On March 7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended nationwide limits on the levels of PFAS, also called “synthetic chemicals”, in drinking water. If this new rule is approved, it would go a long way in preventing thousands of deaths and diseases caused by these poisons.

PFAS stands for “per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances,” they are synthetic chemicals and have been widely used for decades in items such as nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, certain cosmetics and some firefighting foams, per the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

PFAS break down over time but the process is slow. They can last a long time in the environment, most notably drinking water and have been discovered in the blood of humans and animals. According to the CDC,continuous exposure to these chemicals have been linked to an increased risk of testicular and kidney cancer, increased cholesterol levels and low infant birth weights. New scientific evidence points to even low amounts of PFAS as harmful. 

The EPA expects to conclude its recommendations by the end of this year, with water utilities beginning to follow it three years later. This would require the utilities to invest money in the new technology, but the newly passed “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” would provide $10 billion towards reducing drinking water contamination.

The recommended rule would not apply to those with private wells, however the EPA website provides information on testing for and the prevention of private well contamination.

I’m sure we all remember when the town of Merrimack was apprised of these synthetic chemicals in their drinking water. That was 7 years ago, and they are still dealing with this problem. So there are those in Merrimack who are happy with the EPA’s recent announcement of proposing the federal drinking water standard of 4 parts per trillion for contamination. That will go a long way towards positively ensuring people’s health. 

Governor Sununu has voiced his concerns, stating the EPA is raising the bar to high. "Maybe they look good on paper, but they're unreasonable. They're unattainable in many ways. There's a question not just of the science behind it but the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to even try to attain the levels they're pushing."

Sigh.

Hasn’t the governor heard of the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”?

This March, city and town Democratic committees are having their organizational caucuses. Participating in a local Democratic Party organization is a great way to get your feet wet in politics.

You can find out about when your local caucus is scheduled by checking the events map on the New Hampshire Democratic Party website. The work these local party organizations do is vital to helping Team Blue win in a purple state.

Last night, the Keene City Democrats elected its new slate of officers, including some new faces and many who have been around since the caucus two years ago, when progressives organized to win all the offices and revive a moribund organization. In that time, several have gone on to win seats in the General Assembly.

The members of Keene City Democratic Committee for 2023-2024 are as follows:

• Chair: State Rep. Shaun Filiault (Cheshire-7)
• Vice Chair: State Rep. Amanda Elizabeth Toll (Cheshire-16)
• Treasurer: City Councilor Bobby Williams (Ward 2)
• Secretary: Samantha Jean-Jacobs
• Delegates at Large: 
  • Michele Chalice
  • Nancy McGartland
  • State Rep. Renée Monteil (Cheshire-16)
  • Marie Dugan
  • Sandra Van De Kauter
  • Kristen Petricola
  • Sue Hay
• Ward 1 Chair: State Rep. Nick Germana (Cheshire-1)
• Ward 2 Chair: Paul Ruscak
• Ward 3 Chair: Vern Thornblad
• Ward 4 Chair: State Rep. Jodi Newell (Cheshire-4)
• Ward 5 Chair: Stephanie Ritchie Logan

Tonight I attended Keene's "joint meeting", where the five members of the City' Council's Planning Licenses and Development (PLD) Committee meet in a workshop format with the members of the Planning Board. 

At issue was the proposal to reduce the minimum lot size in the rural part of Keene from five acres to two acres. There was a pretty good turnout, as these things go, both in favor of and opposed to the ordinance. 

The presentation by the city staff considered, among other things, the tax implications of what this change would mean. There is a concern that rezoning will lead to higher taxes in the rural area as properties become more valuable due to the possibility of being able to subdivide.

I'm of two minds about this. The first is that I recognize that paying taxes sucks and in some cases can create a hardship that leads to negative consequences. On the other hand, by having properties artificially undervalued as a result of zoning restrictions, it sure seems to me like rural property owners in Keene are getting a sweet little tax subsidy, which has to be made up by those who live closer to the urban center. Like me, for example. 

But it seems the problem is actually quite limited in scope. Most of the parcels in the area will not be affected by valuation changes - either because the lots are too small to further subdivide or because they are already set up with another sweet tax subsidy are big enough to be in current use. It ends up that significantly less than 200 parcels would be affected by valuation increases, out of about 10,000 total parcels in the city.

A typical parcel that would be affected might go up in value from $65K to $85K, resulting in an additional tax bill of about $620 a year. Which is unfortunate for the property owner to have to pay that but is also a $20,000 windfall when they eventually cash out.

Several members of the Monadnock Interfaith Project were there to speak in favor of the ordinance, in light of our area's dire need for more housing opportunities. MIP will always come out when issues of housing are up for discussion.

Those speaking against the ordinance were rural property owners not wishing to have new development in their bucolic neighborhoods. These places are indeed lovely, and I can't blame anybody for not wanting them to change.

For my own part, I remain conflicted over the conservation implications of all this. You simply can't expand human activity into natural areas without doing serious damage to the ecosystems that exist out there. Moreover, building car-dependent, single-family homes way outside of town isn't exactly a development pattern for green living.

It's the Planning Board's job to consider whether the proposed ordinance is consistent with our city's Master Plan, and the members present all voted that it was. Pamela Russell Slack, attending her last joint meeting before stepping down as Chair of the Planning Board, noted that the Master Plan was starting to show its age and needs to be updated soon.

It was then voted to move the ordinance on to the next step, which will be a public hearing, followed by further consideration by the PLD Committee prior to being sent to the full Council for approval. There will be further opportunity for public comment at both the public hearing and the PLD Committee meeting.

Book banning is becoming more and more common lately with issues such as race and LGBTQ frequently targeted. Everything from novels about anti-slavery, different religions to modern books have been removed from school libraries. For example, about a year and a half ago, in Pennsylvania’s Central York School District, books such as I am Rosa Parks by Brad Metzer were removed along with other so-called “racially conscious materials.” 

The following are a small example of some of the books no longer allowed to be available in Central York school district:

• How to be an Anti-Racist by Ibram X. Kendi
• The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas
• Fry Bread: A Native American Story by Kevin Noble Maillard
• I am Rosa Parks by Brad Meltzer
• Our Favorite African Adrinkra Symbols: A Coloring Book by Abena Walker
• Malala: My Story of Standing Up for Girls’ Rights by Malala Yousafzai

Think this can’t happen here in New Hampshire? Think again. On Thursday, March 16, the House will meet in a full session to confer about several topics. Amongst them is the “Book Ban Bill” HB 514. This bill has no recommendation from the Education Committee and its sole purpose is to allow SOME parents ban the books that THEY find inappropriate for EVERYBODY else’s children in their local school district. While every parent has the right to decide what book their OWN child may be exposed to, they do NOT have the right to decide for someone else’s child. HB 514 will also increase the Commissioner of Education’s power to ban books and other materials.

Please take a few moments to contact your state representative before Thursday and urge them to vote against HB 514. You can find your representative at this link Contact Your Representative.

Thursday night I had the fortune to be invited by Rep. Amanda Toll to the New Hampshire Young Democrats' "Granite Slate Awards," at which she accepted an award for "Progressive of the Year."

That's like an Emmy, if the Emmies were for New Hampshire Democrats that Get Things Done.

Of course I didn't think to take a decent camera to this event, or to sit in a spot with a less oblique angle and better lighting. Which is to say that I apologize for the quality of these photographs. 

But I would like for the readers of this blog to get to know more about the badass, state-level Dems we have working on our behalf in Concord, so I will post them anyway.

First up is a blurry photo of Senator Becky Whitley at the mic, that also features the backs of the heads of Cheshire County Democratic Chair Mohammad Saleh and lone Democratic Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington. 

Becky Whitley represents Concord, Penacook, Hopkinton, and Bow. As her website says "her entire career has been committed to social justice and public service, as a disability rights lawyer, climate activist and organizer, child health policy specialist and advocate..." She also a mom although, oddly enough, not to either of the children clinging to her in the photo. 

Those children in fact belong to Senator Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, who represents a chunk of the Seacoast. and who was there to receive the "Progressive Legislator of the Year Award." 

That's her in the orange. Among other accomplishments, this year Rebecca co-founded the Bipartisan Housing Caucus which, OMG, if only that had existed years ago, maybe the rent wouldn't be too damn high.

Next there were Pradhiti Modadugu, Hunter Porter, Samay Sahu and of the New Hampshire High School Dems, accepting an award on behalf of that organization. This party, we have a great future.

The venerable Senator Cindy Rosenwald, who represents Nashua, was up after that, accepting the "Martha and Jeff Clark Honorary Young Democrat Award" from NHYD President Manny Espita, who credited her with getting him to run for office. Cindy has been in the legislature since 2004, and doing good things in the Senate since 2018.

The first of two "Progressive of the Year Awards" went to Jason Bonilla, who was appointed to the Manchester School Board representing Ward 5 a couple years ago and is running for re-election right now. Jason is the son of Salvadoran immigrants who walked to this country so he could run.

Next up, what can I begin to say about Representative Amanda Toll? I know her as the Vice-Chair of the Keene City Democrats (I'm the Treasurer), but it seems that the rest the world has now caught on to her talent as an organizer. In addition to helping to realize a string of progressive wins for House seats in Cheshire County last year, she was recently elected Co-chair of the NH House Progressive Caucus.

I spent a lot of time with Amanda on the campaign trail last year, and she was pregnant at the time. Since then she has given birth to an actual human being. Its amazing, what she does, and this "Progressive of the Year" award is richly deserved.

Here is a picture of the people with the two toughest jobs in Concord -- Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy presenting the "C. Arthur Soucy Award for Achievement" to House Democratic Leader Matt Wilhelm. 

C. Arthur Soucy, was the founding president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats, as Donna, his daughter, told it, from back in the days of John F. Kennedy.

The final award, the "Young Democrat of the Year", went to Rachel Cole, who has been Legislative Policy Assistant to the NH House Democratic Leader for almost five years now. It sounds like she's been doing dynamite work, and its nice to see recognition that an effective Democratic party requires not only elected leaders, but also a solid core of professional staff working behind the scenes to support them.

In conclusion, we have some great Democrats in New Hampshire who give us good reason to have pride in Team Blue. 

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.