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.