Scorecard on NY Marriage Equality: The Players and the Numbers

With all the tweets and [contradictory] news reports, I thought it might be helpful to give Non-New Yorkers (as well as confused New Yorkers) a scorecard on where things stand.

New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Democratically-controlled lower house (the Assembly) are in favor of Marriage Equality. In fact, the Assembly has passed a Marriage Equality bill three times.

The hang-up is in the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans by a slim margin of 32 - 30. There are a total of 62 Senators; unlike the US Senate or other states, a 31-31 tie is *not* broken by the Lt. Governor or some other figure. Therefore, in order to pass the Senate, 32 votes are needed.

29 Democrats are on record in support of the bill; one (Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx) does not. That means supporters need to get three Republicans to support the Bill.

2 Republicans have, in fact, announced full support (Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, and Sen McDonald of Saratoga). That makes 31. One more is needed.

Who the 32nd vote could be is a matter of conjecture (and I offer my own conjectures below). The Senate was supposed to recess for the summer on Monday; Senate leaders have been meeting relentlessly with the Assembly leaders and the Governor in order to insure that religious institutions are protected from lawsuits if the bill is adopted. The discussions go beyond protecting churches from performing same-sex marriages (they are already protected under the US Constitution's First Amendment), but also protecting quasi-businesses (Catholic Knights of Columbus Halls renting their facilities for weddings) and sectarian Adoption Agencies that receive government grants to operate.

So, if these issues are resolved, and a 32nd vote is found, does that means Equality is won? NO.

The leader of the Republican Caucus in the Senate, Sen. Dean Skelos of Long Island, has the 'right' to place the bill on the Senate's agenda for a vote - or to refuse to place it on the agenda, thus killing the bill by thwarting a vote, even if a majority of the Senate favors the bill. Skelos has promised to make this decision based on his closed-door negotiations with the Republican Senators.

In other words, one or more Republican Senators can pledge support for the bill, but since the majority of Republicans oppose it, they can block it from even coming to the floor for a vote.

If it DOES come up on the floor for a vote, and if it DOES pass, it's not over: the Senate's version of the bill is already known to be different than the version passed by the Assembly; therefore, the Assembly will have to be called back into session to pass the Senate's version. Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver has pledged to do this. It is assumed that the Assembly will support any bill passed by the Senate, but if the religious 'protections' are too broad, there *could* be a revolt in that chamber.

The Main Players:

Mike Long, Chair of the Conservative Party of New York State. In New York, 'minor' parties are able to 'cross-endorse' major party candidates, so that a candidate may run for election as a Republican and as a Conservative. The votes from both 'lines' are combined to give the candidates their winning totals. Even though the Conservatives control only 5% of vote, that is enough to provide the margin of victory in many districts. Long has threatened to withhold Conservative Party endorsement from any Republican who votes for Marriage Equality...and has gone further in demanding that the Repubicans not even allow the issue to be voted on. Ironically, Republican candidates in tight re-election races are caught between a rock and a hard place: they may very well need the Conservative Party line to win, but if their district is that close, they risk losing independents and moderates who overwhleming support Marriage Equality.

Countering Mike Long is Frank McKay, Chair of the Independence Party of New York. Though the Party does not have a stance on the bill, McKay favors it...and the Independence Party often delivers three times the number of votes than the Conservatives do. Many Republican Senators run with the support of both the Conservative and the Independence Party - but after this vote, they may be forced to ally themselves with one over the other.

Long Island Senator Dean Skelos is the Republican leader of the Senate. He has run with Conservative Party cross-endorsement, and has been consistent in stating he opposes the bill. As the highest-ranking Republican legislator who controls the Senate chamber with a razor-thin margin, he could be expected to try and mollify Conservatives, and even block a vote...or at least use it for political horse-trading on other issues with the Governor. However, Skelos has also repeatedly stated that he will allow the Republican caucus to decide whether or not to allow a vote. It is not known whether this is his way of avoiding personal responsibility for the issue, or whether he is buying time to twist Republican arms to gather support for the vote. Interestingly, Skelos regularly refers to the issue as "Marriage Equality," a phrase that supporters use (opponents usually say "gay marriage.") In addition, at least one Albany-area GLBT activist close to legislative activities privately confided to this blogger that Skelos secretly supports the bill.

Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, the only Democrat who opposes the bill, and who once stated, "I AM the Church AND the State." He has actively fought the bill, and busloads of church groups from his home district have arrived in Albany over the last few days in an effort to pray and sing the bill away.

Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican to break ranks and declare his support for the bill. Alesi not only declared support, but personally appeared and spoke at a pro-Equality rally on the West Capitol Plaza on Tuesday, to the cheers of the crowd.

Sen. Roy McDonald of Saratoga, the second Republican to break ranks, who did so with this colorful announcement:

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that.

Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

State Senator Greg Ball of the Lower Hudson Valley, long considered a swing Republican vote on the issue, who used his status to maximize media attention, including a well-publicized Twitter campaign asking for feedback. In spite of overwhelming support among responses, Ball announced two hours ago he was voting no, winning him the "Media-Whore-But-A-Thorough-Coward" award of the session. No real surprise: he had Conservative Party cross-endorsement last time, but not Independence Party support.

The Republican Swing Votes: Follow the votes of the following Senators, for the stated reasons: From Long Island, where polls show strong support for the bill: Senator Kemp Hannon , who has a fairly safe district with R-C-I support, who was involved in negotiations with the Governor on this bill, and who has been the beneficiary of numerous gay campaign workers, including this blogger; Sen. Chuck Fuschillo, who won without Conservative Party support; Sen. John J. Flanagan, who had both Conservative & Independence Party support and is officially "undecided"; and Sen. Jack Martins , who won without Conservative Party endorsement, and whose district includes heavily Democratic, liberal and Jewish neighborhoods in Great Neck, Lake Success, Roslyn, Manhasset and North Hills.

In addition, Sen. Andrew J. Lanza from Staten Island, who won without Conservative Party support in 2010; Sen. Stephen Saland an influential Senator from Poughkeepsie, who never had Conservative Party support to begin with, and who was involved in negotiations with Cuomo over religious protections on this bill; Sen. Patty Ritchie of Watertown, who did not have Conservative support but whose district is part of a Congressional District that elected a Democrat in last years special election; and Sen. Mark Grisanti, from North Buffalo, who ran on three lines last time (R, C, I) and won with significant support from organized labor. His law practice specializing in taking up the causes of the disenfranchised.

The Clock is ticking....

Rest in Peace, Finally, Mark

Mark Parsons was a big-hearted man, a philosopher, a theologian in his own right, a housemate for over a year, and, most of all, a wonderful man and a true friend.

He wrote the following last night, before taking his life this morning. The message is universal:

Hate creates Hate and here is proof

"I am a gay man with AIDS. I have been living with it for 27 years now. I always see bible thumping christians pontificating about the evils of homosexuality but did you know an even more incideous hate exitsts very close by where the people have access to you heart and Soul? Your sisters perhaps? You know, the "I love you but wish you weren't gay thing". Always a but.......Here is a quote from my Loving sweet sinister, [name ommitted by me]

You fucking AIDS faggot! I wish you would die fucking soon so me and the rest of our family can catch a break! Will you please fucking die and get it over with!

This is the woman I chose to be my health care proxy. I know, that is kind of like a jew asking hitler over for dinner. But i have a forgiving heart, but after all haven't I been forgiven by so many! But I thought this would be a good lesson for ME because now I will know the results of manifesting Hate in the world. I have always wondered what that was like and Now I will now. What I may do with the information I am not really sure. I will let you know in a follow up. I can't really recall ever manifesting hate before. I wonder if it will make me feel guilty. Probably not because guilt really only comes from judging doesnt it? Ulnimately the lesson will be mine. I wonder if all the "Loving" people in my life will turn on me. That would be interesting. Maybe I will get suid but thats no problem because i don't have anything. Or i guess I could go to jail but they at last will provide three hots and a cot."

Love you always, Mark....

Rally in Albany: Tues Jun 21, 12 Noon

If you are within a half day's drive of Albany, New York, you can be part of what could be one of the most important civil rights milestones of our generation.

Time: Tuesday, June 21 · 12:00pm - 1:00pm
Location Albany, NY -- West Capitol Park, outside the State Capitol

*Please join New Yorkers United for Marriage: Rally for Love and Marriage*

There are a number of issues still to be resolved in Albany, which means the Legislature will be staying beyond the original June 20th deadline.

We are heartened that there continues to be respectful and productive dialogue on the issue of marriage equality and believe we are getting close to a vote on the Governor's marriage bill.

New Yorkers United for Marriage asks you to join us at a Rally for Love and Marriage tomorrow --Tuesday June 21 -- at noon outside the Capitol in Albany. Together, we will make sure that all New Yorkers will soon be able to marry the person they love.

TRANSPORTATION INFO --

**Megabus:
Departs 7:00 AM New York, West Side of 9th Ave between 31st St and 33rd St
Arrives 9:45 AM Albany, Rensselaer Station
2hrs 45mins
1 seat = $12.00
www.megabus.com

NY Senate Republicans Stalling of Equality exposes Cowardice

According to Michael Gormley of the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans in New York say protecting religious groups that won't perform gay weddings or offer services to gay couples is a major factor in their refusal so far to bring same-sex marriage to a vote."

Marriage Equality in New York - which would probably pass if a vote was taken in the Senate - is being held up because the Republican-controlled Senate is (so far) not permitting the bill to be scheduled for a vote. The Senate adjourns on Monday.

Their reason? That religious institutions are not being protected in the bill.

A reason, that, in plain language, is a pure crap.

Religious institutions have ALWAYS been protected under the US Constitution to create their own rules for membership and marriage. Since our birth as a country, heterosexuals have had the right to marry; However, NO Roman Catholic Church has been forced to marry non-catholics. Synagogues have not been forced to marry non-Jews. Every religious institution has ALWAYS had the right to define who was eligible for marriage within that religious institution.

What the proposed law in New York State refers to is the legal right to be married in a CIVIL ceremony, as recognized by the STATE - it has NO effect on the right of religious institutions to conduct their own policy as they have seen fit, just as they have always done. This delay tactic by the GOP, presumably to protect religious institutions, has nothing to do with churches and everything to do with playing politics with peoples lives. And, quite frankly, not having the balls to stand up to the the RC Archbishop, Hassidic Jewish leaders, and the Conservative Party, which has threatened to withhold its endorsement from any Republican supporting the Marriage Equality Bill.

To be sure, the Conservative Party can deliver the margin of victory in a race, as it commands about 5% of the vote in many districts. However, the Conservative Party is notoriously weak and disorganized - if not entirely unorganized. When Conservative Party leaders are challenged by insurgents, it has been standard operating procedure for those leaders to call upon Republican operatives to step in and do their campaign leg-work for them...and yet, the NY GOP - once the most progressive in the nation - continues to allow itself to be emasculated as the Conservative Party becomes the very small tail that wags a once very large dog.

To be fair, in recent years, there have been two series of court decisions that, on their face, have seemed to require religious institutions to provide services to gay couples, and this may be part of the fear that some Senators have. It makes sense, then, to look at these two decisions.

The first is the Ocean Grove, New Jersey case, where the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was stripped of its non-profit status because it would not allow gay couples to rent their oceanfront boardwalk pavilion for weddings. Conservatives immediately pointed to this as evidence that 'gay marriage' would force religious institutions to provide services against their beliefs. But a closer look at the Ocean Grove situation shows their fears to be empty.

The pavilion is not owned by the United Methodist Church (as is often claimed), but by an independent organization called the "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association." (There are "Camp Meeting Associations" associated with revival meetings within Methodism all up and down the eastern seaboard). The OGCMA owns all the land in a 1 square mile section of Neptune Township, but leases most of it out to homeowners and businesses. The pavilion in question received its tax exemption NOT BY BEING A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, BUT THROUGH THE NEW JERSEY "GREEN ACRES" PROGRAM, whose purpose is to provide tax breaks for properties which help preserve open space for enjoyment and use by the public, without discrimination. The OGCMA never reserved the pavilion for Christian weddings or religious services of ANY kind, and received its tax exemption for preserving open green space. Thus, this case did NOT involve an infringement on religious rights, but on the terms of a state program exchanging tax relief for public access.

The second series of cases Conservatives point to involve adoption services offered through religious-oriented agencies such as Catholic Charities. In Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, courts or legislatures have made it clear that these agencies can not discriminate against applicants, if they receive state tax money. In a number of jurisdictions, Catholic Charities has chosen to longer place children in foster care or adoption rather than comply with these rulings.

However, they had another choice: they could have stopped taking taxpayer funding. In each case, the agencies were prohibited from discriminating precisely because state governments were contracting with them to perform state functions - the placement of children into foster care or adoptive families. Catholic Charities can not claim to be both a private religious institution on one hand - and then stay afloat by using tax dollars paid for by Americans of all religious stripes on the other - and expect to be able to serve only those with their own religious viewpoint. (It should also be pointed out that these agencies were not only prohibited from discriminating against gays, but also against single moms and cohabiting heterosexuals).

Even though both of these cases turned on very specific, non-religious issues - tax exemption for open space, or state contractual duties using taxpayer money - Conservatives continue to claim that gay marriage will destroy religious groups' ability to practice their own faith. This, of course, is complete nonsense.

And the New York Republican Senate's efforts to avoid and stall Marriage Equality based on these arguments is shallow and cowardly.

Dean Skelos, Kemp Hannon, Chuck Fuschillo, John Flanagan, Mark Grisanti - your constituents deserve better than kowtowing to the Conservatives and throwing up religious smokescreens to avoid doing the right thing...

Open Letter to NYS Senators Hannon, Skelos & Fuschillo:

Dear Senators Hannon, Skelos, and Fuscillo:

As a former Baldwin resident and Past President of the Nassau County Young Republicans, who worked tirelessly on your campaigns for a decade, I am asking that you stand for what is right and support Marriage Equality in New York State.

Kemp, in the late 1970s, you ran for NYS Assembly for the first time. I met you daily, running ahead of you to make sure that we knocked on every door in South Hempstead for your first campaign. I spoke to voters, delivered literature, and worked phone banks on your behalf. While I certainly can’t claim credit for the victory that launched your life-long electoral career, I can recount the endless effort I put into your campaigns. You accepted that help gratefully. You didn’t ask whether I was gay or straight, and it didn’t seem to matter.

Dean and Charlie, your very electoral survival is due, in part, to the tireless efforts of gay men on your behalf. When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 and again in 1984, there were serious concerns that he could not carry a state such as New York….and that his coattails (or lack thereof) might damage ‘local’ Republicans. None of you complained when Terry Dolan, a gay man, founded and operated NCPAC (the National Conservative Political Action Committee) out of a Greenwich Village rowhouse, to insure a lopsided Reagan victory in New York. Rolling into the 1990s, you all were nervous when Bill Clinton was polling double-digits ahead of George HW Bush, and, later, Bob Dole on Long Island….but that didn’t stop you from calling on the expertise of Art Finkelstein – another gay man – who had practically set up shop out of Nassau Co GOP Headquarters, beginning with his engineering of Al D’Amato to the statehouse. As Clinton steamrolled over the GOP in NY, Finkelstein coordinated media messages that resulted in victories from Pataki down to yourselves. And in spite of the Democratic wins in NY and nationally, you all managed to hang on to your seats for three decades.

All with the help – acknowledged or not – of gay men you on whom you were more than happy to rely.

I organized rallies, manned phone banks, coordinated enthusiastic youth for your events, ran local headquarter operations, and responded to every request.

And so now, as an “out,” gay man in his 50’s, I ask this of you: Do the right thing, and take this opportunity to end the apartheid treatment of your gay and lesbian constituents.

I now live in New Hampshire, arguably a far more conservative state than New York. We have had full Marriage Equality for a year and a half now. The sky has not fallen. Churches have not been forced to do anything contrary to their beliefs. Marriages across society have not suffered. Children have not been harmed.

Rather, people have avoided bankruptcy and unaddressed illness because they’ve been covered by their spouses health insurance. Children have been able to refer to their parents, rather than “mom and her friend.” Hospitals and banks have been able to afford spousal recognition on marital property. Couples have been afforded security and equality. And society has continued, stronger than ever.

Gay men and women are all around you. They have voted for you, strategized for you, and campaigned for you. They have the same dreams for their children, the same hopes and dreams for their future as any other of your constituents.

Do the right thing, and be a part of history in New York.

Sincerely,

T. Thomas Fitzsimmons
(f/k/a Thomas Simmons)

"Loving" and the Fight for Marriage Equality

Cherry Grove vs. Fire Island Pines

[2013 Update at end of post...]
 
Growing up as a Long Island beach bum, Fire Island was never too far away, and for many years I worked up a full-body tan at Lighthouse Beach in Kismet. But this Memorial Day Weekend, my boyfriend and I decided to make the ultimate gay men’s beach pilgrimage to the more ‘fabulous’ communities on the island, and took an early morning ferry over to Cherry Grove. What follows are the experiences and reactions of two middle-aged Fire Island ‘virgins.’

After disembarking, we followed the boardwalk to the Grove Hotel, a complex that includes the Ice Palace dance club, pool and poolside bar, beach store, and pizza parlor. We had no reservations, but walked into the ‘lobby’ and were rented a room. The office staff introduced themselves by name, and set the ‘atmosphere’ for what would be a very laid-back, ‘no-problem,’ relaxed location. While the hotel itself bears the salt-blasted, foot-worn, not-quite-level, and dry-rotted evidence of an old wooden family resort, our room was clean, roomy, bright, and we thought, quite a bargain.

That day, there were several drag-queen lead events taking place at poolside. We tend to be more ‘at home’ with a Bear-crowd, and decided to skip the Queen events and head out to the beach for the day. But I need to add that while there is a century-long love affair between The Grove and its Drag Queens, the population that weekend was entirely diverse: Queens, bears, twinks, young, old, black, white, hippies and preppies, lesbians, and liberal-minded straight couples with their children all mingling together on the narrow boardwalks and the beachfront for the weekend. Our nakedness on the beach in the middle of all this was pretty much ignored and accepted…although we discovered later that day that a remote stretch between The Grove and The Pines was a more popular with nude sunbathers.

Everywhere we went, people – both visitors and Island employees – were friendly and laid-back, but quick to laugh. At the hotel bar, we quickly learned the bartenders names (Todd, John, Ken, Chuck), and hanging out at poolside quite literally meant hanging out with our new bartender-friends, as well as other guests who joined in the ‘party’ and bought rounds of shots.

The friendliness continued everywhere we went – at Floyd’s, we enjoyed the most incredibly delicious breakfasts and great conversations with the Irishwoman who owns the place, and when I went into the Island Breeze to order some dinner and a drink, the bartender greeted me – like so many people here – by introducing himself with a handshake.

In walking around the Grove, we detected a very strong sense of community – a sense created, in part, by the tightly-clustered patterns of modest-sized homes that ‘fit’ into, and became part of, the beachside landscape, and by the narrow (five feet max?) boardwalks that forced eye contact and a bit of physical maneuvering between those out for a walk.

In one of our conversations, a well-meaning woman suggested that we head down to Fire Island Pines for a day. She added, “…there’s got to be about 200 Chelsea boys down there…,” a reference to the young muscle boys from the Chelsea gyms in Manhattan. Since we were just ‘taking the island in,’ we figured that should be our next stop, and we headed off through the trails in the “Meat Rack” and wound up in Fire Island Pines.
The physical difference between the two communities impacted us immediately. Upon arriving in the Pines, we found narrow boardwalks as in the Grove, but we also found ourselves on an actual dirt/sand roadway that would have accommodated two-way vehicular traffic. And in fact, those would be large vehicles: dump trucks and service trucks, filled with landscaping tools and bags of compost, used to service huge houses which exploded out of the landscape. In one of the most brutal landscaping assaults I have ever seen, one homeowner had sited his home at the back of his lot, and cleared the entire yard of the native sand, beachgrass, and beach flora. Instead, the bulldozed plot was planted with unnatural-looking birch trees and covered with – of all things – wood chips. Wow. How to stick out like a sore thumb and import your suburban mindset onto a barrier island….

As we walked this ‘road’ towards the harbor, others past us buy, but they generally avoided eye contact and conversation. We were clearly visitors – or perhaps seen as imported ‘help’ – in someone else’s kingdom.

Upon arrival at the Harbor, we hoped to have a few drinks and lunch, but first stopped at a small retail shop, Jalston’s, to buy a hat for my boyfriend, who was beginning to feel the effects of the sun beating down on his uncovered head. With the exception of a woofy man doing some plumbing work there, the visit to buy a hat was a complete disaster. They had no clue as to their prices, and flipped indiscriminately through folders and papers to find a price. After more than 15 minutes of waiting, the sales clerk (Owner? I don’t know – we never learned his name) – said, ‘take the hat…go have some drinks…give me $60 as a deposit…we’ll settle up later.”

Frustrated with waiting, we agreed. The clerk then insisted that he personally walk us to a pool and bar on the harbor, and “set us up.” Off we went to poolside…along a walk littered with garbage and debris. We were then set up under a desert-tent-looking shelter, which, in the sun, simply retained heat, and our clerk/host took off. I went up to the bar to order, and realized that some shaded tables at dockside were actually much cooler than at poolside, so we switched tables, and I ordered our drinks.

I would learn that I could not wait at the bar and get my drinks…rather, they had to be ‘delivered’ to me by the bartender – who never once said hello, or introduced himself, or established eye contact, or spoke to us after delivering the drinks – drinks that cost us $32.50 for TWO (yes, TWO) Jack Daniels & 7-ups.

We decided this was not the place for us. We returned to Jalstons where they had not yet uncovered the price, and then suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, here it is! $54.00 and change! See how close we estimated?!” I was handed back a $5 bill as change. My boyfriend promptly tweeted: “Jalstons: Overpriced, disorganized, poor service, not a recommendation at all, steer clear.” With that, we decided to head back to the Grove by trying a different path, hoping to leave with a better impression than the one created upon our arrival.

No such luck.

We passed an older gentleman in a negligee who chose not to respond to our nods of “hello” as we passed him. The woman (the only woman we’d seen in The Pines) with whom he was walking, however, commented on a ‘flock’ of plastic pink garden flamingoes, calling them “geese.”

Danny and I looked at each other and couldn’t even begin to deconstruct this odd encounter. We quickened our pace, and returned to the Grove.

Our first stop? Our hotel.

“Can we stay an extra night?,” we asked.

“Of course!” our friends responded.

And so, for $60, we had another day in Cherry Grove (as opposed to that same amount buying us three drinks, or a hat in The pretentious Pines).

So, back to our new friends Todd, and John, and Ken, and Chuck, at the Poolside Bar in Cherry Grove, and Floyd’s, and the Island Breeze,

We’ll return to Fire Island again and again, that’s for sure.

To Cherry Grove.
--------------------
 2013 Update:  SO, we have done more than simply 'return' to the Grove.  We have become summer residents. 

Throwing in on a house-share arrangement, we are fortunate to have a rental just a few steps from the dock.  We are now here at the end of April, and the last weeks of May, June, July, August, and September, and a five day stretch in October. When the weekend party crowds dissipate, we ae surrounded by "known" faces - other summer residents who already know our names, or at least recognize us.  We have "our" barstools at Cherry's On The Bay (my new favorite bar), where I can drink all day if I want, wear no shirt, and smoke my pipe, all while watching the boats arrive and depart at the dock.  We spent Memorial Day weekend 2013 chasing clueless people off of the sand dunes, erecting "Stay Off The Dune" Signs, and pining back the National Park Service's ears for overzealous enforcement.

It feels like "home," and, for me, retirement is a mere 2 years away.

Justice, 10 years later. Osama bin Laden is Dead.

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.

A Radical Christmas....

They crossed the border and snuck into another country. They did this, if course, because they were fleeing the law. She was an unwed mother with a 3-year old in tow; the man accompanying her, a cradle-robber many years her senior. As could be expected, they lived under the radar in poverty.

When her son grew older, his tendency was to hang around rough-talking, hot-headed fishermen and befriend prostitutes. He walked comfortably with lepers, more interested in shooting the sh*t with them than he was afraid of catching their disease. Clearly, he was not the product of Polite Society.

He would call respected religious leaders 'vipers,' and use physical force to destroy their business. He, and his cousin, and his band of vagrants would wander, homeless, from place to place living on handouts. A political radical, he brought attention to the plight of the poor, the diseased, the homeless, the immigrant, the single parent, the fatherless child. He embarrassed good people everywhere.

The government found him to be an anarchist, a revolutionary, a subversive, a malcontent, a trouble-maker.

Proper religious leaders rallied their followers in opposition to this disturber of the status quo and of sound theology.

And so, in accordance with civil order, and national security, and common decency, and the Rule of Law, he was executed.

Nonetheless...every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, and will be fuel for the fire. For unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:5, 6)

May you all have a Radical Christmas.