It's New Year's Eve. There are just a few hours to go before Midnight, and guess what happens right after then?

Okay, lots of things. But one thing that is happening that affects some people very much is the New Hampshire Civil Unions law becomes effective. And in some ways, it affects all of us.

It was a tough, long battle to get to this point. Still, a lot needs to be done for full equality. We need full marriage equality with the word, and Civil Unions don't allow for the many federal benefits otherwise given to differently-gendered couples.

BUT, the New Hampshire Civil Unions law will provide for equality under the state laws for both gay and straight couples. That's a lot of progress. That's more equality for gays and lesbians here than in 45 other states.

There are those who are still attacking the thought of Civil Unions and equality. During the past several days I've heard and read a number of those attacks, and a few have been mentioned to me face-to-face. Hey, it happens.

But as I drive to the State House in Concord tonight to watch some of the very first Civil Unions, I'll be reminded that nothing on this planet is more important than the way we treat one another. So many of our problems would disappear if we treated one another fairly and equally. I can't quite figure out what motivates anyone to do otherwise.

Why are Civil Unions important? -- even for those who won't engage in one? I think it's because of the message it sends.

Right now there are some young people in this state -- more than just a few perhaps -- who are dreading going back to school next week where they will continue to be harassed and mocked because of being gay, or perceived to be. Questions about one's sexual identity is one of the leading causes of suicide among young people.

But in tomorrow's newspapers and on television, they will see couples who happen to be of the same gender committing to one another to share their lives and love together. And they will be hearing that our state government has said that is okay. It's okay to be gay. That's a powerful message to everyone.

Sometimes when I think politics is rough and tough and tumble, I think of how some people have treated me, and others, who are gay -- before we "came out," and even now. Each and every day, gay and lesbian young people, and the older among us, have some of the cruelest things said to us and about us. Most of us who are gay have either been beaten up or had hostile things said to us. I've had both, even recently. It does get personal. And it does hurt.

But, with Civil Unions we have made some progress. We're not there yet. Civil Unions open one more door for equality and acceptance for gays and lesbians. There are other doors to open. There are more miles to walk. But we will get there.
.
Here in New Hampshire, as of 01.01.08 -12:01 AM, the law will say that same-gendered couples who have a Civil Union will have all of the same "rights, responsibilities, and obligations" which are currently given under our marriage statutes to differently-gendered couples. That's more than we've ever had here.
.
And that's a good thing. It's a good thing for gays and lesbians. It's a good thing for New Hampshire. And it's a good thing because nothing is more important than the way we treat one another -- fairly, and equally.

A great way to start the New Year! And I wonder what all the Presidential candidates visiting New Hampshire will say about it during the next several days.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I find the decision of the organizers of this Saturday's debate at St. Anselm College to be disgusting. My goodness. In a democracy? In the First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary? What is politics coming to?

The news media already "create" candidates and their "who's-on-first" standing by running their own polls, managing minutes of coverage for each, selecting the questions they'll throw at them on the campaign trail, doing long stories about how much money candidates have received (while ignoring where they got all that money), and even setting up focus groups with hand-held dials to have a second-by-second, word-by-word bell-curve on-screen display of instant reaction to answers in debates.

NOW the media wants to limit the candidates who have been invited to virtually all the Democratic and Republican debates in the past many months based on the results of some party meetings in Iowa this coming Thursday?!

The news media should play no role in limiting official candidates who have already participated in previous debates. Nor should an educational organization. That's not what the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary is about.

Further, I could strongly suggest that the Iowa Caucus is NOT a real election -- it is a statewide collection of political party meetings where members publicly support their candidates of choice. That's not what we do in November, when Americans go into the privacy of their voting booths to exercise their right to vote in our democracy. New Hampshire's Primary is a real election. Party members in Iowa should not be determining who may or may not debate the issues in New Hampshire.

I would give any of the candidates who are "chosen" to participate in Saturday's upcoming St. Anselm College debate a bow of respect if they stand up, as Ronald Reagan did, and insist that the others join them on the stage. That would be leadership of the first order. In fact, they should be challenged to do that: to stand up and fight for the right of legitimate candidates to speak and be heard.

In the interest of full Blogging disclosure, I've often mentioned in my posts that I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. She'll make a great President. And I fully expect she will be among those insisting that all the nationally-recognized candidates participate in the Democratic debate. I'd be disappointed if she doesn't.

This election isn't a TV show. It's about democracy. It's about our future. It's an important reality show for all of us, and the news media shouldn't be selecting the cast of stars in it.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:07 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

It's late Christmas Eve. I'm alone, watching some of my Season Two DVD of Showtime's Queer As Folk a friend gave me. I just went outside and looked to the sky on this perfect evening, with a full Moon and bright stars everywhere. It's not as nice as Christmas Eve's of the past with family of long ago or friends of more recent times, but it's okay and relaxing.

So I decided to give some "gifts" for Christmas and a few New Year's wishes to some people. Here goes:

To George W. Bush -- Some chat time with his Dad and Mom. Obviously he didn't listen to them when he was a little guy when they, like all parents, hoped their son would grow up to be good.

To Carol-Shea Porter -- The continued courage and independence to be a great Congressperson.

To Paul Hodes -- A conservative Republican to run against in 2008, so he can have more fun and win even bigger than last time.

To Jeanne Shaheen -- A united New Hampshire Democratic Party behind her after next September's primary.

To Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani -- Copies of the book "How To Get Along With People Who Are As Messed Up As Me."

To Mike Huckabee -- A copy of "First Grade Reader," so in the future he can read the simple facts about AIDS and other issues.

To all New Hampshire gays and lesbians -- The full right to marry. Soon. Not just a Civil Union. "Marriage," with the word. In the meantime, Civil Unions are "official" as of 12.01 AM 01.01.08. Fantastic. We're getting there.

To the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary -- The absolutely bestest-ever turnout of voters across all age groups on Tuesday, January 8th. It's our chance to show the nation we go to the polls in droves, and that's why New Hampshire is important now and in the future.

To John Lynch -- A new office camera. Twice now when I arranged for pictures in the Governor's Office their camera didn't work, most recently with some Russian journalist visitors. Fortunately we brought cameras of our own. But what gives? I'm not THAT ugly.

To Secretary of State Bill Gardner -- Another chance to set the date of yet another Presidential Primary, in 2012.

To The Union Leader -- A giant bag of coffee so the reporters will be alert enough to keep a sharp eye on all those wayward national and statewide Republican candidates who are switching all around and attacking one another about things they never said. My are they confused.

To Democrats everywhere and anywhere -- A fantastic year in 2008 on the national and state levels. The only way we can lose this one is if we don't let Democrats be Democrats.

To our troops in Iraq -- Withdrawal from that ill-planned, unnecessary war, and a commitment never to again put them in harms-way unless necessary.

To "Granny D" -- Success on her effort to have New Hampshire join the dozen other states with public financing of campaigns and real campaign reform.

To Hillary Clinton -- A new campaign manager. I don't even know who the current one is, but I do know she could use a new one. This woman rocks and will make a great President, but her campaign continues to be off-based from what I can see. She still has time, but those who are on the top of her national campaign could serve her better.

To my wonderful kitty cat "RayToo" -- Pleasant dreams of chasing mice, and another year of good health. I need your "greetings" every day I return home.

And to my very special friend D.P. -- Successful surgery in three weeks, because I don't want to lose another good friend, and the world needs all the wonderful people it has. You can make it!

Well, that's it for this year. I can't afford to be any more generous. How about other gifts from readers?

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:02 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Polls. It seems like some politicians and their consultants can't live with them, and most can't live without them.

Polls are mostly irrelevant, and in some ways are quite destructive of the political process. Polls are the ultimate Catch 22, where instead of leaders offering their courageous real opinions, the polls often lead the candidates who want to get elected as they "tailor-make" their messages and positions to reflect the polls.

There have been polls for decades -- though they only began getting some degree of recognition since the late 1940s. They're not going away, no matter what I or anyone else might write. And in some ways, put into proper perspective, and used carefully and interpreted with both skill and objectivity, polls can serve a positive purpose.

I've done a lot of polling -- writing them, administering them, and coordinating polling efforts. And although I don't claim to be an expert I have studied the process and interpreted a lot of polls. To be anywhere near accurate, a poll has to ask the right questions the right way, they have to be administered uniformly allowing for variants and statistical balance, and just as importantly -- they have to be interpreted correctly.

But do they tell us anything useful? So what if Hillary Clinton is ahead of Barack Obama at a particular time, if 50% of voters say they haven't made up their minds or another 20% who have answered the questions say they're not firm in their answers? What's THAT tell us? The "who's on first" really doesn't tell us anything. It gives bragging rights to someone, and that's about it.

Of late, I think the worst of polls has the on-air real-time bell-curve focus-group instant-polling we've seen during recent debates of both the Republican and Democratic candidates. FOX News and WMUR TV had focus-groups using their hand-held dials to instantly register their "favorable" and "unfavorable" opinions to candidates answers. The bell-curves ran on the television screen right along with the candidates' responses to questions, telling the viewer immediately what listeners thought of the comments, virtually word-by-word.

What's THAT do to "leadership?" I can just imagine a candidate DARING to answer a question about Civil Unions a few years ago. Do you believe gays and lesbians should be able to have a Civil Union giving them all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage?" My goodness! I bet no candidate would have answered favorable to that, and if they did the bell-curve would be hovering around 30 percent. So, other candidates for other offices would have got the message -- stay away from Civil Unions.

We need leadership on issues like real health care reform, tax reform, corporate responsibility and workers' rights, education, global warming, Iraq and other foreign policy matters -- not just an assemblage of buzz words written by consultants who are interested in just getting their candidates to say what the public wants to hear, word-by-word.

Instant polling gives us only an instant snapshot, a gut reaction of the voter. And polls themselves only give us a snapshot of the voters' judgement at the moment, and gives us little indication of whom really is "on first" for longer than that moment.

Unfortunately, I think, the overemphasis on polls affects the electoral process in ways that harms it. Donations are based on polls. Campaign strategies, and whether or not a candidate sticks to a position on an issue is affected by polls. Even whether a candidate decides to withdraw from a race before votes are cast is based on polls. About the only thing they really do is provide chatter for the pollsters and for the news media and talking heads on TV shows.

I'd like to see an election without polls. An entire election with polls. Wow. Could we at least try it? Well, I can also dream of becoming an astronaut before I die and flying to Mars.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 12:15 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I wonder where the Presidential candidates stand on the death penalty. After all, it is a life or death issue, and there is a certain hypocrisy on the issue across the board.

A long time ago -- oh, it seems long anyway although it was just 2000 at the turn of the century, New Hampshire was close to being the very first state to abolish the death penalty since the United States Supreme Court allowed executions again in the mid-1970s.

In 2000, the New Hampshire House and Senate surprised the state and excited many people throughout the country and the world by becoming the first legislative bodies to vote for legislation to abolish the death penalty in over 20 years. We had the public and personal support of Coretta Scott King, Bishop Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter, even the Vatican. Imagine -- it passed!

With just a signature waiting for the bill to become law, we heard that the Rome Coliseum would turn on its lights, but...

...the bill then ran into a wall. Governor Jeanne Shaheen vetoed it, and we failed to overcome her veto. I was in the thick of that debate, as primary sponsor of the bill. To this day I'm sad about Governor Shaheen's decision. I understand. But I disagree. We lost.

Just this week, New Jersey abolished the death penalty. The Rome Coliseum will turn on lights this week in recognition of the courage shown by New Jersey lawmakers, and Governor Jon S. Corzine. Some 36 states, including ours, still allow executions.

In signing the legislation, Governor Corzine, who is a Democrat, said “Today New Jersey is truly evolving. I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes.”

There is a "cycle of violence" that former NH State Representative Renny Cushing, who is now Executive Director of Murder Victims Families For Reconciliation, refers to often in his speeches. The "cycle" is that when a horrible murder occurs, that victim's family grieves for their loss. And then when an execution occurs, yet another family is affected. The brothers and sisters, parents, and children of TWO families suffer. And Renny Cushing should know of what he speaks -- his father was killed in 1988 at his home by a man showing up at the front door.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent. It just cheapens our society, and that's not a good message for our young people. That's why most religions on this planet oppose the death penalty, as do most nations of the world. Right now, New Hampshire is in league with China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Texas.

I believe all the Presidential candidates should take clear positions on the death penalty. For. Against. And why.

The new law in New Jersey, like the one I sponsored again this past Spring, replaces the death penalty by execution for capital murder with a death penalty of life-in-prison without any chance of parole. In a very real way, that is worse than the death penalty -- each and every day, the person who committed those horrible crimes will wake up behind the bars of a small cell, will smell the odors and hear the noises of the cell block all day, and will go to sleep in that cell. No more rides in a car, walks on a beach, or seeing the stars. That's their existence, until God decides their death penalty.

This year's death penalty abolition bill lost by only 12 votes in the New Hampshire House, by a vote of 185 to 173. It was defeated in large part because Governor John Lynch said he would use his veto stamp if it passed. I understand. But I disagree.

New Hampshire should abolish the death penalty. We need the courage to do so. And all the Presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat -- should have the courage to say what they believe regarding the death penalty, and the message it gives to our kids about the way we treat everyone in our society.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:19 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Three weeks ago I wrote a Blog post expressing my concern about the way Hillary Clinton was campaigning. That's when she was still "ahead," if we are to believe the polls. I still don't put much stock in the polls at this point, since in the NH First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary we've often seen much shift during those final few days before people go to vote. However, I am concerned that her campaign still has continued to emphasize "experience" rather than "ideas," and the "past" rather than the "future." And her advertising in my judgment is crammed full of rhetoric, with no clear message other than this stuff about a President needing to be ready to "lead from day one." What's that mean? She can do better.

I got some criticism about my observations a few weeks ago. I received a few calls and E-Mails from my fellow Clinton supporters, even some suggesting I was being disloyal by offering even a bit of public criticism. We have to all be "cheerleaders," I was told. But I'm never going to ask Hillary for a job if she wins. In fact, it's me who's trying to get HER a job, with my vote. I don't need to please the campaign bosses. And Hillary Clinton doesn't either.

Of course, perhaps my observations about her campaign aren't accurate. I can accept that. Maybe I'm wrong and it's perfect. But I just think something's wrong with her campaign right now. I've been involved at one level or another in every NH Primary since 1960, when I distributed flyers as a little pup for John F. Kennedy, and I've seen and participated in lots of good, and poor, campaigns -- as well as good campaigns that just fell apart because of some poor tactical choices during the closing weeks. It happens.

Either way, in a hope that my chosen candidate will run up to a smashing successful finish during the next and final 26 days to January 8th, I again encourage Hillary Clinton to reinvent her campaign and show us who she really is and not just what her consultants and handlers from Washington media firms want us to think she is. I urge her to listen to more of her experienced New Hampshire campaign advisors. And I ask her to present her ideas in her own words, without the buzz phrases that might rate "80%" on the electronically-generated curve in some focus group session.

As I said last Spring shortly after she formally announced, Hillary Clinton could lose this one. Put another way, it's her's to lose, or win. As a very early endorser, dating back to a Blog post I wrote on December 5, 2006, even before her announcement of January 20th six weeks later, I began to get concerned about the direction of her campaign after she made her first few visits here.

What I've seen these past few months isn't the Hillary Clinton I remember from her campaign visits here in 1991, when I first met her, or her several visits since and prior to this year. Where has the "conversation" gone that she said she wanted to start with her announcement last January? It seems as if she is talking "to" or "at" us, even "down" to us. She needs to talk "with" us -- in fact, one of the strengths of the NH Primary is that candidates indeed have that chance, to get away from the podiums and look us in the eye, face-to-face, not talking over our heads.

Where are her courageous stands? It seems like so many of her "positions" are indeed that -- positions that are the result of focus groups and consultant message massaging that simply makes it difficult to figure out exactly what she will do about Iraq, corporate corruption, campaign finance reform, and even health care. I just can't figure it out.

"Let Hillary Be Hillary" should be her personal motto during the next three-plus weeks in Iowa and New Hampshire. THAT WAY, she'll win this thing Otherwise, I'm worried that we will lose the opportunity to have a great President elected in 2008. .

To Hillary, I'll repeat my advice from a few weeks ago for what it's worth: Put your pollsters aside. Forget the focus groups. Resist the "politically correct" answers where you sound like you're trying to satisfy everyone and every interest group. Tell your managers you don't want to be managed. Leave your speech writers' missives at their offices. Forget the cute one-liners that don't tell us much. Don't be overly cautious or calculating. Show your courage, we've seen that before. Be yourself. Just yourself. We'll like what we see.

Challenge us. Talk with us about America's possibilities and our opportunities. Give us your vision. I think we'll like you even more for that. And you'll become President.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:39 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I am amazed that any of the media, or for that matter any good thinking Republicans, would allow Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to get away with an easy dismissal of his horribly inflammatory comments about AIDS back in 1992.

He did "admit," at least -- he really couldn't run from it -- that as a United States Senate candidate in 1992 he suggested locking up people living with AIDS because, he observed then, it wasn't known for sure that the disease couldn't be contracted through casual contact. He also noted that homosexuality is "...an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

The fact is, only the most paranoid among us in 1992 thought that AIDS would be spread by breathing the same air or swimming in the same pool with someone living with HIV. Unfortunately, there were many paranoid among us in those days -- and still are. And unfortunately, I'm sure some people will actually vote FOR Mike Huckabee upon learning his views.

Mike Huckabee, as a United States Senate candidate some 15 years ago, was playing politics with AIDS much the same as some religious zealots did in those days -- and still do by attacking gays and lesbians. After all, fear of the unknown and hate of the disliked is always a great fundraiser, or a great way to attract votes.

One would think that someone running for major office would have been well-informed, but I guess he didn't know or didn't want to believe that the Centers for Disease Control had in 1985 said that AIDS could not be spread by casual contact. So, why lock people up?

Huckabee now says he wasn't really in favor of locking people up, but he was just talking about quarantining. My goodness, isn't that the first step before people who are feared to have some disease ARE locked up?

In 1992 I had just become President of AIDS Response Seacoast, and we were trying to find ways to encourage more acceptance of those who were living with AIDS. People living with AIDS were still finding significant discrimination in housing, employment, and services. People like Mike Huckabee were making our job all that more difficult. Shame on him. People died because of thoughts vocalized then by people like Mike Huckabee. Shameful.

What we needed in 1992, and even before then and certainly now, were leaders who would go out of their way to demonstrate that AIDS was like any other disease, and that people living with the disease didn't have to be treated like they were lepers. We had many. Princess Diana. Ryan White. Nelson Mandela, Elizabeth Taylor. Mother Teresa. On the other side we had Jerry Falwell. Ronald Reagan. Ted Haggard. Mike Huckabee. The fear has largely subsided, but not fully.

A President has to lead. He or she has to set examples. A President has to unify. A President has to have vision. A President has to be informed. We've found out these past seven years what happens to our nation and the world when we have a President who isn't all those things.

Mike Huckabee seems well-liked by a lot of people because of his nice-guy demeanor and cute way of massaging a message. That kind of appeal can sometimes get us into lots of trouble. This guy is a wiz-ball who doesn't deserve to be President.

Come to think of it and his view about AIDS today, what is his opinion about "casual contact" now? I wonder if he'd want to shake my hand.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 07:14 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

World AIDS Day. It's a sad day, because people keep dying.

When I was selected President of AIDS Response Seacoast back in 1991, I started out the next Board of Directors meeting by stating the obvious: that our goal should be to be out of business by the end of the decade. Unfortunately, the "open" signs are still up at ARS and other AIDS service organizations that are working to help those living with HIV and on prevention programs. They are needed now as much as ever.

I remember hearing for the first time in the very early 1980s about a strange virus affecting mostly gay men. Our government was slow to act, and President Ronald Reagan didn't want to talk about it, even when his friend Rock Hudson announced he had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Since then, fortunately, we have seen good people come to the forefront in fighting AIDS here in the United States, and worldwide. Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Barney Frank, Elizabeth Taylor, and "Magic" Johnson are just a few who have worked to make the fight against AIDS a mainstream cause. There were heroes along the way, including Ryan White and Princess Diana.
The real heroes, of course, are all those millions who have died of AIDS. Some 40 million people throughout the world have AIDS, and in the past twenty years about 25 million people have died of the disease. In the United States, over one million people currently have AIDS, and about a quarter of those with HIV don't know it.

In the gay community today, there is an upsurge of HIV infections among young men. They are taking fewer precautions during sex in part because there is a belief among too many that AIDS is a controllable disease now. Many young people just don't know someone who has died of AIDS.

I lost many dozens of friends to AIDS, and I can only imagine how richer my life these past couple of decades would have been if AIDS had not existed. It is a universal disease that knows no borders, and it doesn't matter if one is gay or straight, male or female. Safer sex and using condoms, or total abstinence, are the only ways to reduce the chances of being infected with HIV. Education in the schools starting at an early age is a must to reduce future infections.

There are three excellent movies I'd recommend: "Longtime Companion," "A Silverlake Life," and >"The Party." "A Silverlake Life" is a particularly serious movie. Tom Joslin, a friend of mine who lived on the same floor as I did at UNH in East-West Hall filmed much of that movie. He and his lover lived with HIV, and he filmed their final few months of life. I think of Tom often. And so many others.

Posted by Jim Splaine at 10:54 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)