Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/load.php on line 651

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/theme.php on line 2241

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

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

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/load.php:651) in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 8
Opinion – RI Future http://www.rifuture.org Progressive News, Opinion, and Analysis Sat, 29 Oct 2016 16:03:26 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.25 Vote like your life depends on it http://www.rifuture.org/vote-gunsense/ http://www.rifuture.org/vote-gunsense/#respond Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:16:00 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=68791 2016-06-02 Orange for Gun Violence 009
Jennifer Boylan

This coming December will mark four years since the shooting of 20 first graders and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Since that shooting, our federal government has not passed a single law to protect Americans from senseless gun violence.

Fortunately, Congress isn’t the only avenue for change. Efforts at passing meaningful legislation at the state level, especially in the northeast, have been a totally different story. Picking up where the federal government has failed us, the state first out of the gate was New York in January 2013.  The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act expanded the definition of assault weapons banned in New York, created a state database for pistol permits, reduced the maximum number of rounds legally allowed in magazines from ten to seven, and required universal background checks on all gun sales.

In April 2013, Connecticut passed new restrictions to the state’s existing assault weapons ban and required universal background checks for all firearm purchases. Governor Malloy signed them into law later the same day.

Also in April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the purchase of 45 types of assault weapons and limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds. It requires handgun licensing and fingerprinting for new gun owners, and bans those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility from buying a gun.

Then in August, 2014, our neighbors in Massachusetts passed a bill reforming the state’s gun laws, with provisions focused on school safety, mental health, background checks and enhanced criminal penalties for gun crimes.

So what has Rhode Island’s General Assembly been doing about gun violence?   So far, virtually nothing. Other than one small measure to require that courts report those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions, our lawmakers have yet to enact any significant gun laws since Sandy Hook.

Rhode Island can and should be doing more to protect citizens from senseless gun violence.  This past session, the Rhode Island chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America supported a bill sponsored by Representative Teresa Tanzi (D – Naragansett, South Kingstown) that would have effectively kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. This bill represents a modest and reasonable improvement to our state gun laws, generally bringing Rhode Island law in line with federal law.  The bill is straightforward:  if you are a domestic abuser, you should not have access to firearms. Polling results that show that four out of five  Rhode Islanders agree that domestic abusers should be prohibited from having guns[i] And we know that domestic violence affects Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens: children, women, and families.

Why have our neighbors in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts passed meaningful gun laws in recent years, while Rhode Island can’t so much as advance a relatively modest, commonsense bill out of committee? The disconnect lies with our elected officials and includes leadership in both chambers of the legislature.  Increasingly, it appears that elected officials are more inclined to listen to the gun lobby than their constituents. 

But this November, every registered voter can make an informed decision about who gets their vote.  I urge all Rhode Island voters to pledge to support candidates who will fight for common-sense laws to reduce gun violence.  Take a few minutes to contact candidates if you do not know where they stand on gun issues and vote accordingly.  Vote like your life depends on it.  Because with over 33,000 deaths from gun violence every single year in our country, your life and the lives of your loved ones very well may.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/vote-gunsense/feed/ 0
Spencer Grassie- Let’s reconnect Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric http://www.rifuture.org/reconnect-olneyville/ http://www.rifuture.org/reconnect-olneyville/#respond Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:28:40 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=68222 Spencer Grassie is a senior at Providence College, majoring in Management and minoring in Finance. He has written the following op-ed:

pc (1)As a current Providence College Friar and a native Rhode Islander, I am passionate about our state and capital city. As a millennial, I want to ensure that future generations have the building blocks necessary to thrive and make a living right here in the Ocean State. That is why the ProJo Editorial board’s piece, “Smart decision on bridges” is short sighted. The idea of turning the decrepit 6/10 Connector into a surface boulevard is about much more than safety.

College students and millennials rely heavily on alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking, ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft), and public transportation. This is not to say that I, or my millennial counterparts, want to get rid of the automobile entirely, but we are drawn to places that offer a unique sense of community. We thrive in cities  that have an array of transportation options, ample amounts of interconnected green space, retailers, and restaurants for social interaction and the exchange of ideas. These places provide people with a genuine emotional connection to the community, one that the car simply cannot replicate.

I attended three public forums on the future of the 6/10, and the general consensus does not want to reconstruct the 1950s style limited-access highway. At the last forum my group envisioned the 6/10 as a tree-lined boulevard, equipped with bike lanes, walking trails, and bus rapid transit running through Providence’s newest mixed-use neighborhood. If Rhode Island is serious about making the state more conducive to millennials and attracting talented individuals and companies, our state leaders should reconsider their position on the 6/10 Connector and recognize the immense value and countless upsides the boulevard concept has for the city and state as a whole.

San Francisco, New York, and Milwaukee deconstructed their highways in favor of boulevards. These cities have proved that replacing a highway with a boulevard has the potential to create a focal point for civic pride while increasing nearby property values and promoting a higher quality of life.

At another forum, Peter Park, a city planning expert, stated that, “The 6/10 boulevard idea is not a technical issue, but a political one.” There are urban planners and transportation engineers who have successfully rolled out projects of similar complexity. The public should not worry about the technical details because these professionals possess the knowledge and skills to get jobs like this done all the time.

We, as Rhode Islanders, have two options: 1) we can continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results or 2) we can facilitate strategic action among private, civic, and public sectors to reverse the dismal public policy decisions of the 1950s by replacing the limited-access highway with an intermodal boulevard.

Let’s choose to reconnect the strangulated neighborhood of Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric, provide opportunities for disenfranchised residents, lower our infrastructure’s annual maintenance costs, and add properties to the city’s tax rolls. But most importantly, let’s choose to build a civic point of pride, one that makes us proud to be from Rhode Island because we are no longer bound by antiquated thinking.

Let’s build on Providence’s commitment to being the Creative Capital and showcase that the smallest state in the Union is looking for innovative ways to grow its economy and sense of community. Let’s build a boulevard.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/reconnect-olneyville/feed/ 0
Panhandling and human dignity http://www.rifuture.org/panhandling-human-dignity/ http://www.rifuture.org/panhandling-human-dignity/#respond Tue, 20 Sep 2016 18:12:11 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=68107 Alexii
Saint Alexius

Who among us has never asked for help? Who among us is so self-sufficient that they have never relied on the kindness of strangers? And when we ask for help, or lean on our friends, family or even strangers for support, have we given up our dignity, or are we simply demonstrating our humanity? What, after all, is more human than relying on our greatest strength, each other?

“There is nothing dignified about standing on street corners, or venturing into the middle of the street, dressed in dirty, shabby clothes, in all sorts of weather, with a crude cardboard sign, begging passersby for help,” wrote Bishop Thomas Tobin in a letter to the Providence Journal last week, but he was wrong. Dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, is, by Catholic principle, “inherent and inviolable.” Human dignity has been called the “cornerstone of all Catholic social teaching.”

Humanists affirm the dignity of every human being. A cornerstone Humanist document is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” No distinction is made in the declaration based on class or property.

I’ll avoid the sexist term “brotherhood” (the Declaration was written in 1948 after all) and call it our “spirit of kinship.” This idea, that we are one large human family, reminds us to rely on each other when things go wrong in our lives. Our kinship is a fundamental part of what makes us human, and without it, our society and our lives fracture.

Through this fracturing, people end up on the street, homeless, hungry and alone with their demons. The truth of human dignity means that it should not be the responsibility of the downtrodden to ask for our help. Our own human dignity requires us to offer it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also affirms the human right to expression, the human right to freely move within our cities and as a consequence, affirms our right to ask for assistance.

“The problems [associated with panhandling] have spread since Mayor Jorge Elorza, responding to the threat of action from the American Civil Liberties Union and others, directed that the police should no longer enforce ordinances dealing with panhandling and loitering,” said Tobin in his letter. “The ACLU, while presumably well-intentioned, has done no one a favor.”

In defending the human and constitutional rights of panhandlers, the ACLU respected human dignity in a way Bishop Tobin seems unprepared to do. The “favor” the ACLU did was to remind us that rather than sweeping people in need out of sight, it is far better to provide the things they need to live their lives comfortably.

Some religious leaders understand this, but many others don’t get it, even as they wonder why their moral authority is crumbling.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/panhandling-human-dignity/feed/ 0
Democracy as progressive ideology http://www.rifuture.org/democracy-as-progressive-ideology/ http://www.rifuture.org/democracy-as-progressive-ideology/#respond Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:12:07 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=68037 Continue reading "Democracy as progressive ideology"

]]>
GoldenRuleIdeas are mental constructs, imaginative pictures or associations of concepts that help us try to understand the world in which we live. Ideas are often motivating – ideas can move individuals to take action or help them make choices. Ideology is a belief in an idea or ideas that are shared by more than one person. Ideology can also move individuals to take action or to help them make choices, but ideology is more powerful than a simple idea, because an ideology can bring numbers of people together around an action or a choice. The ability to motivate numbers of people to action is what most of us mean by power.

Today, progressives need to re-discover the power of an ideology that can unify us and make us effective. That ideology is democracy itself.  Democracy, the fundamental political philosophy that the US brought back to life two-hundred and 40 years ago, is the most successful progressive accomplishment in recent history. American democracy, despite all its problems and challenges, is still the most effective tool we have ever seen to make people more equal, to allow universal participation, to facilitate community building, and to create an identity that focuses on freedom and justice for all.

Progressives have been without an ideology since the rise and cultural dominance of consumer capitalism, which paralleled the decline of the industrial labor union movement in the US. Before those changes, in the years 1890 to about 1970, the ideology of progressivism was clear – people acting together could use the scientific method to measure the impacts and outcomes of improved social conditions, and use those measurements to create political support for social change. Because improved social conditions for the many allowed greater participation in the democratic process, using the scientific method to spur improved social conditions turned out to strengthen democracy itself.

The fundamental commitment of progressivism is democracy

The use of science and the scientific method represented a significant departure for policy and politics, which until progressivism relied on prevailing belief, religious doctrine, bias, superstition and political calculus for decision making.  With progressivism, policy choices were supported by reference to evidence obtained by disinterested sources, so that some decisions were now cloaked in appearance of objectivity, appearing to free the policy process from bias and constraint by the hegemony of those in power, who too often make decisions in order to support their positions instead of making decisions in the best interests of the community they claimed to serve.

That said, the fundamental commitment of progressivism was never to science itself.  The fundamental commitment of progressivism was and is democracy. We need to use our science, progressives have always said, in the service of the common good, in order to make Democracy stronger and more robust, in order, in the language of the late sixties, to better serve the people.

Thus, Civil Rights was a progressive movement, advocating for equal rights for people who are measurably equal in fact. Public Health was a progressive movement, equating certain choices like clean water, a safe milk supply and decent housing with measurable outcomes like infant mortality and life expectancy. Equal rights for women was a progressive idea, leveraging measurable equality, and allowing women to create the political power needed to defend themselves in a social environment that constrained and too often attacked them, and enfranchising half of the population in the process. Union advocacy for safe working conditions, fair treatment of working people by their employers, decent wages and benefits – health insurance, pensions, time off to be with family –that would allow working people some of the same security as the rich but also the freedom to fully participate in the political process  –came out of this progressive ideology. Government action to protect the poor and elderly – Social Security, Medicaid and welfare — which were conceived, fought for, and won by progressive organizations and progressive political advocacy, allowed more people yet to participate in the democratic process. In addition, progressives have always also been united in a willingness to think critically about the distribution of wealth, and have been clear in the belief that democracy functions best in a society where there isn’t a great divide between the rich and the poor.

Ideologically and intellectually disparate issues

But somehow, beginning in the 1970s, progressivism lost its way. The focused advocacy of right-wing capitalists to create a culture that found greed socially acceptable; science-based improvements in manufacturing and farming technologies, which meant that fewer workers were required  to feed the population and to manufacture its goods – and allowed the owners of the means of production to become distant from the places where food was grown and goods were manufactured, diluting the importance and effectiveness of the industrial union movement; the aging of a generation forced to find common cause in a war against an existential threat; the failure of state socialism in other nations (which de-legitimized thinking about the distribution of wealth); and the evolution of technologies which atomized communities all conspired to distract Americans from the central role democracy had and has in creating social justice and  peace.

During this period, progressivism became a collection of important but ideologically and intellectually disparate issues – health care reform, immigration reform, marriage equity, legalization of marijuana, privacy, internet access and freedom from censorship — that collective action might succeed at advancing, but that had little unifying purpose, despite deriving legitimizing support from social science.

But the lack of a clear unifying ideology made it impossible to bring the majority of Americans– who believe in the value of the common good and democracy itself — together in common cause. We have failed, in recent years, to make American democracy stronger, to enfranchise more people, and we have failed miserably at bringing more of the population to social and political participation in a society in which the whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Democracy versus freedom

The right, on the other hand, used ideology to give conservatives both an identity and a powerful social lever. The right’s use of freedom as ideology has had powerful resonance in American culture. By cleverly defining freedom as unlimited individual freedom (instead of freedom from oppression and want, which is what most of us mean by freedom after all), and setting up government as the instrument of Freedom’s constraint, the right has been able to dominate the national discussion about social issues of critical importance to the nation. This ideology of individualism and individual freedom made it appear that government is doomed to fail as a social instrument, made it look like the market is the solution to all social problems, and created the widely held belief that the freedom of the rich to further enrich themselves is central  to our national identity. Ergo, corporations are people; death panels; and the move toward privatization of all social services, despite the absence of any evidence showing the effectiveness of that privatization.

The right, understanding the emotional power of democracy, has tried to drive a wedge between progressives and Democracy as ideology. The Democratic Party became the Democrat Party. Democratic ideas became Democrat ideas. And red, the color of life and heat, of blood and toil and struggle, became the color of conservative states, leaving the more progressive states blue — the color of sadness and despair.  The right distorted this important language and these important symbols because the right understands that ideology matters.

Yet democracy as ideology is perhaps more powerful than freedom. Democracy strikes a deep emotional chord in the hearts of most Americans, because democracy is a uniquely American contribution to the modern human identity, because most of us understand how democracy has made us who we are, and because Americans instinctively understand that democracy makes freedom possible. That is, by finding a way to be together that lets us hear and incorporate contending voices, by using our political science to create a platform for social interaction that allows us to re-balance inequities, democracy allows disagreements to be settled peacefully, so we have the expectation of reasonable stability over time, an expectation that allows us to think about and measure our lives in years and decades, instead of the minutes and hours of life we could plan for if we lived in a place that was only a market, or in a nation  at war with itself. If Freedom allows the pursuit of happiness, democracy creates the platform on which freedom becomes meaningful and sustainable. Democracy, as a system of government, our messy, lively, vital experiment in governing ourselves is our life-blood.  Democracy has been our ticket to the social stability and peace, the social stability and peace that gives each of our lives meaning. Democracy lets freedom ring.

Necessary conditions for participation in democracy

Looking backward, we see how the struggles of the past, for civil rights, for equal rights for women, for social security, for the role of unions in protecting the rights of workers, for health care and education, and for the protection of the poor is a powerful history, but that history  doesn’t point us clearly  toward a progressive future. How can we enfranchise all Americans? How can we lead Americans to full participation in a more equal society, and lead fuller lives? How do we take “your hungry, your tired and your poor” and build a just society out of a history of suffering and struggle?

The opportunity for progressivism is to learn from the accomplishments of the past so that we can make this democracy, so battered by the recent cultural conquest by the right, vital again. We can stand and win on child care and universal preschool and on free college education for all Americans, because the education of our children is the future of democracy. We can stand and win on immigration reform, because this nation and its democracy has been built on immigration, built by the  vitality and the imagination immigrants have brought to this continent. We can stand and win on building a health care system that cares for all Americans, because the cost of health insurance is destroying our ability to provide a decent education  and decent housing and a clean environment and good roads and other social infrastructure, which are what matters both for health and democracy itself. We can stand and win on a $15 minimum wage and universal sick time for working people, because having the means and time to breathe is necessary for working people to actively participate in an effective and meaningful democracy. And we can stand and win on income equality, because the over-concentration of wealth creates inequality of access to the public process, and democracy depends on our collective ability to hear all voices.

So the reason to build a health care system isn’t just health care cost, the chaos of the market-place, and the failure of the marketplace to improve the public’s health, although all are real problems. The reason to build a health care system is that health is a necessary condition for participation in democracy, and that the health care market is allowing further concentration of capital, concentration which is impacting the political process, as wealthy individuals and corporations use government to distort the market in a way that favors their self-interest over the common good.

And the reason to fix the student loan crisis, and provide free college education for all Americans isn’t just the national economic paralysis caused by a generation imprisoned by debt, although that economic paralysis is constraining our children’s prosperity and the nation’s hope for widespread freedom. The reason to provide free college education for all is that Democracy depends on an educated electorate that knows its interests and shows up to vote.  Forty-two percent participation in elections is a national disgrace, and inconsistent with a Democracy that is being or can be sustained in a meaningful way.

And the reason to fix the banking system, to curb the power of financial institutions, and to address income inequality isn’t just that it feels unfair for the deck to be stacked in favor of the few. The reason to fix the financial system and to address income inequality is that our Democracy depends on an invested and engaged citizenry, who are owners, not renters, and who are free to participate as free people who don’t live in fear of real or virtual eviction because of what they say or how they think or who they are.

So let’s make democracy progressivism’s clarion call, the standard we hold up to draw Americans together. Let’s stand up together to defend the democracy that has always sustained us, and so that we can together advance the values we all hold dear. Let’s stand on, talk about, preach, and inspire this democracy, without which there is no freedom after all.

And let’s take our color back.  I’m a red.  Let’s make them blue.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/democracy-as-progressive-ideology/feed/ 0
Grim Wisdom talks with Eliza Sher http://www.rifuture.org/grim-wisdom-talks-with-eliza-sher/ http://www.rifuture.org/grim-wisdom-talks-with-eliza-sher/#respond Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:07:34 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=67342 Continue reading "Grim Wisdom talks with Eliza Sher"

]]>

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

This week on the Grim Wisdom podcast I sit down with Eliza Sher, a RI psychotherapist working in Providence. (Yes, I’ve had her on before, but this time we were drinking!) Topics include current events in RI politics, as always, but also the dark places in the human psyche and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are (and who creates those stories? and why?). Did I mention we were drinking? Enjoy!

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/grim-wisdom-talks-with-eliza-sher/feed/ 0
GoLocalProv misses the point, but good try http://www.rifuture.org/golocalprov-misses-point/ http://www.rifuture.org/golocalprov-misses-point/#comments Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:14:21 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=67355 Jason Knight
Jason Knight

Ultimately, the fault is with me, for not being more clear in my writing.

John DeSimone is a lawyer in private practice and he’s House Majority Leader in the RI General Assembly. When he crafts, shapes and votes on legislation, we trust that he will separate his two jobs in his mind. For instance, we trust that he will not allow the fact that he represents restaurant owners who engage in wage theft to shape the way he approaches restaurant and employment law. But in order for voters to be able to judge for themselves whether or not this is happening, they need to understand the kind of cases DeSimone is working on and what side he takes in these cases.

This is partly what I was trying to get at when I wrote about Leader DeSimone’s legal work for Chung Cho, owner of Gourmet Heaven, but there are other distictions to be drawn.

John DeSimone
John DeSimone

When GoLocalProv reporter and editor Kate Nagle read my piece, she was inspired. She attempted on Jason Knight, who is running in the Democratic primary against conservative Democrat Jan Malik in House District 57. (DeSimone, a conservative Democrat, is facing a challenge to his House seat from progressive Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, so the shape of the politics here becomes obvious.) Nagle wrote that Knight, “has represented DUIs, child pornographers, and sex offender clients since starting his own practice.”

Then she wrote, “The relevance of Knight’s practice and other attorneys running for office derives from a new focus on who candidates are representing in their practices. Last week, incumbent House Majority Leader John DeSimone came under fire for his representation of an accused wage-theft client. The criticism  came in part from RI Future‘s Steve Ahlquist, who wrote that voters ‘should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us.’” [spelling corrected]

It’s nice to learn that GoLocal is learning about journalism from closely reading RI Future, but I think they might need a few more lessons. Nagle quotes me in the piece twice, without linking to my writing as I did for her above. (Here’s a handy guide to linking.)

“Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us,” I wrote, “Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.”

Nagle also quoted my tweet about my story, in which I said, ”What attorneys do for their clients should be relevant to how voters perceive their ethical orientation.”

The tweet above was in answer to a criticism from Brandon Bell, director of the RI GOP. Bell tweeted, “As an attorney I am an advocate for client which does not equate with accepting or endorsing client’s alleged wrongdoing.”

In my retort to Bell I was making a subtle distinction. It’s not WHO you represent, it’s WHAT you do for them.

Jason Knight defined the role of a defense attorney very well when he was quoted by Nagle: “…in a criminal case, there’s a judge, a prosecutor and defender, and all three roles need to be done well for a just result. I need a fair judge, and a zealous prosecutor — and a defense attorney who basically keeps the prosecutor honest.”

In my piece about DeSimone, I wrote that DeSimone was not only defending Chung Cho on allegations of wage theft, he was actively helping Cho to sell his business in what the RI Center for Justice called “an attempt to evade liability.” I wrote:

“DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.”

This kind of slick legal maneuvering isn’t about keeping the prosecutors honest or achieving a fair trial, it’s about helping a boss to plead poverty and avoid paying workers who, absent wages, were essentially reduced to slavery conditions.

Rather than creating a list of people who committed terrible crimes and attaching them to DeSimone’s name, as Nagle did in her piece about Knight, I wrote a piece outlining the kind of legal maneuvers DeSimone engaged in to protect a wage thief from having to pay his employees.

Perhaps such legal maneuvering is perfectly legal. Perhaps it’s all in line with the professional ethics of being a lawyer. But is it right? And does it call into question DeSimone’s suitability for the elected position he holds?

I’ll let the voters decide.

More pertinent to the discussion at hand, is this what Nagle was attempting in her piece about Knight?

I’ll let the readers decide.

Patreon

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/golocalprov-misses-point/feed/ 2
If you want change, don’t vote for the star http://www.rifuture.org/want-change-dont-vote-star/ http://www.rifuture.org/want-change-dont-vote-star/#comments Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:37:22 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=66751 Linda Finn
Linda Finn

Rhode Island is one of the most progressive states in the country, at least when it comes to the views of its citizens. Its residents vote Democrat by large margins and generally hold views that are in agreement with—or to the left of—the national Democratic Party. So why is our government so conservative? In my opinion, a big part of the problem is the structure of the state Democratic Party and its cynical endorsement process.

Many RI voters seem not to be aware of this, but the state Democratic Party’s formal endorsement process provides substantial resources to the officially endorsed candidates at all levels of the election. Unendorsed candidates are frozen out of a wide variety of party resources and can only obtain them at significant extra expense, if they can get them at all. In addition, “endorsed” candidates automatically get top billing on the ballot, and a star appears next to their name, as if to suggest that they are the clearly superior choice (even though, as a rule, the opposite is far more likely).

Mattiello at the Grange 001
Nicholas Mattiello

So how does one become an endorsed candidate, you may ask? Well, there are a vast number of local, district, and ward committees who typically award these endorsements (but not always—see below!). In theory, these various ward, town, and district committees serve as a way of ensuring that people who live in an area have the opportunity to endorse the candidate who is most in touch with the needs of their neighborhoods. In practice, however, these ward and district committees are invariably stuffed with the friends, relatives, and even employees of the incumbents. As a result, they serve as little more than a rubber stamp that inevitably endorses the incumbent or their hand-picked successor—even when evidence of their corruption is overwhelming. And if by some chance a new voice manages to impress their local committees and gain their support, the RI Democratic Party chair—a person who is not elected to fill this role, but is merely appointed by prominent insiders such as Speaker Mattiello—can simply overrule the local committees and impose his will on them by fiat, as he recently did to Linda Finn, who earned the endorsements of her local town committees but whose opponent has secured the official party endorsement as well as all the corrupt resources that come with it.

When my fellow Democratic primary voters show up at the ballot box in September, I hope they will remember that a vote for the star is a vote to maintain the status quo. It’s a vote for Speaker Mattiello, and for the anti-democratic, cynical, corrupt, and above all elitist political machine from which he and his ilk draw their power. If you want change from your state and local elected officials next year, the choice is clear: Vote for anyone who doesn’t have Mattiello’s star of approval.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/want-change-dont-vote-star/feed/ 3
Some modest proposals to boost RI’s business climate http://www.rifuture.org/modest-proposals-ri-business-climate/ http://www.rifuture.org/modest-proposals-ri-business-climate/#comments Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:19:02 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=65954 Continue reading "Some modest proposals to boost RI’s business climate"

]]>
topstatesforbizDespite much wringing of hands and awarding of tax breaks to various upper income and business folks, we Rhode Islanders are told our business climate IS still at the bottom. Thus I propose these seven modest suggestions for addressing this problem.

1. Ban any pro-union advocacy opinions in the state’s media. While talk radio mostly does this already, some pro-union opinions occasionally do slip into the Providence Journal, RI Future, and maybe other local papers. I’m sure business will appreciate it if we close this loophole.

2. Cut pay of public workers by 50%. Though public workers have already made concessions on pay, health care and pensions, some of them can still afford to drive.  Halving their pay would not only lower the tax burden, but make more room on the roads for the important people.

3. Stop enforcing clean water laws.  Not only will this too lower the tax burden, but as public water supply gets more polluted, investors will see opportunities here to sell more bottled water and also to make money in the health care system treating the people who persist in drinking public water and thus get sick.

4. Stop funding bike, pedestrian and transit programs.  This will make the state more attractive to oil and auto companies.  Also, by discouraging physical activity, this will also increase obesity, making Rhode Islanders less fit and thus less able to challenge pro-business programs.  Those who persist in biking or walking can perhaps be made subject to a gasoline-avoidance fee that can generate revenue to subsidize business jets. But as there are proposals in the US House of Representatives to do something like this on a national level, we better do this quickly before we lose a competitive advantage over other states.

5. Sell all public beaches. Not only will this provide more shoreline for the rich to buy, but their view of the shore from their yachts will be improved if the hordes of riffraff on the public beaches are forced off.

6. End the sales tax on high-end cars. Though we already eliminated sales taxes on boats and private airplanes, the rich still have to pay sales taxes on BMWs, Cadillacs, Lexuses etc. It is not fair that their cars are not treated tax-wise the same way as their yachts and planes.

7.  Require all low income folks to be servants to the business class for 3 days a year. After all, we know how hard it is to find good servants these days. The low income folks serving the rich could polish their cars or silver, cut the grass, mop the floors and such. Giving up only 3 days would not be too much of a burden, but think how much it could improve our business climate rankings as no other state does this. Indeed we can market this initiative by emphasizing the “Plantations” part of our official state name that we voted to keep. not that long ago.

Will these suggestions be seriously considered?  Maybe.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/modest-proposals-ri-business-climate/feed/ 1
Perceiving the power of projection widens our world http://www.rifuture.org/perceiving-the-power-of-projection-widens-our-world/ http://www.rifuture.org/perceiving-the-power-of-projection-widens-our-world/#respond Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:45:11 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=65490 Continue reading "Perceiving the power of projection widens our world"

]]>
“My guiding principles in life
are to be honest, genuine,
thoughtful and caring.”
Prince William

When you look in a mirror, what do you see?

th-58

No, you don’t see yourself. You inhabit a body—not a mirror. No, you see a projection of yourself. Similarly, we often project ourselves upon others.

Are you diligent and honest? Then you tend to trust others easily: You project on them the traits of diligence and honesty which come naturally to you. If you are a private person, you likely believe others also keep secrets. Or if you often tell small lies, you may readily conclude others are deceiving you.

Name the trait or motivation. We tend to project these on others. This is familiar and natural. The opposite attributes are foreign to us, so we find these more difficult to believe.

The consequences of these beliefs can be disastrous, for ourselves and others. As a landlord, for example, I lost several thousand dollars when I rented to a few tenants despite signs they were untrustworthy. We all need to widen our vision—to see reality—or our mistakes will multiply.

How can we apply this wisdom? How can we challenge our mistaken projections?

Shortly after graduating college in 1977, I discussed farm subsidies with Mark, a church friend. I had just completed a study of economist Milton Freedman, agreeing with his tenet that the free market alone should determine a person’s income. So I opposed farm subsidies.

th-59

Mark was shocked. Why would an otherwise caring Christian approve of farmers going bankrupt when farm prices crash? My friend thought I was heartless, having lost both compassion and common sense.

Mark was right.

Why did I fail to care? Despite my business degree, I was ignorant. I knew nothing about farming. Even more pertinent: I had adopted an ideology which shut out the experiences of others.

I also projected on to bankrupted farmers my history of obtaining work easily. I did not consider the hardship of bankruptcy, the trauma of families losing their homes, nor farmers’ ordeals when seeking another profession.

I needed to widen my world. I needed to listen to others’ experiences. I needed to be thoughtful.

Similarly, many leaders project their limited experiences upon others. One politician, “Edward,” laments that so many receive food stamps. Why not? His family never needed food stamps. Why should anyone else?

Instead of projecting his economic abilities upon others, however, Edward could consider their experiences. What about the millions who earn a living yet, due to low wages, experience the continuing agony of poverty? What about the many millions of seniors dependent upon social security and food stamps for survival? What about the many children who, due to food stamp cuts, have some days each month with little or no food?

th-60

Edward projects his economic strengths on others. He concludes the US needs to spend more on the military, so our nation should spend less on food stamps. This is a false choice. One does not exclude the other.

Those in need should not be denigrated or starved. Moreover, the US military currently spends as much as China and Russia—as well as the next ten countries combined.

“Supporting our troops” instead of supporting those needing food stamps is ironic: The pay of low-ranking service people requires $100 million in food stamps and $1 billion in subsidies at military grocery stores in 2014. Severe reduction of commissary subsidies brings hardship to many military families. For many, food stamps remain a necessity.

Edward is not alone in projecting his food prosperity on others: A plethora of political leaders hold a variety of heartless viewpoints.

Sometimes, due to our own projections, we too have uncaring positions. What is true for these heartless politicians is also true for you and me: We need to widen our world; we need to listen to others’ experiences; we need to be thoughtful.

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/perceiving-the-power-of-projection-widens-our-world/feed/ 0
Greetings from Glocester: The Good, the bad and the ugly http://www.rifuture.org/greetings-from-glocester/ http://www.rifuture.org/greetings-from-glocester/#comments Sun, 03 Jul 2016 18:34:48 +0000 http://www.rifuture.org/?p=65198 13607003_10153697438921409_5062716318090543372_nGlocester, a small town nestled in the woods of northwest Rhode Island and mostly ignored by all political candidates, the General Assembly and the rest of the state’s population except maybe around the 4th of July for our irreverent Ancients and Horribles Parade. So much of what is good about Glocester shows itself every July 4th. The politicos come out in droves, people line the streets and the town’s people play the role of good hosts.

The parade reflects the major happenings of the town – this year part of the focus will be on the fight against the Clear River Energy Center and keeping northwest Rhode Island free from the goliath, Invenergy, and all the horrors that will be associated with it. There will be two different floats entered with that theme. Literature will be handed out and I am sure there will be plenty of support. Along the route to come into the town people should take note of all of the NO NEW POWER PLANT signs that are everywhere.

All of the big wigs should be in attendance, Governor Gina Raimondo, Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Reps Jim Langevin and David Cicilline, among others. They will all wave and smile knowing that this very well maybe their only appearance in the town for the entire year.

13600023_10153697439916409_7426948233670230563_nIn addition to the parade, there is a quaint and very manageable fair for the townies. It is environmentally friendly, and a perfect place to take the young’ns. The neighboring Purple Cat Winery and Philanthropy Tea and Wine is a great visit where you can buy some unique gifts and keep the kids happy with ice cream. Of course the adults can relax in the rustic atmosphere and have a perfect glass of wine while experiencing all that is good about our small town.

When talking about Glocester it is unfortunately hard not to talk about the bad, and the bad is the politics. Our Town Council is made up of 5 men, no Democrats, who do not serve the people of the town. Citizens are not happy. The town council does not engage with their constituents, they do not communicate well, they do not return calls or work to be good stewards for the people. They avoid anything and everything that may be the least bit controversial including learning about Invenergy and what is at stake for Glocester. They refused to take seriously a requested resolution on gun reform. They prefer to table anything that may require any kind of public input that goes beyond the typical zoning approvals and and occasional public works project. We will see how this plays out in November – there are 10 people vying for 5 slots and I anticipate there may be some upsets.

13592313_10153697414896409_8590023768277154548_nThis is also a wake up call to the Democratic leadership of the party – there is none! From Dem Chair Joseph McNamara to Senator Paul Fogarty, no one attempts to engage local democrats in conversation – why is that? I for one have no idea as no one will return my calls and emails to answer that question.

The ugly this year is REALLY UGLY. Our small town has been decimated with a gypsy moth invasion. The caterpillars ate everything. All of our beautiful, maples, oaks and even our hearty pines were demolished. The trees are naked as if there was some type of nuclear attack. The blight was all the rage on our very active Glocester Facebook page. People commiserated on how depressing our local scenery is. And now all those slimy disgusting caterpillars have turned into pesky moths, flying everywhere and being a major nuisance.

Also, while talking about how ugly it is, it’s hard not to mention all of the TRUMP signs that our good neighbors have up – they are everywhere. With that ugly are also signs of hate and bigotry that goes along with many of those who support him. Our town, made up of
about ten thousand people, is 99 percent white. There is not much good about the diversity here, and the Trump appeal is quite frankly alarming.
 

]]>
http://www.rifuture.org/greetings-from-glocester/feed/ 3