TheGrateKhan t1_jcgg1lr wrote

Didnt gloss over that part, its part of the complaint process. If the person who filed the complaint is dissatisfied with the 1st response, they can escalate the issue to the next person in line, that individual can determine whether a hearing in court is necessary. Alternatively, they can support the first response and agree that the complaint is unneeded.

The bill is still only in the House, so there is ample time for both politicians and citizens like you and I to make our concerns heard and have amendments made to ensure that this bill has all the grounds covered. It may get drastically changed in the senate.

I used Andy Dufresne as an example because it's again a situation i figured most people are familiar with because it was an incredibly popular piece of media. The CONCEPT which is the important part to focus on, is that in a world without these types of rules that require an answer be given and be given by a particular timeline from your government or educational systems, they can simply ignore you unless you flood them with complaints or publicity. You shouldnt have to resort to those measures to get something as simple as an answer and/or a direction to go if dissatisfied with the answer. Especially from a branch, portion, or individual in your government.

Ill try a different example:

A public school History teacher decides that for the beginning of the Ancient Civilizations portion, hes going to have the class read/study The Old Testament of The Bible and is teaching them that what happened in The Bible is Historically accurate. Or teaches the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction only from the perspective of the Confederacy and tries to malign principles of the Union? I can guarantee you that there's a group of people who would view these as Obscene and theyd have every right to complain. Youll probably say that the Separation of Church and State solves the first one, but if the school doesnt even need to address your complaint, how do you get the ball rolling? You'd have to file a lawsuit or contact a governmental body thats above than the school. This law looks to make that easier to do. It forces the institution to address that you have a concern, and if they dont do the correct thing, it'll open them up to larger amounts of trouble if they are actually in the wrong.


TheGrateKhan t1_jcfx014 wrote

The prosecution is only if the defendant(s) is/are found to be in the wrong, and continues to perform actions that were ruled to be obscene after being notified that it is not allowed to continue. After being told that you cant take any more cookies from the jar, if you continue to take cookies from the jar, THEN the select government entities listed can prosecute.


TheGrateKhan t1_jcfvwwq wrote

For the most part, I do think the bill is a good idea. I recognize the potential for abuse and misuse, which should be addressed to add potential penalties for clearly vexatious incidents.

But the bill provides a fairly clear pathway for both complainants and the defendants/institutions. The school, library, or other educational organization just has to address the concern within a timely manner. They can say " this is clearly bull, we're not doing anything about it." And if the complainant is unhappy, it provides them with the instructions on how to handle it further. If theres ever a situation in which an explicitly anti trans curriculum is added to a school, the parents or even the students themselves deserve to have an actual way to get recognition of their issue and some form of decision.

Personally, it doesnt matter to me what the particular item at issue is. If I was in a situation where I felt that a particular subject/topic/etc. should not be taught or disseminated in the manner or age group it was, I'd want there to be a set of rules that i can look to for how to get that issue addressed and know that i am at least guaranteed a response.

Example: if Andy Dufresne wrote 1 letter every day to get funding or books for the prison library, and the government was forced to respond to him, he might've gotten a proper resolution much faster had a bill similar to this been enacted. You shouldnt be forced to overwhelm an institution or organization just to get a response to your concerns.


TheGrateKhan t1_jcfkgnw wrote

I just cant stand Holden. Hes a whiny baby and one of the most annoying narrators to follow. Every other description of someone is calling them a "phoney" for some usually unjustified reason. Hes obscenely cynical of the world and everyone else in it, to the point where hes not even fun to follow. You are almost rooting for bad things to happen to him because hes one of the few protagonists that ive felt earns his misfortune and unhappiness.

The only takeaway I got out of CITR was to try my hardest not to turn into Holden Caulfield. If that was Salingers goal, then ill backtrack and say its actually a decent book.

Also, in one of the early chapters, he uses his prep school mattress as a fleshlight, and i think thats just kinda gross lol.


TheGrateKhan t1_jcfhzst wrote

You might not have read my entire statement, and thats fine it was quite long. I follow up that 50 shades example (one i figured the world would recognize as something we dont want children to be exposed to) with what i actually fear will happen(good teachings being restricted). If it would make you feel better, imagine instead of 50 shades, I wrote something that you think shouldn't be taught or promoted in educational settings, depending on age group.


TheGrateKhan t1_jcfai5m wrote

This bill doesnt do any banning or restricting. All it does is provide a framework for how education institutions are to respond to complaints about the materials taught or shown and what timeframes they have to act by. The schools dont have to agree with the complaints, they just have to have a hearing on it. The schools can absolutely disagree with the complainant and keep the material in the curriculum/ environment.

While this provides some pathway for parents to try and keep their children from being exposed to things like 50 shades of gray at schools or libraries; I fear that material more likely to be complained about are good books with harsh but important messages, like To Kill A Mockingbird or The Color Purple.

Fuck Catcher In the Rye though, that book can get banned.


TheGrateKhan t1_javrfbg wrote

Because the principle is worth defending for the benefit of ALL of us. As i said in the lower portions of my statement, today its these people. Tomorrow it could be Sununu banning all Black Lives Matter protests because they're trespassing on city property without permission. Or Anti War protestors, Second Amendment supporters, Second Amendment detractors.

I dont care what the opinion expressed is or if i agree or disagree with what they say or do. Your speech is protected and needs to remain as such. One day, people that we disagree with will be in power; and if they can restrict where or when or what you can say, you wont be happy.

You dont do the right thing because its popular. You do the right thing, especially when everyone else doesnt want you to, because its the right thing to do. These guys may have done things with their speech that i disagree with and detest, but that doesn't mean we go and do the wrong things to them. It is specifically how we treat those we disagree with, that defines our character.


TheGrateKhan t1_javntfp wrote

All the normal disclaimers: bad things are bad. Being hateful isnt good. Dont do bad things.

That being said, these people are being charged with some form of hate crime, but not because they simply had the signs, its because they "trespassed" when they hung the sign on the highway. Allegedly, the reason they're being charged is because they didn't have a permit to hang the sign.

All the times ive seen cups smashed into overpass fencing, making words, those all had permits? Every "welcome home So and So" sign tied to the bridges? Everyone else always has permits? Are these permits "shall issue" and no one is allowed to deny you, but you still have to apply? Up until i heard about this case, i thought that anyone could just use those areas as a personal canvas.

I know its "evil hateful monsters" being " finally taught a lesson " but just imagine these people were protesting in favor of equality. What if the sign said "Make New England Diverse " ( considering NH is 60-80% Caucasian) would the townspeople still complain and get this group arrested for trespassing as a hate crime? It still meets all the prerequisites.

On a technical basis, they weren't even trespassing. Trespassing requires you to be somewhere that you arent allowed and refusing to vacate that area after being informed of such. Theyre allowed to be on the overpass. They can protest on the overpass with the message they were spreading. Where the govt says they "broke the law" was the hanging of the signs on the overpass without a permit. That sounds like a vandalism charge, not trespassing. However, a vandalism charge wouldnt seem reasonable if it would take 10 minutes and some scissors to cut down a couple zip ties or strings, so the sign wouldve had to be more permanent like graffiti to warrant that type of charge.

Regardless of the message spread, they shouldve been given the opportunity to remove the signs without issue. From what I can find, they werent given a lawful order to leave or remove the signs before the arrest. In fact, an article from Seacoastonline says that the group "'dispersed without any real confrontation' after speaking to police the night of the incident ".

While today its evil racists being brought to justice, tomorrow that same law and line of thinking can be used against any one of our political, social, economic, etc. opinions.


TheGrateKhan t1_j9uidcc wrote

Our neighboring states, mass, maine, vermont. They have legal cannabis. Nh citizens that want to use just drive over the border, buy, and then consume. So long as they dont cross any state lines, the nh citizen has broken no laws. So the money that wouldve gone to NH liquor is instead going to legal cannabis in other states. If nh legalized, at least a portion of the alcohol revenue lost would return to the state as cannabis or business tax revenue. The people who have switched from NH alcohol to out of state cannabis are generally not coming back to the bottle, at least not as much as before our neighbors legalized. If we legalized and had lower taxes than our neighbors, our neighbors' citizens would then be doing to NH, what NH citizens are currently doing to states like MA, ME, and VT.

Vermin Supreme is a candidate from NH who ran or still runs for president. He wears a long boot atop his head and promises free ponies for everyone if elected.


TheGrateKhan t1_j9uegzs wrote

Edit: happy cake day!!

Ive looked into his proposals, the state will match money that is already put up, and pretty much everything needs to already be in progress to apply. this naturally locks out smaller companies and individuals who cannot put up the same amount cash as larger, usually out of state construction. At minimum, 10 million to be used specifically for 15 unit buildings or less. Also, the "affordable" part of the housing is only in place for 5 years, and even during the 5 year period, these arent rent controlled in the sense that its only 500 a month per unit or similar, its an allowable range of rent to be charged based on an ever changing table that will only decrease if the Area median income goes down. Where NH is continuing to appeal to wealthy transplants, this will only increase the allowable rents to be charged. The citizens wouldve probably been better served actually receiving those funds during the pandemic through rental assistance, improved unemployment, even just extra medical system funding.

In regard to cannabis, the state is already not getting a cut. The states that have legal cannabis are already taking funds away from NH liquor stores. If NH passed state law and then taxed the revenue of those businesses, it would at least keep some of the lost alcohol revenue inside of the state instead of giving all of it to our neighbors. They wouldnt even need to sell it out of the liquor stores. Also, the feds have done nothing to any of the states that have full legalization of cannabis or mushrooms and some even harder drugs. The idea that NH opening up a few "Nh Liquor Wine and Weed Outlet" will trigger the feds to take action is unlikely.

Im not saying that Vermin Supreme would make a better Governor, im just not pleased with this one.


TheGrateKhan t1_j9u2hf9 wrote

I Never truly "liked" him. After 2020, i cant stand him. Hes not pro 2A. He has stated that he's just against any further restrictions. Hes happy letting people drown in alcohol until their entire insides are pickled, but a less harmful plant that makes you happy? He always says "its not the right time" not even for personal growth/possession. When the state was given all that covid money that was supposed to be used to help the citizens overcome the roadblocks that came with the virus. Instead, the state hoarded as much of that money as it could and now Sununu wants to give the leftover money to large construction companies in exchange for small patches of luxury condos/apartments. Personally, I dont understand how he consistently wins reelection.


TheGrateKhan t1_j8sxtwq wrote

To use a phrase, "i think the juice is worth the squeeze."

The number of regular people who would be helped by this bill outweighs individuals that might use this as an opportunity to reoffend.

I ask that you look past this one person and judge the bill on its own merit. Returning rights back to people after they completed their punishment.

Class B felonies, simple possession of small amounts of drugs, theft under 1k but more than $500. Not necessarily hardened criminals who want to make the world worse, but people who maybe made a mistake, had one bad moment in their life and are being punished indefinitely for it.


TheGrateKhan t1_j8so60o wrote

OP, you probably shouldve clarified that its only non-violent felons that would benefit from this. Not every felon. You got me slightly worried for a moment.

If you were punished for your offense, paid your debt, and rejoined the society that you were indebted to, you should be able to get all of your rights back. ESPECIALLY if you were a non-violent criminal.


TheGrateKhan t1_j4x8vq6 wrote

Along Interstate Highway 93 is a place called Moonlight Meadery in Londonderry. As the name suggests, they make mead (essentially a honey wine) and some other drinks. They sell reservations for tastings so you can try a few and buy some at the same time. During covid they stopped doing a lot of the tours, but they may have started back up. They also have a Farmstead in Pittsfield NH. The Londonderry location would be best on the drive up to or back down from your destination, but possibly too far for a trip during the vacation .If alcohol isnt your groups thing, probably discard this suggestion.


TheGrateKhan t1_j38y08m wrote

Best bet is to pray you dont get a ticket. If you get a citation and go to court, explain yourself and hope they go easy on you.

If you realized that you messed up while it all was happening, you probably couldve pulled over, ran back to the bus window, and apologized to the driver.
But that requires time travel to do now.

You might try contacting the bus company for that school district and apologizing to someone there, but if the driver didnt report you and you tell on yourself you might walk right into trouble.


TheGrateKhan t1_j2wvb2a wrote

Definitely look into DCU. The first 1000 in your savings account earns 6% apy. 0.15% on everything over the 1000. Checking accounts with the EarnMore feature recieve 0.2% apy on everything up to 30k.

If you do direct deposits into dcu and get a dcu auto loan with electronic payments, they also offer a .5% discount on the interest rate.

One thing Dcu uses as a benefit is if you need to use a branch but arent near a dcu location, the website has a locator for Co-Op Shared Branches. Theyre completely separate credit unions but they work together. You can bring your dcu account info and identification with you and deposit or withdraw even if you're out in California on vacation.


TheGrateKhan t1_j2ud0wn wrote

There are similar (or higher) taxes in NH. We camouflage some of them as "fees" that you pay every year instead of the T word. If you work in massachusetts and live in NH, youll still have to pay MA income tax and youll have less opportunities to get it refunded. Vehicle inspections are a little more strict in NH. Nearly everything driving related expires on your birthday/month. They remind you of your birthday by sending you bills. Border towns are still gonna have a 1.5- 2 hour commute to the Lincoln/Loon mt area. Firearms are more common, but it's still pretty rare to actually see someone with one. NH only has medical and decriminalized cannabis. Up to 3/4ths of an ounce will result in a ticket and confiscation, anything more or crossing state lines with it is still arrest if i recall. (Im not saying you or your S.O do any of that but it is a difference from massachusetts)

NH has the better boardwalk at Hampton beach, but MA has the better physical beach location with Salisbury beach . NH doesn't require helmets or seatbelts if over 18.

Thats all i got off the top of my head. Hope it helps your decision-making process.


TheGrateKhan t1_j02qlvu wrote

Geez, that's rough. If you have all the information and they are trying to skip out on you, you could try contacting the business considering it was a company vehicle. They may even offer to help you go after the employee if the employee tried to hide the accident from the owner too. I dont know if you forgot to include it or if they didnt provide it, but a picture of the company vehicle registration should have the insurance info if its a Massachusetts registration. If your vehicle is messed up, you shouldnt have to be the one pay to get made whole again.

Notifying the police of the occurrence is always a good thing. Just so there is a record created somewhere that you reported what happened.

Side note: unless he was carrying over 2/3 of an ounce of cannabis, it wouldve only been a ticket and confiscation, if he was smoking while driving thats still a dui though.

Good luck, i hope that the other driver gets back to you and you dont have to fight much to get fixed!


TheGrateKhan t1_iyoajep wrote

Id like to know what effect the DNC thinks this will have. It seems like such a mundane thing to quarrel over. Simply the date of an election. But if it didnt have some sort of perceived impact on a larger scale, why does it matter if New Hampshire as a state goes a week earlier than any other state?

Though it might be fun to watch states keep moving their election dates forward to keep getting in front of the others.


TheGrateKhan t1_ixyhzg3 wrote

I think anytime ive failed an inspection, ive had at least a month to get the issues fixed and reinspected without getting charged the inspection fee again. Small two person shops and big dealerships alike.

I couldn't find any information on the government websites or the NH safc3200 about if mechanics are allowed to double charge for an inspection but it definitely sounds a little less than reasonable considering its a reinspection and not an inspection at a completely new shop.

When it comes to finding new issues with the vehicle, it again sounds odd considering the sequence of events and the time period. However I've had a few vehicles where in a two or three month span, a couple parts failed in a row. It may be beneficial to have a separate shop or group take a look for your peace of mind; who knows if the first shop is doing something underhanded and if theyre doing it to other people too?