Rhode Island's Future - Recent Diaries

We still have a long way to go

Jesse from Cranston — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:24:53 GMT

As bad as the Guv's veto of the funerary rights bill was, there's news on the LGBTQQ front that should provide hope:

In Alabama, a high school threatened to shut down the prom if a lesbian student attended with her girlfriend. I use the past tense "threatened," because the school backed down after the ACLU reminded the district about its responsiblity under federal law, i.e., no discrimination on the basis of sexual identity.

Now, if we could only get that message across to our state's equal-rights-vetoing chief executive.

Here's the link to the story.

The Ten Year War Continues.

rasputinkhlyst — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:08:34 GMT

While the world observed Armistice Day this week, this week also marks the tenth anniversary of another war: The war on the Working Class, and there is no end in sight.

Trashed in Providence

RoDyelunda — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:05:57 GMT

Cudos to the City for trying to vamp up the recycling efforts but...with little or no notice the "City" has decided that if residents do not put out both their green AND blue bins along with the regular trash can then their trash will be left on the sidewalk for the next week's removal.

O.K. so I was lucky this week. I just happened to put them all out and my trash was picked up. I had no idea. A neighbor enlightened me as to why there were so many unemptied trash cans left on the street. My 94-year-old neighbor..not so lucky. She will have to go out and drag hers in for another time. (Yes, I will do it for her.)

As I am single and away from home frequently I produce very little trash so I usually wait until both my green and blue recycle bins are full before I put them out - usually 4 weeks or so. I assume this saves effort on the recycle guys parts and money on the City's behalf. As it stands now I only put one small bag of trash in this HUGE can and haul it down to the street every week because I cannot obtain a smaller can from the City. Image my 94-year-old neighbor lady's point of view.

So my question is...With the current rat problem in Providence and the tight budget constraints why are my only options to 1) Put out all the bins, which includes one wine bottle in the blue bin and one kleenex box or toilet roll in the green bin, or 2) Hang on to my regular trash until my recycle bins are full, which could get quite smelly?

There must be some alternative that would benefit both the City and residents like myself and my neighbor. Yes?

Governor Practices Bigotry with Anti-gay Veto

QueerActionRI — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:16:53 GMT

Queer Action of RI Demands Governor Keep a Scheduled Meeting with the Group

Governor Donald L. Carcieri has stated that he does not discriminate against gay people, but his actions tell a different story with his veto of a bill that would allow domestic partners to claim the bodies of and plan each other's funerals.

The bill would have righted a wrong in the state's laws which forced Mark S. Goldberg to spend wrenching months trying to get the body of his deceased partner of 17 years from the state of Rhode Island.

First the Governor raises money for an anti-gay hate group in another state and now he proves that he is motivated more by bigotry than caring for his fellow citizens with this veto action. The Governor believes strongly in heterosexual priviledge and special rights for straight people. He does not care how much suffering he causes for gay Rhode Islanders in order to follow his ideology which conveniently finds his type of family to be the best.

Governor Carcieri has already cancelled one meeting with Queer Action of RI which was scheduled in the first week of November. The meeting was requested by Queer Action prior to the Governor's mid-October fundraising speech to the anti-gay Massachusetts Family Institute, which considers being gay a disease that should be cured. His office cited duties he had to perform because of the H1N1 virus.

Queer Action is scheduled to meet with the Governor at 3 pm on Thursday, November 12, 2009. Will he continue to hurt the gay community in Rhode Island without even bothering to talk to us? If he does so, then it is a huge statement on the Governor's lack of character. After all, it is very easy and cowardly to discriminate against people who you never see or talk too.

Et tu, Gov. Kaine?

brassband — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:13:00 GMT

Convicted D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad is set for execution in Virginia tonight.

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, a Roman Catholic, has has refused pleas for commutation, including one from the Most Rev. Paul Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, VA,(a graduate of La Salle Academy, by the way) setting out the Church's most recent authoritative pronouncement regarding capital punishment:

If non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2267; Evangelium Vitae, 56).

Bishop Loverde's excellent statement concludes with a plea for Muhammad's life:

Imitating Saint Thérèse, let us unite our prayers and penance for John Allen Muhammad that he may experience Christ’s redemptive mercy, for the victims of his crimes and their families, and for the courage in our Commonwealth to choose the path of hope instead of despair.

While much attention has been paid to Bishop Tobin's letter to Rep. Patrick Kennedy regarding Kennedy's dissent from the Church's stance on abortion, will Catholic Gov. Kaine face similar public scrutiny of his Catholic bona fides in light of his deviation from Church teaching regarding the death penalty?

Let's see.

Campaign music

Sean South — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:02:32 GMT

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

And I was 'round when the banking crisis
Caused us moments of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that the Governor
Closed the banks and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I stuck around Providence
When I saw it was a time for a change
Really lived in Narragansett
Although the commute was such a pain

I rode a tank
in Carcieri’s rank
When Cookson raged
And the markets sank

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched with glee
While the liberals
Fought each other
While I raised big money

I shouted out,
"Who elected Pat Kennedy?"
When after all
It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for challengers
Who get killed before Election Day

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game

Just as every bank is my contributor
And all the lenders saints
As heads is tails
Just call me DINO
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, have some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

Pleased to meet you
Now you know my name
But what's puzzling you
Is how easy you can buy fame.

For those of you disappointed with Congressman Langevin about the Stupak amendment...

WarwickDemocrat — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:30:13 GMT

THIS EVENT MIGHT BE FOR YOU.

Please join us for a reception
in honor of
Betsy Dennigan
Democratic Candidate For Congress,
Second District, Rhode Island
Betsy is an emergency nurse, attorney, founder of Books Are Wings, and has served in the Rhode Island General Assembly for 12 years. She has a solid record of legislative accomplishments in healthcare, civil rights, education, biotech funding, and environmental protection. Your support sends your voice to Congress.
Friday, November 13
6:00-8:00 pm
Eagles Club
334 Waterman Avenue, East Providence
Hosts: Yolanda Benavides, Jorge Riera
Suggested Donation: $25.
Thank you for any amount you are able to contribute!
Checks made out to "Dennigan For Congress" should be mailed to:
Dennigan For Congress
P.O. Box 8053
Cranston, RI 02920-9998
Donate at the door or online at www.betsydenniganforcongress.com.

Re: New / Young Democrats NOT welcomed in Newport

newportshells — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:33:09 GMT

The kid did indeed walk in late, but it was because he was vomiting in the middle of Touro park, I saw him while I was parking and was going to approach him but saw that he got up and grabbed something from his bag, drank it and sat down on a bench. He wasn't THAT late as Bud explains.

Further, I could hear his exchange with Bud while the meeting was starting. He was KICKED OUT. Bud didn't offer him to stay as he mentioned, all Bud said was "do you want to speak?" and before he this handsome and well dressed young man could even answer, Bud told him "this is a "member's only group and you can't stay." That is all that transpired. The kid didn't leave in a huff and Bud wasn't as diplomatic as he repeatedly has been stating. Bud felt threatened, it was obvious. I felt bad for the kid.

I don't know this young man, I have seen him at several charity fundraisers the last few summers, but have never spoken with him before. However, our Newport Democrats group IS irrelevant. Most of the members do NOT show up and we would be so lucky to have someone "half our age" join us. In fact, when the kid walked in all I could think of is "new blood...alleluia!!!

Not only should Bud apologize to him, but I believe someone should get the two of these individuals in a room together. I have been doing some asking around and I believe I WOULD follow this young man if he were to form a more "progressive" Democrats group in Newport. the kid has some strong support throughout our small island. And we should do our best from preventing the Johnson man who replied to his original post from getting him over to Chafee's team.

Also, who cares about these stupid by-laws if they end up keeping young energetic people away? These young people are the kind of folk that made a THE difference in '08; it wasn't Bud who boastfully (and repeatedly) voices that he has been an active public Democrat for 50 years, that was the Clinton mentality....and THAT is the underlying problem and threat.

Either the dinosaur needs to partner with the future, or we need to find more enthusiastic and energetic people like this young man, Larz to lead us. Do we want a repeat of New Jersey or Virginia? If we don't, we need to look to tomorrow and certainly not the past "50 years".

What really makes this entire debacle an embarrassment is the way Bud and Grillo went on a defensive which then turned into an offensive against this kid. THAT is the true embarrassment.

Larz, if you are reading this, I want to apologize for our leader's behavior and want you to know that the majority of us support you and DO NOT agree with Bud's behavior that night or the way he inaccurately described the evening, nor the way he and his side kick Grillo have gone on the offensive to discredit you.

If anyone cares about this party, they should get Bud to apologize and find a way to envelope this young man and all of his friends into our group. Otherwise, membership and attendance will continue to repeatedly drop and we will go from being irrelevant to eventually forgotten. Maybe Larz can teach us about things like twitter and facebook; it would not only help our party and local causes, but strengthen the bridge between an obvious generational gap.

But please take note, things did NOT go as detailed by Bud and the kid did NOT leave in a huff. Quite the contrary, he left with his head down.

We are scared to speak out as a group or even individually against Bud simply because he has demonstrated how far he is willing to go to discredit anyone who even thinks slightly different than he does.

Bud is a legend and I can speak on behalf of the entire party and freely state that his service has been invaluable however, it is time to think differently, perhaps pass the baton, or forge new alliances that will push us forward, NOT divide us; which is what Bud's (and Grillo's) reaction has done.

Bill Lynch, Patrick Lynch, David Cicilline....get Bud to apologize and get these two in a room together. As a team, their achievements can rejuvenate us and take us into the future.

By the way, whoever started this Internet website should be applauded. There is more and better political information here than PROJO and our own stale local newspaper combined.

Hoping for change in NEWPORT........

Stick to your guns, Patrick Kennedy

Sean South — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:14:15 GMT

While the Bishop may put on one face in the health care debate, this is the face encouraged by the Catholic Church. C'mon Bishop...where is the condemnation of these Catholic groups? This is a little ditty from CatholicVoteAction.Org.

Happy Veteran's Day!! Report shows prisons filling up with veterans. (Again)

Bruce Reilly — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:32:59 GMT

It is a not-so-well kept secret that our government has a peculiar realtionship with our soldiers. A generation of movies (Deerhunter, Rambo, Born on the 4th of July, et.al.) told the world: war can be a meatgrinder full of Disposable Heroes (Metallica).

With Veteran's Day just a week away, Drug Policy Alliance has released a well documented study:

Healing a Broken System: Veterans Battling Addiction and Incarceration

With the help of Northeastern U's School of Law's Legal Skills in Social Context Program, 15 students labored for 6 months on multidisciplinary research. 14 pages of Endnotes support this 9 page report.

Findings include:

30% of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans report symptoms of PTSD or other mental ilness.
19% of current conflict vets receiving VA care have been diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence.
75% of Vietnam vets with PTSD met criteria for substance abuse/dependence.
Over 150,000 vets were incarcerated in 2004.
In 1985, 21% of men in prison were vets.
Between 1946-1949, 34% of new prisoners were WWII vets (an 11 prison study).

Veterans incarcerated for drug offenses received average sentences that were one year longer than non-veterans, for the same offenses.

The Prison Industrial Complex marches on.

Recommendations include usage of Methadone (opiate dependence), Naloxone (Overdose prevention), prison diversion programs (cites RI as a recent recipient of grant monies), and much more, including:

Under current VA directives, incarcerated veterans are not afforded any VA care. This denial is a missed opportunity for the VA to provide critical services and support for veterans to recover from the psychological wounds that caused their criminal activity in the first place. The VA should rescind its 2002 directive barring assesment or treatment of veterans incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons, and inform incarcerated veterans of all VA-community resources.

It is irresponsible for the "Support the Troops Crowd" to merely cheerlead the capacity for our brothers and sisters in combat. Coincidentally, many of those hollering "Bring Our Troops Home" are the folks on the frontlines with the aftermath carnage. So Mr. Obama (and average citizens), in what way do YOU supprt the troops?

Climate Change Blockage....ugh!!

noroadorisland — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:42:06 GMT

The presidential administration and its cohorts in the Senate have been steadily working on a new environmental policy bill that aims to reduce global warming and step up green energy solutions. Today, that was met with a decisive struggle as House Republicans walked out and boycotted a hearing Tuesday on a bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change.

It is amazing that we live in era where there is so much scientific evidence for human attributed environmental degradation and its long term consequences on this planet, that so many politicians can deny such truths. As much as the "global warming" movement has been hurt by evidence demonstrating, parts of the Earth are also cooling at a rapid rate, progressives are usually open to debate, dialogue and will gladly make changes when there is evidence to support it. The Republican's actions are not only distasteful and dishonest, they are wrong.

There has been increased amount of doubt being placed from progressive thinking and pro-environment groups regarding these issues. Many on the 'right' have frequently laughed and taken measures to discredit environmentalists, global warming, global climate change and any other human attributed threats/degradation to our eco system, even though the evidence exists to suggest otherwise. The asbestos scandal has also been one of the more successful cover-ups in the 20th century. This corrosive building material has lead to thousands developing mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. Quite frankly, private interests, monetary gains and self serving purposes have caused an environment of misinformation and ridicule, when taking care of the environment is a global endeavor.

According to an article in the New York Times, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu remains confident that the United States efforts in clean energy technologies and research will surpass all other countries.

After decades of no results and the continuing of lackluster environmental policies, we are beginning to see real action taking place in the social, political and legislative areas in regards to moving towards a green paradigm. From new methods of energy, transforming the auto industry and construction, we have already seen steps in the right direction.

I am very glad to see the Obama administration and members of the Senate taking the first steps to enact policies which will once again make the United States the leader in environmental sustainability, green technologies and reducing human attributed global degradation. Hopefully the proper legislation will be passed and we will be inspired to contribute our part as well.

New / Young Democrats NOT welcomed in Newport R.I.

lazlazlaz — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:22:59 GMT

I am in my 30's and on disability. There are days however where I feel well enough and find myself afforded with blocks of time yet nothing to do. Lately, I have tried to both fill some of this time by volunteering for some local children's charities in town as well as enthusiastically supporting the Democratic Party's bid for the Rhode Island Governorship by volunteering for the Patrick Lynch campaign here in Newport. My late friend Tony Marcella introduced me to him and ever since, I have followed him in his role of our Attorney General. I am particularly proud, as are many Rhode Island parents, of knowing that OUR own state's Attorney General is innovatively leading the fight to protect children from Internet predators not just within our state, but also across the country and ultimately globe. I strongly feel Mr. Lynch fortunately lacks the political baggage the other candidates would bring to the Governor's office (when you are in politics as long as the other declared and "yet to declare" candidates have been, you MUST owe a lot of favors...the type that don't necessarily benefit voters). Attorney General Patrick Lynch has the goods to prevent this little state of ours from further spiraling into the embarrassing irrelevancy it has found itself in (with the way things are going, we will soon be left with the sole option of annexation to a neighboring state...that's if they would even take us!). It is a terrible job, but Patrick Lynch wants it and God bless him!

Yesterday, a friend encouraged me to attend Newport's chapter meeting of the state's Democratic Party. I eagerly attended though I was feeling a bit sick. I got there and Bud Cicilline (I have spoken to him on the phone before and he even got me involved with the Whitehouse campaign in '06 when I first moved to Newport) threw me out because I was not a "club member." I even called this man earlier in the day and left him a message about attending; he did not call back. The "slap in the face" incident was not only embarrassing to me but to the friend who encouraged me to attend (he is resigning from the Newport chapter, as are a few other members who were disgusted by how I was turned away).

The sad thing was that the average age of the "members" in the group was close to retirement, in fact I doubt if ten percent of the present members here have a twitter, facebook, LinkedIn or Ning account) and here I come in, someone half their age sharing their same principals and passionately wanting to roll up my sleeves alongside them to help insure we do not have another lame duck worthless Governor in power, and what happens? Their "leader" slammed the door shut on my face. Perhaps I could have been met with a more friendly "this is a members only group however thanks for your interest and welcome. Go ahead and take a seat in the back but you cannot vote or speak, you will need to fill out a "membership form" after the meeting." Any similar tactic would have been more aligned with Obama's call to the party for it to vigorously attract and embrace its younger members. If I am not mistaken, it was people UNDER the age of 70 that really made the difference in his sweeping election, but maybe that playbook does not apply here in Rhode Island. It certainly is a foreign ideas here in Newport.

My point is, and I do have one, that I have been talking with members of various college campus based political clubs (representing both parties) for several weeks now and they all share similar symptoms; RARELY do state and local candidates in Rhode Island EVER try to come and engage them. Their voice, abilities, resources, passion (and vote) are rarely encouraged. The odd thing is that there are eleven college campuses in R.I. Is there a state or local politician out there who can do any math? Hello, anyone out there?

Perhaps if candidates and politicians reached out to young voters more aggressively in R.I., and helped them establish some roots in this state, they would not run away as soon as soon as they get their degrees. Granted, there are no jobs in RI however, our youth represent our future and by enveloping them in, you get them invested in Rhode Island. In doing so perhaps they will stay here and start companies, write grants, volunteer, share their knowledge, buy homes, etc. I hope some intelligent Democratic (or ANY party for that matter) political leader reads this and a light bulb pops up in their head because the future of this state and specifically Newport's doesn't 't look to rosy and leaving it in the hands of the (older) status quo perhaps is not the best formula.

The irony is that I have worked on and or vigorously supported three senatorial, two gubernatorial, and two municipal democratic campaigns as well as traveled to five states to support first Hillary Clinton and then Obama and have made thousands and thousands of calls for democrats (on Sunday, for example, I made 230 phone calls on behalf of President Obama to New Jersey voters encouraging them to go out and support Governor Corzine); perhaps I am over qualified (or too young) for Newport's chapter.

I was very disheartened after being embarrassed and rudely turned away in front of other Democrats for not being a "club member" however, my friends, from both parties, encouraged me to start a separate competitive group in Newport. I am thinking about calling it the "Newport Progressive Democratic Association. " Our motto would be "Membership NOT required, ALL interested Democrats AND lonely Republicans are invited to attend...however, facebook, twitter, Ning, and linkedIn accounts required."

Lazaro ("Laz) Gustavo Pujol-Dieguez
rockunited@aol.com

NJ; VA; NY-23

brassband — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:35:10 GMT

Who will win these off-year contests?

Looks like McDonnell (R) will cruise to an easy win in the VA Governor's race.

My hunch is that Corzine (D) scratches out a win and is reelected Governor of New Jersey.

NY-23? No idea.

Predictions?

Fundraiser for Representative Joseph Almeida

Jim Taylor — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:29:42 GMT

You are cordially invited to attend a

Reception

to benefit

Representative Joseph Almeida

Thursday, November 12, 2009

6:00pm to 9:00pm

At Ada's Creations

1137 Broad Street, Providence R.I.

Donation $50.00

After Maine, What Next? Protest for Equality in R.I.

mikeairhart — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:11:09 GMT

For all the progress that LGBT Rhode Islanders have made toward equality, sexual minorities still face a long road ahead. With the vote on marriage equality in nearby Maine out of the way, we are at a crossroads, with much accomplished but many tasks undone -- and much indecision about what to do next.
Courtesy of the HRC web site (which admittedly may be outdated), here's what we have achieved in Rhode Island, and what we lack:

Adoption: LGBT individuals may adopt. No clear rights or prohibitions on couples adopting.

Birth Certificates: Can be amended to accurately reflect name or gender identity.

Custody: Rhode Island courts will allow a former same-sex partner to petition for visitation. Case law in disputes between a straight and gay parent is not well-established.

Discrimination: Prohibited on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Hate-crime law: Sexual orientation and gender identity are included.

Partner healthcare: No rights without an advance directive. Directives may be disobeyed by care providers, such as religious hospitals or prejudiced medical professionals; by the time the directive can be enforced, it may be too late.

Relationships: Minimal state recognition of gay couples.

Safe schools: No state legal assurance of safety from bullying. The current Regents policy is to prohibit bullying on the basis of sexual orientation but not gender identity.

In practice, all this information means that schools don't do enough to prevent bullying, especially of gender-variant youths; parenting rights are up in the air; LGBT residents receive inferior health care; and the state pretends that LGBT life partnerships don't exist.

Yet some other areas of injustice remain largely unaddressed:

Antigay prejudice, ethnic divisions, economic inequalities, and racial bigotry intersect to create additional stigma and hardship for the state's minorities. Too little has been achieved in terms of communication and collaborative advocacy across ethnic and economic barriers.

And the state's conservative Christian churches continue to promote bigotry in the pews, demanding that members vote a theocratically correct party line while threatening open-minded and LGBT-affirming congregants with social and religious ostracism. Depending upon one's church, disinformation campaigns variously peg gay couples as intolerant, militant, sex-starved, amoral, an embarrassment to one's race, and "intrinsically evil." In short, these churches' leaders project their own vices onto innocent couples, further burdening the institution of marriage while fostering a range of social ills.

Whatever happens to marriage in Maine on Nov. 3, and whatever may happen with marriage in R.I. in 2010, the state's LGBT groups are thinking anew about concerns in addition to marriage. The Providence Equality Action Committee and Queer Action RI, in particular, share similar objectives but different methods and values. Both must choose priorities wisely, and act strategically and cooperatively.

They can't do that without public input, and that's why PEAC, for example, is holding a rally this week, immediately following the vote in Maine. (The rally will be at 5:30 p.m. Nov. 4 at the World War II monument along Main Street, across from the courthouse in downtown Providence.)

What are your priorities? Apart from marriage, what must Rhode Island LGBT people achieve next on the road to equality?

Mollis Has Advice for Tuesday's Voters

Chris Barnett — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:40:53 GMT

With voters in four communities set to go to the polls tomorrow, Secretary of State Mollis has some advice to ensure that voting goes smoothly.

To avoid delays at the polls, voters should use our Voter Information Center to find their polling place, confirm their eligibility and see a sample of the ballot they will use on Tuesday.

Sixteen polling places will be open in Woonsocket, where there are races for mayor, city council and school committee.

Central Falls will open eight polling places for its races for mayor and Ward 1 city council.

In Jamestown, three polling places will be open. Seven candidates are competing for five council seats and four candidates are competing for three school committee seats. In addition, there are 12 referenda questions.

Two polling places will be open in North Kingstown, where a $10 million bond for sewer construction is the only item on the ballot.

Central Falls and North Kingstown polls will open at 7 a.m. Jamestown and Woonsocket polls will open one hour later. The polls in all four communities will close at 9 p.m.

New font, but still no wisdom

Bob Walsh — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:51:46 GMT

The 2009 Halloween edition of the Providence Journal gives us another scary unsigned editorial attacking labor unions and those that support them. This time, the ProJo's designated union hitter used two recent cases to vent his impotent rage.

The first case cited was a decision before the State Labor Relations Board involving crossing guards in Warwick. Instead of an actual analysis of the procedural rules violated by management in this decision, we were treated with three paragraphs of why the editor did not like the underlying, legally entered into contract, only then lamely admitted that the decision simply stated that Warwick management was not allowed to take the approach it did to change the contract. But this Journal editor finds it easier to blame the umpire than to suggest playing by the rules, it seems.

The second case referenced was a brief media sensation, and we are again provided with a fact free analysis that seems merely to be an attempt to criticize the American Arbitration Association. (Recall the recent editorial which deliberately attempted to mislead the public by confusing mediation and arbitration.) Adding the throwaway line "people deserve a second chance" only seems to be a brief acknowledgment that even editors live in glass houses.

Does the Journal conclude that management must do a better job when bringing employment-related matters forward? Of course not - instead, they attack politicians who receive support from labor unions.

Since the Journal's repackaging effort is just old whine in new bottles, perhaps it is time to throw the whole package away.

The Danger of The Rhetoric of Punishment

nhorton — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:45:43 GMT

Why do we give the enforcers of criminal law, our police, our prosecutors, our jailors, so much power to make it? The last year of controversy, culminating in yesterday's decision to outlaw indoor prostitution, proved once again how criminal law debates are some of the most irresponsible public policy conversations that we have. The conversation was started by victims' advocates pleading for help for the victims of trafficking. So how did we end up with legislation that almost none of them wanted?

The history of this debate mirrors the flaws in many of our discussions of criminal justice policy: Ultimately, the rhetoric of punishment is allowed free reign to incite the public by the press and politicians who fail to demand honesty.

Although legislation to close the prostitution loophole has been introduced for the last three years, this year became different April 19.

The Providence Journal ran two practically back-to-back front page stories: 'RI in the 'eye' of the storm in sex trafficking,prostitution' and 'Hundreds rally to end sex trafficking in RI.' The rally article shows a picture of advocates and police standing side by side, united in the battle against human trafficking at a large rally organized by the Coalition Against Human Trafficking. Both articles are dedicated entirely to decrying the awful specter of trafficking, captured here in RI in the image of the Korean spa. “It’s important to know that these people are victims and should be treated as such," said a spokesperson for the state police. That article ended with the only mention of prostitution legislation contained in either article--"Two separate bills that would make prostitution a crime, regardless of where it occurs, have also been introduced in the General Assembly. The coalition — which is against prosecuting the prostitutes — has taken no position on those bills."

The only important substantive debate regarding how to help the women caught in the sex industry was over the need to arrest. Is it necessary for law enforcement to be able to arrest and punish in order to forcibly remove women from the spas and protect them? (here are some different expert perspectives if you are interested: here, here, and here) That question did come up during committee hearing testimony. However, it was never covered rationally as a debate in news or opinion pieces on the issue. It was almost never debated by legislators in committee or on the floor. The debate was drowned out by those decrying the filthiness of prostitution, the phrase "whore" was actually used by one person that testified, attacks on people for being "hardened" and "disingenuous," and the calls to punish individuals working as prostitutes.

The real crux of the issue emerged when the Senate passed its prostitution legislation in July, which would have made the act of selling commercial sexual acts a crime. However, the first offense would have been a violation accompanied by a possible fine and not technically considered a conviction. A misdemeanor carrying potential prison time existed for second offenders. It was an incredibly well tailored compromise, which, with some slight modifications, could have satisfied all the anti-trafficking advocates. The Senate leadership and Judiciary Committee should be given enormous credit. The legislation gave the power to arrest, solving the issue of whether Federal prostitution law could be used in RI to prosecute traffickers. It made buying sex illegal. It gave the police the ability to extricate victims from spas, but limited the power to punish them. And it empowered communities with even more tools to prosecute unwanted businesses. In contrast, our new law allows for up to six months in prison for the first offense of selling sexual service and it requires at least a $250 fine.

Control over the issue was ceded the next day, as announced in the Providence Journal's article "RI Law Enforcement Officials say Senate Bill Outlawing Indoor Prostitution is flawed." While true flaws did exist (the deletion of archaic anti "pandering" language actually ended up deleting anti-pimping laws---I can only imagine that this was a mistake), the article focused on the penalties against the sellers of sex, which were apparently too weak for such a "reprehensible" act as prostitution. The article did not allow anyone to respond to the attacks, but instead gave unexamined voice to the argument. The assertion that the bill would allow prostitution in school zones was even later used to attack the Senate bill. The debate was now controlled by the rhetoric of fear and punishment.

The final stages of the legislation were slow and silent. After three months of private negotiations that included the Governor, the House, the Senate, the State Police, and the Attorney General, the bill emerged with the exact same penalties as the House version--mandatory fine or prison time for the women. In response, many local and national victims' rights and anti-trafficking groups clarified that they opposed the inclusion of such punishments against the women. Over the last two days, an amendment to simply remove the prison time from the punishment against the women was seen as too late to even debate by both the House and Senate.

Good criminal justice policy can only come out of reasonable, two-sided public debate. However, we are consistently denied that, in criminal justice more than almost any other policy area. It is dangerous to so entirely empower one side of a debate. But that is what has consistently been done in criminal justice policy history--a history that has created a prison system that incarcerates people at the rate that Soviet Russian did during the Gulag; that continues to imprison for tiny amounts of marijuana even though 72% of America believes in decriminalization; and that makes women who accept money for sexual acts into criminals that will be arrested and threatened with prison time. The police and prosecutors have crucial perspectives to offer, and the press should inform us of their concerns. But their concerns should not set public policy.

Note: I have referred to people who sell sex as "the women," several times because the policy in RI will largely affect women, and also because it is more appropriate than other terms such as "sex worker," "prostitute," or "victim."

Red Sox fans face dilemma: Whom to hate?

brassband — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:46:38 GMT

So tonight previously-beloved-and-now-hated former Red Sox Ace Pedro Martinez faces the consistently-hated New York Yankees . . .

Formerly long suffering Red Sox fans face a dilemma:

Should we root against Petey because we're still bitter about the way he left Boston?

Or should we root against the Yankees because . . . well for cryin' out loud, they're the Yankees!?

I have a practical reason for thinking that it's better for the Sox if the Yanks win this year's world series . . . maybe they will be less motivated to steal Jason Bay away from us?

Pretty lousy reason to root for the Evil Empire, I admit.

Against whom will you be rooting tonight?

The Costs of Doing Business

robertri — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:44:07 GMT

Reading the New York Times today, I was struck by two pieces. First, President Obama signed a $680 billion military policy bill, in what is viewed as a victory over the military lobby. He fought for the elimination of the F-22 Fighter, a Cold War era jet that cannot be flown in bad weather, and which has never seen combat. The programs eliminated could be rationally viewed as cash cows, as designed to fight the Soviets, as excessive. Yet, it took political courage to achieve even these modest cuts. The budget for the DoD still increased, largely as a result of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Eisenhower famously warned about the growing power of what he called the Military-Industrial Complex, and in this news one can see that it can be nearly impossible to make rational decisions about DoD programs, because companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman have grown increasingly effective at making the political costs of cutting programs unpalatable.

The second piece that caught my eye was an Op-Ed by Victor Sebestyen, author of Revolution 1989. He compares the Soviet entanglement in Afghanistan with that of United States, revealing a conversation between Marshall Sergei Akhromeyev, the commander of Soviet Armed Forces, and the Soviet Politburo, asking for an increase in troops beyond the 110,000 in country. At that moment in November of 1986, in the seventh year of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, Akhromeyev said “Without a lot more men, this war will continue for a very, very long time.” Akhromeyev’s conversation is eerily similar to the one going on between General McChrystal and the White House. As Sebetyen reveals, the Russians entered Afghanistan in 1979 hoping to stay for only a few months. Sound familar? Our initial entries into both Afghanistan and Iraq were temporary in nature. Now, in Afghanistan, we have a large base of operations in Bagram, just like the Soviets. We are investing lives and money overseas, without clear policy objectives. The review going on in Washington by the Obama Administration is a welcome deliberation, because where we go from here will determine whether we can ultimately leave Afghanistan with a sense of accomplishment, or like the Soviets did over the Friendship Bridge in 1989 – an agonizing defeat.

The reason these two pieces caught my eye is because they both show the priorities of our government – we are heavily invested in the military, but as a nation we do not understand the ultimate aims of our military. There are crucial reasons to be involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but our leadership does a poor job of explaining them to the people. The political battles in Washington take precedence over rational policy discussions. President Johnson was afraid of the political costs of disengagement in Vietnam, so he instead chose to expand the war. I hope, for the sake of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in Afghanistan, that President Obama has the courage to make his decisions on Afghanistan without undue concern for political cost. I also hope that he uses his great communication skills to explain his decision to the American people. However, beyond Afghanistan, he must also do a better job of communicating the goals of our military development. The infastructure of our country badly needs investment, from transit, to bridges, to power transmission lines. Today, we need a large-scale investment in renewable energy to reduce our dependance on overseas petroleum, the reason Reagan first sent our military into the Persian Gulf. The need for an advanced fighter platform like the F-22 needs to be balanced along side the need for improved infastructure, so that Americans can understand where we spend our money, and how we do business. Otherwise, we will continue to bleed money to the Military Industrial Complex, without a clear understanding of what it will get us.