Kelly Ayotte: the Police State Candidate

Of the 33 Senate races taking place across the country this year, there are few whose outcome is as unpredictable right now as New Hampshire's. There are currently 4 major Republicans and 1 Democrat (Congressman Paul Hodes) running for an open Senate seat in this, a state that has voted both 'red' and 'blue' in recent elections. The danger is that in freedom-loving New Hampshire, this combination of candidates - and the support of the national GOP establishment in Washington, DC - could propel former NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, perhaps the most dangerous, pro-police-state politician the state has seen in decades, to front-runner status.

Anyone who has watched television in New Hampshire over the last few weeks has seen the barrage of Ayotte ads, each with the same theme: Ayotte put criminals behind bars. All but one of her ads features a uniformed police officer, and her latest shamelessly lauds her prosecution of the man guilty of killing Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs.

But it is her other activities as the Granite State's Attorney General that should bring one to pause, if not shudder, for what she would bring to the legislative table. On a consistent basis, AG Ayotte testified before the state legislature to curtail civil liberties and protect the power of the police state. Four important examples:

1) The most egregious must be her abject lies about Medical Marijuana, delivered at last year's legislative debate.

She wrote,

"In fact, marijuana is an addictive drug that poses significant health consequences to its users, including those who may be using it for medical purposes...The use of smoked marijuana is opposed by all credible medical groups nationwide."

In fact, several major national medical groups have taken positive views of medical cannabis, including the American Academy of Physicians, the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association. In a 2001 report, even the American Medical Association noted that marijuana helped those suffering from certain ailments including HIV wasting syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea.

It is too bad she didn't consider the testimony of Fremont, NH resident Dennis Acton:

"...I am a cancer survivor and successfully used marijuana to treat severe nausea when my $1600 prescription didn't work. I testified along with many others at the Senate HHS Subcommittee hearing back in April. After the senate passed it, we were able to set up a meeting with the Governor. He was "unavailable" so he sent two policy advisors. About 20 of use showed up for this meeting and told our stories. … I really wish the Gov. could have been there to hear these moving stories. I wish other people like AG Kelly Ayotte... and others who dismiss the medicinal properties of marijuana (based on ignorance rather than science) could have heard this as well.

The bottom line is that terminally or severely ill people want to use marijuana to ease symptoms and to avoid becoming addicted to expensive and harmful opiate based drugs. It is just inconceivable that drugs like Oxycontin are readily available and are being abused terribly while marijuana is outlawed..."

Both the House and Senate adopted a medical marijuana bill, but the Senate lacked the votes to override the Governor's veto...a veto that relied, in part, on Ayotte's disgraceful testimony.

2) A second area is her continued opposition to permitting videotaping of police actions.

In 2009, House Bill 312 was submitted, simply permitting the recording (on a cell phone or other device) police activity. For years, police indiscretions have been brought to light through citizen vigilence (Even parking garages have video cameras these days!) The Bill was bipartisan, sponsored by 3 Democrats (Joel Winters, Susi Nord, and Maureen Mann) and 2 Republicans (Neal Kurk and Jenn Coffey), and passed the Democratically-controlled House.

Ayotte opposed the bill, likening the procedure to illegal wiretapping, and it died in the Senate.

3) In New Hampshire, "...Jury nullification is the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence." (State v. Hokanson, 140 N.H. at 721B906, cited in State of NH v Sanchez). This undisputed power is a check on a rule-oriented legal system that could result in terrible miscarriages of justice. And yet, when HB 906 was filed in 2007, simply requiring that jurors be informed of their existing, "undisputed" rights, Ayotte testified against the bill.

4)On two seperate occasions, Ayotte urged Governor Lynch to veto bills (2006 SB318 and 2009 HB160) that would establish the "Castle Doctrine" in New Hampshire. The Castle Doctrine gives a crime victim the right to use force when attacked when that victim is legally in a place where they have a right to be. Instead, Ayotte has supported the notion that a potential victim has a duty to retreat, rather than defend themselves...cold comfort to a woman walking home late at night and confronted in a dark street, or someone in a wheelchair, or a nightclub patron being surrounded by a group of thugs out to bash someone for fun.

Of course, this is also the Attorney General who advocated for the requirement that picture IDs be produced simply to purchase cough medicine...

Kelly Ayotte has spent her life enhancing and enlarging the power of the State and its Police and enforcement mechanisms as against its citizens. Having garnered the support of the GOP establishmentm, it is now no surprise that as the GOP primary nears, she is tripping over herself to embrace anti-immigration extremism, 14th-Amendment repeal nonsense, Sarah Palin, and the far-right elements that she needs to capture the nod.

But for anyone - Republican, Independent, or Democrat - who values New Hampshire's libertarian way of life, this candidate MUST be defeated. She does not, and must not, represent the people of New Hampshire.

Proposition 8 Overturned: Supreme Court Battle Looms

At 4:50 pm EST this afternoon, Federal District Court Judge Vaughan R. Walker (District of Northern California)overturned California's Proposition 8, setting the stage for an eventual national showdown at the US Supreme Court.

California courts had earlier required Marriage Equality, and couples began to marry under the decision, but opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the issue popularly known as "Proposition 8." (Law-making by 'popular vote' is a traditional lawmaking route in the west of the United States, but is little used elsewhere. During the last generation, then-Governor Ronald Reagan opposed a ballot initiative supported by singer Anita Bryant that would have baned gays from teaching. The campaign propelled San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk into the national limelight as he pleaded with GLBT men and women to leave the closets and be counted among their neighbors and families. That ballot initiative ultimately failed.)

But this time, after more than 80 million dollars were spent campaigning, proponents of Prop 8 won by a vote of 52-48%, and Marriage Equality immediately ceased in California 5 months after it started. Two attorneys, David Boies and Theodore Olson(one a liberal Democrat and one a conservative Republican) then brought this suit on behalf of two gay couples and challenged the referendum vote in Federal Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment to the U. S Constitution, which requires the Equal Protection of Laws for all citizens in a case more properly known as Perry et al v. Schwarzneggar. Same-sex marriage had never been challenged on these Constitutional grounds before, and many gay-rights groups expressed everything from delight to nervousness to outright hostility at pursuing this avenue of attack.

During the trial, opponents of gay marriage saw their case fall apart, as 'expert' witnesses failed to show up or to provide evidence of their 'expertise,' while Boies and Olson brought in a parade of experts in marriage, family law, and psychology to show the discriminatory nature of Prop 8 and the campaign that surrounded it.

In the end, Judge Walker wrote:

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment...Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation...Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“


This means that there are now TWO Federal Court rulings citing three different Constitutional provisions chipping away at systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians: This Prop 8 ruling, which places sexual orientation under both the equal protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment, and Judge Tauro's decision in Massachusetts last month, which held that the so-called federal "Defense of Marriage Act" ("DOMA"), which prohibits the federal government from acknowledging the validity of same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is legal, was also unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment guaranteeing State's Rights in family issues.

There is little doubt that both of the California and Massachusetts decisions are headed to Appellate Circuit Courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court, where a decision of national import is likely to rest on the shoulders of the Courts only centrist, Justice Kennedy.

NOM in NH: The Bizarre World of a Theocracy...

The New Jersey-based “National Organization for Marriage,” or NOM, rolled its bus into Manchester NH in order to rally the troops against Marriage Equality and get signatures in support of DOMA. It must have been embarrassing for them that including the out of state contingency they brought on their bus, only about 50 people showed up in the City Hall Plaza. By contrast, those of us who showed up to quietly support NH’s Marriage Equality numbered 40 – with no bus, no campaign, and no organized effort.

I can only describe the hour-long ‘rally’ as bizarre. Even Circus-like.

One of the touted speakers was Dr. Jennifer Morse, who was introduced as a college professor who would address the group on the scientific basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage. She insisted that religious reasons were not necessary, because there were “bold” scientific reasons. My curiosity was piqued!

I was disappointed to say the least. Her ‘scientific’ opinion was that “Heterosexuality is Normal for our Species.”

Huh? That’s it?! Yup.

After a little research I discovered that our Scientific Doctor has a degree in Economics (not science, not sociology, not psychology, not family studies…). She runs the “Ruth Institute,” a NOM-Project, working with church and college youth groups, and the faith-based Acton Institute.

She then informed us of all the horrible things happening in Canada as a result of same-sex Marriage. Three times she referred to the strange land of “KWEE-beck.” Being a Californian, she apparently was unfamiliar with either the English or French pronunciation for the name of our neighboring Province, so she instead made it sound oddly remeniscent of the word “QUEER”.

She concluded by warning us about what lay ahead for the US. Soon, she said, we might have Language Police listening in on (and I kid you not…) the jocular statements made between guys in locker rooms after sporting events to make sure they complied with politically correct speech codes.

Such was the Scientific Approach. Then we were treated to a sermon by Thomas Peetz, the Pastor at the Pentecostal Word of Life Church in Concord. Detecting another out-of-state accent, I checked his church bio to see that he claims to come from “the nation’s heartland,” and studied under Kenneth E Hagin. Yes, the Health & Wealth Televangelist who claims that “It is always God's will that every believer be 'financially blessed' through faith…," and who, apparently, died three times and even went to hell on one of those trips. Pastor Peetz said, “I’d like to read from the Good Book…if I’m allowed to call it that,” in what became a constant, scripted litany for the rally: that religious people were being silenced. He then instructed us all that there is no ‘separation of church and state in the Constitution...that’s just in a letter Jefferson wrote.” He concluded his sermon by imploring the group that “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”

I wonder if he realized the irony in that his purpose there today was to “put asunder” my lawful, Church-approved marriage.

NOM’s Director, Brian S. Brown, probably took top prize for bizarre logic today. Towards the end, he waxed eloquently about how Christian leaders throughout history stepped out and championed unpopular causes in the name of civil rights, from William Wilberforce’s fight against slavery to Dr. Martin Luther King’s marches for racial justice. He emphasized how these men were ridiculed even by other churches and by the public, but they fought and expanded decency and civil rights.

He then took a spasmodic leap in irrationality and claimed that these good works could not happen now, because Christians had been ‘silenced.’

Perhaps, being from out of state, he was blind to the logical, appropriate leap he SHOULD have made: that of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who walked in the very tradition of those other leaders he mentioned in the fight for GLBT civil rights. It was not lost on those of us who live in New Hampshire.

One theme became very clear throughout the hour: no fewer than 16 times did speakers mention “the children,” or the effect of same-sex marriage on “children,” or depriving “children” of a mom and dad, or the primary purpose of marriage being to raise “children. And throughout the rally, Biblical and moral references were rampant…and the desire for a Theologically Appropriate response to Marriage Equality was the blatant, unabashed and constant undercurrent of this group.

New Fleur-de-Lis Tattoo (Courtesy, again, of Mom's of Keene, NH)

En solidarite avec les residents et les pecheurs da La Louisianne, qui ont suffert les catastrophes de l'hurricane Katrina et le deversement de l'huile; et pour touts mes Ours-amis Quebecois!

DOMA, Prop 8 and Appeals: Outcomes and Next Steps

Yesterday's holding by a Federal District Court Judge that DOMA is Unconstitutional is a big step...but not the end. This was a decision issued by a federal judge on a federal law, but only in a "local" (Massachusetts) case. The question remains of how we turn a Federal District Court holding into a national holding. It would be very unusual for the entire federal government to just roll over and say, "OK, we gotta change now, Congress was wrong on this" as a result of a single District Court holding.

In the best of all worlds, the decision would need to be appealed to (and affirmed by) the Appellate level (and maybe moved on certiorari to the Supreme Court) strictly on the 10th Amendement aspect of the holding, to create a national holding. The 10th Amendment specifically grants to the States the right to legislate in those areas not given Federal jurisdiction, and this was the legal basis for yesterday's decision: States, not the Federal Government, are the entities with authority to define Marriage. DOMA attempted to allow the Federal Government to ignore State Marriage laws that recognize same-sex unions.

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, another decision looms. California's Proposition 8 overturned same-sex marriage in that state, and the Proposition has been challenged on other federal grounds: this one, however, is not based on "State's Rights," but on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The specific holding of that trial - which could be released any day - may very well provide a second Federal ruling requiring clarification or appeal...which could accelerate the process.

I expect that, if appealed, the two cases would be joined at the Supreme Court.

Back to yesterday's DOMA ruling: This puts Obama in a very difficult position. On one hand, he could decide to support the Massachusetts District Court decision nationwide; this would be highly unusual, maybe even unprecedented. District Court level Judges issue rulings all the time, often contradictory with each other and almost never with national application overnight.

On the other hand, Obama's Justice Department could Appeal the Massachusetts ruling, thus angering the less-than-critically-thinking gay blogosphere that understands that it *won* at the District Court level.

Whatever Obama decides to do, he must articulate his reasoning WELL both publicly and "within" party and GLBT leadership so its clear what is going on.

BREAKING NEWS: Federal Court overturns DOMA!

From the Boston Globe:

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
July 8, 2010 05:21 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, according to the office of state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro, in a 36-page ruling that touched on the history of marriage laws, found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates Massachusetts’ right to recognize same-sex unions.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment.”

We have argued in this blog strenuously and continuously that the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. Family law, and the laws surrounding eligibility for Marriage, have ALWAYS been issues reserved to STATE governments, not the federal government.

Some states permit cousins to marry, while others do not; the federal government has historically and routinely accepted each individual state's declaration of what constitutes a valid marriage, even if that changes from state to state. DOMA was a clear violation of this principle...it also meant that legimately married same-sex couples were forced to lie on their Federal Income Tax, were ineligible for federal survivors benefits, and had to pay additional income tax if they places their spouse on their health insurance.

Ironically, conservatives - who normally support 10th Amendment States Rights arguements - ignored this violation....While Liberals - such as the regular posters on blogs such as Joe.My.God...constantly called me a "Tea-Partier" and "Right-Winger" because I used a 10th Amendment arguement against DOMA.

Well, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley made this arguement, and won her case in district court.

To be certain, this is not the end of the issue: this was a ruling at the Federal District Court level, which opens up the possibilities of appeals and wrangling before the Appeallate Court and even the US Supreme Court itself if the US Justice Department chooses to pursue this.

But time is in the side of Justice.

The Dark Side....

Waterboarding. The Patriot Act. Suspension of Habeus Corpus. Guantanamo Bay. National ID Card Legilsation. Arizona requiring 'papers' for internal mobility. Suspicionless searches. Civil "forfeiture." Kelo vs. New London. Victimless "crimes." Deep Water Drilling without emergency plans. Wall Street Bailouts. Foreign entaglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anakin: "I think this war is destroying the principles of the Republic."

Padmé: "Have you ever considered that we may be on the wrong side?"

Anakin: "What do you mean?"

Padmé: "What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?"


Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

Independence Day 2010

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Emma Lazarus

BP's choice: Plunder Company Assets...and the U. S. Taxpayer

It is a time-honored operation: Enrich owners and Insiders while you are able by plundering a troubled company's assets.

In 1999, Service Merchandise (a retail chain) was forced into bankruptcy by its creditors. The Bankruptcy court froze the company's assets...except, of course, for the normal fees associated with 'administering' the bankruptcy and paying remaining operating costs. The Board of Directors of SM prompty hired themselves to administer the bankruptcy, and began draining the company of its cash assets. One upper-level manager, disgusted with their actions, leaked the plan to a unnamed blogger (ahem...), who prompty posted the details (using an anonymous handle) on the Yahoo! Finance Message Board for the company. When the news hit, SMs stock fell to less than a penny per share. The now-infuriated Management (who owned plenty of stock themselves) sued Yahoo!, asking them to reveal the source of the leak, claiming there were violations of Insider Trading laws. The Court declined to grant their request.

The year before Enron collapsed, top Executives paid themselves 1.4 Billon (yes, Billion) dollars.

In the eight years before the collapse of Lehman Brothers - which ignited the financial crisis that still affects us - the Chief Executive, Richard Fuld, took home 480 million dollars from the company.

Citigroup's Executive was paid 31 million the year they requested a taxpayer bailout.

Which brings us to BP.

BP insists it will pay all 'legitimate claims.' Does that mean they will compensate fishing charter businesses and shrimpers for the loss of their future earnings when they go out of business? Loss of tourism on Florida beaches? What precisely *is* a 'legimtiate' claim in their eyes? The estimated daily flow of oil has increased from 1,000 barrels per day when the crisis began, to the current 40,000per day. While no one yet knows the extent of this disaster, what is known is that this will cost, at a minimum, in the tens of billions of dollars.

So, it wouldnt make sense for BP to give away its assets...or would it?

BP announced it would decide next month whether keep a quarterly dividend of 14 cents a share for the second quarter, a payout of about $2.6 billion.

To be fair, BP regularly pays out this dividend to its investors, so it's not as if they are seeking a new venue in which to squirrel away assets. However, the prospect of untold bilions in clean-up costs, and the growing long-term possibility of a BP bankruptcy - means that taxpayers, once again, would be left with a bill that ought to be covered by Corporate assets. Regardless of their culpability, if BP runs out of cash, BP can't pay the bill.

Writing for the New York Times, William K. Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, and author of “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,” said:

"...Dividends not only put money out of the reach of the U.S., but also reward the people most responsible for causing the damage. BP’s officers and employees, in their capacity as shareholders are the most obvious example of this, but shareholders are also responsible as owners of the corporation. The deal shareholders make when they invest is that if the corporation cannot pay its debts to creditors the shareholders get nothing."

Not surprisingly, many British shareholders are furious that the issue of their dividends is even being discussed. Even some U.S. news commentators have questioned "punishing" the shareholders.

To them, I quote Juan de Medina, a Dominican monk writing in Salamanca, Spain, in 1550, and one of the world's first 'free market' economists:

"Those who by their own will go into business...must expose themselves to profit and loss. And when they suffer a loss, they must not transfer it to the buyers or to the Republic."

What he said.

Should BP declare a dividend, Congress needs to pass legislation requiring that oil companies engaged in deep-water drilling place cash in a cleanup escrow account...and if they won't act, then the businesses and States of the Gulf Coast should file enough claims to force BP into a Reorganization, in which case a Bankruptcy Court could then order that BPs assets remain within the corporation and within this country to pay for the cleanup.

Deepwater Horizon, BP, and the Minerals Management Service: The legacy of "Capture Theory."

Am I the only one who simply can not fathom how a major oil company can be permitted to engage in potentially catastrophic activities, and not have back up and safety plans? Is it rational to believe that a break in an undersea oil pipe could go on for week after week and no one has a clue what to do about it?!

The events unfolding off of the Louisiana coast were not unimaginable or unpredictable. In fact, what happened on the ocean floor was very predictable – so much so, that in the industry it is routinely called a “blowout.”

Now, wouldn’t it makes sense that if a company is going to undertake an activity that could result in a known, predictable disaster, that they should have a contingency plan in place? And that the government agencies regulating them (in this case, the Minerals Management Service, or MMS) should require them to have such a contingency plan?

In fact, most offshore drilling operations are required to have such contingency plans. But two years ago, the MMS changed the rules of the drilling game mid-stream, and exempted deep-water drilling operations from the need to submit an emergency plan. The Deepwater Horizon Project – the very disaster unfolding in the gulf – was one of the projects that was suddenly exempted. Instead, BP was permitted to submit a “regional” plan for dealing with “general spills” anywhere in the Gulf.

Unfortunately, that ‘general plan’ didn't quite have enough detail to help BP stop THIS leak as a result of THIS blowout at THIS location.

According to one MMS official – speaking on the condition of anonymity – “the rules were changed because some elements were impractical for some deepwater drilling projects in the Gulf”

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/no_oil_spill_plan_rule_change.html

In other words, since a safe and effective contingency plan could not be established for the Deepwater Horizon Project – the MMS decided to eliminate the necessity of such a plan, rather than stopping the project form the beginning.

Such an action makes no sense...unless you are familiar with “Capture Theory,” a basic theory I cover in all of my introductory Economics classes. “Capture Theory” refers the fact that most citizens are too busy with survival and life to worry about every permit and hearing taking place before a government agency. A vested interest, however – such as BP before the MMS, or a pharmaceutical company before the Food & Drug Administration – has evry reason in the world to know exactly what is on the agency’s agenda, and who is making the decision on their application, and what the secretary’s name is and how the agency decision-makers like their steak cooked. Because the potential benefits of favorable treatment are so lucrative, it makes sense for corporations to hire lobbyists who wine and dine the agency officials. In the end, (to quote myself), “A vested interest will always capture the agency designed to regulate it, and then use that agency for its own advantage.”

Is this what happened here? Yes.

According to Fast Company,

“…[A] Department of Interior investigative report describes transportation to college football games on offshore oil company planes as well as offshore oil and gas sponsored golf outings, crawfish boils, skeet-shooting events, and hunting trips. A source also told investigators that MMS inspectors sometimes allowed oil and gas company employees onboard drilling platforms to fill out inspection forms [themselves].....many of the MMS inspectors had worked for the oil and gas industry and continued to be friends with industry representatives. “Obviously, we’re all oil industry...We’re all from the same part of the country. Almost all of our inspectors have worked for oil companies out on these same platforms. They grew up in the same towns. Some of these people, they’ve been friends with all their life. They’ve been with these people since they were kids. They’ve hunted together. They fish together. They skeet shoot together ....They do this all the time...”

http://www.fastcompany.com/1652231/meth-porn-guns-graft-at-agency-overseeing-gulf-oil-companies-interior-department-report?partner=rss

So…the blowout occurred, 11 men lost their lives, and oil began pouring into the Gulf. Couldn’t something be done? (Of course, 24 hours into the spill, a US Coast Guard spokesperson assured ABC news correspondent George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” that there was no oil spewing from the well..)

In 1994, the US Government developed its own plan (the “In Situ Burn Plan”) to contain spills through the use of devices called fire booms. Like so many government plans, this proved to be a thick document that at some point was much-heralded, and then put on a shelf to collect dust. The plan called for the immediate use of firebooms, as a first response, to contain a spill. These firebooms can burn off 75,000 gallons of oil per hour, enough to have probably contained the spill to its current location.

Unfortunately, 16 years after the recommendation was made, the federal government did not own a single fire boom.

Eight days later, they were able to locate one for sale in Illinois. Several were eventually ordered from South America.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html

Daily, we hear how this disaster continues to spread, and how livelihoods and ecosystems are both being ruined. And how BP is ‘hiring’ fishermen who are getting sick, and forcing them to sign non-disclosure statements. So the cover-ups and damage continue.

All because of an “accident?”

No, because of Corporate Fraud. And Corruption. And Government Inefficiency. And “Capture Theory.”

The result is, as far as I am concerned, has been a massive case of Criminally Negligent Trespass and Criminal Conspiracy between BP and the MMS.

Think about that the next time Vermont Yankee tells you that they are adequately regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that contingency plans are in place, that every emergency situation has a well-thought out plan, that underground leaks are nothing to worry about, and that Strontium 90 in fish in the Connecticut River is no big deal

Breathtaking...

This post has nothing to do with Tea Parties, or elections, or Health Care, or Obama, or Libertarians or DADT. It has to do with a walk in the woods yesterday.

We live on an 18 acre parcel of hilly woodlands, which abuts the 21-square mile, undeveloped Pisgah State Park. Our constant neighbors are porcupines, at least one wolf, hummingbirds, a pair of rose-breasted grosbeaks, red foxes, and, based on the missing birdfeeders and the bent wrought-iron feeder hooks -at least one black bear. Once we begin walking into the woods, it doesn't take long for it to get very, very dark - even in the middle of the day.

Yesterday, Scott and I went walking down an overgrown path back into the woods. It got darker and darker as the trees formed a wall on all sides and their branches touched and overlapped overhead. Everything in sight was forest-floor-brown, or forest-green, and everything was in shadows.

About 5 minutes into our walk, I looked to the right, where the tree line briefly parted for a short distance of about 15 feet. About 20 feet ahead, through the gap, was a craggy, boulder-strewn hillside too steep to easily climb without equipment. The largest boulder was practically illuminated, sitting in the sole shaft of sunlight that somehow found a direct route into the forest.

And surrounding the boulder - above it, below it, in its depressions, around its sides - was an explosion of color. A thick patch of Wild Red Columbines was in full bloom. I literally sucked in my breath and held it. I had never seen a patch of wild columbine.

And I sure didn't expect this burst of red and yellow - and light! - in the midst of this dark expanse of browns and greens. I could bring myself to do *nothing* but stare at it, knowing that I had stumbled into one of the woodland's hidden treasures...the closest thing I have seen to a Chapel made without human hands.

Somehow, I know that there are ancient monks and Celtic hermits who know *precisely* what I experienced yesterday.

Robertson to challenge Lynch

Timothy Robertson, a Democratic State Representative from Keene, announced tonight that he intends to challenge incumbant John Lynch in the Democratic Primary for Governor of New Hampshire.

Speaking to an overflow crowd of the Cheshire County Democrats meeting at the E F Lane Hotel in Keene, Robertson cited Lynch's "reluctant" support of marriage equality, opposition to medical marijuana, and support for both 'the war on drugs' and "The Pledge," the New Hampshire tradition of pledging to oppose broad-based taxes.

"I was afraid that when Lynch debated the Republican candidate, he would sound just like the Republican," said Robertson.

In addition to his legislative functions, Robertson has most recently been known for the permission he has granted homeless consruction workers to erect temporary shelter on land he and his sister own in Keene, which has since grown into a small community known locally as "Intensity."

Lynch's opposition to rational drug law reform, and the unnecessary drama he created in his effort to avoid dealing with a Marriage Equality bill on his desk last year have been frequent subjects of this blog.

Rober

The Politicization of Supreme Court Nominees...and why Kagan should be swiftly confirmed

The Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") occupies a role at the heart and soul of American society. As a co-equal branch of government, the Court has consistently been willing to act where Constitutional duty required, but where political strength was weak. The end of the Seperate but Equal doctrine, the right of adults to purchase birth control, the right of those uttering offensive speech to continue to exercise that right, have all been secured by the Court when politicians lacked the spines to do so. By choosing jurists and scholars in love with The Law itself, the great 'American Experiment' has lasted and been strengthened because of the vigilence of an institution that can weather the inflamed but fading passions of mob rule.

From 1900 to approximately 1969, Court nominees were afforded respect by both sides of the aisle. In that time frame, 28 Justices were approved unanimously by voice vote. One was rejected. And only 13 were confirmed with a smattering of 'nay' votes.

It is interesting to note that in that time period, the opposition to some of those Justices would later prove an embarassment:

Louis Brandeis, one of the most brightest legal scholars in the Court's history, was confirmed in 1916 by an unusual "split' vote of 47-22. It is shameful to think now that the nay votes were at least in part generated because he was first Jew nominated the High Court.

Similarly, Thurgood Marshall - the Court's first African-American - would be approved by a split vote of 69-11 in 1967.

When Hugo Black received 16 "no" votes in 1937, it was largely due to rumors (later confirmed) that he had been a member of the Klan in his earlier years. Even those 'no' votes were bipartisan, however, consisting of 10 Republicans and 6 Democrats.

All in all, prior to 1969, 41 of 42 nominees were confirmed....28 (fully 2/3 of them)unanimously.

In the modern era, however, we have chosen to reverse this approach, and we have turned most Court confirmations into a political fight. Between 1969 and today, 19 nominations have been made to the nation's highest Court. Of these, 3 were rejected (Bork, Carswell, and Haynesworth); 1 withdrew from nomination (Harriet Miers in 2005); 10 were confirmed on split votes; and only FIVE (barely one-quarter) were confirmed unanimously. And those five were all before 1987 - over 20 years ago.

We somehow have come to the conclusion in the last few decades that Court appointees should be instruments of Political Doctrine, rather than impartial judges of the Law, and so interest groups from all sides raise funds and wage battle over almost every nominee. Both the Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this warfare, and both should be ashamed, as qualified, professional, brilliant judges have received 'no' votes simply based on partisan ideology. Conservatives needlessly withheld 31 votes from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an eminently qualified Jurist, just as liberals withheld 42 votes from Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. on political grounds.

The question before the Senate should not be, "Will this person further our party's legislative agenda?" The question should be, "Is this person qualified to analyze complicated fact patterns and impart sound legal reasoning to actual cases in a way that brings honor the nation's Highest Court?"

By that standard, Kagan is qualified. End of Discussion. Republicans should assent to her confirmation, and reverse the modern trend towards "getting one of ours in."

Once confirmed, I will admit that there is one aspect of the Court's make-up that does raise a flag, and that is the lack of anyone from a protestant background on the court. In a large way, this is indicative of changes in American Society, and from that perspective it is a positive development. On the other hand, depending on the survey quoted, protestants still comprise about 50% of the population. Now, I pesonally do not believe in 'group' politics; I judge induividuals as individuals. But the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor last year began an interesting debate.

Justice Sotomayor was criticized for the following comment she had made:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life..."

What Justice Sotomayor suggested is that we are *all* a product of our backgrounds, and bring that background to the table with us. Often, that background gives us insights that others with differing backgrounds might not as readily understand.

I defended her remarks then, and continue to do so now. And so, I believe I am consistent when I suggest that a nation that has many, many devout Protestants may feel unrepresented because the insight that their particular background contributes may not find a voice on the Court. It is a legitimate concern.

But I am forced to wonder how many liberals who defended the 'wise latina' comment will simply dismiss protestant or evangelical concerns as lacking merit.

And I wonder how many conservative protestants who will now lament the loss of a 'protestant perspective' on the bench were willing to raise their voices in agreement when a wise latina woman offered the same arguement as they do now.

Of course, one could simply defend Sotomayor and criticize evangelicals - or vice versa - based on political positioning...an approach that will only perpetuate the destructive politicization of the Judical confirmation process. Better to recognize our diversity and differences and strive for balance...but to confirm Justice nominees based solely on qualifications.

Thank you, Sen. Shaheen!

For almost a Century, the Federal Reserve System has engaged in a 'mission creep' that has extended its power and authority way beyond its Congressional authorization. Originally established to insure a stable money supply and to prevent the hyper-inflation that less-developed countries chronically endure, the "Fed" has expanded to become the nations primary guardian of gold reserves, controller of the currency, auditor of all federally-chartered banks, and check clearinghouse. In the last two years, they have stepped front-and-center into the nation's financial crisis, allowing Lehman Brothers to go belly-up while 'arranging' for the saving of AIG and Merryl Lynch. Through their "Troubled Asset Relief Program" (TARP), the Fed has permitted banks to borrow American taxpayer funds anonymously, and had lowered the Federal Discount Rate so low that loose credit has enabled insolvent and arrogant banking corporations to plunder the nations funds in legalized gambling with taxpayer funds and fraudulent financial instruments. Tellingly, some Regional Federal Reserve branches (Dallas in particular) have strenuously and openly disagreed with the decisions of what is arguably the most powerful institution in America.

Through all this, the Fed has remained insulated from acountability: with 7 Governors having terms of 14 years each (more than any elected official in the nation other than some NY Judgeships), and no congressional approval needed for their decisions to create money, influence interest rates, or determine how much banks must - or should - lend, the Fed has conducted the nations banking without having ever being audited.

A coalition of Senators and Members of Congress from the Left (Bernie Sanders) and the Libertarian Right (Ron Paul) have called for accountability and an audit of the Federal Reserve System. Today, New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen has added her voice to sponsoring this legislation.

She stands in stark contrast to Republican NH Senator Judd Gregg, who has defended the Fed's insularity and has attempted to block any audit of this institution.


Today's press release:

"Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) will co-sponsor an amendment that would require government auditors to open up the books at the Federal Reserve.

The "audit the Fed" measure, first introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is actually popular on both sides of the aisle, but is staunchly opposed by the White House, the Fed and the financial industry. Sanders is trying to round up the 60 votes it need to overcome a likely filibuster.

The Obama administration will most likely be under intense pressure to veto the entire financial reform bill if "audit the fed" survives.

Reporting by Brian Beutler"


Now...which party is for accountability, transparency, and responsibility in government? Which party is being fiscally responsible?

Breaking News: Conservative Anti-Gay "Expert" discovered with Male Escort...

George Alan Rekers has been photographed leaving Miami International airport after a 10-day European vacation with "Lucien," a male escort.

From the Miami New Times

"For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers's Euro-trip.)

He has also influenced American government, serving in advisory roles with Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services and testifying as a state's witness in favor of Florida's gay adoption ban. A former research fellow at Harvard University and a distinguished professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Rekers has published papers and books by the hundreds, with titles like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality.

"While he keeps a low public profile, his fingerprints are on almost every anti-gay effort to demean and dehumanize LGBT people," says Wayne Besen, a gay rights advocate in New York City and the executive director of Truth Wins Out, which investigates the anti-gay movement. "His work is ubiquitously cited by lobby groups that work to deny equality to LGBT Americans. Rekers has caused a great deal of harm to gay and lesbian individuals."

Source: http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/1

Goldman Sachs: A Fraudulent history repeats itself - The Legacy of Ashanti Gold

The only ones who should be surprised by Fraud allegations levied against Goldman Sachs are insiders who have become so arrogant as to think that they were somehow untouchable. Personally, I am wondering why it has taken so long.

Together, much of the Wall Street Bailout process was designed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Past President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank; Stephen Friedman, an ex-Goldman Sachs officer who still serves on the Board of the NY Fed; Hank Paulson, an ex-Goldman Sachs operative who designed the hedge funds that plunged the financial markets into turmoil in the first place; and Goldman Sachs financier Robert Rubin. As the crisis unfolded, Goldman Sachs continued to market these Hedge Funds to uninformed clients, even after becoming aware that mortgage-backed securities were crumbling. And when When AIG was bailed out...the primary beneficiary was Goldman Sachs.

And I have to ask: does this surprise anyone? This is a world-wide pattern that Goldman Sachs has utilized to enrich itself at the expense of everyone else for years. And perhaps there is no better example of this than the destruction of Ghana's largest company a decade ago: Ashanti Gold.

In 1998, Ashanti Gold was the 3rd largest Gold Mining company in the world. The first "black" company on the London Stock Exchange, Ashanti had just purchased the Geita mine in Tanzania, positioning Ashanti to become even larger. But in May 1999, the Treasury of the United Kingdom decided to sell off 415 tons of its gold reserves. With all that gold flooding the world market, the price of gold began to decline. By August 1999, the price of gold had fallen to $252/ounce, the lowest it had been in 20 years.

Ashanti turned to its Financial Advisors - Goldman Sachs - for advice. Goldman Sachs recommeded that Ashanti purchase enormous hedge contracts - "bets" on the price of gold. Simplifying this somewhat, it was similar to when a homeowner 'locks in' a price for heating oil months in advance. Goldman recommeded that Ashanti enter agreements to sell gold at a 'locked-in' price, and suggested that the price of gold would continue to fall.

But Goldman was more than just Ashanti's advisors. They were also sellers of these Hedge contracts, and stood to make money simply by selling them. And they were also world-wide sellers of Gold itself.

In September 1999 (one month later), 15 European Banks with whom Goldman had professional relationships made a unanimous surprise announcement that all 15 would stop selling gold on world markets for 5 years. The announcement immediately drove up gold prices to $307/ounce, and by Octoer 6, it had risen to $362/ounce.

Ashanti was in trouble. At Goldman's advice, they had bet that gold prices would continue to drop, and had entered into contracts to sell gold at lower prices. These contracts were held by a group of 17 other world banks. Ashanti found themselves being forced to buy gold at high world prices and sell it at the low contract prices to make good on the contracts. The result? In a few weeks time, Ashanti found itself with 570 million dollars worth of losses. It had to beg the 17 banks not to force the execution of the contracts.

Who served as the negotiator for the 17 banks and Ashanti? Goldman Sachs. The same company that designed the contracts for Ashanti(making a profit in their sale.

The basic bankruptcy of Ashanti drove its stock price from an all time high of $25 per share to a paltry $4.62 per share. Thousands of investors - your blogger among them - lost their investments almost overnight as Ashanti was declared insolvent.

In the end, Ashanti was purchased by their largest African competitor, AngloGold, a British company headquartered in South Africa, who bought them for a song. The Financial Advisors to AngloGold? You guessed it: Goldman Sachs.

The destruction of Ashanti Gold by Goldman Sachs was saturated with fraud and conflicts of interest: Goldman Sachs served as Ashanti's Financial Advisors; profitted form the contracts they designed and marketed for Ashanti; was involved in the manipulation of the gold prices on which the contracts depended; represented Ashanti's creditors when the contracts went bad; and profitted as the Financial Advisors to the company that picked up the Ashanti corpse for pennies on the dollar.

The Bailout of Wall Street - little understood by many Americans, and supported grudgingly by members of both political parties who operated on only fractions of the full picture (not unlike the Iraq invasion) - has Goldman Sachs' legacy all over it.

Prosecution of Goldman Sachs and Regulation of the Financial Industry is not evidence of "Big Government," "Socialism," or more "Washington Take-over."

It is an appropriate - and overdue - safeguard against Fraud and Theft, which, the last time I looked, was not antithetical to the principles of liberals, moderates, conservatives, or libertarians.

Gun-Happy New Hampshire rated the Safest state in America - AGAIN.

According to CQ Press, the nation's leading publisher on government statistics, New Hampshire is the safest state in the nation for the third year in a row.

According to CQ, which rated the states on 500 crime-related categories, New Hampshire "reported only 15 murders out of a population of 1.3 million—the lowest rate in the country. New Hampshire was also below the national average for rape, and had the second lowest rate for aggravated assault with only 78 cases per 100,000 citizens."

Now, why is this? Is this because New Hampshire is a largely rural state, and crimes generally happen in urban centers?

Hardly. In spite of tourism brochures touting mountainsides and maple sugar shacks, more than 700,000 Granite Staters - more than half the state's population - live in Urban areas. In fact, it terms of urbanization, New Hampshire ranks #15 in the entire country. (By comparison, New York is #11 and Virginia is #18.)

Perhaps it's tough prison sentences that prevent the 'bad guys' from running amock in New Hampshire ? ? ?

Nope. A 2009 study showed that out of 50 states, New Hampshires was #48 in terms of the percentage of its citizens locked up in jail. In fact, New Hampshire prides itself in utilizing reform, rather than outright jailing, in its justice system.

Gun laws! That must be it! Tough gun laws that keep anybody from getting a gun!

No, try again. Anyone in New Hampshire can buy a gun without a license. And without "registering" the gun. And in fact, they can carry that gun on their person, loaded, without permission or a permit and walk down the street.

What a concept.

An urbanized state, with liberal gun laws, that doesnt believe in a draconian "throw-away-the-key" style of justice is the safest place to live in the USA.

Something to think about, huh?

A' Chàisg sona!

DHE, thug mis a fois na h-oidhch an raoir
Chon solus aoibh an la an diugh,
Bi da mo thoir bho sholus ur an la an diugh,
Chon solus iul na siorruidheachd,
O! bho sholus ur an la an diugh,
Gu solus iul na siorruidheachd.

O GOD, who broughtst me from the rest of last night
Unto the joyous light of this day,
Be Thou bringing me from the new light of this day
Unto the guiding light of eternity.
Oh! from the new light of this day
Unto the guiding light of eternity.

(from the Carmina Gadelica, oral prayers from the Outer Hebrides Islands, as collected by Alexander Carmichael, 1900)

Granite State of Mind

Health Care, Party Purity....and the legacy of Dede Scozzafava

Well, it was only a few months ago that far-right purists within the Republican Party set their sites on Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate in the special election for New Yorks 23rd Congressional District. Since Dede didn't toe the line on every issue, they decided to make an example of her, and threw their support to the Conservative Party candidate. Eventually, Dede, a multiple-term Assemblyman and the choice of GOP leaders in 13 counties, withdrew from the race. In the end, the Democrat won. Far-right Republicans, originally giddy at having pulled the rug out from under her, mumbled something about her loss not really mattering much, and went on their merry way to find the next witch hunt du jour.

As we now sit a mere handful of hours away from the vote on Obama's Health Care Reform Bill, I wonder how many of these party purists are counting votes and wondering how the outcome might be different if they hadnt purged Dede from the party.

'Nuff Said:

Just call me a Blue Dog....

My post last week entitled "What is the Cheshire GOP Thinking?!," criticizing the invitation of Rick Santorum as a Lincoln Day Dinner speaker, was published as an online letter in the Keene Sentinel. Of the immediate responses, this one from someone calling themself "notta" was the most intriguing:

"I sincerely hope that Thom Simmons will NOT be running as a Republican.
I'll do everything I can to alert his voters as to who he is and what he stands for.
Thom should be running as a fiscal conservative Democrat--not a socally liberal Republican.

And Olympia Snowe is NOT a successful Republican. She's a disgrace to what we stand for. "

And there you have it. The voice of Republican Activism in New Hampshire.

Anti-Marriage Equality Town Meeting crusades (failing, thankfully, all around the state). Support for extremist, unsuccessful party spokesmen like Santorum coupled with disdain for traditional Yankee Moderates like Snowe. The extreme, the shrill, the hateful, the ignorant, the phobic, the mean-spirited, all in one ugly tangled bunch of worms. Well, it's time to cut the Gordian Knot, methinks.

Let me make clear that I am not afraid of the response I received. I never counted on the support of social conservatives in the first place. And secondly, the support of social conservatives, while possibly controlling in a Primary in a shrinking Republican Party, is insignificant at best and counter-productive at worst in a general election in Cheshire County.

And so, the time is come.

Yes, I am running for State Representative in Cheshire-4 (Chesterfield, Hinsdale, and Winchester) in 2010.

And yes, I am running as a Democrat.

Republican? Democrat? Libertarian? Man Without a Party....

I believe in "Liberty, and Justice, for All." YOU decide to what Political Party I truly belong...

That Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia have no rightful place in American Society. That who I marry is my business, and no one elses; and the only state role should be that of a 'recorder,' not a definer, of legal relationships.

That the United States must never, ever, under any circumstances, torture suspected terrorists or engage in the same tactics that they do.

That immigration has been a source of constant strenth, genius, and rejuvenation of the American Ideal, and that English is no more sacrosanct than any other language.

That no one should be prosecuted or jailed for a "crime" where there is no victim. That marijuana should not just be decriminalised, but legalized.

That America is held captive to the taboos of a Puritanical past. Public breast Feeding, nude sunbathing, consensual sexual activity between adults, and polyamorous and homosexual relationships are just as valid as any other consentual human expression of love, life and caring, and should not be criminalized or stigmatized.

That if I choose to smoke cigarettes, gamble on a sports event, wear a helmet when I ride my bike or wear seatbelts when I drive, it is MY business, and no one elses.

That I have a right to bear firearms and defend myself, my property, and others without anyone's permission.

That my right to Free Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly and Association, Right Against self-incrimination, and Freedom of Religion are INVIOLABLE. That there *is* an implied Right to Privacy in the US Constitution, and that ALL federal rights must be guaranteed by the States as well.

That we are a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. That the Federal Government must not usurp the rights reserved to the States, and that neither the federal nor state governments may usurp the rights reserved to individuals.

That I have a right to order my own property my own way, without neighbors deciding how high my house should be, whether my mom can live in an adjacent apartment, whether I can fix cars in my garage or whether my dumpster should be allowed to be in "public view."

That I have the right to choose the best educational format for my child, whether in public, private, or a home education setting, without second-guessing by bureaucrats and other vested interests.

That I have the right to join a union if I choose, or to negotiate my own compensation if I choose.

That no one has a right to tell me how to run my business, what to pay my employees, what to offer for sale, or how much to charge.

That it *is* appropriate for government to provide for a common defense, maintain roads and essential services, and to charge me for the benefits I receive.

That it *is* appropriate for society to help those in medical, housing, or other distress, with a view towards helping them achieve independence where possible and on-going assistance where necessary.

That individuals should be encouraged and assisted in the achievement of their own independence and security wherever possible.

That whether you are black, white, asian, Native American, Latino, or mixed race; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist or of another faith; hetero, homo, bi, or asexual; male, female, transgender or hermaphriditic; native-born or immigrant; employed, unemployed, retired, or disabled; English, Spanish, French, Lakhota, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese, German, or Portuguese-speaking: if you are HERE and you are HUMAN, then you have a right to your life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

That *NO ONE* - no government official, no clergyman, no law, no insurance company, no FDA or federal agency - has a right to stand between a physician and their patient in matters of medical treatment.

That voluntary business transactions between willing individuals should not be obstructed by government. That freedom and liberty requires the free movement of capital, products, and labor across state and international borders.

That pollution of the environment that results in an act of toxic trespass against all is an appropriate subject of government regulation.

That Police Officers are the servants, not the Superiors, of the citizenry.

That the military must be subject to, and not independent of, the Civil Authorities in all matters.

That the primary goals of a criminal justice system should be restitution for the Victim and reform of the criminal, not vengeance or punishment.

That wherever possible, taxes and fees should be realistically tied to the costs that my actions are incurring, and earmarked for appropriate remedial uses.

That since businesses retain profits when successful, they must never transfer losses to the public, and that bailouts, subsidies, and corporate grants are immoral transfers of wealth.

That Government Deficit Spending likewise effectuates a transfer of wealth from citizens to wealthy bondholders who lend funds to the US Government, and is therefore opporessive, regressive, and confiscatory by design.

I love America so much that I cry when reading the The New Colossus, singing the Star Spangled Banner, or watching the US Olympian Team...but also know we have a lot of growing up to do, and yes, we can even learn from more mature nations like France, England, and Germany.

So....Am I a Republican? Democrat? Libertarian? Independent? Loonie? Plain ol' frustrated American?

What is the Cheshire GOP thinking?!?!

Today I received an email from the Cheshire County GOP, advertising their Lincoln Day Dinner on April 30, featuring, of all people.....ex-US Senator Rick Santorum.

Yes, that Santorum - the one who lost his re-election bid 59% - 41%, the largest defeat for an incumbant US Senator in over 30 years. The one who insisted that Weapons of Mass destruction had been found in Iraq. Who sponsored an amendment to require the teaching of creationism in public schools. The one who denies the existence of any 'privacy rights' in the US Constitution, even between married persons, and has criticized the Griswold vs Connecticut ruling, which invalidated a state law prohibting birth control.

All this, in Cheshire County, which is quite arguably the most socially liberal county in the state of New Hampshire. A County where Democrats lead the Republicans in the Statehouse delegation by a margin of 19-5. A County where John Kerry pulled 59% of the vote, and Barack Obama pulled 54%.

Enrollment? Here are the figures for Cheshire County as of January 8, 2008:

UNDECLARED ("Independent") 24,078 (45%)
DEMOCRAT: 16,655 (31 %)
REPUBLICAN: 13,249 (24 %)

Of the 23 Towns in Cheshire County, Independents constitute the plurality in 21 of them. (In Dublin there were 11 more Republicans than Independents; in Keene, Democrats have a plurality).

In other words, if Republicans are to win elections in Cheshire County, they will only do so by winning over the 'undeclared' or independent voters, NOT by appealing to a shrinking, shrill Republican "base." The more the GOP is seen as an extreme fringe of right-wing loonies, the quicker their relegation to the role of insignificance, at least in Cheshire.

What is the message that the Cheshire GOP is sending to these voters when Rick Santorum is the headliner at their Lincoln Day Dinner? And how different would that message be if someone like successful New England Republican Senator Olympia Snowe had been invited instead!

For those of us seeking to run for office in Cheshire County as Republicans...could a more disastrous choice for dinner speaker have been chosen?

Fiscal Conservatives: Ending DOMA is a responsible step

Robert and Carl* are a gay couple who have been together for several years. They live in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and recently tied the knot in a Church ceremony. Like many other married couples, they have established a stable home and are active members of their community. Carl is healthy but lives with a manageable medical condition. Like approximately 1.1 million other Americans, Carl is HIV positive.

Today, HIV positive people are living long, normal, healthy lives…as long as they receive proper medical care. Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), a combination of three medications, is now the standard treatment to battle HIV. While quite effective one of the major downsides of treatment is cost. Carl’s three medications run about $2,200 per month…a figure that is quite typical. This, of course, does not include approximately six blood tests and physicians appointments per year, bringing his treatment costs to about $3,000 per month.

The US Congress recognized the steep cost of treatment when they reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act in 2009 by a vote of 408-9. This Act authorizes the expenditure of over $2 billion annually to assist with HIV outreach and treatment. It is the ‘payer of last resort,’ and income guidelines are applied towards recipients, but still it is estimated that some 30% of HIV positive individuals receive some assistance through this program.

More comprehensive coverage, of course, is available through private insurance. More than 25% of Americans work for an employer that offers domestic partner benefits; 51% percent of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health benefits; and 37% of all Americans live in states where some legal protection of same-sex partner arrangements exist (marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits.)

Back to Robert and Carl.

Robert has a full-time, secure job, and both he and his employer contribute towards Roberts’ health insurance. When Robert married Carl, they looked forward to Carl’s being added to Roberts policy as a spouse, thus providing not only coverage for Carl’s HIV medicine, but for the entire range of normal health care for which the typical American might visit the doctor or the hospital. Robert, who had been married before, had already had his children (and formerly, an ex-wife), on his family policy.

Enter the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

Under DOMA, the federal government agencies are prohibited from recognizing the validity of same-sex unions of any kind, even when they are authorized under state law. This is a significant change to federal-state relationships, since Family Law issues have always been decided at the state level. As a result, in Rhode Island, Alabama, and Alaska first cousins may legally marry, while in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania such marriages are illegal. The Federal government dos not take a stand on this issue: they accept first-cousin marriages from Alaska as legal, but would reject the validity of first-cousin marriages illegally performed in Pennsylvania. In other words, the federal government normally accepts the states’ definition of marriage as authoritative in the matter of marriage.

Under DOMA, however, the federal government will not consider a same-sex marriage, validly performed under state law, as a valid marriage under federal law. And that has serious federal income tax implications.

When Robert added Carl, his lawful spouse, to his family health insurance, his HR office informed him that since Carl was not a spouse under federal law, Robert would have to pay taxes on “imputed income” to Carl. “Imputed Income is the addition of the value of cash/non-cash compensation to an employees’ taxable wages,” and both federal income taxes and FICA (Social Security) taxes are assessed against the value of this imputed income.

Robert was shocked when he saw his next paycheck. In order to cover the imputed value of providing health insurance to his spouse – an action that is never applied to an opposite-sex spouse – his employer had withheld an additional $450/month from his paycheck.

As a middle-class income-earner, the loss of an additional $5,400 annually was too much to absorb. Robert removed Carl from his health insurance policy, and Carl applied for – and received – HIV coverage under the Ryan White Act.

The sad reality is that without DOMA, Carl could have been added to a private insurance policy just as any other spouse could be, without the punishing effect of federal taxes associated with imputed income.

Because of DOMA, American taxpayers will now pay a minimum of $36,000 annually for Carl. And this is just a single instance of a pattern that is replicated across the nation.

There are over 1.1 million HIV positive Americans. 30% receive assistance through the Two Billion dollar plus Ryan White Care Act. Close to half might currently or eventually be eligible for private insurance coverage through spouses, civil unions, domestic partnership arrangements, or company policies.

Fiscal Conservatives, take note: one of the single most significant actions you could take to reduce spending and taxpayer burden, while improving health care provisions for hundreds of thousands of Americans, is to repeal the provision of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of valid state marriages.

The only real question is whether you believe that punishing homosexual couples is a more important public policy goal.

*Robert and Carl are not their real names, but they are real people and the dollar figures and story are entirely accurate.
--------------------------

SOURCES:

CDC 'HIV Prevalence Estimates -- United States, 2006' MMWR 57(39), 3 October 2008
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100057404
http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm
AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) - Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fact Sheet
U.S. Census Bureau. “County Business Patterns: 2000.”
Human Rights Campaign, “State of the Workplace: 2006.”
http://www.haasjr.org/index.php
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/imputed-income/

New Hampshire House Preserves Marriage Equality, 201-135

More good news from my home state...about an hour ago, the New Hampshire House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited gay marriage in New Hampshire. CACR 28 would have defined marriage by restricting it to a man and a woman.

As a Constitutional Amendment, it required a 60% margin in the legislature...and it did not even gain 50%. It was rejected 201-135, a big change from last fall when Marriage Equality squeaked through the state legislature by less than a dozen votes. While this may show significant movement in the right direction, the cheering is a little dampened by the fact that 60 legislators did not show up to vote. If they were all "anti" Marriage Equality, then there has really been very little movement at all. We will need to see who was absent before we draw too many conclusions. [UPDATE: 40 republicans supported Marriage Equality this time around, suggesting an actual shift...]

Had this passed, it would have gone on to a vote by the public, which was the main argument that CACR28's supporters kept making: that 'the people' ought to be able to vote on marriage. It apparently never occured to these legislators that 'the people' dont get to vote on "rights:" we never subject questions of free speech, or Miranda Rights, or gun ownership, to majoritarian votes, because majoritarianism is the antithesis of liberty and rights.

A concurrent effort to ask Town Meetings to adopt a "let the people vote resolution" effort is failing miserably. Even in reliably Republican Towns, such as Rindge, town meeting voters are removing and rejecting Town Meeting Warrant items seeking a public vote on Marriage Equality. Winchester (my home town), Rye, and Deerfield have all rejected it in recent days.

A second vote to repeal the bill that established Marriage Equality last fall failed by an even bigger margin: 210-109.

For my Partner, Scott, a native Louisiana Cajun.....

iiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Laissez les bon-temps rouler!!!

************WHO DAT!!!!!***********

Obama on DADT: A Pathetic Coward

According to this morning's Washington Post:

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen also are expected to announce the creation of a group to assess how to carry out a full repeal of the decades-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay soldiers to keep their sexual orientation secret.

But Gates and Mullen are also expected to tell senators that it could take years to integrate gay men and lesbians fully into the military, defense officials said. Two appointees will be named to oversee a group that will draw up plans for integrating the armed forces, according to sources familiar with the Pentagon's deliberations on the subject. The planning effort is expected to take up to a year.

Among the issues to be addressed by the group: whether gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job; whether the Pentagon will be obligated to provide for their domestic partners; and whether straight military personnel could be compelled to share quarters with gays

What a foot-dragging, anemic, crock of shit.

"Years to implement?" It's really very easy: Just end it.

The military already has MANY gay and lesbian members SERVING AND FIGHTING AND DIEING. It is *NOT* a question of figuring out "how to let them in." THEY ARE IN ALREADY. Straight soldiers are ALREADY COMPELLED to share quarters with gay soldiers, just as white soldiers are COMPELLED to share quarters with lack sodiers (gasp!)...and military preparedness and unit cohesion does not suffer.

But individual soldiers do suffer.

A group of soldiers are on leave or having a little down time at a local watering hole. Many of them comment on the tail they hope they get, or wolf-whistle at the waitress they call 'sweetheart,' and comment among themselves as to how hot she is. This of course, is normal, red-blooded American Boy-talk, right?

But one of the soldiers in their midst has to pretend. He has to force a smile, or force a stupid comment or become 'suspect' by the others. He can't be who he is, or say what or how he feels. Because if he does, he loses his job, his health insurance, his honor, his pension, his pension.

Elsewhere, a group of soldiers are talking about how they miss their wives and children, and sharing stories of Christmas and breakfasts and vacations, and how they can't wait to see them again. But another soldier is forced to lie, saying there is no one in his life, no one to go back to. If he admits to having a partner, he avoids or invents that partner's name...bBecasue if he shares his longing, too, he loses his job, his halth insurance, his honor, his pension.

Oh, he's good enough to shoot and fight and die. He's good enough to serve, and receive medals and honors - As long as he lives in a closet of denial, as long as he shares nothing, as long as he avoids friendship with others in his platoon, as long as he holds everything so close to his chest that no one gets in.

President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the Aremd Forces and as the Head of the Executive Branch, with one penstroke you can end DADT dismissals just as Harry Truman integrated the military. It's time to do it NOW, before another American hero loses his or her lifetime contribution to our nation because of your cowardice.

Obama and the Democrats' "Gay Problem"

The Problem: The gay community is (pick one: annoyed, frustrated, outraged) at the slow pace of the Obama administration in delivering on campaign promises. The only serious legal challenge to DADT is being waged by the Log Cabin Republicans, and the Obama Justice Department is defending DADT in homophobic language. If the Log Cabin wins, the Republicans can make legitimate inroads into the formerly-solidly Democratic gay community. If they lose, the Obama administration will be blamed. Either way, Obama and the Democrats LOSE.

So...My Prediction:


1) Obama proposes a Freeze on federal spending.

2) Obama cuts a deal with the Pentagon that he will exempt the Defense budget from that freeze, if they will accept DADT.

3) Pentagon generals lukewarmly support DADT at Congressional hearings.

4) DADT repeal is embedded in the Defense budget. Conservative Republicans dont like to oppose defense budgets. Liberal Democrats see a way to end DADT. Differences in the Defense budget can be reconciled by the House-Senate Conference Committee, and passed by a simple majority, thus thwarting GOP efforts to filibuster now that Scott Brown is "the Forty-First."

5) With DADT repealed, the Federal Courts must throw out the lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans against DADT as it is now moot.

6) Obama claims that he and the Dems have saved the day for the GLBT community.

7) Obama then back tracks with Fundamentalists and reiterates his support for DOMA and for the idea that marriage should be reserved for "one-man-one-woman."

8) Gay Activists applaud Obama for ending DADT, dismiss the GOP, and ask the gay grass roots to "give Obama time" on DOMA. Gay money and votes continue to flow to the Democrats in lemming-like fashion.

Anyone wanna place bets?

END DON'T ASK DON'T TELL NOW! Republicans, are you LISTENING!?!?!

"Last night, the president repeated his campaign commitment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell as part of his State of the Union address. While the President promised that DADT would come to an end 'this year,' he did not provide specifics – and the White House still has not released a plan to kill it. That's unacceptable. I served in the Army for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell – an immoral policy that forces American soldiers to lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception. As I learned at West Point, deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force. That's why I feel strongly that America can't afford to allow this policy to continue one day longer. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now.” – Lt. Dan Choi, who is fighting his military discharge through the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, writing for the Courage Campaign’s “Don’t Wait, Don’t Delay” petition to President Obama

Senator Lot...er, I meant Scott.....Brown

Scott Brown, the first Republican elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in nearly four decades, at his Vistory Speech: "And just in case, to anybody who is watching throughout the country, yes, they're both available. ...Only kidding, only kidding...Arianna's definitely not available, but Ayla is..."

Lot, on speaking to the crowd gathered outside his home in Sodom: "Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." (Genesis 19:6-8, New International Version)

What the hell was Scott Brown thinking to publicly embarrass his daughters like that?

Getting the Message, Fellow Republicans?

(Cindy McCain, left, and Meghan McCain, right)
Margaret Hoover, Fox News Commentator and grandaughter of GOP President Herbert Hoover: Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed “miscegenation.” How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

For those of you who would label me a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) for taking this stand, I direct you to Vice President Cheney, whose conservative credentials are impeccable, and who answered a question on the topic before the National Press Club audience on June 1, 2009 by saying simply, “…freedom means freedom for everyone.”

Please visit Facebook page Republicans for Marriage Equality and American Equal Rights Foundation to follow the details of the trial.

Steve Schmidt, McCain's Chief Campaign Strategist: "I'm personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time. I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they're troubled by it.

I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage. The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.

Any campaign that would go out and try to demonize people on the basis of their sexual orientation is abhorrent and I suspect that that campaign would be rejected."

Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders: "I could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people that they were unequal . . . I couldn't look them in the face and tell them their relationships were any less meaningful than the relationship I shared with my wife."