The Freedom Bulletin

I just came across this column by Dianne Williamson of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette about Philip Markoff, the accused Craigslist killer, and how his fiancee, Megan McAllister, issued a statement earlier this week in support of him. While there does seem to be a lot of evidence against Markoff, I am really dismayed by the media’s and the public’s widespread disregard for a defendant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Williamson’s column had one sentence in particular that really stuck out to me. She writes,

“I hate to burst Megan’s bubble, but the only person who stands to make big bucks by selling a false story is Philip Markoff’s defense lawyer.”

I passed over this sentence quickly the first time I read it. But then I did a double take as I realized that what Williamson is saying is that defense lawyers always lie and prosecutors and police always tell the truth.

I can think of tons of people, besides defense attorneys, who stand to make big bucks by selling false stories. The prosecutor and the DA could lie in order to secure a conviction and/or make themselves look good. The police could lie to newspapers and be paid for the information they provide. People who knew Markoff could decide to lie to the press, and so could victims or people who knew them. Legal commentators could lie in order to appear more dramatic and attract more viewers/readers. Any of the aforementioned people could get a book deal and exaggerate the facts to sell more books.

I found it ironic that right after the sentence I quoted above, Williamson mentions Wendy Murphy. Immediately after claiming that only Markoff’s defense attorney stands to make money by lying about the case, she gives a counterexample to her claim by mentioning (and then extensively quoting) a former prosecutor and victim’s rights advocate who has lied about at least one high-profile case on national TV.

I’m not saying that any of these people actually are lying in this case, or even that they are likely to. But it’s possible, in any high-profile legal case, that such a thing could happen. And despite how difficult this is for some people to believe,  it’s also possible that defense lawyers might sometimes be telling the truth.

…is more taxes. But guess what the state legislature just did? Voted to raise the sales tax!

This is absolutely ridiculous. Legislators passed the tax increase to avoid the horror of having to pass a budget that was slightly smaller than last year’s and makes small cuts in programs that shouldn’t even exist in the first place. How terrible that would have been. NOT!

I have never heard of a tax being lowered in Massachusetts. All that happens is taxes keep going up and up and up, and so does the state budget. Now that we have a 6.25% sales tax, unless a revolution occurs, you can bet the sales tax is never going back down to 5%. Voting no on Question 1 was an incredibly dumb decision. Foes of the question argued that there would be huge sales tax increases if the income tax was repealed. Well, the income tax sure wasn’t repealed, and there is now a huge sales tax increase anyway!

The state government needs to do what is morally right: stop stealing people’s money and redistributing it to other people who don’t deserve it. This Globe editorial bemoans the fact that the budget would have cut $4 million from food banks, $21 in home care for the elderly, $2.4 million for homeless mentally ill people, $15 million in emergency rental assistance, $4 million for students who are flunking the MCAS exam, and $22 million for drug and alcohol recovery programs. But what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with people having to (gasp!) pay for their own food, their own home care, mental health, and addiction services, and their own housing, or to study for the MCAS themselves using books or the Internet? Liberals might respond that people simply cannot pay for these things. Well, if you don’t pay for something, you shouldn’t get it. If private charities want to operate food banks, fine. But it is simply wrong for people to have their money forcibly taken from them and given to those who have less.

The Globe makes one interesting point. “Those who think they don’t need government services should thank their stars, and dig a little deeper,” the editorial reads. First of all, it is probably not true, as the Globe suggests, that success or failure in life is entirely due to luck. But perhaps it is to some extent – for example, maybe people get jobs because of their looks, the employer’s bias, or random chance, instead of their merit. That would mean that society is sometimes unjust in distributing wealth, and that some of the poor deserve to be rich and vice versa. But this is where liberals and libertarians disagree. As a libertarian, I believe that the way to solve this problem is to change the rules for how society distributes wealth, to ensure that wealth is being distributed justly. Liberals, on the other hand, have no problem with the unjust rules, but then once the wealth is distributed they want to take money from people simply because they have a lot and give services to people merely because they don’t have much. This is never the right thing to do, since it does not take into account whether the wealthy people justly earned their money, or whether the poor people actually deserve more than they are getting. Disparities in wealth are not a bad thing. What is bad is for people to get what they don’t deserve, and taxes and social programs don’t do anything to fix that.

Hopefully that long rant gave you an idea of why I philosophically oppose government-funded social programs. It’s also worth adding that in addition to being morally wrong, tax increases are bad for the economy. We need people to buy more stuff to get us out of the recession, and raising the sales tax is certain to cause the exact opposite to happen.

Thanks, Speaker DeLeo! Your budget proposal almost gave me hope for Massachusetts, but now you took that hope away. It’ll just be another year of exorbitant taxes, socialist redistribution of wealth, intrusive and oppressive government, and a ballooning budget. Hooray!

NOT!!!!

This post is a little late – you have probably heard by now how Miss California Carrie Prejean said in the interview part of the Miss America pageant that she opposed gay marriage, resulting in insults and attacks from Perez Hilton and other pro-gay-marriage people. This whole uproar just goes to show that many liberals seem to be completely intolerant of anyone whose views differ from theirs. I find this hypocritical, since liberals expect everyone not only to be tolerant of people of all sexual orientations, but to give them marriage licenses, and not only to tolerate illegal immigrants, but to give them amnesty, et cetera, et cetera. Liberals demand toleration for basically everything except minority opinions, or any opinions or choices that differ from theirs.

When someone voices an unpopular opinion, what do liberals do? Perez Hilton, who was judging the pageant, not only said in a video that Miss California was a “stupid (b-word)” but also said on MSNBC that “I was thinking the c-word and I didn’t say it.” But wait! It gets worse! E! News anchor Giuliana Rancic said that Prejean was ”an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach.” And these are just two of the numerous Hollywood liberals who bashed Prejean for expressing her views.

Nice! So when someone very politely voices what should be a very uncontroversial opinion, she gets called obscene words! All that Carrie Prejean said was “I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” How could someone find such a mild, respectfully-phrased statement offensive, let alone swear at and belittle the person who said it?

It seems like Perez Hilton and his liberal Hollywood cohorts are far more intolerant than even the most radical gay-marriage opponents.

The Harvard Crimson wrote a really condescending, insulting editorial the other day, claiming that the Tax Day Tea Parties were “puerile,” hurt conservatism, and had no purpose. I completely disagree with everything that was said in this editorial and feel the need to respond to it. 

I attended part of the Tea Party in Boston, and it was one of the most inspiring things I have ever witnessed. I don’t think I could come up with one negative thing to say about the Tea Party; it really was that awesome. The Crimson, however, managed to come up with quite a few… 

First, the Tea Party was by no means “puerile” and by no means a “tantrum,” as they claim. Crowds of libertarians, social conservatives, and moderate Republicans converged peacefully on the Boston Common, waving flags and holding signs, and then marched to Christopher Columbus Park, where they dumped tea into the harbor and cheered. Somehow I doubt the Crimson would have described a similarly peaceful rally for gay marriage, gun control, or increased taxation as a “tantrum.”

Second, the Tea Parties did not marginalize conservatism but instead united conservatives and provided them with a worthwhile cause to rally around. While many in attendance were Republican and Libertarian activists, there were also numerous people who had simply stopped by during their lunch breaks or had seen the demonstrators and decided to join in. If Boston’s Tea Party was any example, the protests united conservatives of all types and brought normally apathetic people into the movement. 

Third, although the Crimson claims that “it is not entirely clear what the protesters were protesting,” to me it was obvious. We were protesting taxes, and we were protesting spending. We were protesting big government in all its forms, or more accurately, celebrating individual liberty. Why does the Crimson staff find liberty so hard to understand?

Philip Markoff, better known as the alleged Craigslist killer, was arraigned in Boston Municipal Court today, and I decided to attend. In case you haven’t heard of this case, Markoff is a 22-year-old (or 23-year-old, depending on the source) Boston University medical student who is accused of murdering Julissa Brisman, a masseuse and aspiring actress, at the Marriott Copley Place in an attempted robbery. He is also accused of robbing another woman at the Westin Copley Place. Both women advertised massage/erotic services on Craigslist, which is how they allegedly came into contact with Markoff.  Surveillance photos of the suspect at both hotels were released by the Boston Police, and yesterday Markoff was taken into custody and his identity was disclosed.

I got to Courtroom 10, on the fifth floor of the building, at 9:00 this morning, but before Markoff’s arraignment there were about a dozen hearings for various defendants charged with relatively minor crimes such as driving with an expired license, larceny, possession of a firearm without a license, drunk driving, et cetera. On a side note, I saw defense lawyer Stephen Hrones, who initially represented Clark Rockefeller, in court today, representing a man charged with larceny.

At a little before 12:30, Markoff was finally brought into the courtroom through a side door. He has blond hair and was wearing a blue button-down shirt and khaki pants. By that time the room was absolutely packed with reporters and other observers. There was relatively little seating, so many people had to stand, filling basically every possible space.

Markoff was charged with kidnapping and armed robbery for the incident that took place at the Westin on April 10, and murder for the killing of Brisman on April 14. He was also charged with possession of a firearm without a license. The prosecutor, Jennifer Hickman, asked that he be held without bail and then described the details of the crimes Markoff is charged with. She mentioned that Brisman was shot three times and suffered blunt force trauma to her head, and said that Markoff bound the other woman’s wrists with plastic ties, tied her to the hotel room door, pointed a gun at her, and stole over $800. Last night, said Hickman, the police executed a search warrant on Markoff’s Quincy home, where they found a gun and ammunition.

Markoff’s lawyer, John Salsberg, made a motion to preserve evidence and requested that the bail decision be made without prejudice. Judge Paul Leary agreed to both requests, and then ordered Markoff to be held without bail for the murder charge and set bail at $250,000 for the kidnapping and armed robbery, which doesn’t really matter since he is held without bail for the murder charge anyway.

According to news reports, a procedural plea of not guilty was entered for Markoff. I don’t believe any plea was entered aloud during the arraignment, so this must have been done either before or after.

A grand jury is currently investigating the case, and a hearing is set for May 21.

For more info on the Craigslist killer case, check out these articles:

• Weapons Found in Home of Boston Murder Suspect – New York Times
• Police Say Accused Craigslist Killer Owed Gambling Debts – ABC
• Alleged “Craigslist killer” was heading to Foxwoods with fiancee - Boston Globe
• Craigslist victim died of gunshot to the heart – Boston Herald
• Med student held without bail in possible Craigslist killing – CNN
• Boston University Medical Student Charged in Craigslist Killing Held Without Bail – Fox News
• Craigslist murder suspect held without bail – MSNBC

I do not consider myself a liberal. But when I read about the torture techniques that the CIA has been using against terror suspects, I was outraged. After 9/11, according to the Associated Press, detainees were questioned while naked, chained, and hooded, and if they refused to submit they were deprived of food, slapped, slammed into fake walls, doused in water, forced into stress positions, and waterboarded. At night they were chained in a standing position, naked or wearing diapers. They almost put one prisoner, who had a fear of insects, into a confinement box filled with caterpillars. Nudity and sleep deprivation are forbidden by the U.S. Army Field Manual. However, that didn’t seem to stop anyone.

Memos describing this horrific treatment were just released by the Justice Department in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, and Barack Obama decided to end the aforementioned torture methods. “We have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them (the memos) never take place again,” he said. I can’t believe I’m saying this because I usually don’t agree with anything he does, but I agree with Obama’s decision.

Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike should be outraged that agents representing America, a nation known as the land of the free, tortured and took away the dignity of people who hadn’t been convicted of crimes. America should be the nation that stands up for freedom, but instead we took people’s freedom away, making us essentially no better than the terrorists we were trying to stop. Yes, this torture might have helped stop terrorist attacks and save lives, but even if it definitely did, that does not make it right. As a deontologist, I believe that it is never morally acceptable to violate people’s rights, regardless of the consequences. I hate when people try to justify something merely by saying “it saves lives.” Well, maybe it does, but if it violates an innocent person’s rights (which the terror suspects might not be, but we don’t know because they hadn’t been tried by a court of law) then it’s wrong no matter how many lives it saves.

Although I think Bush is okay overall (not the best, but okay), I really disagree with him and his supporters on this particular issue. “The use of these techniques does not inflict either physical or psychological damage,” David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer, said to Fox News. Really? Being stripped naked, shoved into walls, smacked around, and being made to feel like you’re drowning to death doesn’t inflict psychological damage?

Then Rivkin went on to say that the release of the memos made the torture techniques “essentially unusable in the future.” And that’s bad why?

Dana Perino, Bush’s former press secretary, told the Washington Times that “We kept this country safe for 7 1/2 years and it’s time they gave us some credit for it.” Maybe, but the government’s purpose isn’t to keep America safe ; it’s to keep it free. The Patriot Act, excessive airport security, and now torture show that the Bush administration failed miserably in doing that. The government is supposed to serve the people. It needs to stop treating us like a parent treats a child, and start treating us like an employee treats a boss.

Unfortunately Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder do not intend to prosecute the perpetrators of these heinous acts, but the ACLU is saying that they should, and I agree. “There can be no more excuses for putting off criminal investigations of officials who authorized torture, lawyers who justified it and interrogators who broke the law,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

I think that what happened was not only torture, but it was immoral, unconstitutional, and unjustifiable. It would be a travesty of justice if no one was punished for this. And I am not saying this as a libertarian, but simply as a patriotic American. There is no point in fighting terrorists if we are going to act just like terrorists ourselves.

Hell has frozen over! Massachusetts might actually cut its budget! Yesterday the state legislature proposed a budget for fiscal year 2010 that is $700 million lower than that of 2009. The House’s budget is $57 million lower than Governor Patrick’s proposal. Best of all, the budget contains no proposals to raise taxes!  The Boston Globe (which I really hope stays in business even though I disagree with its politics) might not be happy about this, but I sure am!

Ways and Means Chair Charles Murphy told the Boston Herald that “It’s not pretty, but that’s what we’ve got.” I beg to differ. I think that a smaller state government is beautiful! Although there is a lot more that the state could and should cut, I am amazed that the budget is finally going in the right direction. The Globe calls it “the greatest reduction in year-to-year spending in recent memory.” I certainly don’t see anything wrong with that!

Among other things, the House budget proposal cuts local aid by 25%, makes state employees pay for 30% of their health insurance, cuts funding for seniors’ home care and rental vouchers for low-income people, and eliminates Shannon grants, which are used for anti-gang advocacy, the Quinn Bill, which pays for police officers’ education, and the volunteer program Commonwealth Corps. It fully funds court-appointed lawyers at $192 million, which I think is a good use of state money because it protects people’s constitutional rights.

The House has until tomorrow to file amdendments, debate on the budget will start on April 27, and then the State Senate will get to propose its own budget. I really hope that the House budget is for real and ends up passing, and that the legislature doesn’t change its mind and decide to raise taxes. Maybe Speaker DeLeo and the rest of the House aren’t so bad after all. It seems like there might be hope for Massachusetts.