Richard Barnes Blog

A Matter of Perspective

2010-03-19T15:43:12Z

I find it funny how often times two people can look at the exact same thing and see two totally different things but perspective is everything. In fact I'm reminded of a joke I just heard recently... A turtle is mugged by two snails, when the police arrive and ask him what happens he said "I don't know, it all happened so fast".

A good example is a letter to the editor that showed up in the Telegraph, which you can find HERE. Andrea Todd wrote:

The town meeting that took place in Strafford on March 13 was my first, and now I’m going every year because I saw real democracy in action.

Warrant Article 14, which suggested that “the citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines ‘marriage,’” was almost unanimously tabled.

Its funny that a letter excited about democracy in action uses an example of an article being tabled rather then voted up or down. As I wrote in the feedback, I guess as the band Rush says "if you decide not to decide you still have made a choice". In my opinion tabling an issue rather then voting yes or no on it is not an example of Democracy in action but instead an example of refusing to take a stand.

But I digress, this isn't about that particular issue it's about how we see things differently. Today as I scanned Blue Hampshire attempting to gain insight into the minds of others I came across an article titled "Open Thread: You Never Know Who's Reading". The article was about this photo of Senator Shaheen reading and answering questions on Blue Hampshire's website.

They look at this define it as a "priceless photo" because it shows her listening to them directly, I on the other hand see it differently. I see it has a Democrat only listening to others who agree with her views and only getting opinions from like minded people. That's nothing to brag about, especially when the general public continues to grow more and more frustrated with the federal government.

Now I would fully expect Democrats to feature other Democrats on their forums and at their events just as I expect Republicans to feature other Republicans on their own forums and at their events which is perhaps why I found the article and the photo odd in that they are bragging that she actually listens to them. If a photograph could be produced showing one of our Democratic representatives fielding questions from a predominantly Republican or even independent base then I'd be impressed but a site that bans all those who disagree with them and blocks out posts that express views they dislike?

Happy Saint Patricks Day!

2010-03-17T19:04:21Z

Thought I'd share to get you all in the Irish mood!

Obama's Executive Orders

2010-03-17T15:01:45Z

I heard yesterday about one of Obama's executive orders being discussed on the radio that is predicted to have a sweeping effect on this nation for years to come. At that time I did not manage to catch what this order was.

Today I took the time to look up Obama's executive orders for 2010, you can find them all HERE, and I found the one I believe they were discussing. Order 13532, you can read in full HERE.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to advance the development of the Nation's full human potential and to advance equal opportunity in higher education, strengthen the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to provide the highest quality education, increase opportunities for these institutions to participate in and benefit from Federal programs, and ensure that our Nation has the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by the year 2020, it is hereby ordered as follows

Now what caught my eye is that this order is not seeking to help ALL students, instead it is targeted to help blacks only. That by definition is racism.

The next point that is of interest is the last part of that declaration, "ensure that our Nation has the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by the year 2020". Quantity does not equal quality. In fact if colleges have to lower their standards in order to meet new federal requirements pushing them toward graduating more people, or in the case of what Obama is pushing here more minorities, then it taints what those diplomas mean.

When looking at a doctor to perform surgery on your child would you look at someone from a school that was required to graduate more students and had to lower its standards or would you look at someone from a school that perhaps only graduated 4 students in a given year because of higher standards? The person from the school with the lower standards might be just as good on the one from the other school but they may not be.

Also do we really need more college graduates? There are only so many skilled jobs available. Any given market in the US may only need 1,000 people with computer engineering degrees. If colleges produce 2,000 graduates all that will result is more people seeking fewer jobs and the salaries offered will drop. Companies will be able to find people willing to work for less. And in cases where markets actually have a higher demand then the number of people seeking the jobs you see companies willing to train or in some cases lower their standards. The high salaries motivate more people to train in those skills and the market eventually balances out. Harder skills to learn keep salaries high rewarding those willing to go the extra effort to learn them while no skill jobs remain on the lower end of the pay scale.

The balance of the market is why you'll find people with masters degrees in liberal arts working in comic book stores while people with computer certifications who never even set foot in a college are walking jobs placing them in the top quarter of wage earners.

I have to wonder what the real motivation is behind this executive order. And as they questioned on the radio program why such things are being done without any vote. Obama is acting like the dictator here passing this by without any vote or deliberation from our elected representation in the house and senate. That fact alone should be troubling to all.

Not The NH Way To Take Away Rights

2010-03-12T13:50:40Z

In the Union Leader's article about the articles being discussed from town to town regarding defining marriage there is an interesting quote buried at the bottom.

"It's not the New Hampshire way to take away rights from people," [Jim] Splaine said.

While I like the idea behind the quote and I do wish it were true, I found it interesting to see who said it. Jim is the same state representative who bragged he was "proud" of the F rating given to him by the NH Liberty Alliance.

Originally I was going to write this article specifically about Jim's voting record but in looking deeper I think this is a chance to dive deeper into over all thinking on the part of both parties when it comes to individual rights. It's not one specific individual who votes to take rights away from others nor is it one party or the other. No it's much deeper in that it's our government representatives from all sides and they do so thinking that what they are doing is in our best interests.

If you'd like to dive in and take a closer look at Mr Splaine's voting record which can be found in full HERE, but as I said it's not about him.

Instead let us take a look at issues supported or not supported in recent months here in NH and explore each one by one. While this does stem back to the issue of "Marriage" I'm going to skip over that as I feel it's worthy of an article in and of itself.

Freedom starts with ourselves. We own ourselves otherwise we'd be slaves. And since we are free we can make our own choices as long as those choices do not cause harm to others.

So if we're free and freedom starts with us then we should have the right to control what we choose to put into our bodies or what level of danger we place our own selves in.

Drugs are a perfect example. If an adult chooses to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their home they are not causing anyone else harm but yet our state government including Gov Lynch, feels we should not have that right. They also voted down the right for us to have the freedom to use such drugs even for medical reasons that could improve the standard of living of the sick.

Trans fats are another perfect example. If I choose to eat foods with trans fats who am I harming other then myself? I own myself and therefore I should be free to choose to eat trans fats if I so choose.

Seat-belts are another example. If I crash my car and die or I get seriously injured, it's my life and body in danger. An incorrect argument used to justify stripping away our rights and forcing safety on us against our will is that it increases costs on others. This is only because of other government created problems in which they force the costs to be shifted to others.

Other rights are even easier to identify and understand because they are those rights clearly documented by the founding fathers, yet our government seeks to strip us of those too. The right of the people to own guns is granted in the founding documents of our federal and state government yet as we've seen as recently as the ban on firearms in the state house, our government representatives continue to look for ways to limit and strip away even those rights.

In the case of this last example those seeking to take away the rights of others attempt to justify themselves by claiming guns are dangerous and can harm others but this is the same failing argument used to take away our rights over our own bodies. If I were legally carrying a gun and I followed the law and used it only for my own defense am I causing you any harm? Of course not. But the fear of someone actually causing harm is what they use to strip away the rights of those who aren't.

There are however valid cases where what you do can cause me harm. Driving recklessly places me and those who come in contact with you in direct harm for instance.

Even this though is a fuzzy line. It is harm of others which was use to justify banning smoking in private business locations however the key here is "private". If I own an establishment shouldn't I as the owner of that establishment have the right to determin which legal activities go on within it's doors? If you dislike what I allow then you are free to avoid my business and even avoid working there if you so choose.

And as each bill is passed stripping away rights from one and all, each new bill becomes more and more justified. If Jim wants to know why others feel they are justified in redefining marriage and "taking away rights" then he needs to look at the path he himself helped to create.

As each new bill comes up for discussion we need to step away from gut feelings and ask a few questions.

1) Does this bill prevent us from being able to do something we can now legally do? Or does it give us the ability to do something we cannot currently legally do?

2) Would this action cause direct harm to others?

3) Does it take away a choice from others who may come in contact with the person impacted by the bill?

Those questions will help break nearly every bill into pro or anti liberty categories.

If a bill bans trans fat it takes away a choice of others who may wish to buy a product I make with trans fat in it.

If a bill outlaws marijuana it takes away a personal choice.

A bill preventing reckless or drunk driving is however a good bill because it would fall under #2, preventing harm to others. But forcing me to wear a seatbelt does not and it takes away my individual choice.

There are a few exceptions and admittedly fuzzy areas.

In some cases choices involve multiple people. I can for instance meet up with a woman in a bar and without even exchanging names or anything, we can agree to go someplace private and have sex. That is a choice in which both parties must be consensual or it is causing harm to the other. In this case since we both can make that choice then why is it then illegal for the same two adults to make that same choice of having sex but one agreeing with the other on a set price that will be given? Outlawing such a thing makes no sense.

Smoking is another fuzzy area in that 2nd hand smoke does cause harm. However if you smoke in your own home you aren't causing anyone else harm because that is a private area. The same should be said for a business. You are not forced to use a business that allows smoking. If restaurant A allows smoking and I don't want to be in contact with second hand smoke I can take my business to restaurant B. What it should boil down to is whether or not the location in question is public or private and a business is private.

Admittedly there are also areas in which there are no right or wrong sides because both sides can take the pro liberty argument. Perfect example is abortion. Abortion comes down to one thing and one thing only... when does life truly begin. Once it is considered life then we are dealing with the very basic right, the right to life. No one has the right to make a choice that would take away the life of another without the consent of the one who's life is being taken or that person doing something that places the others life in danger in which it becomes self defense in taking the other's life. No one knows when life begins and thus there is validity to the side who feels women should have the right to their own bodies. If what is inside them is not life and just tissue then discarding it is no different then choosing for oneself to clip a toe nail or cut your hair. So because we don't know when life begins we do not know at which point abortion is acceptable if at all.

What it all comes down to though is that we all need to learn to respect each others rights more. Whether its something that impacts 1 person or 1 million. If we allow government to prevent anyone from doing what they wish without harming others then we've continued down the path of taking rights away from others.

I would like to issue a personal challenge to Jim Splaine since he's the one who sparked this in that I would like to see him push for a 100% pro liberty record in the upcoming year. Vote in favor of every bill that supports individual's freedoms and vote against all bills that take away individuals personal freedoms and choices. I would like to see him step up as the example in defending our rights... ALL our rights, not just those he agrees with.

The Same Sex Marriage Question

2010-03-11T13:32:15Z

This past Tuesday was the start of the local election cycle here in NH. Along with various town articles asking for new schools, fire stations and other various buildings there was an article put to vote in 133 different towns across the state. The question was whether or not the people of NH should have a chance to vote on an amendment to the NH Constitution that defines "Marriage". Make no mistake, this is about same sex marriage and the people rejecting what our state law makers have expanded marriage to include.

Of those that have voted so far 50 have passed the article asking for a statewide vote, and the article only failed in 12 towns. 12 other towns have voted to table the question avoiding having to take a stand one way or the other. 67% of NH towns want to be allowed to vote directly on the issue and only 16% voted against wanting direct say on the issue.

In Merrimack, home town of Nancy Elliott, there was an attempt to nullify the article which failed as well as a second attempt to reword the question which also failed so the article will go to the ballot in April as originally written. Of those who spoke, most seemed to have no problem extending rights associated with marriage such as survival benefits, health insurance privileges etc to same sex "unions" but they were against expanding the name "marriage" to include same sex couples.

Now personally I could care less what two people call their relationship. If two men or two women wish to call themselves married or even call themselves hamburgers it doesn't impact me in the least. With our state in a budget hole of around $600 million and the state government is looking to continue increasing taxes as unemployment continues to rise. This is a receipt for disaster which far out weighs what two men or two women call themselves but if you've listened to Democrats or read Democratic web sites such as Blue Hampshire, the same sex marriage issue has been their most talked about issue in the past year. They have made it the focal point of their party.

It is becoming clear that same sex rights be not be the election winner that will distract voters away from all the other problems Democrats created but this may actually turn out to be an election loser for them. People are rejecting it and upset with the idea it was thrust upon them without their say in the matter or over their objections to the matter.

What's also the most telling is that after weeks of coverage of Nancy Elliotts' comments and sites like Blue Hampshire going on for months now about same sex rights there is no coverage to be found in any NH media source or on any of the leading Democratic web sites discussing their recent loses on this issue. Why so silent?