Analyzing the Republican Nomination Battle

By this time in 2000, it had become clear that the two-way race for the Republican nomination between then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was pretty much settled; Bush was going to be the nominee. Likewise in 2008, the three-way primary race between McCain, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) was rapidly settling on McCain. Across the aisle in the Democratic Party, then Vice President Al Gore (D) had essentially cinched the nomination by this time in 2000, as had Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. In 2008, the race had settled into a near dead-heat between then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and then Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The Republican primary battle this year, however, is unlike any of these recent nomination battles. Although many believe that Romney’s nomination is ‘inevitable,’ he has won only one of the three primaries so far, and he is only narrowly leading the delegate count. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) narrowly defeated Romney in Iowa, Romney won in New Hampshire, and former Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th) won by a surprisingly solid margin in South Carolina. As of today, Romney has a projected 31 delegates, Gingrich has 26, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX 14th) has 10, and Santorum has 8. Candidates will need to accumulate 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.

The polls have been incredibly volatile with an unprecedented four candidates in the lead at various times—including two, Herman Cain and Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), who have since dropped out of the race. By a number of measures, this has been the most disjointed and unpredictable Presidential primary in modern history.

SOPA/PIPA ‘Strike’ Statement

Off on a Tangent joined with thousands of other web sites across the Internet in going on strike to protest two incredibly dangerous bills working their way through the U.S. Congress. This protest has since concluded, but it is still very important that you contact your elected representatives and demand that they oppose these bills.

This is the statement that appeared on Off on a Tangent during the 24-hour protest:

In 1997, a web site I managed was shut down by order of a public school vice principal—a government official—under threat of suspension. I am, therefore, in the somewhat unique position of having actually been a victim of government censorship. Although the site was down for less than a day, the experience gave me a new appreciation for our God-given civil liberties—and a new desire to protect those liberties whenever they are threatened by overreaching governments.

The U.S. Congress is working on two bills—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP Act (PIPA)—that will give the Federal government broad new censorship powers over the Internet. Although the bills are ostensibly designed to stop online piracy, they will have a dangerous chilling effect on Internet free speech, potentially force U.S. hosting and content providers to move overseas, and stifle YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter, and other user-driven sites.

These bills undermine the Web, technically and spiritually, but are unlikely to have any real effect on the pirates they were meant to target. They are akin to using a nuclear weapon to hammer in a nail; they are far too powerful, will create far too much collateral damage, and won’t have the desired effect anyway. The people of China, Iran, and North Korea suffer under regimes that have the legal authority to censor citizens’ Internet access without due process. These are not the kinds of regimes that the U.S. government should be emulating.

Off on a Tangent is joining with thousands of web sites all across the web in going on strike today to protest of these two dangerous bills—giving you a taste of what the Internet might be like if Congress has its way. If you are concerned about the government having the authority to arbitrarily shut down web sites without due process, please contact your Congressional representatives and demand that they oppose the SOPA and PIPA bills.

The views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, Web.com.

So Far, ‘Affordable’ Health Care . . . Isn’t

When President Barack Obama (D) and the then-Democratic Congress gave us the widely-reviled ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ in March 2010, there was a lot of high-minded talk about all the great things it would do for us. If proponents were to be believed, the health care reform bill would have lowered the cost of health insurance for Americans, reduced the number of uninsured, and allowed for people satisfied with their health insurance to keep it as-is.

Perhaps it has had some benefit for the uninsured Americans who have since decided to obtain health insurance; becoming insured has gotten easier with new limitations on the consideration of preexisting conditions. But those of us who had the good sense to have health insurance in the first place haven’t been so lucky. My family’s health insurance premiums have skyrocketed nearly fifty percent since the ‘Affordable’ Care Act passed. Our co-pays have gone up for office visits and prescriptions, and our out-of-pocket maximums have gone up. We aren’t alone, though perhaps we got hit harder than the average insured American. Stories abound of companies cutting back on health benefits and reducing coverage options for employees. Premiums have been sharply rising across the board, far above the rate of inflation.

Why is this happening? In large part, the rate hikes and policy changes can be attributed to new requirements and uncertainties associated with the 2010 ‘Affordable’ Care Act. The law includes an absurd requirement that children be permitted on their parents’ plans well into adulthood, required coverage for previously optionally-covered procedures, tight restrictions on future premium increases, and over-the-top limitations on the consideration of preexisting conditions (allowing people to sign up for insurance only when they get sick, effectively gaming the system). These measures, combined with the overall uncertainty about how the act will affect the industry, have increased the operating costs of insurance companies and, surprise, they are passing those costs on to you and me. The primary effect of the ‘Affordable’ Care Act on those of us who were insured like responsible adults is that we now have to pay more to get the same health coverage we’ve had all along—which means we have less money for economy-boosting purchases, savings, investments, and even charitable donations.

Let me be perfectly clear: America’s uninsured are overwhelmingly uninsured because they have made a free-will decision to spend their money on other things, or because they have chosen not to avail themselves of their Medicare/Medicaid entitlements. That is their decision to make . . . and those individuals bear sole responsibility for it. It’s not my job to bail them out any more than it was my job to bail out General Motors or AIG. Over eighty-five percent of Americans have made the prudent decision to obtain health insurance for themselves and their families, and we shouldn’t be punishing them for making good choices.

What If SOPA/PIPA Passes?

A lot of people all across the Internet have been up in arms about the pernicious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its companion Protect IP Act (PIPA) bills working their ways through Congress—and with good reason. But as a web site operator, even of a dinky little blog like this one, these bills stand to effect me quite directly. I thought I would share with you what changes will probably have to happen across the Internet, and specifically at Off on a Tangent (and in my life) if these bills pass in their current forms.

Today, sites based primarily on user-generated content (e.g., YouTube) are protected by the ‘safe harbor’ provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under these provisions, upon a report of infringing material the company must review and remove the content. The company itself, however, is immune from prosecution or punishment for the infringement of its users. SOPA/PIPA would override these protections, making YouTube liable for an infringing video uploaded by its users. To continue operating as it does today, YouTube would need to review every uploaded video (at great cost), move out of the U.S. (at great cost), or constantly risk being taken down entirely because of individual infringing videos. Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, Vimeo, and countless others would face a similar conundrum.

Internet hosting companies and cloud service providers faced with the specter of constant lawsuits, shutdowns, and harassment in the U.S. are likely to leave the country. The Save Hosting Coalition, an alliance of Internet hosting providers, says that if PIPA passes, “We risk an environment where the bar within the United States is re-set so that only extremely large companies can afford to be web hosting providers. And what few hosting providers remain if the Protect IP Act passes will see less U.S. based content to host as we risk all independent content moving overseas.”

Myrtle Beach Vacation Photos

Been busy since we got back from our Myrtle Beach vacation. We had a great time, got to hang out with some of my family, ate way too much food, played mini-golf, went to the aquarium, and more. I didn’t spend a lot of time taking pictures, but I did grab some on the beach and when we went to the aquarium. Enjoy!

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.