Generally it comes down to one of two discussions.  The first are those who agree.  They pat me on the back figuratively speaking and say things along the lines of 'we need more people willing to stick their necks out to defend us like you do'. 

The other side is a bit more interesting, instead of attacking the concept itself they generally target a number of other issues.  'Do I know that the advantage collation is headed by Mike Biundo?', for instance.  Or they point out that now Al Baldasaro is heading up the efforts in Londonderry.  And now in Merrimack they are pointing out that it's supported by the free state project because... gasp... two of the seven people who signed the petition happen to be free staters.  They argue that the people currently in office are controlling spending so it's not necessary, funny no mention of those who held office not long ago in Merrimack that lead the town into a tax revolt.  Or my favorite argument, that the NHAC is a state wide group as if that matters.

I'm noticing very few of the arguments are about the petition itself.  Its almost as if some people are trying to intimidate anyone from signing the petition so it never even gets a chance for people to vote one way or the other on it.

The concept is that the town or city cannot increase their budget more then the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the year before.  There are even ways around this should a town or city find they have no choice but to spend more.  A simple 2/3's vote allows the cap to be over ridden.  Warrant articles would likewise be exempt so new spending could be put into individual warrant articles giving the voters more power over their budgets by allowing a sort of line item veto power on new spending without having to reject the entire budget.

Where are the problems with that idea?  It's time to start debating the idea itself, not the hype around it, those who support it or even misconceptions about it.  Look at the facts and I think most people will see this as a very good idea. 

Anyone who has been following my writings knows by know I'm a big fan of baseball and over the years I've had the honor of meeting many of the great.  One of the first things that jumped out at me in fact when I moved to NH was the painting of Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe.  This week I was disheartened to learn a vandal defaced the great mural with racial hatred.

Who in their right mind would do such a thing?  That corner is already in the national spot light because of the deadly incident between the Red Sox and Yankee fans that left one man dead.  Why would someone choose now to add racism to the mix?  And racism by defacing a baseball painting of all things.

If anything baseball should be celebrated for its ability to break down the wall of racism.  In baseball it doesn't matter what country your from or what color your skin is, if you can hit the ball or throw the ball good enough to help your team win the game that's all it takes to become a hero.  True it hasn't always been that way and there was a time when black ball players were force to play in their own league, the negro league but players like Roy and Don helped open the door to allow each to not be looked at by the color of their skin but instead by their ability.  There are no quotas, no one looks to make sure teams have equal mixes of races, none of that exists in baseball.  It's pure talent.

Who looks at the Sox or Yankees or whatever other team and chooses to only cheer on the players of colors they support?  Who in their right mind would rather see their favorite team full of all white, black or whatever color faces vs having a team with simply the best talent in the game?

"Ethnic prejudice has no place in sports, and baseball must recognize that truth if it is to maintain stature as a national game." - Branch Rickey (Branch Rickey was responsible for signing Jackie Robinson and opening the door to minorities in baseball)

This week a couple looking to move across state sent out a call for help in their move since they are unable to rent a moving van or truck since they no longer use government issued licenses to drive.  That's when the question occurred to me, how free are they really if they are limited in what they can do and need to fear that things many of the rest of us take for granted may be the thing that lands them behind bar deprived of all their freedom?  How free are they if they cannot hold any job they choose because they do not want to be tied with a social security number?

Since ideal governments should be limited to only preventing one person from infringing on the rights of others, most people can agree our government has grown far beyond its legitimate role.  The problem stems from how we continue to define everything as "rights".  Rights do not, nor should they include the ability to dip into the pockets of others to pay for things another wants.  But I digress as I am straying from the main point here...  Freedom would be the ability to live however you wish as long as you do not cause harm (i.e. take away rights) from others.  So how free are anarchists who choose to go off the grid really?

Ironically I see their flaw (I use this for lack of a better word as many I've spoken to understand the limits) as the same flaw many who live unaware that they are deprived of freedom in this country share.  They see themselves as free just as many of us living in this country following the rules see themselves as free.  The problem is none of us are truly free.  Having your choices limited is no different then having to ask permission before doing something.  Most Americans think they are free yet cannot do basic things without government permission.

The only way things will change is when we all wake up to the fact that our freedoms are limited and work to slowly get those freedoms back.  Until then deluding ourselves that we can either live off the grid or that we are truly free only allows more freedoms to be stripped away one by one.

When people get this emotional over a game is it any wonder that political discussions get so heated?  A game is just that, while politics are often things that directly impact our lives one way or another.

In an effort to settle the score once and for all, here are ten reasons to make the switch over to the "evil empire" and become Yankee fans and solve the rivalry once and for all.

1) 26 world series rings compared to 7

2) 17 retired numbers compared to 6 (Although 8 was retired twice by the Yankees)

3) Babe Ruth never cursed the Yankees

4) The New York Yankees started as the New York Highlanders and you all know there can be only one!

5) Red Sox never had a candy bar named after their player

6) 18* players inducted into the Hall of Fame as Yankees compared to 11 (of which 4 actually spent more time on other teams) inducted as Red Soxs
* Catfish Hunter couldn't choose so he opted no team on his cap otherwise that would have made 19

7) Goose Gossage going into the Hall of Fame in 2008 while Jim Rice continues to watch.

8) 39 American League Pennant championships compared to 12

9) The Bombers is a much cooler nick name then BoSox.

10) When you have the talent of the Yankees you don't need to hire someone to run around in a green costume to entertain fans.

Look forward to bickering with you all in a bar or pub sometime over the remainder of the season... please don't run me down! 

RSA 286:1 reads as follows:

286:1 Showmen. – No showman, tumbler, rope dancer, ventriloquist or other person shall, for pay, exhibit any feats of agility, horsemanship, sleight of hand, rope dancing or feats with cards, or any animals, wax figures, puppets or other show, or promote any public competition, without a license from the selectmen of the town.

 The fact that Dave put on such a show in blatant defiance of the law and notified state officials in advance of his performing the show to which the state shrugged and did nothing weakens not only this law but our whole legal system.  Do we want to evolve into a society in which the state can pick and choose which laws to enforce?  I would hope not.

The question then becomes what should be done here?   Should Dave be shackled and tossed away for reckless puppeteering?  Should he be fined for trying to earn money with his puppeting skills?  Should he be put in the stockades for an afternoon?  Clearly I would hope most thinking people would come to the conclusion that this law is foolish and unneeded and nothing should be done to Dave.  One would hope then that our state government who clearly doesn't see the need to enforce such a law has likewise come to that conclusion and will eliminate it from the books.

A counter argument is that this law prevents say a puppeteer or showman from setting up a show on a sidewalk blocking local businesses however there are already several other laws which could be used to prevent that so out goes that argument.  Beyond that I have not heard any valid arguments for keeping this law and quite frankly if there is a valid argument then the state needs to uniformly enforce it.

Dave, keep up the good work at challenging laws and getting people thinking; hopefully you wont have to explain to a large man named Bubba that your in with him because you put on an illegal puppet show.  I would hope our elected officials use this not only as an excuse to clean this law up but to also begin a dialog of which other laws are unnecessary and can be either cleaned up or eliminated.