The Freedom Bulletin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.