Today was the deadline for ballot initiatives to be filed in Massachusetts for the 2012 election. There are some interesting initiatives that are aiming to get on the ballot:
- The Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance wants to legalize medical marijuana for people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, or other serious illnesses. People would need permission from a doctor, and they could only get marijuana from treatment centers that would be regulated by the state Department of Public Health.
- The Fatherhood Coalition filed an initiative to abolish Chapter 209A, a law which allows people to get restraining orders without proof, of even an allegation, of wrongdoing. Designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, the law can also be used unjustly by people who are merely mad at their spouse or want to kick them out of the house.
- Massachusetts Citizens for Life is trying to abolish the state’s individual mandate, which requires all residents to have health insurance. I am glad to see this because, while the national individual mandate is the subject of a lot of controversy and criticism, the state one hasn’t been nearly as much.
- David Nunez, a Colorado casino developer, submitted a petition to allow three casinos in Massachusetts.
- Stand For Children wants teachers’ merit to be weighed above seniority in hiring, layoff, and transfer policies.
- Plus, there were 26 other petitions filed, for a total of 31.
To make it onto the ballot, each question must be certified by Attorney General Martha Coakley. Then, organizers must collect the signatures of 68,911 registered voters by November, as well as another 11,485 signatures by next July.
August 4 update: How did I miss this one? The Death With Dignity Act, which would allow people with terminal illnesses to obtain drugs to end their lives, is trying to get on the ballot as well. In my opinion, this would definitely be a step in the right direction.
A company called Wilder Publications decided to put a warning label on its copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and other historical documents. The warning reads:
“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”
The company has come under a lot of fire for this warning, and I think the criticism is deserved. A warning label might make sense for historical documents that actually are controversial and express hateful or otherwise offensive beliefs. But the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the basis of the American legal system. There’s nothing offensive about limited government!
I would hope that the beliefs about political philosophy expressed in the Constitution and Declaration remain mostly unchanged and that the Constitution would be basically the same if it was written today. It would be a sad thing if people widely considered the Constitution to be a quaint, old fashioned, historical document that is no longer relevant.
H/T: Rational Nation USA and Fox News
Overall, there was nothing too surprising about Obama’s address to Congress. Early on he said that he doesn’t support big government, but then he went on to list all the things he wants the government to spend money on. He says he doesn’t want to create a huge national debt, but he just pushed through a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package and is now planning to place the burden of reducing the budget deficit solely on financially successful people. Here are two of the main things in the speech that I took issue with:
1. Obama’s comment that “a surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy.” I really disagree with this statement because it presumes that money fundamentally belongs to the government, which (supposedly) has the right to distribute the money to people however it sees fit. I think money belongs to the people who earn it. Stealing less money from the rich (as Bush did) is NOT the same thing as transferring money to them. Ever since the 16th Amendment was passed, the government has been transferring money from the rich to the poor, not the other way around.
2. His statement that “Tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training…Every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country.” This deeply offended me for three reasons:
- Although these comments were just Obama’s opinion and do not have the force of law, what a paternalistic, un-American thing to say! How dare Obama tell Americans what decisions to make in their own lives? Dropping out of high school is just as good a choice as going to college. The choices that individual people make are not the business of the country as a whole – that would be socialism. What makes America beautiful is that people have the liberty to make their own decisions without being judged by others.
- Additionally, to expect everyone to get a college education is collectively self-defeating. The purpose of a college degree is to gain an advantage in the job market. If everyone gets a college degree, no one will have an advantage. The situation will be exactly the same as if no one went to college, except everyone will have spent 4 years of their life working hard with no financial compensation. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
- Third, society needs all kinds of people. That includes plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, cooks, cashiers, and people who work in Dunkin’ Donuts. Blue-collar jobs that require no college education, and maybe not even a high-school education, are in many ways more useful to society than doctors, consultants, and even lawyers. The world wouldn’t be a very good place if all the Dunkin’s shut down because there was no one to make coffee and get donuts for people. Contrary to what Obama seems to think, in America, it’s okay to have people with a variety of jobs and education levels.
Ridiculously high textbook prices have burdened college students for years, and Congress is finally trying to help. The House Education and Labor Committee has proposed a bill that would require publishers to sell unbundled books and colleges to inform students about required reading before classes start.
The average student pays about $900 for textbooks each year. Adding to the problem is the fact that many books are bundled with workbooks, answer keys, and CD-roms, which add significantly to the price of the book but often go unused. Additionally, in my experience at least, many professors release their syllabi on the first day of class. As a result, students are forced to buy their books from overpriced campus bookstores, since books ordered online won’t arrive in time.
I personally support government-mandated price ceilings on books. The marginal cost of a book is under a dollar. Plus, because you need textbooks to take courses, the demand for textbooks is inelastic. Therefore publishers are able to rip students off. There is no reason why a hardback book should cost over $25 and no reason why a paperback book should cost over $10.
But, Congress’s bill is a good start. Anything that will enable students to pay less for textbooks is welcome by me. There is no reason why professors can’t figure out and release their syllabi sooner and no reason why publishers should force people to buy products they don’t want or need.
Source: The Crimson
