April 5, 2016 – RI Future

April 5, 2016April 5, 2016

Rep Coughlin: Democrats ‘pandering’ on marriage equality

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

Representative David Coughlin, who represents District 60 in Pawtucket, ran unopposed during his first election, becoming a state rep with just 725 votes during the 2014 Democratic primary. As a first year legislator he has been a reliable vote for Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s agenda. Coughlin voted for the truck tolls, Tiverton gambling and the subpar minimum wage increases passed last year.

So it was with some surprise that I received an email from a reader containing a screenshot of a Facebook post from Coughlin that seemed to indicate a willingness on his part to break ranks with the Democratic Party over marriage equality. Coughlin’s District 60 predecessor, Elaine Coderre, was a co-sponsor of the marriage equality legislation that ultimately became Rhode Island law.

Coughlin shared a link to a Washington Post piece entitled, “Republican National Committee reaffirms its opposition to same-sex marriage” and wrote:

My recollection is my Democratic Party barely squeezed out a majority of the popular vote last November. If the leadership keeps pandering on this issue they may find a conservative element of the party changes allegiances giving the Republicans a very solid majority next time around.”

Coughlin’s post seems to indicate that the Democratic Party position on marriage equality is “pandering” and that conservative Democrats might bolt the party over this issue and become Republicans.

I emailed Coughlin and House Communications Director Larry Berman for clarification. I wanted to know if Coughlin considered himself part of the “conservative element” of the Democratic Party and if he supports marriage equality. One also wonders if Coughlin would be willing to change allegiances and switch to the Republican Party, as did Representative Karen MacBeth last week, over this or other conservative social issues. His Facebook post seems to indicate that he might.

Coughlin and Berman declined to respond to my emails.

April 5, 2016

Don’t give up on two-state Israel Palestine solution

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

Those writing about the Israel-Palestine conflict often demonize one side or the other, not that hard to do as both have done, and are doing, bad things. But neither Israelis nor Palestinians can make the other side surrender, go away, or disappear, so conflict continues and the demonization doesn’t get either side anywhere. Indeed, this is one element of the destabilization of the Middle East which is putting the whole world at risk.

However, it is possible to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, not by spreading hate one way or another, but by working for a two state solution where Israelis and Palestinians each have their own state. This will require efforts at reconciliation, mutual understanding, and compromise on all sides.

Indeed there is a local RI effort to this end. On April 7, 8, 9 an Israeli settler and a Palestinian activist now working for peace will be talking about “Seeing the Humanity in Your Enemy” at Brown, a synagogue, and a mosque.

The outlines of a two-state solution have long been evident. The Israelis will have to give up the dream of incorporating most of the West Bank, stop the settlement expansion and withdraw from some of them, allow East Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capital, share resources more equitably, end their Gaza blockade, allow freer passage between Gaza, the West Bank, and the rest of the world. Palestinians will have to give up the dream of “right of return” for refugees and descendants to go to Israel, call off boycotts, stop the digging of attack tunnels, accumulating rockets and their occasional firing from Gaza, stop the incitement to kill Jews and the celebration of those who do, accept some temporary security arrangements Israel will insist on, and possibly, allow some Jews to live in their Palestine state. Both sides will have to genuinely accept the national aspirations of the other.

Failure to do these things means the conflict continues. Israelis will live under threat of terrorism, their internal democracy and world standing erodes, and desperate Palestinians will smuggle in even more powerful weapons. Palestinians will continue to suffer under occupation, their area of control will be eroded further, there will be occasional hurtful Israeli reprisals, and the Israeli extremists will grow and do more depredations. This serves neither those who think they are pro-Israel nor those that think they are pro-Palestinian, nor the US whose interests are best served by a resolution to this conflict.

So even though there are no current negotiations, we cannot afford to give up on a two state solution. There is some basis for hope. Despite the extremists, significant numbers of Israelis and Palestinians understand that a two-state solution is in their interest. While it won’t be easy, the United States with our vast power and influence, is uniquely positioned to help jump-start a process to bring this about.

President Obama, before he leaves office, could still help by formally outlining what a reasonable two-state solution would look like with regard to boundaries, trade rules, security arrangements, and religious accommodations. I believe he will find support for this initiative within in the American Jewish and Muslim communities. Any success would be a great legacy for him, a boost to US interests, and greatly benefit both Israelis and Palestinians. After all, with its climate, Mediterranean shoreline, wealth of history, and most of all, the talent of the people of the region, Israel-Palestine can have a wonderful future if only peace can be achieved.

April 5, 2016April 5, 2016

My critical support for the 6-10 boulevard

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

In theory, I think the idea of a 6-10 Boulevard has the potential to be a great project. However, knowing very well how capital in Rhode Island, particularly based around real estate interests in Providence, functions in a way that subverts all good ideas to benefit the rich and disenfranchise the poor, I would like to suggest to legislative steps that need to be taken so to prevent some major issues. To be absolutely clear, I have no ill will towards anyone involved in these efforts and wish them all the best in their efforts, I just also wish the best for the vast majority of people who will be effected by this project if it is actualized. I totally believe these two things are not exclusive and that a synthesis of the two is quite tenable.

Get rent control and community land trusts in place
This effort has a great chance to benefit the vast majority of poor black and brown people who overwhelmingly find themselves utilizing public transit and bicycles to get around. However, looking at the ethnic demographics of this effort’s leadership and their website, I see a lot of white faces and not a lot of concern for the potential of this effort to serve as a vehicle for gentrification.
Last fall, I had the opportunity to go to Washington DC and spend an evening with my friend Ronnelle, a black gay man who went to RIC under the auspices of in-state tuition due to his DC residency. He has been in DC for decades and watched his home gentrified, jesting with me “First comes the gays, then comes the bicycles, then comes Becky with her baby stroller and then it is all over.” Watching the migration habits of the hipster class in Providence is quite disturbing in how it mirrors Washington.
I have spent the past eleven years now watching “development” on Broadway and in the West End. In 2005 I started a high school internship at the Columbus Theater when Broadway was run down, dirty, and had a street that resembled the craters of the moon. By 2010 the street was repaved and business was coming back. But this entailed an ethnic cleansing of the neighborhood that continues. I do not want to see that further consolidated by this boulevard. The last six years have seen this further develop before my eyes.
There are many things that are possible to fight back against gentrification but the two major ones are institution of rent control and creation of community land trusts. They do not take much effort and have extremely valuable benefits for any effort because it indicates to these impoverished residents that you actually care about their plight and not just their taxes.
What about climate change?
In 2010, Rhode Island was inundated by massive flooding across the state. Warwick saw the Warwick Mall totally destroyed by the flood waters and the low lying Shaws supermarket on Warwick Avenue was ruined.

This happened because just adjacent to both sites is the Pawtuxet River. That flooding is going to happen more and more in the next decades due to climate change and the storms it creates. Are we going to have to worry about similar issues caused by the rivers in Olneyville? The Environmental Justice League has been doing some important work in the past few years that shows the neighborhood has some serious pollution issues. Let us also not forget that, as a post-industrial city, there are chemicals in the waterways and grounds that are not forced onto the roadway of the 6-10 connector because it is currently suspended in the air. The type of pollution forced onto such a roadway would not just be chemical, it would include the garbage thrown into these waterways. We need to be certain we have in place mechanisms that will help clean these messes up as they occur.
Get a Spanish language and grassroots presence
Looking at the current website, this effort seems totally based around the English language and white faces. I find this problematic because the communities surrounding the 6-10 connector are well-known for their civic engagement and community activism. The Olneyville neighborhood alone is one of the most vibrant Latino political centers in Rhode Island. It strikes me as odd to have an effort that is going to totally flip these neighborhoods upside down in terms of major commuter routes and it no se habla espanñol. Why not? This community could be one of their greatest allies. This speaks to a greater question, who exactly is asking for this thing? Are we seeing a movement of longtime residents who see this as another element of their emancipation or is it a tool of capital being advocated for by those who either do not know better due to their lack of seniority in community residency? I have tried to ask these questions in private correspondence with some and asked other activists about this effort. The first group have been rather unsatisfactory in their response while the second, composed of those who know everything important to know about issues important to the community, have never heard of this. Both are signs indicative of something that gives me serious pause and concern.

The notion of critical support is a posture which advocates for a cause while also suggesting positive adjustments that can benefit the majority. I want to see a 6-10 Boulevard that helps the many while not giving comfort to those who have failed the black and brown communities on the West End. Gore Vidal once quipped that we have socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor. I hope this roadway might invert that dynamic.