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?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will raise money for New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea-Porter later this week in Boston.

I saw that and thought maybe I'm a bit confused but isn't Boston in Massachusetts and isn't Carol Shea Porter a New Hampshire state representative?

Perhaps this is why polls show Carol losing to anyone with a pulse put up against her.

I've come up with a list of five suggestions I would seriously hope someone in power considers before the next time we get hit by a large disaster.

1) Suspend all taxes on hotels.

This will accomplish a couple things.

First and foremost, a lot of people without power choose to stay in hotels.  When people are at a time of need is it really a good idea to tax them?

Secondly you have all the power company people coming in to help from out of state.  Placing additional costs on the recovery effort by taxing their rooms only adds to the over all cost of the recovery.

2) Suspend all meals taxes.  See the reasons for #1 which also apply here.

A bill that would automatically suspend both of these taxes any time a state of emergency is declared would be a huge start in the right direction of helping more then hurting.

3) Information!

The biggest problem I've had this whole time I've been without power is finding information.  PSNH's website is useless and the state and local town government's have been very unhelpful.  With as many power problems as there are around the state my question is do they even know about my road's problem.  Without power I'm not about to waste my cell phone spending 20 minutes on hold with PSNH to finally get someone on the line who has no information and is of no help.

To be able to see a town by town list of each road they are aware of with problems and perhaps a priority listing showing which order they plan to address them in would at least allow people to know that their issue is known.

4) Priority is key.

One of the frustrating things when information does come out is the priority of when things are being fixed.  I read a discussion on the Telegraph's website about a meeting PSNH executives had in one town discussing when power would be restored.  They mentioned they were working to get the power restored as quickly as possible to the school.  One town official pointed out that as long as there were kids without power in their homes and down wires all over town that they most likely wouldn't be having school anyway to which the PSNH executive allegedly commented back "We hadn't thought of that."

5) Consider the size of the problem.

I've driven around and seen small problems of just a line down and I've seen huge problems were 4 poles are broken right in a row.

If the larger problem with the broken poll is going to take 4 teams and they need to work 2 full days on it, well those same 4 teams might be able to fix 10 or so smaller problems in that same time frame.  Even though that larger problem impacts a larger number directly, that same time could be used to fix power for an even greater number of people.

I hope to start discussions here about how we as a state can improve and find ways to best help each other in times of need like this one.

You can read about this HERE in the Union Leader.

Airport Director Mark Brewer said the security measures he announced yesterday were made in light of recent aviation security incidents.

The random inspections of vehicles approaching the airline terminal are designed to be brief and "minimally intrusive" so as not to disrupt passenger travel schedules, according to Brewer.

The stops will be conducted in cooperation with airport security, police and the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. The inspection area is along the airport entrance road, located after an advisory sign that alerts motorists, "All vehicles are subject to search."

All vehicles subject to search?  Perhaps they should reread the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is driving to the airport to pick up your mom coming up from Florida to visit her grandchildren now considered probable cause?

Where are we going to draw the line?  At what point do we say 'No you cannot search us, we've done nothing wrong.'?