May 2014 – Page 4

May 9, 2014

State House Rally for the kidnapped Nigerian girls transcends our differences

The terrible situation of the 276 kidnapped Nigerian girls feels hopeless and so far away, but there is much we can do, even here in Rhode Island, to help. To that end Mary Gwann of the Rhode Island Young Professionals, in coordination with the Nigerian Community of Rhode Island and Take 5 with Reza Rites will be holding a rally on the mall side of the State House today at 5pm “to keep up the pressure on the United States’ efforts in rescuing and reuniting the girls with their families!”

In the meantime, Mary Gwann has other ideas on how to help. You can go to the Whitehouse.gov website and sign the petition demanding the White House work with the UN and the Nigerian government to bring home the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Let other people know on social media that you signed the petition and that they should too. (I’m signer #21,961.)

Then you could write to your Senator or Congressperson to let them know that you want action taken on this issue. Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, David Cicilline and Jim Langevin are standing by, eager to take your calls and/or read your emails.

MichelleObamaBringBackOurGirls While you’re on the Internet, playing around with social media (and using the #bringbackourgirls hashtag), take a picture of yourself with a sign that says any one or more of the following: “#bringbackourgirls”, “Devuelvan Nuestras Niñas”, “Real men don’t buy girls” or “#bringbackourgirls” in another language. Some people are putting their petition signature number on the sign while they’re at it.

Finally, you should go to the rally. This event transcends religion, race and politics, so anyone and everyone should come if possible. As Mary Gwann said to me this morning, “Today’s rally will demonstrate to the world that it doesn’t matter the color of your skin, how much money you have, or if you are Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. Everyone in attendance has one goal – to have the girls rescued and reunited with their families. For me, that would be the best Mothers day gift any of us could ask for.”

May 9, 2014

Rare dramatic corruption distracts from real issues

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

Gov. DiPrete dumpster-diving for his bribe, Mayor Cianci convicted for running a corrupt criminal enterprise, and a myriad of law enforcement agencies raiding Speaker Fox’s office. It’s easy for any of RI’s even casual political observers to rattle off a handful of dramatic events of convictions for or allegations of corruption. Among the exhortations to abolish the option to cast a vote for a single party (the “master lever”) was a suggestion that corrupt practices damage economic growth and that such practices would limit business growth in the state.

Color me skeptical. The problems of corruption tend to come when it overwhelms the reliability of basic government function. When it takes a greased palm to move services to act, this is a problem of corruption. When government is slow to act due to backlog or how it functions isn’t clear aren’t problems due corruption, but with bureaucracy and the unutterable phrase of a “too small budget.”

When marquee political names go down under a cloud of corruption, it sticks in the mind. So despite the inconclusiveness of various measures of political corruption in determining where Rhode Island ranks among states, we maintain a deep distrust of our government. And yet I’d gamble that only a small handful of Rhode Islanders have ever had to hand an official a bribe, and that if they have, there’s a high likelihood that official was charged with corruption at some point after.

I think that oftentimes we use “corruption” as a shorthand for all our frustrations with government and the political process. It is a word that encompasses our frustrations so well. It also makes it easier to prevent compromise. Facing an entrenched interest and a set of people who truly believe they are doing their best? Corruption. One cannot negotiate with corrupt forces; they must be utterly destroyed.

Thus when I see the usual suspects crowing over abolishing the master lever receiving a unanimously affirmative vote in the House as though it heralds the dawn of a new era I can do little but shake my head. Does anyone seriously think that removing a simple though confusing voting mechanism will really alter the balance of power in Rhode Island? Why is this energy not focused on better achievements, such as reducing the influence of money in our elections, fostering greater democratic participation, or even simply increasing the ability of constituents to access their representatives?

It’s far easier to focus on sideshows that don’t require much reflection about the government we truly want or require consensus-building. One thing the recent Gallup poll on trust in state governments noticed is that less-populous states are more trusting than more-populous states. I think that’s too simplistic; I think it is that more urbanized states are less trusting than less urbanized states. Rhode Island isn’t like other low-population states. As a highly-dense state population-wise, it’s virtually impossible for seriously corrupt practices to take place without the state’s media hearing of it. Contrast this with states where multiple small towns might be covered by a single reporter or news source and separated by vast geographical distances.

This also applies to the “you gotta know a guy” theory. That theory is brought up especially by people who do not, in fact, know a guy. Due to Rhode Island’s urbanized nature, the vast majority of people served by the state’s bureaucrats don’t know them. It’s a reasonably basic sociological principle that faceless bureaucracy breeds alienation; and undoubtedly Rhode Islanders feel alienated. Contrast that with a small town, where the local bureaucrat might be your childhood friend and knows everyone on sight. It’s much harder to feel alienated from them; it’s also far easier to forgive their transgressions.

But reducing alienation is not half as sexy an issue as “fighting corruption.” For one, it requires thoughtful investment in government and its employees; not a high priority for our fair-weather government reformers. And it offers none of the drama. No one is ever dragged out in handcuffs for alienating the citizenry. Target 12 and the I-Team don’t focus on callous government employees and process. “Bureaucratic processes confuse, frustrate citizenry” isn’t a Pulitzer-winning story.

To me, the hoopla over the master lever signals the lack of seriousness among so-called “leaders” for addressing problems within Rhode Island’s government. It’s a shallow issue for shallow people; up there with tossing loads of cash at 38 Studios (or any other corporation looking for a handout) or cutting taxes of the already-wealthy.

May 9, 2014May 9, 2014

Fracking: not in our back yard

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

In case you haven’t heard: Congress is making some MAJOR decisions right now about fracking. The oil and gas industry is lobbying to pass a bill that would fast track the approval of fracked gas exports. This legislation would lead to more fracking in communities across the United States and increase gas prices for U.S. consumers.

We know why the oil and gas industry wants to export fracked gas — they stand to make quite a profit by selling to countries like China and Ukraine. This bill is making fast progress in the House — but we can stop it in the Senate. Rhode Island’s delegation will help.

“Senator Reed has real concerns about the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and public health,” said Chip Unruh, a spokesman for Reed. “He is a cosponsor of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act). This bill would require fracking to be subject to the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation would also require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations.”

But, the oil & gas industry is promoting a PR campaign to convince Americans that *fracking* is THE answer to American energy independence. This lie is so widespread that I even hear b.s. PR on my beloved NPR. In fact, I’ve been listening to it for months now.

That’s right, folks. NPR. (Is nothing sacred?)

NPR is a valuable public resource, so I don’t mean to hate on it. It is an entity that remains vulnerable to such corporate arm-twisting. Nonetheless, when it runs stories about families who are sick as a result of fracking, then pushes “Think About It” ads a few minutes later, there is a blatant contradiction here. There exists an utter disregard for Truth, and lack of accountability.

Let me sidebar for a moment, and point out some key stats that emphasize why this should get you riled up:

In rural Pennsylvania counties where fracking began, sexually transmitted infection rose by 32.4%- (that’s 62% more than the increase in rural unfracked counties).
Social disorder crimes — especially substance abuse and alcohol-related crimes — increased by 17% in counties with the highest density of fracking (compared to only 13% in unfracked rural counties).
Heavy-truck crashes increased by 7.2% in counties with high fracking activity (whereas they fell in unfracked counties)
Truthfully, fracking only exists because frackers passed “The Halliburton Loophole” which allowed them to frack our land / water without telling us what chemicals they used. Without such secrecy, it is unlikely that fracking would have been allowed at all, in dozens of states. We know that even the EPA was convinced to cover up its own research that proved fracking had contaminated groundwater.

Fracking will continue to poison our water, air, and health, while increasing methane emissions in the atmosphere, unless we ACT. This means we must hold our politicians AND journalists accountable, (Yes NPR, I’m lookin’ at you!) and each do our part to speak the truth. Our quality of life depends on it; our collective future demands it of us.

So please, do yourself (and your neighbors) a favor: Tell your Senators to oppose fracked gas exports. Tell them we are paying close attention, and will no longer tolerate anything but GREEN energy independence. And if possible, get involved in the “Don’t Even Think About It” push to get the American Natural Gas Alliance off our airwaves.

May 8, 2014May 9, 2014

Deepwater Wind is avoiding whales, John Lang is looking for them

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

A North Atlantic right whale mother and calf pair in Rhode Island Sound, April 2011. (Credit: Christin Khan, NEFSC/NOAA)

North Atlantic right whales, the most endangered mammal on the planet, were once a regular attraction here in the Rhode Island.

“In February 1828, ‘a Right Whale forty four feet long, and rated at about seventy barrels of oil, was killed in the waters off Providence, R.I., after having been seen for several days ‘sporting in our river’,'” wrote URI Oceanography professor and right whale expert Bob Kenney wrote in the 2010 Ocean Special Area Management Plan.

These massive marine mammals – they can be 50 feet long and more than half that wide – still travel our waters on their annual spring migration from Florida to the Cape Cod Sound. In 2011 57 were spotted in Rhode Island Sound. And in 2010, 98 were noticed here. That’s approximately one-fifth of the remaining population. An endangered species, there are said to be fewer than 500 left in existence.

“Potential impacts on right whiles must be considered for all construction activities or on going operations for any alternative energy development,” wrote Kenney in the 2010 Ocean SAMP.

And so yesterday Deepwater Wind announced that it would add extra precautions as it studies these waters for the first ever large-scale offshore wind farm in the United States.

“We could plow forward with plans and fight it out at the end,” said Deepwater Wind CEO Jeff Grybowski, “or you can decide to embrace solutions constructively.” He said the concessions will cost his company “several hundred thousand dollars.”

The agreement, signed with the Conservation Law Foundation and applicable only to the planning phase of the project, says Deepwater won’t construct weather towers in the spring when whales are likely to be in the vicinity. It also requires the company to employ year-round “real-time human monitoring for whale activity in the site area,” according to a press release.

This could potentially be good news for John Lang, skipper of the MV Ocean State, a 36-foot center console boat he uses to search for entangled or otherwise distressed whales in the waters of Rhode Island. To his knowledge, he’s the only one actively looking for whales in these waters. Check out his Facebook page here.

“If I could afford to go out every day, I’d find an entangled whale,” he told me as we motored out of Narragansett Bay Thursday. He can’t afford to go everyday, as it can cost him upwards of $1,000 a trip in fuel.

We were planning to “run the trap lines,” or check the network of lobster traps and gill nets used for commercial fishing that can entangle whales and other marine mammals. “There are strings of them, for miles and miles.” His routine is to look anywhere from 20 miles south of Block Island to just east of Nantucket.

Lang says whales frequently become entangled in fishing gear, and research shows it is a major cause of unnatural whale death. In 1995, an entangled right whale washed up dead on Second Beach in Middletown, and in 2000 an entangled right whale was found floating dead off Block Island.

In other states, networks of volunteers and scientists monitor offshore waters for entangled whales. Lang thinks the only reason entangled whales are being spotted off Rhode Island is because no one is looking.

A wildlife cinematographer by profession who earlier studied the spotted owl, Lang sailed solo from Miami to the Ocean State four years ago and decided to stay. Last year, he decided to help protect whales while he’s here.

“I can drive a boat and I’ve always worked with endangered species,” he said. “That’s the core of the mission. If I get an email from the network, there’s a good chance I can find that whale and wait with that whale until the recovery team comes. Nobody else as far as I know would be ready to go in a moment’s notice in a boat that can go 50 here in Narragansett Bay.”

He has yet to see a whale, but for the time being he’s willing to invest his own money in looking.

“I’m gonna have to be patient,” he said. “It might take a year or two, it might take two or three years. But at some point, though, we will, we will get our whale.”

May 8, 2014May 9, 2014

A General Assembly, united

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

The prospect of a Constitutional Convention in Rhode Island is among the most prescient and hotly debated issues in Rhode Island politics today. Detractors of a Con-Con worry that the influence of monied special interests would essentially buy their way into a constitution that benefits those special interests. Supporters say that the convention would be a perfect opportunity to equalize, to some extent, the balance of power between our legislative and executive branches. These are certainly not the only pro/con arguments vis-a-vis a constitutional convention, and both sides have extremely valid points, but one radical idea that I think is missing from the discussion is the opportunity to create a unicameral legislature in Rhode Island.

For many years, the R.I. House and Senate have suffered from a serious disconnect. While the two bodies may convene mere steps away from one another, there seems to be a gaping intellectual and ideological chasm between them. All too often, bills that have broad-based support in the House fail to even make their way out of committee on the Senate side, and those that do often face unwarranted scrutiny and kibbitzing on the Senate side. Let’s look at some examples.

Last year, the issue of Same Sex Marriage was passed from the House floor 51-19; an overwhelming majority. When the bill reached the Senate, there was an effort to change the bill by inserting some outrageously discriminatory language concerning the “rights” of business owners to refuse their services to prospective same sex couples if they had a religious or moral compunction to do so. Most civil liberty watchdogs saw that these provisions fell dangerously close to “separate but equal,” and the bill eventually passed into law unadulterated due, in large part, to (GASP!) Senate Republicans.

For the last four years, the issue of Payday Lending Reform has garnered a lot of attention. The coalition behind the reform legislation has worked tirelessly to inform the legislature on the predatory lending practices of these institutions, and last year had support from 52 of 75 Representatives and 28 of 38 Senators, but can’t seem to make it out of committee on either side. While this is not indicative of the disconnect between the two bodies, it is indicative of the influence of lobbies on our legislature. Despite the broad support, one man, former Speaker of the House and lobbyist for one of the two payday lenders operating in Rhode Island, Bill Murphy, seems to be single-handedly preventing the legislature from executing the people’s will.

This week, the move to abolish the master lever, or single-party vote, passed through the House unanimously, 71-0. The bill has 18 cosponsors in the Senate – which is just one shy of the votes it would take to pass this bill – and yet, it seems that Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed is all but completely ignoring what most rational folks would call a mandate, and not immediately urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to move the bill to the Senate floor for a straight up/down vote. Paiva-Weed has vowed to “keep an open mind” and “review the testimony,” but those statements are akin to your parents’ answer of ‘maybe’ when you ask if you can have ice cream. 99 times out of 100, maybe means no.

So, why is there this gap between the House and Senate? The House is arguably a more accurately representational body than the Senate, so why is the Senate not taking their cues from their colleagues in the House? Frankly, I am at a loss as to why this happens, but I think that a unicameral legislature would go a long way to fixing this problem while, at the same time, streamlining the committee process.

In a unicameral legislature, the number of committees could be cut in half. No longer would concerned citizens and public interest groups have to attend two committee hearings on the same issue, delivering the same testimony to both bodies. No longer would electeds have to serve on more than two committees, which often forces them to duck out of one committee meeting to attend another, often missing critical testimony on a particular issue. I daresay we could expand the membership of existing committees, which could – and would – provide for a more vigorous vetting process for proposed legislation.

Keep in mind, I am not proposing to eliminate the Senators, just the Senate. The unicameral legislature would become a single body of 113 members, with half the number of committees to staff, and cut staffers at the state house in half. Just having a single press bureau for the legislature would cut spending significantly.

Over the years, there has been a lot of speculation of the effects of consolidating municipal services in Rhode Island. Most agree that we could save a ton of money by allowing cities and towns to share services and financial burdens, but let’s start by looking to the body that affects all of Rhode Island: our fractured General Assembly.

(Note: The only state in the U.S. that has a unicameral legislature is Nebraska. Their legislative elections are also non-partisan, which is a whole other post!)

May 8, 2014

Andrew Winters and institutional bullying at URI

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

“Midnight Tonight: Students Protest LGBT Campus Safety at University of Rhode Island.” This was the headline on a Campus Pride blog of September 22, 2010, announcing a round-the-clock occupation of the URI library “to ensure the safety and inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, faculty and staff.”

When the dust had settled in early 2011, students awarded their adviser, Andrew Winters, a “Certificate of Service and Admirable Citizenship,” honoring him as their advocate.

Within weeks, Andrew, at the time assistant to the VP for student affairs, received a blistering letter of reprimand. It consisted of unsubstantiated accusations and personal insults, and ended with a demand for his silence and the following threat: “If you do not comply with the above expectations […] you will face disciplinary procedure up to and including termination.”

Several weeks later, Andrew went on administrative leave; in June he succumbed to the pressure and left. Ever since, university officials have refused to comment other than stating to the press that he “retired,” and that: “Everyone was in agreement around the terms. He was not forced to retire.”

In fact, Andrew was bullied and coerced into a separation agreement that he signed under duress. Since then, also Joe Santiago, his former assistant, was “let go” from his position at the University without written notice or explanation.

Much of this, and another University of Rhode Island case of bullying has been on the news lately. See the Hummel Reports:

Also see this report in Unfiltered Lens, a student newspaper.

After what university administrators spun as retirement, Andrew has spent most of his time trying to correct these systemic problems with their countless victims of which he is one.

In spite of increasing awareness of the need for corrective action, elected officials and the Board of Education have, as is their pattern, neglected their responsibility. In Andrew’s case, inaction has been justified by: “He should take his case to court and have the separation agreement reversed.” But “liberty and justice for all” too often is an illusion for those who cannot act without the terror of losing their physical, emotional and economic health.

The root cause of the systemic failure at the University is that over the last 50 years state funding has dropped from 60% in the 1960s to a current low of less than 10%. As a consequence, university administrators have become public relations representatives whose main concern is financial rather than academic strength.

In the resulting environment of a privatized, bottom-line driven institution advocates for victims of bigotry, discrimination or sexual assault will be shot as messengers who threaten the “product brand.”

Silence and coverup also affect the public as this corporatized environment allows officials to enter into separation agreements with clauses such as this:

The University will not contest or object to Mr. Winters’ eligibility to collect and receive unemployment benefits or compensation.

As mentioned, Andrew Winters was coerced into this agreement. He would not have been entitled to unemployment compensation, had he retired voluntarily, as the University claims. He lost his job, and was qualified to collect, after he informed Department of Labor officials of the circumstances of his departure.

What excuse does the University have for doling out unemployment benefits and compensation via a ploy that cannot see light of day”

The regular citizen recognizes this for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud the People of Rhode Island. As in the case of 38 Studios, complicit officials leave it to the public to foot the bill for their shady deals.

The Rhode Island Legislature may have begun to address this misappropriation in the submission of House Resolution 2014 H 7669 “Creating a special legislative commission to investigate issues of fairness in the hiring and retention of certain faculty members and employees of the University of Rhode Island.”

Surely it is long past time to restore ethics and transparency to higher education and to public institutions in Rhode Island, and long past time to correct the injustice done to Andrew Winters, Joe Santiago and the People of Rhode Island.

We, the People, shall not rest until we have eradicated misappropriation, bullying, and suppression. We shall not rest until we have established a system of collaboration, transparency and justice for all.

May 7, 2014

GOP’s Luis Vargas: Just wrong on history, church and state

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

Luis A. Vargas, the new Director of Strategic Initiatives for the RI GOP has been tasked with “spearheading” the new initiative, “‘Oportunidad para Todos,’ aimed at reaching out to Rhode Island’s Hispanic population.”

It is difficult for the GOP to make significant inroads with the Hispanic population, as the conservative, anti-immigration policies mostly favored by that party tend to alienate potential voters. So what can a young, conservative pre-law Roger Williams University student highlight about the Republican Party that might appeal to Hispanic voters?

Religion, of course.

This seems like a good bet, because the GOP has benefited in the past from the crass exploitation of religious values, courting voters on divisive social issues such as reproductive and LGBTQ rights even as they ignore the deeper issues of economic and political injustice. Part of this strategy has always involved denying certain historical truths about United States history, one of the biggest being:

This was in response to the Humanists of Rhode Island’s announcement of the Day of Reason. Think about this for a moment. This guy wants to be a lawyer, but he does not understand one of the essential building blocks upon which our country was founded. As legal scholar Garret Epps wrote in the Atlantic:

The words “separation of church and state” are not in the text; the idea of separation is. Article VI provides that all state and federal officials “shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause… provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”–meaning that not only no church but no “religion” could be made the official faith of the United States. Finally the Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (These prohibitions were extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment, whose framers in 1866 wanted to make sure that the states maintained free, democratic systems instead of the old antebellum slave oligarchies that spawned the Civil War.)

More insultingly, Vargas goes to a University that is named for the man who first coined the phrase! More from Epps:

In 1644, the American theologian Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist congregation in the British New World, coined the phrase to signify the protection that the church needed in order to prevent misuse and corruption by political leaders: “The church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the antitype were both separate from the world; and when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness.”

As to Vargas’s second contention, that “our government isn’t secular,” that’s equally ridiculous. If our nation isn’t secular, then it must be religious. If it is religious, then what religion is it? No fair saying “Christian” because Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a label for a set containing many different beliefs all of which are considered to be inspired by Jesus. This set includes Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Congregationalists and many more, perhaps too numerous to count.

The reason all these contesting Christianities can get along (and get along with members of other religions and yes, get along with those of us who have no religion) is that we live in a country that grants no favor to one form of religion at the expense of another. All these different forms of belief and non-belief exist within a secular framework, our government.

If, as Vargas maintains, our government is not truly secular, then it is malfunctioning. That’s where groups like the Humanists of Rhode Island and the ACLU come in. We fight for freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and a secular world in which all are free to believe as their conscience dictates.

This is not the end of Vargas’s foolish pronouncements. He also denies that our country is a democracy, preferring to call it a Constitutional Republic instead. Of course, the word democracy is not in conflict with the ideas of a Constitution or a Republic, but Vargas doesn’t care about things like facts. When pressed, Vargas presents a strict definition of democracy as “one person one vote” and makes up a brand new term to describe our government. We are not a democracy, we are “an accommodating republic.”

Got it. If you can’t win on the merits try to blind ’em with bullshit.

It’s often said that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Hopefully, as Vargas continues his education, he’ll gather more facts and revise his opinions.

One final point:

Pandering to religion isn’t the sure bet it once was. A new Pew Poll reveals that 18% of Hispanics are religiously unaffiliated. The Catholic Church is hemorrhaging Hispanic numbers at a rate that suggests that in the very near future most Hispanics will not be Catholic, even if most Catholics are Hispanic. In light of such polls the GOP might think about crafting policies that benefit potential voters rather than pander to their religious biases, but I wouldn’t count on that happening. It’s much easier to hire someone like Luis Vargas, who wears his religious bigotry on his sleeve as he tweets out such beauties as:

Vargas is obviously a great, forward thinking addition to the RI GOP team.

May 7, 2014May 7, 2014

Let’s not mince words, we were bowling for abortions

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

On Sunday, April 27, I had the pleasure of bowling at a fundraiser that benefits the “Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island.” This annual bowlathon is part of a national campaign that funds abortion services for people who demonstrate financial need. Anyone who needs abortion services should have access to them, regardless of financial state, location or any other of the many factors that keep pregnant people from accessing necessary reproductive services.

If you clicked the national campaign link above, you will see that our little state is 9th (!) in ranking nationwide. This makes me happier than I can say. I am proud of this work; it is one of the most important things we can do to help people claim autonomy of their bodies and make personal choices regardless of access restrictions.

With a couple of new state bills proposed that would limit abortion access in Rhode Island, we have to take a critical look at our state’s commitment to bodily autonomy and personal choice. The most infamous of these bills, proposed by State Representative Karen MacBeth of Cumberland, has been brought back and struck down every year for the past five.

Karen, move on. Forced ultrasounds are not informing people of the choice they are making. Abortions are a deeply personal choice and quite frankly, none of your damn business. This bill is an act of intimate violation of a person’s body by the government. Every pregnant person has a right to decide what to do with their bodies without your interference.

With H 7303 and other bills like it creeping steadily into our legislation, we need to think about how we phrase our fundraising and work that we do in this state. “Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island” feels like code. Why aren’t we more transparent about the work we are doing? Why is the word “abortion” skirted around? If you visit the WHEFRI website, you see in clear language that these funds are going to abortion services. The more we use the word abortion, the less stigma there will be attached to it. I encourage the Board Members of WHEFRI to look deeply at the name and think about changing it to bring light to this important work under no cloaks or guises.

I’d also like to address with use of the word “Women.” We have to recognize that abortion services need to be available to everyone, regardless of gender identification. In that I mean that not all people who need access to abortion services are women. A transgender man may need abortion services. A non-binary person may need services. Keeping around terms like these may limit people’s access to these funds. I do not mean to say that WHEFRI would ever discriminate against someone because of their gender, however I will posit that it may make a pregnant person who does not identify as a woman question whether they would have access to these funds. Inclusive language is something we need to address in the reproductive justice world; without it we are limiting who we reach. If we want all people to have access to abortions, let’s work on how we present our mission and work.

As one of the biggest access funds in the state, we should be shouting loud and proud. Let’s work on ensuring that all pregnant people have access to abortion services and that our work is recognizable as such. I want to make Rhode Island a forerunner for reproductive justice.

May 7, 2014

Corporate tax cut nay but combined reporting yay

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

Since Rep Nick “Jobs and Economy” Mattiello has risen to the throne of speaker of the house, there seems to be a wave of pro-corporate, anti-human legislation making its way through the halls of the Marble Monolith, and quickly. The latest of these ‘improve-the-business-climate’ bills to bubble to the greasy surface of the General Assembly is Senator Daniel Da Ponte’s legislation to reduce the corporate tax rate in Rhode Island.

Frankly, I’m getting really tired of debunking the idea that reducing the corporate tax rate will do anything to revive the stagnant economy in Rhode Island but, in the immortal words of David Coverdale, “Here I go again, on my own. Going down the only road I’ve ever known.”

In a press release, dated May 6, 2014, Senate Finance Committee Chair Daniel Da Ponte says that he will introduce legislation to reduce the corporate tax rate from nine to seven percent, beginning in 2015. There are several telling – and disturbing – passages in the release. The first passage that pricked up my progressive ears and raised my journalistic hackles was this.

Chairman Da Ponte developed the legislation, with assistance from the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, following a series of meetings with large employers from a cross section of industries.

Hmmm, meeting with “large employers.” I’m going to guess that doesn’t mean small business men and women that happen to be portly. Let’s just assume that the “largest employers” in R.I. are those that occupy the top six tax brackets. According to the R.I. Division of Taxation, there are 2,144 businesses in those six brackets. I don’t want to downplay the importance of these large businesses on our economy, but on the other hand there are 47,555 businesses in the bottom two tax brackets. I’m no economist, but it seems to me that if one wanted to have a significant and broad impact on businesses across the state, one would focus their attention on the most significant and broadest swath of businesses, that is, small businesses.

I’m going to write the next sentence in bold caps so that everyone understands the situation, and, yes, I am “internet yelling.”

THE ONLY SECTOR OF RHODE ISLAND CORPORATE ENTITIES THAT PAY ANYWHERE NEAR NINE PERCENT INCOME TAX ARE BUSINESSES THAT POST LOSSES OR EARNINGS UNDER $250,000 PER YEAR!

Did you get that? Only the smallest businesses in RI actually pay anything vaguely resembling the 9 percent mandated by our tax code, and then some. In fact, the 18,390 Rhode Island businesses that posted adjusted net losses of $161,284,348,417 actually paid $10,181,122, which is an astronomically high tax rate. To put that in perspective, the 214 businesses in the top bracket – earning $500 million or more – and whose adjusted income was a whopping $344,338,188,611, paid only $18,641,027; a mere .00541 percent.

Tom Sgouros has an Op-ed on the Providence Journal today which breaks down this misconception nicely. Sgouros writes, in response to his recent debate with right-wing hack-conomist Stephen Moore, who advocated for reducing the corporate tax:

“Moore was apparently unaware that a Democratically-controlled legislature could act this way, and went on to talk about Rhode Island’s corporate income tax, calling it among the highest in the nation. Well, yes, the rate is the fourth-highest, at 9 percent. But in reality, the tax is so riddled with exemptions and credits that 94 percent of businesses pay only the minimum. The tax will raise $133 million next year, and according to the Division of Revenue, 42 percent of the exemptions and credits are worth $83 million. (They have no idea how much the remaining exemptions and credits cost us.)”

Maybe this wouldn’t be so bad if the words, ‘Small business is the lifeblood of the Rhode Island economy’ fall lugubriously from so many willfully ignorant or intentionally deceitful elected officials’ lips. My question is this: If 94 percent of corporations already pay only the minimum tax rate, which I believe is 4.5 percent, what impact does reducing the rate from 9 to 7 percent have? The answer is simply this: none. Da Ponte is quoted in his release as saying:

“A two percentage point reduction in the corporate tax dramatically improves Rhode Island’s competitive position nationally and regionally. After meeting with more than a dozen important corporate partners, I’m convinced this will improve the business climate here. This allows existing companies to expand, and helps to attract new companies and new jobs to our state.”

Is Sen. Da Ponte really that gullible? After meeting with the folks that stand to benefit from the reduction , he’s “convinced” that this will help the Rhode Island economy? Maybe I’m missing something here, but I fail to see how this move will benefit anyone except those 2,144 large corporations which, by the way, represent only 3.65 percent of all Rhode Island businesses, and already pay well below 9 percent in income taxes. The release also states that:

The bill would shift Rhode Island to a single-sales factor apportionment formula, calculating a corporation’s tax based on its sales in Rhode Island versus its total corporate and affiliate sales.

This very well could be an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to righting our economic ship, but only if the same standards are applied to small businesses that sell and ship products out-of-state. The state’s historical propensity to screw the small businessperson gives me little hope that this will actually be the case if the bill passes.

There is one bright spot in the bill, however. There is a provision to introduce combined reporting to multi-state businesses that are headquartered in RI. Bob Plain has done a nice job right here on RI Future of outlining the benefits to our state of combined reporting for RI-based companies that do interstate and international business.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. You can see the 2012 corporate tax revenue table for all Rhode Island businesses here. The table lays it all out in black and white; or red, if you’re one of the 18,000-plus small businesses that posted a loss in 2012. Math was never my strong suit, but it seems to me that Da Ponte’s numbers don’t add up. This is just another case of the Rhode Island legislature fellating Big Biz, while continuing to screw small business sans lubrication.

May 7, 2014May 8, 2014

Ceremonial prayer violates the conscience of everyone

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

A few days ago the Supreme Court gave a thumbs up to government sanctioned Christian prayers taking place before secular government meetings. For nonbelievers and believers alike, this was a disappointing decision.

To many millions of people, prayer is an important part of their lives. It can be a meditative and calming practice, and a direct path to accessing the mind and grace of a God. It can be a deeply moving process of extreme intimacy and importance.

Ceremonial prayer, by contrast, has long been acknowledged as religiously meaningless. As Justice Kennedy says in his decision,

Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be under stood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Such prayers are not attempts to secure the favor of a God, they are merely acknowledgments of the fact that some people can’t perform ordinary tasks without first rooting themselves in the mythology of their ancestors. If the prayers were true attempts to contact a God, then they would run afoul of the Supreme Court decision. The prayers, in the context of government meetings, must be ceremonial, or they become illegal.

This state of affairs poses the true believer an ethical dilemma. When participating in the prayer, the true believer must go through all the motions of prayer without actually engaging in real prayer. They must, in effect, pretend to be praying, because the kind of prayer permitted by law must be ceremonial by nature. (Now, this is doubly confusing from an atheist perspective, because prayer is viewed as attempted communication with an imaginary being. The law now mandates that believers pretend to attempt communication with an imaginary being, which just seems a step too far.)

People of many religious faiths might take exception to the idea that they must, for secular purposes, play-act elements of their faith in a secular public forum. Some take their religion very seriously, and to perform prayer cermonially may violate their conscience. These people, when confronted with such a dilemma, might pray for real, not just pretend to. In such cases, even though it will be impossible to prove or to demonstrate, the First Amendment will be violated, according to the Supreme Court.

Some people of faith will therefore have an impossible decision: They can either betray their God by falsely praying or betray their country by truly praying, an impossible conundrum the concept of separating church and state was invented to avoid. The First Amendment was born out of a desire to protect the conscience of American citizens. In this respect, Greece versus Galloway was a very unfortunate decision for religious believers.

Atheists and Humanists by comparison, won’t have it that bad. Would we have preferred to have ceremonial prayer simply done away with? Certainly. We do not want to feel pressured to violate our consciences by pretending to pray. We don’t like the idea that when we show up at a legislative hearing to plead our case that we can immediately be marked as outsiders because we refuse to participate in the prayer.

A different outcome in Greece v. Galloway would have protected the consciences of the nonreligious and religious alike, but Kennedy’s decision contains the interesting caveat that ceremonial prayer must always be done “with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs.” The decision also mandates that the prayers do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.” Finally, local governments must make “reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders” and welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, regardless of their faith.

This means that the State of Rhode Island, as well as all its cities and towns, must open their ceremonial prayer process to “all of the congregations located within its borders” and this includes, for purposes of the law, nonbelievers. Already the American Humanist Association has started a registry for people certified to do secular invocations. Humanists and atheists across the country are signing up, ready to enter town halls and other legislative bodies with the intention of offering ceremonial platitudes that do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.”

We already have at least two Humanists/atheists ready to deliver ceremonial invocations in Rhode Island, and we’ll have many more lined up soon.

May heaven help those who try to stop us.*

*not an actual prayer

May 7, 2014May 7, 2014

Is Donald Sterling bad, or bad for business?

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

Donald Sterling had a long history of controversial racial stances. However, it was not until sponsors threatened to pull out that the NBA woke up. While it’s wonderful that many in the business community are willing to distance themselves from racism, how much of that is financially motivated? I wonder why the business community has remained quiet over the Washington Redskin’s issue?

It’s morality by pocketbook. Money can create a Potemkin village illusion that all people are treated equally. We continue to fall for that illusion. As Bob Dylan once wrote “Money doesn’t talk, it swears.”

Cliven Bundy’s comments, Paula Deen’s fiasco and now Donald Sterling’s diatribe, these are salient examples of just how volatile race relations continue to be. As a nation we’ve come a long way, but there is still much to be done. There may always be individuals like these folks. Sometimes they wind up paying a heavy price – fines, condemnation, becoming a historical pariah. Still, larger problems exist. Why are they sometimes allowed to maintain positions of power? Why didn’t others speak out against them? We will single out an occasional jerk from time to time, but fail to recognize cultures that allow them to function.

Donald Sterling’s comments are certainly cause for concern, but what motivates a portion of our response is troublesome. It appears as though the National Basketball Association was more influenced by sponsors pulling advertisements than simply doing the right thing.

We have made some significant inroads when it comes to race relations in America. But, let us not fool ourselves. There is not as much benevolence going on in the NBA as many would like to think. There is also not as much altruism (and benevolence) happening in parts of Corporate America as well. All too often it is more about money than it is about doing what is right. Money cannot buy you love – but it seems to be able to buy the appearance of tolerance in some instances.

Now, if only the Native Americans could have a bit more clout with Corporate America.

May 7, 2014May 7, 2014

Why I’m running for state representative

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

Yesterday, we held the official kickoff for my campaign for state representative in House District 4. I thought this would be a great opportunity to share why I’m running with the RIFuture community.

Growing up, I learned everything I know about resiliency from my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own and made sure we got a great education and had terrific role models. My grandma, who was an executive director of Planned Parenthood in the years before Roe v. Wade, taught me the importance of empowering people to make choices for themselves. And my grandpa, a refugee of the Holocaust, came to America with the deepest appreciation for our democracy, which I carry with me every day.

I came here six years ago for school, and I stayed for Providence, and Rhode Island. I’ve chosen to make my home here because there is no city with as much beauty, character and diversity on every block as we have in Providence.

We live in an amazing place. But we all know our community faces huge challenges. There are too many people out of work, too many young people who aren’t getting the education they deserve. My family always taught me, when there’s a challenge, you roll up your sleeves and bring the folks impacted together to solve it. That’s why, in 2010 I co-founded a youth-led nonprofit that brings high school students together to push for stronger public schools. I’ve seen passionate young people in the Providence Student Union win healthier school lunches, change transportation policy so hundreds of students have a way of getting to school safely, and fight the misuse of standardized testing.

These students inspired me to run for office, because they’ve shown me what can happen when community voices are actually brought to the table. Too often in our state, decisions get made without the people, whether it’s our students or our small business owners or our neighbors.

I know we can do better. We can have smarter, bottom-up economic development. We can transform schools into places of real, authentic learning. We make our government more ethical and transparent. If our voices are heard.

I have been working hard to build a campaign worthy of your support, knocking on doors, listening to questions and ideas. I am humbled to see the energy and excitement around my candidacy, because – together – I know we can start something new in Rhode Island.

That’s why I want to ask you to join my campaign. Please sign up for updates on my website, let us know if you’d like to volunteer, and consider making a contribution to our campaign and an investment in new, progressive leadership for our state. Thank you. Time to get to work!

May 6, 2014May 7, 2014

Frank Ferri mulls run for Lt Governor

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

Warwick state Rep. Frank Ferri says he’s considering running for lt. governor.

“Our next lieutenant governor must be a strong advocate for entrepreneurs and job creators; protect the critical health care reforms shepherded by Lt. Governor Roberts, and speak truth to power when government isn’t acting in the best interest of all Rhode Islanders,” he said in statement released today.

He added, “I wouldn’t be considering this position if I didn’t think I could make a difference, and so [my husband] Tony and I will continue to explore this unique opportunity to serve over the coming days and weeks. We look forward to making a formal announcement at the appropriate time.”

Ferri has served in the House for six years. During that time he’s been at the forefront of several progressive issues, such as marriage equality and payday loan reform, a bill he first sponsored after his employee fell victim to their cycle debt (that right there says something about Ferri’s progressive chops, I think). He’s championed rolling back income tax breaks to the rich and NECAP graduation requirements for high school students. Earlier this session he told me the General Assembly should legalize marijuana this year.

Political analysts believe Ferri can compete against incumbent Ralph Mollis and Cumberland Mayor Dan McKee, both of whom might pull from the same pool of moderate to conservative Democrats. Ferri, on the other hand, would have the progressive vote pretty much all to himself.

In a satirical look into the future, this blog envisioned Ferri would be governor of Rhode Island some day.

May 6, 2014

Are you there, General Assembly? It’s me, Woonsocket…

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

Hey there, guys and gals.

I was just having a coffee cabinet and some dynamites, thinking about yesterday’s SCORI decision in the Woonsocket and Pawtucket School Committee’s case to alter and accelerate school funding for these two cities, when it occurred to me that I should reach out to you all because, who knows better what’s good for a city than the city itself? Am I right?

So, my good friend, Dave Fisher has allowed my the use of his mind and body to pen this missive, as it were. (For the record, this guy drinks way too much coffee, and is absolutely the worst typist in the world.) So here goes. I know you don’t get a constituent request from an actual community every day, so take a minute. Have a seat. Drink some water. Continue when you’ve regained your senses.

Scratch that. That might take forever for some of you.

I think I should get a bonus for exceeding state affordable housing guidelines. Frankly, so should my brothers Providence, Central Falls, Newport, New Shoreham – or Block Island to the natives, and…oh, right, that’s it. That’s right. Only 5 communities in Rhode Island meet and exceed state minimum housing requirements.

Notice that last word.

Requirements.

As in required.

You see, my four stalwart brothers and I have, in good faith, not only met – but exceeded – your requirements, leaving my remaining 31 brothers seemingly remiss in their dedication to a diversified Rhode Island; a place where people of all colors, creeds, orientations, and tax brackets can live peacefully. I would suggest the carrot and the stick. Those communities who fail to make efforts and progress toward the just goal of a mere 10 percent of their housing stock qualifying as affordable, shall have a proportional reduction in any state education and human services assistance. The withheld assistance shall be proportionally distributed to towns that exceed the state’s requirements. There’s that pesky word again!

While we’re on housing, can you do something about all the old mills around. I’ve lost count of how many mill fires have happened on my soil. How about a tax incentive for developers who refurbish existing commercial structures and land into mixed use developments, provided that the development meets LEED standards. Those old structures aren’t typically very good when it comes to energy efficiency. I think the building trades would love this!

Dave has assured me, that I could use his corporeal form as a vessel whenever I choose, so until next time.

Love,

Woonsocket

May 6, 2014May 6, 2014

DEM, URI team up to help fishing industry

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

The state Department of Environmental Management and the URI Graduate School of Oceanography are partnering to produce more – and more efficient – data and analysis about the fishing industry here in the Ocean State.

The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Institute “will enhance the state’s ability to positively affect marine fisheries research and management,” said Jason McNamee, a DEM biologist. He was speaking to a crowd of scientists, students, bureaucrats, politicians and fishermen at the Mosby Center, the oldest and most waterfront building at the Bay Campus. The group met there to formally bless the effort.

The Institute will focus on both commercial and recreational fishing, which DEM Director Janet Coit said “bring hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs into Rhode Island.”

Oceanography professor Jeremy Collie said he hopes the collaboration can make the state a hub for research and information. “When people have fisheries related questions, they will come to Rhode Island first,” he said.

And the folks from the fishing industry seem happy with the effort too:

As far as what the Institute will do, “I can think of about 50 projects off the top of my head,” said one fisherman in the audience. Ideas ranged from studying closer the emerging squid and scup fisheries, to the effects of climate change – which include some species, like cod and lobster, moving out of local waters and others, like summer flounder, moving in.

“The fishing industry will drive the agenda,” McNamee said. But Collie added, “the focus will be on research, not management.”

May 5, 2014May 6, 2014

State Supreme Court: no guarantee to adequate education in RI

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

Friday was a sad day for the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket, and for disadvantaged children across the State, when the Supreme Court decided that Rhode Island’s Constitution does not protect them from receiving an inadequate education. These children, whose only failure is to live in the wrong ZIP code, are being denied a quality public education without any realistic chance of relief, even though Rhode Island’s current Constitution contains an education clause.

While the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to interpret that clause to help these innocent children and our state as a whole, the Court’s decision squarely places upon our shoulders the opportunity and the responsibility to amend our Constitution to redress our state’s denial of this fundamental civil right.

This case began in 2010, at a time when the General Assembly debated and approved an education aid funding formula. The formula was enacted amid great fanfare, but the school committees of Pawtucket and Woonsocket knew the hype far exceeded the new formula’s actual merit. Four years into the new formula, the children in Pawtucket and Woonsocket still suffer from inadequate facilities and textbooks, insufficient staffing and personnel, and other deprivations which, as the Supreme Court found, results from a “funding system that prevents municipalities from attaining the resources necessary to meet the requirements” of the State’s educational mandates. In fact, these children’s harm will rise (or sink) to a new level this year, as the state is poised to deprive them of diplomas on the basis of NECAP testing, even as the state deprived their schools of the resources needed to prepare them adequately for the tests.

The Supreme Court was candid about the state’s failures, noting that these children “make a strong case to suggest that the current funding system is not beneficial to students in Pawtucket and Woonsocket, especially when compared to other municipalities.” Despite these deprivations and inequities, however, the Court decided it was powerless to intervene, ruling that “the General Assembly has exclusive authority to regulate the allocation of resources for public education.”

Unfortunately, these children cannot realistically pin their hopes on the General Assembly, which already has been told by the Commissioner of Education that the 2010 funding formula made Rhode Island “the state with the best funding formula in the country.” While accepting the value of positive thinking, the simple fact is that if the Massachusetts border moved a few miles south, the children of Woonsocket would benefit from a funding formula and State support that put Rhode Island’s to shame. That is why the great majority of states (including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont) have constitutional protections that empower courts to break through political stalemate, to provide our children with what many call the key civil right of the 21st

By hewing to a “strict construction” of the Rhode Island Constitution reminiscent of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision is a valid exercise of a particular school of legal reasoning, but also a massive missed opportunity to move our State forward in the fields of civil rights and economic development.

With that said, the Supreme Court’s decision speaks with admirable candor concerning the specific ways in which the State’s public education program fails the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket. In this way, the Court’s decision, even as it denies relief for these children under the terms of the State’s current Constitution, helps make an overwhelming case for amending and improving the Constitution to redress this wrong. Currently, there is pending legislation in the House (H7896) and Senate (S2397) to place a question on the ballot permitting voters to approve a Constitutional amendment to establish a right to education that can be enforced in court. In the four years that it has taken for this case to be decided, both the General Assembly and the courts have made it indisputable that such a Constitutional amendment is the only way to protect this vital civil right.

Over the past month, writers on this blog and representatives of the civil rights community have expressed concerns about how a constitutional convention may compromise civil rights that the current Constitution protects. Friday’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that the current Constitution fails to protect a vital civil right that is harming tens of thousands of Rhode Island’s children every day. With this in mind, I wish to offer an invitation to civil rights leaders and progressives statewide. Please join Rhode Island’s children and urban communities in their effort to convince the General Assembly to place a stronger Constitutional right to education on November’s ballot. If the General Assembly allows voters this chance, you can help advance the civil right of education in Rhode Island without the risks you see in a broader Constitutional convention.

Four years ago, Pawtucket and Woonsocket brought their case to the Rhode Island courts. Last Friday, the Supreme Court passed the baton to the General Assembly, the civil rights community, the progressive community and the people of Rhode Island. Please do not miss this opportunity. Rhode Island’s children (and, by extension, Rhode Island’s future) are depending on you.

May 5, 2014May 5, 2014

College profs, conservative activists disagree on tax, migration data

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

Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. In Rhode Island politics this has become the case with the idea that people are fleeing the Ocean State because of our uncompetitive tax structure. But a new local “think tank” has come to a decidedly different conclusion than some of the other local “think tanks” on this question.

“The academic literature is mixed on the question of whether tax rates influence where people choose to live, and research suggests that factors like employment opportunities and quality of life are more salient,” reads the report created by professors from Bryant University and Rhode Island College.

Here’s a chart from the report:

The report “Rhode Island’s Labor Force and Tax Policy in Perspective” was published by the Collaborative, a non-partisan think tank made up of the 11 colleges and universities in Rhode Island. The Providence Journal profiled the group’s efforts in a front page story today. It’s funded by the Rhode Island Foundation and puts college professors and academics together to research ideas related to politics (the governor, House speaker and Senate president “appointed a panel of policy leaders who are responsible for coming to consensus on research areas of importance to Rhode Island.”)

The Collaborative is investigating several areas of research – others include measuring the economic impacts of tax-free arts districts. You can read all their research briefs here.

The tax policy and migration study is politically significant because it draws very different conclusions than reports done by right-wing think tanks in Rhode Island that often generate much media attention and has become a talking point for local politicians.

Rhode Islanders, it concludes, pay less in income taxes than people in neighboring states, and we generally earn less money. It suggests Rhode Islanders aren’t moving to neighboring states anymore than people from neighboring states are moving to Rhode Island and that we aren’t moving to cheaper states like North Carolina and Florida anymore than people from neighboring states.

About unemployment, it says between 2006 and 2012, Rhode Island lost the most jobs from the construction industry followed by manufacturing and then transportation.

About education, it says, “In terms of educational attainment, the primary measure of a skilled labor force, the state ranks below Massachusetts and Connecticut. Perhaps because of this educational difference, Rhode Island has a greater share of its workforce in lower-paying occupations and a smaller portion of its workforce in higher-paying occupations.”

Clarification: Amber Caulkins said the Collaborative doesn’t vie itself as a think tank.

And here’s more on this research and whether or not people vote with their feet when it comes to tax policy.

May 5, 2014

The limits of debating anti-science cranks

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

In February, Bill Nye the Science Guy, from the PBS science show, debated Ken Ham, a fundamentalist preacher who runs the creationist museum in Kentucky on the topic of Creationism versus Evolution. Bill Nye saw this as an opportunity to defend science against the sillier ideas of biblical creationists who believe the universe is only 6000 years old. Ken Ham saw this as an opportunity to spread his religious beliefs and make bushels of money.

Before the debate, many wondered why Nye decided to participate. Ken Ham’s creationist views are not real scientific theories. His ideas are steeped in mythology so weak that few educated persons in Ancient Greece would have taken them seriously. Ham’s views are anti-scientific nonsense, and for a real scientist to treat them with any degree of seriousness at all seemed like a gigantic waste of time.Worse, it was argued that entering into a debate with Ham was a losing proposition from the get go, because being taken seriously by a scientist gives the appearance that Ham’s religious views are in some way equal to science.

Standing on that stage, Ken Ham finally felt that the world was taking his backwards ideas seriously. No scientific point Bill Nye made during the debate mattered because in the minds of Ken Ham and his followers, the fundamentalist preacher was treated as a serious threat to the scientific method and common sense.

Ham won everything he wanted to win before the debate even started. As Michael Schulson writes on The Daily Beast:

You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place.

This came into my mind Saturday morning as I read “‘Noble Lies’ are damaging environmentalism” an op-ed by Tom Harris in the Providence Journal. Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, which denies the reality and devastating future impact of climate change. Harris’s group is political, not scientific in nature. As Cameron Spitzer points out, in a comment on the piece:

The International Climate Science Coalition is “the Heartland Institute wearing a party mask. Heartland is one of the “think tank” public relations (PR) and lobbying firms working to undermine public confidence in science. The project began when epidemiologists linked smoking to cancer, and the tobacco companies hired PR firms to smear them. Then it was lead in paint and gasoline, toxicologists. Then clearcut logging, population biologists. Nowadays the smear is aimed at climate scientists. Various PR firms have been involved over the years and some of the biggest have been there for the whole run.

Harris accomplishes everything he sets out to do just by having his anti-science and frankly idiotic views published in the newspaper. The point of Harris’s piece is not to debate the science but to debate science itself. Just being presented as a serious alternative is a win: the objective is to obfuscate, not educate. Harris does not give two shits about truth, he cares about undermining our confidence in the best tool we have to understand the world, science, so that he and his group can prevent any kind of action on climate change until it is too late.

I’ve written about this before, in response to a similarly idiotic piece in in the ProJo by Steve Goreham, who also heads a science denying institute funded by Heartland. ProJo editor Ed Achorn seems to revel in printing such drivel in his paper, not because they represent good science, critical thinking or facts, but because they reflect his biased, strongly held religious views about Libertarian economics and politics.

How do you answer this kind of junk polemics? What answer can you give to anti-science, anti-human cranks like Achorn and Harris?

The unfortunate answer is: none. Religion, whether it’s centered on God or the Invisible Hand, can’t be countered with rational, scientific and logical thought. Whereas a reasonable, intelligent and honest person sees science as a tool for determining the truth, science deniers like Harris and Achorn see science as an inconvenience when it stands in their way and as a weapon when it favors their views.

Those who routinely hate and deride science that goes against their worldview, are con artists. They are not out to discover and share the truth, they merely seek to deceive as a first step in taking away something precious.

That debating cranks merely empowers them was demonstrated in April, when the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a libertarian economic think tank reputedly funded by the Koch Brothers held “The Great Ocean State Debate” at the University of Rhode Island.

Tom Sgouros and Sam Bell debated Stephen Moore from the Heritage Foundation, yet another Libertarian think tank concerned with spreading the Good News about Ayn Rand. Debating with Moore led Sgouros to the following revelation:

…there is a moral dimension to lobbying. Lives are ruined and people die because of bad decisions made at the state house. Advocates have a responsibility to test their hypotheses in an intellectually honest fashion… A responsible advocate will examine as many possibilities as seem reasonable before insisting on a solution. But I didn’t see any of that curiosity on display Saturday.

This is because Moore was not representing an honest, scientific opinion. He was representing a religious, Libertarian point of view that is as immune to facts as Creationism, Astrology or Bigfootery. Justin Katz, writing on his blog, was annoyed by Sgouros’s spot-on analysis, writing:

It’s nearly breathtaking, Tom Sgouros’s audacity in manipulating facts in order to enable his condescending manner of promoting a downright bizarre version of Rhode Island’s political and policy landscape. Ever the gracious adversary, he takes to RIFuture, today, to insult both his debate opponent on Saturday, Stephen Moore, as well as the organization that put the debate together and gave him a platform for his own point of view.

Katz has framed the debate so as to cast the Center for Freedom and Prosperity as the mainstream and Sgouros as the outsider. This makes sense. Institutions represent power and society, and the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity bills itself as the state’s “leading free-enterprise public policy think tank.” They held their debate at the University of Rhode Island in an attempt to add an academic gloss to their show. The Center is all flash and theater. As Phil Eil pointed out in the Providence Phoenix:

If you’re picturing some kind of imposing home for the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity — a glass cube in Middletown, say, or a concrete bunker in Smithfield with Hulk Hogan’s “I Am a Real American” theme song blasting from outdoor speakers — think again. There is actually is no proper headquarters for the RICFP. The CEO, research director, and outreach coordinator do most of their work from home.

The Center and their guests, Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand institute, represent the fringiest of fringe economics and the economics they routinely espouse is not even classifiable as science in any meaningful way. Though Moore, the Heritage Foundation and the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity avoid the term, they are all serving up some form of Austrian libertarianism or outright objectivism. As John Case points out, “although [the Austrian School] calls itself economics, [it] is better termed a Utopian philosophy…. Instead of paying any attention to data, it accepts as given from God (or nature) the transcendental ‘organizing’ power of the market price mechanism.”

You can’t scientifically debate ideas that are by their nature not scientific. It is a waste of time, and worse, by pretending these ideas are in some way worthy of serious consideration, you give these crank ideas an undeserved veneer of respectability and importance. It is this undeserved sense of importance that Katz evoked in his criticism of Sgouros. Never mind that Sgouros was better informed than his opponent, Sgouros insulted the Center, and if the Center isn’t an institution worthy of respect, why did Sgouros bother showing up? (Sgouros says he got paid to be there.)

I want to end by getting back to the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate. Long before the debate, after Ken Ham built his creationist museum in Kentucky, Ham announced that he was going to build a life sized replica of Noah’s Ark. Unfortunately for Ken Ham, this silly project stalled indefinitely due to the preacher’s inability to gather enough funds. It stalled, that is, until the Bill Nye debate. Publicity for the debate generated all the media attention Ken Ham needed to find people willing to fund his project to completion.

Nye said that he was “heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” continuing, “If [Ken Ham] builds that ark, it’s my strong opinion [that] it’s bad for the commonwealth of Kentucky and bad for scientists based in Kentucky and bad for the US, and, I’m not joking, bad for the world.”

Bill Nye may be right, but the damage done will not be the fault of Ken Ham alone. Part of that damage done must be owned by the Science Guy, who thought he could fight nonsense with logic when he should have just ignored the nonsense. This is the price we pay for condescending to debate the ideas of cranks. We give them false legitimacy. We give them undeserved power, time, money and status even as we ultimately give up our own.

We need a better plan. We have to learn, like the computer at the end of Matthew Broderick’s War Games, that “The only winning move is not to play.”

May 5, 2014May 5, 2014

Ernie Almonte embraces Colleen Conley, and other signs he’s a DINO

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

There are plenty of reasons to assume Ernie Almonte is the conservative in the campaign for general treasurer that features three Democrat and no Republicans. One is that I saw him meeting with Colleen Conley, a tea party activist, in Wickford recently.

They hugged, Almonte gave her a campaign bumper sticker and she put it on her Ford Mustang, which already had a “Don’t Tread On Me” tea party bumper sticker on it.

In Almonte’s defense, he meets with everyone. He also attended the governor’s forum sponsored by the left-leaning Economic Progress Institute and was endorsed last week by the North Kingstown Democratic Party.

But there’s more…

In 2006, he was even briefly a member of the Republican party. He told me he registered to vote in the primary, specifically to vote against then-Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who was challenging Linc Chafee’s senate seat.

“I saw firsthand that he wasn’t for the citizens, he was for himself,” Almonte said of Laffey, who has since relocated to Colorado to pursue a political career there.

Fair enough. But then there are the things he says – they sometimes sound like the words of a conservative, too. Take this video of him speaking to a group of accountants and actuaries in 2012. Eerily similar to Mitt Romney’s 47-percent comment, Almonte sounds shocked when he says 50 percent of America doesn’t pay taxes (I think he meant income taxes). He also says some people “want something for nothing” and that he doesn’t think making $250,000 a year means your rich.

When I asked Almonte about the video, he said his comments were taken out of context and that the video was spliced together to make him appear more conservative than he is. He said he was giving a speech prepared by the auditor general, for whom he was filling in.

He said he does not believe every American should be taxed on their income, and suggested those who earn less than $30,000 should be exempt. And he said he does not think poor people necessarily want something for nothing. “It’s not a broad brush but there are some elements,” he said, recalling a story of an accountant who wanted to collect unemployment benefits before returning to work.

He also stepped back slightly from saying people aren’t rich who earn $250,000 a year, but not too much.

“I think they are well off,” he told me. “I can’t say I think they are rich because I don’t know what they spend.”

The whole package – hugging Conley, voting Republican, saying poor people want something for nothing, essentially welfare-queening an out-of-work accountant in defense of such comments, it makes me wonder how committed to core Democratic values Almonte is, or if he’s like so many conservative Rhode Islanders who run as a Democrat because it’s the easiest path to victory.

“I don’t put myself in a hole of being a conservative,” he told me. “I’m fiscally responsible.”

So I asked him if he would consider running as a Republican or an independent.

“I won’t run as a Republican, and I’m running as a Democrat,” he said.

Sounds like he’s leaving himself some wiggle room to run as an independent, I told him.

“The chances of me running as an independent are about as close to me running as a Republican,” he said. “I never like to say never, but there is probably no chance.”

Then he added, “Wait, can I say that another way? I’m running as a Democrat and I won’t run as a Republican or independent.”

May 2, 2014May 5, 2014

Wingmen: Free market or big government?

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

Finally, Justin Katz and I get down to the brass tacks of it and hash it out over the big picture. Every week, we seem to have one fundamental difference: is the free market better suited to solving social issues than government.

Watch and see if either of us convince you to change your mind:

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

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