Monthly Archives: February 2015

HB 194 – The “Life Begins at Conception” bill just killed by full house vote.

Yeah! Feel that triumph!  Now, get ready for the next battle!

We have a report from the chambers that the full house just voted to go with the recommendation of the Judiciary to kill HB 194 as “ITL”, that is “Inexpedient to Legislate”.

Of course this only means we beat the enemy back into the dog house for the moment.  They will collect their respective selves, lick their wounds and come back once again next session.  This strategy, now employed continuously, consists of them beating the wall of reason until it crumbles or until at least enough of us aren’t looking and leave the door open for them to get through to their victory.

We can’t let it happen, we must always work together, share power, share strength to collectively overcome not only these continual assaults on basic freedoms, but also to undo the system that allows this insult to intelligence and justice to continue.

Please refer back to our previous post here for reference on the other assaults on women’s rights going on presently in the house.  We’ll try to update you as we can and encourage our readers to chime in if we’ve missed something.

Five NH House Bills That Should Concern Smart Women and Men

Tagged

Ayn Rand Dead in Gloucester Snowstorm

Because we think this story from the Gloucester Clam, an upstanding online journal of Yankee musings, a necessary public service to libertarians up here in New Hampshire, we decided to re-post this. We’re sure that Manchester will cease to function as throngs of young philosophers of libertarianism put down their bongs and take a break from their bit-coin trading to have a moment of silence in remembrance of this fine woman.  This woman who unleashed a culture of gibberish to give delusional narcissists everywhere the freedom to mooch with impunity .

We wish also to not forget those warriors of the free market hunkered down in their beat-up motorhomes bunkers or living comfortably on an inheritance purchased hard earned sixty acre farm, where they fight against Monsanto and for corporate-capitalist  freedom.  We’re sure they will grab their carbines and weep bitter tears.  You are all now on your own dear warriors.  But Ayn wouldn’t have wanted it any other way, even when she was alive.
[h/t Susan Bruce]

Ayn Rand Dead in Gloucester Snowstorm

Rand, smoking110 year old philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand perished in a snowstorm that covered much of the Northeast this week. Thought to have died in 1982, it was revealed she simply faked her own death to avoid paying debts on the successful treatment of her lung cancer which ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, her being philisopically opposed to Medicare.

Having escaped to East Gloucester to live under an assumed name, she was known for loudly rejecting help from neighbors. “Do not condescend to me with charity,” she shouted at Bob D’Palazola who just recently tried to remove snow from her driveway with his snowblower as he had for many elderly neighbors on the street.

“I thought she was nuts,” said the plumber and good Samaritan, “Considering how much she smokes there is no way she should be out there shoveling herself. I tried to get her reconsider but she started yelling about how indebtedness corrupting the fiber of the soul of man and I’m like screw it, Ill just go do my brother-in-laws house.”

For more of the story: Ayn Rand Dead in Gloucester Snowstorm

Tagged , ,

Jay Smooth on “Black Respectability” commentary from Don Lemon

Jay Smooth of illdoctrine.com “Black Respectability” from August 2013.  He’s replying to commentary from pundit Don Lemon on the issue of “black respectability”, you know the trope that all that black men need to do is present a more respectable appearance and attitude to the public (that is what pleases white middle class culture) and everything will be perfect.  Even though this video is now almost two years old, the issue still burns.  Also, Bill Cosby, before he hit his own wall on respectability, used to love to trot this out while waving is finger at “young black men”.

Its victim blaming.  Its also what women do to each other as well, or American Indian folks or any other group that experiences oppression.  Some folks of any of those given groups will decide for whatever reason, to take on the role of the moral superior one.  These folks have opted to climb up the hierarchical ladder of oppression to get a little further up the line and in the process step on their own people’s heads.  Its victim blaming and it needs to be called out again and again and again just as Jay Smooth does here to Don Lemon, enjoy:

Tagged ,

What Did (and Didn’t) Happen at the Town of Grafton Deliberative Session

Two Free Staters seen riding into town to save Grafton residents from the hassles of governance by making governance a hassle.

Nestled in the green, rolling hills of north-western New Hampshire (western highlands) is the sleepy little town of Grafton.  Rural, small and quiet, comprised once of farms, gristmills and dairy farms, now mostly small family farms and modest houses, Grafton derives most of its economic fuel from the neighboring cities of Lebanon and Hanover and from neighboring Vermont.

Grafton has for centuries stayed out of the limelight of state and national politics like many small towns in rural New Hampshire and liked it that way.  Unfortunately, since becoming the unwitting host to a libertarian/anarchist (capitalist anarchists) group and their bizarre mix of right-wing fringe nutters, Grafton has found itself forced into the news.  Especially in the news are the processes of town government, because as many have learned, there’s no better place to find an anti-government anarchist libertarian than at a town meeting.  And so we proceed to the focus on the recent town Deliberative Session and as observed by Susan Bruce, the oddly conflicting portrayals of the events that unfolded that day and then night.

One story, by the Valley News, the newspaper that represents the geographic area that includes the town of Grafton, paints a picture that according to sources close to Progressive Action New Hampshire who were there, accurately portray the meeting. The Valley News report also makes an effort to illustrate the tension and irritation with the regular few cranks, representing themselves as Free Staters or sympathizers.  As was reported to Progressive Action NH and as Susan reports was noted in the Valley News, the meeting was an “11-hour slog”.  Our source said it took him all the powers of discipline he had in him to stay awake during the petulant nitpicking and objections brought on by just a few Free Stater cranks.

But as Susan points out, the Union Leader, a Manchester based news-rag that has a strong reputation of slanted hyper-conservative news reporting, seems to paint a far different picture than that of the Valley News, or that relayed by citizens who were present.  According to the Union Leader the meeting was as the writer states in the first paragraph,

“Although regular voters and their Free State-oriented brethren disagreed on a number of things during Saturday’s deliberative session, they were undeniably united by the confusion that dominated the proceedings and that at one point seemed to bring moderator Susan Frost to tears.”
Firstly, let’s make something clear; according to one of the town selectman, our intrepid (but bored) observer and as the Valley News reported, the only thing or person needing constraint were a few cranks. Most notable among of which were Brian Fellers, who serves on the Planning Board, Jeremy Olsen, a Free Stater exposed years ago and a couple of their supporters from the audience.  These people heckled and badgered and bothered in every process and procedure available to them, often to the groans of the people at the meeting, as the Union Leader writer observed but seemed unable to perceive the agony of being trapped in a slog of stupid.

The writer’s portrayal of the town moderator as crying? The writer states in the first paragraph “that at one point seemed to bring moderator Susan Frost to tears”. As Susan Bruce noted, the Union Leader did indeed decide to go there — to the dark and dirty dungeon of “weepy” slander the Union Leader once used against Edward Muskie so many decades ago to destroy his campaign and then used later by another conservative news reporter in an attempt to slander Hillary Clinton as she ran for president.

Apparently the writer just can’t let go of this and refers back to the moderator’s supposed “weepiness” not once but twice.  Why did the writer feel so moved by this weepiness?  How was the public served by this portrayal which not only seems a bit slanderous but at the very least a bit like the mean kid in the playground who looks to jab the shy one in the ribs to get him to cry so then he can mock him.  Was the writer so excited about the efforts of Fellers and others of the Free Stater posse and their supposed government genius that he just got caught up in the excitement himself?  Does the writer, like the Free Staters see every single individual who represents a position in government as the enemy, even ironically, when many of them seem so eager to serve in government?

The town elected her. Possibly she has more content than just whether or not she can handle the constant badgering of two or three nitwit cranks from some nefarious fringe organization.  And might it be known some nefarious fringe organization that has made it clear over and over again that they represent an anarcho-capitalist ideology that believes all government must be dismantled and destroyed.  A nefarious fringe organization that by the way, only to an outsider would seem to be the “brethren” of anyone in the town of Grafton that does not identify with their group.  In fact, anyone who refers to any long-time or native residents of any New England town as some Huckleberry Hick bunch who just wrap their warm brotherly love around all new comers really has never experienced or lived in rural New England.  We’ll not explain; natives and long-timers will know what we mean.

Of course the point returns to the fact that the Town of Grafton never asked for these cranks to appear on their doorstep. Most in Grafton don’t recall announcing their desire to be appointed the experimental ground-zero for the bizarre Free State Project social experiment of anarcho-capitalism.  Ironically, the culture in most small New England towns of “live and let live” runs strong and thus no one batted an eye when a few came in with their battered travel trailers and motor homes and announced they were going to setup utopia.

If you talk to any old-timers around those parts you’ll find they’ve seen it all before.  Even some old relics of those idealistic dreamers of a back to the country lifestyle still remain scattered around those parts; broken down cabins, a lone chimney in front of an idyllic small pond (that has a story we’ll not tell here for the sake of brevity) or comments like, “Oh yeah, that old hippie-house.”  They come, do their thing and then move on when their imagined boom trickles to a bust.

Nope, no one thought much of the aspirations of these new newcomers and let them be.  Until of course they began to meddle in local politics in a way that rattled more than just a few local town folk.  Cut the entire budget by ten percent? We all know where that went last year.  Also some Free Staters ran for public office, such as Jeremy Olsen and were immediately roundly opposed and some, such as Brian Fellers, ran for public office as a Planning Board member.  As with many small towns invaded by these people, its only after the election dust has settled and they open their big mouths and expose their shriveled little minds and hearts that they reveal themselves.

The Union Leader writer seems enamored with the Free Staters.  No doubt, since to the simple-minded they seem like a bunch of fun-loving folks who just want some budgetary sense.  Right?  No.  Not when, as even the Union Leader pointed out, someone like Brian Fellers steps in,

“Brian Fellers then asked that the budget be reviewed by department, and later motioned to cut the appropriation for government operations from $249,103 to $49,103. That motion subsequently also failed…”

He wanted the town budget cut by more than half.  Of course this undiscovered genius of municipal management was overruled by the rest of those present.  Apparently the Union Leader writer, (most possibly a cub reporter) had never attended a town meeting or deliberative session?  Possibly the writer might like to try sitting in on a few Board of Alderman meetings in the UL’s hometown of Manchester and then report back on the level of intelligence and organization occurring there?  It appears that the writer couldn’t stomach the entire deliberation as the story ends at lunch-time.  We’d think that said writer might have far more empathy for the tortured residents of Grafton had he also had to sit in that room until late into the evening that Saturday night.  Surely he had plans that night, but for the town of Grafton the plan consisted of giving audience to the new town jesters.

The fact remains though, despite the efforts of an outsider news reporter with an outsider agenda, that the folks of the town of Grafton knew damn well what was going on, were not about to let it happen and stayed to the bitter end to make sure a few outsider cranks didn’t ruin their town by strangling the budget or the process.

Some of the brilliant warrant articles obviously proposed by Free Staters, which were either pushed aside for procedural/legal reasons or not recommended or supported by the majority of Grafton residents: (besides cutting the budget six ways to Sunday with no rhyme or reason involved)

From the Town record distributed that day: (all of which the selectman did not recommend)

– To see if the Town will vote to instruct the Chief of Police to not prosecute any matter relating to the use or possession of cannabis. [We’re not making a value judgment about pot, just noting two things: a) they don’t understand how government laws, rules and jurisdiction works and b) libertarians and especially Free Staters just love them some pot.  Contrary to the their claims, they seem less concerned about the drug war overall and more about just getting busted for their stash.]

– To see of the Town will instruct the Select Board and the Budget Committee to reduce the operating budget by ten percent for the next three years.  [The town voted to recommend a budget increase instead and this article was withdrawn by the petitioner after they were informed that state law requires deferring to an attorney.]

– To see if the Town will vote to establish an ordinance to discourage or otherwise prevent fraud and abuse of office at the local level.  The title of this ordinance shall be “Fraud Remediation Ordinance for Small Towns” (F.R.O.S.T.).  This ordinance requires any Town official found to have committed fraud, which includes falsification of public documents, to be removed from office forthwith.  [Free Staters and their right-wing cohorts love them some constitutional contractural language like “forthwith”.  Its also worth noting that Grafton has never had a problem with fraud and town officials].

– To see if the Town will vote to preclude the Town from paying the personal legal expenses and personal medical expenses of any Town official.  [Again, no one has mentioned a problem with a runaway budget of legal and medical expenses for town officials].
– To see if the Town will vote to require all funding for the Grafton Public Library to be on a voluntary basis, (no use of taxation).  [Don’t these people love to refer to the “founding fathers” as the cornerstone of their claimed Great Constitutional and Patriot Knowledge? What would Ben Franklin think of this?]

– To see if the Town will vote not withstanding Warrant Article #2, to set the operating budget for Public Safety: Police at $10,000.

– To see if the Town will vote to preclude any Town offical and the use of any Town funds to cooperate with the National Security Agency (NSA).  [This of course is a federal issue, but according to conspiracy theorists, NSA is hiding under your bed right now — better look!]

And on and on it goes, a long 42 Warrant Articles of which the majority comprise a mish-mash of right wing conspiracy theories, anti-government crankery and libertarian scrooginess.  From attempting to re-write the bylaws of the Town through the Warrant Article process to attempting to completely undo public departments and even going so far as to propose that Grafton study withdrawing from the school district that serves a whole cluster of towns in the area.  What do these budget luminaries propose that the little town of Grafton do? Build its own school? After the Free Nuts cut the town budget?

At the Grafton Town Deliberative Session Wherein Free Staters Ran Amok…

nothing happened.

No busloads of Free Staters
No raucous happenings with patriotic Patriots of Liberty standing up for the trampled liberties of the liberty-seeking.

Nothing.

But a typical town deliberative session with about 100 people and a few irritating regular cranks irritating everyone; a typical meeting that by the end of the night was around 75.

Now for the rest of the non-story, turn the page and read, What Did (and Didn’t) Happen at the Town of Grafton Deliberative Session

Tagged , , ,

Five NH House Bills that Should Concern Smart Women and Men

Arise women!The New Hampshire House, armed with its share of Tea-Pots and Free Nutters has been loaded with some real backward bill proposals.  Some of the most disconcerting involve messing with the liberties and lives of women in particular.  We have chosen threefive of the most particularly disturbing to highlight here, the last, HB 168 is most probably going to effect women more than men but men could be negatively affected by it as well.

If you have additional information or updates, please send to progressiveactionnh@gmail.com and we’ll do our best to get them up.

According to many seasoned house reps this session has been particularly difficult to follow since it seemed there was a longer wait time for the text of bills to be published causing a huge rush immediately afterward of committee hearings.  Some of the bills outlined here may have already had hearings, we will try to update as soon as we learn the latest, but most will be put before the full house for consideration, so please don’t assume that the struggle is over if a bill comes out of committee.  Also, many of these bills are put up every session and we must remain dilligent and not assume that these fires will not start again.

Many of these bills reflect the frightening effort of certain right-wing groups often knowns as “MRA’s” or “Men’s Rights Association” groups that view feminism and women’s empowerment as a threat to their manhood.  They take an extremist and often very violent view toward women and feminism, repeatedly deny the presence of violence committed against women, promote the idea that the courts are out to get men and deny them “fatherhood rights”.

The rest of the bills reflect the continued efforts of religious extremist groups (often allied with men’s rights groups as well) to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services of any kind.  Usually the pleas about abortion are only a mask to cover up their agenda of completely alienating women from any services directed solely at their needs; i.e., birth control pills or STD treatments.  They see pregnancy and STD’s as the punishment for a woman’s engagement in sexual activity.  Birth control is seen merely as a means for women to have sex not just for reproduction but for pleasure.  This they wish to stop and they have no problem with the idea that women will suffer disproportionately more than men if there is poor access to reproductive care.

So while access to services to terminate a pregnancy are a large part of some of the bills proposed by them, don’t kid yourself; these people also want to have the “right” to harass, shame and belittle women who have the temerity to live their lives to the fullest and be healthy.

So let’s list these monstrosities of attempted legislative empowerment.  The text of these bills is linked onto the numerical title:

  • Next is HB 194, THIS BILL WAS KILLED BY A FULL HOUSE VOTE ON FEBRUARY  11TH.  TO SEE THE LIST OF THOSE WHO WANTED THIS BILL TO PASS PLEASE REFER TO OUR DETAILED UPDATES PAGE called the fetus personhood bill. A perennial favorite among the extremist anti-choicers.  This bill would effectively eliminate any ability of a women to obtain services to terminate a pregnancy after conception.  This means literally that doing such would precipitate murder charges.  Yes, that’s right, women going to prison along with care providers, for causing the termination of a pregnancy in anyway.  Its all about “the babies” with these people, even though science shows repeatedly, a baby isn’t fully a baby until at least the later terms of pregnancy and a baby doesn’t start to realize full humanhood until after birth.Some excellent information on HB 194 from Miscellany Blue as Tucker gets important quotes and analysis from the ground here in NH.These bills are premised on the mostly Catholic presumption that a human becomes a human immediately after fertilization of an egg takes place.  This view also is supported by conservative sectors of the Christianity, namely fundamentalist non-denominational and arch-conservative mainstream Protestants, such as the Southern Baptists.The fetus personhood bills basically support a religious notion of the law which threatens the very important separation of church and state in this country.  Science does not support the assumption that a fetus or a zygote is a complete person in the sense normally understood in our modern society.  A rational look at the process of conception and birth supports the assertion that life as a human does not begin until after the birth process and the infant enters into the world.  In fact, until modern healthcare it was customary for families to not name babies until about the third month of life being that so often infants died of multiple complications in those first three months.  But now, the extremist groups wish to not only pass over rational scientific knowledge and past tradition but also trample our constitutional right to not be ruled by one religious interpretation of reality.The legal ramifications of such a bill are huge as care providers from hospitals to clinics to individual doctors would face increased federal and state scrutiny to ensure that they do not engage in “murder” as according to the new law.  In addition and most dangerously, any miscarriage could be interpreted as a possible self-induced abortion and thus up for scrutiny by courts, arrest for murder and long, drawn-out legal defenses at the cost of the state.  The overloading of courts and the increased over reach of the state into women’s lives can only be imagined.  The potential for placing mothers in jail or even prison, breaking up families and putting existing children in foster care, causing lifelong trauma cannot even be properly gauged or imagined either.  Needless to say, the possible ramifications of this bill are huge and should be taken seriously.These bills also could potentially affect stem-cell research as some religious groups wish to go so far as to claim an unfertilized egg should be deemed a person as well.

    Its very clear that the anti-choice folks only care about their religious interpretation of the process of human reproduction, women, children and the destruction of our freedom from religious rule be damned.  This bill must be stopped immediately!

    While not directly related to HB 194, we encourage folks who question the hyperbole and lies used to attack women’s reproductive services to check out this post on Miscellany Blue from January 15th.  A Republican representative from Rochester, Mr. Groen, goes on a nuclear screed about Planned Parenthood “cutting babies to pieces” as his rationale for proposing planned parenthood be completely defunded.  Of course this is a complete lie, but these people don’t care about the truth, all they care about is controlling women’s lives and putting women back into to the old days.  The old days, when a woman’s life and future was held hostage by reproductive system.  The days when a man could basically stop a woman’s future cold in its tracks by raping her and thus forcing her into pregnancy and twenty years of captivity to raising a child.

Some good summaries on fetus personhood:

Rationalwiki: Personhood Laws
Alternet: Fetus Personhood is the Religious Right’s New Dangerous Word Trap in the Abortion Debate

Bill Status: Currently before the House Judiciary Committee

UPDATE:  News has come in that the House Judiciary Committee ruled, by a bi-partisan vote, that the bill be deemed ITL (Inexpedient To Legislate).  This is not the end of the bill itself as it will come to the full house floor for a vote on Wednesday, February     Get the word out! If you can come to the house session please do! The presence of citizens counts to let legislators know that if they  cannot get away with voting against the rights of women, against the preservation of our right to not be ruled by religious dogma and against rational scientific reason! We will be watching! We will hold them accountable!

    • HB 560 a bill that will move to make fetus a person “for certain criminal offenses”.  While this seems benign enough, the fact is that this is just a slow move toward the real goal of completely restricting a woman’s right to choose by making a fetus — a clump of cells, a legal “person”.  This is dangerous territory where women could be imprisoned for murder for so much as even a miscarriage.  Don’t think this can happen? Ask women in other countries or even here in the old US of A, oh wait, there’s more stories from the US!  In fact, there’s so much going on all over the country to pull back even a woman’s basic right to have the normal bodily function of a miscarriage or to even have a normal teen age life or opportunity as an adult, that one becomes overwhelmed by the responses in a search under “fetus personhood and criminal cases”, or any other related search.

This bill isn’t about concern about prosecuting people who “kill” and “unborn child”  in a crime, its about making a law that recognizes a fetus — again — scientifically a clump of cells, therefore, recognizing a religious interpretation of life as law.  Its about punishing women, its about forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term, no matter what circumstance (or even to have to have a judge determine your circumstance is proper overrules one’s rights) might have caused the pregnancy, no matter what age the woman, even if she is a child herself.

This bill must die its own death for lack of viability, long before its allowed to grow and develop into the ugly personage of hatred and religious superstition and misogyny that it is.

This bill is presently in the House Justice and Public Safety Committee

    • HB 403, a bill that will remove the buffer zones that keep protesters and agitators a safe distance from patients going into a women’s reproductive health facility.  The logic behind this bill is that since the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down the buffer zone law there, New Hampshire might as well get on the band wagon and outlaw the buffer zones here too. After all, concern for court costs and all that.

So they say.  What they don’t say is that the anti-choice crowd can’t stand having to stand further away from women who go into reproductive care facilities.  What they don’t say is that holding up obnoxious, offensive and outright misleading signage and shouting at women going into or leaving clinics and praying out loud like the Pharisees Jesus warned us all about isn’t enough.  They want to be able to get right into the faces of women; they want the chance to snarl at them, hand them deceptive and outright incorrect scare literature, gaze coldly into their eyes and guilt them all the way into the clinic.  Because nothing empowers better than a little hatred and guilt toward someone when they are at their most vulnerable now does it?

Let the courts decide and until that time, let the woman alone we say. If they are so concerned about the costs of a lengthy legal battle they are free to accept the existing buffer zones and leave the rest to their God to decide.

This bill is in the House Judiciary Committee.

    • HB 168 this bill would “permit no-fault divorce based on irreconcilable differences only if the parties do not have minor children.”

This bill would effectively undo the ability of people to get themselves out of a destructive or painful marriage.  In California in 1969 then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first in the nation no-fault divorce bill ushering in a new era of freedom for couples who wanted to release themselves from the bonds of marriage.  Shortly after through the years the rest of the states in the nation followed through in one way or another.

Prior to the development of no-fault, or uncontested divorce, parties had to come before a judge to prove why the marriage bond should be dissolved.  Usually, as reported in links provided, this required that one or both parties present to the judge evidence showing instances of adultery or other failure to live up to expectations in the marriage contract.  Most usually this type of proof requirement bode very badly for women who traditionally had little to no economic means to hire an attorney and fight the accusations leveled against her.  Knowing this many men, most often as the breadwinner in the family, could use the threat of divorce and personal destruction through the courts as a means to keep a woman locked into marriage against her best interests.

As an article in the Washington Post reports, no-fault divorce has largely been a success, freeing women and men from the chains of having to pour their personal lives in front of a judge.  In particular, this has been freeing for women who prior could be locked against their will into a destructive and often even abusive marriage because of a lack of economic resources to get out.

As the Post reports, “No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.”

Statistically also, proof has provided over and over again that children suffer more emotional damage that carries into their adulthood from long-term exposure to love-less and abusive marriages then from the act of divorce itself.  In addition, the requirement of going to court for a divorce in the same manner as a full-blown civil trial causes harm as well by fostering and enabling a grounds for a long painful and combative divorce proceeding which also can cause children irreparable harm.

We encourage everyone to take this bill seriously and to call all members of the House Children and Family Law committee to let them know this cannot be allowed to pass.

ACTION ALERT: Show Up Friday 13th and Tell Legislators “Pass the Resolution!”

ACTION ALERT:

A hearing at the will be happening on Friday, February 13, in Room 210 at the LOB (Legislative Office Building – behind the State House).

Show up and support HCR-2, [House Concurrent Resolution 2] the move to get Citizen’s United overturned.  You can sign up to testify as to why you think, as a citizen, this resolution and considering an amendment is important.  You also can stand by and stare down a politician.  Your presence speaks volumes!

Also: A constitutional amendment is the ONLY way to overturn the Citizen’s United decision!

HCR-2  asks the New Hampshire state legislature to bring forth a resolution to Congress to have convention as explained in Article V of the US Constitution to consider adopting an amendment differentiates personhood from corporate existence. Article V in the constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Therefore, the move is on to get New Hampshire on the list of states to comprise the two-thirds necessary for a convention.  The convention would convene for no other purpose than to consider the adopting of an amendment to clarify that corporations cannot claim “personhood”.

The body of HCR-2 reads as follows:

ANALYSIS

This bill applies to Congress for a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution in order to address concerns raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and related cases.

15-0135

05/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen

A RESOLUTION applying to Congress to hold a convention for amendments.

Whereas, the government of the United States is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and

Whereas, George Washington, the first President of the United States, stated in his 1796 farewell address that, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government”; and

Whereas, it was the stated intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that the Congress of the United States of America should be “dependent on the people alone.” (James Madison, Federalist 52); and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” which has consistently been interpreted to allow the several states to establish their own laws governing the financing of elections; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), removed restrictions on amounts of independent political spending and established a de-facto imposition on the several states denying them the ability to establish their own laws governing the financing of elections; and

Whereas, the current state of federal elections has become such that tremendous power is given to monied legal entities, which have supplanted the will of the people by undermining our ability to choose our political leadership, write our own laws, and determine the fate of our state; and

Whereas, natural persons are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while incorporated legal entities exist only under the revocable authority established by the people through Congress and the several state legislatures; and

Whereas, the Congress of the United States has thus far failed to address the multitude of problems created by the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); and

Whereas, it is in the self-interest of the Congress of the United States not to address the issues raised by the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); and

Whereas, Article V of the United States Constitution requires the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the legislature of the state of New Hampshire hereby applies to the United States Congress to hold a convention, as stipulated by Article V of the United States Constitution, for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution in order to address concerns raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and related cases, including events occurring long before or afterward or for a substantially similar purpose, and desires that said convention should be so limited, and

That delegates to such a convention from New Hampshire shall propose no amendments which do not have a primary goal of addressing the grievances listed herein, and the delegates to said convention from New Hampshire shall be comprised equally from individuals currently elected to state and local office, or be selected by election in each Congressional district for the purpose of serving as delegates, though all individuals elected or appointed to federal office, now or in the past, be prohibited from serving as delegates to the Convention, and the legislature intends to retain the ability to define the power of its delegates within the limits expressed above; and

That the state of New Hampshire intends that this be a continuing application considered together with applications calling for a convention currently pending in several other states, and all other passed, pending, and future applications, until such time as two-thirds of the several states have applied for a convention and said convention is convened by Congress; and

That the clerk of the New Hampshire house of representatives transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each member of the New Hampshire congressional delegation, and the presiding officers of each legislative body of each of the several states, requesting the cooperation of the several states in issuing an application compelling Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution.

***************************

Sponsors of the bill are:

 Moveon.org is also having an online petition drive which they will also present to the state legislators.  Please sign the petition as well as a citizen of New Hampshire who is concerned about how the Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision is effecting the political discourse in this country.

Also, for more information on the original Citizen’s United decision and its effects, please refer to the following articles:

Citizens United vs. FEC – Open Secrets.org – a lot of good links and basic information, updated with new analysis on what the decision has done to the political process.

Citizen’s United Supreme Court Decision An excellent detailed analysis of the decision and its meaning and effects from the League of Women Voters of Minnesota with many good links.

Money Unlimited In-depth article in the New Yorker from 2012 on Justice John Robert’s work to get Citizen’s United the victory it sought.

State’s legislatures and local governments that have passed a resolution and sent it to Congress are listed on United for the People,org’s List of Local and State Resolutions

Tagged , , , , , ,

Study Finds Rail to Manchester Best for New Hampshire People and Business

The New Hampshire Capital Corridor Rail and Transit Study reveals that Massachusetts and most importantly, New Hampshire will benefit if rail is extended to Manchester.  Currently conversations have floated the idea of bringing rail into New Hampshire only as far as Nashua, a border city next to Massachusetts.

But the study shows that extending the proposed rail line into Manchester will reap even more benefits to both New Hampshire and Massachusetts at large.  You can read the summaries of the report by different news local news outlets, such as the Valley News, the Nashua Telegraph, The Concord Monitor,  the Eagle Tribune, Lowell Sun, NHPR and even the Nashua Transit Authority.  But we’ll offer you not only the link to the entire document provided in the first sentence here, but also some interesting highlights we gleaned from scanning the report.

Such as in the first section Public Involvement Report:

The Study group put together 91 stakeholder meetings, three public comment meetings in Manchester, Concord and Nashua, which were all very well attended, the Study group put together Public Advisory Committees, which held three meetings.  The following were the PAC members:

  • Amtrak
  • Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission
  • City of Concord, New Hampshire
  • City of Manchester, New Hampshire
  • City of Nashua, New Hampshire/Nashua Transit System
  • Conservation Law Foundation of New Hampshire
  • The Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce
  • The Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce
  • Lowell Regional Transit Authority
  • Manchester Transit Authority
  • Manchester-Boston Regional Airport
  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
  • Massachusetts Department of Transportation
  • Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
  • Nashua Regional Planning Commission
  • New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority
  • Northern Middlesex Council of Governments
  • Pan Am Railways
  • Rockingham Planning Commission
  • Southern New HampshirePlanning Commission

On page 6 of the report is also a very long list of stakeholders which represented most of the towns and cities that would be possibly effected by rail transit or have transit issues in their communities, but also businesses such as Anagnost Companies, a large housing developer in Manchester, bus companies, colleges, Public Service New Hampshire — the largest electrical service provider in New Hampshire, regional planning commissions and past grantees for previous transit service studies and planning.

The first chapter concludes that as a result of the polling across these groups, the Study group noted the following themes of concern from these groups:

    • New Hampshire would benefit from a transportation system that provides multiple transit options, is less focused on single occupancy vehicles, and provides an increase in options that have the potential to ease traffic congestion and save commuting time.
    • The Manchester-Boston Regional Airport is an important cog in the New Hampshire economy and a rail connection to the airport should be part of the Study.
    • The state needs to work to attract and retain young professionals, who are now leaving New Hampshire at a faster rate than they are moving to the state.
    • It is important to demonstrate the impacts and benefits of passenger rail to the state (economic, social, and environmental).
    • The project needs to have a solid financial plan.
    • State demographics are changing (the population is getting older), and the transportation system needs   to address the needs of this changing demographic.
    • The location of potential rail stations is important to many of the communities, and they would like to be part of the discussion in identifying appropriate locations.
    • System safety needs to be analyzed.
    • The fare structure for any system needs to be competitive with other forms of transportation.
    • The frequency of operation needs to be competitive with other forms of transportation.
    • The Study has many implications for development in New Hampshire, which needs to be quantified.
    • Freight rail along the corridor is important, and the Study needs to examine the benefits to freight that could be realized by a passenger rail project.
    • The project needs to quantify environmental impacts, including emissions, air quality, noise/vibration, etc.
    • An increase in transit options has the potential to ease traffic congestion or slow the increase in
    • traffic congestion in the state.
    • Parking issues associated with potential rail stations is a concern in many communities.
    • Any transportation study needs to include connections between rail/bus and other parts of the state, i.e., local transit systems.
    • There is a concern among stakeholders that any proposed train service would negate the need for existing bus routes, which have been successful to date.
    • A transparent process for the Study is important with a high-level of stakeholder and public engagement.
    • Many stakeholders are interested in how passenger rail would impact the state’s economy.

Also interesting facts throughout the study:

  • passenger rail along the corridor in of transit the Study is looking at in New Hampshire was discontinued in 1967
  • approximately 1800 people ride the bus system along the Manchester to Boston corridor daily, which comprises a cooperative relationship between government and private business.
  • the proposed route comprises 73 miles from Boston to Manchester, going through the towns of Nashua and Lowell and other towns in between all the way to Boston.
  • commuting traffic to Boston known as the “commuter-shed” is increasing from stretching into the Nashua, New Hampshire area and further northward
  • business growth has not kept pace with residential growth in these northern areas, causing northern areas to develop into what are commonly known as “bedroom communities” entirely dependent upon the southern parts of the corridor (metro-Boston and Boston) for more people’s employment.  This drives the commuting factor up quite substantially.  Proponents of public transit say that business may be attracted to northern areas if transit options were improved.
  • bus riders must use “park and ride” areas which are removed from urban centers and still rely heavily on vehicle usage as they are almost inaccessible by any other way than freeway travel.
  • projected increases in population will cause further traffic congestion on public roadways in the coming years
  • economic growth suffers in areas that are reliant on one mode of transit for goods and workers
  • roadways and “park and ride” areas do not incorporate other modes of transportation people use, thus making travel impossible or difficult for many and for business needs
  • projected increased population growth will tend to lead to urban and suburban sprawl which can damage quality of life and the environment if better access to and more options for movement of peopel and goods are not developed

Read more in the study, if you missed the link, here’s another: Final Report: The New Hampshire Capital Corridor and Transit Study

Also, the New Hampshire DOT is doing another study and inquiry on more rail possibilities in New Hampshire and would like people’s input, in particular about areas of Conway.  Check it out!

New Hampshire DOT: Aeronautics, Rail and Transit

What My Bike Has Taught Me About White Privilege

Scouring the WordPress reader boards can bring up some excellent essays worth reblogging, we’ll re-post a few here for their excellent insight and point of view on issues we can all relate to. So let’s begin without further ado; here’s an excellent essay from the blog A Little More Sauce making an analogy of riding one’s bike in the city to white privilege:

jdowsett's avatarA Little More Sauce

The phrase “white privilege” is one that rubs a lot of white people the wrong way. It can trigger something in them that shuts down conversation or at least makes them very defensive. (Especially those who grew up relatively less privileged than other folks around them). And I’ve seen more than once where this happens and the next move in the conversation is for the person who brought up white privilege to say, “The reason you’re getting defensive is because you’re feeling the discomfort of having your privilege exposed.”

I’m sure that’s true sometimes. And I’m sure there are a lot of people, white and otherwise, who can attest to a kind of a-ha moment or paradigm shift where they “got” what privilege means and they did realize they had been getting defensive because they were uncomfortable at having their privilege exposed. But I would guess that more often than…

View original post 1,649 more words

An Argument for Eliminating the Tipped Minimum Wage

By Matt Murray of NH Labor News,

(Screenshot College Humor YouTube)

Every morning millions of Americans wake up and get ready to go to work as servers in restaurants, hoping that today will be a busy day, and that they will have extra generous patrons who tip very heavy. These workers must rely on the generosity of strangers because their employer only pays them $2.13 an hour.   That is right servers are paid far below minimum wage, and 43 states approve of this.

The restaurant industry is one of the fast growing markets in the entire country bringing in over $600 billion dollars annually, and that trend does not appear to be stopping any time soon. Even during the Great Recession the restaurant industry continued to grow by an average of 9%.

This thriving industry relies on the fact that they can legally pay workers below minimum wage, which in most cases barely covers their taxes. The time has come to end this antiquated idea that servers should not be covered by the same wage requirements as every other employer.

Would you pay an extra dollar for that Chicken Parm if you knew that the server was being paid properly even before your tip? Would you even notice if they increased all their prices a dollar? Did you notice that they most like already raised their prices from this time last year? Servers in California are paid at least $8.00 an hour and people still go out to eat regularly.

Before you freak out over the idea of eliminating the tipped minimum wage, consider these facts from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC United):

Read the rest at NH Labor News, “An Argument for Eliminating the Tipped Minimum Wage”