Hi folks,
I am attaching the transcript of the district court trial for you to review.
You will receive the entire trial, but obviously just take a look at your own testimony.
Cheers,
Barbara
456-2011-CR-07587_20120622_NH_v_Bailey.pdf
Thanks to FreeConcord.org for the footage
Legalization of Marijuana was heard at the New Hampshire statehouse. The cases were made for and against. The majority of people present in the hearing were in favor of it. This is a playlist of the hearing and those who testified. You can also read more on the Union Leader story.
Since I was a young child, I have held the philosophy to not make anyone my enemy. An enemy is an anchor that weighs heavy in your heart. An adversary is someone you compete with, but not someone you hate. So for those of you who often see my actions and scratch your head, I hope this knowledge will shed a little light on my actions. I have declared peace to the world, and for those to whom it matters, you are not my enemy either. I just want to live in Peace, and for you to do the same, and for all those that I love to find harmony, peace, and understanding with everyone in their world. We are all one species, and we can do amazing things together. I love you all. Peace be with you.
So after watching the State of the Union Address, and being my typical distracted self, I have written this essay. A 3 paragraph answer to the question of defining a liberal in today’s American standards and the classic definition. I also make the argument that a lot of liberals are not actually liberals. They just don’t understand the meaning of the word, or the origin. They only understand what they see on television, and when push comes to shove, are not actually liberals at all, but think they are. Here is my argument. Feel free to tear it apart. No seriously.. Please do.
I think the best example I can recall of being a ‘Liberal’ President would be Barack Obama. The first given way for a politician to be viewed as a liberal is to be in the Democratic Party. However, I don’t view the Democrats and Republicans as being either Liberal or Conservative. I think those two descriptions characterize segments of the population of each party. And most people I’ve interacted with who seem to think they are liberal or conservative base that on whether or not they vote Republican and Democrat most often. But I would argue that they just don’t have a grasp on what those labels actually mean. Most people, when you talk to them on their level are neither purely conservative or liberal. They apply common sense and their own set of values to their lives and don’t fit within the boxes we often try to ascribe to others and ourselves. But for the sake of working within those boxes, I have reasoned that Barack Obama is a liberal based on two criteria. What does he view are the most important problems in the world, and what does he view as the solutions to those problems?
There are three problems that Barack Obama seems to give the most attention to. These three problems are economic inequality, the destruction of the environment, and violence in society and the world. His views on economic inequality can be seen by the types of rhetoric he uses and the types of laws he passes. The rhetoric he uses is that of the Occupy movement. That the 1 or 2% needs to pay their fair share in taxes. He also thinks that the working class deserves $9 per hour, and healthcare should be extended to all citizens of this country. He also views the environment and climate change as high priority issues. He faulters a little on this issue due to his domestic energy program which allows for oil companies to drill more and to produce more dirty energy at home, but his rhetoric includes talk of Wind, Solar, and other alternative energy investment which makes him at least sound like a liberal. He has also started to really focus on gun violence and ending the state sponsored violence of wars overseas. He faulters on this point, because his government doesn’t set a good example. While asking the citizenry to disarm from assault weapons, the police are being militarized at a rapid rate. And while he calls out that the troops are coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq, he prepares our military to be involved in future conflicts with Libya, Syria, Mali, North Korea, Iran, and here at home. It can also be argued that in his world view, he feels that the state should have an active role in shaping society. That is a sure sign of a liberal, but that can also be applied to todays conservatives, or neocons. So while I feel that Obama may not fit the requirements for being a liberal, I know that most American’s view him as one.
Why Obama is not a liberal in the classical sense, is that he thinks that government needs to intervene in order move the individual to certain ends. This goes against classical liberalism, which believes in the freedom of individuals to decide what is in his or her best interest. He also believes in manipulating the market to bring up equality, and redistribution of wealth to take from those who produce (generate wealth) and give it to those who do not produce as much. (The poorer classes). The classical definition of liberalism is one that promoted individual liberty, and promotes opportunity, but not necessarily favors any one group to have advantage over the other. I would also argue that when Obama signed the TARP bill, he joined in with his colleagues in the senate in favoring the wealthy over the poor, because the wealthy had built up a huge monopoly on all commerce, (also thanks to government intervention) and their fall would bring everyone else down with it. This manipulation of markets, instead of the promotion of individual rights and opportunity is what leads me to believe that Barack Obama differs from the classical definition of what it means to be a liberal, but still is given the title of liberal because people do not understand the historical context of the word, but hear it repeated on television and ignore definition for repetion of association. This effectively turns a word with a specific meaning into a marketing term used to promote false values, or demonize the bearer of that title with attributes falsley attached to that word.
Well, It has been a while since I have involved myself in much activism, or much of anything as of late. Getting threatened with a $10,000 lawsuit will do that to a guy. Since the OccupyNH split, our operating capacity has been completely shattered. Some thought that preserving their Egos where far more important than compromise and preserving the movement. This led to the split, and the eventual incorporation of Occupy New Hampshire in the state of New Hampshire. Which as far as I understand, also does not have any operating capacity. I have to say, I miss activism. I miss working together and cooperating with individuals and organizations from across all political spectrums to try and learn and solve problems together. I miss the late nights. I miss the feeling like we were working for something. Like we were living for something. Most of all, I miss all the friends I’ve made over the year of the protester. It seems right now that things are too contentious for even those of us who were wronged to even get together. We have made multiple attempts to have meetings again, and to start being active again, but the events of the day of the split, and the consequences of the actions still linger over everyone’s head. I’d like to see peace, and I’d like to lay out how we could obtain it.
1. Re-Instate all users on the Facebook page who were banned for voicing their concerns. Open dialogue is healthy. Closing yourself off from reality is not.
2. Re-instate Admins of the Facebook group that were removed as content creators. Give those who want to participate their voice back on that page.
3. Make all usual suspects of banning users, content creators so they no longer will be tempted to take unilateral steps and ban other members.
4. Return to the consensus process. Begin the movement again, and keep with the consensus process. No matter how convenient it may be to go around it. It helps to prevent power grabs and other shenanigans from hi-jacking the conversation.
5. Have several meetings with all involved parties of the split, and figure out ways to de-escalate and re-humanize each other. It has been so long since we have seen each other, that it may be hard to picture the other side of the conflict as real live human beings who live and breathe and love and bleed and hurt when they are wronged or not listened to or respected.
6. Use Horizontal Stack to make sure all voices are heard. Or given the opportunity, and the individual chooses to either pass or comment.
I’m interested to hear what steps the other side of the split would like the rest of us to take to achieve peace. I know a few of us have already made peace, and have already met. I’d just like to see the rest able to communicate, and to try to restore the unity we once enjoyed so we can have a functioning movement again.
I want to just say, I’m working on updates for this site, and am looking for contributors. If you would like to become a part of the conversation and do regular updates for occupynewhampshire.org, please e-mail me. ryan.hirsch@occupynewhampshire.org
Thanks!
