July 3, 2012 – RI Future

July 3, 2012July 3, 2012

Projo Misses News at Doherty, Brown Event

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Doherty-Brown — Photo courtesy of Pat Crowley. @PatCrowleyNEARI

So, if you still have doubts that the ProJo editorial board is the tail wagging the newsroom’s dog; those fears should be laid to rest after the ~~Newspaper~~ Spin Cycle of record’s coverage of the Brendan Doherty event at Metacomet Country Club in East Providence.

Journal scribe Phil Marcelo, covered all the political details about how Sen. Scott Brown made the trip down from Massachusetts, gave a closed-door speech to the big donors and then left quickly. He also covered the fact of the approximate amount of money the event raised and even mentioned how both men met as youngsters at a basketball camp. Marcelo also goes on to note how Doherty was impressed with Brown’s call for bipartisanship.

Now here’s where I take exception to the ProJo’s coverage. When a story mentions bipartisanship, shouldn’t it at least include some of what the other side might have to offer, or object to? Maybe an example of Sen. Brown working in a cooperative manner?

Not only was there no mention of the other side’s views in this story, there wasn’t even any mention of the protesters outside the entrance to the country club. Members of Planned Parenthood and several labor groups were outside the event to make attendees and passers-by aware of extreme right-wing positions Mr. Doherty has staked out for his campaign. My question is: How is this not news?

Maybe if the ProJo goes back to fairly and accurately reporting the news and keeping its opinions on the editorial page, the paper can gain back some of its credibility. If not, I fear for my former co-workers on Fountain Street, as readership declines and the state will lose a once Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, to be replaced by a print version of Fox News.

July 3, 2012July 3, 2012

Progressives Should Care About Pension Security

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gina linc fung — Gina Raimondo, Linc Chafee and Allan Fung, at an event in 2011 to launch the campaign to decrease pension costs. Photo by Bob Plain, courtesy of WPRO.

I suspect if that if named a United States Senator tomorrow (might as well give the right-wing immediate heartburn at that prospect) my committee assignment of choice would be the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the so-called, and when run correctly, aptly named HELP Committee. Putting four important issues so remarkably interlinked together was wise indeed, but those linkages are not always obvious to some who deem themselves progressives.

My progressive friends breathed a sigh of relief last week when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, appreciate the importance of a strong public education system, and usually understand the basics of workers having a voice at the table through collective bargaining rights. But last year, so many progressive legislators, despite making commitments to the contrary, often in writing to the groups that endorsed them, voted to implement some of the most draconian changes in the country to Rhode Island’s state-run public pension plans. And many of their progressive supporters seem to be equally confused by the issue or just wish it would go away. It will not, and should not.

The elected officials who broke their commitments know who they are. While, to the dismay of many, I remain personally fond of Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo (who made no commitments on the issue), she essentially told the General Assembly that our unfunded pension liability was a “weapon of mass destruction,” and with remarkable haste in a virtually unprecedented special session, the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act of 2011 was enacted. And it was enacted with a lot of nominally progressive votes. I have more sympathy for elected officials willing to make amends, those who felt caught up in the same type of political tide that led federal elected officials to support the ill-advised war in Iraq (a vote which was at least a contributing factor to Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic Presidential nomination) and now acknowledge their errors in judgment, than for those who are angry they have been asked to account for their votes. I do give kudos to Providence Mayor Angel Taveras for negotiating a solution with active and retired employees as the state should have done and progressive legislators should have insisted they do.

All of that said, this article is not primarily directed at elected officials who need to reconsider their priorities, but at the progressive community in general. It is ironic that many of my more conservative acquaintances, while still maintaining their distaste for both unions and defined benefit pensions, confide in me their belief that the State of Rhode Island acted illegally in breaking the covenant it had with those workers and retirees. It pains me that some of the progressives with whom I have fought side by side in so many battles do not understand either the legal or moral obligation the State has to those workers, or that society should have to provide real retirement security to all workers. Worse are those that buy into, and repeat, the false choices argument – that if the state honors commitments to its public sector workers, it won’t be able to tighten the safety net for those most in need. Have the recent tax cuts for the wealthiest among us have been forgotten so quickly? False choices indeed!

Progressives believe that the entire arc of an individual’s life should be imbued with justice. That includes not only a world free from discrimination, a clean environment, the right to choose, the right to marry the partner of your choice and help for those who need it the most, but access to quality, affordable health care, an excellent public education, a good job with good wages where workers have a voice, and a secure retirement.

Apparently, one can still be a Democrat and ignore some of these issues – but you can’t claim to be a progressive.

July 3, 2012July 3, 2012

Butke’s Campaign Puts Focus on Education ‘Reform’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Maryellen Butke’s campaign for state Senate will raise an interesting debate about the relationship, or lack thereof, between the so-called education reform movement and the progressive movement. While in name they may sound like close cousins, in practice they are often not.

Education reformers (or deformers, if you don’t like what they do) often push for charter schools at the expense of existing public schools, and charter schools often don’t allow its teachers to bargain collectively, putting the movement at odds with organized labor and often attracting big money from union-busting corporations.

By running for state Senate – especially for legendary progressive legislator Rhoda Perry’s seat – Butke’s campaign will become ground zero for this debate in Rhode Island for the next few months.

Yesterday, in a post about Senator Rhoda Perry retiring, I mentioned that Butke is a liberal who supports charter schools. Two of RI Future’s regular contributors, who follow education issues closely, quickly took umbrage with my description.

“I think a more accurate description of Ms. Butke’s positions would be pretty politically liberal on some issues and extremely conservative on others, particularly labor and education (her primary focus), where she and her Wal-Mart and Wall Street-funded organization have championed right-wing policies that have and will do major damage to public education in RI,” wrote Aaron Regunberg.

Pat Crowley, who works for the state’s largest teachers’ union, followed suit: “Got to agree with Aaron here. Labor issues can’t simply be shoved to the side. Especially when so many teachers are women, and so many retirees are women, the attack on their voice on the job is part of the national war on women. How liberal is that?”

Then, interestingly enough, Butke got a chance to respond with a guest post on Ted Nesi’s blog. She wrote:

I have never considered my views on education liberal or conservative. Though a lifelong progressive, it never occurred to me that teaching and learning in public schools was a partisan issue. At its core, education reform is about improving educational outcomes for kids. How could anyone – Democrat or Republican – disagree with that?

As it turns out, education is one of the most politicized debates we are having in this country today. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Those of us who believe in the tenets of change aren’t interested in partisan politics. We believe in accountability for the adults responsible for our children’s futures, in high-quality public school choices for parents regardless of demographics or geography, and in flexibility to let principals and teachers do whatever it takes to improve student achievement. This doesn’t mean we are anti-union and it doesn’t mean we have negative feelings towards teachers.

My feeling is that Regunberg, Crowley and Bukte somehow need to reconcile their somewhat disparate points if Rhode Island is to holistically improve the education it offers. We need to offer a better education to all students without making life any tougher for our hard-working teachers, who hold one of the most important jobs in our community. That’s the progressive solution to reforming public education.

I believe Butke when she says she isn’t anti-union per say, but some of the people that pay her salary and fund the organization she works for certainly are. That can be a tough dichotomy to reconcile.

Butke and I have long talked about getting together for a big picture discussion on how the charter school movement fits – or doesn’t – with the progressive movement. Here’s hoping that this post and her candidacy helps to make that happen … and that they can help Rhode Island to figure out how it wants to reform public education.

July 3, 2012July 3, 2012

Are Non-Christians Not Welcome in Providence?

Peter Montequila, the owner of Finest Car Wash has stated a variety of reasons for having erected a cross on a publicly owned median strip on Pleasant Valley Parkway in Providence. According to one story the cross was built because the Fourth of July (or Memorial Day) was coming up. Montequila also claims he placed the religious symbol there to demonstrate solidarity with those who want the war memorial topped with a cross in Woonsocket to stay on public land. On the other hand, perhaps Montequila feels entitled to act as he did, having maintained the median by mowing the lawn, installing a sprinkler system, and planting flowers as part of what appears to be a city sponsored adopt-a-spot program. Still another reason for the cross, according to the owner, is that he seeks to honor veterans.

Of course, it’s not possible to honor all veterans by erecting a religious symbol particular to only some of them. How could a Christian cross possibly honor a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist veteran? Let’s be honest here: Peter Montequila only wants to honor Christian veterans with this cross, and more particularly, he only seeks to honor the tiny subset of Christian veterans who agree with him about the irrelevance of the First Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.

Read this quote from Montequila on 630WPRO:

an answer to atheist, and I’ll be quite honest with you I don’t really want them for my customers, let them go to an atheist car wash or an atheist gas station, we want customers that feel the way we do. [emphasis added]

What if you don’t feel the way Montequila does?

If it really offends them, you know what? Don’t drive down the street, or move someplace else or get out of the state, that’s how I feel.

The use of religious symbols to differentiate between us and them, those in our group and those outside our group, is a very natural human urge. When these symbols are used in a way that respects diversity of opinion and the rights of all citizens, then the lively experiment that is Rhode Island pays huge dividends in freedom of conscience and safety for minority opinions. But when these symbols are used to mark the territory of a putative majority interested in marginalizing those with differing opinions, the effect is to bully at best, and to terrorize at worst.

A cross has long been the symbol of hope and devotion to millions of people throughout history and throughout the world, but it has also been used as a symbol of persecution and conquest. Like the use of any symbol or word, the exact meaning of the cross depends on its context. For instance, compare a cross placed in the Basilica of Rome as opposed to one burning on the front lawn of a black family in the 1930’s.

The cross in Providence is a poor attempt at honoring veterans, as it only honors Christian veterans. It is a poor attempt at promoting Christianity because Montequila is only interested in promoting a particular brand of Christianity, one that seeks to blend church and state despite our Constitutional protections against such mixing. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many who identify themselves as Christian believe that a cross has no place on public land.

But the cross on the Pleasant Valley Parkway median in Providence is very good at promoting one message. And that message is this:

If you don’t believe in our particular kind of God, we don’t want you in Providence.

The fact that Mayor Angel Taveras has decided not to ask for the removal of the cross seems to indicate tacit governmental support for this message, much to the disappointment of those who take church/state separation seriously.

Unfortunately for Peter Montequila, non-Christians, including atheists and humanists, are not going anywhere. Instead, we’ll be sticking around and insisting that the government stay neutral in matters of religion by not allowing public land to be co-opted by those with a theocratic, anti-American agenda. Being a minority, our point of view won’t always be popular, but it will always be necessary. There isn’t, after all, one religious point of view today represented among the population of Rhode Island that wasn’t once held by a minority itself.