As hurricane season kicks into gear and the Gulf Coast is still a mess, more Americans are losing health care, housing and energy costs skyrocket, and more jobs head overseas – our federal legislators are dealing with issues of monumental importance – like flag burning. It is midterm, time for the pre-2008 posturing to begin. Here in NH the furor over our first in the nation primary is in full roar. The Democratic National Committee wants to give Nevada the first primary, followed closely by NH and Iowa. The blame is flying in all directions.
NH abandoned the caucus system in 1913, and substituted a primary instead. The first real official presidential primary took place in 1916, but it didn’t become important until 1952. That was the year that Eisenhower defeated Taft, and Estes Kefauver defeated Truman in the primary, and as a result, Truman gave up on running for a third term. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson also dropped out of the race, after winning the NH primary by a very small margin (49 -42%) over Eugene McCarthy. Prior to 1992, the person elected president had always won the NH primary. Bill Clinton broke the pattern in 1992. Since then, John McCain and Pat Buchanan have both won the NH presidential primary, but did not go on to win their party’s nomination. In 1977, NH passed legislation stating that the NH primary would fall before that of any other state.
It is a tradition for those first cold ballots to be cast in tiny Dixville Notch, just after midnight. News broadcasts around the nation show footage of that voting, which may seem peculiar in some parts of the country, but it is tradition. Ritual and tradition are important, as well as comforting, in an increasingly disordered world. I don’t subscribe to the “we’ve always done it that way” school of thought, but I do respect tradition, and as a long time NH resident, I like the primary tradition.
The Democratic Party doesn’t see it the same way. Despite the fact that NH was the only state that went from red to blue in 2004, the Democrats have had the first in the nation primary in their sights, and this year they’ve gone after it. NH is a state full of white people, and that the population has been largely conservative. The DNC has stated that their goal is to add early primaries that are more representative of other states in terms of racial diversity and political viewpoint. Are we truly a political bellwether for the rest of the nation? Probably not - but NH is becoming more diverse with each passing year, and our political viewpoint is shifting. We’re on the cusp of actually becoming a two-party state! The DNC’s timing couldn’t be more wretched.
Let us not overlook the real reason for the outrage. Most of it is around money. I realize this may sound cynical – but think about it. Presidential candidates drop a bundle here. That income is important to tax free NH. The other reason is that the primary puts us on the map. If NH didn’t have that first in the nation primary, would candidates bother to spend as much time here in our small, not particularly influential state? Would we all still be able to boast that we’d met all, or most of the candidates? The first in the nation primary puts us on the map. It’s not surprising that we’d be upset about being shoved off the map.
The state GOP and our NH Congressional delegation are blaming all of this on state Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan. I’m no friend of Ms. Sullivan – but this is hardly her fault. The DNC has been worked hard by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Just in case the NH GOP hasn’t been paying attention – NH doesn’t have a Democrat in Washington. A state party chair doesn’t have the same clout as a senator. There are drawbacks to the one party rule we’ve been enjoying since the Civil War, and this is certainly one of them.
The NH GOP is behaving rather badly on other levels. When state senate candidate Mark Hounsell was forced to drop out of the race, because of health concerns, the NH GOP suggested that perhaps Mark wasn’t really sick. They quickly realized that taking that view made them look like utter slime, and have since gone on to challenge new candidate George Cleveland’s party affiliation. Honest to bob – of all the people to question, they pick George Cleveland?? Given that George and his family have a long visible history with the Democratic Party, their charges are ridiculous, and serve to make state GOP Chair Wayne Semprini look weak and petty. One would hope that they don’t feel that incumbent Joe Kenney could only win if he ran unopposed, but their tactics would seem to indicate otherwise.
That these battles are raging says a lot about the political climate in our state. NH is on the brink of long overdue change. We badly need a two party system – both in our state and in our nation’s capital. Some of the issues our state legislature faced this year are also being faced by our Congressional delegation. NH legislators chose not to put a constitutional amendment banning same gender marriage on the ballot this year. Jeb Bradley was the only member of the New England Congressional delegation to vote in favor of amending the US Constitution to discriminate against a minority population. Numerous anti-immigrant bills were proposed in the NH legislature this year, and all of them went down in flames. Our federal delegation seems rather out of step with the voters of our state. Luckily, we have the power to change that on November 7.
“How can one conceive of a one-party system in a country that has over 200 varieties of cheeses?” Charles De Gaulle (feel free to substitute beer for cheese to make it fit NH)
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Killing the Goose
Twenty-two years ago I moved to the valley. The weekly commute to Concord provides ample time for observation and reflection on the changes that have taken place since I arrived. Nothing lasts forever – and with an expanding population changes are bound to take place. Still, hardly any of those changes are for the better. In 1984, the Shedd Woods really were woods. The site could better be called the Shedd Clearing now. The Scenic Vista was, once upon a time. One of the most profound changes has been in air quality. It is my habit to look out over the open fields in Conway village, just before the railroad tracks next to Kennett High, as I drive into or out of town. In past years one could almost always see Mt. Washington in that view. That’s been a scarce view this summer. One day a few weeks ago the air was so bad that the haze looked more like smoke from a huge forest fire.
As someone who drives a lot, I am aware that I am part of the problem. We all are. We live in communities that have been created around the ownership of automobiles, and we don’t have any kind of public transportation. An informal study last week found that 7 out of every 10 vehicles on Rt. 16 were SUVs, trucks, or motor homes. Even with the high price of gas, gas guzzlers rule our roads. Conservation is an alien concept. Jimmy Carter was (and still is) the subject of ridicule for appearing on national television wearing a sweater, and urging us to turn down our thermostats. Many businesses have nearly as many lights on at night when they’re closed as they do during the day when they are open.
Many people are stuck with gas sucking vehicles, because the US automakers were offering plenty of incentives to buy them. The US car manufacturers are practically giving them away, these days, because the demand for vehicles that get 10 miles per gallon has diminished considerably, and the manufacturers are stuck with the fruit of their ultimate demise. While others in the auto industry were manufacturing hybrids, knowing that oil is a finite resource, the US companies clung to the production of trucks and SUVs. The US automotive industry is in deep trouble – but Big Oil is dancing all the way to the bank. We hear the phrase “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” at least once a day. We seldom hear the correct phrase, which would be “reducing our dependence on oil.”
NH has a love – hate relationship with Big Oil. We love the tourist dollars that drive here in big vehicles. We love the tourist dollars that bring boats, snow machines, and personal watercraft. We’re also suing 22 major oil companies for water pollution caused by the gasoline additive MTBE. The oil industry relentlessly lobbied Congress to require MTBE as an additive, even though they were aware in the 1980’s that MTBE caused undrinkable water. The suit was filed in 2003. As of January 1, 2007, MTBE will no longer be used in NH. The damage is done, however. About 60% of the state relies on groundwater wells. Over 40,000 private wells contain some level of MTBE. At least 15% of the public water supplies in our state have been contaminated.
MTBE leaches into the groundwater through leaky underground tanks. It also enters the water supply through boats and personal watercraft. The old school two-stroke jet skis were terrible polluters, dumping 25-30 percent of their fuel, unburned, into the water. The manufacturers are now producing 4 stroke engines that cut down on the pollution (both noise and water) but create different problems. Many of the lakes that ban the 2 person watercraft have to allow the new, larger 3 and 4 person craft because current NH law considers them boats. The new, larger personal watercraft can reach speeds of over 60 mph, which makes for a lot of conflict between swimmers, jet skis, canoes, and kayaks. Manufacturers claim that the new craft are less noisy. Those fine distinctions are lost on me, they’re all annoyingly loud. These vessels are allowed on Conway, Silver, and Ossippee Lakes. Even when the MTBE ban goes into effect, there is no way of policing MTBE tainted gas coming in from out of state, in recreational vehicles, and dumping into our water.
We find ourselves living in a paradox, here in this part of the state. We are dependent on tourist dollars, and will do anything to court them. We continue to build and pave, and destroy what brought us all here in the first place. We boast of our clean air and water, yet we are unwilling to regulate or ban pollution causing devices. The personal watercraft manufacturers have plenty of lobbyists, and the NH legislature has so far been unwilling to change the laws that apply to them. The mantra of the free trade worshippers is oft invoked “we must give consumers choices.” Yep, even as those choices are made by morons who have no respect for the environment – even as they pollute our water supply, we must accept those choices. Last year I heard Congressman Jeb Bradley, who drives a hybrid truck invoke the consumer choice argument about motor vehicles. It’s as if we are powerless – we must accept pollution and environmental destruction because it is the choice of consumers. We already have significant groundwater pollution as a result of MTBE – will we need to destroy our recreational water supplies, too, before we are willing to change our behavior?
Once we lived on a beautiful planet, with abundant natural resources. We are hell bent on destroying the goose that laid the golden egg.
“The gluttonies devouring nature are remorseless.” Edward Hoagland
As someone who drives a lot, I am aware that I am part of the problem. We all are. We live in communities that have been created around the ownership of automobiles, and we don’t have any kind of public transportation. An informal study last week found that 7 out of every 10 vehicles on Rt. 16 were SUVs, trucks, or motor homes. Even with the high price of gas, gas guzzlers rule our roads. Conservation is an alien concept. Jimmy Carter was (and still is) the subject of ridicule for appearing on national television wearing a sweater, and urging us to turn down our thermostats. Many businesses have nearly as many lights on at night when they’re closed as they do during the day when they are open.
Many people are stuck with gas sucking vehicles, because the US automakers were offering plenty of incentives to buy them. The US car manufacturers are practically giving them away, these days, because the demand for vehicles that get 10 miles per gallon has diminished considerably, and the manufacturers are stuck with the fruit of their ultimate demise. While others in the auto industry were manufacturing hybrids, knowing that oil is a finite resource, the US companies clung to the production of trucks and SUVs. The US automotive industry is in deep trouble – but Big Oil is dancing all the way to the bank. We hear the phrase “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” at least once a day. We seldom hear the correct phrase, which would be “reducing our dependence on oil.”
NH has a love – hate relationship with Big Oil. We love the tourist dollars that drive here in big vehicles. We love the tourist dollars that bring boats, snow machines, and personal watercraft. We’re also suing 22 major oil companies for water pollution caused by the gasoline additive MTBE. The oil industry relentlessly lobbied Congress to require MTBE as an additive, even though they were aware in the 1980’s that MTBE caused undrinkable water. The suit was filed in 2003. As of January 1, 2007, MTBE will no longer be used in NH. The damage is done, however. About 60% of the state relies on groundwater wells. Over 40,000 private wells contain some level of MTBE. At least 15% of the public water supplies in our state have been contaminated.
MTBE leaches into the groundwater through leaky underground tanks. It also enters the water supply through boats and personal watercraft. The old school two-stroke jet skis were terrible polluters, dumping 25-30 percent of their fuel, unburned, into the water. The manufacturers are now producing 4 stroke engines that cut down on the pollution (both noise and water) but create different problems. Many of the lakes that ban the 2 person watercraft have to allow the new, larger 3 and 4 person craft because current NH law considers them boats. The new, larger personal watercraft can reach speeds of over 60 mph, which makes for a lot of conflict between swimmers, jet skis, canoes, and kayaks. Manufacturers claim that the new craft are less noisy. Those fine distinctions are lost on me, they’re all annoyingly loud. These vessels are allowed on Conway, Silver, and Ossippee Lakes. Even when the MTBE ban goes into effect, there is no way of policing MTBE tainted gas coming in from out of state, in recreational vehicles, and dumping into our water.
We find ourselves living in a paradox, here in this part of the state. We are dependent on tourist dollars, and will do anything to court them. We continue to build and pave, and destroy what brought us all here in the first place. We boast of our clean air and water, yet we are unwilling to regulate or ban pollution causing devices. The personal watercraft manufacturers have plenty of lobbyists, and the NH legislature has so far been unwilling to change the laws that apply to them. The mantra of the free trade worshippers is oft invoked “we must give consumers choices.” Yep, even as those choices are made by morons who have no respect for the environment – even as they pollute our water supply, we must accept those choices. Last year I heard Congressman Jeb Bradley, who drives a hybrid truck invoke the consumer choice argument about motor vehicles. It’s as if we are powerless – we must accept pollution and environmental destruction because it is the choice of consumers. We already have significant groundwater pollution as a result of MTBE – will we need to destroy our recreational water supplies, too, before we are willing to change our behavior?
Once we lived on a beautiful planet, with abundant natural resources. We are hell bent on destroying the goose that laid the golden egg.
“The gluttonies devouring nature are remorseless.” Edward Hoagland
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Preemptive Legislation
As I turned on to North Main St. in Concord, I knew something big was going on. It was the last day of voting in the legislature, and the place was packed with representatives hoping to override the governor’s vetoes on a number of bills. With two of the nearby parking garages under construction, parking near the state house has become more competitive than usual. The meter readers were out in full force. If everyone did their job with the zeal of Concord meter readers, the world would be a different place. One of my co-workers was ticketed before her meter expired, because she’d recently had a lot of tickets. It was a preemptive ticketing.
That wasn’t the only preemptive action in Concord this year. A number of voting bills went before the legislature this year, and two survived till the bitter end – they were vetoed by Governor Lynch, and the vetoes were not overturned. The stated intent of both bills was verifying voter eligibility and preventing abuses. After every election, there are investigations of voter fraud. The 2004 elections were no exception. The Secretary of State’s office found that there had been no fraud. NH doesn’t have voter fraud, but some members of the legislature feel a need to continually file preemptive legislation to cure a problem that we don’t have. My job provides me with frequent opportunities to speak with folks from all over the state. People tell me about the things that worry them – usually health care, housing, and wages. Not a single person has told me that their number one concern was voter fraud.
One bill (HB345) would require voters to show photo ID before voting. Those in favor of this legislation say that we have to show photo ID to get on airplanes or cash checks. That makes it sound almost logical – except that flying and banking are both customer situations. We do not (as yet – and don’t rule it out) pay to vote. The people who look at those customer IDs are employees – paid by the airport or the bank. The people who would be checking IDs at the polls are volunteers. Should volunteers have to be trained in verifying photo ID? If they are to become experts in reading ID, where will they be trained and who will pick up the tab? How will voting absentee be handled? Who will be checking the absentee ID? Will nursing home residents be forced to pay for ID they no longer need, so that they can vote? What about same day registration? Over 2000 people registered to vote in Carroll County on Election Day in 2004. They signed a domicile affidavit at the polls. Will we do away with same day registration? What if those people have moved to NH fairly recently, and their photo ID address isn’t the same as their real address? Will we refuse to allow them to vote? How will we handle the bottleneck at the polls, when the line halts while the volunteer expert reads the ID and determines its validity? There are a lot of questions that are never answered by those who favor the preemptive voting legislation.
The second bill, HB 1566 would require photo ID to match physical address, and give the voter 40 days to make the changes. The aim is to force college students (long suspected of infiltrating the state to vote here, thereby ensuring the Democratic dictatorship we see in the NH House and Senate) to have cars registered and licenses changed over in order to vote in NH. It would require anyone with a NH license to change their address within 40 days of a move. This legislation was not proposed by anyone who has recently attempted to interact with the NH DMV. This bill would essentially nullify the domicile affidavits that are traditionally used on Election Day.
The supporters of preemptive voting legislation couch this in the most reasonable terms. Representative Mike Whalley, Chair of the House Election Law Committee said that the committee wanted to tighten up record keeping and weed out illegal voting. Except there isn’t any illegal voting, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Whalley said that this bill would not be a deterrent to voting. That’s a little hard to believe. We have no documented voter fraud – yet we have legislation that’s guaranteed to make for longer lines, inconvenience, and voter disenfranchisement. We know it isn’t necessary – so of course it’s intended as a deterrent! There isn’t any other reason for it.
NH Senator Andre Martel filed similar Senate bills aimed at requiring voter ID and disenfranchising student voters. In 2004, Martel came disconcertingly close to losing his election. Rather than assess his own performance as a state senator, and try to determine why the voters weren’t happy with him, Senator Martel chose to blame students. There are several colleges in his senate district. Incumbents in the NH legislature often feel a sense of entitlement when it comes to their seats. Senator Martel leans very far to the right, at a time when voter demographics in our state are shifting. The voters in his district may feel that he isn’t representing them, and choose to vote him out, as is certainly their right. To blame his near ouster on students is both silly, and lazy.
Silly and lazy sums up the whole package of this year’s voter reform bills. Filing a number of time consuming bills aimed at fixing a nonexistent problem doesn’t seem to be the best use of legislative time. We have a number of serious, well documented problems that need legislative attention. Has history taught us nothing about the folly of the pre-emptive strike?
“Preemptive war punishes the defenseless not for what they have done or are doing but for what they might have done or could do.” Eduardo Galeano
That wasn’t the only preemptive action in Concord this year. A number of voting bills went before the legislature this year, and two survived till the bitter end – they were vetoed by Governor Lynch, and the vetoes were not overturned. The stated intent of both bills was verifying voter eligibility and preventing abuses. After every election, there are investigations of voter fraud. The 2004 elections were no exception. The Secretary of State’s office found that there had been no fraud. NH doesn’t have voter fraud, but some members of the legislature feel a need to continually file preemptive legislation to cure a problem that we don’t have. My job provides me with frequent opportunities to speak with folks from all over the state. People tell me about the things that worry them – usually health care, housing, and wages. Not a single person has told me that their number one concern was voter fraud.
One bill (HB345) would require voters to show photo ID before voting. Those in favor of this legislation say that we have to show photo ID to get on airplanes or cash checks. That makes it sound almost logical – except that flying and banking are both customer situations. We do not (as yet – and don’t rule it out) pay to vote. The people who look at those customer IDs are employees – paid by the airport or the bank. The people who would be checking IDs at the polls are volunteers. Should volunteers have to be trained in verifying photo ID? If they are to become experts in reading ID, where will they be trained and who will pick up the tab? How will voting absentee be handled? Who will be checking the absentee ID? Will nursing home residents be forced to pay for ID they no longer need, so that they can vote? What about same day registration? Over 2000 people registered to vote in Carroll County on Election Day in 2004. They signed a domicile affidavit at the polls. Will we do away with same day registration? What if those people have moved to NH fairly recently, and their photo ID address isn’t the same as their real address? Will we refuse to allow them to vote? How will we handle the bottleneck at the polls, when the line halts while the volunteer expert reads the ID and determines its validity? There are a lot of questions that are never answered by those who favor the preemptive voting legislation.
The second bill, HB 1566 would require photo ID to match physical address, and give the voter 40 days to make the changes. The aim is to force college students (long suspected of infiltrating the state to vote here, thereby ensuring the Democratic dictatorship we see in the NH House and Senate) to have cars registered and licenses changed over in order to vote in NH. It would require anyone with a NH license to change their address within 40 days of a move. This legislation was not proposed by anyone who has recently attempted to interact with the NH DMV. This bill would essentially nullify the domicile affidavits that are traditionally used on Election Day.
The supporters of preemptive voting legislation couch this in the most reasonable terms. Representative Mike Whalley, Chair of the House Election Law Committee said that the committee wanted to tighten up record keeping and weed out illegal voting. Except there isn’t any illegal voting, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Whalley said that this bill would not be a deterrent to voting. That’s a little hard to believe. We have no documented voter fraud – yet we have legislation that’s guaranteed to make for longer lines, inconvenience, and voter disenfranchisement. We know it isn’t necessary – so of course it’s intended as a deterrent! There isn’t any other reason for it.
NH Senator Andre Martel filed similar Senate bills aimed at requiring voter ID and disenfranchising student voters. In 2004, Martel came disconcertingly close to losing his election. Rather than assess his own performance as a state senator, and try to determine why the voters weren’t happy with him, Senator Martel chose to blame students. There are several colleges in his senate district. Incumbents in the NH legislature often feel a sense of entitlement when it comes to their seats. Senator Martel leans very far to the right, at a time when voter demographics in our state are shifting. The voters in his district may feel that he isn’t representing them, and choose to vote him out, as is certainly their right. To blame his near ouster on students is both silly, and lazy.
Silly and lazy sums up the whole package of this year’s voter reform bills. Filing a number of time consuming bills aimed at fixing a nonexistent problem doesn’t seem to be the best use of legislative time. We have a number of serious, well documented problems that need legislative attention. Has history taught us nothing about the folly of the pre-emptive strike?
“Preemptive war punishes the defenseless not for what they have done or are doing but for what they might have done or could do.” Eduardo Galeano
Thursday, June 15, 2006
We're Jammin, We're Jammin
It’s party time! Time for NH political parties to fundraise for the upcoming elections, that is. Last week, the Carroll County Democrats had their annual fundraising dinner. On Monday, the NH Republican Party had a fundraiser, in Manchester. The speaker? The controversial political operative, Karl Rove. Given the GOP’s recent history of ethics violations, this was an interesting choice, and one guaranteed to spark the interest of GOP loyalists, Democrats, and activists from around the state.
All of the critics seized upon this opportunity to mention the 2002 phone jamming scandal. Rove’s own ethics have been called into question; he’s been called before grand juries 5 times, and has admitted to outing CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. The irony of this man, being asked to speak at a fundraiser that would help pay for the millions of dollars in legal fees being accrued by convicted phone jammer James Tobin was just too much to keep quiet about. About 75 people turned out for a demonstration in Manchester, at Veteran’s Park, on Monday. The NH Democratic Party was there, as well as groups like Democracy for NH, Priorities NH, and the NH Citizens Alliance for Action. There were signs reading “Funding Felonies,” and “NH GOP and Karl Rove – where Criminals Converge.” Other signs had a prison motif. Priorities NH was using the opportunity to educate passers by on the federal discretionary budget with their new carny game “Wheel of Fortune” which consists of a pie chart. The goal is to spin and NOT land on the Pentagon. I watched the NECN reporter spin several times, and land on the Pentagon every time.
NH GOP Chairman Wayne Semprini was annoyed by the suggestions that the fundraiser was going to pay for Tobin’s legal fees, but in more than one newspaper interview he admitted that a portion of the monies raised would go for just that. The belligerence of the NH GOP about the phone jamming is really quite amazing. Far from accepting responsibility, apologizing, and moving on, they’ve been angry that anyone would dare question them – much less indict and convict them!
It all began back in October of 2002. The US Senate race was hot – former Governor Jeanne Shaheen was running against then Representative John Sununu, Jr., for the seat that Bob Smith was vacating. Then Executive Director of the NH Republican State Committee (NHRSC) Chuck McGee spoke with James Tobin – then the New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee and the Northeast political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. McGee told Tobin he wanted to hire a telephone service to jam Democratic phone banks on Election Day.
Tobin hooked McGee up with Allen Raymond; president of a telephone services vendor called GOP Marketplace, and suggested he call Raymond to enlist his aid with the plan. Raymond’s partner, Chris Cupit, contacted Shaun Hansen, of Mylo Enterprises, a telemarketing firm based in Sandpoint, Idaho. Cupit told Hansen that GOP Marketplace wanted to hire Mylo Enterprises to place hang up calls repeatedly to certain numbers in NH on Election Day. Hansen takes the job for $2,500 – in advance. McGee sends a NHRSC check for $15,600 to GOP Marketplace, which in turn, sends a check to Mylo Enterprises.
Employees of Mylo Enterprises start phoning NH on Election Day. They call 6 NH numbers. Five are affiliated with the NH Democratic Party, and one with the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association. Those numbers had been made public, in order to provide callers with rides to the polls. The numbers were called hundreds of times, causing the lines to ring and hang up. No one else could get through. Eventually Verizon frees up the phone lines and identifies the caller as Mylo Enterprises. Meanwhile, calls were made to try to stop the phone jamming, on the advice of GOP legal counsel David Vicinanzo. It’s too late, the calls are already underway. GOP consultant (and later state party chair) Jayne Millerick began a series of calls to Nixon and Peabody (where Vicinanzo worked), David Horan (a criminal defense attorney) and the White House. Tobin was calling the White House, too.
The story broke in February of 2003, in the Union Leader. Millerick and McGee both deny any involvement. Millerick claims the $15,600 to GOP Marketplace was for telemarketing services encouraging people to vote GOP. McGee claims he didn’t hire the firm. Later, Millerick outs him to the Union Leader, and he resigns. Eventually, in 2004, Allen Raymond pleads guilty to conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy or harass. Chuck McGee pleads guilty to the same charge. Tobin was also convicted, and is scheduled to begin serving his sentence later this month. His case is under appeal. And that’s where the fundraising comes in. The GOP has been paying Tobin’s legal fees.
This is a disturbing story on many levels. Apparently dirty tricks and lawbreaking have become justifiable means to the end of winning. Far from blushing in shame for being caught, the GOP is belligerent that they were ever even investigated or charged.
On the WMUR late news Monday night, state Senator Bob Clegg was asked about the phone jamming, and he launched into an incoherent rant about how “THOSE PEOPLE need to admit to all the votes they pay for.”
Rove is not going to be indicted, and his champions are crowing that this is a victory; much in the same way OJ Simpson’s defenders did at the end of his trial. That an unethical politico has escaped prosecution is hardly grounds for celebration. We’re at a sorry pass when the ends justify the means, and the meanness.
“It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution.” Oscar Wilde
All of the critics seized upon this opportunity to mention the 2002 phone jamming scandal. Rove’s own ethics have been called into question; he’s been called before grand juries 5 times, and has admitted to outing CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. The irony of this man, being asked to speak at a fundraiser that would help pay for the millions of dollars in legal fees being accrued by convicted phone jammer James Tobin was just too much to keep quiet about. About 75 people turned out for a demonstration in Manchester, at Veteran’s Park, on Monday. The NH Democratic Party was there, as well as groups like Democracy for NH, Priorities NH, and the NH Citizens Alliance for Action. There were signs reading “Funding Felonies,” and “NH GOP and Karl Rove – where Criminals Converge.” Other signs had a prison motif. Priorities NH was using the opportunity to educate passers by on the federal discretionary budget with their new carny game “Wheel of Fortune” which consists of a pie chart. The goal is to spin and NOT land on the Pentagon. I watched the NECN reporter spin several times, and land on the Pentagon every time.
NH GOP Chairman Wayne Semprini was annoyed by the suggestions that the fundraiser was going to pay for Tobin’s legal fees, but in more than one newspaper interview he admitted that a portion of the monies raised would go for just that. The belligerence of the NH GOP about the phone jamming is really quite amazing. Far from accepting responsibility, apologizing, and moving on, they’ve been angry that anyone would dare question them – much less indict and convict them!
It all began back in October of 2002. The US Senate race was hot – former Governor Jeanne Shaheen was running against then Representative John Sununu, Jr., for the seat that Bob Smith was vacating. Then Executive Director of the NH Republican State Committee (NHRSC) Chuck McGee spoke with James Tobin – then the New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee and the Northeast political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. McGee told Tobin he wanted to hire a telephone service to jam Democratic phone banks on Election Day.
Tobin hooked McGee up with Allen Raymond; president of a telephone services vendor called GOP Marketplace, and suggested he call Raymond to enlist his aid with the plan. Raymond’s partner, Chris Cupit, contacted Shaun Hansen, of Mylo Enterprises, a telemarketing firm based in Sandpoint, Idaho. Cupit told Hansen that GOP Marketplace wanted to hire Mylo Enterprises to place hang up calls repeatedly to certain numbers in NH on Election Day. Hansen takes the job for $2,500 – in advance. McGee sends a NHRSC check for $15,600 to GOP Marketplace, which in turn, sends a check to Mylo Enterprises.
Employees of Mylo Enterprises start phoning NH on Election Day. They call 6 NH numbers. Five are affiliated with the NH Democratic Party, and one with the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association. Those numbers had been made public, in order to provide callers with rides to the polls. The numbers were called hundreds of times, causing the lines to ring and hang up. No one else could get through. Eventually Verizon frees up the phone lines and identifies the caller as Mylo Enterprises. Meanwhile, calls were made to try to stop the phone jamming, on the advice of GOP legal counsel David Vicinanzo. It’s too late, the calls are already underway. GOP consultant (and later state party chair) Jayne Millerick began a series of calls to Nixon and Peabody (where Vicinanzo worked), David Horan (a criminal defense attorney) and the White House. Tobin was calling the White House, too.
The story broke in February of 2003, in the Union Leader. Millerick and McGee both deny any involvement. Millerick claims the $15,600 to GOP Marketplace was for telemarketing services encouraging people to vote GOP. McGee claims he didn’t hire the firm. Later, Millerick outs him to the Union Leader, and he resigns. Eventually, in 2004, Allen Raymond pleads guilty to conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy or harass. Chuck McGee pleads guilty to the same charge. Tobin was also convicted, and is scheduled to begin serving his sentence later this month. His case is under appeal. And that’s where the fundraising comes in. The GOP has been paying Tobin’s legal fees.
This is a disturbing story on many levels. Apparently dirty tricks and lawbreaking have become justifiable means to the end of winning. Far from blushing in shame for being caught, the GOP is belligerent that they were ever even investigated or charged.
On the WMUR late news Monday night, state Senator Bob Clegg was asked about the phone jamming, and he launched into an incoherent rant about how “THOSE PEOPLE need to admit to all the votes they pay for.”
Rove is not going to be indicted, and his champions are crowing that this is a victory; much in the same way OJ Simpson’s defenders did at the end of his trial. That an unethical politico has escaped prosecution is hardly grounds for celebration. We’re at a sorry pass when the ends justify the means, and the meanness.
“It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution.” Oscar Wilde
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Civics in NH
The NH legislative session is winding down. Bills of varying levels of importance have been dealt with, and now it’s time for our legislators to hit the campaign trail. Yes, Virginia, it’s an election year. In NH we will be electing a governor, all of our state representatives and senators, county officials, and our two US Congresspersons. In 2004 record numbers of new voters registered, and voted. In Carroll County 2,902 people registered to vote on Election Day. Will all of these new voters maintain their interest in civic participation?
There are populations that traditionally do not vote in representative numbers; women, people with low incomes, people of color, and young people. In 1972 about half of the age 18-24 group voted. By 2000 that number had dropped to 33 percent. In 2004, the presidential election increased the number to about 45 percent. Why don’t our young people vote? In a state that is governed by a citizen legislature, why aren’t we more concerned about this? What can we do to interest more of our young people in the civic process?
I registered to vote when I turned 18. I’ve voted in every election since then. When I was growing up, I was taught that voting was my right, and my duty. All freshmen in my high school were required to take a civics class. Civics was a solid grounding in the nuts and bolts of how our system of government works. We learned what our role in a participatory democracy is. By that point in our education, we’d already had years of romanticized US history. Civics was a welcome change because it was much more practical stuff. It was the early seventies, and even though the politics of the time were extremely contentious, we were still expected to grow up to be voting citizens.
Somewhere along the way, that expectation has changed. We stopped teaching civics, too. At the website of my alma mater, I couldn’t find a civics class listed, but it does seem to have been thoroughly integrated into their Social Studies curricula. Civics is not mandatory in NH, which is particularly unfortunate given our enormous volunteer legislature. We expect NH residents to run for office and serve – so shouldn’t we educate our youth to be prepared for the possibility?
In 2005, Representative Paul Smith, from Auburn, sponsored HB 435 a bill that would require a civics class for high school graduation. A similar bill (SB 82) was filed in the Senate. Paul Smith is 24, and one of the youngest members of the NH legislature. For his graduate thesis at UNH, he surveyed junior and senior political science majors on their knowledge, and then gave them the same test that potential US citizens take. Many of them failed the citizenship exam. Smith became determined to try to enact some positive change. The bill had bi-partisan support and sponsorship, but ultimately it was voted inexpedient to legislate. The Senate bill was sponsored by Democrats, and was ultimately killed as well. The prevailing sentiment was that the legislature should not mandate what classes are taught – that this should be decided locally.
They didn’t feel that same sense of “local control” when it came to abstinence only sex education. The legislature was more than happy to try to make that a mandate, with HB 39, which was filed in 2005, and finally killed in 2006. It was killed because studies show that abstinence only sex education seems to cause an increase in teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. Apparently we’re more in favor of playing roulette with teen sexual behavior than we are in educating them about their roles as citizens. Local control has been so perverted by the legislature in recent years that it has become nothing but a convenient excuse for inaction. We claim to want our young people to participate in our democracy – so we should be in favor of educating them to do so.
Instead there have been deliberate attempts to discourage college students from voting. There is a faction that believes wholeheartedly that college students “from away” are just dying to come here and vote, and change our one party system of government. The fact that the majority party has had control of the NH House since the Civil War does nothing to assuage their fears. They are convinced that all manner of voter fraud takes place here, despite reports from the Secretary of State’s office showing no evidence of fraud – and despite the outcome of our elections! In fact, the last documented case of fraud was a kid who voted under his father’s name – as a Republican.
What we teach our children matters. We are certainly willing to allow television and advertising to teach our children how to be consumers. We teach reading and math – why not teach citizenship?
“American youth attributes much more importance to arriving at driver’s license age than at voting age.” Marshall McLuhan
There are populations that traditionally do not vote in representative numbers; women, people with low incomes, people of color, and young people. In 1972 about half of the age 18-24 group voted. By 2000 that number had dropped to 33 percent. In 2004, the presidential election increased the number to about 45 percent. Why don’t our young people vote? In a state that is governed by a citizen legislature, why aren’t we more concerned about this? What can we do to interest more of our young people in the civic process?
I registered to vote when I turned 18. I’ve voted in every election since then. When I was growing up, I was taught that voting was my right, and my duty. All freshmen in my high school were required to take a civics class. Civics was a solid grounding in the nuts and bolts of how our system of government works. We learned what our role in a participatory democracy is. By that point in our education, we’d already had years of romanticized US history. Civics was a welcome change because it was much more practical stuff. It was the early seventies, and even though the politics of the time were extremely contentious, we were still expected to grow up to be voting citizens.
Somewhere along the way, that expectation has changed. We stopped teaching civics, too. At the website of my alma mater, I couldn’t find a civics class listed, but it does seem to have been thoroughly integrated into their Social Studies curricula. Civics is not mandatory in NH, which is particularly unfortunate given our enormous volunteer legislature. We expect NH residents to run for office and serve – so shouldn’t we educate our youth to be prepared for the possibility?
In 2005, Representative Paul Smith, from Auburn, sponsored HB 435 a bill that would require a civics class for high school graduation. A similar bill (SB 82) was filed in the Senate. Paul Smith is 24, and one of the youngest members of the NH legislature. For his graduate thesis at UNH, he surveyed junior and senior political science majors on their knowledge, and then gave them the same test that potential US citizens take. Many of them failed the citizenship exam. Smith became determined to try to enact some positive change. The bill had bi-partisan support and sponsorship, but ultimately it was voted inexpedient to legislate. The Senate bill was sponsored by Democrats, and was ultimately killed as well. The prevailing sentiment was that the legislature should not mandate what classes are taught – that this should be decided locally.
They didn’t feel that same sense of “local control” when it came to abstinence only sex education. The legislature was more than happy to try to make that a mandate, with HB 39, which was filed in 2005, and finally killed in 2006. It was killed because studies show that abstinence only sex education seems to cause an increase in teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. Apparently we’re more in favor of playing roulette with teen sexual behavior than we are in educating them about their roles as citizens. Local control has been so perverted by the legislature in recent years that it has become nothing but a convenient excuse for inaction. We claim to want our young people to participate in our democracy – so we should be in favor of educating them to do so.
Instead there have been deliberate attempts to discourage college students from voting. There is a faction that believes wholeheartedly that college students “from away” are just dying to come here and vote, and change our one party system of government. The fact that the majority party has had control of the NH House since the Civil War does nothing to assuage their fears. They are convinced that all manner of voter fraud takes place here, despite reports from the Secretary of State’s office showing no evidence of fraud – and despite the outcome of our elections! In fact, the last documented case of fraud was a kid who voted under his father’s name – as a Republican.
What we teach our children matters. We are certainly willing to allow television and advertising to teach our children how to be consumers. We teach reading and math – why not teach citizenship?
“American youth attributes much more importance to arriving at driver’s license age than at voting age.” Marshall McLuhan
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Envy of All
The US has the finest health care system in the world. That’s the mantra we hear from the president, from our elected officials, and from the media. It’s certainly the most expensive health care system in the world – and perhaps expensive has come to be our definition of “best.” Or, perhaps, this is really a case of a lie being repeated often enough to become the truth.
A joint team of researchers from University College London, the University of London, and the US Rand Corporation studied two groups of comparable white people from both countries. The groups were divided into sub-groups based on education and income, and the researchers compared the rates of disease. They found that Americans aged 55-64 are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, lung cancer, and high blood pressure as English people in the same age group. The healthiest Americans had similar disease rates to the least healthy Brits. Rates of diabetes were twice as high among the US group.
Americans spend almost double per head on health care than the English do. US healthcare is funded through insurance companies, while the British National Health System is funded by taxation.
The researchers found that health inequalities were more pronounced in the US, and that this may be partly attributed to the lack of health care and social programs to help those who are sick (like they have in the UK.) Those factors, however, were not enough to explain why the wealthiest Americans still had rates of health comparable to the poorest in England.
When this sort of study comes out, it’s immediately dismissed in the US as being junk, and the British system as a bunch of commie-pinko-socialist claptrap that can’t compare to the finest health care system in the world. It’s a shame that we don’t stop mouthing jingoistic slogans and bother to try to learn something from this sort of study. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba. If we weren’t so arrogant, we might actually learn something from the other countries that are healthier than we are.
Hot on the heels of the release of this study is a new federal bill that would change US health insurance laws. It’s basically SB110 for the whole country! SB110 was the law enacted in NH a few years back that allowed insurance companies to rate clients on the basis of age, sex, occupation, and location. It proved to be devastating to folks in the north country, who saw their rates increase by as much as 200 percent. Governor Lynch made repealing SB110 a cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign in 2004.
The federal bill is called the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (S.1955) is intended to allow small business owners to organize across state lines and purchase health insurance through trade groups like Chambers of Commerce. NH Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu are both in favor of the bill. Governor Lynch and 41 attorneys general around the country say the bill will block states from being able to regulate insurance companies. It may also end state specific benefits, like Michelle’s Law – the recently passed law that requires coverage for acutely ill college students. The bill would also let insurers drop coverage for mammograms and diabetes – both required now by state law. Deputy Commissioner of Insurance, Alex Feldvebel predicts that groups with between 1 and 10 members would see rates double at renewal time. Feldvebel found that the federal law would allow premiums to differ by a ratio of up to 25-to-1. NH state law allows for a difference of only 3.5-to-1. In other words, for every $100 spent in premiums by one individual, another could spend up to $2,500. The state limit is $350.
So – insurance companies can charge way, way more, and cover much, much less. Business groups are in favor of this; the NH Restaurant and Lodging Association, the Home Builders and Remodelers Association, and the NH Realtors Association are some of the groups supporting the bill. Opponents include the American Cancer Society, AARP, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical. Perhaps this isn’t a valentine to insurance companies, perhaps it’s merely increasing our rates to show us that we do indeed have the finest health care system in the world – look at how much it costs!!
This is being touted by Senator Gregg as “putting consumers first.” It’s hard to imagine that he can say that with a straight face. Once again, our elected officials are putting business ahead of our health. As long as we continue on the dunderheaded path of an expensive, insurance based system, we will experience increasing costs, disappearing coverage, and deteriorating health. It’s a great deal for insurance companies and Chambers of Commerce. As for the rest of us – well, we can take comfort in knowing we’ve got the best – even though we can’t afford to use it.
“The US healthcare system is the envy of the world.” George W. Bush
A joint team of researchers from University College London, the University of London, and the US Rand Corporation studied two groups of comparable white people from both countries. The groups were divided into sub-groups based on education and income, and the researchers compared the rates of disease. They found that Americans aged 55-64 are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes, lung cancer, and high blood pressure as English people in the same age group. The healthiest Americans had similar disease rates to the least healthy Brits. Rates of diabetes were twice as high among the US group.
Americans spend almost double per head on health care than the English do. US healthcare is funded through insurance companies, while the British National Health System is funded by taxation.
The researchers found that health inequalities were more pronounced in the US, and that this may be partly attributed to the lack of health care and social programs to help those who are sick (like they have in the UK.) Those factors, however, were not enough to explain why the wealthiest Americans still had rates of health comparable to the poorest in England.
When this sort of study comes out, it’s immediately dismissed in the US as being junk, and the British system as a bunch of commie-pinko-socialist claptrap that can’t compare to the finest health care system in the world. It’s a shame that we don’t stop mouthing jingoistic slogans and bother to try to learn something from this sort of study. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba. If we weren’t so arrogant, we might actually learn something from the other countries that are healthier than we are.
Hot on the heels of the release of this study is a new federal bill that would change US health insurance laws. It’s basically SB110 for the whole country! SB110 was the law enacted in NH a few years back that allowed insurance companies to rate clients on the basis of age, sex, occupation, and location. It proved to be devastating to folks in the north country, who saw their rates increase by as much as 200 percent. Governor Lynch made repealing SB110 a cornerstone of his gubernatorial campaign in 2004.
The federal bill is called the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act (S.1955) is intended to allow small business owners to organize across state lines and purchase health insurance through trade groups like Chambers of Commerce. NH Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu are both in favor of the bill. Governor Lynch and 41 attorneys general around the country say the bill will block states from being able to regulate insurance companies. It may also end state specific benefits, like Michelle’s Law – the recently passed law that requires coverage for acutely ill college students. The bill would also let insurers drop coverage for mammograms and diabetes – both required now by state law. Deputy Commissioner of Insurance, Alex Feldvebel predicts that groups with between 1 and 10 members would see rates double at renewal time. Feldvebel found that the federal law would allow premiums to differ by a ratio of up to 25-to-1. NH state law allows for a difference of only 3.5-to-1. In other words, for every $100 spent in premiums by one individual, another could spend up to $2,500. The state limit is $350.
So – insurance companies can charge way, way more, and cover much, much less. Business groups are in favor of this; the NH Restaurant and Lodging Association, the Home Builders and Remodelers Association, and the NH Realtors Association are some of the groups supporting the bill. Opponents include the American Cancer Society, AARP, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical. Perhaps this isn’t a valentine to insurance companies, perhaps it’s merely increasing our rates to show us that we do indeed have the finest health care system in the world – look at how much it costs!!
This is being touted by Senator Gregg as “putting consumers first.” It’s hard to imagine that he can say that with a straight face. Once again, our elected officials are putting business ahead of our health. As long as we continue on the dunderheaded path of an expensive, insurance based system, we will experience increasing costs, disappearing coverage, and deteriorating health. It’s a great deal for insurance companies and Chambers of Commerce. As for the rest of us – well, we can take comfort in knowing we’ve got the best – even though we can’t afford to use it.
“The US healthcare system is the envy of the world.” George W. Bush
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Welfare Reform
In the brave new world of one-party rule in America, we have a Congress that no longer debates public policy – just rams it through. If a measure looks as if it may fail, it’s slipped quietly into an appropriations bill or some other guaranteed to pass piece of legislation. The REAL ID ACT was inserted into an appropriations bill. New regulations on TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) were casually slipped into the euphemistically named “Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005” aka the 2006 budget. Now those new regulations are coming to light – regulations that NH must comply with by October 1. NH DHHS Commissioner John Stephen brought a proposal to the NH Senate this week.
The Federal government requires the states to increase the number of TANF recipients who are working 30 hours a week by 1, 164, in order to meet the requirement that all states must have 50% of their TANF population employed in any given week.
Now, this doesn’t sound terrible – we all hope that TANF recipients will be able to leave poverty behind and get good jobs. What is curious about the new regulations is what the federal government is willing to consider as “work.” At this moment in time, vocational education and job search programs count as ‘work.” Under the new law, those activities will be limited. Could someone please explain to me how a vocational education program is a bad thing? Learning a trade seems like a ticket right out of poverty and into the permanent workforce. Trade jobs are not easily outsourced. Under the new regulations, internships and community service will count as “work.” Okay – so learning a trade isn’t “work” but volunteering is? That is just ridiculous.
The 1996 welfare reform laws brought sweeping change to eligibility and administration of welfare programs. There was a dramatic decrease in welfare rolls; from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. In the booming economy of the 1990’s, many were able to move out of poverty. There were many jobs that paid a living wage. We hear much about the current booming economy, but the reality is that poverty is on the increase. Real wages are on the decline and good paying jobs are being exported. The gap between the haves and have nots has reached epic proportions. We’ve all read about the Exxon CEO who is earning almost $6000 an hour in retirement. For the rest of the population, increasing numbers of people are hungry and homeless – in fact, Hurricane Katrina seems to have created a permanent refugee population in the southern part of the US.
TANF is a 60 month program. An eligible person may receive only 60 months of benefits in their lifetime. This isn’t the free ride that some portray it as. In NH, the maximum TANF benefit per month for a family of 2 is $556. For a family of 3 the maximum benefit is $625, and for 4 it is $668. Even with food stamps – this is not enough for housing, clothing, and transportation. NH TANF recipients are not buying Cadillacs. The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” crowd is often comprised of people whom have never had to do any such thing. It’s difficult to dig out of poverty – and this kind of regulation change seems guaranteed to make the process harder.
The new reform measures include $150 million to support programs that encourage marriage and responsible fatherhood. I’m certainly in favor of initiatives that encourage men to be committed and involved fathers – that’s a wonderful thing. Touting marriage as the way out of poverty is bizarre. The surest route to poverty for a woman is childbirth. If we want to eliminate welfare programs and poverty, we’d do well to encourage comprehensive sex ed programs, and encourage the use of contraceptives, instead of trying to make the process ever more restrictive.
We can’t have it both ways. Abstinence only programs are a surefire way of increasing teen pregnancy rates, which in turn increases the poverty rate, and the numbers of TANF recipients. Restricting and eliminating abortion will have the same effect. We need to stop pretending otherwise. The only sure way to avoid poverty is to be born into a wealthy family. Perhaps we should encourage the unborn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and choose the right parents.
The American dream has moved beyond the reach of many – and as a society we are unwilling to examine this, never mind discuss it. While leafleting on tax day, I heard outrage from a few about their tax dollars supporting “lazy welfare bums.” A very small percentage of our tax dollars actually go to TANF – over half the discretionary budget goes to the Pentagon, in one form or another. That dismissive rhetoric, not even rooted in reality is damaging – and only results in further stigmatizing those who are stuck in poverty.
Do we really want to eliminate poverty? No real steps being taken to do so, just smoke and mirrors. Spending our tax dollars to encourage TANF recipients to get married is silly – even sillier when one considers that we’re going to have to cut them out of vocational education programs. The message for women is clear: Husband = good. Trade = bad. I realize that Commissioner Stephen has a tough task ahead of him. I hope that he and Governor Lynch will encourage other states to call for changes that makes sense – because these new TANF reform laws sure don’t. It seems likely that more women (the ones without potential husbands) will be forced into permanent low wage employment, and a lifetime of poverty.
“There was never a war on poverty. Maybe there was a skirmish on poverty.” Andrew Cuomo
The Federal government requires the states to increase the number of TANF recipients who are working 30 hours a week by 1, 164, in order to meet the requirement that all states must have 50% of their TANF population employed in any given week.
Now, this doesn’t sound terrible – we all hope that TANF recipients will be able to leave poverty behind and get good jobs. What is curious about the new regulations is what the federal government is willing to consider as “work.” At this moment in time, vocational education and job search programs count as ‘work.” Under the new law, those activities will be limited. Could someone please explain to me how a vocational education program is a bad thing? Learning a trade seems like a ticket right out of poverty and into the permanent workforce. Trade jobs are not easily outsourced. Under the new regulations, internships and community service will count as “work.” Okay – so learning a trade isn’t “work” but volunteering is? That is just ridiculous.
The 1996 welfare reform laws brought sweeping change to eligibility and administration of welfare programs. There was a dramatic decrease in welfare rolls; from 12.2 million to 4.5 million. In the booming economy of the 1990’s, many were able to move out of poverty. There were many jobs that paid a living wage. We hear much about the current booming economy, but the reality is that poverty is on the increase. Real wages are on the decline and good paying jobs are being exported. The gap between the haves and have nots has reached epic proportions. We’ve all read about the Exxon CEO who is earning almost $6000 an hour in retirement. For the rest of the population, increasing numbers of people are hungry and homeless – in fact, Hurricane Katrina seems to have created a permanent refugee population in the southern part of the US.
TANF is a 60 month program. An eligible person may receive only 60 months of benefits in their lifetime. This isn’t the free ride that some portray it as. In NH, the maximum TANF benefit per month for a family of 2 is $556. For a family of 3 the maximum benefit is $625, and for 4 it is $668. Even with food stamps – this is not enough for housing, clothing, and transportation. NH TANF recipients are not buying Cadillacs. The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” crowd is often comprised of people whom have never had to do any such thing. It’s difficult to dig out of poverty – and this kind of regulation change seems guaranteed to make the process harder.
The new reform measures include $150 million to support programs that encourage marriage and responsible fatherhood. I’m certainly in favor of initiatives that encourage men to be committed and involved fathers – that’s a wonderful thing. Touting marriage as the way out of poverty is bizarre. The surest route to poverty for a woman is childbirth. If we want to eliminate welfare programs and poverty, we’d do well to encourage comprehensive sex ed programs, and encourage the use of contraceptives, instead of trying to make the process ever more restrictive.
We can’t have it both ways. Abstinence only programs are a surefire way of increasing teen pregnancy rates, which in turn increases the poverty rate, and the numbers of TANF recipients. Restricting and eliminating abortion will have the same effect. We need to stop pretending otherwise. The only sure way to avoid poverty is to be born into a wealthy family. Perhaps we should encourage the unborn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and choose the right parents.
The American dream has moved beyond the reach of many – and as a society we are unwilling to examine this, never mind discuss it. While leafleting on tax day, I heard outrage from a few about their tax dollars supporting “lazy welfare bums.” A very small percentage of our tax dollars actually go to TANF – over half the discretionary budget goes to the Pentagon, in one form or another. That dismissive rhetoric, not even rooted in reality is damaging – and only results in further stigmatizing those who are stuck in poverty.
Do we really want to eliminate poverty? No real steps being taken to do so, just smoke and mirrors. Spending our tax dollars to encourage TANF recipients to get married is silly – even sillier when one considers that we’re going to have to cut them out of vocational education programs. The message for women is clear: Husband = good. Trade = bad. I realize that Commissioner Stephen has a tough task ahead of him. I hope that he and Governor Lynch will encourage other states to call for changes that makes sense – because these new TANF reform laws sure don’t. It seems likely that more women (the ones without potential husbands) will be forced into permanent low wage employment, and a lifetime of poverty.
“There was never a war on poverty. Maybe there was a skirmish on poverty.” Andrew Cuomo
Thursday, April 06, 2006
NH House says NO to REAL ID ACT
Two weeks ago, Congressman Jeb Bradley had a town hall meeting in his hometown of Wolfeboro. It was a long and contentious meeting. The main concerns of the constituents were the war in Iraq, the budget, the deficit, and Medicare Part D. A man who identified himself as a Kennebec Indian expressed concern that he would soon need a passport to travel to Canada, gently chiding Bradley for a policy he felt wasn’t very neighborly. Congressman Bradley, eager to explain, began to tell this fellow about the REAL ID ACT, and why it was a good thing. A young man leaped up in another part of the room and bellowed, “You mean the National ID Card??” This caused a moment of silence, followed by applause from many in the room. I’ve heard Bradley explain REAL ID as being a way to fight terrorism and root out undocumented immigrants. I’ve never heard him discuss any of the other ramifications of REAL ID – especially the cost.
Right around the same time Bradley was smiling and telling us why Real ID is good, the NH House voted on HB 1582, a bill declaring that NH would not participate in the REAL ID ACT. This bill was heard in the Transportation Committee. The committee didn’t like REAL ID, but decided that NH should comply now, in the hopes of changing it later. The committee voted to recommend the bill ITL (inexpedient to legislate). When it went to the floor for a vote, a number of stirring speeches were made, including one by Representative Neal Kurk who invoked the words Patrick Henry delivered to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1785. As one representative told me later, “The House was in a rebellious mood that day.” The House voted 217-84 to go against the committee recommendation and refuse to cooperate with the federal government meddling in our state business.
The REAL ID ACT was voted into law last year. After it barely passed the House, it was inserted into a military appropriations bill, to ensure its passage in the Senate. It establishes a federally approved, electronically readable ID card. This card would be required to open a bank account, travel by air, or collect Social Security. Your state driver’s license would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security. Those standards have yet to be established. The state DMV would issue this ID, but a far more rigorous process would be required in order to prove citizenship. The DMV employees would verify the documentation, digitalize the information, and store the information. All states would link up these databases – creating a national database.
The REAL ID ACT requires that the cards be electronically readable, but leaves the details to Homeland Security. It will most likely be electronically scannable. They like the idea of embedding RFID chips in the cards. RFID chips emit a radio signal to a transponder, notifying the transponder of its whereabouts. It’s great for tracking luggage at the airport. It will also be handy for the Dept. of Homeland Security to track the location of any one of us. Since Homeland Security has unilateral control over the ID requirements, the requirements will be subject to change at their whim.
The Bush administration estimated this would cost $100 million to implement. Other studies show that this is a woefully low figure. REAL ID compliance will cost Pennsylvania approximately $85 million and Virginia could pay up to $169 million. Estimates show that it will cost as much as $12 million to convert NH – yet the federal government is only giving us $3 million. Guess who will be picking up the rest of the tab for yet another unfunded Bush mandate?
A brief review: our Congressional delegation voted in favor of an electronically readable ID card that must comply with unknown standards set by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The data gathered by the DMV will be put into a database, which will be part of a nationally linked database. Anyone who swipes the card through an electronic device will have all the information contained in the card. The cards may also have tracking chips embedded in them. The federal government has set aside an insufficient sum for state DMVs to make the transition. Bottom line friends – we’re getting a National ID card, our personal information will be in a national database – and we’re going to pay for the privilege!
Bravo to the NH House for voting in favor of HB 1582. REAL ID is going to be an expensive violation of our privacy. Anyone who doesn’t think that a national database provides a wonderful opportunity for hacking, identity theft, and selling of information is unconscious. The threat of terrorism must not be used to manipulate us into sacrificing our civil liberties and our privacy. REAL ID goes into effect in 2008. There is still plenty of time to stand up and say NO. Other states will very likely be emboldened to do the same. To suggest that we comply now and change it later is weak and cowardly. Trying to change a system afterward is difficult and costly. Far better to not implement it in the first place. If non-compliance means we can’t enter federal buildings, I guess that means we won’t need to be paying federal taxes, either. It’s about time we rebel against the constant threats to our civil liberties and our privacy. NH is just the state to lead that rebellion.
The NH Senate will be hearing HB 1582 on Monday, April 10th, at 1 pm. There will be a press conference with NH Caspian at noon in the lobby of the Legislative Office Building on N. State St. NH Caspian is an organization working against electronic tracking devices and other invasions of privacy. You can learn more about them at nhcaspian.org . Let’s encourage our state senators to stand tall and vote for HB1582.
“I don’t believe that the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identification card. We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify, and eventually control.” NH State Representative Neal Kurk
This should appear in the Conway Daily Sun on April 7, but there are no guarantees when it comes to my work. I also feel compelled to say that this may be the only time I ever agree with Representative Neal Kurk.
Right around the same time Bradley was smiling and telling us why Real ID is good, the NH House voted on HB 1582, a bill declaring that NH would not participate in the REAL ID ACT. This bill was heard in the Transportation Committee. The committee didn’t like REAL ID, but decided that NH should comply now, in the hopes of changing it later. The committee voted to recommend the bill ITL (inexpedient to legislate). When it went to the floor for a vote, a number of stirring speeches were made, including one by Representative Neal Kurk who invoked the words Patrick Henry delivered to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1785. As one representative told me later, “The House was in a rebellious mood that day.” The House voted 217-84 to go against the committee recommendation and refuse to cooperate with the federal government meddling in our state business.
The REAL ID ACT was voted into law last year. After it barely passed the House, it was inserted into a military appropriations bill, to ensure its passage in the Senate. It establishes a federally approved, electronically readable ID card. This card would be required to open a bank account, travel by air, or collect Social Security. Your state driver’s license would have to meet federal ID standards established by the Department of Homeland Security. Those standards have yet to be established. The state DMV would issue this ID, but a far more rigorous process would be required in order to prove citizenship. The DMV employees would verify the documentation, digitalize the information, and store the information. All states would link up these databases – creating a national database.
The REAL ID ACT requires that the cards be electronically readable, but leaves the details to Homeland Security. It will most likely be electronically scannable. They like the idea of embedding RFID chips in the cards. RFID chips emit a radio signal to a transponder, notifying the transponder of its whereabouts. It’s great for tracking luggage at the airport. It will also be handy for the Dept. of Homeland Security to track the location of any one of us. Since Homeland Security has unilateral control over the ID requirements, the requirements will be subject to change at their whim.
The Bush administration estimated this would cost $100 million to implement. Other studies show that this is a woefully low figure. REAL ID compliance will cost Pennsylvania approximately $85 million and Virginia could pay up to $169 million. Estimates show that it will cost as much as $12 million to convert NH – yet the federal government is only giving us $3 million. Guess who will be picking up the rest of the tab for yet another unfunded Bush mandate?
A brief review: our Congressional delegation voted in favor of an electronically readable ID card that must comply with unknown standards set by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The data gathered by the DMV will be put into a database, which will be part of a nationally linked database. Anyone who swipes the card through an electronic device will have all the information contained in the card. The cards may also have tracking chips embedded in them. The federal government has set aside an insufficient sum for state DMVs to make the transition. Bottom line friends – we’re getting a National ID card, our personal information will be in a national database – and we’re going to pay for the privilege!
Bravo to the NH House for voting in favor of HB 1582. REAL ID is going to be an expensive violation of our privacy. Anyone who doesn’t think that a national database provides a wonderful opportunity for hacking, identity theft, and selling of information is unconscious. The threat of terrorism must not be used to manipulate us into sacrificing our civil liberties and our privacy. REAL ID goes into effect in 2008. There is still plenty of time to stand up and say NO. Other states will very likely be emboldened to do the same. To suggest that we comply now and change it later is weak and cowardly. Trying to change a system afterward is difficult and costly. Far better to not implement it in the first place. If non-compliance means we can’t enter federal buildings, I guess that means we won’t need to be paying federal taxes, either. It’s about time we rebel against the constant threats to our civil liberties and our privacy. NH is just the state to lead that rebellion.
The NH Senate will be hearing HB 1582 on Monday, April 10th, at 1 pm. There will be a press conference with NH Caspian at noon in the lobby of the Legislative Office Building on N. State St. NH Caspian is an organization working against electronic tracking devices and other invasions of privacy. You can learn more about them at nhcaspian.org . Let’s encourage our state senators to stand tall and vote for HB1582.
“I don’t believe that the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identification card. We care more for our liberties than to meekly hand over to the federal government the potential to enumerate, track, identify, and eventually control.” NH State Representative Neal Kurk
This should appear in the Conway Daily Sun on April 7, but there are no guarantees when it comes to my work. I also feel compelled to say that this may be the only time I ever agree with Representative Neal Kurk.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Controversy in Concord
I was coming around the corner on State St, in Concord, heading down a side street next to the State House. I nearly crashed into a small, scruffy man who had a big cigar stuffed in his face. He was carrying a sign that read, “NO MORE NANNY STATE.” I was surprised, and delighted to find that the libertarians were finally expressing an opinion about the constitutional amendment that would ban recognition of any same sex union in NH. “It’s about time,” I thought to myself. “Libertarians spout off about privacy rights, but never seem to take any action. This is great.”
I was wrong, of course. The House was voting on a bill that would ban smoking in restaurants, and that’s what the anti-nanny staters were up in arms about. The right to kill folks with second hand smoke (in the name of the rights of the individual or business owner) is worth fighting for – but civil rights are not. It’s too bad. They might have broader appeal and credibility if they walked their talk more often, and on more issues.
The NH House did vote for the smoking ban. This controversial vote has a lot of folks up in arms about the rights of the individual and the business owner. The health of workers is always dismissed, as apparently those underpaid restaurant employees have unlimited choices about where they work. So diners and drinkers can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment, and employees can choose to work elsewhere. Heck, let’s go whole hog – and eliminate the board of health. Surely those pesky health inspections to make sure that a kitchen is clean and free of rat droppings are the sort of inconvenience that a business owner shouldn’t be forced to endure. After all – the customer can choose to go elsewhere, where rat feces aren’t a side dish.
NH makes a ton of money peddling death in the form of individual choice. Spare me the rationalizations about junk food and alcohol. Most people do not drink to excess, and alcohol has a positive health benefit for some – that healthy glass of red wine. If someone eats fast food until they die the rest of us won’t die from being exposed to them.
Cigarettes have no redeeming value – it’s a product that when used as directed causes disease and ultimately death. NH has the lowest tobacco taxes in New England. We want to sell you some foul smelling death – it’s one way we fund our state government. We’d rather kill you than tax our own millionaires, thank you very much. Naturally we’d rather you come from out of state to buy, because we don’t want to pay for your exorbitant health care costs as you sicken and die.
I was surprised by this vote. I’ve seen the tobacco lobbyists working the House in the past, with great success. I lived in California when the smoking ban was enacted, and it didn’t hurt business there, and it won’t here. There will be plenty snorts and sighs about the erosion of the rights of the individual. I wish those folks were a little less concerned about smoking, and a little more concerned about the Bush administration eavesdropping on American citizens. That’s a bigger outrage than banning cigarettes. It is a shame that the “ownership society” validates the conservative myth of the rugged individual. We are increasinongly less concerned the greater good, to our societal detriment. The anti-nanny staters can relax; it’s unlikely that this bill will pass the NH Senate. Senate campaigns are hugely expensive, and the tobacco lobby is strong, persuasive, and carries a big checkbook.
The House also voted that CACR34, the proposed amendment to the NH Constitution that would refuse to recognize any same sex union, was inexpedient to legislate, or ITL. The vote was 207 to 125 against tinkering with the state constitution.
This is a huge victory for civil rights and just plain sensible thinking. The amendment was proposed to give right wingers a chance to weigh in on same sex marriage in an election year – and to use it to stir up the basest of their base. As has been said aplenty, using the constitution to deny rights to a minority group is reprehensible.
A lot of grumpy right wingers are unhappy about this vote – because the issue “should be decided by the people.” These are folks who apparently wanted this to be a big, ugly divisive issue in an election year. Given that NH law already prevents same sex marriage, this was an unnecessary bit of theatrical display, and our state representatives voted very sensibly to scuttle it. We the people had plenty of opportunities to lobby our legislators about it. In fact, this vote gives me the opportunity to do something I have never done before – congratulate the entire Carroll County District 1 contingent on their vote. Carolyn Brown, Tom Buco, Gene Chandler, and Howard Dickinson all voted against this bad bill, and so did Harry Merrow in district 3. Representatives Philbrick, McConkey, and Babson voted in favor constitutional amendment. The whole roll call vote is available at the state house website: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/ .
Our district 1 representatives deserve our thanks, so don’t be stingy! A thank you from you is going to mean more to Gene Chandler than one from me, no matter how sincere mine may be.
“If you let us marry each other, we will stop marrying you.” Jason Stuart – gay comedian
This column should appear in the March 24 edition of the Conway Daily Sun, though one can never be sure.
I was wrong, of course. The House was voting on a bill that would ban smoking in restaurants, and that’s what the anti-nanny staters were up in arms about. The right to kill folks with second hand smoke (in the name of the rights of the individual or business owner) is worth fighting for – but civil rights are not. It’s too bad. They might have broader appeal and credibility if they walked their talk more often, and on more issues.
The NH House did vote for the smoking ban. This controversial vote has a lot of folks up in arms about the rights of the individual and the business owner. The health of workers is always dismissed, as apparently those underpaid restaurant employees have unlimited choices about where they work. So diners and drinkers can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment, and employees can choose to work elsewhere. Heck, let’s go whole hog – and eliminate the board of health. Surely those pesky health inspections to make sure that a kitchen is clean and free of rat droppings are the sort of inconvenience that a business owner shouldn’t be forced to endure. After all – the customer can choose to go elsewhere, where rat feces aren’t a side dish.
NH makes a ton of money peddling death in the form of individual choice. Spare me the rationalizations about junk food and alcohol. Most people do not drink to excess, and alcohol has a positive health benefit for some – that healthy glass of red wine. If someone eats fast food until they die the rest of us won’t die from being exposed to them.
Cigarettes have no redeeming value – it’s a product that when used as directed causes disease and ultimately death. NH has the lowest tobacco taxes in New England. We want to sell you some foul smelling death – it’s one way we fund our state government. We’d rather kill you than tax our own millionaires, thank you very much. Naturally we’d rather you come from out of state to buy, because we don’t want to pay for your exorbitant health care costs as you sicken and die.
I was surprised by this vote. I’ve seen the tobacco lobbyists working the House in the past, with great success. I lived in California when the smoking ban was enacted, and it didn’t hurt business there, and it won’t here. There will be plenty snorts and sighs about the erosion of the rights of the individual. I wish those folks were a little less concerned about smoking, and a little more concerned about the Bush administration eavesdropping on American citizens. That’s a bigger outrage than banning cigarettes. It is a shame that the “ownership society” validates the conservative myth of the rugged individual. We are increasinongly less concerned the greater good, to our societal detriment. The anti-nanny staters can relax; it’s unlikely that this bill will pass the NH Senate. Senate campaigns are hugely expensive, and the tobacco lobby is strong, persuasive, and carries a big checkbook.
The House also voted that CACR34, the proposed amendment to the NH Constitution that would refuse to recognize any same sex union, was inexpedient to legislate, or ITL. The vote was 207 to 125 against tinkering with the state constitution.
This is a huge victory for civil rights and just plain sensible thinking. The amendment was proposed to give right wingers a chance to weigh in on same sex marriage in an election year – and to use it to stir up the basest of their base. As has been said aplenty, using the constitution to deny rights to a minority group is reprehensible.
A lot of grumpy right wingers are unhappy about this vote – because the issue “should be decided by the people.” These are folks who apparently wanted this to be a big, ugly divisive issue in an election year. Given that NH law already prevents same sex marriage, this was an unnecessary bit of theatrical display, and our state representatives voted very sensibly to scuttle it. We the people had plenty of opportunities to lobby our legislators about it. In fact, this vote gives me the opportunity to do something I have never done before – congratulate the entire Carroll County District 1 contingent on their vote. Carolyn Brown, Tom Buco, Gene Chandler, and Howard Dickinson all voted against this bad bill, and so did Harry Merrow in district 3. Representatives Philbrick, McConkey, and Babson voted in favor constitutional amendment. The whole roll call vote is available at the state house website: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/ .
Our district 1 representatives deserve our thanks, so don’t be stingy! A thank you from you is going to mean more to Gene Chandler than one from me, no matter how sincere mine may be.
“If you let us marry each other, we will stop marrying you.” Jason Stuart – gay comedian
This column should appear in the March 24 edition of the Conway Daily Sun, though one can never be sure.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
A Hive of Glass
Jackson is a nice little town. Colleagues from around the country are amazed when I tell them I live in a town with a two room schoolhouse. Jackson has a long history of hospitality. In the 1800’s, Jackson provided lodging for visitors to the area. There were hotels, boarding houses, and cottages. Families would come by train and spend the entire summer here. World War II put an end to those summers, and some of the grand hotels were boarded up for decades afterward. When I was a child visiting the area, Gray’s Inn and the Wentworth were quietly moldering. A fire claimed Gray’s Inn, but the Wentworth was mercifully restored. We are small, we are quaint, and many of our historic buildings are still standing, well used, and lovely. We want to keep that, and rightly so.
The unrestrained (and unsightly) growth and sprawl in Conway is spreading north, which is a matter of concern for those of us living north of the once scenic vista. A good master plan and good zoning regulations are important. Having no zoning can lead to disaster, as we’ve seen in Tamworth. This year the Jackson Planning Board has proposed the addition of something called “performance zoning,” which would be applied only to the “business overlay district,” which is essentially the area from the Bartlett town line north to the intersection of 16 and 16A, including the business “loop.” Performance zoning is being touted as being the kind of flexible regulation that would help us preserve the integrity and rural character of our town. Performance zoning sets two types of criteria for a project, absolute and relative. There are 10 absolute criteria that a project would have to meet, and 22 relative criteria. The relative criteria are judged on a point basis, and the points are scored: positive, negative, or neutral. The relative criteria seem to have been cut and pasted from some other town’s zoning regs. Points are awarded or subtracted for building sidewalks. (Psst – we have those already). Points are awarded or subtracted for of street parking behind or beside a building. (Pssst – restaurants need to have parking right out in front where it’s visible.) Clearly these criteria were not designed specifically for Jackson. Clearly this isn’t so flexible, either.
The new regulations would apply to commercial use developments, cluster single family developments, multi-family residential developments, and multi-family buildings in excess of two dwelling units, in the village overlay district. It’s curious that the planning board would encourage residential development in the commercial zone. Every town needs a center, if there is to be community. Norman Rockwell painted quaint little towns, and in those paintings there are businesses; barber shops, diners, and stores. Those hotel rooms bring folks to town that spend money in the restaurants and shops, and go home, without becoming a tax burden. The businesses, in turn, donate gift certificates and other services for fundraisers and charities. They also provide employment and a gathering place for folks in town to meet and chat. As time goes on, and climate change affects our area even more, having small, one of a kind businesses in the loop can only be an asset to the town.
The “development” of downtown Jackson should be done with the utmost care. Unfortunately, the performance zoning regulations we’ll be voting on next week are not the tools we need. Other NH towns have performance zoning in place, but they are in urban areas – like Bow. The Jackson Planning Board is not elected. They are appointed by the selectmen. No one has oversight over them. There are no checks and balances in place. Under the proposed zoning changes, a project would go to the planning board for approval. If it is not approved, there would be no appeals process. An appeal would go straight to superior court. So, a property owner in the loop would be paying double in an appeals process – paying for his/her own lawyer, while paying taxes going to the town lawyer. This only applies to businesses in the loop. Businesses outside of the “overlay district” would be paying the same taxes and allowed greater flexibility for development or projects on their property. Conceivably, the Wildcat Tavern could be denied a permit to build the same woodshed that would be permitted at the Christmas Farm Inn. This is not only unneighborly, it’s downright discriminatory.
It’s unfortunate that the proposed changes have been done so hastily. Local business owners were not involved in the discussion, or the writing. In fact, in the narrative, property owners on the loop are referred to as “an imminent threat.” That kind of divisive language isn’t going to help maintain the sense of community Jackson has always enjoyed. The haste is based on fear of “people from away” building big ugly things. There was a rumor that a downtown property might be sold, and developed as a hotel. Instead of making that a positive thing, the selectmen and planners chose to go on the defensive. Wal-Mart can’t build in Jackson. Neither can a big hotel chain. Jackson has no town septic, and has some stringent limits on what goes into the soil. That provides a huge measure of protection. Bow adopted performance zoning when they put in town water and septic.
A single family mcmansion could be built in the overlay district, without having to apply to the performance zoning guidelines. A huge tacky pink stucco structure, looking completely alien to the village – larger than life and twice as ugly– and as a single family dwelling, it would not be prevented. In fact there isn’t anything in the zoning as it’s written that addresses how a building looks, or how it is landscaped. Regulations stipulating look, superior construction materials, energy efficiency, and landscaping would make sense. What the planning board has given Jackson voters, with the endorsement of the selectmen, does not make sense.
We have a choice. We can move forward in haste and get something that discriminates against some property owners, something that isn’t specific to our town, something that creates divisiveness and discord – and we can try to change it afterward. Or we can vote NO on performance zoning, and begin the process again, this time with input from business owners and other interested folks. We can create a plan that is specific to downtown Jackson, one that builds community and fosters goodwill. Hardly a difficult choice, is it? See you at the polls.
A village is a hive of glass, where nothing unobserved can pass.” Charles H. Spurgeon
From the March 10, 2006 Conway Daily Sun. Get out and vote, fellow Jacksonites!
The unrestrained (and unsightly) growth and sprawl in Conway is spreading north, which is a matter of concern for those of us living north of the once scenic vista. A good master plan and good zoning regulations are important. Having no zoning can lead to disaster, as we’ve seen in Tamworth. This year the Jackson Planning Board has proposed the addition of something called “performance zoning,” which would be applied only to the “business overlay district,” which is essentially the area from the Bartlett town line north to the intersection of 16 and 16A, including the business “loop.” Performance zoning is being touted as being the kind of flexible regulation that would help us preserve the integrity and rural character of our town. Performance zoning sets two types of criteria for a project, absolute and relative. There are 10 absolute criteria that a project would have to meet, and 22 relative criteria. The relative criteria are judged on a point basis, and the points are scored: positive, negative, or neutral. The relative criteria seem to have been cut and pasted from some other town’s zoning regs. Points are awarded or subtracted for building sidewalks. (Psst – we have those already). Points are awarded or subtracted for of street parking behind or beside a building. (Pssst – restaurants need to have parking right out in front where it’s visible.) Clearly these criteria were not designed specifically for Jackson. Clearly this isn’t so flexible, either.
The new regulations would apply to commercial use developments, cluster single family developments, multi-family residential developments, and multi-family buildings in excess of two dwelling units, in the village overlay district. It’s curious that the planning board would encourage residential development in the commercial zone. Every town needs a center, if there is to be community. Norman Rockwell painted quaint little towns, and in those paintings there are businesses; barber shops, diners, and stores. Those hotel rooms bring folks to town that spend money in the restaurants and shops, and go home, without becoming a tax burden. The businesses, in turn, donate gift certificates and other services for fundraisers and charities. They also provide employment and a gathering place for folks in town to meet and chat. As time goes on, and climate change affects our area even more, having small, one of a kind businesses in the loop can only be an asset to the town.
The “development” of downtown Jackson should be done with the utmost care. Unfortunately, the performance zoning regulations we’ll be voting on next week are not the tools we need. Other NH towns have performance zoning in place, but they are in urban areas – like Bow. The Jackson Planning Board is not elected. They are appointed by the selectmen. No one has oversight over them. There are no checks and balances in place. Under the proposed zoning changes, a project would go to the planning board for approval. If it is not approved, there would be no appeals process. An appeal would go straight to superior court. So, a property owner in the loop would be paying double in an appeals process – paying for his/her own lawyer, while paying taxes going to the town lawyer. This only applies to businesses in the loop. Businesses outside of the “overlay district” would be paying the same taxes and allowed greater flexibility for development or projects on their property. Conceivably, the Wildcat Tavern could be denied a permit to build the same woodshed that would be permitted at the Christmas Farm Inn. This is not only unneighborly, it’s downright discriminatory.
It’s unfortunate that the proposed changes have been done so hastily. Local business owners were not involved in the discussion, or the writing. In fact, in the narrative, property owners on the loop are referred to as “an imminent threat.” That kind of divisive language isn’t going to help maintain the sense of community Jackson has always enjoyed. The haste is based on fear of “people from away” building big ugly things. There was a rumor that a downtown property might be sold, and developed as a hotel. Instead of making that a positive thing, the selectmen and planners chose to go on the defensive. Wal-Mart can’t build in Jackson. Neither can a big hotel chain. Jackson has no town septic, and has some stringent limits on what goes into the soil. That provides a huge measure of protection. Bow adopted performance zoning when they put in town water and septic.
A single family mcmansion could be built in the overlay district, without having to apply to the performance zoning guidelines. A huge tacky pink stucco structure, looking completely alien to the village – larger than life and twice as ugly– and as a single family dwelling, it would not be prevented. In fact there isn’t anything in the zoning as it’s written that addresses how a building looks, or how it is landscaped. Regulations stipulating look, superior construction materials, energy efficiency, and landscaping would make sense. What the planning board has given Jackson voters, with the endorsement of the selectmen, does not make sense.
We have a choice. We can move forward in haste and get something that discriminates against some property owners, something that isn’t specific to our town, something that creates divisiveness and discord – and we can try to change it afterward. Or we can vote NO on performance zoning, and begin the process again, this time with input from business owners and other interested folks. We can create a plan that is specific to downtown Jackson, one that builds community and fosters goodwill. Hardly a difficult choice, is it? See you at the polls.
A village is a hive of glass, where nothing unobserved can pass.” Charles H. Spurgeon
From the March 10, 2006 Conway Daily Sun. Get out and vote, fellow Jacksonites!
Contrived Hysteria
Thanks to an ever-changing schedule, and a few days in bed with a truly evil cold, I’ve been able to catch more of the winter Olympics than usual this year. I grew up in a family of skiers, and the winter games were far more important to us than the summer ones. During the downhill this year, I heard the name Jean Claude Killy invoked a few times, and remembered the Killy slalom skis my father got a deal on one year. They were 220’s – a length that seems preposterous in the world of equipment we have today. The footage of the Alps in Italy has been gorgeous, and seeing actual snow on the ground was nice too. In Jackson, we have no cross country skiers on the golf course this week, only disappointing patches of brown. It’s bad for the local economy, and the general morale. I look forward to the day when the US begins to take global climate change seriously.
I couldn’t stay in bed forever, as attractive as that may have seemed early in the week. The real world beckoned (in the form of my boss) and propelled me back to the wonderful world of the NH legislature.
Last week in Concord, a state rep told me that the legislature has a record number of bills to deal with this year, more than they’ve ever had before. That’s particularly unusual in the non-budget years, when the load is usually a little lighter to make room for the campaigning that needs to be done every two years. Despite this unusual burden, Police Chief Garret Chamberlain of New Ipswich was invited to address the legislature this week, to discuss his experiences with undocumented immigrants. Chamberlain is the vigilante chief who is making a name for himself by attempting to become a one-man immigration department in NH. Chamberlain is much beloved on white nationalist web sites, where they speak reverently of his desire to send brown skinned people “back where they belong.” Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who hopes to ride a very white horse to the White House, came to NH to give him an award a while back.
There are a number of bills this year that deal with immigration issues. A handful of legislators from the Hudson area seem to feel that jailing undocumented immigrants merely for being here, and requiring police and DMV clerks to become offshoots of the INS is a good use of NH resources. Despite the contrived hysteria around immigration, only seven legislators turned out to hear Chamberlain speak. He told the assembled few that “anyone who enters the US illegally is a direct threat to the national security of the US.” Chamberlain also told the few that NH is home to anywhere from 8,000 to 20,000 undocumented immigrants. The Police Chief of New Ipswich isn’t afraid to engage in hyperbole, it seems. The Pew Hispanic Institute estimates that there may be as many as 4,800 undocumented people in NH – the lowest percentage of any state.
There is certainly a need to examine our federal immigration policies, in a calm, reasoned, and respectful way. Unfortunately, it looks as if the GOP is going to use immigration as a wedge issue in the 2006 and 2008 campaigns. They can’t boast of success in Iraq, they’re mired in controversy and corruption, and they’ve created record deficits. The Medicare prescription drug program is a disaster, the much-touted economic recovery isn’t really happening, more Americans are losing health insurance and good paying jobs are disappearing. The answer seems to be to campaign against same sex marriage, choice, and immigration – or bigotry, misogyny, and racism. Not an attractive package, but it may be all they’ve got.
That only seven legislators turned out to listen to Chamberlain is a good sign. Hopefully our NH legislature will choose to deal with the bills before them calmly, rationally, and without racial prejudice. There are a number of groups nationally who are signing on to the White Ribbon Campaign, where they promise to have a sane national dialogue about immigration. You can see who has signed on at whiteribbon.org
Last week, SB316 cleared the NH senate. This bill calls for hospitals to supply interpreters for persons not fluent in English, upon request. It makes sense – a person who isn’t able to converse fluently with a doctor might have to make a number of costly visits before they receive the care they need. That would be a relatively good outcome. A person who could not make himself understood could die from the lack of proper treatment. Spending a few bucks on an interpreter versed in medical language could save thousands in medical costs. This is a chance for the legislature to mandate paying for the ounce of prevention instead of the pound of cure.
This week, HB1492 was heard by the NH House Judiciary committee. This bill would give “immunity from liability to pharmacists who refuse to dispense an emergency contraceptive pill.” The mind boggles at the concept of offering liability protection to people who refuse to do their jobs. It is the job of a pharmacist to dispense medication as directed by physicians. It is not their job to impose their beliefs on the female population.
This bill, if passed, would provide a very slippery slope for other forms of medication that pharmacists might feel “morally” opposed to, including drugs for HIV treatment, anti-depressants, and psychiatric medication. If a pharmacist has such strong beliefs that they cannot fill prescriptions, it is time for them to move on to a new career.
We are truly blessed in NH to have incredible access to our state legislators. They have listed phone numbers. They are always willing to hear our thoughts on legislation, or our concerns. Other states aren’t this fortunate. I was recently called to task by a solon that was unhappy with the way I was portraying legislators. Many of our 400 legislators are people whose names you will never hear, people who work darned hard for that princely sum of $100 that they earn annually. We should all (including me) give them credit for their service, far more often than we do.
“I want you to know that at dinner that evening I gave special thanks for you and the many other wonderful Americans who work with me in the struggle to secure our nation's borders, and the struggle to preserve our national identity, against the tide of illegal immigrants flooding the United States." Tom Tancredo in a letter to his Team America PAC
Published in the February 23, 2006 Conway Daily Sun.
(clearly I was a little behind)
I couldn’t stay in bed forever, as attractive as that may have seemed early in the week. The real world beckoned (in the form of my boss) and propelled me back to the wonderful world of the NH legislature.
Last week in Concord, a state rep told me that the legislature has a record number of bills to deal with this year, more than they’ve ever had before. That’s particularly unusual in the non-budget years, when the load is usually a little lighter to make room for the campaigning that needs to be done every two years. Despite this unusual burden, Police Chief Garret Chamberlain of New Ipswich was invited to address the legislature this week, to discuss his experiences with undocumented immigrants. Chamberlain is the vigilante chief who is making a name for himself by attempting to become a one-man immigration department in NH. Chamberlain is much beloved on white nationalist web sites, where they speak reverently of his desire to send brown skinned people “back where they belong.” Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who hopes to ride a very white horse to the White House, came to NH to give him an award a while back.
There are a number of bills this year that deal with immigration issues. A handful of legislators from the Hudson area seem to feel that jailing undocumented immigrants merely for being here, and requiring police and DMV clerks to become offshoots of the INS is a good use of NH resources. Despite the contrived hysteria around immigration, only seven legislators turned out to hear Chamberlain speak. He told the assembled few that “anyone who enters the US illegally is a direct threat to the national security of the US.” Chamberlain also told the few that NH is home to anywhere from 8,000 to 20,000 undocumented immigrants. The Police Chief of New Ipswich isn’t afraid to engage in hyperbole, it seems. The Pew Hispanic Institute estimates that there may be as many as 4,800 undocumented people in NH – the lowest percentage of any state.
There is certainly a need to examine our federal immigration policies, in a calm, reasoned, and respectful way. Unfortunately, it looks as if the GOP is going to use immigration as a wedge issue in the 2006 and 2008 campaigns. They can’t boast of success in Iraq, they’re mired in controversy and corruption, and they’ve created record deficits. The Medicare prescription drug program is a disaster, the much-touted economic recovery isn’t really happening, more Americans are losing health insurance and good paying jobs are disappearing. The answer seems to be to campaign against same sex marriage, choice, and immigration – or bigotry, misogyny, and racism. Not an attractive package, but it may be all they’ve got.
That only seven legislators turned out to listen to Chamberlain is a good sign. Hopefully our NH legislature will choose to deal with the bills before them calmly, rationally, and without racial prejudice. There are a number of groups nationally who are signing on to the White Ribbon Campaign, where they promise to have a sane national dialogue about immigration. You can see who has signed on at whiteribbon.org
Last week, SB316 cleared the NH senate. This bill calls for hospitals to supply interpreters for persons not fluent in English, upon request. It makes sense – a person who isn’t able to converse fluently with a doctor might have to make a number of costly visits before they receive the care they need. That would be a relatively good outcome. A person who could not make himself understood could die from the lack of proper treatment. Spending a few bucks on an interpreter versed in medical language could save thousands in medical costs. This is a chance for the legislature to mandate paying for the ounce of prevention instead of the pound of cure.
This week, HB1492 was heard by the NH House Judiciary committee. This bill would give “immunity from liability to pharmacists who refuse to dispense an emergency contraceptive pill.” The mind boggles at the concept of offering liability protection to people who refuse to do their jobs. It is the job of a pharmacist to dispense medication as directed by physicians. It is not their job to impose their beliefs on the female population.
This bill, if passed, would provide a very slippery slope for other forms of medication that pharmacists might feel “morally” opposed to, including drugs for HIV treatment, anti-depressants, and psychiatric medication. If a pharmacist has such strong beliefs that they cannot fill prescriptions, it is time for them to move on to a new career.
We are truly blessed in NH to have incredible access to our state legislators. They have listed phone numbers. They are always willing to hear our thoughts on legislation, or our concerns. Other states aren’t this fortunate. I was recently called to task by a solon that was unhappy with the way I was portraying legislators. Many of our 400 legislators are people whose names you will never hear, people who work darned hard for that princely sum of $100 that they earn annually. We should all (including me) give them credit for their service, far more often than we do.
“I want you to know that at dinner that evening I gave special thanks for you and the many other wonderful Americans who work with me in the struggle to secure our nation's borders, and the struggle to preserve our national identity, against the tide of illegal immigrants flooding the United States." Tom Tancredo in a letter to his Team America PAC
Published in the February 23, 2006 Conway Daily Sun.
(clearly I was a little behind)
The Single Digit Peace Sign
I want to be on time, but I often fail. So, I was a little late, heading across the street to hear the testimony on CACR-34, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. As I reached the State House I could see that something was missing. The crowd of anti-gay activists, waving ugly signs was absent. Maybe the cold renders their vitriol glands sluggish, and they hibernate for the winter. Whatever the reason, it was nice not to see them.
There were nearly 300 people in Representatives Hall to testify, listen, and offer support to one side or the other. Everyone was behaving like grown ups. There was no wailing or gnashing of teeth. This time the testimony had a different flavor, because folks were there to discuss a potential amendment to the NH constitution. A constitutional amendment is serious business, and that was reflected in most of the testimony.
The news coverage of the hearing was more than a little one-sided. Every report I heard mentioned that there were many ministers present – but then played news clips from anti-gay ministers. No one reported the numerous ministers (and at least one rabbi) who spoke against the amendment. That included NHPR. So much for the on-going myth of the “liberal” media.
The proposed amendment is the redundant cherry on top of the 2 laws NH already has in place. One forbids same sex marriage. The other states that NH won’t recognize same sex marriages or civil unions from other states. One might think those laws would be all that we needed to deny our gay brothers and sisters equal rights. One would be failing to consider the fact that this is an election year – and this whole amendment was cooked up as a platform for bigoted legislators to bellow from. It will also provide a lot of opportunities for the rest of us to fight with our neighbors. We don’t have enough unpleasantness, apparently, to satisfy some members of the legislature. We need a big, expensive fight that will create a lot of divisiveness.
No matter how anyone feels about same sex marriage, using the NH Constitution as a way of punishing a minority group is wrong. The constitution has traditionally clarified, or enhanced the rights of NH residents. To use it for the purposes of denying rights would be a mistake. It also goes against the whole NH “live free or die” philosophy. Most NH residents are not window-peeping perverts obsessed with the sex lives of others. We’re far more interested in what kind of folks our neighbors are, not what they do behind closed doors. Call your legislators and urge them to vote against this nasty bit of business.
This past Wednesday, President Bush spoke at a NH Business and Industry Association luncheon in Manchester. He was in town to talk to the NH BIA about his budget cuts; tax breaks for millionaires, and of course, to cheer about the booming economy. It is booming, for the wealthiest one percent. On a very cold day, a hundred people gathered across the street to protest the president. I spoke with several people who had never participated in a protest before – average folks who just felt compelled to be there. A lot of people were concerned about health care, and nervous about having no insurance. Some college students voiced concerns about the cuts to the low interest student loan programs – cuts that will add over $2000 to their debt load. The cuts in the recently passed budget reconciliation package were frightening enough, but the cuts proposed for 2007 are terrifying to many who were there. Somehow cutting food programs for seniors, in order to give the Pentagon even more money didn’t seem to reflect the values of those present outside the Radisson Center on Wednesday.
One young man asked me if I thought that standing around outside with signs was accomplishing anything. My answer was yes. It is worthwhile to stand up and be counted, now and again. The majority of those driving by honked, cheered, and waved. The protestors were a symbol of hope for them. As they drove by, they knew they weren’t alone – the way that one can often feel living in this red state. And for those who angrily drove by waving the single digit peace sign – we were providing a public service by giving them someone else to hate. To be a symbol of both hope and hatred can be oddly satisfying. Some days, that’s enough reason to go outside and hold up a sign.
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” H.L. Mencken
This was published in the February 10, 2006 Conway Daily Sun.
There were nearly 300 people in Representatives Hall to testify, listen, and offer support to one side or the other. Everyone was behaving like grown ups. There was no wailing or gnashing of teeth. This time the testimony had a different flavor, because folks were there to discuss a potential amendment to the NH constitution. A constitutional amendment is serious business, and that was reflected in most of the testimony.
The news coverage of the hearing was more than a little one-sided. Every report I heard mentioned that there were many ministers present – but then played news clips from anti-gay ministers. No one reported the numerous ministers (and at least one rabbi) who spoke against the amendment. That included NHPR. So much for the on-going myth of the “liberal” media.
The proposed amendment is the redundant cherry on top of the 2 laws NH already has in place. One forbids same sex marriage. The other states that NH won’t recognize same sex marriages or civil unions from other states. One might think those laws would be all that we needed to deny our gay brothers and sisters equal rights. One would be failing to consider the fact that this is an election year – and this whole amendment was cooked up as a platform for bigoted legislators to bellow from. It will also provide a lot of opportunities for the rest of us to fight with our neighbors. We don’t have enough unpleasantness, apparently, to satisfy some members of the legislature. We need a big, expensive fight that will create a lot of divisiveness.
No matter how anyone feels about same sex marriage, using the NH Constitution as a way of punishing a minority group is wrong. The constitution has traditionally clarified, or enhanced the rights of NH residents. To use it for the purposes of denying rights would be a mistake. It also goes against the whole NH “live free or die” philosophy. Most NH residents are not window-peeping perverts obsessed with the sex lives of others. We’re far more interested in what kind of folks our neighbors are, not what they do behind closed doors. Call your legislators and urge them to vote against this nasty bit of business.
This past Wednesday, President Bush spoke at a NH Business and Industry Association luncheon in Manchester. He was in town to talk to the NH BIA about his budget cuts; tax breaks for millionaires, and of course, to cheer about the booming economy. It is booming, for the wealthiest one percent. On a very cold day, a hundred people gathered across the street to protest the president. I spoke with several people who had never participated in a protest before – average folks who just felt compelled to be there. A lot of people were concerned about health care, and nervous about having no insurance. Some college students voiced concerns about the cuts to the low interest student loan programs – cuts that will add over $2000 to their debt load. The cuts in the recently passed budget reconciliation package were frightening enough, but the cuts proposed for 2007 are terrifying to many who were there. Somehow cutting food programs for seniors, in order to give the Pentagon even more money didn’t seem to reflect the values of those present outside the Radisson Center on Wednesday.
One young man asked me if I thought that standing around outside with signs was accomplishing anything. My answer was yes. It is worthwhile to stand up and be counted, now and again. The majority of those driving by honked, cheered, and waved. The protestors were a symbol of hope for them. As they drove by, they knew they weren’t alone – the way that one can often feel living in this red state. And for those who angrily drove by waving the single digit peace sign – we were providing a public service by giving them someone else to hate. To be a symbol of both hope and hatred can be oddly satisfying. Some days, that’s enough reason to go outside and hold up a sign.
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” H.L. Mencken
This was published in the February 10, 2006 Conway Daily Sun.
Correcting Corrections
Driving around the state gives me a chance to catch up on the news. Last week I heard a number of stories – some good and some bad- about New Hampshire. One of the disturbing stories concerned the abuse of prisoners and prison employees. In the past 6 years, NH has paid out more than $700,000 to settle lawsuits or honor jury awards in at least 8 cases alleging rape and sexual harassment. Most disturbing was the fact that a 2002 state audit warned prison officials that they needed to “drastically” improve the way they treated sexual misconduct, or the lawsuits and complaints would continue.
One case involved a $140,000 settlement in the case of a female inmate who was raped by a corrections officer at the women’s prison in Goffstown. She was serving a 30 day sentence for DWI. The other cases involved employees alleging harassment or assault on the job. In one case, the family of a former corrections officer was awarded $99,000, after he committed suicide. Before he died, he’d filed a lawsuit alleging he had become suicidal after being sexually assaulted by his supervisor.
Last week, a new claim was filed against former Sgt. Douglas Tower, accusing Tower of sexually assaulting 3 women at the Shea Farm halfway house in Concord. The week before Tower was arrested on charges that he raped 4 female inmates. That’s a total of 7 charges against Tower so far – and authorities say there may be additional charges. Tower says that women at Shea Farm flirted with him, and dressed provocatively. His lawyer argued that these allegations are made by felons, and therefore unreliable. One woman said Tower raped her in his office, after signing papers granting her a visit with her children, telling her “she owed him one,” and she better not say anything or she’d get sent back to the women’s prison. He also told her that investigators hadn’t believed a female corrections officer who accused him of inappropriate behavior, so if they didn’t believe an officer, they were not going to believe an inmate.
It’s an old story, unfortunately. As long as there have been prisons there have been abusers. Some gravitate to the work, and some are changed by the situation. In prison, corrections officer have complete power over inmates. That kind of power, combined with the dehumanization of prisoners can lead to ugly behavior.
In 1971 an experiment was done at Stanford University, by Professor Phillip Zimbardo. Zimbardo ran an ad asking for volunteers for a study that would last 2 weeks, and paid $15 a day. Over 70 men answered the ad. After interviews and psychological tests, the two dozen most average and healthy men were chosen. They were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners. The prisoners were “arrested” at their homes, booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and taken to a makeshift prison in the basement of Jordan Hall at Stanford.
Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms, and told that they were not to use violence, but their job was to maintain control of the prison. On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners staged a rebellion. After it was successfully quelled by the guards, according to Zimbardo, “they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation, and dehumanization of the prisoners. Staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics.” The worst instances occurred in the middle of the night when the guards thought no one was watching. Prisoners were forced to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands or act out degrading scenarios. (Naked human pyramids anyone?)
The experiment came to a halt on the fifth day, when Christina Maslach came in. Maslach had just received her doctorate in psychology, and was dating Zimbardo. She had agreed to do subject interviews. When she saw “guards” leading prisoners with paper bags over their heads to the bathrooms, she was horrified. She told Zimbardo that what they were doing was wrong – and he eventually agreed that he and all of the others had been corrupted by the experiment. Maslach’s career led her into researching the process of dehumanization, how people responsible for the care and treatment of others can come to view them as objects. It surely didn’t take long in the Stanford experiment.
The first “prisoner” released from the experiment went on to become a prison psychologist. Zimbardo studies the social psychology of madness in groups and cults. He has mixed feelings about the ethics of his experiment. He’s also disappointed that the study didn’t bring about the kind of changes he’d hoped for in prisons. If anything, US prisons have become even less humane in the last 25 years.
Without clear guidelines, careful supervision, and ongoing training and education, corrections officers can come to regard their charges as objects deserving of degradation and humiliation. They can revel in their own power over those entrusted to their care. The 2002 audit done in NH revealed that sexual harassment investigators received little training and took longer than average to respond to complaints; the record keeping was extremely poor and made tracking complaints nearly impossible; and that inmate prison manuals did not sufficiently explain how inmates could make reports or complaints. The employee manual prohibited sex with other employees, but not with inmates.
This is an ugly situation, and one that the NH Corrections Dept. must clean up at once. It’s time to get out the big broom and sweep out the predators and deviates that may still be working in NH prisons. It’s long past time to question the concept of having male corrections officers in female prisons. It’s time to make policy and personnel changes. It’s time for all of this to see the light of day. We are as sick as our secrets.
A day or so after I first heard this story, I heard another – that an additional 500 beds need to be added to the NH state prison system. We should all be asking what, exactly we are building, and why.
“Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse.” Phillip Zimbardo
This ran on January 27, 2006 in the Conway Daily Sun.
One case involved a $140,000 settlement in the case of a female inmate who was raped by a corrections officer at the women’s prison in Goffstown. She was serving a 30 day sentence for DWI. The other cases involved employees alleging harassment or assault on the job. In one case, the family of a former corrections officer was awarded $99,000, after he committed suicide. Before he died, he’d filed a lawsuit alleging he had become suicidal after being sexually assaulted by his supervisor.
Last week, a new claim was filed against former Sgt. Douglas Tower, accusing Tower of sexually assaulting 3 women at the Shea Farm halfway house in Concord. The week before Tower was arrested on charges that he raped 4 female inmates. That’s a total of 7 charges against Tower so far – and authorities say there may be additional charges. Tower says that women at Shea Farm flirted with him, and dressed provocatively. His lawyer argued that these allegations are made by felons, and therefore unreliable. One woman said Tower raped her in his office, after signing papers granting her a visit with her children, telling her “she owed him one,” and she better not say anything or she’d get sent back to the women’s prison. He also told her that investigators hadn’t believed a female corrections officer who accused him of inappropriate behavior, so if they didn’t believe an officer, they were not going to believe an inmate.
It’s an old story, unfortunately. As long as there have been prisons there have been abusers. Some gravitate to the work, and some are changed by the situation. In prison, corrections officer have complete power over inmates. That kind of power, combined with the dehumanization of prisoners can lead to ugly behavior.
In 1971 an experiment was done at Stanford University, by Professor Phillip Zimbardo. Zimbardo ran an ad asking for volunteers for a study that would last 2 weeks, and paid $15 a day. Over 70 men answered the ad. After interviews and psychological tests, the two dozen most average and healthy men were chosen. They were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners. The prisoners were “arrested” at their homes, booked at a real jail, then blindfolded and taken to a makeshift prison in the basement of Jordan Hall at Stanford.
Those assigned to be guards were given uniforms, and told that they were not to use violence, but their job was to maintain control of the prison. On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners staged a rebellion. After it was successfully quelled by the guards, according to Zimbardo, “they steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation, and dehumanization of the prisoners. Staff had to frequently remind the guards to refrain from such tactics.” The worst instances occurred in the middle of the night when the guards thought no one was watching. Prisoners were forced to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands or act out degrading scenarios. (Naked human pyramids anyone?)
The experiment came to a halt on the fifth day, when Christina Maslach came in. Maslach had just received her doctorate in psychology, and was dating Zimbardo. She had agreed to do subject interviews. When she saw “guards” leading prisoners with paper bags over their heads to the bathrooms, she was horrified. She told Zimbardo that what they were doing was wrong – and he eventually agreed that he and all of the others had been corrupted by the experiment. Maslach’s career led her into researching the process of dehumanization, how people responsible for the care and treatment of others can come to view them as objects. It surely didn’t take long in the Stanford experiment.
The first “prisoner” released from the experiment went on to become a prison psychologist. Zimbardo studies the social psychology of madness in groups and cults. He has mixed feelings about the ethics of his experiment. He’s also disappointed that the study didn’t bring about the kind of changes he’d hoped for in prisons. If anything, US prisons have become even less humane in the last 25 years.
Without clear guidelines, careful supervision, and ongoing training and education, corrections officers can come to regard their charges as objects deserving of degradation and humiliation. They can revel in their own power over those entrusted to their care. The 2002 audit done in NH revealed that sexual harassment investigators received little training and took longer than average to respond to complaints; the record keeping was extremely poor and made tracking complaints nearly impossible; and that inmate prison manuals did not sufficiently explain how inmates could make reports or complaints. The employee manual prohibited sex with other employees, but not with inmates.
This is an ugly situation, and one that the NH Corrections Dept. must clean up at once. It’s time to get out the big broom and sweep out the predators and deviates that may still be working in NH prisons. It’s long past time to question the concept of having male corrections officers in female prisons. It’s time to make policy and personnel changes. It’s time for all of this to see the light of day. We are as sick as our secrets.
A day or so after I first heard this story, I heard another – that an additional 500 beds need to be added to the NH state prison system. We should all be asking what, exactly we are building, and why.
“Evil is knowing better, but willingly doing worse.” Phillip Zimbardo
This ran on January 27, 2006 in the Conway Daily Sun.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Broader Discussions Needed
The yellow and blue hoods are back on the parking meters in Concord, signifying the legislature is back in session. Hearings have begun, and a certain amount of chaos reigns in the early weeks – akin to the returning to school after having the summer off. Our solons will be dealing with a number of hot topics this year, including health care (a perennial issue) and the new, hot topic of immigration.
NH is a small, but growing state. We have 1.3 million residents, according to our last census. Approximately four percent of our population is comprised of people of color. The 2000 census figures show our state to be 96 percent white. Given those statistics, it’s a little curious that there were over a dozen bills heading to the legislature to deal with immigration issues. We are not a border state. At most we may have a few thousand undocumented people in our state, which hardly seems to merit such an abundance of proposed law. Some of the legislation has been condensed, so now there are only 7 or 8 bills, which still seems a lot for NH.
Immigration has been seized by the extreme right as the next wedge issue, and they’re using it to scapegoat people with brown skin. There is absolutely no reason to try to turn NH law enforcement personnel into experts on immigration law, and the reading of immigration documents. Immigration is a federal issue. They are the experts. We’ve already seen cops engaging in racial profiling in some southern towns, and I wonder – is this who we really want to be in this state? Targeting undocumented immigrants leads to ethnic profiling of many immigrants, though not all. The only undocumented immigrants I’ve met in recent years are from Canada, and they aren’t prospects for profiling. There are 26 different varieties of immigrant status which are not immediately visible to a cop pulling over a car. Is this the best use of our law enforcement, our courts, and our state resources? The anti-immigrant folk have begun tying their issue to homeland security. Could someone please remind me how many Mexicans flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Once again, we’re going about solving a problem backwards. Instead of targeting the undocumented people who come here to try to have a better life – why aren’t we having a national dialogue about the abject failure of our trade policies and agreements? If NAFTA were working, people wouldn’t be literally dying to come here.
As always, a number of bills relating to health care will be dealt with this year. This past Wednesday, the Commerce Committee had a hearing on HB 1704, the Fair Share Health Act. HB 1704 calls for companies with more than 1500 employees to either spend a percentage of their payroll on employee health care, or pay into a state fund to cover more Granite Staters. Maryland, Rhode Island, and Washington all have similar bills in process. The consensus is that some big companies aren’t offering affordable health care to their employees. Interestingly, NH doesn’t collect the kind of data that would prove or disprove the assertions. There is a bill coming up that would require that data to be collected in the future.
It was an interesting hearing. The conference room was packed with lobbyists for various business associations and insurance companies. Those of us in attendance heard the history of the employer based health care system a couple of times, while business lobbyists were making the case that employers shouldn’t be responsible for providing health care for employees. One rather snide lobbyist tried to suggest that this assumption on the part of employees was really silly. A couple of legislators felt that people have the option of shopping around for an employer who provides good benefits, that indeed that is the responsibility of the worker. I hasten to add that none of those legislators were from the north country, where that kind of shopping isn’t an option for many workers. Representative Howard Dickinson of Conway was present for part of the hearing, and agreed that this might be a way to move forward in solving our state’s health care problems.
The employer based system began during WWII. It was a temporary measure, aimed at preventing the inflation that might have resulted in the tight labor market created by 15 million men joining the military. The system continued to expand after the war. Health care costs were considerably less back then, and during the Eisenhower days, many Americans spent their lives working for just one company. Corporate loyalty to employees was different then – CEO’s weren’t making 430 times more than their lowest paid employee. Pensions and health benefits were part of the package loyal employees received.
Those days are over. Corporate America wants out of pensions, and health care. Proponents of the “ownership society” believe that workers should purchase their own health care. Conservatives love the concept of the Health Savings Account, where workers pay into an account, and manage their own health care spending. This is a wonderful idea for the wealthy – but for folks struggling to pay the rent, not so wonderful. Worker wages haven’t kept pace with CEO wages. If they had, the minimum wage would be $23.50 an hour.
Once again, we are looking at solving a problem the wrong way. I don’t blame business for wanting out of the employer based system. It’s not working, and it’s not fair. When an employee leaves a company they lose their insurance – that’s not right. Representative Stepanek on the Commerce Committee mentioned several times that what data supporters of HB 1704 had might be flawed, because most businesses only ensure full time employees. Folks here in the valley know that all too well. Part time employees aren’t alive only part time – and those who have multiple part time jobs are mysteriously deemed to be not meritorious of insurance? It doesn’t make any sense.
It’s wrong for the business lobbyists to try to claim some sort of amnesia. We do, for now, have an employer based system of health care in this country. We should certainly be deciding whether or not to go forward with that. For now, we have to deal with the system we have. HB 1704 is not a perfect bill, but it is a place to start the broader conversations that we desperately need to be having.
“Let's face it, in America today we don't have a health care system, we have a sick care system.” Tom Harkin
NH is a small, but growing state. We have 1.3 million residents, according to our last census. Approximately four percent of our population is comprised of people of color. The 2000 census figures show our state to be 96 percent white. Given those statistics, it’s a little curious that there were over a dozen bills heading to the legislature to deal with immigration issues. We are not a border state. At most we may have a few thousand undocumented people in our state, which hardly seems to merit such an abundance of proposed law. Some of the legislation has been condensed, so now there are only 7 or 8 bills, which still seems a lot for NH.
Immigration has been seized by the extreme right as the next wedge issue, and they’re using it to scapegoat people with brown skin. There is absolutely no reason to try to turn NH law enforcement personnel into experts on immigration law, and the reading of immigration documents. Immigration is a federal issue. They are the experts. We’ve already seen cops engaging in racial profiling in some southern towns, and I wonder – is this who we really want to be in this state? Targeting undocumented immigrants leads to ethnic profiling of many immigrants, though not all. The only undocumented immigrants I’ve met in recent years are from Canada, and they aren’t prospects for profiling. There are 26 different varieties of immigrant status which are not immediately visible to a cop pulling over a car. Is this the best use of our law enforcement, our courts, and our state resources? The anti-immigrant folk have begun tying their issue to homeland security. Could someone please remind me how many Mexicans flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Once again, we’re going about solving a problem backwards. Instead of targeting the undocumented people who come here to try to have a better life – why aren’t we having a national dialogue about the abject failure of our trade policies and agreements? If NAFTA were working, people wouldn’t be literally dying to come here.
As always, a number of bills relating to health care will be dealt with this year. This past Wednesday, the Commerce Committee had a hearing on HB 1704, the Fair Share Health Act. HB 1704 calls for companies with more than 1500 employees to either spend a percentage of their payroll on employee health care, or pay into a state fund to cover more Granite Staters. Maryland, Rhode Island, and Washington all have similar bills in process. The consensus is that some big companies aren’t offering affordable health care to their employees. Interestingly, NH doesn’t collect the kind of data that would prove or disprove the assertions. There is a bill coming up that would require that data to be collected in the future.
It was an interesting hearing. The conference room was packed with lobbyists for various business associations and insurance companies. Those of us in attendance heard the history of the employer based health care system a couple of times, while business lobbyists were making the case that employers shouldn’t be responsible for providing health care for employees. One rather snide lobbyist tried to suggest that this assumption on the part of employees was really silly. A couple of legislators felt that people have the option of shopping around for an employer who provides good benefits, that indeed that is the responsibility of the worker. I hasten to add that none of those legislators were from the north country, where that kind of shopping isn’t an option for many workers. Representative Howard Dickinson of Conway was present for part of the hearing, and agreed that this might be a way to move forward in solving our state’s health care problems.
The employer based system began during WWII. It was a temporary measure, aimed at preventing the inflation that might have resulted in the tight labor market created by 15 million men joining the military. The system continued to expand after the war. Health care costs were considerably less back then, and during the Eisenhower days, many Americans spent their lives working for just one company. Corporate loyalty to employees was different then – CEO’s weren’t making 430 times more than their lowest paid employee. Pensions and health benefits were part of the package loyal employees received.
Those days are over. Corporate America wants out of pensions, and health care. Proponents of the “ownership society” believe that workers should purchase their own health care. Conservatives love the concept of the Health Savings Account, where workers pay into an account, and manage their own health care spending. This is a wonderful idea for the wealthy – but for folks struggling to pay the rent, not so wonderful. Worker wages haven’t kept pace with CEO wages. If they had, the minimum wage would be $23.50 an hour.
Once again, we are looking at solving a problem the wrong way. I don’t blame business for wanting out of the employer based system. It’s not working, and it’s not fair. When an employee leaves a company they lose their insurance – that’s not right. Representative Stepanek on the Commerce Committee mentioned several times that what data supporters of HB 1704 had might be flawed, because most businesses only ensure full time employees. Folks here in the valley know that all too well. Part time employees aren’t alive only part time – and those who have multiple part time jobs are mysteriously deemed to be not meritorious of insurance? It doesn’t make any sense.
It’s wrong for the business lobbyists to try to claim some sort of amnesia. We do, for now, have an employer based system of health care in this country. We should certainly be deciding whether or not to go forward with that. For now, we have to deal with the system we have. HB 1704 is not a perfect bill, but it is a place to start the broader conversations that we desperately need to be having.
“Let's face it, in America today we don't have a health care system, we have a sick care system.” Tom Harkin
Friday, December 30, 2005
It All Comes Down to Money
Governor Lynch has been making headlines, recently. In a December 20 USA Survey Poll of nationwide gubernatorial approval ratings, Governor Lynch came in fifth place, with a 69 percent approval rating. Jodi Rell of CT was in first place with 77 percent approval, and in last place was Bob Taft of Ohio, with 17 percent approval. California’s Gropenator was in 46th place, with a 34 percent approval rating. Presidential hopeful Mark Warner of Virginia was in 7th place, with a 66 percent approval rating. Mitt Romney of MA (another presidential hopeful) was ranked in 32nd place, with a 49 percent approval. I approach polls with a healthy dose of skepticism, but it was interesting, and even a little surprising to see how popular Governor Lynch is. He’s certainly in good shape to begin his bid for re-election next year. No word yet on the likely GOP candidate. Will the GOP pit their best candidate, Bruce Keogh against the popular Lynch? We’ll find out in 2006.
Lynch has recently proposed a plan to lower the high school drop out rate, by raising the age that children must remain in school from 16 to 18. The compulsory attendance age of 16 was set in 1903. Lynch says that in 1903 teens could leave school and get good paying jobs in factories or on farms, which is no longer the case. Lynch and other supportive legislators point out the need for students to have more education on today’s high tech world. This issue is being examined around the nation, with some educators and politicians claiming that it’s too easy for students to drop out.
We can all applaud the Governor’s concern for the education of our youth, and wanting to decrease NH’s 3.8% drop out rate. It worries me that NH may attempt to solve a problem by focusing on the end result. Can we solve a problem by focusing on the end of it? What about the beginning and the middle? We talk a good game here about the importance of education, but the reality is a little different. NH ranks 49th in the nation in state funding of post-secondary education. UNH is the fourth most expensive state university in the country.
Everything in NH comes down to money. To keep kids in school, will require an honest appraisal of how we do education, and making some changes. This may require money. Some kids aren’t going to comply. Will we be willing to pay for additional truant officers? Are we willing to pay for tutors, counselors, or whatever is needed to help troubled kids through the educational system? Are we willing to fund after school programs to keep kids safe until their parents get home from work? We all know the answer – and it’s a resounding NO. If we were willing, we’d be doing it already. As long as we continue to fund education through the statewide property tax, children and education will continue to be the enemy.
Governor Lynch accepted a draft last week of the NH 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness. The report was prepared by the Governor’s Interagency Council on Homelessness. A one day survey last January identified 3, 278 people as homeless, on that particular day, and 978 of them were children. The average age of a homeless person in the US is nine. The report estimates that 20,000 people are homeless in NH at some point during the year. Once again, we can all applaud the Governor’s willingness to tackle this problem. Homelessness is all too often dismissed as not being a serious issue in NH. Nearly a thousand homeless children are very serious, especially with homelessness on the rise. Those numbers will only increase until we make a serious commitment to doing something about it.
Once again, everything in NH comes down to money. There’s a real shortage of affordable housing in this state. Towns don’t want apartment buildings or rental properties, because if kids move in, the town must pay for their education. Wages haven’t kept pace with housing costs. It’s a nasty circle, and there doesn’t seem to be any way out of it. As long as NH insists on the regressive system of taxation we currently enjoy, there is no real end to any of this. The housing problems are serious enough to make prospective businesses think twice about locating in NH. Where will their work force live? The ownership society is something much touted by the current administration, but with the cost of a home averaging out at somewhere around $300,000 the American Dream is dead in the water for a large segment of the population.
It’s great that Governor Lynch is getting the dialogue going about education and housing in our state. Sadly, conversation is likely to be as far as we go. Our legislature is filled with dinosaurs. For many of them, time stopped in 1950. These are not people who are suited (in many cases) to deal with the issues of today. Again, it all comes down to money. For $100 a year, we’re getting what we pay for. NH isn’t willing to change. Until we are, nothing will.
“The past is a guidepost, not a hitching post.” L. Thomas Holdcroft
Lynch has recently proposed a plan to lower the high school drop out rate, by raising the age that children must remain in school from 16 to 18. The compulsory attendance age of 16 was set in 1903. Lynch says that in 1903 teens could leave school and get good paying jobs in factories or on farms, which is no longer the case. Lynch and other supportive legislators point out the need for students to have more education on today’s high tech world. This issue is being examined around the nation, with some educators and politicians claiming that it’s too easy for students to drop out.
We can all applaud the Governor’s concern for the education of our youth, and wanting to decrease NH’s 3.8% drop out rate. It worries me that NH may attempt to solve a problem by focusing on the end result. Can we solve a problem by focusing on the end of it? What about the beginning and the middle? We talk a good game here about the importance of education, but the reality is a little different. NH ranks 49th in the nation in state funding of post-secondary education. UNH is the fourth most expensive state university in the country.
Everything in NH comes down to money. To keep kids in school, will require an honest appraisal of how we do education, and making some changes. This may require money. Some kids aren’t going to comply. Will we be willing to pay for additional truant officers? Are we willing to pay for tutors, counselors, or whatever is needed to help troubled kids through the educational system? Are we willing to fund after school programs to keep kids safe until their parents get home from work? We all know the answer – and it’s a resounding NO. If we were willing, we’d be doing it already. As long as we continue to fund education through the statewide property tax, children and education will continue to be the enemy.
Governor Lynch accepted a draft last week of the NH 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness. The report was prepared by the Governor’s Interagency Council on Homelessness. A one day survey last January identified 3, 278 people as homeless, on that particular day, and 978 of them were children. The average age of a homeless person in the US is nine. The report estimates that 20,000 people are homeless in NH at some point during the year. Once again, we can all applaud the Governor’s willingness to tackle this problem. Homelessness is all too often dismissed as not being a serious issue in NH. Nearly a thousand homeless children are very serious, especially with homelessness on the rise. Those numbers will only increase until we make a serious commitment to doing something about it.
Once again, everything in NH comes down to money. There’s a real shortage of affordable housing in this state. Towns don’t want apartment buildings or rental properties, because if kids move in, the town must pay for their education. Wages haven’t kept pace with housing costs. It’s a nasty circle, and there doesn’t seem to be any way out of it. As long as NH insists on the regressive system of taxation we currently enjoy, there is no real end to any of this. The housing problems are serious enough to make prospective businesses think twice about locating in NH. Where will their work force live? The ownership society is something much touted by the current administration, but with the cost of a home averaging out at somewhere around $300,000 the American Dream is dead in the water for a large segment of the population.
It’s great that Governor Lynch is getting the dialogue going about education and housing in our state. Sadly, conversation is likely to be as far as we go. Our legislature is filled with dinosaurs. For many of them, time stopped in 1950. These are not people who are suited (in many cases) to deal with the issues of today. Again, it all comes down to money. For $100 a year, we’re getting what we pay for. NH isn’t willing to change. Until we are, nothing will.
“The past is a guidepost, not a hitching post.” L. Thomas Holdcroft
Friday, December 16, 2005
Distraction
During this holiday season, the Falwellian Christians are engaging in some loud public distraction. Jerry Falwell is encouraging his flock to boycott businesses that greet customers with “happy holidays” as opposed to “Merry Christmas.” He is collecting money for a legal defense fund, the better to sue anyone who “tries to inhibit the liberties of our children and our families from worshipping and honoring the Lord, as we in
In my traveling around the state, I haven’t noticed any lack of Christmas going on. I hear plenty of Christmas carols on the radio, folks are shopping, folks are sending Christmas cards, and folks are even saying Merry Christmas to one another. Falwell and O’Reilly’s phony distraction crusade would be hilarious, if it weren’t so dangerous. The religious right has been trying to convince us of their persecution for years now. Whenever they are reminded that they share this country with people of other religions, they start sniveling about what victims they are. No one is persecuting them for practicing their religion. I haven’t seen or read about Christian churches being forcibly closed down by “libruls” or government agents. It’s smoke and mirrors, designed to keep the faithful busy, while Falwell, and the high mucky-mucks are busy building empires, raking in cash, and acquiring power.
If Falwell and his ilk were at all what they claim to be, they’d be busily joining forces with Jim Wallis, and other religious leaders who, in this holiday season, are busy fighting the real war – the war on the American poor and middle class. This week, over 100 prayer vigils were held across the country, calling on Congress to soften their hearts, and not pass a budget that cuts programs like school lunch programs, food stamps, foster care, and low interest student loans. The Council of Churches is mobilizing clergy around the country to call attention to the fact that a budget is a moral document. No one will die if a store clerk says “happy holidays.” Children may very well die, without foster care funding, and without school lunches. The “war on Christmas” is a farce. The war being waged on the poor in this country is painfully real.
NH is not immune from distraction. The NH commission to study same sex marriage has proven to be another farce. It’s quite clear that the commission went forward with their findings fully in place before a single word of testimony was ever heard. Senator Jack Barnes called for amending the NH constitution, before the commission took even a minute to review their findings. He’s written to every town in the state, urging the selectmen to put two non-binding warrants on the ballot in March. One asking if voters favor same sex marriage (like
This is a nasty bit of politicking. What Barnes and his ilk hope to accomplish is whipping the GOP faithful into an anti-gay political frenzy during the 2006 elections, as a form of distraction. There are a lot of issues that should be discussed during the state elections, and certainly it’s in the best interest of the ruling party to keep them as quiet as possible. Political ethics, property tax, education, housing, development, and health care are important issues in our state – and an honest discussion about them won’t be flattering to the majority party.
NH voters are suspicious of constitutional amendments, as Jack Barnes may discover. Coos County Democrat reporter Edith Tucker summed up the feelings of many in the north country on “NH Outlook” when she said that folks in the north were more interested in whether people are good neighbors or not, and didn’t care much about sexual orientation. It is sorry, indeed, that the right is using this as an attempt to pit neighbor against neighbor, and keep the focus off legislative ethics or our unjust system of taxation.
The sky hasn’t fallen, since
“
Friday, December 02, 2005
No Joy for CCT Workers
Joy isn’t the word that folks who worked for Car Component Technologies (CCT) of
CCT’s parent company is American Remanufacturers Inc., based in
The state has responded very quickly to this situation. The Department of Employment Security (DES) waived the waiting period for unemployment checks. They opened the
To protect the interests of former CCT employees, at the behest of Governor Lynch, NH is intervening in the bankruptcy proceedings. Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and Labor Commissioner George Copadis filed an objection in the
Some of the CCT employees had gone to work there after the closing of the Jac-Pac plant in
I trust most readers will see the irony in the re-training money offered up by the federal Trade Act, since it is trade policies which caused the whole situation. As NH moves further into a service economy, I can’t help but wonder what kind of jobs these folks can be trained for. Some companies have come forward to offer former CCT employees jobs; Stonyfield Yogurt, Freudenburg- NOK, and Wal-Mart among them. There is some irony there – since Wal-Mart is stocked primarily with items made in
Manufacturing jobs are disappearing fast, in the
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)