Guest Blogs


The gay marriage issue

by Peter Bearse

The basic issue of gay marriage is not civil rights. It’s public vs. private values. Gay “rights” advocates can’t tell their public parts from their private parts.

Most people don’t give a damn what gay people do in their bedrooms. They care deeply, however, when homosexuals use politics to promote their private behavior as if it had some redeeming public value, and insist that it be honored as such in the schools, courts and other public arenas.

Heterosexuals care even more deeply when gays diminish the value of an institution, marriage, that has been ordained for tens of thousands of years by forces far more powerful than a church, the forces of nature. If natural evolution did not ordain marriage, it wouldn’t have invented sex. It’s incredible that politicians who support gay “marriage” have the gall to think that present political pressures from a private interest group should be allowed to overturn something as fundamental as human sexuality embodied in marriage and expressed in the formation of families via the union of a man and a woman. This is the public value of sex, fundamentally different from the private values of recreational or homosexual sex.

The private (non-public) interest of the gay community is also revealed by how narrowly they view the issue of “rights.” One would think that if they were really concerned with the civil rights of cohabiting couples vis a vis the truly married, then they’d be making common cause with unmarried heterosexuals but, apparently, they don’t. Fortunately, Bob Clegg’s legislation does this by treating the two groups as having equally legitimate claims for fair treatment under law.

The narrowness of homosexuals’ private interest is further exhibited by their self-seeking narcissism. The coming together of a man and a woman in a marital relationship is far more than just sexual. It is the gradual realization that there is a whole other side of life. It is the beginning of an understanding of the value of diversity – of what it takes to live with a fundamentally different other. Ironically, liberals and gays who say they love “diversity” prefer sameness.

As one of the leading advocates of gay marriage put it “Civil unions are nice…but they are not marriage.” Indeed, Mrs. Janeway, they are not, nor have they ever been, nor should they be.

Finally, it’s too bad that politics is played in the present tense and is so swayed by media and private interests. If politics starts to change for the better as we approach ’08 [and it will because most people are fed up with politics as usual], and if the majority anti-gay marriage forces finally get their act together by redefining the nature of the marriage debate, then the minority gay-marriage movement will not gain support within the majority of the American political community. Rather, it will continue to lose support, state-by state, and go cold even as the world warms.


Congresswoman Shea-Porter Pays Back Unions for their Support

by Peter Bearse

In Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s vote “YES” to approve the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act," we’ve just seen another example of how the voters in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District have simply exchanged one rubber-stamping political Party-crat for another. We saw this first in her slavish follower-ship of Nancy Pelosi during the Democrat’s “First 100 hours” of posturing to voters. Now we see it in her vote for a bill that simply amounts to a payoff to a special interest group – labor unions – that were among her major sources of campaign support.

The bill was intended to make it easier for plants to be unionized. Thus, it is adverse to the ability of NH manufacturers to compete in world markets. Even more troubling is the fact that it would end the right of employers to request secret-ballot elections!

Even though Big Labor has been in steady decline ever since Pres. Ronald Reagan stood up to the air-traffic controllers, it still provides a stream of big money and numerous campaign “volunteers” to candidates for Congress. Passage of the bill was high on their priority list. It represents the “biggest change in labor law in decades” according to the Wall St. Journal, yet there was “but a single hearing” on the bill. And labor lobbyists worked hard and smart to “get to this year’s Democratic freshmen early..”

Perhaps they didn’t have to work very hard to “get to” Rep. Shea-Porter, after all. Two-thirds of the “Endorsements” cited on her own website are labor unions. The likelihood of “payoff” here? -- You, the voters, be the judge. Better yet, call her to ask what were the quid-pro’s or union promises for her vote. Whatever: It shows that Shea-Porter is a rubber-stamp for a Democratic Party that is dependent upon left-wing interest groups.


Sorry Kids, There's No More Fish Food!

by Tom Sutliffe

Ok, now all you despicable towns that voted down the teachers' outrageous contracts and budgets, etc.  Get ready for your time on the rack!  Payback is a bitch!  Now, the school board manipulated retaliation upon the school children will come, just like clock work.  You know how it goes, it's well orchestrated and organized  by the teachers' union and  PTO, by the way... the "O" stands for organization.  Get it? Their wrath is like clock work after the money stops flowing.  Brace yourselves. 

Little, things start disappearing from the classrooms in droves like the fish bowls, etc, etc...  Why, because they don't have enough funding for this fish food and on and on, bigger and bigger, more obvious.  Letters go to the parents asking for paper, pencils, toilet paper or whatever! Anything that the kids are acutely aware of seem to rapidly be in short supply.  Why?  so that they will complain to their cheap ass-parents, to pressure them into giving the school whatever it needs.  Seen this before?  No surprise here! 

By the way, you get all this at "no charge", compliments of your local school board system.  You know, the system that watches out to make sure your tax dollars are wisely invested in the communities future.   These tactics impact the children and they know it, thus they use it to their benefit against you, the voter, their boss.  Don't you just love their tactics?  How original.  By the way, the kids are just collateral damage and hostages until they get what they want "mo money."  Watch them, they do it just this way! Their playbook is well documented and very seldom are any original plays added.  My suggestion is to buy some fish food for the classroom and let your kids bring it to school... It's cheaper!

To all the other towns that caved into their school boards extorted demands, your fish food is in constant supply. 



Fellow Veterans & Proud Americans,

I am asking for your help in a matter that is near and dear too many Veterans hearts throughout our country.

I sit on the Federal & State Relations and Veterans Affairs committee and yesterday my Chairman Kris Roberts brought it to our attention, there was a House Resolution 10, coming in late that was approved by the Speaker of the house who sits on the rules committee.

Democrat, Representative Splaine and Representative McEachern from Portsmouth are the sponsors of the bill. My Chairman had scheduled the public hearing for March 19 at 10 AM in Legislators Hall here in NH.

The resolution should have been split into two but I believe that the Democrats are trying to make a political statement at the expense of our troops on the battlefield and at the Walter Reed hospital. One opposing the Iraq war and the other one supporting veterans benefits but they chose to make a political statement.

I have not read the actual bill (HR 10) but I am waiting patiently for the state of NH to post it on our state web page.

Whether you support the escalation or not, we as Veterans cannot let this resolution go forward as we will be feeding and abetting the ENEMY and knocking down our TROOPS MORAL by supporting this BULL. Why aren't the Sponsors providing a resolution to stop the murders in our state or the crime?

As a young Marine in 1975, I remember this happening to our Viet Nam Vets, I am sure that you have seen this happen to you as our country has gotten the Cut and Run Mentality once again. They are already talking about cutting the funding and take the lost. Our Veterans must continue to be treated with respect and not spit on and treated with no respect as what happen in Viet Nam

As a Retired US Marine 1StSgt, Desert Storm Veteran, Disable Veteran, I can not sit back and let this happen. I will try, along with other Veterans to kill this in committee but it will still go to the floor of the house for a vote.

A vote to support HR 10 feeds the enemy to get stronger and stay in place to keep trying to kill our Proud American Warriors.

A Vote to support knocks down our Proud American Warriors Moral, as with the technology, they will know within minutes that we do not support them.

Why should we sit down and be the silent majority; as there is no doubt in my military mind, that many like I, will not take this lack of support for our Veterans anymore.

If you are with us and can be at the New Hampshire State House on March 19 (10AM) for the committee hearings, you will be showing a force in readiness, that enough is enough and keep the politics off the battle field. If you can not be there, please contact your elected officials and write letters to newspapers.

I can not remember who wrote, FOR THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW but I still remember it!


Wanted - Clear thinking in the debate on educational "adequacy"

by Peter Bearse, Ph.D.

There’s a nearly complete lack of clear thinking about what’s important in the debate on what educational “adequacy” represents in terms of either substance or money.

First, there’s a tendency to assume that there either is or must be a direct connection between adequacy and educational funding. All the NH Constitution commands the General Court (legislature) to do is “cherish” education; responsibility for implementing whatever “cherish” may mean is left to local authority, not statewide dictates of either Court (General or Supreme). So, let’s start by recognizing that the adequacy and funding issues are separable.

Second, the lack of any reference to international standards is remarkable. I would even go so far as to say: Pretty Darn Dumb. After all, we all live in an increasingly globalized, world-competitive economy. Young people today need to be able to compete with graduates from schools in Europe, China, India and Singapore, among other countries of our “small, small world.” Whatever counts for educational “adequacy” is a moving target. Every year, if not faster, the ante for what counts is being upped by our international competitors. It’s an Einsteinian world, so let’s recognize that “what counts” is relative to foreign competition.

Third, we can count on the fingers of one hand the areas of educational achievement that really count in international competition. They are the 3R’s [reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic (math)] plus science and creative and critical thinking. The latter overlaps one area that’s special to our own state and nation’s democratic heritage: Civics, or what young people need to know to function as responsible citizens in a democratic republic. So add up the scores: 3R’s + Science + 3C’s (Civics + Creative thinking + Critical thinking). Along with international standards, there are international, educational “best practices”. We can; in fact, for the sake of our children, we must learn from our foreign competitors. Competition is healthy, internationally as well as domestically, for the sake of education as well as other “industries.” Do we want our children to be less well-off than we are? Let’s recognize that that the standards that count are being set abroad and make reference to them.

Finally, there’s no humility in the debate. The key actors with power and responsibility, members of the two Courts, are acting like know it alls in an area where they both know very little. Those who are making decisions on education that affect our kids’ futures need to learn more about what works where and for whom, educationally. The major zone of ignorance is on research that would demonstrate, via valid statistical studies, the degree to which schools and school finance make significant differences to educational achievement. HR 8, which properly challenges recent decisions of the Supreme Court on school finance in NH, makes no reference to such research as providing any basis for the Court’s decisions. Let’s pay some attention to it.

A few suggestions can now be made: The best way for the General Court to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that they truly honor the NH Constitutional requirement to “cherish” education would be to (1) define “adequacy” in terms of a performance accountability and benchmarking system for schools, one that measures performance in each of the areas of educational achievement noted earlier, and (2) begin a set of well-designed studies of what differences in achievement are attributable to different educational-institutional and funding arrangements. In addition, given the disconnect between state-level guidelines for adequacy and local responsibility for education, the legislature should provide a blanket allowance for local authorities to adopt whatever taxing arrangements they would like to adopt to finance schools, including charter schools.