About the "job-killing" agenda - whose is it anyway?

In NH and around the country, as well as in DC, we hear over and over that cutting government budgets, getting rid of all that "job-killing" spending, will create lots and lots of private sector jobs.  Even if it hasn't worked in the last 30 years, this time it will work.Well, the guys who do economic predictions for Wall St., big banks, etc., beg to differ: Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

Zandi was John McCain's financial guru in the 2008 campaign. Others as well: The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, relying on data compiled by the Center for American Progress, found that the Republican budget plan would force roughly 975,000 Americans from their jobs. What's more, just last week, economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the GOP proposal would reduce economic growth by as much as 2% of GDP, which would cause the unemployment rate to go up about a point. In effect, our Republican representatives at all levels of government have a real job killing agenda.  Might be worth talking about?

Being a Democrat in NH

I was at the supermarket today and was approached by a fellow townsperson who has kids in elementary school.  She informed me that “we” needed to get hold of people and let them know that a couple of the candidates for school board would be very bad for the school and that they should vote for other candidates.  I told her that I was very busy trying to do something about the NH legislature, and that I was afraid that no matter who we elected to the local school board, if we couldn’t stop the legislative agenda our schools would be in big trouble.
After I left the store and headed home, I starting thinking back to last fall, when I was running for state representative, as well as being still employed full time and trying to get ready to retire (think switching from employer insurance to Medicare, etc., for both me and my husband, Social Security, etc.).  Neither this woman, nor 90% of the people in town who knew me and all the work I did for the community over the past decades, wrote a letter in support of my candidacy, donated money to my campaign, or even contacted me to let me know they would vote for me and tell their friends to do the same.
I am not even sure they voted.  One thing that became clear after the election was that there were a lot of Democrats who had voted in 2006 and 2008 who did not bother to come out and vote in 2010.  I heard a lot about disappointment in Obama (and that is a whole other subject that drives me nuts, because I believe it was the Republicans who were to blame for what didn’t get done, and racism also played a part, yes, in NH), and of course it was an off-year election.
In 2010 we lost Carol Shea Porter, one of the best legislators ever and the first woman ever elected to Congress (in 2006) from NH.  We elected a puppet of the big money, Kelly Ayotte, instead of Paul Hodes, a star as a freshman congressman in 2006, as Senator.  We elected Charlie Bass, who is great at enriching himself and his family in government service, instead of Annie Kuster, a grass-roots champion.  And we got this excuse for a legislature.
And if a few more Democrats had only just voted, none of this would have happened.  Or at least not all of it.  But NH Democrats are still gun-shy (probably a bad description at the moment, with all the pro-guns-everywhere legislation pending) and coming out of the closet, so to speak.  Some of us got active when Howard Dean came to town, and have been working without rest, it seems, since then.  Others are still very scared to reveal themselves, for fear of being targeted in these tough economic times.

How extreme is the new NH legislature?

I was going to go through the entire list of bills introduced in the NH House of Representatives this year, but I got about half way through and ran out of steam.  So I will just present a bunch of bills I found that are what I would consider extreme for NH, and you can go to the link above if you want to explore more.  I will try to add notes about the context in our state.

As you read through, try to find a bill that creates jobs.  That’s what they ran on.

2011-H-0007-R

HB228

title:

prohibiting the department of health and human services from entering into a contract with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any organization that provides abortion services and prohibiting the use of public funds or insurance for abortion services. 

This is obviously part of the national campaign against Planned Parenthood.

2011-H-0008-R

HB329

title:

requiring parental notification before abortions may be performed on unemancipated minors.

NH had such a law but Planned Parenthood filed suit and it went to the Supreme Court, which found it did not have the exclusion for the health of the mother.  What makes this particularly interesting is that the Attorney General who defended the state in the suit was Kelly Ayotte, who is now a US Senator elected in November in the Republican wave in NH.  She arranged a payment to PP of $300,000 and managed to keep it out of the news for several years.  Then she ran on “winning” the suit!

2011-H-0009-R

HB544

title:

relative to state authority over firearms and ammunition.

This and other bills about firearms expand what the supporters call “safety zones,” which are places firearms may be carried (as opposed to “killing zones” where guns are banned), bar executing federal law over firearms and ammunition manufactured in NH, make it legal to use deadly force to defend oneself in any situation (we used to have to flee if possible, now all we have to say after we have killed someone is that we felt “threatened”), etc.  It is now fine to carry weapons into the legislative chambers in the NH State House, which makes us unique in the nation.

2011-H-0012-R

HB330

title:

relative to carrying firearms.

2011-H-0013-R

HB545

title:

repealing the department of education's rulemaking authority for home education programs.

This is part of the movement to let home schoolers do pretty much whatever they want and call it home schooling.  There is also a bill to change the definition of child neglect to remove lack of education from the wording.  

2011-H-0039-R

HB207

title:

relative to physical force in defense of a person.

2011-H-0070-R

HB340

title:

promoting parental choice in education and providing for an abatement from the education taxes for parents of children not enrolled in the public school system.

Municipalities would have to pay the parents of home schooled and private schooled parents a rebate of the property tax that we use to fund schools in NH.  For those who don’t know, we have the “NH Advantage” which means no income or sales tax allowed.  People move here because they hear about our “low taxes” and then they get their first property tax bill.

2011-H-0072-R

HB440

title:

requiring that New Hampshire join the lawsuit challenging federal health care reform legislation, and repealing the authority for state implementation of federal health care reform.

2011-H-0073-R

HB341

title:

relative to local spending caps.

Copying California, except not state-wide, yet.

2011-H-0078-R

HB125

title:

relative to lawful commerce in firearms, including manufacture and sale, in New Hampshire.

2011-H-0079-R

HB343

title:

establishing a permanent state defense force.

This is cool, a militia.  I guess this is a jobs bill, but I thought we didn’t like to spend on those awful public employees. 

2011-H-0065-R

HB229

title:

repealing the tax on gambling winnings.

This is one of many bills that will cut state revenues.  I am sure that this will make the looming budget deficit better.

2011-H-0122-R

HB39

title:

relative to the adoption of the common core state standards in New Hampshire and relative to the substantive content of an adequate education.

To even start on the story of NH education funding is difficult.  I did find a quick outline.  The Democratically controlled legislature of the past 4 years did define an adequate education and what it should cost, and we thought we were finally in compliance with the finding of our Supreme Court, but the new legislature wants to go backwards.  They want to remove the arts, health, technology and foreign languages from the definition of an adequate education, along with all sorts of other games with funding, etc.  

2011-H-0124-R

HB73

title:

establishing a process for recall of United States Senators from New Hampshire.

New Jersey has tried this, it is unconstitutional per the US Constitution.  However, we have a representative who considers himself a scholar of said document, and he is perhaps the weirdest law maker in the bunch.  

2011-H-0140-R

HB446

title:

repealing the authority for regulation of certain professional occupations.

This one and others like it will keep the state from regulation hairdressers, barbers, etc. and will cost the state $800,000+ in fees (when you don’t have many taxes, those fees keep the place running) the first year.

2011-H-0223-L

HB645

title:

eliminating various taxes and fees and tax and fee increases enacted in fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

See the previous note. 

2011-H-0235-R

HB356

title:

requiring valid photo identification to vote in person.

Numerous bills to keep people from voting, especially Democrats.  College students are being targeted, as is the ability to register to vote at the polls.  The latter would make NH’s waiver from the so-called MotorVoter act void immediately and would require the state to make sure that anyone who visits a Federal agency office be offered the chance to register to vote.  I suspect this would cost the state some money.

2011-H-0254-Rs

HB563

title:

revising the child support guidelines based on foster care reimbursement rates.

This is nice.  It would limit the amount of child support that would be allowed in a divorce to the amount paid a foster family.  Even if one parent made a million bucks, the custodial parent would only be paid what a foster family would get per child.  

2011-H-0257-R

HB217

title:

including "unborn child" in the definition of "another" for the purpose of first and second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.

2011-H-0272-R

HCR25

title:

urging Congress to amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit churches and other houses of worship to engage in political campaigns.

2011-H-0274-R

CACR3

title:

relating to initiative petitions. Providing that referenda to enact laws may be initiated by petition.

Another attempt to make us CA-East.

2011-H-0289-R

CACR6

title:

relating to taxation. Providing that a 2/3 vote is required to pass legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees provided that the legislature may increase the rate of taxes and fees with a majority vote in any fiscal year that insufficient revenues are provided to pay the principal and interest on a debt payable in that year, to which the state has pledged its faith and credit.

Another CA-East proposal.

2011-H-0288-R

HB239

title:

prohibiting a state agency from establishing a fee without legislative approval.

2011-H-0291-R

HB218

title:

repealing the New Hampshire rail transit authority.

The state does not fund this, but these guys hate trains.  They hate them all over the country.

2011-H-0293-R

HB360

title:

establishing a state defined contribution retirement plan for state and political subdivision members of the retirement system and establishing a committee to study the transition of current employees into the new plan and administration of the new plan.

Get rid of the NH retirement pension system and put them all in 401(k)s.

2011-H-0317-R

HB219

title:

establishing a committee to study the abolishment of the department of education.

The NH Dept. of Education is the only place federal education money can go to. 

2011-H-0326-R

HB515

title:

relative to voter registration and relative to procedures for absentee voting.

2011-H-0335-R

HB89

title:

(New Title) requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

2011-H-0339-R

HB567

title:

relative to physical force in defense of a person.

2011-H-0340-R

CACR13

title:

relating to prohibiting any new tax on personal income. Providing that no new tax on personal income shall be levied by the state of New Hampshire.

2011-H-0375-R

HB370

title:

making changes to the pupil safety and violence prevention act.

Take cyberbullying out of the landmark NH anti-bullying act.

2011-H-0389-R

HB113

title:

(New Title) prohibiting the use of state funds for New Hampshire public television.

This one has passed the house.  One of my reps told me that what they do is duplicating other educational programs.  Right.

2011-H-0393-R

HCR19

title:

affirming States' powers based on the Constitution for the United States and the Constitution of New Hampshire.

2011-H-0394-R

HCR15

title:

ordering our federal senators to vote against the Law of the Sea Convention.

2011-H-0395-R

HCR18

title:

declaring Merrill v. Sherburne to be void and of no force.

You may note that the NH Legislature is known as the General Court.  Way back the legislature was the court of last appeal in lawsuits.  Merrill v. Sherburne struck that use down.  These guys want to bring it back.  They have a number of bills attempting to get rid of the separation of powers and make the legislature the one supreme authority in the state.  Ordering the AG to bring lawsuits, attempting to fire judges, and allowed the legislature to override court decisions are all part of this attempt to bring tyranny to NH.

2011-H-0436-R

HB470

title:

repealing the comprehensive shoreland protection act.

We finally got some protection for the many waterbodies in NH.  Keeping them clean is part of the protection not only of our water supplies, our wildlife habitat, but also our tourist industry.  But it upsets the rich folk who buy up the camps on the shorelines, tear down the little houses and build MacMansions and want a golf-course lawn kept up with fertilizers and herbicides right now to the shore.  

And here is where I ran out of steam.  Please add others in the comments.  

Legislating from the Bible

This interesting, weird and rather scary interchange began with me sending an e-mail to each of the members of the NH House Judiciary Committee who had an e-mail address listed. I almost immediately received a reply from a representative, not one of mine, none of them are on the committee.  I am reproducing it without the full name of the representative at this point.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sent: Sun 2/13/2011 2:01 PM

Subject: Civil rights

As a married heterosexual woman whose life is filled with friends who are both married and single, straight and gay, all of whom are contributing members of our communities and powers of example of how to live good, productive and caring lives, I urge you to listen to the majority of the people in NH who do NOT want us to take away rights that were granted to our fellow citizens.  If you repeal gay marriage in NH, it will be the first time NH has ever taken away rights once granted, a really dreadful precedent for the LIVE FREE OR DIE state.

I hope you will vote ITL on HB437-FN & HB443-FN and then turn your attention to matters that do help NH, growing the employment opportunities and crafting a fair and compassionate budget. Please stop letting your agenda be run by groups from outside our state, and concentrate on what your constituents thought they were voting for.

Lucy Edwards

N****d NH

______________________________________________________________________

On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:03 PM, P***, L*** wrote:

Dear Ms. Edwards, Thank you for your e-mail concerning the marriage bills.  I am in total support of any bill that defines marriage as between one man and one woman period.  Anything less will be opposed.

Again, thank you and please contact me in the future with any questions or concerns.

 Respectfully,

Rep. L M. P***

______________________________________________________________________

To: P***, L***

Subject: Re: Civil rights

Could you tell me why you take this position?

Thank you,

Lucy Edwards

______________________________________________________________________

On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:11 PM, P***, L*** wrote:

Dear Ms. Edwards, I be glad to tell you why:  the Bible clearly states what the definition of marriage is and anything different is an abomination to God.

 Respectfully,

Rep. L*** M. P***

Hillsborough Dist. **

______________________________________________________________________

From: Lucy Edwards 

Sent: Sun 2/13/2011 2:19 PM

To: P***, L***

Subject: Re: Civil rights

What happened to the Constitution?  Did the Bible replace it?  

And it actually is Mrs. Edwards.  As I said, I am a woman married to a man. 

Lucy Edwards

______________________________________________________________________

On Feb 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, P***, L*** wrote:

Dear Mrs. Edwards, The Constitution does not define marriage, the Bible clearly does. 

Rep. L*** M. P***

______________________________________________________________________

From: Lucy Edwards 

Sent: Sun 2/13/2011 3:03 PM

To: P***, L***

Subject: Re: Civil rights

So, if I have this correct, NH law on marriage is governed by the Bible, not by the constitution?  I don't think that is way we usually write laws in NH.  Or the United States.  We aren't one of those countries where one religion is the state religion, and all the laws have to agree with its holy book.  

I feel for your constituents.

Lucy Edwards

______________________________________________________________________

On Feb 13, 2011, at 3:14 PM, P***, L*** wrote:

Dear Mrs. Edwards, no where in the NH Constitution is the word marriage, it is not a Constitutional Right.  There is a definition of what marriage is in the Bible.  I suggest you read your Constitution and you will see what rights you have.

 Rep. L*** M. P***

______________________________________________________________________

From: Lucy Edwards 

Sent: Mon 2/14/2011 10:55 AM

To: P***, L***

Subject: Re: Civil rights

I have been trying to remember my Sunday school lessons and the stories in the bible.  Didn't Abraham have two wives, and I know David and Solomon had many.  Where in the book does it say that marriage is one man and one woman?  I would really appreciate if you could cite the chapter and verse.

Thank you,

Lucy Edwards

______________________________________________________________________

Mark 10:6-8 Jesus, himself, quotes from Gen. 1:27 is one example.

 Rep. L*** M. P***

I looked up the references in Google:  

Mark 10:6-8 (New International Version, ©2010)

6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b]8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Footnotes:

Mark 10:6 Gen. 1:27

Mark 10:7 Some early manuscripts do not have “and be united to his wife.”

Mark 10:8 Gen. 2:24

Genesis 1:27 (New International Version, ©2010)

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

How do you talk to an extremist?

The problem I have is that I can't talk to these people because I really, really, really don't like them.  All they want to do is hurt others.  They really get off on that, and I can't fight back because that's not who I am.  I can say some cutting words, but I can't do to them what they would have absolutely no qualms doing to me, "for my own good," of course.

We are about caring for others, not being selfish, seeing the world as an interconnected whole, understanding in the depths of our being that we are all in this together, and loving other human beings, the animals and the plants we share the planet with, and upon whom we depend for life.

They are the rapists of the planet, the misers who hoard and won't share, the punishers who get off on hurting others.  They look like reasonably normal people, but they act like petty tyrants.  They don't accept logic, or facts, or caring as reasonable ways to approach civic life.  I do not like them, and I don't want to have anything to do with them.

And they are running my country and my state.

The World Becomes What You Teach

If you dream of a world where teaching is world changing, you need to watch this video.  Zoe Weil has a vision of teaching children how to make the world they long for,  a world where justice rules and harm to people and animals and our planet is not disallowed, because it doesn't have to be.  Children grow up learning to live without harming others, learn to share, learn the joy of being creative and fulfilling their potential in a non zero-sum world.

If nothing else, it will remind you of how stifling our current world view is.

Granny D's last speech

A Facebook friend shared this speech which he received by e-mail.  It is a wonderful piece of writing, and really hits on all the issues we, as a people, face today.  I miss her, I wish we still had her, but we still have her voice and her vision.

This is a draft of the last speech Granny D was working on last February when she was in Arizona, less than a month before she died. She was planning to give it at the September 2010 Bob Fest event in Wisconsin.

She had spoken at three previous Bob Fests, billed as the largest progressive rally in the nation. She and Jim Hightower have been among the most requested repeat speakers.

At last summer's gathering, she posthumously received the Robert M. LaFollette Congressional Advocacy Award, a musical tribute by the Raging Grannies and a long and loud standing ovation.

In honor of what would have been her 101st birthday on Jan. 24, here are the words she had wanted to say last summer, her gift to all of us. 

Her words, work and indomitable spirit go marching on...

            Nations, history has shown us, have a state of mental health. A nation may be open and positive, hard-working and fully confident of its future. It may send great white fleets around the world and humans into space.  A nation may also be angry, self-destructive, cruel. We are individuals and we are parts of a whole. The whole can be as troubled or as ecstatic and positive as an individual. You all know this very well, and you know that, at the present time, America is angry and divided and rather like a mentally-disturbed person. Many of its citizens are turning away from obvious truths and embracing angry and dangerous fantasies instead.

            If someone you know flies off the handle in an uncharacteristic way and will not listen to the clear facts, perhaps his dear wife will take you aside and explain that there is a major problem with their son, or his job or the family business is in trouble.  It’s hard to settle arguments and put away anger when we are desperately anxious about our future and our family’s future.  That sort of anxiety is driving America’s politics today. And where does it come from? Anger and blindness to the facts are the twin children of powerlessness––powerlessness over one’s own––and one’s family’s––future.

            That anxiety is manipulated by masters of self-interest. In the 1950s, as great corporations began to wash away the family businesses of Main Street, the anger of those middle class families should have been directed against those corporations and the political officials in league with them. Instead, anger was redirected very purposely and methodically against a phantom Communist threat, against the civil rights of blacks, and against any expansion of government into worker protection and consumer protection.  Because the anxiety was misdirected, it was not brought to bear on the proper cause of the anxiety, and so the anxiety only grew.

            Corporations and the very wealthiest people began to finance the election campaigns of their foot soldiers in Congress. They financed talk radio and propaganda television. We now see millions of people whose anxiety has been hijacked and redirected against all their own best interests.  In the Reagan years, all the stops were taken off things like hostile corporate takeovers and the rise of new monopolies, so that even the most ethical companies were forced to ship their jobs overseas and shutter their plants in American towns and cities. This was all very profitable for the wealthiest elite. You might wonder why these people have allowed things to go so far that the earth of their grandchildren is now endangered, and perhaps fatally, and the answer is that they do not care about their children or grandchildren, so long as they themselves have the longest yacht in Monaco harbor.

            From those yachts are sent instructions that control what Fox News watchers and talk radio listeners will be upset about tomorrow. This undead army will be used to stop all real progress toward real solutions, and the mass anxiety of the people will grow even greater, even as their homes are taken from them and their foods are poisoned. All this engineering needs ready enemies, and so it is the Mexican immigrants or Arabs anywhere who are the Other who now have the honor of being the scapegoats and the diversions.  We could, after all, end illegal immigration by improving economic conditions in Latin America, and we could end Arab anger by moving our economy from oil to solar, but those are big business considerations for proper discussion in the yachts off Monaco, not in our pretend Congress.

            So the anger of anxiety grows. Guns and ammunition now flow into our communities in semi-trucks.  The politics polarizes to the extent that the Republicans have no moral or patriotic objection to sabotaging the economy if it will mean more votes in the next election. And facts as plain as day––as plain as a birth certificate––will be insulted and burned in the streets.

            If I were the President of the United States, looking at all this, what would I do?

            I would do a great deal.

            I would use administrative powers to do as much as I could to return a sense of personal power to people.  Every notch will help defuse anger. I would require federally-insured banks to have human beings answering their phones, and have local human beings assigned to personally help every customer, with full authority to make most decisions regarding those accounts.  I would find out which other industries federal leverage would permit similar returns to the human scale, so that people had more daily moments when they did not feel so powerless against the machinery of modern life.  Just because we have the technological power to dehumanize our world, doesn’t mean we should do so.

            As the President, I would look at the companies that sell things to the federal government.  I would give a purchasing preference to those companies that dumped their computerized, outsourced telephone systems and other systems of human contact in favor of a more human-scaled operation. I would give a preference to small businesses. I would order the agencies of government to buy American products when possible, even at a premium.  I would start a holy war against the kinds of red tape at every governmental level that inhibits the creation of Main Street businesses, market areas, small family businesses and small-scale manufacturers. 

            The object of these moves is simple: to give more people a sense of control over their own lives and futures.  This is not some Libertarian rant.  The Far Right would have us living in some everyone-for-themselves nightmare world.  Government at its best is just the lot of us making some decisions together for the benefit of all.  Getting back to that, and getting away from the “them versus us” notion of government is crucial. Getting rid of the bloat of bureaucracy is an essential part of it.  We can move with the right wing on this issue, though we may get off the bus a few stops before they do. I expect a roomful of citizens could come up with a thousand things that make them feel disempowered and that might be changed. Little empowerments can build toward more meaningful empowerment. People ultimately need to believe, and correctly so, that their daily efforts will bear the harvest they have earned.

            They need to own their own financial records just as they own their own medical records, and they should therefore have the right to opt out of credit reporting systems. A person’s name and address and email address should never be sold without their permission.  All the fine print in contracts––things you must click on and agree to if you are to get access even to things you have purchased, should be outlawed for purchases of under, say a thousand dollars. You shouldn’t have to sign a ten-page contract to buy a damn song or to use the program that plays it. All those little things are insulting to us, and they add up.  Maybe we will need to take our shoes off at the airport for awhile yet, but we shouldn’t have to bow so low to every company that tells us to.

            Stores ought to look for shoplifters and stop them, but devices that scan and beep and the doorways, and clerks who stop you at the door before leaving to examine your basket and your receipt are making an accusation that you are probably a thief, and Americans should not be accusing each other of such things without probable cause. It is dehumanizing. There should be a presumption of innocence even in our stores. Our dignity demands it. These little things that eat away at our dignity ultimately make us angry and alienated. So end those practices. Put consumer and government pressure to bear against companies that will not abide by a new and golden rule of personal treatment in America. When people are treated with an expectation of honor, they tend to respond. The few that do not are not worth worrying about or ruining our otherwise pleasant dealings with each other.

            When we have a Congress that again represents the people, we need to return to the states the authority to limit interest rates that can be charged on loans and credit cards. States used to have that power, and rates were generally limited to not much over ten-percent, but the interstate banking lobby bought Congress and we are all now paying for a lot of yachts as a result.  This can be a states’ rights issue, and we can do business with the right wing on this.

            The United States of America has an interest in the development of small, family-run local and regional businesses. Those businesses are good for the economy, good for communities, good for families, good for personal empowerment, and good for democracy. When we have us a Congress again, lets create a corporate tax system that discourages businesses from growing larger than they need to be. A computer company and an automobile company may need to be large, but there is no reason for general merchandise stores to be overlarge.  There is no reason for insurance companies or media companies to be overlarge.  Returning the economy to a more local and more human scale is important and necessary for our political, cultural and ecological survival. While we are at it, we should get rid of corporate-run prisons. What is a greater insult to an American than to be locked up by a corporation? Anyone in that circumstance out to have a right to resist. It is a science fiction horror that insults all of us.

            If we fail to act on these matters, the sense of personal disempowerment will grow, and also its anger and its violence.

            Returning a more human scale to our economy would also create quite a few jobs and quite a few new businesses. If a U.S. president would take up an aggressive campaign to return human scale and its personal power to Americans, I don’t think he or she would find too many opponents, except in the yachts off Monaco. They would of course instruct Fox News to rail against this return to the stone age. But the anger that fuels their toxic enterprise and others like it would dissipate, and we might soon have a governable country again.

            The idea of a social safety net, while constantly attacked by the wealthy elite and the Fox undead, provide important ways to reduce the kinds of anxiety that otherwise disrupt society and democracy. If parents know their children will be able to attend college, that they themselves will have a secure old age, and that the only time people will sleep outdoors in America is when they are camping, they will be better neighbors, better parents, better spouses, better and more productive workers, and better Americans.  

            If there is one thing that would guarantee any President’s re-election, it is this final suggestion: A President could administratively modify the procurement code of the federal government so that companies that do more than a million dollars worth of business with the federal government annually must not lobby the federal government in any way except in open hearings. This disempowerment would result in a grand re-empowerment of average citizens, who then would stand a chance being heard by their elected representatives. With every notch––and that would be a big one––anger subsides, racism subsides, we step away from the precipice now before us, and we move toward a much better America.

            These are ideas someone might package and promote. A joining of left and right might be possible regarding this package. A president in search of a little triangulation might even listen.   Frankly, I don’t think we have much time to waste.

             Thank you very much. 

              Doris "Granny D" Haddock

Doris“Granny D” Haddock, campaigner for election reform, died March 9, aged 100 

Addicted to Risk

I was sent this video by a man who cares about us all and the planet we live on.  Please watch it, and share it widely.

68 years

68 years ago today I was born in New York City, in the midst of war, with my father on a destroyer in the Pacific.  While I don't really think of 68 as old, when I think back on all the happenings, all the changes, since then, my head spins.  My father would have been 95 at the end of the month, my mother would have been 93 in April,  and thinking about their lives is even more mind-boggling.  Maybe there is less wonder that many of us have so much difficulty coping with modern life.  Although I am not willing to give them too much of a pass, I can see a bit how those who are full of fear, the authoritarians, want some strong person to take over making decisions for them.  The willingness to turn oneself over to a dictator-like entity scares the shit out of me, but I can also see how that might happen in a world that just won't stop changing.

As for me, I like change, most of the time.  I worry more about being bored than about things changing.  So far, despite some really hard times in the past, my life has been pretty damn good.  I am quite healthy for my age, although losing 20 pounds would be a good thing, and I am working on that, slowly.  I have lots and lots of great friends, people I respect and admire, people who do things which help others they may not even know, rather than selfishly thinking only of themselves and their families.  I see the world through a political lens, because, as my good friend Bob Perry notes:

"People often say with pride, 'I'm not interested in politics.'  They might as well say, 'I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedoms, my future or any future...'  If we mean to keep control over our world and lives, we must be interested in politics."   -- Martha Gellhorn (1908 -1998)  American novelist, travel writer and journalist

Like Ms. Gellhorn, I believe we all need to be involved in the political process, do our research (not depending on one source and TURNING OFF FOX), and do more than just vote.  Democracy, as our founders knew well, depends on a citizenry that knows enough to make good decisions about today AND tomorrow.  And above all, we need to care for one another, and for everyone's children and grandchildren, and for our planet, the only home we have.  

Miss me?

Between shoveling snow, managing e-mail, and learning to post content to our wonderful on-line newspaper, The Forum, my own blog has been left in the lurch.  I am learning to manage all this time I have since I retired.  It's very different than being very busy and managing the little free time you have.  You get very efficient.  But now I have trouble deciding what to do next, what to put off, and what to say NO to.  It's an odd feeling.  Not what I expected.

But it's still wonderful!

Christianity and political hate speech

Very interesting article on how hateful political speech relates to Christian belief.  It should be read by all who profess to follow the teachings of Christ.

As Christians, we accept that words shape lives. With that comes a moral duty to use them carefully and gently for what is just. Too many among our faith have forgotten that. Civil discourse is not just a civic duty; to those of us who follow Christ, it is a Christian duty.

Of course, this will be rejected by the very "Christian" right wing.   They own the rights to "Christianity" now.

Hate speech

Matt Taibbi points out in this article that the new Speaker of the House was intemperate in his speech during the campaign.   Perhaps not as intemperate as Gabby Giffords' opponent, who offered a target with her picture on it and a weapon to shoot at the target at a campaign event, but when you suggest that violence is part of our political process, you will be held accountable by at least some Americans.

Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.

"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"

Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."  (emphasis mine)

Driehaus says Boehner was "taken aback" when confronted on the floor, but never actually said he was sorry: "He said something along the lines of, 'You know that's not what I meant.' But he didn't apologize."

"...that's not what I meant."  But other people might very well think that is what you meant.  When you represent the people of your district, they should be able to believe that you speak with care and thoughtfulness.  You are not the boss because you were elected, you are the employee of your constituents.  Enough.

New sound bite

I hear from a friend who attended a hearing in Concord on the new Wild West reenactment scenario they have passed that there is a new sound bite making the rounds.

"Killing zones" are places where guns are prohibited.  And of course, "safe zones" are places where everyone and anyone can pack a gun.

So look for your local "killing zones," schools, town halls, shopping malls, workplaces, to become much "safer" in the future.

Party time for Frankie

Frank Guinta attended a party and got some personal attention from Mr. Koch.

After the ceremony, David Koch walked up to Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH) - a freshman Republican Koch helped to elect using his front group, Americans for Prosperity - and asked him to confirm that he will be attending a party that Koch is hosting for Republicans. Guinta said he would be at the party, which began at 5:00pm today.

I wondered during the campaign who Frank would really represent, and now I wonder even more.  I somehow suspect that he isn't really very interested in "the rest of us," as his predecessor would say.  I will be keeping a close eye on this relationship.

It's only a deficit when it's for you or me

Among other things, the new Republican majority in the House has redefined deficit spending.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits. Now, in the new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by $143 billion as part of a repeal of health-care reform.

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has a nice compilation of the ways Republicans redefine what they are doing when they go from election-mode to "governing"-mode.  (Quotes because I don't believe Republicans today have any idea how to govern.)

Here's another interesting one:

For two years, the Republican minority vowed to return power to the people. Now the House Republican majority is asking lobbyists which regulations to repeal, hiring lobbyists to key staff positions and hobnobbing with lobbyists at big-ticket Washington fundraisers.

However, in this paragraph I think Milbank is just doing what is apparently the obligatory dig at Democrats in any article that points out the failings of Republicans - this is what passes for "objectivity" these days in journalism.

Even before the speaker's gavel is passed at noon from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner, it would appear that the Republicans are determined to form just as arrogant and overreaching a majority as the one they defeated.

Anyone who equates Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner should be ashamed of himself.

Some thoughts on the role of government - repost

I am reposting this from my campaign blog because I am listening to Al Gore's Assault on Reason at the gym.  I have read the book, and was very struck by his description of how TV and our brains interact.  Listening to it again, I remembered writing this.  Read it and let me know if you have noticed the same thing.

One of the biggest differences between political philosophies these days is the perception of the role of government in our society. I come to this from the perspective of a student of anthropology, sociology, political history and economics. Some of my knowledge and belief system comes from schooling, much from reading extensively, and some from discussions with others involved in the political process. Much of it comes from actually getting involved.

I am not a person who does sound bites well, so I will ask you to stick with me for a bit, rather than turning me off when I can’t give you instant and simple reasons for my beliefs.  I do not believe these things because I am a Democrat, I am a Democrat because this is what I understand about the world I live in.

29 years ago Ronald Reagan made his famous pronouncement, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”  This has been interpreted by many as a license to attack government whenever possible, even while asking to be elected to run such a government.  For some the goal is to “shrink government enough to drown it in a bathtub,” another famous quote from Grover Norquist, lobbyist extraordinaire. 

I have a very different vision of my government that comes from getting involved at the local level with town committees and boards, including the selectboard.  Learning about town budgets, employees, taxes, etc. as the person responsible for making it work gave me a different perspective. Standing outside and criticizing is easy.  Actually making it work is very difficult.  However, it is also very, very rewarding.  And I don’t mean monetarily!

The rewards come from the people I have met, truly wonderful, smart, caring, thoughtful people who volunteer their time to make a town run.  The pay stinks, but the rewards come when I have managed to involve some others in the process, because although we all moan about how hard it is, I know have introduced them to something that will enrich their lives and empower them to see what I see, that government is ultimately ours, and we make it or break it.

But when people hear over and over again that government is a problem, that “they” are  taking away from, not adding to our lives, and that the best thing to do is elect people who promise to dismantle what, unfortunately, turns out to be the only thing between the voters and the rapacity of the greedy in all too much of our recent history, what are they to believe?  It is easy to blame someone in “the government,” but we really are responsible, in our system, for electing those in the government and using care in doing so.

The people who founded this country and wrote our constitution did have a vision of how they wanted this to work.  Their vision was of an educated public, who knew something of history and current affairs.  This knowledge came from the written word, books, self-published pamphlets and newspapers.  Today we have many, many ways to get information.  So how do we get ourselves to the point where we actually consider electing people who think government is a problem, to run that government? 

Part of it is schooling, and part of it is that explosion of ways to find out about how things work.  Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a lot of the written word involved for too many of us.  Most people now get their news from television, and there are a number of problems with that.  Some of them have to do with the corporate ownership of the media, and some have to do with the way the brain reacts to TV.  Part of our biological heredity is how movement in our field of vision affects us.  We are instinctively compelled to focus on moving images, because back in the day when we were creatures in the wild, anything moving in the area was either food, or something that wanted to make food of us, or potential mates, all things we needed to pay attention to immediately. 

Television is an endless series of movements to the visual field.  Reading a book, or a magazine or newspaper or even articles on my laptop, I find it easy to pull myself away from the written word. But if there is a TV in the room it is constantly catching my attention and drawing my eyes, and I find myself sitting there almost hypnotized.  Yes, hypnotized.  Passive, waiting for direction.  So what does that mean in an article about government?

If people are getting most of their information about how to choose their government from a medium that makes them passive, rather than interacting with the information, choosing what to read, stopping and thinking about it, maybe even writing about it, are they not vulnerable to being manipulated?  If you watch TV for hours a day, you certainly are not likely to get involved.  And if you are not involved, at least to some extent, is it not easy to see the government as not being of much importance to you and your life. 

And yet everyday, governments at all levels of our society are making decisions that affect our lives.  If our only interaction is once a year, or every two years, or even every 4 years, at the voting booth - and many of us choose not to even do that - how much effort are we going to put into finding out what is really going on?  It is so much easier to sit in front of the TV and watch whatever we happen to find, including 30 second political ads, getting our emotions stimulated, and perhaps even being manipulated into voting against our own self-interest and the interests of the communities we live in.  I don’t think we are lazy, I know we are tired and overworked, which is a subject for another post.  I do suspect we are being used by clever people to find government a distant body that either has little to do with our lives or that actually is hurting us. 

But that is not what our founders intended!  And it is not what inevitably has to be.  So when that neighbor of yours runs for office, or asks you to get involved, don’t say, “Oh, I don’t want to get involved in politics, it’s a dirty nasty business.”  It is the business our founders intended us to be involved in deeply and thoughtfully.  It’s our government.

My thanks to Al Gore who called my attention to the TV phenomenon in his book, The Assault on Reason.