Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)
First Mike Riley was telling lies about Congressman Jim Langevin in TV commercials. Now, we’re pretty certain he’s telling lies about RI Future to other reporters. Or, it’s just another example of why Mike “McCarthyism” Riley is totally unfit to represent Rhode Island in Congress (we’ll offer more evidence of as much a little later this morning).
Read Dee DeQuattro’s post about Riley this morning and decide which you think it is.
Riley and Langevin debate, without candidate Abel Collins, on WPRI tonight at 7. The market’s leading TV news station blundered big time in not including Collins in the debate, and exacerbated the mistake by not being forthcoming with their reasoning for doing so. Journalism should err on the side of inclusion and explanation and WPRI did neither with their responsibility to host this particular congressional debate. Such decisions deserve scrutiny and ace reporters Tim White, Ted Nesi and others who work there would be demanding nothing less if the subject wasn’t their employer.
For a man who says he possesses uncommon integrity, the ProJo Politifact team sure does catch Brendan Doherty telling a lot of lies. Today, they refute his accusation that Congressman Cicilline, when mayor of Providence, “espoused a sanctuary city.” Doherty has been poltifacted six times and half of those times he wasn’t telling the truth. He was given a half-true and a mostly true and only once was he said to be telling the full truth. This from a candidate whose campaign is based around his opponent being distrustful.
Admit it, you wish you were too high-brow to pay attention to them but Dan McGowan makes great lists. Today’s list shows which RI communities have the highest rates of unemployment and it looks a lot like lists of the communities with the worst budget situations as well as public school high-stakes testing results. What does that indicate? (Hint: it isn’t the unions fault)
Thanks to Ed Fitzpatrick for joining RI Future in calling for the town of Smithfield to change the name of a local road named after a KKK leader … it seemed like a no-brainder to us, too, and we kept waiting for the rest of the state to join the call. But evidently Rhode Islanders were too busy rallying against civil liberties and looking for frightened voters in attics to care…
The mortgage crisis in Rhode Island, in case you didn’t know, is a Gordian knot – meaning untangling the mess may prove impossible without a special solution. That solution looks like it could be loan modifications.
Is True the Vote committing a criminal conspiracy by suppressing voters rights?
Disappointed with our choices for State House seats? Just be glad you don’t live in Arkansas, where candidates garner headlines like this one: Legislative Candidate Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book
October 9 is a pretty significant day in the history of progressive and/or radical politics:
In 1635, Rhode Island founder Roger Williams is banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
In 1940, John Lennon was born.
In 1967, Che Guevara was executed in Bolivia while trying to foment revolution there.
And in 1969, the National Guard breaks up protests related to the Chicago Eight trial. They were accused of inciting violence at the 1968 DNC Convention.
My sympathies to the people of Domin Avenue who have to put up with the meddling of the media, government, and residents of Honolulu in their private lives all in the name of political correctness. Hopefully the Town will leave it to the residents of that street to decide but it’s not likely. What’s next, maybe a governor’s blue ribbon panel to examine the names of all the roads in the state?
How about some sympathy for us for having to put up with you?
@DogDiesel: It is not “political correctness” that drives people to want to remove from a racist KKK “Exalted Cyclops” the tribute of having a street named after him. This is being driven be the good old-fashioned American values of justice, honor, patriotism and civility.
By the way, I once lived at an address that was changed on me and so I have experienced first hand the hassle of an address change. Not only do I believe it is worth the effort in this case, but I also believe that it should not be solely up to the residents of that street. Everyone in Smithfield is living in a community that is paying ongoing homage to a despicable detestable KKK racist.
It is not political correctness, it is simple common decency.
Good old American values dictate that if the people on the street don’t want the name changed, then the name shouldn’t be changed.
No, that’s incorrect. The people who live on the street do not own the street. The street is the property of the town of Smithfield and therefore all the people of Smithfield have a right to have their say either directly or through their duly elected representatives.
The neighborly thing for Smithfield residents to do is mind their own business and let the town do what’s best for the street’s residents. By the way, I lived through the E911 implementation in which my parents house number was changed. Unfortunately it drove my parents crazy. That was just changing a house number. You want them to rename a street.
Someone doesn’t undestand representative democracy.
“ The neighborly thing for Smithfield residents to do is mind their own business and let the town do what’s best for the street’s residents”
The “town” is not something that exists apart from Smithfield residents. Town government represents town residents. What is best for the town is the same thing as what is best for the town’s residents.
To suggest that the town’s residents should stand aside while the people who represent the town’s residents instead work in the interests in some small group of particular residents is absurd, not to mention ignorant of the way the whole American system of governance works.
To suggest that the town representatives should consider input from outsiders who are not effected is absurd and lacking in common sense. Thank you for your as usual clueless response.
1) Other residents who live in town but not on the street are not outsiders.
2) ‘affected’ not “effected”. You should be prohibited from all of the education discussions.
3) Other residents who live in town but not on the street are affected by the name of the street, because the name of the street besmirches the reputation of the town.
Wrong
The most amazing thing here is not that you think the word ‘wrong’ is a convincing argument, but rather that you didn’t misspell ‘wrong’.
LMAO! Your not worth an argument.
“Your not worth an argument” My ‘not worth an argument’? I don’t believe I own a ‘not worth an argument’.
In fact, I don’t believe it is possible to possess a ‘not worth an argument’.
But, if it were possible, what about it? What do you mean to say about my ‘not worth an argument’?
What a strange thing to say.
At any rate, I don’t see what any of this has to do with the matter of the street you want to keep named after a Klansman.
“At any rate, I don’t see what any of this has to do with the matter of the street you want to keep named after a Klansman.”
Wrong again. I don’t care what they call the street. I care that town government is trampling over the street’s residents out of political correctness.
“town government is trampling over the street’s residents ”The street’s residents have no special rights in this matter. You have made no argument that they do.
Thank you for pointing out that they don’t matter. I’m sure they’re pretty much already feeling it.
Bob,
There is no doubt that Providence was a Sanctuary City. The mayor had his Police Dept not utilize the ICE process as I recall, even with people who were caught committing crimes. Cicilline is a repugnant liar and his records SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY OF IT. From his Brother getting a free 75k, to his speech about the financial health of the City. Stop being such a Liberal Panty Wearing Dog Chew!
“Stop being such a Liberal Panty Wearing Dog Chew!”
SteelyDale: If this is an insult could you please explain it. It’s 1359AD here where I live so an explanation would be in order. Thank you.
SV
Dear Solomon:
Here in the 21st century there are people who think the most potent insult against a man is to attack his masculinity. Panties are a common undergarment worn by women. Therefore to refer to a man as “panty wearing” is to imply that the man is acting like a woman by wearing panties and so is less than fully masculine.
It is, sadly, a relatively common epithet used most frequently by individuals who either harbor deep-seated fears about their own masculinity or prejudices against gay people and other men who do not fit their preconceived ideas of stereotypical manhood.
You give people “guff,” he said, gruffly.