Jonathan P. Baird

This last week Red River Theatres in Concord showed the documentary William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe. I found the movie amazingly compelling. Made by Kunstler’s daughters, Emily and Sarah, the movie evokes the late 60’s-early 70’s period better than any movie I have seen in a very long time.
 
The movie also demonstrates the scope of Kunstler’s legal career. From the early civil rights movement to the Chicago 7 trial, to Attica, Wounded Knee and more recent cases, the movie brilliantly covers the history. It shows how Bill Kunstler went from being a suburban liberal to the radical lawyer he became.
 
Having read Kunstler’s autobiography, it is surprising how much was still left out. The list of Bill’s clients was like living history. MLK, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Lenny Bruce, Adam Clayton Powell: and these are some of the clients the movie pretty much passed on.
 
The Chicago trial, Attica, and Wounded Knee did get a lot of play in the movie. The sequences about Attica and Wounded Knee were particularly powerful. The utter senselessness of the police attack on the prisoners and the captive guards was driven home by former police guard Michael Smith.
 
The Wounded Knee parts conveyed how the trial judge, who appeared to have been written off by the defendants and their lawyers, became outraged at government misconduct. It looked like the defense obtained verdicts they never expected.
 
Later in Kunstler’s career, he did less travelling around and he focused on criminal defense work in New York City. He represented, often successfully, some of the most unpopular defendants imaginable, including El Sayyid Nossair (accused of the murder of Meir Kahane), John Gotti, and Yussef Salaam of the Central Park jogger case.
 
His daughters and others in the movie raise questions about why he chose these clients. No great answers are provided. He paid a huge price and his popularity among liberals took a nosedive. It did seem like he always loved the limelight and these cases guaranteed notoriety.
 
Bill’s opposition to racism struck me as the central theme in his life. He is on an honored short list of white Americans who gave their all to battling racism during their lives. This was true even from the early days of his legal career. Fittingly the movie ends with Bill’s heroic and despised representation of Yussef Salaam. Bill totally stood behind Salaam. Long after Bill died in 2002, Salaam’s conviction was overturned. Bill was vindicated on a case where he had stood alone.
 
Talking to some young attorney friends after the movie, I was struck by how little young people know of the history of that period. America is like an amnesia-creating machine. The events of the late 60’s-early 70’s might as well be ancient history. Sadly, it has been successfully erased.
 
While probably no movie can do justice to that period, this is a good one. Go see it – and take your kids along.

Passover is winding up and I had meant to post this sooner. Passover is probably my favorite Jewish holiday. I love the ritual of the seder and the story of liberation Passover represents. The Jewish people were a slave people who escaped Pharoah.
 
While it is not a Passover poem, I have long loved this poem by Primo Levi that I initially saw in Tikkun Magazine. It has a message that resonates with Passover. It was translated by Ruth Feldman.
 
Gedale’s Song
 
Do you not recognize us? We are the ghetto sheep,
Shorn for a thousand years, resigned to injury.
We are the tailors, the copyists, and the cantors
Withered in the shadow of the Cross.
Now we have learned the forest paths,
Learned to shoot and we’re right on target.
   If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
   If not like this, how? And if not now, when?
Our brothers have risen to the sky
Through the ovens of Sobibor and Treblinka,
They have dug themselves a grave in the air.
Only we few have survived
For the honor of our submerged people,
For revenge and witnessing.
  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
  If not like this, how? And if not now, when?
We are the sons of David, and the stubborn ones of Masada.
Each of us carries in his pocket the stone
That shattered Goliath’s forehead.
Brothers, away from the Europe of death:
We will climb together toward the land
Where we shall be men among other men.
  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
  If not like this, how? And if not now, when?
 

I wanted to post this excellent story by Jason Deparle of the New York Times which ran on April 4, 2010. The story exposes the anti-labor practices of TALX, a company that fights workers’ unemployment claims. Deparle interviewed my client Gerard Grenier who lost his job at Walmart and then had to fight TALX in the context of his unemployment benefit hearing.

At Grenier’s hearing, no employer witness showed up. The TALX rep tried to get a postponement based on the fact that Grenier had a lawyer even though they had notice of my appearance. The rep then hung up during the hearing and did not recontact the hearing officer. After the hearing they asked that the claim be reopened. TALX lost on that but I believe those actions typify the type of behaviors TALX practices. Deparle performed a public service with his article. Companies like this must be scrutinized since they cause great harm to working people.

__________

WASHINGTON — With a client list that reads like a roster of Fortune 500 firms, a little-known company with an odd name, the Talx Corporation, has come to dominate a thriving industry: helping employers process — and fight — unemployment claims.
 
Talx, which emerged from obscurity over the last eight years, says it handles more than 30 percent of the nation’s requests for jobless benefits. Pledging to save employers money in part by contesting claims, Talx helps them decide which applications to resist and how to mount effective appeals.
 
The work has made Talx a boom business in a bust economy, but critics say the company has undermined a crucial safety net. Officials in a number of states have called Talx a chronic source of error and delay. Advocates for the unemployed say the company seeks to keep jobless workers from collecting benefits.
 
“Talx often files appeals regardless of merits,” said Jonathan P. Baird, a lawyer at New Hampshire Legal Assistance. “It’s sort of a war of attrition. If you appeal a certain percentage of cases, there are going to be those workers who give up.”
 
When fewer former workers get aid, a company pays lower unemployment taxes.
 
Wisconsin and Iowa passed laws to curtail procedural abuses that officials said were common in cases handled by Talx. Connecticut fined Talx (pronounced talks) and demanded an end to baseless appeals. New York, without naming Talx, instructed the Labor Department staff to side with workers in cases that simply pit their word against those of agents for employers.
 
Talx officials say they have been unfairly blamed for situations caused by tight deadlines, confusing state rules or uncooperative employers. Talx cannot submit information about idled workers, they say, until clients give it to them. They say Talx improves the system’s efficiency by mastering the complexities of 50 state programs, allowing employers to focus on their businesses.
 
“We can speed the whole process, rather than bog it down,” said Michael E. Smith, a senior Talx executive. “The whole idea is to protect those employees who have lost their job through no fault of their own and make sure they get unemployment insurance.”
 
Mr. Smith said employers, not Talx, controlled decisions about which cases to contest. “We just do what the client asks us to do and leave it to the state to decide,” he said.
 
Advocates for the unemployed cite cases like that of Gerald Grenier, 47, who spent four years as a night janitor at a New Hampshire Wal-Mart and was fired for pocketing several dollars in coins from a vending machine. Mr. Grenier, who is mentally disabled, told Wal-Mart he forgot to turn in the change. Talx, representing Wal-Mart, accused him of misconduct and fought his unemployment claim.
 
After Mr. Grenier waited three months for a hearing, Wal-Mart did not appear. A Talx agent joined by phone, then seemingly hung up as Mr. Grenier testified. The hearing officer redialed and left an unanswered message on the agent’s voice mail. The officer called Mr. Grenier “completely credible” and granted him benefits.
 
Talx appealed, claiming that the officer had denied the agent’s request to let Wal-Mart testify by phone. (A recording of the hearing contains no such request.) Mr. Grenier won the appeal, but by then he had lost his apartment and moved in with his sister.
 
“That was a nightmare,” he said.
 
In the case of Dina Griess, Talx and its client, the subprime lender Countrywide Financial, were involved in what a judge deemed an outright fraud. Ms. Griess worked for Countrywide outside Boston and quit as it collapsed in 2008, saying she was distressed by internal investigations of lending practices. People can receive unemployment benefits if they quit for “good cause,” like unsafe working conditions, but Talx argued that Ms. Griess’s reason did not meet the legal standard.
 
She won benefits at a hearing that Talx and Countrywide skipped, but Talx successfully appealed, saying the Countrywide witness had missed the hearing because of a family death. Later asked under oath if that was true, the witness said, “No, it’s not.”
 
A Massachusetts judge reviewing the case, Robert A. Cornetta of Salem District Court, denounced the deceit and gave Ms. Griess benefits. “The court will not be party to a fraud,” he said.
 
Despite the large role that Talx and other agents play in a program that spent $120 billion last year, the federal Department of Labor has done little to measure their impact.
 
Talx, which is based in St. Louis, declined to make clients available for interviews, citing pledges of confidentiality, and none of those contacted chose to comment. Other major employers that have used Talx include Aetna, AT&T, Best Buy, FedEx, Home Depot, Marriott, McDonald’s and the United States Postal Service. (The New York Times uses Talx for a different service, to answer inquiries from lenders about its employees’ earnings.)
 
Talx entered the field brashly, buying the industry’s two largest companies on a single day in 2002. In the next few years, it bought five more. Until then, Talx had never handled an unemployment claim, and skeptics wondered how well it could blend seven companies in an unfamiliar industry.
 
The Federal Trade Commission argued in a 2008 antitrust complaint that the acquisitions, which cost $230 million, had allowed Talx to “raise prices unilaterally” and “decrease the quality of services.” Talx modified some contracts to settle the case, but admitted no legal violations.
 
Financially, the gamble paid off: Talx was acquired three years ago by Equifax, the credit-rating giant, for $1.4 billion. But work once done locally became centralized — at a loss, critics say, of responsiveness and expertise.
 
Wisconsin officials were among the first to complain, passing a law in 2005 to prevent what they called a common Talx practice: failing to respond to requests for information, only to appeal when workers got benefits. That clogged the appeals docket and drained the benefits fund, since money sent to ineligible workers was hard to get back.
 
While the law brought about quicker participation, said Hal Bergan, the state’s unemployment insurance administrator, the company’s overall speed and accuracy “still leaves something to be desired.”
 
Indeed, years of e-mail messages, obtained through an open records law, show a continually exasperated Wisconsin staff. While a few cited improved performance, others complained that Talx “returned half-empty questionnaires,” sent back “minimal or ‘junk’ info,” reported in error that applicants were dead, filed “frivolous protests” and caused “the holdup of many claims.”
 
“Same problems as always,” wrote Amy Banicki, a senior manager, in a 2008 e-mail message. “Talx is Talx.”
 
Iowa passed a similar law in 2008 to curtail unnecessary appeals. Of the 10 employers who most often appealed after failing to respond to data requests, officials said nine were represented by Talx, including Cargill, Target, Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo.
 
Connecticut cited “frivolous motions” and “unnecessary delays” in filing a complaint against Talx under a law that regulates employer agents. Without admitting fault, Talx paid a $12,000 fine and agreed to tell clients in writing that it would not file baseless appeals.
 
While there is no comprehensive research, the Labor Department did an internal study of 2,000 cases in 2007 and found Talx significantly slower and less complete in answering auditors’ questions than employers who handled their own claims. Officials said they did not release the study, which drew on seven states, because they could not ensure it was representative. The New York Times obtained it under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Talx supporters say the program’s tight deadlines often give Talx just a few days to answer requests. They emphasize that Talx is working with states to develop a common computer format that will help provide the data more rapidly. They also say scrutiny of claims by companies like Talx helps deter fraud.
 
“Increased vigilance is an appropriate thing,” said Douglas J. Holmes, president of UWC, a Washington group that represents employers on unemployment issues. “Integrity is important.”
 
But others say that Talx, by promising to save clients money, has an incentive to fight even legitimate claims. In marketing materials, it warns employers that “a single claim can result in a higher tax rate” and makes the promise that “we deliver increased winning percentages.”
 
Joseph Walsh, deputy director of Iowa’s employment security agency, said, “We are more likely to see a claim of misconduct that is completely unsupported by the factual record” when agents are involved.
 
Officials in the New York State Department of Labor were so concerned last year about the credibility of agents that they warned staff members against taking their word over that of jobless workers. Absent other evidence, the officials wrote, “give greater weight to the claimant’s statement.”
 
That guidance was relevant in the case of Genssy Frias, a Bronx woman who took a maternity leave from a sales job at Lord & Taylor. Ms. Frias said that she tried to return but that her supervisor told her she had been laid off. A Talx agent said Ms. Frias quit because she lacked child care.
 
“We did not hear from her again,” the agent wrote.
 
New York canceled Ms. Frias’s benefits and accused her of lying.
 
In an interview, Ms. Frias said the agent’s response to the state was not only inaccurate but also deceitful, because she did not disclose that she worked for Talx and implied first-hand knowledge by using the pronoun “we.” Had she identified herself as an agent, officials would have given her statement less weight.
 
A Talx spokeswoman said the agent made a clerical error in writing “we” and called it an isolated incident. Lord & Taylor did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Ms. Frias appealed and presented a baby sitter’s note, which vouched that she had arranged for child care. Neither Talx nor Lord & Taylor appeared at the hearing, and Ms. Frias won.
 
“I was thinking, how can they lie like that when they know I didn’t quit?” Ms. Frias said.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about economic and social justice, a subject close to my heart. As a legal aid lawyer representing exclusively poor, elderly, and disabled people, I see the effects of poverty everyday.
 
I chose my career as a legal aid lawyer with a notion of doing something to eliminate poverty. Just to give you a little background on myself, I have worked at New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) for almost 25 years. Most of the legal work I have done has been on behalf of individual poor clients who were denied a public benefit like unemployment insurance or Social Security Disability. I have also done eviction defense, some Chapter 13 bankruptcy and some representation of domestic violence victims.
 
Over the last 14 years, I have worked as the lobbyist for NHLA in the NH state legislature lobbying on issues of concern to poor people such as raising the minimum wage. That effort took 10 years and 5 legislative trys before it succeeded.
 
I mention that because one lesson I have learned is the value of persistence on economic justice issues. I guess I would like to lobby all of you to consider being activists and organizers for economic justice.
 
I firmly believe that poverty could be eliminated in the United States. No political party is currently advocating that but I think it is entirely possible that could change. Or a new party could be created that would advocate that change.
 
In Europe there is an aggressive movement to end poverty. For whatever reason, our media has not reported on it. In 2000, heads of state in Europe pledged to make a decisive eradication of poverty by 2010. There is a renewed effort because the initial effort fell short. A coalition of European NGOs’ organized by the European Anti-Poverty Network is behind this. 2010 is being called the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion. The Europeans involved define poverty as follows:
 
“Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon: it is not simply the lack of resources and income, whether through employment or social benefits. It also encompasses the notion of vulnerability, precariousness, lack of opportunities and denial of rights, such as access to education and health, culture, housing, employment services and infrastructure as well as access to information and political participation.”
 
We need a new abolitionist movement in the U.S. – this time against poverty. Our task is to make poverty morally and politically unacceptable. We have reached a sad place when our society accommodates the kind of rampant inequality and poverty that is a staple of life in the U.S. now.
 
Instead of outrage at poverty, our society provides multiple spectacles and passifiers so that distractions control us. Who is going to think about poverty when there is the Super Bowl, the Oscars, Wrestlemania, the Final Four, Tiger Woods, Dancing with the Stars, Avatar, American Idol, and 24? And that barely scratches the surface.
 
I should probably confess I am a huge football and baseball fan. I grew up in the Philadelphia area and have a lifelong love of the Eagles and Phillies. I don’t want to give that up either and I can totally relate to the desire to tune out bad stuff. Also, I liked Avatar in 3-D.
 
Unfortunately, the tuning out tendency has proved self-destructive  for the American people. We have been snookered and victimized with only a dim awareness of the cause of our exploitation and who is doing the exploiting.
 
I want to touch on some of the economic realities going on now. While the U.S. has been the richest nation in the world, it has the highest poverty rate in the industrialized world. Over 50 million people in the U.S. are now using food stamps. Hunger is at an all time high.
 
The unemployment rate is officially 9.7% but the government doesn’t count discouraged workers or those who are involuntary part-time workers when it figures the tally. If all the unemployed were actually counted the number of unemployed would be closer to 20%. That is over 30 million unemployed or underemployed.
 
There are six people applying for every job opening. To get back to the 4.6% unemployment rate we had in the U.S. in 2007, we would need to create 10 million new jobs.
 
The massive unemployment has caused enormous human suffering and anguish. I recently had a 55 year old man in my office who had lost his job as a prison guard. In the last year, he lost his home to foreclosure;his wife left him; and he lacked money for rent. He was crashing with a friend. He cried his eyes out in my office. I wish I could say that he was unusual but I don’t think he is at all unique.
 
In the last couple years, 5 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. 13 million more are expected to lose their homes by 2014. Everyday another 10,000 homes enter foreclosure.
 
There are approximately 3 million homeless in the U.S.. The fastest growing segment is single parents with children.
 
Over the last 30 years there has been an absolute explosion of inequality. Between 1980-2006, the richest 1% of Americans tripled their after tax percentage of the nation’s total income while the bottom 90% have seen their share drop 20%. The top 1% owns 70% of all financial assets.
 
If anyone wonders where the data I cited comes from, I am quoting from a series of articles by the writer David DeGraw that appeared on the website http://www.alternet.org . I cite these statistics not to be discouraging but to keep it real.
 
It seems like the only thing we, as a society, seriously invest in is the military. I think that is a colossal waste. No one talks about that but the money spent on the military is both ridiculously underquestioned and it is utterly disproportionate to any actual threat to the U.S.
 
When it comes to budgeting, education and social welfare dollars are squeezed to the max but Democrats and Republicans unite in throwing lavish money at the Pentagon. It is our excessive militarism which is scary dangerous and almost completely unchallenged. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written about our over 700 military bases around the world but no one pays attention to that.
 
The problem as I see it is that the business class in America is extremely class conscious about its interests but that is not true of working people. Working people have been getting hammered. So many jobs have gone overseas or have been eliminated. Workers are encouraged to be self-blaming rather than class conscious. Also, there are so many divisions among workers because of racial, sexual, national, and sexual preference differences that it is hard to see commonality as workers. It is easier to fight a poor neighbor who happens to be Black, Asian or Hispanic than a faceless CEO who lives in a gated community you maybe can’t see or even visualize.
 
I once heard a liberal described as a person who leaves the room when the fight begins. Whether that is fair or not, it has to change.
 
I would suggest that liberals and the Left could learn a lot from studying the Right. While their ideology is odious, they are persistent. Their well-financed think tanks have generated many reactionary ideas that have put the Left on the defensive since the Reagan era. In my opinion, they have largely controlled political debate or at least the discussion of what could be considered acceptable reforms.
 
On a wide range of issues from a public jobs program to financial regulation to cutting the defense budget to global warming, progressives need to articulate a new set of long-range goals and then we need to be serious about achieving them.
 
Abolishing poverty is going to take many years. If it is not articulated and forcefully presented, it will be on no agenda.
 
One great thing about living in New Hampshire is that we are closer to the levers of power than people in many other states. New Hampshire has come an incredibly long way in the last decade. The state is no longer controlled by neanderthals at the Union Leader and far right Republicans. That is a sea change. When the Democrats gained control of both Houses in the state legislature as well as the Governor’s corner office in 2006, it was over 100 years since that had happened.
 
There remain great opportunities in our state legislature. Whether as advocates or as legislators, we should be bringing forward progressive legislative solutions. All that is required is some thought, organizing, political savvy, and creativity. And the ability to get our candidates elected.
 
Over the last four years, many positive things have been accomplished at the state level by the Democratic majority. I mentioned raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. That was a very hard fought accomplishment. It was continuously opposed for 10 years by an array of business interests. The persistence of advocates made it an issue, framed it, created NH-specific data for it, wore down opponents, and ultimately led to a hugely consequential victory for low wage workers. By raising the floor, legislators gave more wage leverage to thousands of workers who were earning a little above minimum wage.
 
Since the legislative accomplishments of the last four years are not sufficiently appreciated or, in part, not known, I want to mention them.
 
– In 2008, putting an interest rate cap on payday and auto title loans.  These predatory lenders would have made a killing at the expense of consumers during this recession. This anti-usury reform saved NH consumers millions of dollars.
 
– Modernizing and extending unemployment benefits, including making part-time workers eligible. Again, considering the recession, this reform was incredibly timely and beneficial for NH workers, especially women.
 
– Legalizing civil unions and then gay marriage. This reform put NH in the front ranks of states and frankly it probably blew many minds of people who saw NH as a sexless cold Yankee outpost. Take that, California.
 
– Eliminating the developmental disability waitlist. This is again in jeopardy but getting this critical reform for developmentally disabled people given the perennial state budget shortfall was a wonderful achievement.
 
I am afraid there are no short cuts for progressives.We need a long-term perspective and we need to be in the fight for the long haul. Working people have every reason to be upset with the political status quo. It is ironic that the Tea Party movement captures political outrage. Progressives need to reach out to tea partiers and others who are legitimately outraged. I do not like the snootiness and condescension toward working people that is evidenced among liberals who are upset at the tea partiers.
 
In closing, I would like to suggest a point about economic inequality that has been insufficiently made. Inequality is often presented as being about the poor. I would suggest we are all poorer for living in grossly unequal societies.
 
A new book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, argues that case. People living in more unequal societies live significantly shorter, less healthy lives than people who live in societies where wealth is more evenly spread. Inequality leads to poorer health, lower educational attainment, higher crime rates, lower trust and cooperation.
 
I think warmth, humor, and humility are the approprate stance for building a new new left. Also, tolerance for different perspectives. Given the weakness of the left, posturing and negative judgmentalism are not the way to go. Much commonality can be forged simply by defending workers’ needs.
 
Thanks again for the chance to share these thoughts.
 

Although little celebrated in the United States, March 8 is International Women’s Day (IWD). IWD is a celebration of the economic, political, and social achievements of women. The founders of IWD wanted a celebration of working women of all countries, including support for the right of women to vote. That was not accomplished then in some countries.

The holiday has been celebrated for 99 years. It started in 1911 as a Socialist holiday. Over the years, its appeal broadened and it is widely celebrated around the world. In 1975, the U.N. officially recognized IWD. Next year will be the IWD centennial.

In recognition of IWD, I wanted to highlight the poetry of the feminist and leftist poet, Muriel Rukeyser.  Rukeyser was a particular favorite of my sister Lisa. Many moons ago, we went to see Rukeyser read. I still remember her wonderful reading of her poem “Ballad of Orange and Grape”.

It is absurd that a great poet like Rukeyser is a mass culture unknown. We are surrounded by dreck. Rukeyser should be widely known. She has a large body of work and it is hard for me to decide on a favorite poem to cite. My sister loved “Effort At Speech Between Two People” and she read it to me many times. Since I can’t decide, I will include two poems, “Coney Island” and “Yes”.

Effort At Speech Between Two People          

Speak to me.    Take my hand.    What are you now?
I will tell you all.    I will conceal nothing.
When I was three, a little child read a story about a rabbit
who died, in the story, and I crawled under a chair   :
a pink rabbit   :   it was my birthday, and a candle
burnt a sore spot on my finger, and I was told to be happy.

Oh, grow to know me.    I am not happy.   I will be open:
Now I am thinking of white sails against a sky like music,
like glad horns blowing, and birds tilting, and an arm about me.
There was one I loved, who wanted to live, sailing.

Speak to me.    Take my hand.    What are you now?
When I was nine, i was fruitily sentimental,
fluid   :   and my widowed aunt played Chopin,
and I bent my head on the painted woodwork, and wept.
I want now to be close to you.     I would
link the minutes of my days close, somehow, to your days.

I am not happy.     I will be open.
I have liked lamps in evening corners, and quiet poems.
There has been fear in my life.    Sometimes I speculate
On what a tragedy his life was, really.

Take my hand.      Fist my mind in your hand.   What are
       you now?

When i was fourteen, I had dreams of suicide,
and I stood at a steep window, at sunset, hoping toward
      death   :
if the light had not melted clouds and plains to beauty,
if light had not transformed that day, I would have leapt.
I am unhappy.      I am lonely.        Speak to me.

I will be open.     I think he never loved me:
he loved the bright beaches, the little lips of foam
that ride small waves, he loved the veer of gulls:
he said with a gay mouth: I love you.         Grow to know me.

What are you now?     If we could touch one another,
if these our separate entities could come to grips,
clenched like a Chinese puzzle…yesterday
I stood in a crowded street that was live with people,
and no one spoke a word, and the morning shone.
Everyone silent, moving….Take my hand.      Speak to me.

Coney Island

Coney Island, Coney island,
No need to let me know,
No need to tell me so
I need you now to show me…

Some.   Show me what’s under the counter,
           Show me what’s under your skin,
           Show me the way to get out
           And I’ll show you the way to get in.

Others. Show me life, show me lives, people in dives,
           Show me yells, show me smells, and grimy hotels,
           Clams, yams, lobster and shrimps,
           Sand, candy, panders and pimps,
           Show me bim, show me bam, bamboozle me,
           Booze me and use me and foozle me,
           Show me rides, show me slides, people in tides,
           Show me money, show me funny, show me the sea,
                                                             You, show, me.

Houdini and Beatrice. Let me see,
                              Let me feel,
                              Let me know what is real,
                              Let me bel-
                                              ieve.

Yes

It’s like a tap-dance
Or a new pink dress,
A shit-naive feeling
Saying Yes

Some say Good morning
Say say God bless–
Some say Possibly
Some say Yes.

Some say Never
Some say Unless
It’s stupid and lovely
To rush into Yes.

What can it mean?
It’s just like life,
One thing to you
One to your wife.

Some go local
Some go express
Some can’t wait
To answer Yes.

Some complain
Of strain and stress
Their answer may be
No for Yes.

Some like failure
Some like success
Some like Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes.

Open your eyes,
Dream but don’t guess.
Your biggest surprise
Comes after Yes.

Recently the Philadelphia Eagles released running back Brian Westbrook. It is no exaggeration to say that Westbrook was one of the best backs in franchise history and one of the elite backs in the National Football League (NFL).

Westbrook’s versatility made him very hard to defend against.  While he could run and pass equally well, I think it was his agility and skill as a receiver that made him especially dangerous. Really, almost no linebacker could match up against him.

Early in his career, he was a great punt returner as well. He will forever be remembered by Eagles fans for his 2003 punt return against the Giants in the Meadowlands. With less than two minutes left to play in the game, Westbrook took it to the house and saved the game.

Last year, Westbrook’s season and his life were dramatically altered when he sustained two concussions. He ran into linebacker London Fletcher’s knee in a game against the Redskins. He was out cold for a number of minutes. After sitting out four games, he returned to football but he suffered a second concussion on a totally unmemorable play. He played very little after that.

While football players always say they are coming back after serious injuries and the money is a huge lure, I sincerely hope Westbrook retires.

There is a body of medical evidence which shows that repetitive trauma to the brain, football-related concussions, can cause permanent brain damage. The harm has been amply demonstrated.

There is even a name for the condition: chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). In the October 19, 2009 issue of the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about CTE and described it as follows:

“..a progressive neurological disorder found in people who have suffered some kind of brain trauma. CTE has many of the same manifestations as Alzheimer’s: it begins with behavioral and personality changes, because it takes a long time for the initial trauma to give rise to nerve-cell breakdown and death.”

The Science Daily website says that CTE is characterized by a build-up of a toxic protein called tau in the form of neurofibillary tangles and neuropil threads throughout the brain. The abnormal protein initially impairs the normal functioning of the brain and eventually kills brain cells. Early on, CTE sufferers may display clinical symptoms  such as memory impairment, emotional instability, erratic behavior, depression and problems with impulse control. Eventually, CTE progresses to full-blown dementia.

Gladwell reports on CTE researchers, particularly Bennet Omalu, a neuropathologist. Omalu diagnosed a number of former players who are now deceased as suffering from CTE. These include former Eagles defensive back Andre Waters, former Steelers center Mike Webster, and former Steelers linemen Terry Long and Justin Strzelczyk. In the Gladwell article, he quotes Omalu:

“There is something wrong with this group (people diagnosed with CTE) as a cohort. They forget things. They have slurred speech. I have had an NFL player come up to me at a funeral and tell me he cannot find his way home. I have wives who call me and say ‘My husband was a very good man. Now he drinks all the time. i don’t know why his behavior changed’.  I have wives call me and say ‘My husband was a nice guy. Now he’s getting abusive’. I had someone call me and say ‘My husband went back to law school after football and became a lawyer. Now he can’t do his job. People are suing him’.”

Gladwell’s article provokes many questions. While focus is on concussions, he asks about the effects of multiple little hits. Football players will likely take hundreds and even thousands of these hits depending on the length of their career. How bad is that? He raises questions about hits in practice. Should full contact practices be banned?

Designing better helmets is an obvious reform. But, the Gladwell article is not optimistic that current technology could design a helmet that would absorb enough shock to make that much difference. At least, not in the forseeable future.

It is hard not to think that the price of football is CTE and it appears to be a price that we as a society are more than willing to pay. We love our football.

There are clear parallels between boxing and football. Research on boxers shows they stand a twenty per cent risk of dementia. It is a good question to ask about football: what is the risk? 10%?  20%?  higher?

A while back, I saw a Sports Illustrated article about how poorly the NFL cares for older former players who became disabled playing the game. It reminded me of the way we treat veterans. Once they are finished service, they are forgotten. They are on their own.

I hope when Brian Westbrook hits 50, he is not another Muhammed Ali. Hopefully, the NFL pension and disability system will improve and protect players, including those who do not have Westbrook’s fame and money. In thinking about Ali and Westbrook, they both had gamy attitude but for Westbrook’s sake, knowing when to hang it up might be the difference between an active future and a life with a brain turned to mush.

As a lover of poetry, I plan to share poems from favorite poets of mine. It is dispiriting to go to most book stores now and see what passes for poetry sections. They have been eviscerated. Of course, it is not just poetry but as an inveterate book store browser, I have to note the poetry pickings are typically slim. Many poets I like are nowhere to be found.
 
On this website, to do my little bit, I intend to highlight wonderful poets and poems. I hope this inspires any readers to explore the works of these poets. I will begin by citing poets with a poem by Countee Cullen.
 
“Live like the wind,” he said, “unfettered,
    And love me while you can;
 And when you will, and can be bettered,
    Go to the better man.
 
“For you’ll grow weary, maybe, sleeping
    So long a time with me;
 Like this there’ll be no cause for weeping;
    The wind is always free.
 
“Go when you please,” he would be saying,
    His mouth hard on her own;
 That’s why she stayed and loved the staying,
    contented to the bone.

Last weekend I saw The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till, a documentary about the 1955 Mississippi murder of Emmett Till, a 14 year old African American male. The Till murder galvanized the early civil rights movement.
 
As someone who thought he knew a fair amount about the civil rights movement, I was surprised by how much I did not know about the Till case. The documentary, produced and directed by Keith Beauchamp in 2005, chronicles the story of Till’s murder and its aftermath.
 
The movie also evokes a period where Black people had no protection from the law. They lived in an apartheid world. The movie is a powerful reminder of how far we have come in a relatively short historical span.
 
The incident that led to Till’s murder was a big nothing. He wolfwhistled at a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, outside the store she and her husband ran in Money, Mississippi. Allegedly, he also did not say “yes sir and no sir” when he spoke to a white person inside the store.For this, he was dragged out of his bed at night at gunpoint, taken to a nearby barn, tortured and murdered.
 
The savagery of the murder is graphically recounted. Till was tortured almost beyond recognition. His eyes were gouged out. His teeth, which his mom said were beautiful, were almost entirely knocked out. His nose was chopped . The assailants shot him in the head so there was a hole clear through his skull. When they finished the torture and murder, the assailants tied Till’s body to a 70 pound cotton gin  and threw it into the Tallahatchie River.
 
After the murder, when the body was recovered, the local sheriff wanted immediate burial so people could not see what had been done to Till. Till’s mother, Mamie Till Mobley, insisted on recovering the body. It was not an easy task to recover the body. The coffin was closed and nailed up so tightly, it was very difficult to open. The funeral director himself had been prohibited from opening the coffin.
 
Till’s family managed to stop the burial in Mississippi.  They brought Emmett’s body back to Chicago for a public funeral.  Till was from Chicago. He had been in Mississippi on vacation visiting family at the time of his murder.
 
Central to the story were the heroic efforts of Till’s mother. With dignity and calm, she described her playful and mischievous son who loved both art and science. Her love for her son shined through the movie. She pursued justice in his case for the rest of her life until her death in 2003. She never did see any justice done.
 
She insisted on a public funeral with an open casket. At the time, Jet Magazine published a horrifying photo of Till’s disfigured face. The photo shocked the world and exposed the disgusting regime of white racism that ruled Mississippi.
 
While there is no way to prove it, the photo of Till probably saved countless Black lives. It ripped the cloak of secrecy and normalcy that had hidden the horrors of racism. The photo focused a light on the actions of the white racists so they would know there might be a price to pay for committing such acts.
 
The movie goes on to recount the trial of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, the two men accused of Till’s kidnapping and murder. An all white jury acquitted both men. The movie shows how the jury was instantly ready to acquit at the conclusion of the trial. Jurors explained that they wanted to make the verdict look good. They waited a while to deliver the verdict because they wanted to avoid the appearance that they did not deliberate (which was the case).
 
The idea of a white jury convicting white men for the murder of a black boy was unthinkable. In that era, it was suicide for a black man just to testify against a white man.
 
When the verdict came down, it was high five time all around for the white racists. Weirdly and perversely, many of the local white fathers brought their sons to court to witness the verdict. By their actions, I guess they wanted to pass along their sick tradition.
 
Immediately after the verdict the sheriff said, “we have no trouble with Southern niggers until they go north and the NAACP talks to them.” He complained that reporters were making a big deal out of the Till murder.
 
Till’s mother, Mamie Till Mobley, attended the trial. She had received hate mail and threats telling her that her home would be bombed if she attended the trial. Some of the white racists pointed guns at her as she entered and left the courtroom.
 
After the trial, feeling confident of their legal invulnerability due to the double jeopardy prohibition against being tried twice for the same charges, both Bryant and Milam confessed to the murder of Till in a 1956 issue of Look magazine. The magazine paid Bryant and Milam $4000 for the story.
 
Shockingly, 50 years went by before the authorities acted to take another look at this travesty of justice. In 2005, the Justice Department announced an investigation. I am not aware that federal indictments for any charges have ever been brought against anyone on this case. Roy Bryant and Milam were already dead although Carolyn Bryant is still alive.
 
Many questions remain unanswered about the Till case. Who else was involved in the murder besides Bryant and Milam? What exactly happened the night of the murder after Till was forcibly removed from his family’s home? Who covered up? What was the role of the police and the local power structure in Mississippi? Why did it take so long for authorities, federal and state, to investigate again? Why has nothing still been done?
 
Getting to the bottom of the story remains important. Racists thrived in an environment where they did not face accountabilty for their crimes. If there can be no criminal charges brought, maybe there should  be a Truth Commission to look at the Till case and other such crimes from the 20th century where justice was clearly never done.
 
Check out this DVD – the documentary is a compelling, incredibly sad story, well told.

Several weeks ago, I attended a hearing in the Legislature on a bill that proposed random drug testing for all applicants and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps and other public assistance.
Under that legislation, positive drug tests would result in termination of benefits. There was no explanation in the bill for why this group was singled out for drug testing.
In introducing the legislation, the prime sponsor described public assistance recipients as “society’s trash.” While the bill received a frosty reception from the House Health and Human Services Committee and was later killed, it is the words of that legislator I remember: society’s trash.
In a nutshell, the problem for any welfare program is right there. Facts do not matter. The stereotype is all-powerful. Hatred of the welfare recipient is deeply ingrained and seems to be widely held. Clearly, the circumstances that led to a person applying for welfare are of no consequence if he or she is seen as trash.
TANF remains a program mired in misleading mythologies. It has the designation “welfare” attached to it, but it is actually an employment support program. While there is a component of the program that helps disabled TANF recipients, the program is overwhelmingly focused on work participation and putting TANF recipients into approved work activities.
It is strange how welfare remains hated even after it is not what people think it is.
The recession has not been kind to TANF recipients and the TANF program itself. Along with everybody else victimized by the massive unemployment, TANF recipients have been particularly hard hit.
The architects of TANF designed the program for an expanding economy like the
1990s. In that robust type of economy, former TANF recipients could hope to land low-wage service sector jobs. The TANF architects did not anticipate a situation like the past two years.
TANF cannot work in an economy where the TANF recipient is competing against six others, including those with college education, for any available job.
The success of welfare reform has been significantly oversold. There was no plan in place for how the program would adapt if the economy went south as it has.
Success was simply defined as getting people off the rolls. The anti-poverty vision was lost, if it was ever there. If the goal was just to get the welfare recipient into the first available low-paying job, what happens when there are no jobs?
In New Hampshire, just as in other states, the state is ill-equipped to deal with the recession. With increased caseloads the TANF reserve is long gone, and the state is $4 million in the hole even considering the over $11 million New Hampshire received in stimulus money from the TANF emergency fund. Federal welfare funding has remained flat since the 1996 TANF law was created.
The idea that we will cut our way out of the budget shortfall is wrong-headed. This is balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in the state. Some recent measures like the creation of a waiting list for child care assistance as well as increasing child care co-pays are short-sighted and counter-productive. There are already 1,200 on the wait list, and 4,700 families have been adversely affected by raising cost share.
One bill worthy of special mention is House Bill 1598, a bill sponsored by Rep Tom Donovan of Claremont that tries to stem the use of TANF dollars for non-TANF purposes. The Legislature has raided the TANF program over the last six years and used over $50 million for purposes other than TANF assistance. House Bill 1598, which has passed the House, would stop this abuse. In better economic times, this finagling was ignored. The TANF program cannot afford to be bled.
TANF must be reauthorized at the federal level in 2010. An honest accounting would look at how poorly the program is meeting the economic need out there.
We need far bolder ideas than are being presently considered by mainstream politicians. The Obama administration should take a page out of the FDR playbook. It is time for a large public jobs program.
Projects could address the deterioration in public services and infrastructure that has resulted from long-term neglect in neighborhoods across the country. Such a program could put TANF recipients, unemployed and underemployed workers back to work on socially useful projects.
Once one steps outside of the blinders imposed by conventional thinking, the need is obvious.
As a lawyer who has represented many TANF clients, I do want to say my clients are not trash. If legislators and others could see the faces of people on TANF and hear their stories, they would have a very different view.

With the passing of SB35 during its last session, the NH Legislature formed a commission to study the creation of a legal aid project for low and moderate income veterans in New Hampshire. The bill reflects the efforts of bi-partisan sponsorship by Senators Jack Barnes and Maggie Hassan, and Representatives Russ Ober, Frank Emiro and Kris Roberts. The commission, under the leadership of Senators Jack Barnes and Matthew Houde, is planning to put the project into action.

Veterans comprise about 10 percent of the state’s population. Upon returning from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, they often face psychological, physical and economic obstacles that require legal advocacy. Of particular note is the reported high incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), making it even more difficult for New Hampshire’s veterans to make ends meet, to get the benefits to which they are entitled, and to get and protect affordable housing.

Mary Morin, the Director of the State Veterans’ Council, has identified a significant need for pro bono legal advocacy for veterans and has determined that the creation of a veterans’ legal aid project could significantly improve delivery of services. The commission includes representatives from the State Veterans’ Council, NH Legal Assistance, the Military Section of the NH Bar Association, the Adjutant General of the NH National Guard, Employment Security, the NH Veterans’ Home, the Department of Health and Human Services, the US Dept. of Labor’s NH Office of Veterans Employment and Training Services, along with many other organizations and service providers.

In gathering information about the unmet legal needs of New Hampshire’s veterans, the commission has heard from the service officers of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Both have highlighted the need for legal representation in evictions, foreclosures, utility shutoffs, and Social Security Disability claims.

The hope is that staff at the State Veterans’ Council, NHLA, and the NHBA Pro Bono Program would work with veteran service organizations and homeless shelters to reach veterans who have pressing legal needs. The State Veterans’ Council would refer cases these organizations cannot handle to either NHBA Pro Bono or NHLA.

The commission hopes also to create a training program for attorneys so that they will be qualified to take on more types of cases on behalf of veterans on a pro bono basis.