Let me start this post pleading guilty. I was for the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now let me say this; I emphatically oppose any action in Syria based on current knowledge and conditions.
I believe in the old saying: "War is hell." I believe it should never be entered lightly for that reason. On the heels of 9/11, war drums were beating. Justifiably or not, I wanted to make sure that the people who took down the towers, attacked the pentagon and sought to attack another unknown target - but were heroically stopped by passengers aboard flight 93 - were brought to justice and prevented from attacking us again. In short, we had a demonstrable clear and present danger that there existed a terrorist network capable of plotting and executing massive attacks against the United States, her citizens and her allies.
With a clear mission - locating and decimating al qaeda and its allies to prevent them from further attacks against us or our interests the President went to Congress and obtained the necessary approval to engage an enemy abroad. Afghanistan was attacked, the Taliban we knew to be harboring al qaeda was toppled and we began working with the Afghani people to secure a transfer of power back to a new government (as a side note, I've never supported the proposition of so-called regime-change). In the decade that followed we've seen the conditions in Afghanistan fluctuate between mostly stable and mostly chaotic and back. We've lost 2250+ US soldiers (and 1100+ non-US coalition forces) in the 12 year war. It is difficult to look back at Afghanistan and answer the questions: Was it worth it? Is Afghanistan stable? Is it a haven for al qeada? Is there a continued threat to US security by the country's government, its people or its military?
Iraq was a different animal all together. We hadn't been directly attacked by its government, its people or military. Iraq had been in violation of more than a dozen or so United Nations Resolutions all mostly related to its weapons programs and inspections of them. Hussein was certainly defiant about the inspections and was quite vocal about the fact that he was building WMDs. The fear was that these WMD might be transferred to terrorists who could covertly use them against us. We HAD to go in and eradicate these WMD before another 9/11 happened. Many were skeptical (and apparently, rightly so). So the President sought appropriate Congressional approval before engaging with Iraq. His Secretary of State showed us all of the "evidence" that WMD existed and were being moved. I fell on the side of enforcing the UN resolutions - serving Iraq with a notice that we were going to find these weapons and that anyone trying to get in our way would get a high-velocity inspection of our troops' ammunition.
I didn't support the notion of regime change then, and I believe both Afghanistan and Iraq are great examples of how not to fight a war specifically because of the regime-change elements of them both. But this isn't a question of military strategy - yet. This is a question about authority and responsibility. Congress still maintains the power of war over the executive branch as spelled out in our Constitution. No President (George W. Bush or Barack Obama included) has the authority to act unilaterally to order our troops into acts of war. Period. They are Constitutionally obligated to take their case to Congress and seek the necessary approval.
Were I in Congress now, I would not grant that approval for Syria at this time. We're told that chemical weapons were used against the Syrian people by Syrian troops as ordered by Assad. Notwithstanding the obvious question - why on Earth would Assad issue such an order when he's clearly capable of slaughtering his people with conventional warfare and the introduction of chemical weapons would have the obvious effect of condemnation, outrage and [serious potential for] military response from the outside world? - the real question is this: How does this affect the United States, her citizens and her allies? How does this meet the threshold of Clear and Present Danger required to ask our citizen soldiers to risk life and limb to engage an enemy? If we aren't going to use that threshold anymore, surely it's obvious whose side we should be on in the conflict - right? Not so much. Assad is supported by Iran (we don't like them) and Russia (an ally, albeit a fickle one). The Rebels are a disorganized bunch but common claims are that they are dominated by Muslim Brotherhood (a militant group that uses religion as a tool/justification for violence and who helped to put Hamas in power - an enemy of Israel).
With the messes over in Egypt and Syria in the news the past few weeks, my wife asked me the other day what the deal was and whose side we were on. My response was that basically the whole region is filled with Taliban types fighting al qeada types and threw the question back at her: Whose side would you pick?
With no clear ally, no clear threat to the United States, no clear objective and no Congressional approval to wage war, what sane person would argue that the United States has an interest -never mind the obligation or authority - to intervene at this time?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Modified LABEDA chassis for lower-clearance toe-tie...
I just got back into playing hockey and am playing net inline for the first time. I've found the transition from ball-hockey to inline interesting to say the least. After a few weeks of frustration with the unbelievable gap below my pads (with just the 1 1/2" inline wheels and chassis making contact with the surface), I decided to mod my LABEDA Predator goalie chassis on my Tour Carbon GX skates. Below are some pictures of the mod and illustrations for how I lace up my pads to my skates.
First, the modification...
I purchased a piece of 1" wide 1/8" thick aluminum flat stock from Lowe's (for like $6) along with a bag of 10-24 x 3/8" machine screws ($2 ish).
Next, the toe-tie method...
Finally, some shots of the pad tied the way LABEDA designed it (to show the original problem)...
First, the modification...
I purchased a piece of 1" wide 1/8" thick aluminum flat stock from Lowe's (for like $6) along with a bag of 10-24 x 3/8" machine screws ($2 ish).
- I cut two pieces of the bar stock to 12 3/4" long found the center and bent them in half around my weight-bench bar (it was the closest in diameter to the chassis' width) so I had (2) U-shaped brackets.
- Next I drilled a hole in the lower part of the U so I could thread my laces through it (I actually did this later, but it's appropriate to mention it here).
- Finally I positioned the brackets over the chassis and drilled holes for the screws using a 3 step process:
- Step 1 - Drill hole through both the bracket and the chassis using drill bit matched to my 10-24 tap (making sure to center my drill bit between the spaces in the wheels but higher than center vertically so as to make sure that the screws wouldn't interfere with the wheels..it is also important to make sure the U in the front has enough clearance from the wheel to allow for laces to easily thread through the hole from the wheel-side out the front);
- Step 2 - Remove bracket, drill out larger hole for 10-24 screw to slide through (I ultimately had to slot these holes later to get more clearance between the bracket and the front wheel, but if you leave enough room for the laces as I mentioned in Step 1 then simply widening these holes is sufficient).
- Step 3 - Tap the hole in the chassis with 10-24 tap set (there really isn't room to use a nut on the inside, so tapping these holes is the best option. I thought about what I will do should the threads wear out and I think you might be able to put the rounded head of the screw on the inside and a nylon-inserted lock-nut on the outside. It would also be less likely that you'd wear the threads if you drilled clearance holes for the wheel bearing screws and applied some loctite to the screws since you, then, wouldn't have to remove them to change wheels/bearings out.)
| The Modified Chassis: | |
 |  |
 | |
Next, the toe-tie method...
| Step 1 - Thread laces through back of hole in U to the front. | |
 | |
| Step 2 - Send laces through existing slot in chassis | |
 |  |
| Step 3 - Tighten everything and bring laces up to open eyelet on boots | |
 |  |
| Step 4 - Tighten everything (again) and tie | |
 |  |
| Final Result - Look at that new clearance! | |
 |  |
Finally, some shots of the pad tied the way LABEDA designed it (to show the original problem)...
| No wonder I couldn't stop anything standing up! | |
 |  |
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
In response to Dr. Squires's "Facts are stubborn things"...
This post is in response to Dr. James Squires' post found here:
http://endowmentforhealth.typepad.com/insight/2011/03/facts-are-stubborn-things.html
In the spirit of sticking with the facts, a law may be the law of the land until and unless the SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that it IS constitutional while we wait; it just means it is the law of the land, and a free society is free to debate the constitutionality in the mean time. I assume you're opposed to the President's decision to ignore DOMA as well (since it's the law of the land given that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled otherwise)? The FACT is that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the people (the 10th Amendment preserves the rest for the states and for the people), and one of those powers is to regulate interstate commerce - this is the power that supporters of the law claim justify the law constitutionally. We, who disagree contend that where a private citizen chooses not to engage in commerce, there is no commerce to be regulated, thus the penalties doled out by the federal government for not engaging in commerce fall outside of the powers delegated to them to regulate.
You've pointed out 5 facts which I will address with my opinion now - as your implication appears to be that ACA addresses them (which is also merely opinion)...
1- Health care costs contribute to national debt. I agree, which is why I would have addressed it in the opposite direction; eliminating the requirement that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Subsidizing something ALWAYS gets you more of it, and providing health care to those who choose not to acquire insurance on the backs of those of us who do and the taxpayer needs to stop.
2- Health care costs in NH are among the highest in the country. This may be true, but it is due to Jeanne Shaheen's SB711 taking effect in 1995. Her bill was a naive attempt to help those without coverage (on the backs of those of us with it) by eliminating any ability of providers to deny coverage. When the bill passed, NH had 12 providers and 10.0% of the population was uninsured. By 1997 the number was 5 (and I think it has gone down to 3 now IIRC). The FACT is that when you force companies to lose money, they will stop doing business with you. That lack of competition (driven out with good intentions of a utopia where everyone has access to million dollar care even if they can't afford it) results in higher prices - that is economic FACT. Insurance is risk-mitigation and the companies who provide it are calculating gamblers; when they see a losing horse, they won't bet on it; SB711 branded NH a losing horse.
3- The cost of health care plays a major role in business decisions. I agree completely, so let's stop doing things legislatively that increase those costs (like SB711 did and ACA is already proving to do).
4- We spend more on treating disease than preventing it. That's because treating disease is expensive; and we can't prevent everything. Further, no amount of legislation aimed at providing access to cheap/free care to those who can't afford it will prevent people from not going to the doctor when they are healthy. People get sick; it's a fact of life, and death is the only certainty.
5- 110,000 to 130,000 people in NH are uninsured. As it has been, so it will ever be. We have people who make bad decisions in life, they chose to do drugs, partake in pre-marital sex, gamble, steal, etc. We also have people who simply fall on bad times and need some help. We may never know what percentages of those numbers of uninsured fall into which categories, but I know people in different categories, and some I am willing to and do help personally, others not so much. The government mandating that people subsidize one-another while eliminating any choice on who they help takes away their right to help those in need as they see fit and subsidizes those who've made poor decisions while mitigating the risks inherent in those decisions. Government "take-over" or regulation or whatever other name you want to use isn't going to solve our problems; it will exacerbate them.
Are insurance companies all good? No. Is some reform needed in our system? Sure. One thing I do know though is facts are facts and merely presenting 5 points and inferring that ACA is the golden solution to deal with them without any evidence that it will is drivel and falls into the same category of noise of merely calling the bill unconstitutional without presenting any evidence.
http://endowmentforhealth.typepad.com/insight/2011/03/facts-are-stubborn-things.html
In the spirit of sticking with the facts, a law may be the law of the land until and unless the SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that it IS constitutional while we wait; it just means it is the law of the land, and a free society is free to debate the constitutionality in the mean time. I assume you're opposed to the President's decision to ignore DOMA as well (since it's the law of the land given that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled otherwise)? The FACT is that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the people (the 10th Amendment preserves the rest for the states and for the people), and one of those powers is to regulate interstate commerce - this is the power that supporters of the law claim justify the law constitutionally. We, who disagree contend that where a private citizen chooses not to engage in commerce, there is no commerce to be regulated, thus the penalties doled out by the federal government for not engaging in commerce fall outside of the powers delegated to them to regulate.
You've pointed out 5 facts which I will address with my opinion now - as your implication appears to be that ACA addresses them (which is also merely opinion)...
1- Health care costs contribute to national debt. I agree, which is why I would have addressed it in the opposite direction; eliminating the requirement that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Subsidizing something ALWAYS gets you more of it, and providing health care to those who choose not to acquire insurance on the backs of those of us who do and the taxpayer needs to stop.
2- Health care costs in NH are among the highest in the country. This may be true, but it is due to Jeanne Shaheen's SB711 taking effect in 1995. Her bill was a naive attempt to help those without coverage (on the backs of those of us with it) by eliminating any ability of providers to deny coverage. When the bill passed, NH had 12 providers and 10.0% of the population was uninsured. By 1997 the number was 5 (and I think it has gone down to 3 now IIRC). The FACT is that when you force companies to lose money, they will stop doing business with you. That lack of competition (driven out with good intentions of a utopia where everyone has access to million dollar care even if they can't afford it) results in higher prices - that is economic FACT. Insurance is risk-mitigation and the companies who provide it are calculating gamblers; when they see a losing horse, they won't bet on it; SB711 branded NH a losing horse.
3- The cost of health care plays a major role in business decisions. I agree completely, so let's stop doing things legislatively that increase those costs (like SB711 did and ACA is already proving to do).
4- We spend more on treating disease than preventing it. That's because treating disease is expensive; and we can't prevent everything. Further, no amount of legislation aimed at providing access to cheap/free care to those who can't afford it will prevent people from not going to the doctor when they are healthy. People get sick; it's a fact of life, and death is the only certainty.
5- 110,000 to 130,000 people in NH are uninsured. As it has been, so it will ever be. We have people who make bad decisions in life, they chose to do drugs, partake in pre-marital sex, gamble, steal, etc. We also have people who simply fall on bad times and need some help. We may never know what percentages of those numbers of uninsured fall into which categories, but I know people in different categories, and some I am willing to and do help personally, others not so much. The government mandating that people subsidize one-another while eliminating any choice on who they help takes away their right to help those in need as they see fit and subsidizes those who've made poor decisions while mitigating the risks inherent in those decisions. Government "take-over" or regulation or whatever other name you want to use isn't going to solve our problems; it will exacerbate them.
Are insurance companies all good? No. Is some reform needed in our system? Sure. One thing I do know though is facts are facts and merely presenting 5 points and inferring that ACA is the golden solution to deal with them without any evidence that it will is drivel and falls into the same category of noise of merely calling the bill unconstitutional without presenting any evidence.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Last-Minute/Game-Time Endorsement Change...
So, after changing my endorsement for US Senate several times throughout this primary, I stepped into the voting booth this morning and changed my mind one final time. It's got to be Ovide!
Ovide was my first choice early on in the race. I admit that I was a bit biased since his gubernatorial race was one of my first to be putting signs in the ground for with my uncle and best friend. Over time, my choice has wavered; Out of concern that Bill Binnie might give Ayotte the best challenge, I endorsed Kelly because of all the candidates, Binnie is the only one I would be disappointed to see win the nomination, and would need some convincing to help in any way during the general election.
As Binnie (and Ayotte) went negative, it became clear that Binnie was bleeding supporters and was no longer a threat, so I decided to look at the other candidates anew. Kelly is a good candidate, but there are some valid concerns that the libertarian/t.e.a./grass-roots GOP have brought up (not the least of which is the lack of unified support for her if she were to win the nomination), so I decided to look at Bender and Ovide more closely. In reality, there's not a lot of difference between the three on the major issues aside from Bender's pro-choice stance (which I dislike, but is not a federal legislature issue aside from use of federal funds which Bender is opposed to). Ovide hasn't really been tested this primary with all the hate between Ayotte and Binnie, Ovide and Bender were considered also-rans, and nobody really challenged him with his connections to the catholic church and phone jamming scandal (which the Democrats are sure to do in the general). My concerns with Ovide ran beyond that and into his stance on social issues. I'm a libertarian-leaning, Constitutionalist Republican who (aside from abortion) thinks the government should get out of the business of legislating morality. I believe marriage is a religious institution and the solution to the gay-marriage nonsense isn't more government (telling people who they can marry), but less (eliminating the need for any government endorsement for the religious ceremony). I am opposed to funding embrionic stem cell research, but I'm also opposed to funding any research. So, I settled in on Bender - fiscally conservative, socially moderate, solid Constitutionalist - what's not to like?
As the gap between Ovide and Kelly narrowed over this past week or two, I started second-guessing my endorsement. If my decision had come down to Ovide or Bender, why let Kelly run away with it when Ovide actually has a shot at taking her down? Still, I remained true to my principals; I showed up at the polls this morning and setup shop with my signs. A full totem with John Stephen, another full totem of Jennifer Horn signs. Then my third totem with Stephen, Horn, Jim Luther, Sandra Zeihm and..and..a Jim Bender to fill it out.
Still I was uneasy. I held those signs for a couple of hours before I decided it was time to cast my ballot and head home to do some work. I picked up my ballot and entered the booth closing the curtain behind me. All the way down I cast my votes, but when I hit that Senate box I paused; nay I skipped it finished the rest of the positions and came back. The pen went back and forth between Ovide and Bender several times before logic won out and I filled the circle for Ovide. This has been a tough race to settle on, but in then end, I feel confident that I've made the right choice (and maybe next time I'll stick with my first choice).
Ovide was my first choice early on in the race. I admit that I was a bit biased since his gubernatorial race was one of my first to be putting signs in the ground for with my uncle and best friend. Over time, my choice has wavered; Out of concern that Bill Binnie might give Ayotte the best challenge, I endorsed Kelly because of all the candidates, Binnie is the only one I would be disappointed to see win the nomination, and would need some convincing to help in any way during the general election.
As Binnie (and Ayotte) went negative, it became clear that Binnie was bleeding supporters and was no longer a threat, so I decided to look at the other candidates anew. Kelly is a good candidate, but there are some valid concerns that the libertarian/t.e.a./grass-roots GOP have brought up (not the least of which is the lack of unified support for her if she were to win the nomination), so I decided to look at Bender and Ovide more closely. In reality, there's not a lot of difference between the three on the major issues aside from Bender's pro-choice stance (which I dislike, but is not a federal legislature issue aside from use of federal funds which Bender is opposed to). Ovide hasn't really been tested this primary with all the hate between Ayotte and Binnie, Ovide and Bender were considered also-rans, and nobody really challenged him with his connections to the catholic church and phone jamming scandal (which the Democrats are sure to do in the general). My concerns with Ovide ran beyond that and into his stance on social issues. I'm a libertarian-leaning, Constitutionalist Republican who (aside from abortion) thinks the government should get out of the business of legislating morality. I believe marriage is a religious institution and the solution to the gay-marriage nonsense isn't more government (telling people who they can marry), but less (eliminating the need for any government endorsement for the religious ceremony). I am opposed to funding embrionic stem cell research, but I'm also opposed to funding any research. So, I settled in on Bender - fiscally conservative, socially moderate, solid Constitutionalist - what's not to like?
As the gap between Ovide and Kelly narrowed over this past week or two, I started second-guessing my endorsement. If my decision had come down to Ovide or Bender, why let Kelly run away with it when Ovide actually has a shot at taking her down? Still, I remained true to my principals; I showed up at the polls this morning and setup shop with my signs. A full totem with John Stephen, another full totem of Jennifer Horn signs. Then my third totem with Stephen, Horn, Jim Luther, Sandra Zeihm and..and..a Jim Bender to fill it out.
Still I was uneasy. I held those signs for a couple of hours before I decided it was time to cast my ballot and head home to do some work. I picked up my ballot and entered the booth closing the curtain behind me. All the way down I cast my votes, but when I hit that Senate box I paused; nay I skipped it finished the rest of the positions and came back. The pen went back and forth between Ovide and Bender several times before logic won out and I filled the circle for Ovide. This has been a tough race to settle on, but in then end, I feel confident that I've made the right choice (and maybe next time I'll stick with my first choice).
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
My [updated] picks for the NH Primary
I'm editing my selections for the NH Primary and will post my reasons with each endorsement...
US Senate: Jim Bender - This is a tough one for me. There are 3 candidates in this race that I keep bouncing between for different reasons. This is a far better position to be in than we were in during the 2008 Presidential Primaries where we were forced to to pick the fruit with the least rot - this time we've got 3 very good/conservative candidates to pick from!
Bill Binnie is dangerous and I urge everyone to steer clear of him. He's been a supporter of John Lynch (donated to his campaigns) and just seems like an arrogant RINO to me. I'm tempted to delete that to honor The Gipper's 11th Commandment, but this is a 6 year seat and a critical time for the federal government, and so I'm leaving it.
Kelly Ayotte is taking a lot of heat for a few of her previous positions on some issues - I think a lot of that heat is unjustified/misinformed, and I'd support her in the general election no questions asked. She was my previous pick in this race for the same reason I picked Stephen over Kimball in the gubernatorial race below - we must win this seat! That having been said, I think this race might be a fun one to watch this fall regardless of the GOP candidate - Hodes isn't going back to DC and that's great news for the people of NH and the USA! So the reason for my change here is that I want a solid Constitutionalist in Washington who's undeniably demonstrated knowledge of the limits that document puts on the federal government. Kelly's opposition is trying hard to frame her as an insider/statist (most of which is completely undeserved) who couldn't handle her role as AG (from a libertarian's viewpiont) and is backed by the political machine in DC. As unfair as this is, the message is sticking and spreading, and the rebuttals take more than the quick 30 seconds needed spread equally fast. This is causing some significant disdain - including pledges not to come out and vote for her in the general should she win the nomination - from the TEA activists across the state. Thus, her November-power is significantly degraded.
This leaves Ovide and Bender. I like Ovide, he's a great guy, and a long-time conservative. He'd also certainly get my support for the general should he pull off the nomination. But he does come with some November hurdles as well - namely, the catholic church. His affiliation with the archdiocese - specifically, his defense of the church during the sexual abuse scandals - will come back to bite him in a general election. Further, I'll repeat something I've said for several years - I am both Christian and Right but I can't stand the Christian Right. Socially speaking, Ovide's catholicism is going to creep into his politics - and I'm not talking about abortion alone (this is the singular area where I agree with the Christian Right; but that's a non-issue in this race). I'm talking about social issues where the right tries to tell you what's right or wrong and force their beliefs on you: same-sex marriage (I am in favor of removing the government from marriage entirely - eliminating the debate entirely from public/political influence - marriage is a religious institution and the government should play no role in determining who can marry whom), drug-laws (just another form of prohibition that has ultimately continued organized crime), etc. On social issues, I am Libertarian to the core, and I fear Ovide is not.
That leaves us with Jim Bender. I like Jim - I've met him a few times, heard him speak a few times, watched some of the debates. This guy is the real deal. Constitutionalist, businessman, first-time politician. I think he'd have been a great lower-tier candidate to get some name recognition before running for the US Senate, but I also think he's done a great job overcoming that name-recognition problem. I really wish he or Ovide would drop out and endorse the other, because they are the best two candidates in this race - stealing votes from each other - rather than the front running Kelly, but in the absence of this, you have to pick, so I'm coming down on the side of Jim Bender.
Governor: John Stephen - We need a candidate who has the capability of defeating Lynch in November. John is the best chance the GOP has. Jack is great - don't dislike a thing about him and would support him if he takes the nomination, but John is equally good on the issues and is far more likely to pull off the November win.
US CD2: No change here - Jennifer Horn has and will keep my endorsement. She's been active around the state, accessible and conversational with the voters in person and here on facebook, and I can't think of a single position she's taken that I've taken issue with. She was our nominee in 2008 and suffered from the Hope and Change crap that put Obama in the White House. I've also said for years that this seat - for some reason - takes two shots at to win (Hodes lost his first race with Charlie before defeating him in 2006 - I'd talked with candidates who opposed Charlie in primaries before and told them that they needed to consider their first run an investment - I wish they had listened). Charlie's had 6 terms in Washington and wants us to send him back for a 7th (after running originally in support of term limits). He's a self-proclaimed moderate Republican and sending him back will erode our party's renewed energy brought on by the TEA party. Giuda is a nice guy - and a veteran to boot! I'd happily support him in November, but we need a candidate people know, and there's just no reason to walk away from Jennifer.
Finally (I'm working down in scale, but arguably up in influence over your cost of living - taxes) NH Senate 12: Jim Luther. This one comes down to winability. I like John Lewicke just fine - he's Libertarian-minded like me - but we need to win this seat, and Peggy Gilmore is popular (this seems to be a theme with the Democrats - where it's all about popularity rather than position on issues - it's like they are voting for high-school class president or prom queen or something). In order to take Gilmore out, we need a serious candidate who can deliver their message - Jim Luther is that candidate. He's economically focused and that's really what it is all about right now....We need Republicans in Concord to right this ship - the Democrats can't blame Bush for their irresponsibility in Concord, and they've had their chance - and done a good deal of damage that now needs to be fixed. 'nuff said here.
US Senate: Jim Bender - This is a tough one for me. There are 3 candidates in this race that I keep bouncing between for different reasons. This is a far better position to be in than we were in during the 2008 Presidential Primaries where we were forced to to pick the fruit with the least rot - this time we've got 3 very good/conservative candidates to pick from!
Bill Binnie is dangerous and I urge everyone to steer clear of him. He's been a supporter of John Lynch (donated to his campaigns) and just seems like an arrogant RINO to me. I'm tempted to delete that to honor The Gipper's 11th Commandment, but this is a 6 year seat and a critical time for the federal government, and so I'm leaving it.
Kelly Ayotte is taking a lot of heat for a few of her previous positions on some issues - I think a lot of that heat is unjustified/misinformed, and I'd support her in the general election no questions asked. She was my previous pick in this race for the same reason I picked Stephen over Kimball in the gubernatorial race below - we must win this seat! That having been said, I think this race might be a fun one to watch this fall regardless of the GOP candidate - Hodes isn't going back to DC and that's great news for the people of NH and the USA! So the reason for my change here is that I want a solid Constitutionalist in Washington who's undeniably demonstrated knowledge of the limits that document puts on the federal government. Kelly's opposition is trying hard to frame her as an insider/statist (most of which is completely undeserved) who couldn't handle her role as AG (from a libertarian's viewpiont) and is backed by the political machine in DC. As unfair as this is, the message is sticking and spreading, and the rebuttals take more than the quick 30 seconds needed spread equally fast. This is causing some significant disdain - including pledges not to come out and vote for her in the general should she win the nomination - from the TEA activists across the state. Thus, her November-power is significantly degraded.
This leaves Ovide and Bender. I like Ovide, he's a great guy, and a long-time conservative. He'd also certainly get my support for the general should he pull off the nomination. But he does come with some November hurdles as well - namely, the catholic church. His affiliation with the archdiocese - specifically, his defense of the church during the sexual abuse scandals - will come back to bite him in a general election. Further, I'll repeat something I've said for several years - I am both Christian and Right but I can't stand the Christian Right. Socially speaking, Ovide's catholicism is going to creep into his politics - and I'm not talking about abortion alone (this is the singular area where I agree with the Christian Right; but that's a non-issue in this race). I'm talking about social issues where the right tries to tell you what's right or wrong and force their beliefs on you: same-sex marriage (I am in favor of removing the government from marriage entirely - eliminating the debate entirely from public/political influence - marriage is a religious institution and the government should play no role in determining who can marry whom), drug-laws (just another form of prohibition that has ultimately continued organized crime), etc. On social issues, I am Libertarian to the core, and I fear Ovide is not.
That leaves us with Jim Bender. I like Jim - I've met him a few times, heard him speak a few times, watched some of the debates. This guy is the real deal. Constitutionalist, businessman, first-time politician. I think he'd have been a great lower-tier candidate to get some name recognition before running for the US Senate, but I also think he's done a great job overcoming that name-recognition problem. I really wish he or Ovide would drop out and endorse the other, because they are the best two candidates in this race - stealing votes from each other - rather than the front running Kelly, but in the absence of this, you have to pick, so I'm coming down on the side of Jim Bender.
Governor: John Stephen - We need a candidate who has the capability of defeating Lynch in November. John is the best chance the GOP has. Jack is great - don't dislike a thing about him and would support him if he takes the nomination, but John is equally good on the issues and is far more likely to pull off the November win.
US CD2: No change here - Jennifer Horn has and will keep my endorsement. She's been active around the state, accessible and conversational with the voters in person and here on facebook, and I can't think of a single position she's taken that I've taken issue with. She was our nominee in 2008 and suffered from the Hope and Change crap that put Obama in the White House. I've also said for years that this seat - for some reason - takes two shots at to win (Hodes lost his first race with Charlie before defeating him in 2006 - I'd talked with candidates who opposed Charlie in primaries before and told them that they needed to consider their first run an investment - I wish they had listened). Charlie's had 6 terms in Washington and wants us to send him back for a 7th (after running originally in support of term limits). He's a self-proclaimed moderate Republican and sending him back will erode our party's renewed energy brought on by the TEA party. Giuda is a nice guy - and a veteran to boot! I'd happily support him in November, but we need a candidate people know, and there's just no reason to walk away from Jennifer.
Finally (I'm working down in scale, but arguably up in influence over your cost of living - taxes) NH Senate 12: Jim Luther. This one comes down to winability. I like John Lewicke just fine - he's Libertarian-minded like me - but we need to win this seat, and Peggy Gilmore is popular (this seems to be a theme with the Democrats - where it's all about popularity rather than position on issues - it's like they are voting for high-school class president or prom queen or something). In order to take Gilmore out, we need a serious candidate who can deliver their message - Jim Luther is that candidate. He's economically focused and that's really what it is all about right now....We need Republicans in Concord to right this ship - the Democrats can't blame Bush for their irresponsibility in Concord, and they've had their chance - and done a good deal of damage that now needs to be fixed. 'nuff said here.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The "independent" takeover of the Republican Party (and what to do about it)
For several cycles, I've complained about the NH Primary rules. The State allows for "undeclared" voters, whom don't identify themselves with a particular party, to grab the ballot of their choice on Primary Day to participate in that party's nomination process. While the intentions of this rule might, prima facie, appear fair and equitable, the results, ultimately are disingenuous to both parties, but particularly to the Republican Party.
For many years, the actual members of the Republican Party (there really is a process to become a voting member of the party) set the platform by which, in-general, candidates seeking the nomination to represent their party in the general election should subscribe to. There are obviously going to be varying levels of divergence from the official platform on the part of every candidate - that's the reason for the Primary in the first place. The problem is, when you allow Independents to grab a Republican ballot on Primary Day, you are allowing self-professed, non-supporters of the Republican platform to select the candidate whom will, in the general election, represent his/her own views as the authoritative position of the party's.
The obvious result is shown by New Hampshire's nomination of John McCain in February 2008. Senator McCain is a noble man, a war-hero, and a true patriot. But his views are far from those of the Republican Party's on many issues. He often broke ranks from the Republican Party to side with the Democrats on issues like amnesty for illegal aliens and federal-funding for stem cell research. He helped craft anti-constitutional campaign finance reform that blatantly attacks the first amendment. The list goes on.
Senator McCain won our party's nomination because the independents infiltrated our Primary to vote for him. He certainly is appealing to the moderate/independent voter, and I am not suggesting he didn't deserve an opportunity to run, but the result of him winning the Republican nomination was a depletion of the Republican base in the general election. I, for one, recognized, well in advance that this was a case where I had to hold my nose and pull the lever for Senator McCain because the damage an Obama Presidency would cause would be life-altering for our country - a belief, I fear, we are seeing played out even faster than I feared. But, not all of our Republican friends did the same. Not to discredit President Obama and the cult of personality that drove him to the White House, but if you look at the numbers in detail, Senator McCain was unable to win over the Republican base, and this is why we lost the White House.
I'd like to see two changes to election law in our state, and nationally. First, eliminate same-day declaration at the polls. Anybody can be a Republican (or a Democrat), but they must register as such in advance of the Primary, and they can't un-register immediately after casting their Primary ballot. Second, ballot counting should be changed to require a 50%+1 count before a winner is declared (both in the primaries and the general election which should include as many parties as qualified - not just Republican and Democrat) and the voting process should be a ranking system 1 through x. I am encouraged to see Libertarian and Green Party candidates here and there, but nobody is willing to vote for these fringe candidates for fear of throwing out their votes. If the voting process allowed for ranking of candidates, and required elimination processing until a single candidate achieved 50% +1 of the votes, then we could elect representatives with a mandate to execute their stated agendas.
Here's how it would work. Each ballot would list all of the eligible names from all of the parties for a given office in randomized order. Voters would be given a bubble-sheet like the SAT with numbers 1 - x on them. Each number may be used only once. Each round of ballot processing would be done as follows:
For many years, the actual members of the Republican Party (there really is a process to become a voting member of the party) set the platform by which, in-general, candidates seeking the nomination to represent their party in the general election should subscribe to. There are obviously going to be varying levels of divergence from the official platform on the part of every candidate - that's the reason for the Primary in the first place. The problem is, when you allow Independents to grab a Republican ballot on Primary Day, you are allowing self-professed, non-supporters of the Republican platform to select the candidate whom will, in the general election, represent his/her own views as the authoritative position of the party's.
The obvious result is shown by New Hampshire's nomination of John McCain in February 2008. Senator McCain is a noble man, a war-hero, and a true patriot. But his views are far from those of the Republican Party's on many issues. He often broke ranks from the Republican Party to side with the Democrats on issues like amnesty for illegal aliens and federal-funding for stem cell research. He helped craft anti-constitutional campaign finance reform that blatantly attacks the first amendment. The list goes on.
Senator McCain won our party's nomination because the independents infiltrated our Primary to vote for him. He certainly is appealing to the moderate/independent voter, and I am not suggesting he didn't deserve an opportunity to run, but the result of him winning the Republican nomination was a depletion of the Republican base in the general election. I, for one, recognized, well in advance that this was a case where I had to hold my nose and pull the lever for Senator McCain because the damage an Obama Presidency would cause would be life-altering for our country - a belief, I fear, we are seeing played out even faster than I feared. But, not all of our Republican friends did the same. Not to discredit President Obama and the cult of personality that drove him to the White House, but if you look at the numbers in detail, Senator McCain was unable to win over the Republican base, and this is why we lost the White House.
I'd like to see two changes to election law in our state, and nationally. First, eliminate same-day declaration at the polls. Anybody can be a Republican (or a Democrat), but they must register as such in advance of the Primary, and they can't un-register immediately after casting their Primary ballot. Second, ballot counting should be changed to require a 50%+1 count before a winner is declared (both in the primaries and the general election which should include as many parties as qualified - not just Republican and Democrat) and the voting process should be a ranking system 1 through x. I am encouraged to see Libertarian and Green Party candidates here and there, but nobody is willing to vote for these fringe candidates for fear of throwing out their votes. If the voting process allowed for ranking of candidates, and required elimination processing until a single candidate achieved 50% +1 of the votes, then we could elect representatives with a mandate to execute their stated agendas.
Here's how it would work. Each ballot would list all of the eligible names from all of the parties for a given office in randomized order. Voters would be given a bubble-sheet like the SAT with numbers 1 - x on them. Each number may be used only once. Each round of ballot processing would be done as follows:
- Every ballot is counted as a vote for the highest ranked [remaining] candidate. If any one candidate achievs 50%+1 votes, then they are declared the winner and tallying is stopped.
- If no candidate has achieved 50%+1 votes, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the next round proceeds (GoTo:1 for my developer friends).
Friday, August 7, 2009
Questions from a dissenter
I hear in the media and from our elected Democrat representatives that we who oppose the President’s plan for a public option in health care are trying to stifle the conversation rather than offering solutions of our own; that we are spreading “disinformation” about the President’s intentions when we bring up that, as recently as his most recent campaign, he has proclaimed that he supports a, so-called, “single payer” health care system (similar to Canada’s). Videos have surfaced showing the President proclaim “I don’t think that we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process – I can envision a decade out or fifteen years out or twenty years out.” These are his own words during his campaign for the office he now holds, so there exists legitimate concern that he might actually keep one of his campaign promises. It was in response to these videos' promotion that the white house started accusing dissenters of spreading lies and disinformation – going so far as to ask citizens to spy on and report each other to the white house.
But in the spirit of sportsmanship, I will not use these statements to express my concerns about the regression toward socialized health-care a “public option” might create. Instead, I ask your readers to consider the following (since our elected officials seem unwilling to answer any questions from us dissenters directly).
I’ve heard that this public option will compete against private insurers, not replace them. Competition implies, to me, that one objective is to win business away from the competition (private insurers who, admittedly, are in the business to make a profit for their stakeholders), so let’s ask a few questions about just how they intend to compete. Will public-option subscribers be required to pay premiums into the program (as private insurance subscribers are)? Will any collected premiums cover the costs of the health care provided to all of its subscribers? If the answer to that last one is “yes,” then why are we hearing ramblings about raising revenues to cover the costs by taxing private plans? If either answer is “no” and the additional costs are paid for by taxing private insurance plans, then how can one expect that this isn’t the beginning of the end for private insurance? How can private insurance compete with a public option whose subscribers aren’t required (collectively) to cover their own costs – especially if those costs are the burden of the private competition?
I am not opposed to reform, as the Democrat supermajority and the main-stream-media imply – nay outright report as fact - but I do have legitimate questions about the viability of the plan put forth, and am concerned, specifically, that it risks (I fear, intentionally) nationalizing an industry that accounts for 17% of our GDP (according to National Coalition on Health Care) – the consequences of which will be disastrous to our economy.
Perhaps instead of trying to solve the problem (and I admit that there is one when the costs of insurance/care are rising at twice the rate of inflation) from the consumer side of things, we could look at what drives the cost of care up. Insurance rates are a byproduct of the costs incurred by the doctors/hospitals. Malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors are outrageous due to unwieldy malpractice judgments/settlements against doctors who, more often than not, have the patients’ best interests in mind when mistakes happen. I am not saying this is the case in all malpractice suits, but tort-reform is one way to address health care costs. Pharmaceutical companies are advertising drugs and encouraging patients to “ask your doctor about x” rather than allowing doctors to diagnose ailments and determine the best treatment for patients. Why is this necessary? I am not suggesting they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise their products – I don’t know. But I do know these are just two legitimate issues, directed toward the source of the problem that I don't hear anyone talking about. Instead, the plan set forth merely shifts the costs from the private sector to the government (aka the tax-payer).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)