In all likelihood, the special Congressional deficit committee will announce on Monday that it cannot reach consensus on $1.2 trillion in
legislated cuts to the Federal budget, and thus, a automatic $1.2 trillion cut will kick into place across nearly all government programs.

This draconian measure was railroaded into law by the Republicans (read T Party base), but right now, Republicans are scurrying around like that proverbial sewer-loving animal to modify the law they created by their own hand.

And why would this be? Because in their haste to pass the special Congressional deficit committee or meat axe approach to budgeting, the ‘Pubs and the T Party ignored language that resulted in half of $1.2 trillion coming from cuts in the Pentagon budget.

(I prefer T Party to the other moniker; the latter, to me, denotes dignity, history, and, well, just plain down-to-earth Common Sense.)

Truly, absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit.

In their rush to excite the base before the run up to the 2012 Presidential elections, the ‘Pubs and the T Party has undermined its own foundation just as salt water ultimately destroys a cement foundation.

The ‘Pubs and the T Party called the Democratic party’s bluff, and the Dems held strong (Obama excepted). It must never be forgotten, but always is, that neither party can win the White House without the strong support of the Independent (which is not currently trending Republican.)

And in another bare-bottom gesture to the ‘Pubs and the T Party, the Dems and thinking Republicans (almost an oxymoron) defeated the recent proposal for a balanced budget amendment, an amendment strongly backed by our very own Olympia Snow and Susan Collins.

As I have noted in an earlier blog, a politician arguing for a balanced budget amendment is opting out of the responsibilities of his/her elected position. We sent Snowe and Collins to Washington to create a budget that meets the needs of the Republic; we did not send them to Washington to vote for a computer model.

If they don’t want to have input into the budget process, they need to step down. There are plenty of us in Maine well trained in budgets who are willing to step up to the challenge. I don’t want a computer model ignoring necessity for expediency; in our household budget we borrow for college and other expenses that cannot be capitalized; where would California be if we had not amortized the Hoover dam (Roger Willians please cue “America the Beautiful”).

As Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York noted of the current deficits: “[The deficit's origin is] in an irresponsible Republican president and an irresponsible Republican Congress. Many of those same Republican members, who saw nothing wrong with busting the budget, who sat quietly when Vice President Cheney said that deficits don’t matter, now demand this assault on our founding document [the balanced budget amendment] instead of delivering the votes for sound fiscal policy.”

As we sit down for the fest begun long ago by those who came to this continent to escape the heavy and arbitrary hand of injustice, let us give thanks for the patriots over the centuries, like Susan B Anthony, who stated: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. This blog post may be reproduced or circulated as long as this copyright notice is attached.
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

As I read through some of the commentary relating to the current street artist controversy and the proposed “crafters’” market, some thoughts about it have emerged and I think some aspects are perhaps being overlooked.

It’s been suggested that the presence of street vendors or artists is taking away from either farmers or shop owners. Whether or not that is true remains to be more thoroughly examined, but I’ll get into that shortly. One thing that I think ought to be pointed out is that many of the street artists are in great need of this modest cash flow that they’ve managed to tap into. There are struggling single mothers, unemployed folks, underemployed people, people recovering from disabilities, fallout from corporate downsizing, and a whole host of situations and back stories. Now of course, this isn’t true of all the street vendors. Some could be very wealthy for all I know. But I think it’s safe to say that it’s true of most. These are often people on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

I mention this primarily because some of the commentary would suggest that the street artists are the antagonist preying on the unfortunate shop owners and farmers. In reality, these people selling their wares on the sidewalks in many cases could only dream of being so fortunate as to own a retail store or a small farm. This method of selling on the street may be one of the very few options they have that could perhaps be a stepping stone they need towards some day having a store with a roof and heat and electricity and plumbing, and the ability to sell any day year-round. Those are luxuries that the brick-and-mortar shops have and of course they pay considerably to be in that situation. If they think it’s so advantageous to be out on the sidewalk, they’re welcome to come join us. Of course, they do need to sell their own creations.

I don’t understand why anyone, shop owners, farmers, or street artists, should be afforded extra protection from the hazards of a free-market economy. What if shops could only be open once a week? What if farmers were no longer allowed to sell to grocery stores on Mondays? If you prevent a street artist from doing his business you are surely taking money out of his pocket. Where is the morality in this thinking? Why is he or she any less deserving of the ability to pay his or her bills?

It should also be noted that I personally purchase many of my art supplies locally. This is most likely true of other street vendors. We then frequent the local eateries and coffee shops to keep us going throughout the day. And then much of the cash generated from sales goes right back into the local economy. There is a symbiosis of sorts at work.

Focusing more specifically on the Farmer’s market: having sold at a number of these markets I’ve had a chance to talk to many people from many areas around the country. People love the atmosphere of an outdoor market with farm stands, art stands, and the live music! Just because they buy a painting or a bar of soap, doesn’t mean they won’t also buy the food they need to eat. We’re not pushing art on a population of nit wits. These are intelligent people capable of making good decisions about what to spend their money on. They’re not likely to blow all their food money on art. The reality is that most people walk right by us and go buy their vegetables. Or they stop and look at what we have to offer, perhaps make some nice comments, and then… they go buy their vegetables. Perhaps 5% of the people actually buy something from us, and then they go buy their vegetables.

I remember a lady commenting on the vibrant and festive atmosphere of the market at Deering Oaks this summer. She went on to tell me about the markets where she’s from and how they not only have artists, they also have people selling prepared food and beverages and places to sit down and eat. It draws huge numbers of people and it’s a big success for all involved. She said its almost like church every week where people all congregate and it’s a magnificent celebration. She thought, as do I, that it is laughable to assume that the presence of some art or craft vendors is somehow a bad thing. It’s certainly reflects a myopic outlook.

Mind you, not all farmers are opposed to the artists. I’ve had farmers buy my art. The ones I’ve met are extremely nice and reasonable people.

And finally, a point I’d like to get back to is that of whether or not street vendors do in fact cause any appreciable financial impact on farmers or shop owners. It’s been suggested by many, but has it been studied by anyone? Can any farmers or shop owners show this to be actually true? I realize the street vending scene has grown considerably in recent years. Have any farmers or shop owners been able to point to financial records that show a downturn in sales that is attributable to the rise of street vendors? Or is it all conjecture? And even if sales have declined in recent years, how would you separate that from the general malaise of the economy at large?

At a time when unemployment is so high and many are struggling to make ends meet, people should be applauded for taking the problem into their own hands and going out on the street to earn an honest dollar. Street selling is not for the faint of heart. It’s a difficult job that we do. I don’t relish waking up at 4 AM and setting up my table in the dark and then sitting for 10 or 12 hours in the cold or heat. But my situation calls for it and so I do what is required.

A number of people who try this job, give up after day one. You have to have a good product that people want to buy. You have to be able to sell that product. It’s grassroots free-market economics at its best. Street vendors should be accepted and supported as hard-working members of society who make the world a prettier and better place.

Jim O’Reilly, Portland Maine Street Art Vendor
© 2011 Jim O’Reilly.
This blog post may be reproduced or circulated freely with this copyright notice attached and original location of publication: http://peterhayward.wordpress.com

Even Larry the farmer showed up, claiming that HE was the reason for the “crafters’” market proposal. He noted that, in the past, there were few Street Artists selling at the Wednesday and Saturday markets and everything was fine, but now, he complained, there were simply too many Street Artists in Portland selling their art and taking money from the farmers. Larry also stated that all the Street Artists were taking up parking spaces at the markets that could otherwise be used by customers.

(You will note that I do not refer to the markets as Farmers’ Markets. With equal numbers of artists and farmers, they are now simply just markets.)

Generally, it was a very warm and friendly audience that would have no truck with the “crafters’” market proposal.

At the end, however, it was apparent that the public hearing was just for show; the Chair announced that the City was going ahead with its plans for a task force to officially determine: 1) what IS ART, 2) where and how ART could be sold on Portland streets, and 3) how Street Artists could be regulated – i.e., LIMITED in number.

Upon hearing the Chair’s comment, one audience member told the committee that there was NO reason for a task force, the current regulations were working fine, and that the “crafters’” market proposal should simply be trashed.

(The public hearing was filmed by channel 5, the public access channel in Cumberland County. In attendance were reporters from the Press Herald, the Portland Daily Sun, and the Forecaster. There may have been some representatives from TV, but they were probably just producers compiling comments for background.)

An author, whose name I missed, made an impassioned and articulate statement about the inclusiveness of art, and he ended by saying he would have nothing to do with any task force that attempted to separate art from craft.

Overall, a warm and fuzzy feeling was felt by many when the hearing ended.

However, the meeting hosted by the Portland Arts and Cultural Alliance (PACA) after the public hearing was a complete BUST.

First of all, the PACA host announced to the audience that she had discovered a document that she believed few in the audience knew about – the document was, of course, the document all Street Artists carry to prevent harassment: the City’s Street Artists Rules and Regulations.

One might think that the PACA host would have been better informed if she was going to moderate this gathering. Actually, those of us who had read the PACA Facebook announcement should have been prepared her approach to the meeting. The PACA began its announcement of the meeting: “Where is the balance between participating in a lively downtown scene and creating a public nuisance?”

The PACA host then stated she hoped that the Street Artists and the Down Town Businesses could work together to come up with new rules and regulations. When it was pointed out to her that the Down Town Businesses should have absolutely NOTHING to say about how Street Artist Freedom of Speech is exercised in Portland, the host seemed surprised at the comment.

It appeared to several of the long-term Street Artist Vendors attending the PACA meeting that those who spoke out strongly at the public hearing skipped the PACA meeting, the result being that the audience was largely composed of those who agreed that Street Artists should be regulated. One “artist” said Street Artists should have to register with the City — a long-tern Street Artist Vendor pointed out that requiring registration of people was the way the Nazis started out, and then exclaimed that the exercise of Freedom of Speech must never be regulated, for that would negate the very concept of Freedom of Speech.

The City’s Legal Counsel (CLC) repeatedly stated at the PACA meeting that she and City officials were just enforcing legal regulations when they pulled off the raids. When it was pointed out, AGAIN, that there was no Federal Definition Of Art, for the first time the CLC acknowledged that Bery v NYC III stated that items other than “painting, prints, photography, and sculpture” COULD have expressive value. However, the CLC then contradicting her statement and continued to justify the City’s actions claiming she was simply enforcing the statutes. (It should be noted that Bery v NYC III cost NYC $400,000 to fight.)

When asked what complaints had been made to the City regarding Street Artist Vendors, the CLC stated that 1) a store owner complained that cards were being sold in front of a card store, 2) Down Town Businesses objected to the fact that they had to pay for licenses and pay taxes while Street Artists did not have to do so, and 3) one “street artist” boasted to a Down Town Business owner that she bought her items for $2 from Mexico and sold them for $10, making $600 a day.

Of course, 1) there is NOTHING in the Street Artist regulations limiting WHAT may be sold WHERE (there IS, of course, a City regulation restricting vendors OTHER than Street Artists from selling the same product as a retail business within a set distance Sec 19-21, d, 5), 2) Street Artists do not have to pay ANYTHING (except sales taxes) because they are exercising their Freedom of Speech, and 3) the quote about buying from Mexico was anonymous and was therefore hearsay and of no value.

It seems that the City (and the PACA) might solve the problems Down Town Businesses have regarding Street Artist Vendors by doing outreach, explaining the exact wording of and reasons for the Street Artist Rules and Regulations to the Down Town Businesses. Probably few Down Town Businesses are aware of the document.

Many of the PACA audience seemed to think that Freedom of speech should be regulated by 1) limiting the number of Street Artist Vendors per block during Cruise boat arrivals (thus diluting the festive atmosphere), 2) moving some Street Artists at First Friday to the Old Port, and 3) working with Down Town Businesses to sanitize the definition of ART.

After about an hour, it became apparent to the long-term Street Artist Vendors in the audience that the City and the PACA might simply be trying to co-opt the Street Artist Vendors into helping to write new regulations detrimental to the Street Artists’ right of Freedom of Speech.

Those long-term Street Artist Vendors then walked out of the PACA meeting.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. This blog post may be reproduced or circulated as long as this copyright notice attached
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

In the 1990s, NYC had a permit system for selling art on the street. However, the permit system was poorly run and was limited to 800 permits. The city was sued in the mid 90s by artists comprising painters, photographers and sculptors.

The case eventually was heard by the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the citation is

BERY v. CITY OF NEW YORK III
97 F. 3d 689

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1182584.html

As a result of this Federal decision, Street Artists now sell freely on the streets of New York. In 2007, David Marshall, Street Art vendor and recently-elected City Counselor, worked with others including the MCLU (now known as the ACLU/Maine) to encourage Portland to promulgate the Street Artist Regulations.This document, signed in 2009,and revised in 2011, states at

http://www.portlandmaine.gov/voter/streetartistrules.pdf

“1. A “street artist” is a person who is engaged in the creation of a work of art or who offers for sale a work of art created by the artist who is offering it for sale.”

“2. Works of art protected by the First Amendment and thus permitted to be sold by the artist without a permit in Portland include expressive items such as paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures. Performance art is also protected by the First Amendment.”

In grammar, and in law, the phrase SUCH AS is followed by examples. The examples that follow “such as” are only part of the entire set.

In grammar, and in law, the phrase LIMITED TO is an exclusionary phrase. The items that follow “limited to” are the whole of the set.

Logic tell us that “expressive items such as” indicates there are other forms of ART that could be given after the word “sculpture.”

Thus, the regulations do NOT define what ART is; it simply gives 4 examples of expressive ART that may be sold on the streets of Portland without a permit.

The city believes that there exists a Federal definition of art and that art is limited to paintings, photographs, prints and sculpture. The city spokeswoman said as much to the WMTW reporter July 20 after an earlier raid at Monument Square.

As I told the WMTW reporter at that time, the City had no right to exclude people from Monument Square in July because the City Street Artists Rules and Regulations do not say what is excluded from street sales.

Marc Rees, City Manager of Portland Maine, and Mary Costigan, Associate Legal Counsel of the City have stated that the City is using legal precedent to define what may be sold as art. The precedent Mary Costigan is following is the NYC case cited above (BERY v. CITY OF NEW YORK III). I believe the section of that case that Mary is misreading follows (in that case, the Circuit Court over ruled a lower court decision that ruled in favor of NYC):

“Appellants are individual artists engaged in painting, photography and sculpture”

“The district court seems to have equated the visual expression involved in these cases with the crafts of the jeweler, the potter and the silversmith who seek to sell their work.  Bery, 906 F.Supp. at 167.  While these objects may at times have expressive content, paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, such as those appellants seek to display and sell in public areas of the City, always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it, and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection.”

Please note two things: the Circuit Court is determining a case brought by painters, photographers and sculptors. By law, the 2nd Circuit Court cannot add additional conditions to the case. It must rule on the suit brought. There are two parts of a court ruling, the “justification” and the “decision.”

The Court’s decision” is “paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, such as those appellants seek to display and sell in public areas of the City, always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it, and as such are entitled to full First Amendment protection.”

The courts “justification” begins at “While these objects (the crafts of the jeweler, the potter and the silversmith) may at times have expressive content…” BUT the Court can only rule on what the appellants have brought: relief from the NYC prohibition of the street sales of THEIR products. The Court admits that other items “may at times have expressive content …” but the Circuit Court cannot expand their decision to include those other forms of art. ONLY THE SUPREME COURT can made such a global decision. Federal District and Circuit Courts can only decide on the facts and complaints presented and rule on those facts and complaints.

Thus, Marc Rees and Mary Costigan have no leg to stand on. The 2nd Circuit Court ruled on a complaint; it did not create a definition of Art. AND it did acknowledge that other forms of art “can have expressive content.”

On 9/29 when Rees, Costigan and several City police “raided” the Street Art Vendors as the artists were setting up prior to a cruise ship and arbitrarily and capriciously ejected several because “they were not selling art,” Rees also stated he had received complaints that Street Art Vendors caused sidewalk congestion. However, when one artist asked to see the “complaints” he backed off and said it was just his own impression.

The Court in 1996 addressed a similar complaint by NYC that Street Art Vendors caused sidewalk congestion. The Court ruled that congestion was not a valid reason to deny Freedom of Speech. It noted that NYC had administrative means to ensure the sidewalks were safe without limiting or denying Street Art Vendors (See BERY v. CITY OF NEW YORK III at item II.)

Since expression and speech are interchangeable, Freedom of Speech will likely, if brought to the Supreme Court (or to the First Circuit Court of Appeals — which receives cases from Maine), be extended to “the crafts of the jeweler, the potter and the silversmith.”

Marc Rees and Mary Costigan have no right to prejudge that matter, but I WILL ADD that if she causes the citation or arrest of a Street Artist selling anything other than “paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures” the CITY WILL BE TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT.

The proposal by Counselor Waxman of the City’s Health and Recreation Committee to create a “crafter’s market” in Monument Square a single day a week, to make “crafters” pay for a license to sell at that weekly Market, and to exclude “crafters” from selling anywhere else in Portland must fail.

ANY attempt by Waxman to define crafts as X, Y, or Z, must fail because the Street Artists Rules and Regulations are not exclusive. Waxman could no more could define sculpture as craft than Waxman could define fiber art as craft. As written, the Street Artist Rules and Regulations state there are other examples of “expressive items…” that are covered by Freedom of Speech.

And if Marc Rees and Mary Costigan attempt to re-write the Street Artist Rules and Regulations Rules and regulations to re-write the Street Artist Rules and Regulations to limit expressive items to “paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures” the CITY WILL BE TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT because it is making an arbitrary and capricious decision. Freedom of Speech cannot be arbitrarily abridged.

Finally, following a Portland Downtown District meeting on October 5, the City is considering a proposal to change the locations Street Artist Vendors may sell from “anywhere on city property” to designated areas by declaring the entire Old Port a Festival on the days Cruise Ships dock, (see the link below) and as Street Artists cannot set up during a Festival without paying an fee. This proposal of the Summer Old Port Festival, Harbor Fest, or the Congress Street Art Fair) that would mean the City would be able to banish Street Artists from cruise Ship landings.

However, if the City attempts to rewrite the Street Artist Rules and Regulations in this manner, the CITY WILL BE TAKEN TO FEDERAL COURT because it is making an arbitrary and capricious to limit an expression of Freedom of Speech without reasonable legal justification.

To support or make comment on the City’s proposals to abridge Street Art vendor freedom of speech, the best place to do it is on the Facebook page created by Abbeth Russell entitled “Protecting Portland’s Cultural Community“. This page is devoted to sending the word out on the proposed restrictions to Street Artist selling in Portland. The page has over 600 “likes” and a multitude of comments on this issue. Abbeth discusses the Portland Downtown District meeting on October 5 here.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. This blog post may be reproduced or circulated with this copyright notice attached
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

From: “Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO of Netflix”
Sent: Sep 19, 2011 2:41 AM
To: Peter B Hayward
Subject: An Explanation and Some Reflections

Dear Peter,

I messed up. I owe you an explanation.

It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. Let me explain what we are doing.

For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn’t make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something – like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores – do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us). So we moved quickly into streaming, but I should have personally given you a full explanation of why we are splitting the services and thereby increasing prices. It wouldn’t have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do.

So here is what we are doing and why.

Many members love our DVD service, as I do, because nearly every movie ever made is published on DVD. DVD is a great option for those who want the huge and comprehensive selection of movies.

I also love our streaming service because it is integrated into my TV, and I can watch anytime I want. The benefits of our streaming service are really quite different from the benefits of DVD by mail. We need to focus on rapid improvement as streaming technology and the market evolves, without maintaining compatibility with our DVD by mail service.

So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are really becoming two different businesses, with very different cost structures, that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently.

It’s hard to write this after over 10 years of mailing DVDs with pride, but we think it is necessary: In a few weeks, we will rename our DVD by mail service to “Qwikster”. We chose the name Qwikster because it refers to quick delivery. We will keep the name “Netflix” for streaming.

Qwikster will be the same website and DVD service that everyone is used to. It is just a new name, and DVD members will go to qwikster.com to access their DVD queues and choose movies. One improvement we will make at launch is to add a video games upgrade option, similar to our upgrade option for Blu-ray, for those who want to rent Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Members have been asking for video games for many years, but now that DVD by mail has its own team, we are finally getting it done. Other improvements will follow. A negative of the renaming and separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated.

There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!). If you subscribe to both services you will have two entries on your credit card statement, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as your current charges. We will let you know in a few weeks when the Qwikster.com website is up and ready.

For me the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy. The new envelope is still that lovely red, but now it will have a Qwikster logo. I know that logo will grow on me over time, but still, it is hard. I imagine it will be similar for many of you.

I want to acknowledge and thank you for sticking with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly.

Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words. But words help people to understand actions.

Respectfully yours,

-Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO, Netflix

That day I emailed Hastings to suggest that he was killing Netflix as a brand:

From: Peter B Hayward
To: “Reed Hastings,Co-Founder and CEO of Netflix”
Subject: Re: An Explanation and Some Reflections
Date: Sep 19, 2011 9:32 AM

I think you are making a big mistake diluting your brand like this (Qwikster and Netflix).

There are millions of people who have come to associate Netflix with DVDs by
mail and superior service. They might not NOW be a Netflix customer, but
when the neighborhood DVD rental store closes, they will pull the
name Netflix from their mind. And they will end up with
streaming offerings which — to date are very limited and to my mind an embarrassment.

Suggestion.

Keep the brand Netflix for the service that you have offered for years, and
name the streaming service: Netflix Streaming.

To transfer the Netflix brand to the currrently very limited number of movies
is a terrible management decision.

Yesterday, October 10, Netflix acknowledged this “terrible management decision” and killed Qwikster.

Coke, New Coke, Ford, Edsel, oh my, when will they learn…

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

With the tea party redefining the republican party as a nihilist do nothing party, it is time for progressives (Democrats and Independents) to join together to take the reins of government.

Every since Presidential election in the las 70 years has been decided by the Independent vote. 2012 will be no different. Obama may have been the great (white) hope of 2008, but he has demonstrated over and over that he does not have what it takes to move this country forward.

Progressive CAN win in 2012, and we need to jump into the debate NOW and shape the Democrat debate before we are shut out and the debate becomes about the crumbs Obama has handed us.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

60% of the Maine male population aged 18-45 served, one of the highest percentages in the Union.

Yet on July 4 2011, the Confederate Flag was proudly carried in a mid-Maine 4th parade viewed by more than 10,000 people.
The flag received applause.

One wonders what the 70,000 who served, the 8,000 who died, the Maine families affected by the Civil War, and Mainer Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln’s Vice President, would all think about the Confederate Flag flying in Maine on July 4th, a day honored with deep respect since 1777.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

But more importantly:

Many of the objections made against same sex marriage (SSM), both here in Maine and in NY, were by some of the religious who argued that God had defined marriage as a man-woman union.

However, the important point is, by extending marriage to gays and lesbians, the marriages of those with some religious views are in no way made less valued or diminished.

This country is big enough and diverse enough to contain many different value systems, as long as those value system do not hurt others.

That, in fact, is why those who faced religious persecution in England and Holland in the 1600s came to America – for the freedom to live the values they espoused.

Last night, in New York, and hopefully someday in Maine, gays and lesbians were given the right to marry without having others defining how they should live.

True social justice isn’t when we all have the right to be the same.

True social justice is when we all have the right to be different.

This includes the right to believe differently, to live differently, and to believe and live without the values of others defining our life.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

LBJ’s “Daisy” political ad ran only once, but was re-run Ad infinitum on network news. It played a major role in his defeat of Goldwater.

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward

Forty four years ago on Sunday, (6/12/67) the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision (Loving v Virginia,) struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.

Seen as a momentous decision at the time, it reversed a terrible wrong — the belief that a State government could define what is a valid marriage.

All these years later, we are still fighting against the belief that States have the right to “define what is a valid marriage.”

Uber attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies narrate a moving video released by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on the Loving case and its implications for same sex marriage.

In the video, Mildred Loving, speaking on the 40th anniversary of Loving v Virginia, passionately states that:

““I believe all Americans, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. . . . I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Those of us who worked to defeat the repeal of Maine’s same sex marriage legislation learned in phone banks that a much greater number of Mainers supported same sex marriage but faced religious pressures to vote for the appeal.

Perhaps if we had had a moving video from then-Governor Baldacci such as the recent one from Governor Andrew Cuomo, marriage would be defined in Maine as it is in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

A recent poll by Gallup reveals that 53% of those surveyed now support same sex marriage.

Repeating Mildred Loving’s comments “I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Peter B. Hayward
A Maine Armchair Philosopher™
Copyright © 2011 Peter B. Hayward. All Rights Reserved
Follow me for daily tweets at twitter.com/PeterBHayward