December 28, 2015

First Amendment protects freedom of conscience, not just religion

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

“It is beyond reproach that the First Amendment only protects sincerely held beliefs that are ‘rooted in religion,’” said Assistant Attorney General Adam J. Sholes, as quoted in the Providence Journal.

Sholes couldn’t be more wrong and his position is particularly troubling given that he practices law in the State of Rhode Island, the place where the first government guaranteeing freedom of conscience was formed.

The case revolves around Devon Letourneau and Robert Vangel, two men at the ACI who are suing the state, alleging that “they are being blocked from practicing their faith” while in prison. The faith they maintain they are being blocked from practicing is the Five-Percent Nation, which many in law enforcement see as little more than a criminal gang.

According to the ProJo, “The state is asking that the suit be dismissed, saying that prison officials acted reasonably and in good faith in their official capacities and that the First Amendment and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act do not protect ‘cultural activities and beliefs.’ The state emphasizes that Letourneau and Vangel explicitly reject defining [their beliefs] as a religion and instead consider it a culture or way of life.”

While acknowledging that the state may have compelling interests in preventing these men from engaging in the fullness of their religious practice due to concerns about safety, security and rehabilitation, I have to firmly disagree with Assistant Attorney General Sholes. There is no question that the establishment clause of the Constitution, the part that reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” fully applies.

There are many world views, philosophies, life stances or ways of life that are not religious in nature, yet are considered fully equal to religion in terms of conscience and liberty, under the law. Though I confess to not fully understanding the intricacies of Letourneau and Vangel’s beliefs, from what I’ve read they make no less sense than any number of other religions, faiths and beliefs that are routinely accorded First Amendment protections. Further, non-religious belief systems, such as atheism and Humanism, are protected under the First Amendment as surely as Christianity or Judaism.

Thomas Jefferson wrote “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” He further wrote that officers of civil government should “interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” In penning these words, Jefferson set a high bar for the United States, a bar we have not always met in times of crisis or fear.

According to the ProJo, five states have classified the Five-Percent Nation as a gang or a security threat. This determination in no way diminishes the Five-Percent Nation’s status as a protected belief, but, per Jefferson, creates an onus on the government to take extra care when restricting an inmate’s ability to practice their beliefs.

The state’s defense then, should not be that the Letourneau and Vangel’s Five-Percent Nation beliefs are not protected by the Constitution as Assistant Attorney General Sholes seems to maintain, but that the state has made every safe and reasonable effort accommodate the beliefs.

In doing so, we will have protected not just the beliefs of two inmates, but the liberty of conscience of all Rhode Islanders.

December 28, 2015December 29, 2015

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is impeding democracy

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

Debbie Wasserman Schultz — Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

This country has a problem, and it’s a big one. Our democracy is being corrupted by those who are supposed to champion it. Sadly, it is a problem that has been exacerbated by the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. And it is killing the party.

This year’s presidential primary campaign is case in point. The debates are meant to showcase the Democratic candidates, and the Democratic Party. Wasserman-Schultz’s obvious allegiance to front runner Hillary Clinton is preventing the American people from getting an opportunity to really hear all of the candidates.

To put it bluntly, the debate schedule is a complete farce. Never have there been debates scheduled at such inappropriate times. Democrats should want to showcase our candidates. The contrast with the Republicans are stunning. Why would the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee not want people to see these debates? The only reason that Wasserman-Schultz could possibly have for doing this is to prevent candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley from having a truly national forum to promote their issues, viewpoints, and differences with the other candidate.

The proof is in the numbers. The Republican debates, which have been shown in the middle of the week, have averaged 18.3 million viewers, while the three Democratic Debates have averaged just 10.7 million viewers. Even Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), a vice chairwoman of the DNC questioned Wasserman-Schultz about the lack of debates and was subsequently disinvited to attend the second debate. If the goal of Wasserman-Schultz is to prevent the American people from learning about the candidates, then she is doing a bang up job!

Along with the debate times, there is the threat that Wasserman-Schultz has placed on the candidates who participate in more debates not sanctioned by the DNC. If they take part in any other debates, they will be banned from participating in future Democratic debates. This of course hurts the campaigns of Sanders and O’Malley the most. This is not how a democracy should work.

And then there is the drama of the “untimely accidental breach” by the DNC’s campaign data management company NGP VAN. Instead of doing the right thing, Wasserman-Schultz again attempted to circumvent democracy. The contract, which is signed by the candidates and the DNC, allows the candidate accused of breaching voter information 10 days to investigate, report, and resolve any issues. Bernie Sanders and his campaign were more than willing to abide by that, and they emailed the DNC with their intent to perform a full investigation. But instead of working with Sanders, Wasserman-Schultz went nuclear. She shut off the Sanders campaign’s access to the most fundamental tool of any campaign–the voter file. Think about that for a second. She prevented the Sanders campaign from accessing their own data, data they paid for. Because this was illegal, the Sanders campaign had no choice but to sue. Soon after the lawsuit was filed, the DNC caved and restored the voter file.

In the latest news, the DNC and DWS has awarded Kroll Industries, which is owned by Altegrity, which is owned by our very own Providence Equity Firm, which was bought for over a billion dollars back in June 2010, the honor of doing the “independent” investigation. [Note: Providence Equity Partners no longer owns Altegrity or Altegrity’s subsidiary Kroll, because Altegrity went bankrupt this year. The new name for Altegrity is Corporate Risk Holdings, and it still owns Kroll but is now independent from Providence Equity Partners. See here and here.] Kroll’s history is one of dubious distinction. They have been described as a sort of “private CIA for the Powerful” and they have Goldman Sachs and Chevron written all over them. With a history of falsifying data and illegal wiretapping, Kroll’s is exactly the agency who should not be doing the investigation, hardly independent. There are also direct ties to the Democratic National Committee. The former Deputy Finance Chair for the DNC, Betsy Blumenthal, is now the Senior Managing Director for Kroll Industries. This in itself may be a conflict of interest.

Additional information can be found with the below links.

This whole debacle undermines the Democratic Party. People are sick and tired of the antics of the Chairwoman. In a Moveon.org petition over 55,000 people have signed asking for Wasserman-Schultz’’s resignation. She is alienating new voters and those who are voting for Sanders. And she has definitely put a wedge between the party establishment and its liberal base. This is not what makes a healthy primary campaign or a healthy party. For the sake of both, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to be replaced as soon as possible.

Group Reviewing Sanders Data Breach Has History Of Illegal Wiretapping, Falsifying Data, And More

Curious Choice of Auditor for Democratic Database Flap

Kroll, hired by DNC to investigate Sanders campaign, doesn’t seem very independent from the DNC

December 28, 2015December 28, 2015

Movie Review: Invisible: The Unseen World of Male Prostitution

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

Bella Robinson, sex worker advocate and activist. — Bella Robinson

Invisible: The Unseen World of Male Prostitution is a documentary film set in Providence and featuring Richard Holcomb, founder of Project Weber.

The film portrays every male sex worker as a homeless addict, so they didn’t include any rent boys who have had positive experiences as sex workers. The men seem to be able to work the streets with impunity and they even mention some RI politicians that have been coming there for years. At one point an older man admits that other men pay him to introduce them to the new male sex workers. This is legally defined as sex trafficking. I bet dollar to donuts that they won’t charge the guy with trafficking nor will they implement “end the demand” to target the clients of the male workers, because society has been taught that trafficking only happens to females and yet a few of the men in the film mention they started working the streets as homeless youths at age 13.

I also wonder what these men would have done for drug money had sex work not been a option. Would they have robbed homes, stolen cars etc.? I never heard anyone ask any of them if they ever did sex work after getting clean from drugs. So was it sex work or drugs that was bad for them? I did notice that most of the people in this film have only been clean a few months and I wonder why none of them seemed to have gotten into a long term residential treatment.

I was kind of offended that Richie was badgering the one guy to admit he had done sex work. Richie goes as far as telling one guy its wrong to do sex work now that he is clean from drugs. I have to wonder why Richie thinks there is less shame in doing sex work for drugs, than there is in doing sex work for money to pay the bills. I find shaming sex workers to be in bad taste and abusive. I was horrified that the film used the term “prostituted men” over and over again.

I know many female workers with addictions who end up working the streets and become homeless but they also have to deal with the police trying to arrest them, social stigma and public hatred. Female sex workers are the ones arrested and given criminal records and who are more likely to be robbed, raped or murdered.

I applaud Richie’s efforts in opening a drop in center for sex workers, but I am confused why it’s only for men. Why are female sex workers being excluded from having access to a safe space? I also applaud them for distributing condoms as part of their outreach, but I think they missed the mark by not mentioning that the police use “condoms for evidence” to arrest female and transgender sex workers. These are just a few examples of why we should never exclude anyone from services based on their gender or ignore their needs while drafting public policy. It’s called discrimination.

[Note: Robinson explained in private correspondence with RI Future contributor Andrew Stewart that she has a troubled history with Holcomb and, while appreciative of his efforts, feels he has sadly segued his work with the rescue industry, noting that no one from Project Weber attended last week’s sex worker memorial vigil.]

December 28, 2015December 28, 2015

Poor workers deserve a just wage, a ‘living wage’

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

“An unfettered pursuit
of money rules. That is
the dung of the devil.”
Pope Francis

The Pope doesn’t care much for greed.

The wages of 30 million U.S. workers cause so much misery they leave within a year. The Economist states this chaos continues because, “The most obvious incentive—more money—is often the last to be considered.”

Often, the issue is greed.

Retail and fast-food businesses also stiff taxpayers. Walmart pays ‘low, low’ wages to impoverished employees: Forbes reports taxpayer assistance totals about $6.2 billion annually.

James Parrott, the Fiscal Policy Institute’s Chief Economist, states, “Wages are so low that 60% of fast-food workers qualify for public assistance.”

What to do? Purdue University’s study concluded that doubling Indiana’s fast-food workers’ wages to $15 an hour would raise prices only 4.3 percent. A $3.99 hamburger would increase 18 cents.

This increase is slight because employee turnover is significantly reduced: Recruiting and training costs decrease; worker morale and productivity improves. With current turnover greater than 100 percent, retail and fast-food industries, on average, lose all employees every year.

This can change. Seattle restaurant owner Jeremy Price says of paying $15 an hour, “It has been a positive change for our staff and our business.”

A living wage is a win/win/win: Employees receive a just wage; employers overcome high turnover and reduced productivity; and taxpayers avoid paying ‘corporate welfare’ for low-wage workers.

The primary problem is greed.

The wealthy counter with the myth: “The rich are makers, the poor are takers.” The reverse is true.

First, lobbyists write laws giving corporate welfare for ‘the takers.’ According to the conservative InvestmentWatch, their loopholes and looting are so brazen that, in 1950, corporations paid $3.00 for every dollar paid by workers; corporations now pay 22 cents.

Second, corporations have stashed $2.1 trillion overseas. This ‘takers’ tax scheme, according to the nonpartisan New America Foundation, eliminated 1.3 million to 2.5 million jobs through 2011.

Third, aristocrats’ paltry effective tax rate on inheritance is 17 percent. The wealthy pay only 20 percent on capital gains.

Fourth, it bears repeating: Taxpayers bankroll corporate profits. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is livid, “It costs this state $700 million a year to subsidize the profits at McDonald’s and Burger King—and that is wrong, and that must stop.” UC-Berkeley estimates public subsidies for corporations’ low wages totals $153 billion.

The greedy rich are takers. Justice requires they pay their fair share—in taxes and wages.

Fifth, this myth states government rewards poor people who avoid work. Actually, nearly 90 percent receiving benefits are working or disabled. The rest have job training or must find work to avoid losing their safety net. All laborers, ‘the makers,’ should be paid wages which escape poverty.

Sixth, poor workers pay significant taxes: Sales taxes; Social Security; other taxes on wages; and property taxes—directly, or indirectly through rent.

Seventh, by spending all their pay, the working poor create demand for more products and services. This demand ‘ripples’ from one business to the next, multiplying business spending. Thus, living wages spur economic growth—and poor workers’ increased spending creates jobs.

Eighth, the system cheats workers. Laborers’ wages kept pace with productivity from 1948 to 1975. Since then, productivity increased 100 percent—but wages for ‘the makers,’ adjusted for inflation, declined seven percent.

The working poor are makers. Justice requires they are paid their fair share.

Wage slavery requires abolition. The ‘Fight for $15’ movement is right: The minimum wage must become a living wage.

Barriers to wage justice include ignorance and fear, but the main obstacle is greed, “The dung of the devil.”

Absent government action, businesses can still win—achieving low turnover and high productivity—by paying substantial annual increases until $15 is achieved. In this season of wonderment and thankfulness, businesses must act with courage and caring to restore dignity and decency.

December 28, 2015January 14, 2016

What Progressives want most for the New Year!

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

Here at RI New Leaders Council, we train the next generation of trailblazing political entrepreneurs – civically engaged, socially conscious change makers.

That means no matter whether our people are launching startups, fostering thriving non-profits, or being stellar public servants, they’re focused on the welfare of our larger Rhode Island community. The holiday season is a perfect time to take stock of how we’re improving Little Rhody and brainstorm a wish list for 2016.

At the top of our wish list is that you come celebrate our 5^th year anniversary with us! Scroll to the bottom of this blog for details and make sure to RSVP, we want to see you there. What we’ll be celebrating is at the heart of every progressive in Whoville – starting truly paradigm-shifting change with an inspired community.

Over the past five years we’ve had lots of success in planting some remarkable seeds of change. As many of us huddle around a fireplace drinking eggnog, one example that we can be proud of is NLC Alum Omar Bah, the founder of Refugee Dream Center in RI. Omar has been a strong advocate for refugees, especially as the debate over Syrian refugees rages in national political discourse. Omar is just one example of the over 80 leaders we’ve provided our premiere leadership development training to over the past five years and we’re excited about the growth and impact the next five years will bring!

What is on your wish list of change? We need your ideas, your passion, and your financial support to provide this one-of-a-kind training to leaders outside the traditional power structure.

Join our fantastic board, alumni, and community partners to celebrate and meet our newest 2016 Fellows, just about to embark on the journey of a lifetime. Here are the details, RSVP today:

NLC-RI’s 5^th Year Anniversary Celebration

When:

January 16, 2016 at 6pm – 9pm

Where:

Easy Entertaining
166 Valley St.
Providence, RI 02909

RSVP: http://ri.newleaderscouncil.org/celebration

* Hors d’oeuvres will be served, cash bar available.