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