it was in 1999.

How would the government make up for this loss of funds? Some people fear that property taxes would have to be increased, but Proposition 2 1/2 prevents this from happening. Yes, towns can try to override Proposition 2 1/2, but the citizens would have to vote to approve the override in a special election.

So ultimately, if Question 1 passed, the state government would have to reduce its budget, which would be an absolutely great thing. The only things the government should pay for are law enforcement, the military, roads, and (maybe) schools. The government should not be spending any money on health care, since people should pay for their own health care and should not receive health care if they do not pay for it. All types of welfare that involve money being taken from more successful people in order to provide benefits to poorer people, should be abolished. If the government had less money, perhaps it would be forced to repeal oppressive laws such as requiring everyone to have health insurance and forcing 8 year olds to sit in booster seats.

Although the state government refuses to make its budget publicly available in an easy-to-read format, I know of enough unnecessary, expensive social programs that I'm sure all essential services could easily be paid for if the income tax was abolished. And, most importantly of all, people could actually keep more of their own money. Imagine that: people having a right to the money that they've earned!

Voting yes on Question 1 would halt the government's attempts to become ever larger, more oppressive, and more socialist. Vote for liberty, vote for private ownership of property, and vote for justice! Vote yes on 1.

For more information on Question 1, visit SmallGovernmentAct.org.

Vote no on 2

Out of the three Massachusetts ballot initiatives, this is the one that I am the least opinionated about. Question 2 would decriminalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and instead institute civil penalties. Convictions for marijuana possession would no longer give people a criminal record or hurt their chances of getting into college, getting a job, receiving student financial aid, public housing, or public assistance.

On the one hand, I don't think the government has the right to prevent things that it has decided are "harmful," "dangerous," or "bad for people." The government doesn't have the right to ban things that could lead to harmful consequences, so opponents of Question 2 are wrong to argue that marijuana use should be penalized because it could lead to the use of more dangerous drugs. Additionally, the purpose of the law is not to deter crimes but simply to punish criminals.

On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with the fact that marijuana users are penalized in their chances for college admissions, jobs, or publicly-funded assistance. Because using (or not using) marijuana is a choice, it does not seem fundamentally unfair for schools and employers to take it into account when determining an applicant's merit.

Another thing I don't like about Question 2 is that it would force offenders under age 18 to complete a drug-awareness program or else have their fine raised to $1000 (which the parents would be responsible for if the kid didn't pay it). This is ageist and demeaning. I am opposed to the idea of forcing offenders to undergo educational programs because I believe the purpose of the law is to punish criminals, not to rehabilitate them. I also don't believe in holding parents responsible for their children's conduct, because everyone is responsible for his or her own conduct. And why not treat people of all ages equally?

So in conclusion, I don't really think there's anything wrong with the current marijuana laws. A "yes" vote on Question 2 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but why fix something that isn't broken? I don't think Question 2 would make the laws any more just than they are now, so I'm going to vote "no" on it.

In defense of the Entwistles

As you might know, I attended the trial of Neil Entwistle this summer and blogged about it. I have always tried to be neutral and unbiased and consider both sides equally when writing about this case. But some of the things that have been written in the past couple of days about Neil’s family demand a response.

Neil Entwistle’s parents, Cliff and Yvonne, filed a complaint about their local paper, the Worksop Guardian, for publishing solely vicious, anti-Neil letters to the editor after his conviction, secretly taking pictures of them, and repeatedly contacting them after being asked not to. Their complaint was dismissed by Britain’s press watchdog.

Joe Dwinell of the Boston Herald wrote an editorial about this, which he and the paper dishonestly passed off as an article. In the “article,” he bashed Yvonne, Neil, and the entire Entwistle family. Let me quote a few sentences from it:

“The Guardian printed a series of harsh letters to the editor and post-verdict stories targeting Yvonne Entwistle’s cruel accusation that a “depressed” Rachel Entwistle took her own life and her child’s.”

“The betraying Brit was found guilty in June of executing his 27-year-old wife and 9-month-old baby girl, Lillian Rose, on Jan. 20, 2006, in Hopkinton after becoming frustrated with his crumbling finances and his flat sex life in the States.”

I shouldn’t have to explain why these statements belong in an editorial, not an article, but I will anyway. The point of an article is to present facts. Articles shouldn’t have any opinions in them. Calling a person “cruel” or “betraying” is an opinion. Therefore, any piece of writing that includes these words (except as a quote from someone else) is an editorial, not an article. When I read this “article,” I completely disagreed with the opinion Dwinell was expressing. This is a problem, because authors should not express any opinions in articles, but even if this was an editorial I would disagree with it.

Yvonne was not being cruel. Nothing she said was at all cruel. She was simply expressing her view of what happened, a view that happens to be unpopular.

There is no logical reason why one would call Yvonne cruel. The only reason that I can think of is that she accused Rachel of murder, and perhaps Dwinell thinks that anyone who accuses a person of murder is cruel. But by this same logic, the prosecutors, the DA, the judge, Rachel’s family, and the reporters at the Herald are also cruel, because they have accused Neil of murder. Funny, Dwinell never calls them cruel. I think the only reason Dwinell calls Neil’s mother cruel is because she expressed an opinion that is different from his. Big surprise, Joe, people are actually allowed to express unpopular views.

I do not know the Entwistles personally, and I do not agree 100% with all of the things they have said, but I greatly admire Yvonne’s courage. If you have been reading my blog, you will know that I have a lot of unpopular views, and I can relate to people who are persecuted and harassed for disagreeing with the majority. Yvonne is a lovely, brave lady and she does not deserve this vicious treatment by the press and the public.

To bash someone for disagreeing with you after their son has been sent to prison for life, now that’s cruel. To call it a news article is even crueler.

P.S. If you really want cruel, take a look at the comments that readers leave on the Herald’s “articles” and on Dwinell’s blog. Words cannot describe their barbarity. It is completely unacceptable for a mainstream newspaper to allow such obscene, libelous, brainless vitriol to remain on its website without being deleted. I have strong opinions, but I could never muster enough hate in me to compare to these people. It is truly frightening that such people exist in the world.

Obama's tax plan is socialist

A lot of Republicans have been implying lately that Barack Obama's tax plan is socialist, and they're right on. Unless you are living under a rock, you probably know that Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and only people making over $250,000 a year will have their taxes increased. What Obama isn't telling anyone is that 40% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all. Obama will give these people a "tax cut" simply by giving them free money. Where's this free money going to come from? The other 60%, of course.

I have seen some pretty terrible arguments trying to defend Obama's tax plan. First of all, a lot of people merely say that Obama wants to spread the wealth, but this does not mean he is socialist.

I agree that an America under Obama would not necessarily be a socialist country, since socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (Dictionary.com). Making the tax system more progressive would not be enough to be considered socialism in itself. But it would make America more socialist than it is now. For libertarians like me who want America to be as un-socialist as possible, Obama's tax plan is taking the country in a direction we don't want it to go.

Another horrible argument is that if Obama's tax plan is socialist, America has been a socialist country since 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed, giving Congress the authority to levy an income tax. In other words, since the graduated income tax system has existed for a long time, it must be good. Since when does how long something has existed have to do with how good or bad it is? Liberals are entirely right that America stopped being a purely capitalist country with the advent of the income tax. They are wrong when they claim that this is okay. I personally support the abolition of the 16th Amendment. At the very least, the tax system needs to become less progressive and instead more fair, in other words closer to a lump sum tax, which is, in my opinion, the fairest kind of tax.

Obama's tax plan, although not socialist in the absolute sense, is more socialist than the tax system we have now. I think our tax system is too socialist the way it is, and Obama, if elected, would make it even worse.

Vote no on 3

Question 3, if approved, would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. I'm going to vote no on Question 3, but not for the same reasons as most of its opponents.

Opponents of Question 3 tend to argue that closing down the state's two dog racing tracks would put people out of work and would decrease the state's tax revenues, and only mention as a side note that racing really isn't bad for dogs. I don't think this is a very good strategy. If greyhound racing actually harmed dogs, then I would want it to be banned regardless of its impact on people's work and government revenues. It's wrong to imply that people's jobs are more important than dogs' lives.

But I oppose Question 3 because greyhound racing, in itself, doesn't hurt dogs. Take a look at these statistics if you're not convinced. Sure, racing can lead to dogs being hurt if individual people decide to mistreat them, but this need not be allowed to happen. Mistreatment of dogs is what should be banned, not racing itself. The law should require trainers and owners to give their greyhounds adequate space, food, and medical care, and not to physically hurt them in any way. That way, dogs can have great lives and enjoy running, and people can enjoy the sport of dog racing.

The government only has the right to ban things that are immoral in themselves or that violate rights. Dog racing falls into neither of these categories, and the government cannot ban things merely because they could have bad consequences.

The food police

I saw an article in the Boston Herald about a new ban on junk food in Newburyport, MA schools. I think this is just ridiculous. The state government has basically turned into the gun police, the driving police, the health police, and now the food police.

Sadly, there are a lot of schools that have decided not to sell desserts, soda, and other good-tasting food in their cafeterias. Saying that you're not going to sell junk food is one thing, but telling people they can't bring it in violates people's rights on a whole new level. One could argue that the school has a right to decide what products it wants to sell, but the school has no right to tell kids what they can and can't bring in.

Kids in Newburyport now are forbidden from bringing in all sweets, from candy to pastries. So much for making school fun. Now kids can't even look forward to eating something tasty at lunch time.

Dr. Caroline Apovian of the Boston Medical Center was quoted as saying, “I’m all for it. We have an obesity epidemic in children, and candy is just empty calories. I can’t imagine a parent being upset that schools are banning candy.”

I beg to differ. Candy is not empty calories - it tastes good. That's the whole point of candy.

Maybe people would be healthier if all they ate was fruit, vegetables, and plain, boring meat, but what's the point of living if you're not allowed to do anything fun? A life without candy and sweets is not a very high-quality life. People of all ages should have the freedom to decide what they want to eat.

The media is biased toward Obama

Did you know that Barack Obama once said there were 57 states in the US?

I didn't either, until this week when I saw it briefly mentioned in the Metro. Obama made this gaffe way back in May. At a rally during the primaries, he said...

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

None of the media have made a big deal out of Obama's misstatement at all. I watch the news and read newspapers pretty often, and I never heard about it.

On the other hand, you'd have to be living under a rock not to have heard about Sarah Palin's comment that "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.” In fact, Palin's comment was not inaccurate, as there are Alaskan islands from which Russia can be seen.

So when Palin makes a comment that is not even inaccurate, the media relentlessly exploits it in an attempt to make her look stupid. When Obama says something that most kindergartners would know was wrong, the media ignores it. That, more than anything else, shows how biased the mainstream media is toward Obama.

Open the debates

So far, the presidential and vice presidential debates have not been very exciting. Both Obama and McCain want to help the middle class, revive the economy, make it easier for people to get health insurance, make the country more secure, cut government waste, and protect the environment. Neither of them have said much of anything that is new or different, and their views are essentially the same on many issues.

I think it would be great for American voters if the presidential debates were open to all the candidates, not just those from the two major political parties. The unfortunate result of a two-party system is that only two sets of views get publicized. Voters who do not agree completely with either the Democratic or the Republican platform are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils because the candidate they truly support has no chance of winning.

If third-party candidates such as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were allowed to participate in the debates, voters' eyes would be opened to a wider variety of opinions. Barring (no pun intended) these candidates from the debates is just another way to silence minority views and reinforce the political duopoly.

End the income tax rally!

Today I went to a rally for a great cause - ending the Massachusetts income tax. The event took place at Faneuil Hall and featured 11 speakers; pictures that I took of them are below. If you live in Massachusetts and are sick of the government growing bigger and bigger and spending more and more money, you should vote yes on Question 1. If Question 1 passes, the state income tax will be eliminated and each worker will get to keep, on average, $3,700 more each year instead of handing it over to the government. Visit smallgovernmentact.org to learn more!

Michael Graham, WTKK radio host

Carla Howell, Chair of the Committee for Small Government

Keith McCormic, State Senate candidate

Ted Tripp, Citizens for Limited Taxation

Kamal Jain, independent state budget expert

JC Cunningham, congressional candidate

Chuck Ormsby, North Andover School Committee

Garrett Quinn, Press Coordinator for Committee for Small Government

Cynthia Stead, Secretary of Mass. Republican Party

Brion Cangiamila, State Senate candidate

Matt Kinnaman, columnist

Bailout brouhaha

I'm no expert on the economy, but the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan makes me a little skeptical. Because I think the government should cut taxes as low as they possibly can, I tend to oppose almost anything that involves the government spending money. $700 billion sure seems like a LOT of money.

I also tend to be a strict constitutionalist: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to do something, the government probably doesn't have a right to do it. I wonder, when did it become the government's job to make sure the economy does well and to prevent recessions and depressions from happening? My best guess is around the time of the Great Depression, when president Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and other social programs to help fight the Depression.

Although the Depression began to lift during FDR's presidency, I doubt that his social programs were the cause. The economy, just like the seasons, goes through cycles: sometimes it does well, sometimes there is a recession, and once in a great while there is a depression. Obviously, economic downturns aren't good, but in time they will reverse themselves. Is avoiding a recession worth creating unjust, expensive, possibly unconstitutional programs?

The last thing we need is a bigger, more powerful government. That's why I think the government should always err on the side of doing too little rather than too much.

Tax increases are not patriotic

Today Joe Biden said on "Good Morning America" that it is patriotic for rich people to pay more taxes than they do now. When anchor Kate Snow asked him if those making over $250,000 a year should have their taxes increased, he replied,

"You got it. It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut, and the way to do that is they're still gonna pay less taxes than they did under Reagan."

Biden's comments are really, really wrong, and it scares me that he could become vice-president. First of all, by saying that wealthier people should "jump in" and "help out," Biden is implying that they aren't contributing their fair share. The opposite is true.

In my opinion, the fairest tax would be a lump sum tax: every person pays the same dollar amount. It would be simple, easy to administer, and would treat everyone equally. Another tax system that is sometimes used is proportional taxes, which means that everyone must pay the same percentage of their income. Most people would disagree with me, but I believe that this is less fair than a lump sum tax because poorer people would end up paying lower dollar amounts than wealthier people. Such a system rewards people for being poor and punishes them for being successful. Today, America uses an even more discriminatory and unjust tax system: progressive taxes. This means that rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people. The unfairness is taken to a whole new level.

So it is poor people, not rich people, who aren't paying their fair share in America today. Successful people are being robbed of half their incomes, while many poor people don't have to pay taxes at all! Plus, the vast majority of government services, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized education, and subsidized health care, are only available to the poor. Well-off people pay all the taxes and get none of the benefits. Poor people pay no taxes and get all of the benefits. I agree with the Democrats that our system is unfair, but for precisely the opposite reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the poor have it easy. I'm just saying that poor people do not have a right to rich people's money. I have a right to my money, I have no right to anyone else's money, and no one else has a right to my money. The way to help the poor would be to raise the minimum wage or to set price ceilings to make goods more affordable. The government simply has no right to take people's money and give it to other people.

The patriotic thing would not be to pay more taxes, but to protest this unjust system. The government has gotten out of control and desperately needs to cut its budget, not to raise taxes.

P.S. Biden later defended his comments, saying

"Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most. Now it'd be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut. Tell me how everybody is better off. And the point I want to make to you is, and I mean this sincerely - wealthy people are just as patriotic, patriotic as poor people. We just have not asked anything of them."

You haven't asked anything of them? Really? Hmm, I thought asking them to fork over enormous amounts of money would count as something. I guess not.

Get better, Elliot!

Elliot Weinstein, the defense attorney probably best known for representing Neil Entwistle, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was scheduled to undergo surgery yesterday.

So this is just a short post to wish him good luck and a full recovery. Based on what I observed at the Entwistle trial, Elliot is an excellent lawyer and a great person. Hopefully he'll be back in the courtroom or working on Entwistle's appeals soon!

Source: Boston Herald and Mass. Lawyers Weekly

Palin has more experience than Obama

On TV, on the radio, on the Internet, and in newspapers, I have heard way too many people criticizing Sarah Palin for having too little experience. What makes it even worse is that these are usually the same people who gush about how much they love Barack Obama.

Let's compare the two in terms of experience:

Palin:

• Wasilla city council (1992-1996)
• Mayor of Wasilla (1996-2002)
• Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2003-2004)
• Governor of Alaska (2006-present)

Obama:

• Community organizer (1985-1988)
• Directed Illinois Project Vote (1992)
• Taught constitutional law (1992-2004)
• Lawyer (1993-2004)
• Served on board of directors of various organizations (1993-2002)
• State legislator (1997-2004)
• Senator (2004-present)

Their levels of experience seem about equal to me, but I think Palin has a slight edge. She's served in government positions since 1992, while Obama got his first government job in 1997. Also, being a governor is better preparation for the presidency than being a senator. Governors are basically in charge of a state, which is a mini version of what presidents do. Senators are just one member of a large body that drafts legislation and votes on laws.

Plus, Obama's running for president, while Palin is only running for VP!

So if you have to criticize Palin for not being experienced enough, be consistent and criticize Obama too.

Thanks to Wikipedia for the facts used in this post.

Palin for VP

I had honestly never heard of Sarah Palin before today. But after reading more about her, I think John McCain made a great decision to pick her as his running mate.

The choice of Palin is historic in several ways. She is the first female Republican vice-presidential candidate, the second female on a major party ticket, the first Alaskan on a presidential ticket.

Palin may not be the most right-wing running mate McCain could have chosen, but she is still a solid conservative, and I like most of her political views. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that she is pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and a lifetime member of the NRA.

I also applaud that McCain chose a woman as his running mate. It seems like he is trying to get the votes of women who supported Hillary Clinton and are angry with Obama for snubbing her. Palin's age (44) and her gender will definitely help McCain appeal to a wider range of voters. Whatever the reason behind the choice, I think it's great that there is a female on the Republican ticket! Hopefully the fact that the Republicans have a woman on their ticket and the Democrats don't will help to dispel the myth that Republicans are sexist and opposed to gender equality.

What's up with the State Legislature?

Recently, it seems like every law the Massachusetts State Legislature passes restricts our liberty. Here are some examples:

• In 2006, it became illegal to ride in a car without a seat belt. Officers now have the power to stop a car just because they see someone not wearing a seat belt, and issue a fine to the "offender."
• Since 2006, all Massachusetts residents are required to have health insurance. This is a blatant violation of people's rights to choose how they want to spend their own money. I guess it didn't occur to the Legislature that in a capitalist country, the economy should be based on people choosing to buy the products and services that they want, not being forced to buy what the government thinks they should.
• In June of 2007, the Legislature killed a measure to allow the people to vote on whether or not to ban gay marriage. There goes the people's right to democracy.
• On September 1, 2007, getting a license became a lot harder for teenage drivers. Thankfully, the legislature didn't raise the driving age to 17 1/2, as some people wanted, but they increased training requirements from 6 to 12 hours behind the wheel at drivers' education and from 12 to 40 hours driving with a parent or other adult.
• A law went into effect on July 10, 2008, that requires all children under age 8 to sit in booster seats or car seats while in the car. Personally, I started sitting in the front seat of the car without a child seat of any kind when I was 4 or 5, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Forcing a 7-year-old to sit in a booster seat is ridiculous. The government has no right to tell people how they have to sit in their own cars.
• On July 31, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed the repeal of the 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. This spreads gay marriage to the entire country and violates the rights of citizens from other states to set their own marriage laws.
• According to Exhibit A, the Senate and House passed a law that allows mothers to breastfeed their babies wherever and whenever they want. This means that it is now illegal for stores, restaurants, and other businesses to ask breastfeeding women to leave or ask them to stop. So much for the rights of business owners to set their own policies. So much for the rights of people who are uncomfortable around breastfeeding.
• In June, the state Senate passed a law that would ban kids under 14 from riding all-terrain vehicles, and require everyone who rides an ATV to wear a helmet. The House is in the process of discussing the bill.

Perhaps these laws have made the state safer, but collectively they have made Massachusetts a lot less free. The State Legislature seems to be slowly but surely shrinking the amount of things people are allowed to do, and that is not good. Governments simply do not have the right to ban things that aren't immoral and don't hurt other people.

Ronald Reagan once said, "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." I couldn't agree with him more.

Obama's pick

This morning, Barack Obama chose Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware as his running mate. I'm not going to vote for Obama anyway, and Biden doesn't really change my opinion.

What I'm really looking forward to is when John McCain announces his choice. I think he should pick a truly right-wing Republican to bring some balance to the ticket. If he picked a moderate-leaning running mate like Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg, or even Joe Lieberman, a lot of conservative Republicans would feel that their party's ticket did not represent them. Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty or Mike Huckabee could be a good choice. Although there's absolutely no chance of it happening, I still think McCain and Ron Paul would make a cool ticket. He would definitely balance out some of McCain's views.

Speaking of Ron Paul, did you know that he's holding a Rally for the Republic? It will take place from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 in Minneapolis, to coincide roughly with the Republican National Convention. I hope there'll be a lot of media coverage of it. I can't make it there myself, but it sounds like it'll be really cool.

Barred from the ballot

Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate for president, but according to a Boston Globe editorial, his name may not appear on Massachusetts ballots this November. George Phillies, the chairman of the state Libertarian Party, was put on the Massachusetts ballots as a placeholder of sorts before the Libertarian National Convention took place. The party says they were told by MA election officials that they would be able to replace his name with the name of the nominee when one was chosen.

The state officials seem to have reversed themselves, however, as they are now saying the Libertarian Party cannot substitute Barr's name for Phillies. In the past, the state has agreed to allow substitution for vice-presidential candidates and has reportedly promised other parties that they could substitute presidential candidates, too.

I agree with W. James Antle III, the author of the editorial, that Barr should not be barred from the ballot. It is especially important during this election, where the Republican candidate leans moderate, for people to be able to vote for a right-wing, small-government candidate.

The Durham-Humphrey Amendment

Have you ever heard of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment? Until a week or two ago, I hadn't.

It seems to be simply a fact of life that you need a prescription to get certain medications. If you need medicine, you go to a doctor, and the doctor writes a prescription, which gives you permission to get the medicine. If you get the medicine without a prescription, it's illegal. One day, I wondered exactly when this became the case. Certainly there weren't such things as prescriptions in Washington and Jefferson's time.

I went to the FDA's website, looked at their timeline of FDA history, and found the answer: October 26, 1951. On this date, Congress passed the Durham-Humphrey Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Amendment divided drugs into two categories: over the counter and prescription, and gave the FDA the power to put drugs in one category or the other. Prescription drugs are considered unsafe, and therefore illegal, to use without direct medical supervision, and it is illegal to give them out to anyone who does not have a prescription from a doctor. Senator and former vice president Hubert Humphrey co-sponsored the Amendment.

I believe that the Durham-Humphrey Amendment is immoral and unconstitutional. First, it is unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to decide what medications are safe, control what medications people use, or force people to go to a doctor in order to get medications.

Second, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment is immoral because it treats people as if they are unable to take care of themselves. By telling people that they are incapable of making their own decisions about medicines, the government is treating its citizens like parents treat their children. This is demeaning, disrespectful, and completely unacceptable in a supposedly free country like America.

Choosing to take medicine without seeing a doctor is not immoral, and it does not hurt anyone (unless you count the poor, starving doctors, who are deprived of revenue). Therefore, it shouldn't be illegal. Of course, there will always be some people who make decisions that they later regret, but people have the right to make their own choices about their lives. The fact that some people make bad decisions does not change this. The government has no right to force people to gain a doctor's approval for their actions, thereby depriving them of their independence and often their dignity.

Doctors have far too much power in today's society, and the government is the main reason why. The feds need to give people more credit by recognizing that we have the right to take care of ourselves. The American people need their liberty back, and the Durham-Humphrey Amendment needs to be repealed.

Cuil's privacy policy

Yesterday a new search engine, Cuil.com, was unveiled, billing itself as an alternative to Google. Cuil (pronounced "cool") claims to have a database three times larger than Google's, to give results in an easier to use format, and to respect users' privacy more than other search engines. I haven't decided yet if Cuil gives more results or is easier to navigate, but its privacy policy is way better than Google's.

The best thing about Cuil is that it does not keep logs of user activities. It does not track people's IP addresses or use cookies to keep track of what we search for. The only thing Cuil uses cookies for is to remember settings that users have chosen. Even then, Cuil's servers don't record the information contained in the cookies.

I think all search engines should have similar privacy policies to Cuil's. Google, for instance, creates logs of each user's entire search history, identifiable by their IP address, and waits longer than a year to delete this data. Ask.com and Ixquick.com, on the other hand, are pretty good about privacy. Ixquick deletes IP addresses from their logs within 48 hours so that the data is completely anonymous. Ask has created a tool called the Ask Eraser which, when enabled, ensures that your IP address, cookie data, and search terms will be deleted from their logs within hours.

Will Google ever follow suit in respecting users' privacy rights? I hope they do, but right now they have such a large share of the market that they might not have much of an incentive. So many people use Google as the default tool for everything, from searching to medical records to email, and don't seem to care how much data Google knows about them. I, for one, just might start using Cuil sometimes instead of Google.

Gardasil kills people

The FDA and CDC have announced that they still believe the HPV vaccine Gardasil is safe, despite the fact that they have received over 7000 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine, including 15 deaths.

Since Gardasil hit the market in 2006, I have thought it is a bad idea. You can only get HPV through sexual contact, so the disease is easily avoidable, unlike most diseases for which vaccines exist. HPV vaccination is not mandatory (thank goodness), but the FDA and CDC recommend that Gardasil be given to females from 9 to 27. I think this goes too far. Yes, the majority of people will have sex at some point in their lives, but what about the minority? Not every single person has sex. There are young women in the world who are celibate and intend to stay that way. Don't these people matter too? By giving a general recommendation for HPV vaccination, the government is telling celibate and asexual people that we do not exist. Plus, there are so many terrible, as of now incurable diseases that affect innocent people through no fault of their own. It seems like a waste of time and resources to develop a vaccine for such a preventable disease as HPV.

Now, in addition to my moral objections to Gardasil, there seem to be safety concerns as well. Although the CDC says 10 of the reported deaths had no connection to Gardasil, what about the other 5? 7% of the adverse reaction reports involve serious reactions such as paralysis, heart failure, seizures, and anaphylactic shock. Families of two teenage girls who became paralyzed after getting the vaccine recently filed lawsuits against Merck, the maker of the vaccine.

The moral of the story is, make your own medical decisions, don't just go along with what the government and the drug companies say you should do. Gardasil is not for everyone!

Thanks to Gardasil-Talk.com for these facts.

Copyright craziness

In case you haven't heard, Viacom is suing YouTube for allowing users to upload copyrighted video clips of TV shows and movies. Recently, Viacom requested that Google (the owner of YouTube) turn over logs showing which video clips users view.

Privacy advocates are understandably concerned about this. Viacom claims they are not requesting any personally identifiable information, but they're asking for records that show people's usernames and IP addresses, and which videos each person has viewed. With most Internet service providers, each computer has a unique IP address. Plus, many people are bound to have told friends and acquaintances what their YouTube usernames are. Even though it would probably be only Viacom, not the general public, who sees the records, it still sounds awfully personally identifiable to me.

In addition to the privacy issues, this case really demonstrates, at least to me, that copyright laws need to change. According to U.S. copyright law, it is virtually forbidden to use pictures of celebrities, clips from movies, or audio files of songs on a website unless you took the pictures, made the movie, or wrote the song yourself. This means that if you have a site dedicated to your favorite celebrity, you probably won't be able to have any pictures of that celebrity on your site! Home videos cannot even use a popular song as background music. Making music videos by blending clips of a favorite actor or movie with a song, as many people do on YouTube, is legally out of the question.

The Internet would truly be a worse place if these laws were consistently enforced. For many people, copyrighted clips are by far the most useful content on YouTube. I don't enjoy watching other people's home movies, so there are only about 2 or 3 videos I enjoy on YouTube that don't violate copyright law. An exception to this is the growing number of news outlets and musical artists creating their own YouTube accounts, where they display news clips and music videos perfectly legally because they own the content. This is a great trend that has resulted in lots of legal and valuable videos being uploaded to YouTube. However, not all copyright holders have YouTube accounts. People have a right to access news and informational videos, and regular people should be allowed to upload these videos if TV stations fail to. Similarly, people who make fan sites dedicated to a particular actor, actress, or singer should be legally able to display image galleries and movie clips related to their favorite celebrity. Fan sites are a great source of information, and people should not have to rely on a celebrity's official site, if one even exists, as their sole source.

The purpose of copyright law when it was written into the Constitution in 1776 was to encourage progress in science and art by ensuring that creators would be able to profit from their works. Today, however, copyright law bans many activities that do not affect anyone's profits. Yes, uploading a whole movie to YouTube might diminish the movie studio's profits, but displaying a few short clips is likely to make more people go see the movie, if anything. Additionally, a YouTube user was recently banned for uploading clips of the Neil Entwistle trial, which aired on TruTV. But when I go to TruTV's website, I don't see any way to purchase DVDs or tapes of the trial footage. If they were selling such a thing, I would probably be interested in buying it, but because they're not, the YouTube user isn't depriving them of any revenue by making it available for free.

Copyright law should achieve its purpose of encouraging artistic and scientific achievement. Right now, however, it is depriving the public of valuable pictures, videos, and information, as well as stifling creativity by restricting people from building on others' works. Copyright law needs to be fair to regular people instead of giving large companies all the power as it does now.

On an unrelated note, check out this great editorial published in the Herald by Randy S. Chapman, president of the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys: "To demonize a defense attorney is unjust."

The right to bear arms

I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights to bear arms. In the weeks after the decision, I have read some pretty stupid arguments against the ruling. Some people seem to assume that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to shoot whoever you want with that gun. In an editorial for the Boston Herald, author Mitch Albom writes:

"It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides."

No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court's decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn't it a little ageist to call teenagers "angry and misguided"? I'm sure some adults are "angry and misguided" and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.

In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,

"If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken... Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."

Again, the Court's ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn't give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn't give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?

Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an "answer" to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people's duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.

Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else's rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person's rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people's rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people's rights.

I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.

Happy Independence Day!

Big Brother comes to Logan

Remember when the Phoenix airport installed those scanners that show passengers' naked bodies as they pass through security? Logan Airport, in my hometown of Boston, is following suit. Starting in October or November, the TSA will install the invasive full-body scanners at Logan. Luckily, they are not going to be used on everyone, but only on people who set off the metal detector or who are marked as "persons of interest." Additionally, people can refuse and instead be patted down or scanned with a handheld metal detector. Still, this is a violation of people's privacy rights.

Right now, it seems as though no one is forced to be exposed by the scanners, which is a good thing. However, it gives me the creeps that technology like this even exists. What if the TSA someday decides to use the scanners on all passengers? What if they eliminate the option of being scanned (less intrusively) by hand?

Airport security is invasive enough as it is. There is no good reason why anyone needs a technology that enables them to see other people's naked bodies through their clothes. Security is important, but privacy rights are even more important. The government has already drastically increased national security since 9/11, and full-body scanners are taking it too far.

Source: Boston Globe

Last thoughts on the Entwistle trial

Jami Floyd from TruTV posted a great blog entry called “For the defense,” which I happen to agree with. Throughout the Neil Entwistle case, I have read comments online that Entwistle does not deserve a publicly-funded defense or even a trial. Such comments are simply un-American. The Constitution guarantees all defendants the right to legal representation and a fair trial by jury. The fact that there is a lot of evidence against a particular defendant, or that the defendant is widely hated, does not and should not change this.

I commend Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page for putting forth their best effort in defending their client. Although their murder-suicide theory did not ultimately succeed, it was a bold, ingenious move. I understand the pain that the Matterazzo family is suffering and why they are offended by the defense’s version of events, but no one should criticize Weinstein or Page for doing the best job possible for their client.

I generally support a small government with as few taxes as possible, but one of the few things I’m willing to pay taxes for is the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights. State-funded representation is often necessary to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. Providing a fair legal system is one of the most important duties (if not the most important) of the government. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn’t you agree?

Sentencing

Neil Entwistle was officially sentenced to life in prison today. Judge Diane Kottmyer sentenced Entwistle to two concurrent life sentences without parole for the murders of his wife Rachel and baby Lillian and also gave him 10 years of probation for possession of a firearm and ammunition, with the condition that he cannot make money from selling his story in any way.

Before the sentence was officially read, Rachel's relatives gave victim impact statements. Her mother, Priscilla Matterazzo, asked the judge to impose two consecutive life sentences and called the defense's theory that Rachel committed a murder-suicide "low and despicable." Rachel's stepfather, Joe Matterazzo, told Entwistle that "one day you will face the ultimate judgement for your horrific deeds." Jerome Souza, Rachel's brother, said that "each and every day we have to live with the heartache of Neil's betrayal" and "we can only reflect on what Rachel did and speculate on what Lilly might have done."

Entwistle did not react to the statements but smiled faintly at his parents and brother when he entered the courtroom and again when he left for the last time. He was given an opportunity to speak, but his lawyer Elliot Weinstein told the court that he did not wish to do so.

Judge Kottmyer called the crimes "incomprehensible" and "in violation of the bonds we recognize as central to our identity as human beings." She had the option of giving Entwistle consecutive or concurrent life sentences, but decided on concurrent because consecutive life sentences might give the impression to those unfamiliar with the Massachusetts legal system that Entwistle might eventually be able to get out of jail. The decision was purely symbolic, of course. Unless he is successful in his appeals, Entwistle will be in jail for the rest of his life with no opportunity for parole.

Afterward, defense lawyers Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page gave a press conference outside the courthouse. They criticized the attitude that defendants should prove their innocence and insisted that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof in the case. "What I'm frustrated with is that so many people do not understand what a trial is," Weinstein replied when asked if he was frustrated with Entwistle's mother, Yvonne, for saying yesterday that she believes Rachel committed a murder-suicide. "It's unfair to Neil, it's unfair to the American citizenry to perpetuate this myth," he later said.

So, one of the biggest trials in Massachusetts history is now over. Entwistle is now at MCI-Cedar Junction in Walpole, Mass., where he will serve his life sentence. I will continue blogging about the case whenever there is a new development. Until then, I'll have to find a new trial to follow...

EDIT: The MetroWest Daily News has reported that contrary to what was said at sentencing, Entwistle will actually be held at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley starting tomorrow.

Guilty verdict for Entwistle

Neil Entwistle was found guilty this afternoon of murdering his wife Rachel and baby Lillian. The jury of 6 men and 6 women convicted him of two counts of first-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

It was announced at about 2:25 that the jury had reached a verdict, eliciting a stampede of reporters and spectators into courtroom 430. This was the first time the courtroom was completely full and people had to be turned away. Next to me a spectator and some reporters were squabbling over a space on a wooden bench. However, there were several bail hearings that had to be completed in the courtroom, so the verdict was not announced until after 2:45.

Neil did not show much reaction to the verdict. He smiled and nodded at his family as he entered the courtroom, and as he left he shrugged his shoulders and gave his family a sad look that seemed to say, "oh well." Neither of the families reacted noticeably, either.

After the verdict, the judge thanked the jurors and alternates and she met with them privately in another room. Neil's family, defense lawyers, Rachel's family, prosecutors, and Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone all spoke to the press. Unfortunately, I missed the Entwistles and the defense team, who spoke outside the courthouse, but I was there for the D.A.'s press conference in room 730.

Leone had some harsh words for Neil. "I'd like to begin by thanking the jury and honoring the memory of Lillian and Rachel," he said, surrounded by Rachel's family and friends. He pointed out that Lillian would have turned three years old this April. "She should be here, talking, walking, and playing with her mom, Rachel, doting over her...and that's not going to happen because of the reprehensible acts of Neil Entwistle." He then praised Rachel's parents, Joe and Priscilla Matterazzo, for their dignity in handling the tragedy. "At the same time that I commend Joe and Priscilla, I condemn Neil Entwistle," said Leone. "A just verdict has been returned, an Neil Entwistle will spend the rest of his life in jail where he belongs."

Then, Joe Flaherty, a spokesman for the family, thanked supporters, investigators, law enforcement, and prosecutors. "We do know that Rachel and Lillian Rose loved and trusted Neil Entwistle...Neil Entwistle will live with his evil deeds for the rest of his natural life, only to be judged again," he said.

Joe and Priscilla themselves briefly thanked people for sending them cards and condolences, and then Leone and Assistant D.A. Michael Fabbri answered questions from reporters. When asked to comment on Neil's family's reaction, Leone replied, "I'd expect nothing less from the parents of someone who's been convicted of first-degree murder...It was his cowardly, shameful, unforgivable acts that were the basis for this first-degree murder conviction." When asked about Neil's motive, he responded, "There are some acts that are so heinous, that are so shameful, there's never a reason, let alone a good reason." Fabbri, when asked what the most important piece of evidence was, said, "I think Neil Entwistle himself was one of the most critical pieces of evidence that we had."

As for my opinion, I have a lot of respect for the jurors and their decision. I am honestly not sure what I would have done if I was on that jury. The defense's suicide theory was certainly improbable, but I wouldn't call it impossible. The DNA on the murder weapon was what clinched the prosecution's case, but the gunshot residue (which was found on Rachel's hands and nothing of Neil's) made the defense's theory look plausible.

There will be victim impact statements tomorrow at 10:00, and Neil will then be sentenced to life in prison without parole, the only option for first-degree murder. His case will automatically be appealed. I'm guessing the warrantless searches of his house and the widespread pretrial publicity will be big issues on appeal.