On Thursday, March 9, the following bills, which were related to gun safety, were soundly defeated in the NH House:

• HB 32, would prohibit possessing or firing a gun in a school zone. (Yes, I know, a no-brainer.)
• HB 59, would require a background check before any commercial firearm sale. (Another no-brainer.)
• HB 78, would repeal an act prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation or presidential executive order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep or bear arms.
• HB 106, would allow a court to issue a temporary order preventing a person from having a firearm if they are judged a danger to themselves or others, most people refer to this as a “red flag law”. (Another no-brainer.)

According to Rep. Terry Roy, R-Deerfield, NH is safer than many other states who have more gun restrictions.

The House DID pass HB 31 repealing the ban on owning or selling blackjacks, brass knuckles and slung shots. And for those who had never heard of one, a “slung shot” is a hard object, possibly a metal ball, strapped to the wrist and used as a weapon. A blackjack is a heavy, lead filled pouch, can be swung and used as a weapon.

Those who supported repealing the ban noted a United States Supreme Court decision calling the outlawing of these weapons is unconstitutional. Again, according to Rep. Roy, "They are still useful for self-defense and should not be banned while other more lethal weapons are not." However, using any of these weapons during a crime, they would then become a “deadly” weapon.

While all this was taking place on Thursday, Republican state senators rejected a bill by Sen. Donovan Fenton, D-Keene. His bill was intended to require guns be secured in homes where someone under the age of 18 is present. Currently, the law is age 16.

New Hampshire has been lucky in that we haven’t really had a mass shooting at a school, or a church, or a shopping plaza, or a grocery store.

YET.

For a party that claims to give a damn about individual freedom, New Hampshire Republicans sure do like taking people's rights away. Especially when the people in question are members of marginalized groups that can be vilified for political gain.

Recently, NH State Representative Mike Belcher (R-Wakefield) defended a call for the "eradication of transgenderism" that was originally made by a Michael Knowles, speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Belcher has since become very angry at people for recognizing the genocidal intent behind the position he has endorsed, as if the term "eradication of transgenderism" can be couched in a way that does not suggest an escalation of violent attacks against transgender people.

I mean, "transgenderism" isn't really a thing, even. I certainly don't know anyone who would describe themselves as a "transgenderist." 

But conservative Christians so often have a worldview that is limited to understanding things only within the context of their own religion. Many view "transgenderism" through a faith-based framework that holds it to be some kind of demonically-inspired religion in opposition to their own (see also, "wokeism"), and which must be engaged via "spiritual warfare."

Or other warfare, if necessary. We live in an age where calls for civil war from people on the far right are commonplace. Belcher himself seems to be calling for an "anti-Communist counter-revolution" in his own twitter bio.

One must understand that transgender people would be among the first targeted victims of such violent impulses. Germany in the 1930s is the obvious historical analogy here.

No speaker who called for the "eradication of Judaism" would be understood as calling for anything other than the violent persecution of Jewish people. Ditto with "eradication of Catholicism." These things are very bad and only bad people support them.

Calling for the "eradication transgenderism" is in line with these things, and what Republicans are pushing for is clear: all transgender people must be forced back into a closet, and those that won't shall face persecution.

To that end, three anti-trans bills are coming before the New Hampshire legislature on Tuesday, March 8.

HB 417, coming before the House Children and Family Law Committee, would designate gender-affirming care for trans minors as "child abuse" under state law. Parents would be punished for supporting their trans kids.

HB 619, coming before the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, also outlaws gender-affirming care for minors, while prohibiting discussion of gender identity in public schools and re-legalizing "conversion therapy", which New Hampshire banned in 2020 in part because of its contribution toward high suicide rates among LGBTQ+ teens.

SB 272, coming before the Senate Education Committee, is another attempt to pass the "Parents Bill of Rights," which, among other things requires teachers to keep tabs on the gender expression of their students and report any potential cases of acting queer to potentially intolerant parents.

603 Forward has put together a nice form through which you can register to oppose all three of these awful bills as they go through the committee process. Get it filled out before the end of the day on Tuesday, March 7, to make sure your voice is heard.

The 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Marilla (Young) Ricker was born in New Durham, NH on March 18, 1840. She became a school teacher after taking a course at Colby Academy in New London. She was a free thinker, a suffragist and a member of the Whig party. She became a widow in 1868 after her husband John, a wealthy farmer, died. 

In 1876 she traveled to Washington, DC to study law. Six years later, after taking the exam along with 18 men, she was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia. In 1884, she was appointed examiner in chancery and US commissioner. She was the first female lawyer in NH and in July 1890, she opened the NH bar to women.

Before her education in law and subsequent positions, Marilla was the first woman in NH who demanded the right to vote, going so far as to pay her taxes under protest. In 1870, she went to her local polling place in Dover demanding her right to vote as a property owner and tax payer. Naturally, she was refused but never gave up pursuing her right to vote for 50 years. In 1910, she sought to run for governor but couldn’t get her name on the ballot because, ironically, she was NOT a registered voter! She ran anyway, knowing she was not going to win, but, as she told the Grand Forks Daily Herald her goal was “to get people in the habit of thinking of women as governors. There isn’t a ghost of a reason why a woman should not be governor or president if she wants to be and is capable of it.”

Marilla felt it might take at least 100 years before a woman would be successfully elected, but she wanted “to set the ball rolling.” Thankfully, it took less than that for women to enter into and make their mark in the world of politics, thanks to the efforts of women like Marilla Ricker and Sally W. Hovey, chair of the NH branch of the National Women’s Party. 

In June, 1919, Congress FINALLY approved the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Three months later, NH voted to ratify the Amendment and women have been rightfully and legally voting ever since.

Marilla died on Nov. 12, 1920 in Dover, hopefully she was aware that women were now able to vote.

Presently, there are steps being taken to undermine the vote, not just of women but for people of color. And yes, it IS happening here in NH. Which is why it is so important to take the time to enter your polling place and declare YOUR choice for candidates in local elections, state elections and federal elections. Your choice for planning board or selectman or city council can have as much effect on you as to who you vote for to represent you in Concord and Washington, DC. 

Our right to vote took many decades and was hard fought. We must never forget that as we remember those who secured this right for us as we enter the voting booth. 

People who wonder why progressives have a hard time trusting centrist Democratic politicians should maybe ask themselves what Chris Pappas (D-NH) and Joe Biden think they are doing by joining with Republicans to stomp all over the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. 

As someone born in DC and raised in the DMV, I take personal offense that Republicans are using their restored Congressional power to attack the right of the people of the District to rule themselves.  And I'm offended that Democrats are helping them do it.

As the Biden Administration itself once proclaimed, “For far too long, the more than 700,000 people of Washington, D.C. have been deprived of full representation in the U.S. Congress... This taxation without representation and denial of self-governance is an affront to the democratic values on which our Nation was founded.”

Denial of self-governance to DC is an affront to democratic values. Well said! The people of DC have a right to govern themselves, which includes making their own laws in line with their own values, free of the interference from representatives of far away places like, say, New Hampshire. 

And yet, last month New Hampshire's own Chris Pappas was one of only 31 Democrats to vote in support of a Republican resolution to override DC home rule by repealing recent updates to the criminal code that were duly passed by the DC City Council. 

I don't know why Pappas - who once co-sponsored a bill in support of DC statehood - decided that joining Republicans to sell out a cause he supported was the right move here.  It seems like an affront to democratic values to me. 

After all, there is no reason a voter in Hampton Beach, NH should have a say over whether a carjacker in DC's Anacostia neighborhood should face a sentence of 14 years or 40 years. That Hampton Beach voter would certainly not take kindly to such Federal interference in New Hampshire's laws.

Of course, no elected representative of the people of DC voted on this bill because DC has no voting representation in Congress.

The measure is on to the Senate, where Senator Joe Manchin(D-WV) says he'll vote for it with all the Republicans, because of course he will. New Hampshire's Senators Hassan and Shaheen better not be getting any ideas.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden - who does not have a great track record when it comes to pushing fear about crime for political advantage - says he'll sign this garbage if it gets to his desk, the right of the people of DC to self-representation be damned.

Its always interesting to me which erstwhile-allies centrist Democrats are willing to sell out. Even people who don't feel close to the issue of DC statehood, as I do, should watch what is happening here and be leery of the pattern. 

More than any state in the country, the people of DC consistently support Democratic Party and vote for Democrats in Presidential elections. And this is the thanks they get: white Democratic politicians opting to negate the will of the duly-elected government of a majority Black and brown city so they can pose as "tough on crime" to voters in suburbs back home.

Can Democrats who are willing to sell out DC residents really be counted on to not sell out other groups they purport to represent? Women, for example? Or queer folks? Or Social Security recipients? Or railroad workers? Or teachers? Or immigrants?

I have my concerns.

I want my kid to have access to all kinds of books at the library.

He mostly wants to read books about things like space pirates and orcs, but if he wants to read books that acknowledge gay, lesbian, and trans people exist and discusses their experiences, I oppose any effort to keep those books away from him.

Even if he wanted to read a fantasy novel by Ayn Rand, that would be fine with me. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I wouldn't dream of telling him he couldn't read Atlas Shrugged.

Oh, I might follow it up by discussing my thoughts on the moral bankruptcy of Randian libertarianism, with specific reference to the societal damage libertarians have been causing here in New Hampshire.

But should he be able to read that stuff? Sure, if he wants to.

My son is a good kid and I trust his values enough to not freak out over which books he has access to. I don't see it in my role as a parent to put blinders on his social and intellectual development.

I guess not everyone feels that way about their kid.

Or, more to the point, about other people's kids. It is a problem for me when busybodies, claiming to speak for "parents," work to undermine other peoples children's horizons by trying to ban books from public libraries and schools.

Of course this trend started in Florida, where Gov. Ronald DeSantis' book banners have submitted long lists of books they find objectionable on the grounds of having too much "woke content." One of the books they banned was "Roberto Clemente: The Pride of the Pittsburgh Pirates." That book was pulled from school libraries in Jacksonville because it made references to some of the first Latino player in the Baseball Hall of Fame's experiences with racism.

Librarians in Florida who object to this are putting their jobs at risk. Even giant corporations who object, like Disney, are being punished unjustly.

Unfortunately, terrible ideas that start in Florida are usually quick to spread to New Hampshire. 

And so, in upcoming municipal elections, the town of Raymond, NH will be voting on two warrants that will undermine the independence of librarians from political interference and add a new layer of censorship to the books that children have access to.

The first of these warrants says that the children's section of the library wont include any books "containing nudity, gender identity, sex or sexual references in writing or illustrations." 

I understand that this warrant was mainly targeted at anything with LGBTQ+ related content, in concert with the anti-trans rage-de-jure happening on the right these days - but my reading of the warrant's text suggests that, if it was passed, it would then become illegal to have a Bible in the children's section of the library. I suspect that's not what the petitioner intended. 

The second warrant further seeks to undermine the library by banning it from having any interaction the American Library Association (ALA). This is a threat to the libraries independence and ability to function as a high-quality library. Questions of ALA membership rightly lie with the library's Board of Trustees, and shouldn't be left to the judgment of culture warriors who have accidentally tried to ban the Bible.

Meanwhile, in the legislature, HB 514 has been introduced that would "remove staff and teachers in K-12 schools from exemptions to state obscenity laws, potentially requiring school officials to remove books proactively or face misdemeanor charges."

Of course this would have a chilling effect on the availability of books in schools, and would specifically harm queer kids who may be interested in literature that would help them to make sense of their identity and their place in the world. 

Unlike the Bible-banning, this is not by accident. As Adam Kostko argues, harming queer kids is the point.

On Nov. 15, 2021, after months of negotiating and more than 500 amendments, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Public Law 117-58, also known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) into law. This law is now the largest long-term investment in our infrastructure and economy in our country’s history. It will provide $550 billion throughout fiscal years 2022-2026 in new federal investment in infrastructure, (roads, bridges, and mass transit), water infrastructure, climate resilience, and broadband. The law is intended to create jobs and improve public safety.

Here in New Hampshire, $5 million has been allocated to the expansion of internet access and assisting some households with their internet bills.

For those cities and towns dealing with contamination by PFAS, millions of dollars have been allocated to improve water infrastructure, eventually ensuring clean and safe water.

Investments were allocated for dams, ports and waterways throughout the country. Here in New Hampshire, Portsmouth Harbor is a significant port for goods and supplies in the northeast. Monies will go towards the protection of the environment, while reducing supply chain obstructions, improving safety, and strengthening the economy. 

Renewable energy will help all of us to combat what we now regularly see as climate change and extreme weather, not just here but nationally and globally. Millions of dollars have already arrived in New Hampshire, assisting families in making their homes more energy efficient. Among the allocations of that money is to the purchase of electric school buses and building more electric vehicle charging stations statewide. 

All this and more will come from the president’s bipartisan infrastructure law and we can thank our representatives in Washington, DC for the role they played in making it a reality! 

THIS is what bipartisanship for the good of all looks like. Let’s all work to keep it that way!

Word has it that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' fascist goons have descended on Disney World, put it to the torch, and are summarily executing the relics of our childhood. 

The universities are next.

This is a joke - perhaps in poor taste at a time when Israeli pogroms are happening in Palestine - but everything that has happened since 2016 tells me that modern Republican leaders are capable and willing to orchestrate incredible civil violence against the rest of us. Its one of the reasons I have concerns about conservatives who stockpile AR-15s.

This is also your reminder that Ronald DeSantis' road to Washington goes through New Hampshire. Lets make sure he has a bad time when he gets here.

The following is taken from the Executive Council website:

The Executive Council of the State of New Hampshire has the authority and responsibility, together with the Governor, over the administration of the affairs of the State as defined in the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire statutes, and the advisory opinions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Attorney General.

Each of the five Executive Councilors represents one fifth of the population or approximately 263,000 citizens. Councilors are elected every two years, concurrently with the Governor. The Councilors participate in the active management of the business of the state. They receive assistance from the Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney General who review requests involving state funds since no expenditure can be legally authorized without the availability of adequate funds.

Among some of the duties of the council is approving appointments of Commissioners, Commissioners of Deeds, Judges, Justices of the Peace and Notary Public. They can also hear pardon requests. They manage and oversee the state’s 10-year highway plan and keep an eye on the state treasury, ensuring departments don’t spend more than permitted, or use funds for something else not approved, by the legislature. 

A councilor’s term is 2 years and is made up of both Democrats and Republicans at any given time. They also vote as needed.

Executive Councilor David Wheeler, R-Milford, is now in his 6th term. He is consistent in his votes against such issues as sex education and family planning funding. What he does is not vote during the meeting but gives the council’s recording secretary a list of his “no” votes after the meeting(s) which are then included in the minutes but not the information that he voted after the meeting had ended. 

In an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio on Feb. 23, Mr. Wheeler claimed it a “long-standing practice among councilors.” Yet, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office checked back through 2018 and found only Wheeler to have voted in that manner. Former councilors Congressman Chris Pappas, Colin Van Ostern and Andru Volinsky, who all served with Wheeler stated they never voted that way nor were aware of the practice. Current councilors Joe Kenney, Janet Stevens and Cindi Warmington were unaware of Wheeler’s voting practices, with Warmington now challenging it. Even Governor Sununu, who previously served 3 two-year terms, was unaware of voting by note after a meeting. 

John Formella, Attorney General, claimed the practice is long-standing and used for decades. If so, why did so many past and present council members know nothing about it? Formella stated Wheeler’s votes are included in the minutes and his manner of voting doesn’t violate the right-to-know law, requiring votes to be made public (unless secret ballot or nonpublic session). It is up to the councilors to put an end to this manner of voting, with at least Stevens and Warmington wanting to do so.

To read the entire article: 

Executive councilor defends voting practice amid transparency questions | New Hampshire Public Radio (nhpr.org)

On February 14, 2023, Gov. Sununu laid out his budget plan, with housing, education and licensing reform on the agenda. It was the last item that got my attention. As a licensed hairdresser for the last (gulp) 49 years and a former licensed EMT (18 years) who had to renew those licenses every other year, I was intrigued and curious as to what sort of reform the governor had in mind.

His proposal was to eliminate 34 licenses,14 regulatory boards and nearly 700 statutory provisions. Additionally, the proposal would give universal license recognition, allowing people who are licensed in another state to effortlessly become licensed in New Hampshire. The governor referred to it as, “. . .incentivizing working professionals across the nation to move to New Hampshire." 

Okay.

(For this article I have focused only on the licenses considered for repealing.) Repealed Licenses – As part of the effort to decrease barriers to workforce entry the following licenses and certifications are eliminated.

Apprentice Soil Scientist
Apprentice Wetland Scientist
Athlete Agent
Barbering, Cosmetology & Esthetics Booths within an already licensed facility
Cardiac Electrophysiology Specialist
Computed Tomography
Forester
Hawkers and Peddlers
Itinerant Vendor
Landscape Architect
Licensed Nursing Assistant
Limited X-ray Machine Operator
Magnetic Resonance Technologist
Medical Technician
Nuclear Medicine Technologist
Radiation Therapist
Radiographer
Radiologist Assistant
Shorthand Court Reporters
Soil Scientist
Sonographer
Temporary License-Cardiac Electrophysiology Specialist
Temporary License-Computed Tomography
Temporary License-Limited X-ray Machine Operator
Temporary License-Magnetic Resonance Technologist
Temporary License-Nuclear Medicine Technologist
Temporary License-Radiation Therapist
Temporary License-Radiographer
Temporary License-Radiologist Assistant
Temporary License-Sonographer
Temporary Permit-Veterinary Medicine
Temporary Registration-Medical Technician
Voice Court Reporter
Wetland Scientist

Then, I checked the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification website which states the following: “. . .provides administrative support to over 40 professional Licensing Boards, Commissions and Councils responsible for licensing and regulating their professions within the State of New Hampshire. Through the NH Administrative Rules and Administrative Boards, the OPLC is able to fulfill its mission that ensures public safety and efficacy.”  

While I can perhaps see an “athlete agent,” “landscape artist” or a “voice court reporter” not needing a license, I do question the proposed licensing elimination of a “medical technician,” “licensed nursing assistant” or a “cardiac electrophysiology specialist.” 

For those who are unaware (as I was) a cardiac electrophysiologist is a cardiologist who has 2 extra years of training to learn heart rhythms and how to diagnose problems with them. Training to become certified as a cardiac electrophysiologist:

• A 4-year medical school program
• A 3-year residency in internal medicine
• Board certification in internal medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine
• A 3-year training program to specialize in cardiology, followed by board certification from the American Board of Internal Medicine in cardiovascular disease
• Another 2 years of training for certification in clinical cardiac electrophysiology from the American Board of Internal Medicine

Gov. Sununu DOESN’T think a cardiac electrophysiologist specialist needs to be licensed? 

I would be remiss to let Black History Month go by without mentioning one of my political heroes, Kurt Schmoke, who was Mayor of Baltimore from 1987 to 1999. Mayor Schmoke was part of a remarkable generation of Black leadership that came out of Baltimore in that era, including the late Congressman Elijah Cummings and former NAACP Chairman and current Congressman, Kweisi Mfume.

I saw Mayor Schmoke speak once - at the time I was a high school student in Baltimore - and he described himself as a young man who "once had a great future." That was his go-to joke in every speech. He was well aware that he had dug his political grave through his opposition to the drug war.

In 1988, at the height of the Reagan-era moral panic and associated human tragedy of the "crack epidemic," Mayor Kurt Schmoke threw away his prepared notes prior to a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors and instead declared that the drug war makes no sense, that it is impossible to arrest and incarcerate our way out of the problem. 

He asked the Mayors to urge Congress to open a national discussion on treating substance use as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice.

This call was met with silence and scorn. Mayor Schmoke was deemed an apostate and disavowed even by his allies.

In advocating for the decriminalization of marijuana and medicalization of other drugs, Schmoke's ideas presaged the modern harm reduction movement. It took 35 years and an overdose crisis that broadly affected white people, but laws and attitudes have gradually been shifting toward what Mayor Schmoke was proposing.

Last year's landmark Medically Assisted Treatment Act, sponsored by NH's own Senator Maggie Hassan, is an example of how a public health approach to the problem of substance use can save lives.

Though the road from Mayor of Baltimore to Governor of Maryland is generally a well-worn path, Kurt Schmoke never made that jump. That said, it should be noted that the people of Baltimore twice saw fit to re-elect Kurt Schmoke as Mayor. He is currently President of the University of Baltimore.