Unions Should be Stronger, not Weaker

In Wisconsin, in Massachusetts, in my home state of New Hampshire, and indeed, across the country, a battle over the rights of unionized labor is playing out in state legislatures. In the last half century, as we have moved from a manufacturing economy to a service and information economy, union membership has fallen from 40% of the workforce to barely 10%...and these members are highly concentrated in certain industries - automakers, steelworkers, mining, health care, and public services such as firefighters, police, and teachers.

It has been fashionable in many political circles to blame unions for the nations economic woes: when auto makers sought government bailouts, unions were blamed for the company's poor cash flows, and Tea Party advocates have criticized the success of public employee unions for obtaining pay and benefit packages that they claim are better than most Americans get. When workers show up to protest legislation aimed at eliminating their right to negotiate the terms of their employment contracts, their detractors call them 'union thugs' and 'mobs,' and often throw in cheap shots about the power of 'union leaders.' This name-calling and rhetoric does little to add to objective public debate about the proper role of unions.

Others have more reasonably questioned the status of unions, suggesting that since the days of sweat-shops and dangerous working conditions are over, unions are no longer needed. It is to these 'thinking people' that I would like to respond, drawing on basic economics.

Any one of us knows that when driving about, even in unfamiliar territory, about what to expect to pay for a cup of coffee at a roadside coffee shop or gas station. No one expects to pay a quarter, but no one expects to pay $5.00 either. I recently took a quick survey of 30 students, and asked them to write down what they'd expect to pay in such a situation for a medium-sized coffee. With a single exception, everyone wrote down a number between $1.00 and $2.00, with an absolute majority between $1.25 and $1.75.

This, in spite of the fact there is no law anywhere dictating the price of coffee. It is the result of the natural interplay of the forces of Supply and Demand: thousands of consumers, and thousands of sellers of coffee interacting in the marketplace, with the natural result that a functional price exists. Consumers know that if they stop in a coffee shop and the price is outrageous, they can go elsewhere; and if the price is too low, they may suspect the quality of the product. There is much transparency in a market such as this, as even my students who are not coffee drinkers were aware of the general price level of the product. This is an example of a market that functions well, and it functions well because there are many consumers, with much information, and many suppliers in competition with one another.

But what happens when these perfect market conditions do not exist?

Consider a hypothetical case where hundreds of farmers sell their chickens to any number of processing plants, which in turn package the meat and then sell it to supermarkets. But now consider the results if all the processing plants decided to merge, so that only one chicken processor existed.

If there was only a single Processor, they would constitute a Monopoly insofar as they would be the sole seller of packaged chickens to supermarkets. As most consumers know, when you desire a product that is sold by only one firm, that firm can demand a price far higher than they would be able to if they had to compete with other producers. Consumers paying electric bills to Monopolistic providers know this all too well. However, in our example, we shouldn't presume that the higher prices paid by the supermarkets means that the chicken farmers will get a higher price for their chickens.

In fact, the truth is just the opposite.

The relationship between the Processor and the farmers is called a Monopsony - not a word that is as popular in the public mind as Monopoly. A Monopsony - rather than being the sole provider of a product - is the sole Purchaser of a product. In other words, with only one Processor, the chicken farmers can only sell their product to one buyer. If that buyer should say, "We're paying .25 per chicken - take it or leave it," the farmers have no place to turn. In such a case, the price the farmers receive will be less than under normal market conditions where there are a variety of both producers and consumers.

As a result, our Monopoly/Monopsony Processor is able to depress the price it pays the farmers, and increase the price it charges to supermarkets, and ultimately, the consumer. This is due to unequal bargaining power (or concentrated "Market Structure") of the Processor...and it would simply be erroneous to blame the farmers or the high prices the consumer was ultimately paying.

There are two solutions to this imbalance of market power: the Processor's power can be reduced or divided; or the farmers power can be increased. In the former, the state would use anti-trust laws to 'break up' the Processor into several smaller companies, thus restoring balance in the negotiating of prices; or, the farmers could band together and speak with one voice to negotiate a price for their product with the Processor (This is precisely what cranberry growers have done, by creating the farmer's cooperative known as Ocean Spray).

Now, let's apply these principles to Labor Markets.

Individual Workers, rather than raising and selling chickens, sell their labor to Employers (which could be private employers, or to governing structures). Those employers then sell the final products (whether goods or services) to consumers. In the case of public employment, the consumers are taxpayers, who have little say: they 'purchase' these services with their tax dollars, and face legal repercussions if they refuse. Understandably, from time to time these consumers may complain about either the price or the service...but just as chicken farmers are not the natural enemy of the consumer, neither are public employees the enemy of the taxpayer.

In fact, just as the Processor in the above example wields market power to increase prices to consumers while simultaneously depressing the prices the farmer gets, so too do the structures of government (and many private corporations) increase the price (or tax) they charge to consumers, while wielding the ability to depress the price (or wages) it offers to its employees. Unlike private industry where employment contracts are enforceable in a court of law, government can - and does - change the terms of its employees compensation through a mere act of the legislature. The terms of employment that labor counted on can be changed with a legislative vote and a pen stroke, with few legal rights of recourse. The unilateral power of governing structures to dictate the terms of employment means that, left unorganized labor is in no better condition than the farmers in the above example.

Unlike the example of the Monopoly/Monopsony Processor, however, there are fewer solutions available to public employees to 'even the playing field.' Anti-trust laws can not be applied to government structures, and government can not be 'broken up.' No one seriously suggests that there should be multiple State Troopers, or competing Registries of Deeds, or three different fire departments competing to provide service in one city. No one seriously believes that there should be multiple public school systems in the same town, with the resultant duplication of administration and buildings.

The only solution, then, to create equivalent market power, is to permit those at the bottom of the chain - the laborers - to organize and speak with a single voice. And that is what unionism is all about. It is the only option available to create equivalency of bargaining power between those seeking to sell their labor and the governing structures hiring them, and to counteract the arbitrary and raw power those institutions can exercise if unchecked.

And for those who claim that public employees, or any other employees, 'make too much,' or have 'extravagant' benefits as a result of union agreements - perhaps they should turn that question around:

What has happened to the average Americans pays and benefits as a result of the decrease of unions in this country over the last half-century?

By most measurements, Americans are now losing purchasing power. Their health benefits are less than at any time in the last 50 years. Their vacation, sick, and personal time lags behind every major industrialized nation in the world.

Those who complain about the effects of unions remind me of the 1971 song recorded by "Ten Years After" titled, "I'd Love to Change the World." One of the more memorable lyrics in that song went,

"Tax the rich, Feed the Poor,
'Till there are no Rich no more..."

I have always believed that the writer, Alvin Lee, got that all wrong. Rather, it should be:

"Tax the rich, Feed the Poor,
'Till there are no Poor no more..."

Our goal as a nation should not be to make everyone equally miserable by impoverishing everyone...but to ensure that all our citizens share in the wealth our society creates.

Irish Foreign Minister: end ban on gays in NY St Patrick's Parade

"...They need to celebrate Ireland as it is, not as people imagine it. Equality is very much the center of who we are in our identity in Ireland," said Irish Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore, speaking yesterday with prominent New York Irish gay community leaders and groups at the Irish Consulate on Park Avenue in NYC.

"This issue of exclusion is not Irish, let's be clear about it. Exclusion is not an Irish thing..... I think that's the message that needs to be driven home."

After a financial debacle more serious than America's, Irish elections last month catapulted Fine Gael into the leadership of Ireland. They replaced Fianna Fail (relegating them to third place status), which had been the largest party in Parliament since 1932. The winds of change are strong according to Gilmore: The new government is committed to a constitutional convention to draw up a new constitution for Ireland in time for the 100th anniversary of 1916 Easter Rebellion. The government plans to introduce a provision for same sex marriage. (Civil Unions are currently available for legal for same-sex and heterosexual couples in Ireland)

"Ireland has changed," said Gilmore. "..For the majority of Irish people being gay is no longer an issue."

While often perceived as having a very conservative approach to sex and gender issues, the Irish actually have a very 'progressive' past: in medieval Ireland, women had the right to divorce their husbands, own property, and figured prominently in Irish legend and history, including Queen Maeve and St. Bridget. The 12th century historian Gerald of Wales records ceremonies for same-sex male unions taking place as early as the 1100's. The 16th C. English Poet Edmund Spencer was appalled by Irish men, writing that they were "a bunch of lascivious bisexuals who offered themselves freely to both women and men." Spencer recommended the extermination of the Irish race but was himself burned out of his famous castle in County Cork.

The imposition of a strict Puritan code under the Elizabethans, Cromwell, and the Victorians; the loss of 1/3 of the population during an Gorta More (the Great Hunger); and the resultant alliance of independence-minded Irish with the Catholic Church against Protestant Ulstermen resulted in a strong social ethos of conservatism in matters of gender and sex - at least on the surface.

But those of us who really know the Irish, know that the real Ireland is emerging once again...

Michele Bachmann: Ignorance knows no bounds....

In previous posts, I have complained about young people’s lack of grasp of history, and thus, their inability to place current events and political proposals into some sort of context. As serious and problematic as that is, it’s even worse when a current Member of Congress and Presidential aspirant repeatedly displays a thorough ignorance of American history.

Many news outlets have picked up on Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann’s recent trip to New Hampshire. Speaking to the Republican Liberty Caucus in Manchester, NH, Bachmann addressed her crowd by stating,

“You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord. And you put a marker in the ground and paid with the blood of your ancestors.”

I know that when I was in school, I learned that Lexington and Concord were in Massachusetts. That Paul Revere rode out from Boston, Massachusetts. That the early Revolutionary War skirmishes – the Tea Party, the Boston Massacre – were in Massachusetts. How does a Congressman and Presidential wannabe get this wrong?
One could be charitable and assume she misspoke – but this was the second time in two days she made that claim. Speaking a day earlier in Portsmouth, she said the same thing.

When called out on her lack of grasp of basic American history, she responded on her Facebook Page by saying,

"So I misplaced the battles Concord and Lexington by saying they were in New Hampshire. It was my mistake, Massachusetts is where they happened. New Hampshire is where they are still proud of it!"

Her cavalier dismissal of her own ignorance is disturbing…as is her unnecessary and snide insinuation that somehow Massachusetts is not proud of its heritage.

If this was a one-time occurrence, or occurred late in the campaign season when candidates are exhausted, it would be easy to write it off as a simple error. But Bachmann exhibits a scary tendency to rewrite history over and over in order to whip up passion among her base.

In a speech given to “Iowans for Tax Relief” in January of this year, Bachmann included these incredible statements:

“For 21 generations in America we have listened to Lincoln’s words…”

“We republished the Mayflower Compact in the Declaration of Independence…"

"[In our first years as a nation]…it didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter your economic background– once you got here, we were all the same”

Is this woman serious?! Is she completely ignorant of American history, or does she simply not care what she says in order to attract the votes of the under-educated?

Since Lincoln was President in the 1860s, 150 years have passed. Squeezing 21 generations into 150 years would result in a new generation every SEVEN years. I realize that the age at which girls are becoming fertile is dropping, but even this is a little hard to grasp.

There is not a single phrase from the Mayflower Compact included in the Declaration of Independence.

And when African slaves came here, they were considered 3/5 of a person. Catholics were forbidden from holding office in New Hampshire, and non-property owners were forbidden from voting in many states. The Irish were greeted with NINA signs, and American citizens of Japanese ancestry were put into concentration camps. Native Americans in the east were marched to Oklahoma.

We were not “all the same” once we got here.

Bachmann acknowledged that slavery took place, but she countered that,

“… we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States”

Huh? You mean the founders who (a) owned slaves, (b) specifically voted DOWN an anti-slavery clause drafted by Jefferson in the original Declaration, and (c) who were all DEAD when the Civil War was fought?

I’ve collected a series of Bachmann quotes that establishes a pattern of ignoring or rewriting facts to fit her political goals. Below are some of the most astonishing for their shear stupidity:

“Unelected bureaucracies will decide what we can and cant get in future health insurance policy. Thats why theyre called death panels.” (They were not called death panels – that’s what Sarah Palin called them)

”And what a bizarre time we’re in, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.” (No Judge has ever said a child could not say the Pledge of Allegiance, and no Judge has required that children should learn about and ‘try’ homosexuality)

”I’m very concerned about the international moves they’re making, particularly … moving the United States off the dollar and onto a global currency, like Russia and China are calling for.” (Neither Russia nor China are calling for an international currency. In fact, our current trade situation with China is difficult precisely because China tightly controls the value of its currency)

”I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.” Ummm….if you’re not blaming this on Democrats or Obama, why did you say that?

“The President of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day.” (Bachmann does not understand that the original report was expressed in Indian currency – rupees – where the exchange rate is 45:1)

And my favorite:

“I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I’m not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I’m not a scientist.”

Taken together with her previous quotes, Bachmann reveals her hand: Theology, not science or facts or history, drives her program. She parrots a re-written version of American History that has been developed by a narrow fundamentalist agenda seeking to portray America as a Divine Gift to the world, and the GOP tea partiers as the righteous remnant battling the socialists, the ungodly, the blasphemous, the homosexual, and all who think ‘differently.’

If this is the new and representative face of GOP, scary times are indeed ahead.

Can the President refuse to defend a law?

After it was announced that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA in court, Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown had the following comment today:

"...We can't have presidents deciding what laws are constitutional and what laws are not. That is a function of the judicial branch, not the executive."

Brown is echoing what many Republicans have said. He is also betraying his own ignorance of the American political system. As a sitting United States Senator, that is rather sad.

In reality, *no* branch of government has been designated the specific function of declaring laws unconstitutional - not even the Judiciary. While it is often said the Judiciary fills that role, the fact is that nowhere does the US Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to do so. The seed of that 'authority' was planted in 1803, when the Court decided in Marbury vs. Madison that a Congressionally-enacted law was invalid due to its unconstitutionality.

However, the development of that authority within the Judiciary does not mean that other branches of government are free to ignore issues on Constitutionality. When the President takes his oath of office, he specifically swears the following:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President takes an oath to defend the US Constitution. He is not defending the Constitution if he or his administration are trying to preserve laws which violate that same Constitution.

The error Scott Brown makes - and one which many critics of Obama's decision are making - is the adoption of a simplistic view of government that ignores the overriding importance of the concept of the separation and balance of powers between the three branches of government.

On a simple level, it is often said that the Legislature "makes" the laws, and the Executive "carries out the laws." But that view skews the balance of power and makes it appear as if the President is merely a servant or administrator to Congress, whose only function is to do as he is told. Such a view sees the Legislature as superior to the President, and able to order him about to carry out their orders.

That is NOT how the structure of our national government was envisioned. Rather, it was conceived as being comprised of three separate branches, co-equal, each providing checks and balances to the others...and deliberately inefficient and inexact in the exercise of its powers. The ability of one branch to "check" another branch is one of the most basic features of the American System.

In 1788, within months of the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison, quoting the great political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47,

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner."

In other words, when these two branches 'merge' - or when one branch of government has the authority both to create laws AND force them to be carried out - tyranny may result.

It IS the President's responsibility to defend the Constitution...just as it is the Legislature's responsibility, AND the Judiciary's responsibility. No branch of government is 'superior,' and none is merely a servant to carry out the wishes of the other.

We see this all the time in less controversial settings:

Congress passes a law, and the Supreme Court refuses to convict someone under it.

The President authorizes a program, and Congress refuses to authorize spending to carry it out.

A Legislature passes laws against smoking marijuana, and the Executive branch (Mayors, Police Departments) choose NOT to enforce that law during a huge rock concert.

A president nominates Judges and Cabinet Appointees, and the Senate refuses to vote them up or down.

This happens on a regular basis. There is nothing different in the present case. Congress passed a law, DOMA, that is clearly Unconstitutional on multiple levels. Several Courts have already held that DOMA is Unconstitutional. The President is merely carrying out his responsibilities under the US Constitution to defend that document against laws which violate both its letter and spirit. It is a messy system, but it is messy on purpose...and any effort to insist that the President merely do as Congress tells him is certainly as un-American as it gets.

BREAKING: Obama will not defend DOMA

US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US will no longer defend Sec 3of DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”) in court. This section prevented the Federal Government (and is agencies, such as the IRS) from recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriages validly performed in the 5 states and District of Columbia where such marriages are legal, and resulted in tax and survivorship inequities. This means that for all practical purposes, the recent rulings by Federal Courts in the northeast holding DOMA to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority into state matters will stand.

From Holders statement:

“...After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation...”

Humanity, Love, and Heartbreak...

This post is for all who believe that "Gay Marriage" is not "real marriage," who believe that people with AIDS "get what they deserve," and who are so devoted to free markets in health care that they lose sight of humanity. If you read it prepare to have your heart ripped out. It was authored, and is reposted annually on this day, by Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God. (The Village Voice's choice as Best Blog in NYC)


I Will Hold You Ten Times

1. I will hold you, Daniel.

2. The lesions don't bother me, I will hold you.

3. I will pretend nothing is wrong when you want me to pretend and when you want me to hold you, I will hold you.

4. I will make plans with you to go to your favorite places that we both know you can no longer go and I will sit with you and look at your pictures of these places and I will hold you.

5. I will ride with you on the train to your doctor's office and when you get sick in the station, I will hold you.

6. I will see the Post-It notes you put all over the house reminding yourself to do everyday things like "Turn off stove" and "Lock front door" and I'll pretend the disease isn't robbing your mind and when you tell me something for the third time in ten minutes, I won't let you know, I will hold you.

7. I will go to Safeway with you because you need to get out into the world, and when the diarrhea overwhelms you and you shit your pants in the middle of the store, I will call us a cab and in the cab, I will hold you.

8. I will make you mix-tapes of our favorite songs from last summer, just like you asked me to, and when the memories make you sad instead of happy and you throw the tapes in the trash, I won't get angry, I will hold you.

9. I will sit up all night with you because the fevers and night sweats won't let you sleep. In the morning, I will change your drenched sheets and help you out of the shower and when you weep from the sight of your withered body in the mirror on the bathroom door, I will hold you.

10. I will hold you, Daniel.

Making sense of the NH Republicans...and the UNPUBLISHED poll....

In the wake of yesterday's election of Jack Kimball over Juliana Bergeron as New Hampshire State Republican Chair, many news articles have attempted to present this as a battle between "two sides." And in America, we tend to simply battles into just two sides: Republicans vs. Democrats, Packers vs. Bears, Yankees vs. Red Sox, Toby Keith vs. The Dixie Chicks. But the reality behind the scenes is that the state GOP can be divided into at least three different factions, and the direction the party - and the State - will take is a function of how those coalitions come together - or fall apart - on individual issues.

In brief, the three main factions are The Establishment Yankees, The Theocrats, and the Libertarians.

The Establishment Yankees are best represented by the House of Sununu and the House of Gregg, two Republican families that have dominated NH politics for 40 years. These two families provided State Party Chairs, Senators, Governors, and White House Advisors (Sununu The Elder was Bush the Elder's Chief of Staff). And while the Sununus tended towards very conservative politics, their base has been the old tyme Republicans who worked the polls in the past, provided the votes, and had moderate tendencies (The McCain - Romney faction)

The Theocrats are a vocal, blistering minority of social conservatives, most of whom have moved in from out of state. They belong to Bible, Pentecostal, and Independent Churches. The Home Educate in droves. They are Pro-Life. And they have found their voice in the Cornerstone Policy Institute and its mouthpiece, Ken Smith. They are both fiscal and social conservatives, but it is the social issues that inflame their passions and drive them to organize and campaign and vote. When choosing candidates, they are the ones most likely to ask in a knowing whisper, "Is he saved?"

The Libertarians draw from two sources: young, fresh blood, drawn to the Granite State by its traditional bent towards libertarianism and publicity from organizations such as the Free State Project and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance (Not to be confused with the House Republican Alliance); and from old tyme Yankees who have rejected some of the 'entrenched' politics of the Establishment Houses (see above). This group is fiscally conservative...but quite socially tolerant, if not liberal. This is the faction within the GOP seeking to preserve Marriage Equality through a variety of approaches (including getting government out of marriage all together), and support medical marijuana (as well as outright decriminalization).

To muddy the waters, there are many news reports trumpeting the success of Tea Party favorite Jack Kimball. But the Tea Party movement, while united on fiscal issues, is extremely fractured on social issues, and does not speak with one voice (a mistake often made by those on the left when commenting on the Tea Party).

And so, the recent election fell along these lines:

Julia Bergeron, Chair of the Cheshire County GOP, who rose through the ranks working within and for the party. Unsurprisingly, she had the support of The Establishment, including most of the GOP Senators, 4 of 5 Executive Councillors, and the House of Sununu.

Jack Kimball, former candidate for Governor, businessman, and Tea Party activist.

But where did they stand on the issues?

Juliana Bergeron was seen by some as a 'moderate,' by others as a conservative...and Marriage Equality was the lightning rod issue. Bergeron was not very clear where she stood: she voted against including an anti-same-sex marriage plank in the state GOP platform, and afterwards stated, “I’m 100 percent for our platform, but we have to respect those who don’t agree with every portion of it..." But she also made statements such as, “I have never been a proponent of gay marriage; I support traditional marriage." Her attempt to negotiate a bitter feud between pro-Equality and Anti-Equality Republicans in the Town of Swanzey resulted in her being seen as 'liberal' on this issue: she lost the support of Cheshire Republican strongman (and former NH Christian Coalition Chair George Fellendorf), and could not secure the support of one of five Executive Councillors, David Wheeler of Milford, a hero of the Theocrat faction.

Kimball, on the other hand, who cut his teeth on fiscal, not social, issues, came out with this beaut: “I won’t tolerate our party deviating from its conservative platform,” he told NHJournal.com. “I plan to get involved in activities at the Statehouse if and when I think we are straying from our platform."

In getting elected, Kimball attempted to make his agreement with the socially conservative platform very clear.

However, his actions belie his words: He then said Thursday he would name abortion rights supporters and U.S. Senate candidates Bill Binnie, of New Castle, and Jim Bender, of Hollis, to co-chair the GOP Finance Committee. Binnie openly appealed to abortion rights supporters in his unsuccessful campaign for Senate, and while news reports claim that he supports the the state’s same-sex marriage law, he told your Blogger, to his face, that he opposed it.

In the end, Bergeron had the Establishment. Kimball had the Libertarians (who were suspicious of Bergeron's moderation on fiscal issues) and the Theocrats, who were unimpressed with the strength of her support for the social issues in the Platform...though it's not certain that Kimball's action will support his words.

It was a close vote: 222-199.

Now, the straw poll...the media are announcing Mitt Romney's win among the delegates (an Establishment win), even if they are ignoring Ron Paul's second place showing (a Libertarian win).

But the "other story" is the poll that is not being reported. Delegates were asked, in a second poll, to indicate ALL the candidates they could support. Here are the results:

Tim Pawlenty 46
Michele Bachmann 44
Mitt Romney 42
Rick Santorum 41
Sarah Palin 38
Ron Paul 38
Jim Demint 34
Mike Huckabee 29
Mike Pence 24
Paul Ryan 24
Gary Johnson 20
Rudy Guiliiani 20
Haley Barbour 19
Newt Gingrich 19
John Bolton 15
Judd Gregg 15
Joe Arpaio 12
Donald Trump 11
John Thune 10
Mitch Daniels 9
Herman Cain 8
Jon Huntsman, Jr. 6
George Pataki 5
Scott Brown 4
John Cornyn 2
Tom Tancredo 1
Steven King 1

Notice the cluster of hard-line social conservatives at the top of the list: Pawlenty, Bachmann [shudder], DeMint, Huckabee, Santorum, Palin.

Notice the Libertarians in the second tier: Paul, Johnson

Notice no one gets more than 1/3 of the delegates voting.

Any appearance of a united, monolithic NH Republican Party is a news media invention. Any announcement that the "Tea Party" has taken over is premature and unhelpful. The NH GOP remains divided between its three camps. In the short term there will be an unpredictable dance between these camps..in the long term, as The Establishment dies off and loses ground....we will see a war between social conservatives and social libertarians. Who knows how far off that was is...

The Ceilidh House: a personal retrospective on a special Pub

This past weekend, I got to take a brief trip to Albany, NY, to participate in an event sponsored by Bear Albany. "Bears," for those of you who may not know, are a 'subset' of the gay male 'community': a little (or a lot) heavier and hairier than the models you find on the cover of Mens Fitness or dancing in a g-string. "Bear Runs" take place just about every weekend of the year, all around the world, and each one serves as sort as a 'reunion-party.' Having been to many of these, I can say that "Bears" are the nicest, most 'normal,' accepting, easy-going, non-judgemental bunch of gay men you could ever meet.

Two bars, ROCKS, and the Water Works, served as host locations for this weekend, and at one of them, a familiar looking face came up to me and said,

"You know, the Ceilidh House changed my life."

Now, the Ceilidh House was a Celtic Pub that I co-owned in Westmoreland, NH from 2007-2008. It swiftly developed a very loyal, wonderful "fan base," people I still consider some of my best friends in the world. Friends who would clear tables if necessary, help new patrons figure out the quirks of the place, spend their money, and offer their support and friendship. They helped set up our musical events, and prepared party favors for New Years Eve. The Ceilidh House "regulars" became sort of a private 'Club,' and the Ceilidh House was their clubhouse. In the single instance where we had trouble with some young drunk punks who came in and gave me a hard time...it was a combination of employees and patrons who actually beat the crap out of them and sequestered them in the parking lot until the police - and the ambulance - arrived. I am incredibly grateful and have wonderful memories of that Pub.

The clientele was an eclectic mix: friends, singing compatriots, collegiates, local "townies," karaoke enthusiasts, celtophiles, music-lovers, rugby clubbers, an afterwork crowd from the city of Keene, and snowmobilers and cross-country skiiers who would happen upon our pub. And on one Wednesday evening a month, we sponsored Bear Night: with no gay bar anywhere within a 90 minute radius, The Ceilidh House became a meeting and reunion center of sorts for gay men from a three state area.

He continued:

"I never realized there were other guys out there like me. I used to drive 75 miles just to come on Bear Night, and stay over. It has changed the course of my entire future."

We hugged, and he and his friends disappeared among the 250+ men dancing to technoversions of Lady Gaga on the dance floor...

I can never quite figure out how to sort out my emotions when things like that happen. And it wasn't the first time. I often hear my friends refer to the "Ceilidh House" gang...and I am at a loss for words to describe the bittersweet mix of deep pain and fondness I instantly feel.

As the Ceilidh House entered its first winter, it was quite clear that its financial survival was very much in question...and equally clear that my business partner and I had less and less of the common vision we had when the Pub was launched.

The revenue was no where what had been represented to us as typical in the past before we signed the lease, even on our best nights.

The cost of rent and heating oil (for a three story uninsulated barn with living quarters in the basement) ate up a third of the monthly intake. It's location on a hilly, rural stretch of road often made winter weekend visits treacherous: a single freezing rain storm on the weekend would destroy our ability to make ends meet for that month.

My partner's approach to management was more that of a "landed proprietor" than a "working partner." I could not get him to arrange for the beer tanks to be filled, to put up a simple employee schedule, or to open or close on time. On our explosively packed opening weekend...he took off with a friend and left me alone to work the crowd. I would bartend or cook; he would learn neither, but insisted on hiring others. On our single most profitable party - Mardi Gras - he chose not to show up to help at all. He cut short a training session I arranged with him to balance the financial books, to go on a date. He refused to allow me to sell ownership shares to our loyal clientele to raise capital to get through the winters. Eventually, as revenues fell, costs increased, and the task of keeping the Pub afloat took its physical and emotional toll on me, it was clear we were not going to be able to work together.

And so, in March 2008, I relinquished my ownership position and never returned. Most of my patrons were shocked, and many of them continued to try and help the Ceilidh House survive.

And I was left in a terrible, no-win situation: I could explain to each and every person why I needed to leave, and why it would eventually close, and what the problems were - - but what would that accomplish? Sure, I could 'justify' my decision to leave, but I would be bad-mouthing a place that people loved, and which, to be honest, I hoped would survive. I had no right to hasten the Pub's demise by talking poorly about it, and I did not want to be blamed for seeking to destroy it through such talk.

And so, I said nothing to anybody.

It was one of the hardest things I have ever done. And in my mind, my friends - all those who had helped me for months and enjoyed the Ceilidh House - must have been hurt, insulted, and bewildered, wondering why I walked out on it all without so much as an explanation. But what could I say? It hurt, and still does, but I felt that the short-term pain would eventually give way to longer-term understanding.

Three months after I left, the Ceilidh House closed.

I have seen my recipes - some of which were unique to the Ceilidh House - show up in the menus of other area restaurants, and have smiled. Every former patron I meet, whether an 'old friend' or not, still speaks fondly of 'what we had.'

I lost money, and I left many good friends hurt and bewildered. But every once in a while, I have an unexpected experience like the one I had this weekend...and I realize, in the long run, in spite of the difficulties...it was all very, very good. I think the healing is finally complete.

The Tucson aftermath, civility, and freedom...

I don't expect many people to agree with this post...but that's never stopped me before.

Growing up, I remember some of the icons of the news reporting industry: Walter Cronkite. Peter Jennings. Edwin Newman. Ted Koppel. Chet Huntley. David Brinkley. John Chancellor. Roger Mudd. Tom Brokaw.

These reporters, though they they had their personal opinions, attempted to report news - information - with objective facts. Though often accused of being 'slanted' one way or another, they saw their jobs as providing information, and not entertaining or outright campaigning.

Today (with notable exceptions such as George Stephanopoulos and Robin Roberts), Americans don't seem to want to hear 'news.' We prefer to hear partisan, angry finger-pointing...and we are entertained by this. On the right, Fox News is stacked with talking heads who use anger and alienation to attract viewership. Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter never let an opportunity pass to offer their opinion on the news without a good dose of outrage.

But the left is not immune from this. Keith Olberman is just as prone to name-calling and passionate rants as O'Reilly, and Rachel Maddow drips with disdain and self-righteous superiority as she discusses the right. Bloggers (and their reader's comments) on both the left and right regularly say things in print they would hesitate to say in a face-to-face situation.

The Internet has insulated us from the need for civility.

We have decided that we would rather be entertained by comedians posing as newscasters or have our opinions and passions "confirmed," than actually be informed by news and information.

In the wake of the Tucson shootings, many blogs and commentators have retreated into the Blame Game. Blogs on the left have ripped the right for the anger and hate that has emanated from some right-wing sites. But in so doing, they are blind to the fact that they themselves are engaged in the same thing: Divide, Blame, Marginalize, Disdain. Define "The Other Side" as evil, and affix the blame on THEM.

A child who taunts a dog every day is not blameless when one day the gate is open and the dog chooses to bite in return.

Partisan Division is a Two-Way Street, and BOTH the Left and the Right are equally guilty. The problem with the lack of civil discourse is not the "Other Side"....The problem is the Man in the Mirror.

But equally as troubling as this irresponsible, childish move away from "real news" are the recent calls to 'clamp down' on basic freedoms as a result of the shootings. Stricter Gun Control. Restrictions on "Hate Speech." Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was right when he recognized the atmosphere of hate and division that the media has engendered...but the suggestion that free speech needs to be monitored or prohibited runs counter to the most basic of American freedoms.

The efforts to 'control' Americans have a parallel in "Star Wars": Senator Palpatine, speaking to the Senate, convinces them that the Republic is under attack...and to give him extraordinary powers to answer that threat. The eventual result, of course, is that Senator Palpatine becomes Emperor Palpatine, and the Republic becomes the Evil Empire...leading to the Rebellion.

The United States has always been a disorderly, raucous, free-wheeling nation. To quote Ben Franklin from the musical 1776, "we're less refined, more vulgar" than Europe. "We require a new nation."

It was a bad enough blow to liberty when the Patriot Act was enacted. Current calls to restrict speech and firearms ownership to preserve order at the expense of liberty is the slippery slope that moves us towards The Evil Empire. And once the Evil Empire is in place, the 'rebellion' will grow.

I fear we may be in a no-win situation here:

Calls grow for greater security.

Freedoms are reduced.

That encourages black-market and 'under the radar' activities. And it encourages Defiance.

Defiance speaks the language of Violence and Resistance.

Calls for Resistance increase the calls for greater security.

Those desiring Security and those desiring Liberty demonize the other side, and draw hard and fast lines.

The first American Civil War has clear geographic lines. I'm not sure how the next lines will be drawn.

I *do* know that I am tired of Republican AND Democratic partisanship, and the rhetoric of BOTH the left and the right...and am destined, I think, to wander an in an Independent wilderness for the rest of my life while my country decides who and what it wants to be, and how its going to get there...Ive had it with both "sides."

Birds...Fish...and John P. Wheeler.

[Update at end of post]

As a general rule, I'm not a conspiracy theory enthusiast. But I have to admit to some degree of uneasiness here.

New Years Eve, and 5,000 blackbirds and starlings fall from the sky in Arkansas. I don't buy the explanations that have been offered. "High Level" hail wouldn't be able to kill birds that roost in trees at night. Lightning might be the culprit...but meteorologists confirm that there wasn't any. Fireworks scared them all?! All 5,000? When Boston's 4th of July Esplanade cannons never killed one bird? Please, give me a break.

They were scooped up by guys in Hazmat suits, and spirited away to labs. Preliminary results are 'blunt trauma to, and bleeding of, their internal organs.' Of course, rat poison acts the same way: it causes bleeding of the internal organs.

New Years Eve, and the first of 100,000 fish begin washing up on the banks of an Arkansas river. Strange thing is, the fish kill is limited to a single kind of fish.

Yeah, it could be a coincidence. In fact, its quite likely. Except.....

New Years Eve, and the body of John P. Wheeler is found in a dump in Delaware. The cause of death is ruled a homicide. Wheeler was returning from Washington, D.C. His family didn't know precisely why, or when to expect him to return.

Who is Wheeler? A respected Army Officer and Vietnam Veteran who served as the guiding force and Chair of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund from 1979 - 1989. Not only was that the time period during which "The Wall" was being planned and implemented...it was the height of the Agent Orange Trial.

By the mid 1980s, a class-action suit launched by Vietnam Vets against Monsanto, Dow, Diamond Shamrock, anda few smaller chemical companies had hit the federal court system. All these companies were involved in producing Agent Orange, a defoliating agent designed to strip the jungle of vegetation. In the process, the breakdown of the constituent chemicals of the substance (Di- and Trichlorophenoxiacetic Acid, otherwise known as 2,4 D and 2,4,5 T for short) crated Dioxin. Vietnam Vets exposed to the substance suffered everything from severe skin rashes (chloracne) to cancer and death...and their children experienced a range of horrible birth defects.

John "Jack" Wheeler was instrumental in demanding medical treatment for, and focusing attention on, Veterans health issues - especially those affected by Agent Orange.

I know. I worked for Dean, Falanga & Rose, one of the law firms that represented the Veterans at the time. My job involved reading through the deposition of Monsanto officials...and tracing how much the company officials actually knew about the poison they were selling. And how much the government knew about the poison they were buying and dumping on American soldiers. It was Ugly.

Jack Wheeler went on to serve multiple Presidential administrations. At one point, he authored a document on the US Military's use of Biochemical weapons.

The document concluded that the US must never engage in this type of warfare.

Sometime after Dec 28, Jack Wheeler left Washington DC on a train for his home in Delaware. He never got home. The experienced Army officer was ambushed, killed, and dumped in a landfill.

Did he know something? Was he warning Washington?

Was he threatening to blow a whistle on another government chemical 'experiment?,' or another Chemical Corporation-Government endeavor gone awry?

Perhaps. I have no way of knowing.

But I know I sure as hell will not accept pathetic stories about high-level hail or fireworks.

UPDATE:

Pine Bluff Finishes Chemical Weapons Disposal
Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010

"...The Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas on Friday finished destroying the very last of its chemical weapons stockpile, completing a five-year disposal process, the Associated Press reported.

Depot officials said a mustard blister agent-filled ton container was the last item to be incinerated.

"For more than 60 years, the Pine Bluff team stored approximately 3,850 tons of the nation's original chemical agent stockpile," U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency Director Conrad Whyne said in comments released Monday. "Today the Pine Bluff stockpile has been safely disposed of. From the very beginning, employees at Pine Bluff and throughout the (agency) made safety the cornerstone of our chemical weapons stockpile storage and destruction missions."

Pine Bluff originally stored VX- and GB-filled rockets and VX nerve agent-filled land mines as well as mustard agent. The arsenal's chemical warfare materials at one time amounted to 12 percent of the nation's total chemical weapons stockpile. The weapons were destroyed in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, which mandates that all chemical arms be eliminated by April 2012.

The depot will now turn to the work of retiring and rendering safe all chemical weapon destruction equipment, a process that is anticipated to last roughly two years. The depot also manufactures and assesses chemical agent protective gear.

Approximately 82 percent of the country's chemical arsenal has been eliminated, the Chemical Materials Agency said (Associated Press/Times Union, Nov. 15).

Does anyone think it is at all possible that there may have been an accident in the disposal process, or the burial process, of these biochemical weapons...located in the same place as the bird and fish kills...and that the military expert most likely to understand the events and repurcussions was demanding action from Washington (the expert who has been murdered)...while we continue to get pitiful explanatons about noise and hail causing these events?

2011: The Year for GLBT Federal Income Tax Civil Disobedience

For as long as there has been a federal income tax (1917), the federal government has asked taxpayers to indicate their marital status on their tax forms. Taxpayers need not prove their status, they need only swear that all the information contained on the form is true.

And so, come April 15, I, along with other gay and lesbian couples in New Hampshire and other states permitting same-sex marriage, will have a choice: we can check off "married" on page 1 of our 1040, and sign the bottom of page 2 in good conscience that our return is truthful, or we can call ourselves 'single,' and sign that statement, knowing that calling ourselves 'single' would be a patent lie under state law.

The choice, of course, has both legal and financial consequences: two people filing as married pay far less in federal income tax than those same two people filing as single, especially if there is a large income disparity between them. It is even worse when one spouse adds the other to their health insurance: gay and lesbian couples get taxed on "imputed income," the amount of the "additional income" that the federal government pretends we have based on the value of our spouse's health insurance policy. For an average middle-class working couple, this amounts to more than $3,000 annually in federal income tax.

The problem stems from "DOMA," the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," a 1996 law that privides a federal government definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Constitutionally, it is not the federal government's jurisdiction to define marriage. There is no federal Constitutional provision permitting a federal law in this arena. Marriage laws are very specifically creatures of state jurisdiction. In Rhode Island, first cousins can marry; In Illinois they can as long as they can not bear children; in Oregon they can if one was adopted; while in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania there is no first-cousin marriage permitted at all. The rules for who can and who can not get married are state-specific, and the federal government has always accepted the definitions of the states, even though they differed from state to state. By imposing DOMA, the federal government has involved itself in a sphere that is clearly not within it's own jurisdiction, but, under the 10th Amendment, "reserved to the states or to the people." At least one federal judge, in a case brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has ruled that DOMA is Unconstitutional for precisely the reasons we have been arguing in this blog.

And so, I am choosing to engage in an act of civil disobedience under federal law, because this year I will choose to answer my marital status honestly under state law, and I am asking other married gay and lesbian couples to join me.

One can only wonder how the Feds will choose to pursue this:

Nowhere on the federal income tax form do they request 'gender'.

Millions of Americans file Joint Income Tax returns annually.

Any effort by the IRS to root through millions of tax returns and try to determine genders would be a cost-prohibitive nightmare for them.

If every gay married couple that gets 'caught' files objections with the IRS and then takes them to court, citing the Unconstitutionality of DOMA, it is likely that the IRS court calendar with result in a logjam...and time is on our side as all the existing suits wind their way through the courts.

So, on April 15, I will be checking "married," and I will be signing a sworn oath that I have told the truth.

Let the feds argue in court that I was wrong for so doing. And while I will do it alone if necessary, I invite other couples in our situation to join us.