Last night was a mixed bag for the freedom movement but there were some incredible highlights that I'll cover below:
- Medical Marijuana is now the law in Michigan
- Massachusetts became the first state to decriminalize possession of small amounts of Marijuana
- Bob Barr will climb over the half-million vote mark while on the ballot in only 46 states. This is 18% over 2004 for the LP and within the margin of victory in two states.
- A president was elected that has talked about bringing our troops home. Let's hope they're not just redeployed instead. (I believe nothing on this front will really happen but I can only watch)
Some snags along the way were:
- California voters insist government has a role in marriage
- Massachusetts voters keep their income tax
I was asked by a co-worker what I thought of the election and I talked about some of these issues I was following. She looked at me with a confused look and said, "I mean, are you happy about Obama being president?" My answer surprised her: "I care not who wins, I don't have a dog in the fight." I talked to her a little while longer and it wasn't long before she had written down the names of some books I recommended she read.
That lifelong Democrat and Puget Sound Progressive (her words, not mine) is enthusiastic to read What it Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray. What I consider to be a decent primer on libertarian thinking.
The message of freedom is still a very powerful message that people want to hear. There will never be a bigger opportunity to successfully spread this message than over the next four years.
6 comments:
She was clearly bamboozled by your use of the phrase "I care not..."
Were you wearing some sort of sword?
I'll add that book to my list, it's got to be easier to get through than "Collapse", which is killing me. It's either that or skipping through my dog-eared "Das Kapital."
did i ever give you that book back?
i wish i could talk like that all the time. "i care not how ye thinks of thou..."
Don truthfully in my mind I had a sword...funny hat with feather too. Talking like you have a sword allows you to command respect...or get your ass kicked at a rennaissence faire...either one I should probably knock it off.
being truthful, CA voters didnt decide govt had a role in marriage.
the role was already there.
and the justices even said so, so as a result, since govt has a role, may as well let the democratic process be part of that role.
unless, of course, you are a homo. then you only want and recognize the part of the govt process that meets your end.
Gino, that is a good point and even had they rejected the prop it still wouldn't have settled the government's role in marriage. I think without thinking I may have attributed subtext to the vote.
I'm not sure how to really interpret that vote and I'm shocked by the outcome...it would've been no contest here. In fact here they would require every citizen of the state to attend a gay wedding and bring an inexpensive gift.
i'm not shocked at the outcome, but a little surprised it wasnt closer.
we already passed a 'no gay' a few years back. it was justices who last year said it didnt count (after previously upholding).
so, we did it it again.
our liberalsism is not as liberal as yours is. there is a totally different democratic vote base here.
Post a Comment