GoLocalProv misses the point, but good try

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

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.

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.

October 12, 2014October 14, 2014

What does GoLocal’s purported Con-Con poll really show?

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

GoLocal ran a story claiming that a Center for Freedom and Prosperity poll indicates that Rhode Islander’s strongly favor holding a Constitutional Convention. But the poll, as released, doesn’t show that at all. What the poll demonstrates is that 70% of likely Rhode Island voters think “things” are on the “wrong track” in the state, that 59% think the economy is the most important problem we are facing, that 77% believe that our political leadership deals with problems inadequately, and 79% believe that state government is more geared to “special interest groups.”

How is this news?

These results are hardly surprising given the state of the economy and government. Based on these poll results, Center CEO Mike Stenhouse urges voters to approve a Con-Con to address these issues, but the poll does not demonstrate that voters favor a con-con as a remedy. In fact, it seems that the results of the poll that might deal with a con-con, Q.8-Q.18, have been withheld from the public. You can view the poll here, and see plainly that the questions jump from Q.7 to Q.19.

In other words, the information released is only what the Center wants you to see, not a real picture of likely voter attitudes.

Some results from Q.16 were released by the Center. These are statements from participants on why they favor holding a Con-Con, but question 15, which perhaps asks participants if they favor a Con-Con, is not included. There are 96 statements in support of a Con-Con listed, out of 516 participants interviewed and weighted for this poll. If this is everyone in favor of a Con-Con, that’s less than 20% support. Even if this is only half of the support the poll found, we’re still left with less than 40% favoring a Con-Con.

Had the poll indicated a majority of likely Rhode Island voters were in favor of a Con-Con, the Center would certainly have included this in the poll results they released. In the absence of the full poll results, we can only assume that the Center did not get the results they were looking for, and that GoLocal made a huge mistake in mischaracterizing the results.

Based on the information released by the Center so far, it’s obvious that Rhode Island voters see the Con-Con for what it is, a chance for special interests like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to alter the Rhode Island State Constitution in favor of the corporate interests they front for.

May 16, 2014

Government FOR the People

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

Last week I wrote an op-ed in response to Mike Stenhouse’s op-ed Left won’t defend failed RI Policies lambasting Tom Sgouros and Sam Bell .

My first draft went to the Providence Journal, but the conversation with the editor didn’t go well for a variety of reasons.

Next I sent it to GoLocalProv with the intention of it being the first of a series of weekly columns. I made the mistake of sending an invoice to GoLocal, and evidently the idea of paying for content was so far out of the framework, that they immediately removed the article.

I’m not saying this is my best piece of work. But it does reflect my thinking these days.

I believe that people are more important than corporations, that government’s job isn’t to prop-up business interests and who also think that the system of our government needs repair. Enjoy the article. Too bad you can’t read the slew of negative comments that popped up on GoLocal.
– Mark Binder

Government FOR the People

Enough about Left versus Right and Liberal or Progressive versus Conservative. Mike Stenhouse is a shill for the wealthy, who thinks that his ideas and opinion should be treated as gospel.

I’m not sure if I’m a leftist, a liberal, or a progressive. I know there’s waste in government: just look how much education funding has been funneled into the testing industry and how many dollars enable cars rather than RIPTA.

Stenhouse claims that the left won’t defend failed RI policies, damned right. Because the State government’s policies aren’t “left” policies, they’re just lame. Our State is run by a pair of appointed “leaders”, who bully our elected legislators, who are funded and buffaloed by corporate lobbiests and are too poorly paid to fight for the interests of citizens. At the same time, Stenhouse and his band of so-called experts spout nonsense, ignore facts and “chuckle” when faced with inconvenient truths.

Let’s lay it out. There is a myth created by followers of Reagan and Rove that cutting taxes will create jobs. It’s bull. We know because we’ve tried it. We’ve seen corporations outsource manufacturing and cut retail price by lowering wages, driving out small businesses, and putting the cost of underpaid employee health care on taxpayers. Then they wonder why nobody’s trained for a “job.”

Here’s what happens when you cut taxes. You also have to cut services and funding for transportation and funding for education. You get a race to the bottom, with municipalities and states trying to “attract” businesses that pit government against government and move on when the next best deal comes. (Hello New London.)

Our government stinks at “job creation.” (Hello 38 Studios.) In the old days, when a politician was running for election, he (not she) created jobs to get votes. This is effective politically, but produces bloat and inefficiency. The job of government is to protect the people and to organize projects that benefit the people.

Now, though, billionaires and multinational corporations fund non-profits and hire consultants to sway the rhetoric. Remember how staunchly George W. Bush denied climate change? (Hello, Matunuck.)

But enough about “them.” Let’s talk about what we, the people, really want.

We want more money for public education so that we can hire more teachers, because the single most important factor in improving learning is the ratio of students to teachers. At the same time, we want to create a testing policy that helps teachers assess students, not one that puts fear in the heart of educators and learners.

We want more money for public and alternative transportations. Europe and Japan had high taxes on petrol for years while we laughed and drove. Now they’ve got rail systems and lead in energy efficiency. We’ve made little progress since the so-called “energy crisis” of the 1970s.

We want corporations to pay to keep our environment clean, not sweep regulation aside to make it easier for them to pollute.

We want universal healthcare, not a bloated compromise designed to keep insurance corporations and non-profit boards fat and healthy.

We want our government to raise taxes so we can stop the borrowing that funnels citizens’ money to investors who manipulate bond ratings to get the best deals.

Don’t cut taxes on the arts and pretend that everybody’s going to run out and buy a painting. This is a benefit for the wealthy. And then, because the arts aren’t generating revenue, don’t push for a so-called bond issue that’s going to be run by the renamed EDC. If government believes that arts generate revenue, increase funding for the arts!

Don’t even consider the pathetic pleas from real estate interests (hello Superman building) to borrow money to bail them out. And face the truth that rebuilding in a flood zone is building on sand.

We want the wealthy to pay more, exactly because their fair share isn’t the same as the poor’s fair share.

And we want the opposition to stop ignoring facts, figures and realities.

My company published Tom Sgouros’s most recent book, “Checking the Banks” because it explains in simple terms how banks and investments firms scam governments. One of the tactics of Stenhouse and his lot is to ignore the facts and restate dogma.

When Tom debated Stenhouse’s out-of-state expert, he realized that the man knew nothing of the actual history, facts and policies of Rhode Island. Tom didn’t say that those failures were good things. Checking the Banks> suggests that rather than borrowing, our taxpayers would do better if Rhode Island created its own internal bank. But the chuckleheads laughed, and then swiped some of the copies of the book that Tom had for sale.

That’s exactly the challenge that honorable human beings face. Wealthy people aren’t satisfied with what they have. They want to us begging for scraps. They blame us for laziness and waste and then steal even more from those of us who are trying to make a living.

November 27, 2013November 27, 2013

GoLocal’s Russ Moore misdefines ‘public service’

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

In between telling its readers the street price of pot, claiming exclusives and scoops other outlets have already covered, and trying to force-feed readers another slideshow, the misnamed GoLocalProv also publishes a few right-wing to “centrist” commentators. The one who is (in Douglas’ Adams’ famous words) “mostly harmless” is Russell Moore; the former Warwick Beacon reporter / Caprio for Governor campaign worker. But Moore’s most recent column stepped into strange territory. Moore states:

Nobody can tell me that the government bureaucrat is a public servant but a private sector business owner isn’t. Without the private sector, and the risk takers that keep the engine of commerce running, we wouldn’t have a public sector.

Yes, that’s a collection of business class-babble. And a lot of it is untrue. Let’s unpack this a bit more, when Moore gives us his definition of public service:

…when someone starts a business and employs people, and pays taxes, there’s no doubting that that too is public service.

Nope. Paying taxes is not a public service. Paying taxes is part of a citizen’s social contract with the government so that government can provide genuine public services so that someone’s private service can function. Starting a business is not a public service. It’s a decision you make with the intention of gaining profit. Employing people is not a public service, it’s something you do so that you have the productivity to turn a profit.

Moore’s definition of public service is so expansive, we can even turn it on its head a bit. If employing people is a public service, then surely being employed is a public service as well, since you provide productivity for someone else to make a profit while also earning income to pay taxes. Heck, it’s so expansive that it covers everyone in the country, since there is no one who does not pay tax at some point.

Meanwhile, genuine public servants (Moore’s “government bureaucrat” – gee, I wonder why that word was picked…) are out there doing things like enforcing laws so that other private citizens don’t destroy Moore’s business owner’s profits. Or putting out fires so that other negligent private citizens don’t destroy Moore’s business owner’s profits. Or registering and regulating businesses so that fraudulent hucksters don’t destroy Moore’s business owner’s profits. And they do it all without expecting that they’ll make more money if they do their absolute best. Unlike a private business, if the government earns more than it spends, it doesn’t necessarily get to keep that money and expand capacity or reward productive employees (or overcompensate executives as some less scrupulous businesses do).

Instead, public servants get what the whims of legislators (and by extension, voters) and the negotiating skills of their union representatives bring them (and that latter bit was hard fought for and continues to be hard fought to protect). Yes, they get paid, they get benefits, etc., and they have stronger protections than private sector workers, but they’ve fought hard to keep those.

Okay, let’s go to another Moore gem:

…far too often it seems like the needs of the private sector get lost in our political dialogues. At times, it seems like we’ve lost sense of the interconnectedness of the two sectors.

Take that first part of the sentence and compare it with recent legislative history. Let me point out that the General Assembly did not introduce and pass a set of 25 bills to improve conditions for the struggling citizens of this state. They certainly did not create a new executive office complete with a cabinet secretary position tasked with looking for ways to make life better for the state’s hardest hit citizens. The focus of the “Moving the Needle” package was business.

It’s odd for Moore to be the one suggesting we’ve failed to consider how government and business are interconnected, when he routinely calls for lower taxes, less spending, and laxer regulations. All of that translates into fewer public services that can benefit business or keeping the rules and laws enforced.

But my favorite part of Moore’s off-kilter argument is back in that first bit I quoted: “Without the private sector… we wouldn’t have a public sector.”

Look, I don’t care where you stand in politics; left, right, up, down, etc… you should have enough knowledge to know this isn’t true. You don’t have to look far back to see public sectors existing without private sectors. The fact that the idea of private industry is only a relatively recent concept should be enough to dissuade you of this notion. Now, don’t get confused and think that I’m suggesting that a world without a private sector is preferable (they’re clearly not). I’m saying that, regardless of ideology, you have to acknowledge that it can, has, and probably will continue to be done.

In contrast, there is virtually no flourishing and peaceful private sector that has existed without a public sector. You can’t have a market if there’s no one there to ensure that people play by the rules.

Public servants have been under attack for the last few years. While the State has been willing to break its contracts with public servants in the form of pensions, it’s been more than willing to keep its contracts with private business with the 38 Studios bonds being the best example. Media often asks for the insight of business into government, whereas it rarely asks public servants their opinions and wouldn’t dream of asking for their insight into business. The writers who grace GoLocalProv’s pages routinely insult public servants and portray them as barriers to progress, impediments to business, drains on the economy, and a thousand other such insults. Now, Moore is trying to appropriate the good feelings Rhode Islanders hold for public servants by expanding the label to cover those in private service (but specifically business owners, not all private sector workers).

I know that the pageview journalism GoLocalProv engages in is a relatively shameless enterprise, but I hope some of its writers (oh, I’m sorry, “mindsetters” trademark yadda yadda) have a sense of shame when they publish ill-conceived articles that fail to understand the fundamental differences between “citizenship” and “public service.” We shouldn’t get those confused, though I know it’s a bit hard not to for media folks sometimes.

July 16, 2012July 16, 2012

The DCCC Is Doing Its Job

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

So, on Sunday GoLocalProv ran a story entitled “Democratic Attack Book Against Brendan Doherty Revealed.” There was also a slideshow of accompanying bits from the “attack book.” Essentially, the story is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the Democratic Party organ which works to get Democrats elected to the U.S. House of Representatives) has a book of opposition research on Brendan Doherty.

The GoLocal stories utilized an image of a file labelled “Top Secret” making it seem as though this document was slipped to GoLocal and thus dragged kicking and screaming from the shadows. Lost was who was doing the revealing: the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Yes, that’s right, the Democratic Party is making its opposition research publicly available. Now, from a strategic point of view, it might be considered a point of idiocy that the Democrats are tipping their hand in such a manner (GoLocal quotes Mr. Doherty’s campaign manager Ian Prior as having “been aware of the document for several months”). On the other hand, it might be that the DCCC simply wants to distribute these as far as possible instead of keeping it for a few party insiders.

In all fairness to Dan McGowan, the reporter who wrote the story, his article is actually a fine overview of what’s in the document. Its flaws are that it omits saying that the DCCC made the document available (though Mr. McGowan does link to the actual site) and the misleading headline and picture.* And that’s really what gets me here. The DCCC wasn’t making this a secret. If the headline had been a simpler “DCCC Publishes Opposition Research on Brendan Doherty” it not only would’ve been clearer, but it would’ve been less misleading (assuming the “Top Secret” images were removed as well).

Instead, what’s “revealed” is that the DCCC is working as it’s supposed to. I don’t know, maybe this is the kind of stuff that raises Republican hackles; such as Providence Republican Committee Chair Tara Pinsky freaking out in a letter to The Journal about David Cicilline’s campaign conducting opposition research (file that under “101 Reasons Republicans Are Losing in Providence). But every time I read this stuff, I think, “do they not know how this works?”

Anyhow, it’s the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to get worked up over this. After all, the DCCC’s Republican counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee notably doesn’t openly publish its opposition research (though its “Race of The Day” feature does publish attack articles).

Favorite bit of Mr. McGowan’s article? When Mr. Prior warns anyone using the book to verify its facts; something the DCCC book itself does on its first page!

___________________________

UPDATE: This article has been changed to reflect that in the GoLocalProv article that the DCCC site is linked to, and language has been clarified.