My cable modem service has been going down hill. More and more websites fail to connect. Is it Time Warner? Is it growing Internet traffic overloading the web sites? Is it Firefox? Is it malware?
Might have to try dial up again.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
NH Republican State Convention
As a genuine Republican candidate for state office, I rate as a delegate. Easily flattered as I am, I hopped in the car and zoomed down to Concord to strut upon the floor of the convention with real credentials hanging around my neck. That early on Saturday morning we had a bit of fog, actually clouds flying close to the ground. It was pretty hard to see as I zipped down I93 at 80 MPH.
The affair was in the Arts Center on Main St Concord. Lobby of the theatre was packed with pols. all sipping coffee and eating donuts. The morning was given over to stemwinding speeches by the major Republican candidates and special guest Mitt Romney. I guess Mitt is thinking about 2012. He has a good store of one-liners and was the most entertaining of the speakers.
Since the invention of primary elections, political conventions have little to do. The only substantive business was to approve the rewritten Republican platform. The platform rewrite is an improvement, the platform is now readable and you can show it to voters and it will mean something. The old platform was a jumble of special interest group gobbledegook.
A motion from the floor to favor state run gambling was defeated. As was a motion from the floor to deny Republican party support from any candidate who failed to take a pro life pledge and an anti gay marriage pledge. That motion was actually kinda dangerous in a procedural way. It wanted to boot out of the Republican party any candidate that isn't anti abortion and anti gay. That's undemocratic. Any winner of the Republican primary is a legitimate Republican. I don't want other people disqualifying candidates for insufficient ideological purity.
The affair was in the Arts Center on Main St Concord. Lobby of the theatre was packed with pols. all sipping coffee and eating donuts. The morning was given over to stemwinding speeches by the major Republican candidates and special guest Mitt Romney. I guess Mitt is thinking about 2012. He has a good store of one-liners and was the most entertaining of the speakers.
Since the invention of primary elections, political conventions have little to do. The only substantive business was to approve the rewritten Republican platform. The platform rewrite is an improvement, the platform is now readable and you can show it to voters and it will mean something. The old platform was a jumble of special interest group gobbledegook.
A motion from the floor to favor state run gambling was defeated. As was a motion from the floor to deny Republican party support from any candidate who failed to take a pro life pledge and an anti gay marriage pledge. That motion was actually kinda dangerous in a procedural way. It wanted to boot out of the Republican party any candidate that isn't anti abortion and anti gay. That's undemocratic. Any winner of the Republican primary is a legitimate Republican. I don't want other people disqualifying candidates for insufficient ideological purity.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Words of the Weasel Pt 15
"Company ships jobs over seas." Right. What actually happens is rising wages, rising health care costs, rising taxes, rising energy costs, and rising regulation raises a company's costs to the point that it ceases American production. No point in making stuff if you are loosing money on it.
To fill the market need for product, foreign competitors step in.
First make the US uncompetitive and then blame it on the American companies driven out of business. That's the Democratic way.
To fill the market need for product, foreign competitors step in.
First make the US uncompetitive and then blame it on the American companies driven out of business. That's the Democratic way.
NH state budget according to Josiah Bartlett
Josiah Bartlett Institute is a free market think tank based in Concord. They gave a "how the NH Budget works" talk last night which I attended. The speaker was Charlie Arlinghaus and the hall was well filled.
The State budget is complex, possibly deliberately so. Much, but not all, spending comes from the "General Fund" But there are a lot of special dedicated funds like Highways and Turnpikes and Fish and Game. There is an "Education Trust Fund" which is sort of, partly, but not completely, separate from the General Fund. In actual fact the legislature can and does move money between the General Fund and the Education Trust Fund pretty much at will. And Education Trust Fund money can be used for purposes other than educational. The General Fund accounts for only 44% of state spending, the other funds kick in to supply the remaining 66%.
Then the budget is supposed to be for two years. But the funds allocated are allocated by year, so the two year budget looks a lot like two one year budgets packed into the same yellow manila envelope. Whether the legislature gets to revise the two year budget every year was not made clear.
Between the "44% budget" and the "100% budget" and the one and two year budgets there lie enormous possibilities for confusion. From now on, I will be skeptical of claims that the budget has been cut, raised, saved, spindled, stapled or mutilated. I will suspect that the advocate is comparing the two year budget with the one year budget, or the 44% budget with the 100% budget.
The State budget is complex, possibly deliberately so. Much, but not all, spending comes from the "General Fund" But there are a lot of special dedicated funds like Highways and Turnpikes and Fish and Game. There is an "Education Trust Fund" which is sort of, partly, but not completely, separate from the General Fund. In actual fact the legislature can and does move money between the General Fund and the Education Trust Fund pretty much at will. And Education Trust Fund money can be used for purposes other than educational. The General Fund accounts for only 44% of state spending, the other funds kick in to supply the remaining 66%.
Then the budget is supposed to be for two years. But the funds allocated are allocated by year, so the two year budget looks a lot like two one year budgets packed into the same yellow manila envelope. Whether the legislature gets to revise the two year budget every year was not made clear.
Between the "44% budget" and the "100% budget" and the one and two year budgets there lie enormous possibilities for confusion. From now on, I will be skeptical of claims that the budget has been cut, raised, saved, spindled, stapled or mutilated. I will suspect that the advocate is comparing the two year budget with the one year budget, or the 44% budget with the 100% budget.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Obama NASA policy
Read scathing critique here. The problem is simple, after the last shuttle flight, the US has no way to get astronauts into orbit. Current fix is to pay the Russians to haul our astronauts up to the International Space Station. This is distasteful, especially as it converts the ISS into a Russian space station. So long as the Russians control access to the station, they control the station.
Technical solution is straight forward. Build a spaceship to replace the shuttle.
NASA decided to start from scratch and design a brand new rocket booster and a brand new capsule. This is the high risk expensive way to do it, but doing new designs is fun. All the NASA people, who have been pushing paper for years, jumped on the chance to do actual hardware development. Actual hardware development is much more fun than pushing paper.
Instead we should purchase the rocket boosters that have been launching commercial satellites for years and build a capsule to go on top of it. Capsules, compared to Shuttle Orbiters, are simple and reliable. A simple one piece heat shield, an air tight hull, a hatch, attitude thrusters, a parachute, and a solid fuel retro rocket.
All simple off the shelf components that could be assembled and flight tested in side a year. This is cheap and dependable, unlike the Shuttle which is expensive and dangerous. In fact Shuttle retirement is happening because NASA has finally learned how dangerous and fears the PR disaster of another Shuttle crash.
The current Obama plan is to continue the "build a new launch from scratch" plan but only give it enough money to do paper studies. This avoids having to announce the end of manned US spaceflight and having to put any money into it.
Technical solution is straight forward. Build a spaceship to replace the shuttle.
NASA decided to start from scratch and design a brand new rocket booster and a brand new capsule. This is the high risk expensive way to do it, but doing new designs is fun. All the NASA people, who have been pushing paper for years, jumped on the chance to do actual hardware development. Actual hardware development is much more fun than pushing paper.
Instead we should purchase the rocket boosters that have been launching commercial satellites for years and build a capsule to go on top of it. Capsules, compared to Shuttle Orbiters, are simple and reliable. A simple one piece heat shield, an air tight hull, a hatch, attitude thrusters, a parachute, and a solid fuel retro rocket.
All simple off the shelf components that could be assembled and flight tested in side a year. This is cheap and dependable, unlike the Shuttle which is expensive and dangerous. In fact Shuttle retirement is happening because NASA has finally learned how dangerous and fears the PR disaster of another Shuttle crash.
The current Obama plan is to continue the "build a new launch from scratch" plan but only give it enough money to do paper studies. This avoids having to announce the end of manned US spaceflight and having to put any money into it.
Bugs in Blogspot?
When replying to comments on this here blog, my replies get posted twice for some reason or other. Dunno how to fix it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Open vs closed primarys
You must have read about unhappiness in Delaware by now. The Party's senatorial candidate, Mike Castle, got beat by the Tea Party candidate, Christine O'Donnell. Party people, Karl Rove, the loser himself, and other pundits have been wailing and gnashing their teeth claiming O'Donnell is unelectable and the dastardly Tea Party has thrown to Delaware Senate seat to the democrats.
I moved out of Delaware 40 years ago and haven't been back much since. So I have no clue as the the electability of anyone down there any more. But, if O'Donnell can win the primary she must be doing something right. The nay sayers respond that only Republicans can vote in the Delaware primary and O'Donnell is too something or other and the independents won't vote for her.
Up here in NH we have an open primary. Independents can vote in the primaries and we allow voters to switch party allegiance on election day and then switch it back on the way out the door of the polls.
Independents are important. They hold the balance of power. Most places have 40% registered democrats, 40% registered republicans and the rest independents. Who ever the independents go for, wins the election. With an open primary, the independents get a say in how conservative or how liberal the party candidates are. As a rule, independents are more middle of the road than party members. So allowing independents to vote in the primary has the effect of nominating more electable candidates.
With an open primary, NH republicans have nominated a field of good solid conservatives, people with name recognition amount the voters and honorable records of public service.
I moved out of Delaware 40 years ago and haven't been back much since. So I have no clue as the the electability of anyone down there any more. But, if O'Donnell can win the primary she must be doing something right. The nay sayers respond that only Republicans can vote in the Delaware primary and O'Donnell is too something or other and the independents won't vote for her.
Up here in NH we have an open primary. Independents can vote in the primaries and we allow voters to switch party allegiance on election day and then switch it back on the way out the door of the polls.
Independents are important. They hold the balance of power. Most places have 40% registered democrats, 40% registered republicans and the rest independents. Who ever the independents go for, wins the election. With an open primary, the independents get a say in how conservative or how liberal the party candidates are. As a rule, independents are more middle of the road than party members. So allowing independents to vote in the primary has the effect of nominating more electable candidates.
With an open primary, NH republicans have nominated a field of good solid conservatives, people with name recognition amount the voters and honorable records of public service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)