ACLU-NH unveils state documents confirming ICE's detailed site plans for a Merrimack detention facility - ACLU of New Hampshire

Here is a link to the raw document:

This is what OCR was able to recover from the document, with some postediting to clean up some of the OCR artifacts:

State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

172 Pembroke Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Phone: 603–271–3483 Fax: 603–271–3433
TDD Access: Relay NH 1–800–735–2964
nhdhr.dncr.nh.gov

NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL RESOURCES

January 27, 2026

Gilles Bissonnette
ACLU of New Hampshire.
18 Low Avenue
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

RE: RTK, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, New Hampshire. 03054

Dear Mr. Bissonnette,

This is to confirm receipt of your RSA 91-A Right-To-Know request, dated January 26, 2026. Please see the enclosures, which represent all materials subject to your RTK request.

As requested, the NH Division of Historical Resources has waived the RSA 91-A: 4, IV authorized fees for paper copies.

Sincerely,
Benjamin H. Wilson
Director, Division of Historical Resources
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enc:

ACLU
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
New Hampshire
18 Low Avenue
Concord NH 03301
(603) 224–5591
aclu-nh.org

Devon Chaffee
Executive Director

January 26, 2026

VIA EMAIL (elizabeth.a.schneible@dncr.nh.gov)

Liz Schneible, Program Specialist
New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources
N.H. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
172 Pembroke Road
Concord, NH 03301

Re: Right-to-Know Request

Dear Ms. Schneible:

This is a Right-to-Know request to the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources (“the Division”) pursuant to RSA 91-A and Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (“ACLU-NH”). The ACLU-NH defends and promotes the fundamental principles embodied in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. and New Hampshire Constitutions. In furtherance of that mission, the ACLU-NH regularly conducts research into government activities in New Hampshire. We ask that your Division waive fees associated with responding to this request. Please contact me to discuss the fee waiver in advance of preparing any copies.

Below is the specific request:

1. All records and communications concerning the planning/development, any Requests for Project Review (RPR), and/or any consultation process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and/or RSA 227-C:9 with respect to the property located at 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack NH 03054.¹

In responding to this request, please consider the time limits mandated by the Right-to-Know law. In discussing those limits in ATV Watch v. N.H. Dep’t of Res. & Econ. Dev., 155 N.H. 434 (2007), the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated that RSA 91-A:4, IV requires that a public body or agency, “within 5 business days of the request, make such records available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or to furnish written acknowledgement [sic] of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied.” Id. at 440.

¹ This address is potentially a proposed cite [sic] of an immigration detention facility (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/01/19/metro/nh-merrimack-ice-detention-warehouse/), and was developed in 2023 as a distribution/warehouse facility by the Trammell Crow Company and Diamond Realty Investments. See https://www.nhbr.com/new-merrimack-distribution-center-on-target-for-end-of-year-completion/.

If produced, these records must be produced irrespective of their storage format; that is, they must be produced whether they are kept in tangible (hard copy) form or in an electronically-stored format, including but not limited to e-mail communications. If any records are withheld, or any portion redacted, please specify the specific reasons and statutory exemption relied upon. See RSA 91-A:4, IV (official must “make such record available” or “deny the request in writing with reasons”) (emphasis added).

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Of course, if you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Gilles Bissonnette

Gilles Bissonnette
ACLU-NH, Legal Director
Gilles@aclu-nh.org

2

Wilson, Benjamin

From: Schneible, Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:49 AM
To: Wilson, Benjamin; Miller, Nadine
Subject: FW: Request under RSA ch. 91-A/the Right to Know Law
Attachments: NH Div Historical Resources 91A 1.26.26.pdf

Good morning,

This is for the Homeland Security Project that came in earlier this month.

Liz

Liz Schneible
Program Specialist
Division of Historical Resources

From: Gilles Bissonnette <gilles@aclu-nh.org>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:25 AM
To: Schneible, Elizabeth <elizabeth.a.schneible@dncr.nh.gov>
Subject: Request under RSA ch. 91-A/the Right to Know Law

EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING! This email originated outside of the New Hampshire Executive Branch network. Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Do not enter your username and password on sites that you have reached through an email link. Forward suspicious and unexpected messages by clicking the Phish Alert button in your Outlook and if you did click or enter credentials by mistake, report it immediately to helpdesk@doit.nh.gov!

Dear Ms. Schneible,

Please find the attached request under RSA ch. 91-A. As it is a discrete request concerning the planning/development records of the property located at 50 Robert Milligan Parkway in Merrimack NH, we are hopeful we can receive these records as soon as possible. Thank you.

Best,

Gilles Bissonnette
Pronouns: he/him
Legal Director
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire
18 Low Avenue, Concord, NH 03301
603–227–6678 | gilles@aclu-nh.org
aclu-nh.org
ACLU
New Hampshire

1

Schneible, Elizabeth

From: Schneible, Elizabeth
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:26 AM
To: Price, Alexis T (CTR)
Cc: Carter, Amber M (CTR)
Subject: RE: SHPO Consultation Request — ICE New Boston Processing Center

Good afternoon, Alexis.

Thank you for your email and your request to initiate project review with the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources. Our online submission platform EMMIT+ opened in January 2025 and we no longer accept emailed or hard copy RPR requests. Please submit this request through EMMIT+. We have received positive feedback from EMMIT+ users and hope that you will enjoy the transparency and streamlined user experience the platform offers.

You can access EMMIT+ and create a free account through our website or by using the link below.

https://emmit.dncr.nh.gov/landing

After logging in, navigate to the “Submit” tab in the green banner at the top. From the Submit page, select BEGIN in the box on the LEFT, under the words Digital Online User-Generated (DOUG) Review and Compliance. If you do not see this on your screen, you may have to scroll down. From there, follow the prompts and complete ALL required fields in full. Please do not put “see attached” in any field, as it will be marked insufficient. If you have questions about a field, you can click on (?) for additional information. Attachments are required — in this case, if you attach the PDF that you attached to your email, that should have enough information for us to accept the project for review. The system will save your work as you go. If you need to stop and come back, you will find it located in the My Submissions section, in the Drafts tab. Be sure to hit “Submit” in step 7 to complete your submission.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions about this new system.

Kind regards,
Liz

Liz Schneible
Program Specialist
Division of Historical Resources

From: Price, Alexis T (CTR) <Alexis.T.Price@associates.ice.dhs.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:03 A M
To: Schneible, Elizabeth <elizabeth.a.schneible@dncr.nh.gov>
Cc: Carter, Amber M (CTR) <Amber.M.Carter@associates.ice.dhs.gov>
Subject: SHPO Consultation Request — ICE New Boston Processing Center

EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING! This email originated outside of the New Hampshire Executive Branch network. Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the email. Do not enter your username and password on sites that you have reached through an email link. Forward suspicious and unexpected messages by clicking the Phish Alert button in your Outlook and if you did click or enter credentials by mistake, report it immediately to helpdesk@doit.nh.gov!

Good afternoon,

U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is proposing to purchase, occupy and rehabilitate a 43-acre warehouse property located at 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054, in support of ICE operations. This undertaking is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and ICE has determined that the undertaking will result in a finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Please find attached the consultation letter for further details.

Upon completion of your review, if you can please provide any comments on this undertaking and ICE’s finding within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt of this letter, I would greatly appreciate it.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Alexis

Alexis Price, CTR | Environmental Scientist
Solv
8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700 | McLean, VA 22102
Alexis.Price@solvllc.com

Supporting:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE Environmental Program
500 12 Street, SW - Mail Stop 5703
Washington, D.C. 20536

EMMIT+ Project Record
Review & Compliance
2026PR00023
NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES

ICE New Boston Processing Center

ICE is proposing to purchase, occupy and rehabilitate a 43-acre warehouse property in support of
ICE operations. Proposed site improvements may include, but are not limited to, installing, upgrading, or rehabilitating existing parking areas, fencing, site lighting, landscaping, drainage/stormwater, recreation areas, and cameras. Tentage and a guard shack may also be installed. No site improvements are expected to be taller than the existing structure or expand beyond the current site boundaries, and all work and construction staging will occur within the previously disturbed portions of the parcel. All existing forested areas will remain forested.

Agencies

Dept. of Homeland Security (DOHS) — Primary: Yes, Program-Permit: NA/NA

Project Contacts

Alexis Price — alexis.t.price@associates.ice.dhs.gov

Towns

Merrimack (Hillsborough County)
Nashua (Hillsborough County)

Review and Compliance

Type

Federal Section 106 Review

Present Land Use

Commercial. The subject property is an existing warehouse that was constructed in 2023 (Figures 6–9). Adjacent resources within the APE were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s and consist of an
auto store and a fish and game association property (Figures 10–13).

Past Land Use and Disturbances

From the 1990s to the construction of the current building, the developed part of the property
served as a non-historic former quarry and dump site. The ground was also extensively disturbed
to accommodate utilities, parking, and warehouse size requirements as part of the property’s redevelopment in 2023.

Project Address

r 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

Location Description

Not Available

APE Description

This report was printed on 1/27/2026 at 5:12 PM GMT and reflects the data record at the time of printing. Real-time data is subject to change.

1/4

EMMIT+ Project Record
Review & Compliance
2026PR00023

ICE has determined that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this undertaking consists of the subject property and adjacent resources with a potential viewshed of the proposed undertaking.

APE Justification

The subject property is an existing warehouse that was constructed in 2023 (Figures 6–9). Adjacent resources within the APE were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s and consist of an auto store and a fish and game association property (Figures 10–13). The subject property and
adjacent buildings do not rise to the level of exceptional importance under Criteria Consideration G, per National Register Bulletin 15, and are recommended Ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places under all criteria.

APE Acreage

Not Available

Project Includes Construction: Yes
Project Includes Demolition: No
Project Includes Disposition/Transfer: No
Project Includes Rehabilitation: Yes
Project Includes Refinancing: No
Ground Disturbance: Yes
One or More Above Ground Resources 45 Years or Older: No

Associated Resources

1) 2018RE00057 — Bowers Pond Isolated Find
2) 2024RE00727 — Frederic E. Everett Highway Project
3) 2024RE00754 — Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline

Associated Surveys

No Surveys Available

Agreements

No Agreements Available

Documents

1) consult letter — project description & photos
2) DHR Effect Finding Letter for 2026PR00023 — Effect Finding rendered as No Historic Properties Affected

Photos (0)

No Photos Available

This report was printed on 1/27/2026 at 5:12 PM GMT and reflects the data record at the time of printing. Real-time data is subject to change.

2/4

EMMIT+ Project Record
Review & Compliance
2026PR00023

NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES

APE Boundary.

This report was printed on 1/27/2026 at 5:12 PM GMT and reflects the data record at the time of printing. Real-time data is subject to change.

3/4

EMMIT+ Project Record
Review & Compliance
2026PR00023

NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES

Map Overview

This report was printed on 1/27/2026 at 5:12 PM GMT and reflects the data record at the time of printing. Real-time data is subject to change.

4/4

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Office of Chief Readiness
Support Officer
Springfield, VA 20598–0075

Homeland
Security

January 9, 2026

Ms. Liz Schneible
Program Specialist
New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office
New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources
172 Pembroke Road
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 271–2813
Email: elizabeth.a.schneible@dncr.nh.gov

Re: ICE New Boston Processing Center 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054; Initiation of Consultation and Finding of No Historic Properties Affected

Dear Ms. Schneible:

This letter is provided to initiate consultation on a proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in Merrimack, New Hampshire (Figures 1–3). ICE is proposing to purchase, occupy and rehabilitate a 43-acre warehouse property in support of ICE operations. Proposed site improvements may include, but are not limited to, installing, upgrading, or rehabilitating existing parking areas, fencing, site lighting, landscaping, drainage/stormwater, recreation areas, and cameras. Tentage and a guard shack may also be installed. No site improvements are expected to be taller than the existing structure or expand the current site boundaries, and all work and construction staging will occur within the previously disturbed portions of the parcel. All existing forested areas will remain forested (Figure 4).

As part of the undertaking, ICE may conduct exterior and interior modifications to the existing warchouse facility. Exterior upgrades may include, but are not limited to, painting or sealing the exterior of the structure; installing, removing, or modifying bays (truck bays, window bays, or doors); repairing or replacing the existing roof or cladding materials; adding security equipment; or adding exterior personnel/guest access controls. The interior of the structure may be renovated or rebuilt to support ICE operational requirements, which may include but are not limited to construction of holding and processing spaces, office space, public-facing visitor spaces, and installation of amenities, such as cafeterias, bathrooms, and health care spaces.

ICE has determined that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this undertaking consists of the subject property and adjacent resources with a potential viewshed of the proposed undertaking (Figure 5).

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

The subject property is an existing warehouse that was constructed in 2023 (Figures 6–9). Adjacent resources within the APE were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s and consist of an auto store and a fish and game association property (Figures 10–13). The subject property and adjacent buildings do not rise to the level of exceptional importance under Criteria Consideration G, per National Register Bulletin 15, and are recommended Ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places under all criteria.

From the 1990s to the construction of the current building, the developed part of the property served as a non-historic former quarry and dump site. The ground was also extensively disturbed to accommodate utilities, parking, and warehouse size requirements as part of the property’s redevelopment in 2023. Potential ground disturbing work will be less than or consistent in depth and method of disturbance with past modifications to the site. Maximum ground disturbance to construct piers and fence posts are anticipated to be no more than four feet in depth. Due to the substantial past disturbance, ICE finds the potential for encountering intact archaeological resources is low, and ICE does not recommend any further archaeological investigations at the property. Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(b), ICE has determined that the undertaking will result in a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the project. In the event that the scope of the undertaking changes, ICE will reconsult with your office.

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.3, ICE is inviting your agency to consult on the proposed undertaking. ICE has also invited the following federally-recognized tribe to participate in consultation: the Mi’kmaq Nation. ICE has not received any comments from the consulting parties at the time of this letter.

Please provide any comments on the undertaking and ICE’s finding within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt of this letter. Written correspondence may be submitted to Alexis Price via e-mail at alexis.t.price@Dassociates.ice.dhs.gov. If you have questions or wish to discuss the undertaking, please contact Alexis Price at 443–635–4661. Thank you for your cooperation on this undertaking.

Sincerely,

GABRIELLE M FERNANDEZ

Digitally signed by GABRIELLE M FERNANDEZ
Date: 2026.01.09 15:09:16
-05'00'

Gabrielle Fernandez
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
Department of Homeland Security
Gabrielle.Fernandez@hq.dhs.gov

2

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

3

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

4

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

5

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

6

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

7

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

8

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

9

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

10

RE: ICE New Boston Processing Center, 50 Robert Milligan Parkway, Merrimack, NH 03054

11

State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

172 Pembroke Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Phone: 603–271–3483 Fax: 603–271–3433
TDD Access: Relay NH 1–800–735–2964
nhdhr.dncr.nh.gov

NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL RESOURCES

January 21, 2026

Alexis Price

Re: 2026PR00023 — ICE New Boston Processing Center

Dear Alexis Price,

In accordance with state and federal statutes [New Hampshire RSA 227C:9 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470)] and with federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources/State Historic Preservation Office (NHSHPO) has reviewed information regarding the above-referenced project.

Based upon this review, no known historic resources appear to be affected by the project. Therefore, it is the opinion of the NHSHPO that the project will result in No Historic Properties Affected under 36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1).

No further consultation is required unless there are any changes in approved plans, the need for additional work is identified, or an unanticipated discovery occurs. If further correspondence is required, please refer to the project review number noted above.

If you have any questions, please email Liz Schneible at: elizabeth.a.schneible@dncr.nh.gov

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Nadine Miller
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
NH Division of Historical Resources

On March 4, the Tufts Community Union Senate passed 3 out of 4 resolutions demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel. These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

Unfortunately, the University’s response to the Senate resolutions has been wholly inadequate and dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Graduate Students for Palestine joins Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine to reject the University’s response. Although graduate students were not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting, which lasted for almost eight hours, our presence on campus and financial entanglement with the University via tuition payments and the graduate work that we do on grants and research makes us direct stakeholders in the University’s stance.

While an argument may be made that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange, the automatic rejection, dismissive nature and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression. According to the Student Code of Conduct, “[a]ctive citizenship, including exercising free speech and engaging in protests, gatherings, and demonstrations, is a vital part of the Tufts community.” In addition, the Dean of Students Office has written, “[w]hile at times the exchange of controversial ideas and opinions may cause discomfort or even distress, our mission as a university is to promote critical thinking, the rigorous examination and discussion of facts and theories, and diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Why then is the University discrediting and disregarding its students who practice the very ideals of critical thinking, intellectual exchange and civic engagement that Tufts claims to represent?

The role of the TCU Senate resolutions is abundantly clear. The Senate’s resolutions serve as a “strong lobbying tool that expresses to the Tufts administration the wants and needs of the student body. They speak as a collective voice and are instrumental in enacting systemic changes.” In this case, the “systemic changes” that the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right that is guaranteed by international law. These strong lobbying tools are all the more urgent now given the order by the International Court of Justice confirming that the Palestinian people of Gaza’s rights under the Genocide Convention are under a “plausible” risk of being breached.

This collective student voice is not without precedent. Today, the University may remember with pride its decision in February 1989 to divest from South Africa under apartheid and end its complicity with the then-racist regime. However, we must remember that the University divested up to 11 years after some of its peers. For instance, the Michigan State University Board of Regents passed resolutions to end its complicity with Apartheid South Africa as early as 1978. Had Tufts heeded the call of the student movement in the late 1970s, the University could have been on the right side of history sooner.

We reject any attempt by the University or the Office of the President to summarily dismiss the role of the Senate and mischaracterize its resolution as divisive. The open and free debate demonstrated by the Senate process (exemplified by the length, open notice and substantive exchange in the proceedings and the non-passing of one of the proposed resolutions), together with the serious organizing efforts of students, warrant credible self-reflection by the Office of the President and the University. We, as graduate students, affirm the equal dignity and humanity of all people and reject the University’s mischaracterization of the Senate’s efforts.

The great author and civil rights champion James Baldwin once wrote: “The paradox of education is precisely this: that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which [they are] being educated.” As an educator, President Kumar should embrace efforts by students to evaluate “diverse and sometimes contradictory ideas and opinions.” Furthermore, the president should trust in the Senate’s rigorous and democratic process and the resolutions that it has achieved.

We urge President Kumar and the Tufts administration to meaningfully engage with and actualize the resolutions passed by the Senate.

This op-ed was written by Nick Ambeliotis (CEE, ‘25), Fatima Rahman (STEM Education, ‘27), Genesis Perez (English, ’27) and Rumeysa Ozturk (CSHD, ’25) and is endorsed by 32 other Tufts School of Engineering and Arts and Sciences Graduate Students.

Its original URL was <https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj>. I preserve it here to guard against increasing attacks on free speech that would seek to silence the voices of the authors.

In my previous post, I was continuing a Twitter thread that I’d started about my diary that I kept when I was younger. For most of the entries from it that I wanted to preserve and share, I took screenshots that I posted to Twitter, until I reached an entry too long for that method. I said I’d be going back again to screenshots after that, but it turns out that I actually have another long entry that would make more sense as a post here on Medium. Same rules as the previous one apply (I’ll be copying and pasting, putting it in block-quotes, with occasional interruptions to editorialize, and editing out non-political portions, names for privacy, etc.). This entry was from June 16th, 2007.

Yay! School’s over!

Peace Club tried to have a dance, but no one came to it.

I still can’t remember anything about this “Peace Club” that apparently I was in back in high school… like, I remember protesting for peace, but not as part of any organized club…

…

Presidential Candidates Club has had 2 more candidates come to CHS. I introduced Bill Richardson. I also asked him why his ceasefire in Darfur didn’t work. Mostly he explained what was going on and said what he’s been trying to do to help, but he didn’t really answer the question directly. I liked what he had to say about diplomacy with Iraq and Iran, because when he speaks about diplomacy, I think he can actually get it done because he’s an experienced diplomat. However, a lot of other people thought he didn’t seem prepared enough. For example, when listing his top 7 issues, he forgot what number he was on. Most recently, Mitt Romney came to CHS. I got him to sign my yearbook with my Global Military Spending/Federal Spending graph pen.

Ah yeah, those pens! They were red with this metal tab on them that you could pull out of it to unwind a roll of paper that was normally coiled around on the inside of the pen, which then had a graph on it showing how bloated the U.S. military budget was compared to other categories of government spending. I thought it would be ironic given that he was a known hawk. While trying to find the pen again, it appears that they’re going for $50 on eBay now: https://www.ebay.com/itm/303940247039
I should have kept mine in better condition; I think I ended up throwing it away after the paper that the graph was on tore off or something…

He said that he had seen a lot of those pens around. I should’ve asked him what he thought of the pens. During the event I asked him if his support for increasing the size of the military would cause him to institute a draft. He said he wouldn’t institute a draft but instead try to get more people to join the military by offering more benefits and increasing military spending back to Reagan-esque levels. Besides the fact that he was a Republican and I disagreed with most of what he said, I thought that he was much warmer than I expected. I thought he was going to be uptight, but he wasn’t really. I also thought his campaign was going to be really military-like and mean like Hillary’s campaign, but they were actually kind of disorganized. One more thing that Presidential Candidates Club has done is we watched one of the Republican debates in the library at school.

Here is how I would rank the presidential candidates so far, in order of most liked to least liked:

1. Barack Obama — He’s been against the war since the beginning, he hasn’t had time to be corrupted by Washington yet, I agree with most of his stances, and I think he has a pretty good shot at winning.

Well I was correct about the last part at least!

2. Dennis Kucinich — He’s also been against the war since the beginning, but I don’t think he has much of a chance.

Shame what’s happened to him since then; he’s really gone downhill over the last 15 years…

3. Bill Richardson — He’s the most experienced candidate, I agree with a lot of his views, but he doesn’t speak very well.

It’s really coincidental that he actually just died recently as I was going back to review this entry; R.I.P. (My previous post in this series was on September 1st, and he died on September 2nd…)

4. Chris Dodd — He spoke well when he came to CHS, but I don’t think he has a chance.

5. Joe Biden — I’m not sure about his plan for partitioning Iraq. It may or may not work, but at least he has a plan. I don’t think he has much of a chance, though.

I’d completely forgotten about his plan for partitioning Iraq; how weird… It looks like there was some retrospective reporting on it in The Intercept in response to his 2020 presidential campaign: https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/joe-biden-defends-record-iraq-including-plan-divide-along-sectarian-lines/

6. John Edwards — He spoke well when he came to CHS. I liked a lot of his stances on the issues, although he did originally vote for the war in Iraq. He did apologize for it, but his plan for leaving isn’t very clear. Also his wife having cancer could be kind of problematic if she dies.

Um… ok, awkward… Let’s just move on…

7. Ron Paul — He’s against the war, which is the issue that is most important to me. Also, a lot of people online like him. However, he does support most of the traditional Republican/Libertarian stuff. For example he’s the most pro-gun candidate of the field. Still, the war issue matters the most to me.

NO! Bad Eric! Bad former self! No ranking Ron Paul above any of the Democrats! His candidacy set off a lot of bad trends in American politics that we’ve been paying for ever since (conspiracism, etc.). In my defense, I at least repented for this by spending time posting in /r/EnoughPaulSpam (an anti-Paul subreddit) when I was still on reddit while I was in college…

8. Hillary Clinton — I’m afraid that she’s going to get nominated and then once she does she will motivate all the people who hate her to vote against her in the general election. I didn’t like her campaign when she came to CHS. They took over and were pretty regimented. They didn’t deal with protesters very well. They lied to this one guy and said that they’d guarantee that he’d get to ask his question if he’d let them take away his sign. The only way he got to ask his question was by taking the initiative to get the microphone himself. I also don’t like how she hasn’t apologized for her war vote yet. I also think Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be too dynastic.

However, I do agree with her on a lot of issues.

Yup, that’s the Hillary Clinton Stage Managing Experience™. What a phony. It’s no wonder Bernie trounced her 60% to 38% in 2016; we rebel against candidates who take the top-down approach to campaigns like her here in New Hampshire.

9–17. The rest of the Republican candidates (I already mentioned Ron Paul and I’m not counting Fred Thompson yet.) — I disagree with their views on most of the issues.

18. Mike Gravel — He comes off as a whacko.

Argh! Bad Eric again! Mike Gravel was actually good! He should have gone up near the top with Kucinich and Richardson! Ah well. I guess my politics have changed to be a bit more open to perceived whacko-ness after receiving my own diagnoses for mental health issues when I was in college… Also, the Gravel Teens™ who ran his 2020 campaign really did a lot for his image; if Gravel had people like them on his side in 2008, I probably would have ranked him a lot higher (like I should have)…

I still haven’t managed to get down to Obama’s campaign office yet this summer… there’s a lot of stuff I want to do this summer… I want to go to the pool, finish my 4000 footers, join the Wesley softball team, bike to Nana and Grampa’s, do stuff with all the stuff in our house that I never use, do all my normal computer stuff, and some other stuff I’m forgetting…

Dad got in the Concord Insider for riding his bike to work.

Mom donated her hair to Locks of Love, too, but she didn’t get her hair cut as short as mine, although it still is really short…

I went on a trip to Washington DC with the school. About 1/4 of the sophomore class went.

We had chartered buses and drove through the night. I got 1 or 2 hours of sleep on the way down and about 6 hours on the way back. I mostly hung out with K.F. We went to the Air and Space Museum and the National Zoo. I want to go back to the National Zoo sometime.

Well, I got that wish!

I love how it’s free. We also went to the Georgetown Shops where I went this winter during NYLC. The trip put me behind in school and left me with a lot of catching up to do.

…

I haven’t been posting much on the WotC boards or the MTGS boards. On Wikipedia, I’ve mostly been giving WP:NH articles ratings. That’s another thing I want to finish this summer.

LOL, oh how naïve I was… it’s now 2023 and I still haven’t finished the task of ensuring that all WikiProject: New Hampshire articles are properly assessed… I seem to have this really bad habit of inaccurately guessing the amount of time it will take me to do tasks I set for myself…

…

I went down to Manchester for an Obama event. It was raining. I got to hear Obama speak. I liked how he mixed pre-written stuff with stuff specific for the situation. Then we went out and canvassed. I was with a guy from Massachussetts. I only spoke to 5 people, and none of them signed our anti-war petition. We didn’t get to everything because there was a gated community on our route (we were out in the suburbs in the North End), plus it started raining really hard.

Part of joining the Obama campaign involved getting a Facebook page. I haven’t really used it for much stuff besides Obama stuff, but I have spoken to some people I know from school there.

Ah, back when Facebook was still cool… memories… (Also, note that this was also back before Facebook had “Pages” as a separate thing from regular user accounts, so by “page” there, I just meant an account.)

A.T., who’s a 9th grader, B.G., who’s a guy from Phillips Exeter Academy, and I tried to start an Obama group at school, but we failed because we couldn’t get a faculty advisor.

We had our last Senate meeting. We didn’t have elections this year because Senate’s going to work differently next year. I don’t know how.

Coincidentally, that was also my last term serving in Student Senate; the change in elections must have thrown me off too much…

…

Ian marched in the Memorial Day Parade with the Rundlett Band.

There was a Senior High lock-in at Wesley. We watched Hotel Rwanda and played sardines. I found a really good hiding spot. I didn’t get much sleep.

Ian got confirmed. A lot of the family came up to see it.

I got my yearbook and my schedule. Then there were final exams. Before that, there was the Underclassmen Awards Night. I got an award for getting Summa Cum Laude on the National Latin Exam (which I remembered to take this year), an award for Excellence in English 10, and an award for being Number 2 in my class (J.S. was Number 1 this year). At the ceremony, I saw H.T., the ROPE teacher. She wanted me to lead ROPE next year. I talked to my guidance counselor about it, but I’d have to give up another semester-class to make room for it. Unfortunately, leading ROPE doesn’t give credit like taking the class does. I don’t think I’ll be giving up a class that gives credit for one that doesn’t. I loved ROPE last year and all, but I dunno… I don’t really want to give anything up. That reminds me, I need to transcribe more of my ROPE Journal…

I kinda regret not taking that leadership position now in retrospect, as it probably would have been a really good opportunity for me… oh well… Anyways, the rest of the entry is all non-political (hiking and stuff), so I’ll just stop here. This ought to be it for diary entries, as everything in the rest of the file that remains is all non-political. Good thing I managed to get this done in time, before the Twitter Terms of Service change on Friday! This way I can give my thread some closure.

Yeah, I meant to write sooner but I couldn’t. The day after I wrote last we drove down to New York and spent the night at [my aunt]’s. The next day we drove down to Maryland. The day after that was the first day of NYLC. [My family] dropped me off at the National 4-H Center in Chevy Chase and then did some stuff on their own while I was in NYLC. The first day not much happened. I found K. and L. and then did a lot of the orientation stuff, like tours of the Center, get-to-know-you activities, meeting my smaller group, and stuff. I got to hear Michael Weisskopf speak about how he lost his hand when he was a journalist in Iraq. He was wearing a hook at the time of his speech. There were a lot of people from New Hampshire there because of vacation.

(New Hampshire has a weird way of doing vacations: instead of just having a single-week spring vacation like most places do, our schools instead will have two vacations in late winter / early spring: one at the end of February, and then one at the end of April. This must have been the week of our February one.)

We [NH] were tied for second most people there with New York and behind California. I had 3 other roommates. One was from New Hampshire like me, another was Russian and came from California, and the third was from Texas and had a wicked strong accent. Speaking of “wicked”, a lot of the other southerners were trying to imitate us northerners by using the word “wicked”, but they didn’t do it right. They used it as an adjective rather than an adverb. Anyway, my roommates and I stayed up late most nights talking and telling jokes and stuff and watching The Daily Show and South Park.

What a time capsule…

The next day in our small groups we did simulation of what it was like to be president, except only one person got to be president. Everyone else got to be advisers when we were making our decision, and then we got to be journalists and ask the president about her decision. First I was the head of the House Foreign Relations Committee, then I was a journalist from the Taiwan Post. (The decision we were discussing involved a hypothetical crisis between Taiwan and China).

(I would just like to add a disclaimer here that my past teenage self is not to be held responsible for any violations of the “One China Policy” or whatever the current U.S. diplomatic stance towards China and Taiwan might be currently)

After that we went into Washington to see the Vietnam Memorial, Korean War Memorial, and Lincoln Memorial. One thing that I thought was cool was that the reflecting pool for the Washington Monument had to be drained in the winter, but snowmelt left a little water in the pool, so it was only a partial reflection and it looked really cool. That Washington Monument is everywhere. No matter where you are in Washington, you can see it. Then we had lunch in Dupont Circle and then came back to the 4-H Center and heard Scott Stanzel, the deputy press secretary to President Bush, speak. He seemed very rehearsed and good at his job. Nothing threw him for a loop. Then we did some random stuff in our small groups, and then split up to go to some workshops. Mine was on peace and stuff. The guy who led it, Hawah Kasat, gave off really good vibes.

The next day we went to Capitol Hill. First we went to the Capitol got to sit in the House of Representatives Chamber and talk with a representative from Connecticut.

(I wish I’d remembered to record which representative from Connecticut it was specifically, but unfortunately I didn’t…)

Then we could go where we wanted. K., L., and I went to the Supreme Court building, but they got bored so we left. Then we went to the Rayburn Building to go to a committee hearing. We went to the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing. There was only room for me, so K. and L. left. The committee talked about poverty in Latin America and Hugo Chavez and stuff. They weren’t even done with their opening statements by the time I had to leave. As I was in there, I was thinking, “You know, I just know that someday I’m going to come back here, and when I do, I’m going to be on the other side of the (metaphorical) wall.”

This was in fact true! While I don’t think it was that room specifically, I did in fact come back to DC and participated in some hearings from the “other side” of the room my junior year of college when I interned for Senator Shaheen.

Next I headed over to the Russell Building to meet with my senators. Senator Sununu was speaking on the floor when I got there so he was a little late.

(This was John E. Sununu, to be clear, Chris Sununu’s older brother)

He had time for a photo op and that was it. Then I went upstairs to Senator Gregg’s office. K. and L. showed up around then. We took a picture with Gregg, too, and then talked to us for a few minutes, but he didn’t take any questions. Then we went to the Cannon Building to meet with Paul Hodes. He couldn’t make it, so one of his staffers gave us a tour of the Capitol. We got House and Senate gallery passes that are good for all of the 110th Congress. I was surprised at how few people were actually on the floor. The House was debating an amendment to a unionizing bill which would disallow “salting”. I didn’t really understand it.

Argh! Bad Eric! Bad former self! I read this passage now as an indictment of the American education system; the fact that I was able to be considered one of the “smart kids” in high school and graduate without knowing what the unionization tactic known as “salting” is, reflects a major failing of our schools to teach about the labor movement.

There were even fewer people on the floor of the Senate. It was just Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut debating something to do with port security. Then we came back to the 4-H Center and went back into our small groups. We did a simulation about what it would be like to be on the Supreme Court. That made me sure that the Judicial Branch of the government is not the one for me to go into. I’d like to go into the Legislative Branch the most. That night there was a variety show. It was cool. I forget most of the acts.

The next day we had breakfast at the National Press Club. We got to talk with a panel of four journalists. Then we went to the FDR Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. Then we had lunch in Georgetown. It’s a nice neighborhood. We didn’t get to see the university. When I ask people where I should go to college, people who know me usually say Georgetown.

(I did in fact apply to Georgetown, but got rejected there, and instead went to the George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, which people always get confused with Georgetown. It was probably for the better that I went to GWU anyways, since the Georgetown neighborhood is filled with NIMBYs who wouldn’t and, AFAIK, still won’t let a Metro station be built near the university…)

Then we went back to the 4-H Center and broke into two groups for some debates. The one I went to was about campaign finance reform. Then we went back to our small groups. That evening we had committee hearings for the Model Congress. My group was the Government Reform Committee. I was the Democratic Chairman of the committee. We were deciding whether or not to recommend amendments to a public safety bill to the general session. We recommended all but one. We made some funny rules for the hearing, such as “all collars must be popped.” That rule would have been more effective if we were still in our professional clothes.

The next day we went to the White House, but we could only stand behind the fence and take pictures of it. Then we went to the Department of the Interior for the Model Congress general session. We passed three of the amendments. The Republicans wanted a recount on one because they thought it had been counted wrong, but it turned into a re-vote. The entire bill passed by only one vote. The amendment votes were pretty much along party lines, but the entire bill vote split the parties. Then we got to go where we wanted on the National Mall. K., L., and I went to the Air and Space Museum. I got to do a flight simulator, except instead of just sitting in it I got to control the “plane” and fire missiles and stuff. Then we went back the the 4-H Center and hung around for a while. Then we went to a hotel for the Farewell Dinner Dance. I had fun dancing, but not with anyone.

The last day we didn’t do much. [My family] picked me up and then we drove home. There was more snow waiting for us once we got back.

The next day, the first Monday back from vacation, was my 16th birthday. We had peanut butter pie. I got a GameBoy game, Magic cards, a hand-crank-powered flashlight, a rubber chicken, a paperweight, a light and a new seat-cover for my bike, and money. I used the money to buy another GameBoy game and some more Magic cards.

I’ve had two Teen Courts, a training and a hearing. I was lead prosecutor at the hearing. It’s confidential, but I can say that the jury came up with a disposition that was halfway between what I wanted and what the defense wanted.

I ran the CD player for Youth Sunday at church, which was early this year. Other Sundays since then I videoed and ran a PowerPoint over the new projection system.

Ian and I got our cholesterol tested. Mine is lower than his, which is funny because he’s skinnier than I am, but I’m happy. He must have Dad’s genes. We also went to the dermatologist to get checked for skin cancer. I had zero moles, which was less than Ian. I got my warts frozen with liquid nitrogen. It hasn’t really worked too well.

It’s spring now. It was annoying having daylight savings time start early. April Fools Day is Palm Sunday.

I think this has happened again since then, although it may also be that I’m thinking of the time Easter fell on April Fool’s Day in 2018…

It was warm for a week, then it snowed really hard one weekend and it was winter again. The snow’s pretty much melted now. I went and played Magic at the card store during the snow storm. There weren’t that many people there, but the next week I went back and played in a 2HG sealed deck tournament. My partner and I lost all three games. Although the first one we could’ve won if it hadn’t been for a really stupid play I made.

I got accepted to the SCA. I’ll be spending 4 weeks around Linville Gorge, North Carolina, in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

School is okay. I had a rough week a while ago. I got a detention in math. I was playing games on my calculator, and then the teacher came over and told me to stop, so I put it away and finished all my work and stuff, so then I didn’t have anything to do so I took the calculator back out and then I got a detention. She decided to cancel it, however, because I participate the most positively in class. I’ve also had trouble rolling my “r”s in Spanish class. I also got kicked out of Chemistry class. [Anecdote removed due to pun dependent on the teacher’s name, which I’m redacting to protect privacy.] I said no, but she knew anyway so she kicked me out. I missed a quiz that class. Afterwards when I went back and apologized she wouldn’t let me take it, but later she changed her mind and let me take it after all. Grades closed for the quarter Friday, so I don’t have homework this weekend. There was a fire in one of the boys’ bathrooms this week. The west building got closed down because of it.

My picture was in the Insider from when the Newspaper Club went to the Monitor.

I wish I’d saved this picture! No idea where it might be now…

There weren’t many people at the [School] Senate meeting this month. The biggest thing we talked about was underclassmen parking in the Senior Parking Lot.

Jim Gilmore was going to come to Concord High, but that never happened. Mike Huckabee was going to come, too, but he postponed his trip. Next week John Edwards and his family are coming to Concord High on Monday, and Chris Dodd is coming on Wednesday. The Presidential Candidates Club is going to be busy.

I’m kind of in the CHS Peace Club. I took part in a peace rally in front of the State House a week after the four year anniversary [of the start of the war in Iraq] which was mostly organized by our club and the Hopkinton club. It was a week after because there was that snow storm on the original date. There were barely a hundred people there. I wrote a letter to the editor in response to someone mistakenly assuming that because we were the CHS Peace Club that taxpayer money went towards the rally. My letter hasn’t made it into the paper yet.

I wish I could find what had happened to that letter; I’d forgotten about writing that one… (I mean, the published copy, that is; any copies I might still have saved on one of my hard drives don’t count)

I spend more of my time on the internet now on Wikipedia rather than mtg.com or AIM. I’m going to take a short break before starting on ROPE journals… or maybe I just won’t do them this time. I’m kind of tired of typing….

…and that’s it; after this I’m going to go back to screenshotting things for Twitter again…

My first issue with the platform is that I am concerned about the amount of business-friendliness in it. As a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, I see capitalism as the main source of societal ills today, so it disturbs me to see the Democratic Party bending over backwards to appease the capitalist vultures looting our society in the name of business development. I counted 6 mentions of business in the entire document on my first readthrough of a hardcopy of it, and now that I’ve had a chance to search with a computer, I’ve found that there are actually 12 mentions overall. In either case, those mentions are all positive towards business. I get that some measure of business friendliness is needed to win elections in New Hampshire, but I highly doubt that it has to be as one-sided as it is in the current platform. I’m not asking to get rid of all of the positivity towards business, just to reduce it a bit, or balance it out with some acknowledgments of the harms that business can cause to our communities.

Next, in the “Education” section, under bullet point 4, I think the
statement about ensuring college educations to all can be
strengthened: the word “excessive” in “excessive debt” should be
struck. Leaving the word “excessive” in allows for all sorts of
weaselling around about whether a certain level of debt is excessive
or not, which creates space to leave our students out in the cold.
Students shouldn’t be graduating with any debt whatsoever, so it is
better to just say that instead of leaving wiggle room for students to
be sold out.

In the “Environment, Energy, and Agriculture” section, under bullet
point 2, the opposition to fossil fuels should be strengthened by
replacing “reduce” with “eliminate” with regards to what we intend to
do with our dependence on fossil fuels. The climate crisis is dire
enough that half-measures won’t cut it any longer; we need to go all
the way and take every action possible to save this planet.

Also in that same section, under bullet point 4, while it may be true
that achieving energy efficiency and economic growth CAN be
complementary goals, that doesn’t mean that the path in which that is
true is necessarily the best one to take. Personally I believe that a
policy of degrowth will be more effective in fighting climate change
than one that attempts to maintain compatibility between environmental
goals and growth goals. While I realize that degrowth is an unpopular
position, I’d still like to see some acknowledgment of it as position
that some members can take, even if the party as a whole doesn’t adopt
it.

Under the “Public Safety and Justice” section, bullet point 1, I would
reword the part about “We support our law enforcement” to be less
unconditionally pro-cop. There are many cases of legislation going
thru the State House that the ACLU is pushing where the cops are
actually the bad guys, such as the one requiring the state’s “Laurie
List” (list of cops whose testimony is unreliable) to be publicized.
In Merrimack County our Sheriff, Scott Hilliard, was arrested for DUI,
and we don’t support him in that. Exeter police arrested a man for
posting mean comments about them online, a clear violation of his
First Amendment rights. Nashua police murdered a man having a mental
health crisis. Durham police ruined the concert with The Strokes at
the Bernie Sanders rally before the primary. I realize that we need
the votes of police officers to win, though, so I’m not asking that we
remove support for them from the platform altogether, just that we
balance our support for them out with some recognition of the issues
where they’re in the wrong, such as officer-involved shootings and
police brutality.

In that same section, bullet point 11 talks about repealing the death
penalty. We accomplished that this last session, so that plank should
probably be updated to reflect that.

Under the transportation and infrastructure section, bullet point 4 is
the closest thing I could find in the document about tech issues.
Bullet point 5 in the section on “The Next Generation” is somewhat
similar, but it doesn’t really go any more into detail than this one
does. Personally, I think that tech issues are a big enough deal that
they deserve their own entire section, not just a few bullet points
scattered thru other sections. Ensuring access to technology and
information services is not enough, we need to make sure that the tech
companies providing these services treat their customers fairly and
respectfully. There are many good organizations on tech issues around
that can serve as sources of inspiration for platform planks in this
domain; personally, I find myself closest to the views of the Free
Software Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I believe
that the state has a role to play in guaranteeing software freedom as
defined by the FSF to all our citizens:
https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software
They also have some lists of ways states/governments can act to
guarantee these freedoms, most of which I support:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/government-free-software.html
https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190124-01
The tech issues I would like to focus on in particular are:
1. Ensuring that “copyleft” software licenses (ones that come with
methods to ensure their freeness is preserved) are officially
supported under the law: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
The idea of “copyleft” has been described as a “hack” on the copyright
system, and while it has survived legal challenges so far, all it
would take is one judge changing their mind and the entire system
would be overthrown. To protect against this possibility, I would like
to modify copyright law so that copyleft licenses are officially
supported under it, instead of just being a “hack” that relies on judicial interpretation.
2. Some states are banning “noncompete clauses” in contracts that
prevent employees from moving to other companies. I would like to see
a ban on noncompete clauses extended to also cover contributions to
free-and-open-source software projects. Some tech companies prevent
their employees from contributing to certain projects with certain
licenses, and I would like to see those companies stopped from doing
so, so that their employees can be contributing members of the
community again, as many of them want to be.
3. The state government in New Hampshire uses much proprietary
software to function. I would like to make it a principle of the party
that we support the NH state government moving away from using
proprietary software in an attempt to transition to using entirely
free software eventually.
4. Besides software that state government uses, it also occasionally
writes its own software. I’m not quite sure if this is true at the
state level, too, but at least at the federal level, it is usually
released into the public domain, with the reasoning that since it was
funded by taxpayer money, it cannot have copyright, and thus, cannot
be copyleft, either. I would like to see this changed to explicitly
specify that software written by the state government may be released
under copyleft software licenses.
5. The issue of “Right to Repair”, where companies block 3rd-party
repair shops from repairing their products, is another big one. Being
prevented from repairing keeps users on the “upgrade treadmill” (so to
speak), generates waste, and costs people money they can’t or don’t
want to be spending. I believe Dave Luneau had introduced Right To
Repair legislation some time recently, but I lost track of what
happened to it.

So, now that I have the tech section out of the way, time to move onto
the “Support for Our Workers” section. I am glad that bullet point 2
of this section supports the right of workers to unionize, however, I
wish it would go farther. Once employees have formed a union, the
question then becomes, what can that union actually do? My mom was on
the negotiating committee for her local NEANH team, and from what she
told me, it sounded like they basically had to roll over and accept
all the demands of the school board, because even though they were
unionized, their union didn’t actually have any negotiating power.
From what I understand, public-sector unions aren’t actually allowed
to strike here in NH, denying them much-needed leverage in the
negotiating process. The party’s platform should be updated to specify
that we support not just the right of employees to unionize, but also
that we support the right of those unions to then go on strike when
necessary.

In the section on “The Next Generation”, bullet point 4 talks about
affordable housing. As with the tech section, I believe that housing
is an important enough issue that it deserves its own entire section,
not just a single bullet point. Besides importance, there’s also
another reason to move it from the section on “The Next Generation”:
housing isn’t just an issue that affects young people, it affects old
people as well. I live in the JFK Building in Thompson Street in
Concord, which is public housing, and many of the other residents here
are elderly. Also, affordability isn’t the only housing issue worth
discussing: supply, safety, and living conditions are also important.
One housing issue in particular that I’d like to focus on is that of
tenants’ unions. Tenants’ unions are much like labor unions: just as
the party says it supports the rights of workers to unionize to
collectively bargain with their bosses in the previous section, we
should also support the rights of tenants to organize to collectively
bargain with their landlords. I talked with a lawyer at NH Legal Aid
about this, and he said that while tenants’ unions are technically
allowed under NH law, they’re just like any other non-profit, and
don’t actually grant their members any special protections, or have
any unique recognition. I would like to see that changed: I would like
to see NH housing law updated so that any mention of tenant-landlord
interactions is changed to include any tenants’ union that that tenant
may be part of as well. This would give tenants’ unions more power and
would thus give people more of a reason to form them, which they don’t
really have right now.

Next, I would like to move onto the sections on diversity and our
first-in-the-nation primary. While these 2 sections are separate, I
like how they are right next to one another, as they really are
connected. I’m not saying they’re so connected that they should be
merged into a single section, just that some cross-references should
be added so that those connections are more explicitly drawn. One of
the main arguments against New Hampshire having our
first-in-the-nation primary is that we aren’t diverse enough. And, to
a certain extent, the people making this argument are right: it’s
true, we AREN’T actually diverse enough. However, where I disagree
with them is that after acknowledging that we aren’t diverse enough, I
don’t then go on to say that we should therefore no longer go first, I
instead argue that we in NH should BECOME diverse enough so that we
can be worthy of keeping our #FITN primary in the future. Having this
attitude towards diversity would make the platform’s position on
diversity sound different: instead of just being something that’s nice
to have, diversity is something that’s ESSENTIAL to the continued
existence of the best event our state provides. For those of you
versed in philosophy, this is the difference between supererogation
and moral necessity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supererogation
Currently the platform seems to read like it treats diversity as some
sort of supererogatory good, but really it’s more than that. We need
to diversify if we are to continue defending our #FITN status
successfully.

Finally, under the section on “Fiscal Responsibility”, I would like to
discuss the part of bullet point 4 that talks about the
“constitutional requirement” of “fair and equal” taxation. From what I
gathered at the last candidate training I went to about the state
budget, our state constitution requires any taxes to be flat taxes.
This is neither fair nor equal. Progressive taxation would be more
fair instead. We should amend the state constitution to explicitly
allow progressive taxation.

And with that, I am done with my suggested edits to the platform.
I thank all New Hampshire Democrats who have read this and taken my feedback into consideration when considering how best to update the platform for 2020.