Yeah, I know I've just spent three days fisking Cap'n Mike Caldwell's latest tirade in the Newport Daily News, but I've changed my mind. Eileen Spillane of Rhode Island's Twelfth has just put up a post pointing out that Cap'n Mike, although allegedly a fifteen-year resident of Middletown, is not on any of the recent tax rolls, is not listed in the phone book, has no voting record, and is not a current pilot listed as residing in M-town. What's going on here?
I think Eileen and I have just made an oopsie. I think we may have just accidentally exposed a bit of subterfuge on the part of the NDN staff. I suspect that Cap'n Mike might have been invented by Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney and the rest of the liberal media types at the NDN as a wingnut spoof.
Every month or so, someone at the NDN (I suspect City Editor Frank Carini, who has exhibited advanced symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome) pens a piece by this alleged former Navy pilot for the specific purpose of discrediting conservative ideas. I mean, come on, there's no way an actual flesh-and-blood human being could hold as many odious opinions, expressed in such repugnant language, as "Cap'n Mike", right? It's got to be a put-on, right?
If you want further proof that there is no actual Cap'n Mike, just check out the photo accompanying Tuesday's rant. You know who that is? That's Don S. Davis, a recently-deceased actor who specialized in playing military characters (he played General Hammond in Stargate SG-1 and Major Briggs in Twin Peaks). Someone at the NDN probably downloaded a photo of Davis off the internet and ran it with the piece to give a face to "Cap'n Mike".
Well, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the editorial staff of the Daily News for having exposed their well-intentioned (and, I now realize, rather amusing) attempt at covert political satire. Sorry.
(this post is cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 3
For those just tuning in, this is the final part of a 3-part series (the first two parts are here and here) fisking Cap'n Mike Caldwell's plaintive wingnut lament "Are we losing our nation's soul?", as seen in the July 29, 2008 edition of the Newport Daily News. (John McDaid calls it deconstruction, but I prefer the traditional internet term, since I am aware of all internet traditions.) Cap'n Mike has chosen to put his career as a corporate jet pilot on hold and go into business as America's newest and wingnuttiest soul doctor. His diagnosis? America is losing its soul, and it's ALL THE LIBERALS' FAULT! Yeah, it's all the fault of those America-bashing, soul-destroying liberals! And to prove his point, Cap'n Mike has dredged up, from deep within his encyclopedic (or, at any rate, conservapedic) knowledge base, six examples of soul-destroying, America-bashing liberalness. And not just any soul-destroying liberalism, either; Cap'n Mike has chosen to focus on cultural soul-destruction this time. Next month, in the second half of his loopy tirade, he'll regale us with examples of political soul-destructiveness.
We join Cap'n Mike now as he brings us cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #5. Come in, Cap'n Mike!
Or witness bears, as the case may be.
It'd sure help to make Cap'n Mike's case if he could quote some, y'know, facts to support his assertions, but that is not the wingnut way. As Saint Ronald of Santa Barbara reminds us, facts are stupid things. As a matter of, erm, fact, the College Board's last report on national SAT scores, released last August, showed that "the long-term trend for critical reading scores has been essentially flat", while the "long-term trend in mathematics scores is up, rising from 501, 20 years ago to 511, 10 years ago to 515 this year."
I can understand, though, how Cap'n Mike might get the idea that "the kids" can't form a cogent sentence, since he doubtless spends a lot of time listening to our current president and visiting conservative blogs like RedState and Free Republic. Cap'n Mike might have a better opinion of the intellectual capabilities of the Modern Generation if he spent some time visiting places like Hullabaloo and the Daily Kos. Incidentally, it might be interesting to ask Cap'n Mike himself what war the Battle of Gettysburg occurred in, since so many of his fellow right-wingers insist that it took place in something called the War Between the States, which would of course be the wrong answer, since it occurred in the American Civil War.
Anyway, Cap'n Mike's going to tell us what those soul-destroying liberals want to do about his imaginary stupidifying youngsters. The floor is yours, Cap'n Mike.
And the conservative solution? Abolish the public school system, let wealthy parents send their children to private schools, and allow everyone else to remain uneducated. Because conservatives know that the less education someone has, the more likely he is to vote Republican. (And needless to say, it wouldn't be a proper wingnut rant without at least one swipe at organized labor.)
Oh, Cap'n Mike, you slay me! You positively SLAY me!
What Cap'n Mike is referring to here is a story from way back in 2003 about a Florida high school teacher who was fired for showing his 9th-grade students how to use condoms. With a banana. This story has become a legend in wingnut circles, and is always trotted out whenever someone like Cap'n Mike wants to show us all How Awful Public Education Is.
And finally,
Cap'n Mike presents cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #6. May I have a drumroll please?
[sfx drumroll]
And our final contestant is . . . future First Lady Michelle Obama!
[sfx cymbal crash]
And here to explain Mrs. Obama's cultural-soul-destruction-related program activities is our own Cap'n Mike Caldwell! Let her have it, Cap'n Mike!
What's this? No whitey tape? No terrorist fist-jab? All right, you imposter, who are you, and what have you done with Cap'n Mike?
Aherm, yes. Anyway, regarding Cap'n Mike's actual outrage-items, they come from two different venues. First, during a visit to Puerto Rico on May 14, Mrs. Obama gave a speech in which she said about her husband,
So, no, Michelle Obama didn't say that American history and traditions would have to be rewritten. The word "rewritten" is in fact an invention of Cap'n Mike's fevered wingnut paranoia.
Second, The New Yorker ran a piece by Lauren Collins in its March 10 issue which includes the following paragraphs:
Cap'n Mike probably hasn't noticed, since he views the world through his wingnut blinders, but life in America is just downright mean. We're faced every day with mean, petty, nasty people like a certain corporate jet pilot I could name. Of course, if Cap'n Mike were capable of noticing just how downright mean things are in this country, he wouldn't be a wingnut.
No, Cap'n Mike, that's not the America that Michelle Obama means. After all, you and your fellow wingnuts have spent the last forty years trying to kill that America and replace it with one where the government spies on its citizens and launches pointless invasions of other countries and tortures prisoners and drives down wages and eliminates old age pensions. And you've done such a good job that the America that fought fascism has been replaced by an America that is duplicating fascism's worst features.
I think you mean 224 years, Cap'n Mike. After all, your fellow conservatives have spent the last eight years demagnetizing that moral compass so it points in the direction of greed, cruelty, and barbarism, while tarnishing that cultural soul until it's as black as Dick Cheney's heart.
Well, duh! Of course it is! Why do you think we're working so hard to remove the Republicans from power?
Well, duh! Of course they have! That's why it's so disappointing to so many of us that you and your fellow wingnuts have chosen to embrace cheating, lying, slander, theft, corruption, dishonesty, and divisiveness -- to mention but a few -- and have devoted so much misdirected effort to trying to remake this country in your own twisted image.
"We must preserve the purity of essense of our precious bodily fluids."
Why, you may wonder, does Cap'n Mike regard America as the last remaining beacon of hope? Aren't there plenty of other freedom-loving nations in the world? Isn't Western Europe packed with 'em?
Sadly, no. Wingnut doctrine holds that Europe will soon be overrun by islamofascist hordes, leaving America as the only remaining Christian nation in the world. Only America is free of the taint of socialized medicine, decriminalized marijuana, and enthusiastic soccer fans. That's what makes America the last shining beacon of true white civilization in a world seething with brown-skinned heathens and infidels.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask Cap'n Mike.
(this post has been cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)
We join Cap'n Mike now as he brings us cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #5. Come in, Cap'n Mike!
Increasingly, we bear witness
Or witness bears, as the case may be.
to a generation who may be proficient with their iPods, laptops and Blackberries, know which young celebrity has the latest "baby bump," but couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c" and the "a," form a cogent sentence or identify in what war the Battle of Gettysburg occurred.
It'd sure help to make Cap'n Mike's case if he could quote some, y'know, facts to support his assertions, but that is not the wingnut way. As Saint Ronald of Santa Barbara reminds us, facts are stupid things. As a matter of, erm, fact, the College Board's last report on national SAT scores, released last August, showed that "the long-term trend for critical reading scores has been essentially flat", while the "long-term trend in mathematics scores is up, rising from 501, 20 years ago to 511, 10 years ago to 515 this year."
I can understand, though, how Cap'n Mike might get the idea that "the kids" can't form a cogent sentence, since he doubtless spends a lot of time listening to our current president and visiting conservative blogs like RedState and Free Republic. Cap'n Mike might have a better opinion of the intellectual capabilities of the Modern Generation if he spent some time visiting places like Hullabaloo and the Daily Kos. Incidentally, it might be interesting to ask Cap'n Mike himself what war the Battle of Gettysburg occurred in, since so many of his fellow right-wingers insist that it took place in something called the War Between the States, which would of course be the wrong answer, since it occurred in the American Civil War.
Anyway, Cap'n Mike's going to tell us what those soul-destroying liberals want to do about his imaginary stupidifying youngsters. The floor is yours, Cap'n Mike.
The liberal government solution: throw money at public schools and the National Education Association.
And the conservative solution? Abolish the public school system, let wealthy parents send their children to private schools, and allow everyone else to remain uneducated. Because conservatives know that the less education someone has, the more likely he is to vote Republican. (And needless to say, it wouldn't be a proper wingnut rant without at least one swipe at organized labor.)
Oh, and make sure the youngsters know how to put condoms on bananas.
Oh, Cap'n Mike, you slay me! You positively SLAY me!
What Cap'n Mike is referring to here is a story from way back in 2003 about a Florida high school teacher who was fired for showing his 9th-grade students how to use condoms. With a banana. This story has become a legend in wingnut circles, and is always trotted out whenever someone like Cap'n Mike wants to show us all How Awful Public Education Is.
And finally,
Finally,
Cap'n Mike presents cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #6. May I have a drumroll please?
[sfx drumroll]
And our final contestant is . . . future First Lady Michelle Obama!
[sfx cymbal crash]
And here to explain Mrs. Obama's cultural-soul-destruction-related program activities is our own Cap'n Mike Caldwell! Let her have it, Cap'n Mike!
the wife of senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that our nation's history and traditions must be "rewritten" and that America is a "mean country."
What's this? No whitey tape? No terrorist fist-jab? All right, you imposter, who are you, and what have you done with Cap'n Mike?
Aherm, yes. Anyway, regarding Cap'n Mike's actual outrage-items, they come from two different venues. First, during a visit to Puerto Rico on May 14, Mrs. Obama gave a speech in which she said about her husband,
"What motivates him today, and what will motivate him for the rest of his presidency, if he is blessed enough to receive that honor, will be the future, the world that we can build for the next generation. Our children, these beautiful little faces, they come here open and ready and unburdened by all of our hurts and pains from the past; they come fresh to this world, and we owe them the best that we can provide them as a country. And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices, we are going to have to change our conversation, we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history, we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want desperately for our children. And he is the man to do it."
So, no, Michelle Obama didn't say that American history and traditions would have to be rewritten. The word "rewritten" is in fact an invention of Cap'n Mike's fevered wingnut paranoia.
Second, The New Yorker ran a piece by Lauren Collins in its March 10 issue which includes the following paragraphs:
The four times I heard her give the speech—in a ballroom at the University of South Carolina, from the pulpit of Pee Dee Union, at an art gallery in Charleston, and in the auditorium of St. Norbert College, in De Pere, Wisconsin—its content was admirably consistent, with few of the politician’s customary tweaks and nods to the demographic predilections, or prejudices, of a particular audience.
Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
Cap'n Mike probably hasn't noticed, since he views the world through his wingnut blinders, but life in America is just downright mean. We're faced every day with mean, petty, nasty people like a certain corporate jet pilot I could name. Of course, if Cap'n Mike were capable of noticing just how downright mean things are in this country, he wouldn't be a wingnut.
You mean the America that saved Eureope and the free world -- twice -- during wars in which literally millions of our countrymen served and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice to bring those victorious outcomes about?
No, Cap'n Mike, that's not the America that Michelle Obama means. After all, you and your fellow wingnuts have spent the last forty years trying to kill that America and replace it with one where the government spies on its citizens and launches pointless invasions of other countries and tortures prisoners and drives down wages and eliminates old age pensions. And you've done such a good job that the America that fought fascism has been replaced by an America that is duplicating fascism's worst features.
The Founding Fathers, with divine guidance, provided not just a political roadmap, but a moral compass and cultural soul that has served as the bedrock of American exceptionalism for 232 years.
I think you mean 224 years, Cap'n Mike. After all, your fellow conservatives have spent the last eight years demagnetizing that moral compass so it points in the direction of greed, cruelty, and barbarism, while tarnishing that cultural soul until it's as black as Dick Cheney's heart.
It's long past time we reassert among ourselves as individuals, communities, states and country a return to more fundamentally traditional American social, moral and cultural values.
Well, duh! Of course it is! Why do you think we're working so hard to remove the Republicans from power?
Those values reflect qualities of family, faith, pride in country, rugged individualism, toughness, self-reliance and respect for others -- to mention but a few -- all of which have served America's past generations so well.
Well, duh! Of course they have! That's why it's so disappointing to so many of us that you and your fellow wingnuts have chosen to embrace cheating, lying, slander, theft, corruption, dishonesty, and divisiveness -- to mention but a few -- and have devoted so much misdirected effort to trying to remake this country in your own twisted image.
In that regard, I emphatically reject those who advocate that America needs to be "more like the rest of the world," and in doing so not only sacrifice her essense,
"We must preserve the purity of essense of our precious bodily fluids."
but douse the flame of the last remaining beacon of hope for mankind.
Why, you may wonder, does Cap'n Mike regard America as the last remaining beacon of hope? Aren't there plenty of other freedom-loving nations in the world? Isn't Western Europe packed with 'em?
Sadly, no. Wingnut doctrine holds that Europe will soon be overrun by islamofascist hordes, leaving America as the only remaining Christian nation in the world. Only America is free of the taint of socialized medicine, decriminalized marijuana, and enthusiastic soccer fans. That's what makes America the last shining beacon of true white civilization in a world seething with brown-skinned heathens and infidels.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask Cap'n Mike.
(this post has been cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 2
For those just joining us, this is part 2 of a 3-part series (part 1 is here) in which I fisk Cap'n Mike Caldwell's plaintive wingnut lament "Are we losing our nation's soul?", as seen in the July 29, 2008 edition of the Newport Daily News. Cap'n Mike thinks America is losing its national soul, and being the hopeless wingnut that he is, he's certain that whiny America-bashing liberals are to blame. Cap'n Mike has chosen six instances of America-bashing whiners whose America-bashing whining is unsouling this country. Mind you, this is America's cultural soul he's talking about here. Next month, Spaghedeity help us, Cap'n Mike is going to regale us with examples of political national-soul-elimination.
We pick up our fisking with Cap'n Mike's third example of cultural-soul-destroying America-bashing. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!
Oh nooooooooes! Not again! Man, that noon meal prayer at Annapolis just can't seem to catch a break! Tell us, Cap'n Mike! Tell us who's trying to destroy America's cultural soul at the US Naval Academy!
As this Washington Post piece from June notes, the Anti-Defamation League has also asked the US Naval Academy to end its mandatory noon meal prayer, though for some weird reason Cap'n Mike didn't mention them. The WaPo piece also notes that the Virginia Military Academy's traditional noon meal prayer was ruled unconstitutional by a Virginia appeals court in 2003, and that the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had to adopt guidelines that discourage public prayers at official events or meetings after a scandal involving, per the New York Times, "expressions of anti-Semitism, official sponsorship of a showing of The Passion of the Christ, and a locker room banner that said athletes played for 'Team Jesus'.” Both West Point and Annapolis have been feeling the heat since the Air Force Academy scandal brought officially sponsored religious activity at military facilities into the public discourse.
So, how does Cap'n Mike respond to these midshipmen, brave men and women who have chosen to serve their country in the United States Navy, but who find themselves being singled out because their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are out of favor with the Powers That Be at the Academy?
I guess this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "supporting the troops". Cap'n Mike's classiness just shines through, doesn't it?
Oh well. Time for us to take a gander at cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #4. Who's the next contestant, Cap'n Mike?
Cap'n Mike's raising-of-eyebrows about the phrase "crimes against the state" seems odd coming from someone who -- interestingly -- has never publicly voiced any objections to the Bush administration's extra-legal policy of warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, routine torture, and Kafkaesque military tribunals in pursuit of its Glorious War On Terror. If Cap'n Mike is really worried about the threat to individual liberty posed by an overbearing government, he's been curiously silent about it.
I also note that conservatives are never happier than when they're lamenting the fact that 1) the government isn't executing more criminals, and 2) the government is spending their tax dollars. Here Cap'n Mike manages the impressive feat of complaining about both at the same time! Well played, sir!
Curiously, the same conservatives who complain about their taxes being spent on criminals are the same conservatives who would rather see the government spend thirty million dollars on a prison than thirty thousand dollars on a social worker. This is why you can't trust conservatives with your money -- their ideology always trumps their (hypothetical) common sense.
And I would be remiss if I failed to honor Cap'n Mike for the trenchant social commentary implicit in his terminal "swell". With one word, Cap'n Mike has disproved that old saw about brevity being the soul of wit.
Well, that's it for this installment of "Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers; or, The Fisking of Cap'n Mike". Tune in whenever for the thrilling conclusion!
(this post is cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)
We pick up our fisking with Cap'n Mike's third example of cultural-soul-destroying America-bashing. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!
Noon meal prayer at the US Naval Academy, a tradition since its founding it 1845, has again come under attack.
Oh nooooooooes! Not again! Man, that noon meal prayer at Annapolis just can't seem to catch a break! Tell us, Cap'n Mike! Tell us who's trying to destroy America's cultural soul at the US Naval Academy!
The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter on behalf of nine present and former midshipmen to the academy superintendent demanding an end to the 163-year-old tradition. The letter alleges those who don't participate feel they are forced to stand out among their peers.
As this Washington Post piece from June notes, the Anti-Defamation League has also asked the US Naval Academy to end its mandatory noon meal prayer, though for some weird reason Cap'n Mike didn't mention them. The WaPo piece also notes that the Virginia Military Academy's traditional noon meal prayer was ruled unconstitutional by a Virginia appeals court in 2003, and that the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had to adopt guidelines that discourage public prayers at official events or meetings after a scandal involving, per the New York Times, "expressions of anti-Semitism, official sponsorship of a showing of The Passion of the Christ, and a locker room banner that said athletes played for 'Team Jesus'.” Both West Point and Annapolis have been feeling the heat since the Air Force Academy scandal brought officially sponsored religious activity at military facilities into the public discourse.
So, how does Cap'n Mike respond to these midshipmen, brave men and women who have chosen to serve their country in the United States Navy, but who find themselves being singled out because their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are out of favor with the Powers That Be at the Academy?
Poor lads. Wait until they get into combat.
I guess this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "supporting the troops". Cap'n Mike's classiness just shines through, doesn't it?
Oh well. Time for us to take a gander at cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #4. Who's the next contestant, Cap'n Mike?
The Supreme Court recently ruled that executions are too severe a punishment for child rapists. The ruling restricts the death penalty to murder and -- interestingly -- "crimes against the state". Forcibly raping a 5-year-old child may simply have one sent to the lockup for incarceration and perhaps even a college education (at taxpayer expense), but "crimes against the state" provide for execution. Swell.
Cap'n Mike's raising-of-eyebrows about the phrase "crimes against the state" seems odd coming from someone who -- interestingly -- has never publicly voiced any objections to the Bush administration's extra-legal policy of warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, routine torture, and Kafkaesque military tribunals in pursuit of its Glorious War On Terror. If Cap'n Mike is really worried about the threat to individual liberty posed by an overbearing government, he's been curiously silent about it.
I also note that conservatives are never happier than when they're lamenting the fact that 1) the government isn't executing more criminals, and 2) the government is spending their tax dollars. Here Cap'n Mike manages the impressive feat of complaining about both at the same time! Well played, sir!
Curiously, the same conservatives who complain about their taxes being spent on criminals are the same conservatives who would rather see the government spend thirty million dollars on a prison than thirty thousand dollars on a social worker. This is why you can't trust conservatives with your money -- their ideology always trumps their (hypothetical) common sense.
And I would be remiss if I failed to honor Cap'n Mike for the trenchant social commentary implicit in his terminal "swell". With one word, Cap'n Mike has disproved that old saw about brevity being the soul of wit.
Well, that's it for this installment of "Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers; or, The Fisking of Cap'n Mike". Tune in whenever for the thrilling conclusion!
(this post is cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 1
From time to time, the Newport Daily News runs an op-ed by Captain Mike Caldwell, a retired Navy pilot and current corporate jet pilot. Cap'n Mike's op-eds always consist of a series of Republican talking points. In fact, when the story of the Pentagon's program of using retired military officers to spread White House propaganda was revealed, I seriously wondered whether Cap'n Mike was part of it. However, as far as we know, the Pentagon only targeted TV networks, and not third-tier local newspapers, so it's possible that Cap'n Mike's parroting of the GOP party line is not part of a larger government-run propaganda effort.
Nevertheless, my heart sank when I found in today's issue of the Snooze the first of a two-part series by Cap'n Mike titled (and heaven help me, I'm not making this up) "Are we losing our nation's soul?" Without even glancing at the piece, I was able to guess two things about it: 1) Cap'n Mike would not be citing the Bush administration's policy of torturing prisoners, even though that is probably the clearest example you could wish for of our nation losing its soul; and 2) either Barack or Michelle Obama would figure somewhere in Cap'n Mike's catalogue of lost-national-soulitude. A quick perusal of Cap'n Mike's piece revealed that both guesses were correct.
At this point, you have to wonder what Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney has against her paper's readers. You'd think that subjecting them to a weekly dose of Kathleen Parker's wingnuttery would be punishment enough, but apparently not. Well, if Sheila can take it, so can I. Time to hold our collective noses and see just how bad "bad" can be.
First, a note from Sheila herself (presumably), informing us in italics that This is the first of a two-part series. Today's installment examines the proposed question, "Are we, as a nation, losing our soul?" (BTW, Sheila, the short answer to this proposed question is, "Yes, but not for the reasons Cap'n Mike thinks.") from a cultural perspective. (Yes, that's right, we get to hear a lecture on culture from a right-wing corporate jet pilot. When I die, I'm goin' straight to Heaven, 'cos I've done my time in Hell.) The second installment, which will appear in August, will explore the question from a political aspect. (Or maybe, if we're lucky, the Earth will be destroyed by a Cylon battle fleet before then, and we'll be spared the second installment.)
What follows is something we in the blogging biz call fisking: Cap'n Mike spews out his wingnut jeremiad, and I respond with my own rebuttal. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!
and chiiiildren of aaaaaaaallll aaages!
Well, it probably started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, when the GOP cynically decided to pander to the worst instincts of millions of white bigots. But it really began to pick up steam when we let a mean-spirited, arrogant, overprivileged, incompetent dimwit with a messiah complex and some serious daddy issues steal the presidency.
Given that the United States has launched a war of aggression against another nation resulting in over a million civilian fatalities and several million refugees, and has set up its own version of the gulag archipelago, complete with inmates suffering indefinite detention and systematic torture in a series of secret prisons, those scare quotes around the word evil are looking pretty damn unnecessary to me. Any nation with that on its record can jolly well expect to suffer some "bashing" from its citizens and media. If you ask me, the United States ought be getting a lot more bashing on that score from its citizens and media than it actually is.
For now. You traitors.
In other words, shut up, you whiners!
Here are my top six whiners. And bear in mind, I find it both discouraging and depressing to learn that these people are saying that the United States isn't living up to the high standards our founding fathers set for it, because as a good wingnut I believe that the United States is the GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD (or would be if we could just get rid of these dirty hippie liberals).
What's that? You say you've never heard of Joe Bish, or the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population? Don't feel discouraged, because neither had I before Cap'n Mike mentioned them. A quick trip through the magical Google machine turns up this website, and this blog, where we learn that the NECSP is an organization consisting of ten board members and two staffers (one of whom is Bish). Originally founded in 1996, the NECSP was "revitalized" in 2006 (ie somebody started it up again). So, what has Cap'n Mike gleaned from this organization that consists of ten board members, two staffers, one website, and one blog?
Yeah, gotta hand it to Cap'n Mike. Pretty inflammatory stuff there from Joe Bish.
I can't help but notice, though, that contra Cap'n Mike, Bish doesn't actually say that the United States is singularly responsible for the woes and ills of the world. He does in fact also point his admonishing finger at highly consuming and polluting nations like the United States, such as, I assume, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Russia, and such up-and-coming consuming-and-polluting nations as China and India.
And what is Cap'n Mike's verbal riposte to this dirty liberal hippie tree-hugger Bish?
Yeah, run, Joe Bish! Run and hide, you dirty smelly hippie! Cap'n Mike has pwned your sorry ass! Bow down and grovel before the rhetorical might of the mighty Cap'n Mike Caldwell!
Aherm, yes. Anyway, so that's Joe Bish, cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #1. Who's our next contestant, Cap'n Mike?
For the even more uninitiated, the Islamic Army of Iraq is mainly (though not wholly) composed of Sunnis, the Iraqi minority group that Saddam Hussein belonged to. They organized after Saddam's fall for the purpose of fighting the American troops and their allies. For a while, they specialized in kidnapping and killing foreigners. Later on, they divided their time between fighting the Americans and fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2005 they participated in the October constitutional referendum. In recent months, they've been unofficially aiding the Americans against Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Shia militias.
Now, it may seem that Cap'n Mike is being a little simplistic, or possibly even simple-minded, in referring to this group as "the bad guys" in scare quotes. Some might even accuse Cap'n Mike of relying on childish name-calling in an effort to divert attention from the complex reality on the ground in Iraq, in which yesterday's enemy becomes today's ally.
That's actually a pretty good question, Cap'n Mike. Suppose the German government had released footage in 1944 showing German troops shooting at and killing American troops, and suppose that an American news organization had obtained this footage. Well, they didn't have television back in 1944, so no American news organization could have broadcast it. They could have passed it along to one of the Hollywood movie studios for inclusion in a newsreel, though this kind of dilutes the question, since it would be the studio showing the footage and not a news organization. But suppose it just the same. A 1944 moviegoing audience is sitting in a theater, and a newsreel comes on showing German troops killing American troops. I imagine the people would be angry at the Germans for killing the Americans, but would they be angry at the movie studio or the news organization for showing it? I'm pretty sure that the American people in 1944 had a pretty clear idea of the fact that Americans and Germans were trying to kill each other in combat, and that sometimes the Germans succeeded in killing Americans. There were even, if I'm not mistaken, works of fiction called "movies" that occasionally showed actors playing American soldiers being shot and killed by offscreen German soldiers, so it's not like movie audiences in 1944 had never seen portrayals of American soldiers being shot. Would the audience be angry at the movie studio for showing American soldiers dying in a newsreel? I have to believe they wouldn't.
Of course, this raises the question of why Cap'n Mike thinks TV audiences ought to be outraged by the sight of Iraqi snipers killing American troops. Does Cap'n Mike think that the audiences are unaware that there are Iraqis shooting at Americans? Does he think that this will come as some horrible shock to the American viewing audience? Well, we know that Cap'n Mike and his fellow wingnuts have conniption fits themselves whenever any news organization shows a flag-draped coffin, or lists the names of American soldiers who have been killed in action. From the evidence, it seems that Cap'n Mike himself is indeed unaware that people, even American soldier-type people, are killed in wars. He apparently finds the very idea utterly shocking, and no doubt he believes that the rest of his fellow citizens will feel the same way. Again, though, I have to believe that most of the people in this country are more worldly than Cap'n Mike, and are indeed aware that Americans are occasionally shot and killed in Iraq. They might be angry at the Iraqi snipers for killing American troops, but they won't be angry at CNN for showing them doing it.
Oh, and props to Cap'n Mike for picking Anderson Cooper, someone I've actually heard of, as cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #2. (Fun fact: Anderson Cooper's great-grandfather, Cornelius Vanderbilt II, built a Newport mansion called The Breakers.)
A good fisking tends to take up a lot of space, which can lead to some unwieldy blog posts. With that in mind, I'm going to stop here and take up Cap'n Mike's other four America-bashers in a couple of subsequent posts. Stay tuned!
(this post is cross-posted at Rhode Island's Twelfth)
Nevertheless, my heart sank when I found in today's issue of the Snooze the first of a two-part series by Cap'n Mike titled (and heaven help me, I'm not making this up) "Are we losing our nation's soul?" Without even glancing at the piece, I was able to guess two things about it: 1) Cap'n Mike would not be citing the Bush administration's policy of torturing prisoners, even though that is probably the clearest example you could wish for of our nation losing its soul; and 2) either Barack or Michelle Obama would figure somewhere in Cap'n Mike's catalogue of lost-national-soulitude. A quick perusal of Cap'n Mike's piece revealed that both guesses were correct.
At this point, you have to wonder what Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney has against her paper's readers. You'd think that subjecting them to a weekly dose of Kathleen Parker's wingnuttery would be punishment enough, but apparently not. Well, if Sheila can take it, so can I. Time to hold our collective noses and see just how bad "bad" can be.
First, a note from Sheila herself (presumably), informing us in italics that This is the first of a two-part series. Today's installment examines the proposed question, "Are we, as a nation, losing our soul?" (BTW, Sheila, the short answer to this proposed question is, "Yes, but not for the reasons Cap'n Mike thinks.") from a cultural perspective. (Yes, that's right, we get to hear a lecture on culture from a right-wing corporate jet pilot. When I die, I'm goin' straight to Heaven, 'cos I've done my time in Hell.) The second installment, which will appear in August, will explore the question from a political aspect. (Or maybe, if we're lucky, the Earth will be destroyed by a Cylon battle fleet before then, and we'll be spared the second installment.)
What follows is something we in the blogging biz call fisking: Cap'n Mike spews out his wingnut jeremiad, and I respond with my own rebuttal. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!
Ladies and gentlemen,
and chiiiildren of aaaaaaaallll aaages!
how the heck did we get here, to this point in our great nation's history where it appears we may be losing both our cultural and political soul?
Well, it probably started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, when the GOP cynically decided to pander to the worst instincts of millions of white bigots. But it really began to pick up steam when we let a mean-spirited, arrogant, overprivileged, incompetent dimwit with a messiah complex and some serious daddy issues steal the presidency.
Each day bears witness to yet another example of America-bashing by citizens and media apparently convinced that the "evil" United States is singularly responsible for the woes and ills of the world.
Given that the United States has launched a war of aggression against another nation resulting in over a million civilian fatalities and several million refugees, and has set up its own version of the gulag archipelago, complete with inmates suffering indefinite detention and systematic torture in a series of secret prisons, those scare quotes around the word evil are looking pretty damn unnecessary to me. Any nation with that on its record can jolly well expect to suffer some "bashing" from its citizens and media. If you ask me, the United States ought be getting a lot more bashing on that score from its citizens and media than it actually is.
While those parties are free to express their views,
For now. You traitors.
it is at once discouraging and depressing to see those benefiting from the unequalled blessings, bounty and opportunity afforded by this great nation -- a nation to which a goodly number of the planet's population owe their very existence and survival -- abuse her in such a visceral and misguided fashion.
In other words, shut up, you whiners!
Some notable examples include:
Here are my top six whiners. And bear in mind, I find it both discouraging and depressing to learn that these people are saying that the United States isn't living up to the high standards our founding fathers set for it, because as a good wingnut I believe that the United States is the GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD (or would be if we could just get rid of these dirty hippie liberals).
According to Joe Bish, outreach and program coordinator for the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population
What's that? You say you've never heard of Joe Bish, or the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population? Don't feel discouraged, because neither had I before Cap'n Mike mentioned them. A quick trip through the magical Google machine turns up this website, and this blog, where we learn that the NECSP is an organization consisting of ten board members and two staffers (one of whom is Bish). Originally founded in 1996, the NECSP was "revitalized" in 2006 (ie somebody started it up again). So, what has Cap'n Mike gleaned from this organization that consists of ten board members, two staffers, one website, and one blog?
" . . . highly consuming and polluting nations like the United States need to look in the mirror and ask themselves what sort of world we are leaving for the next generation."
Yeah, gotta hand it to Cap'n Mike. Pretty inflammatory stuff there from Joe Bish.
I can't help but notice, though, that contra Cap'n Mike, Bish doesn't actually say that the United States is singularly responsible for the woes and ills of the world. He does in fact also point his admonishing finger at highly consuming and polluting nations like the United States, such as, I assume, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Russia, and such up-and-coming consuming-and-polluting nations as China and India.
And what is Cap'n Mike's verbal riposte to this dirty liberal hippie tree-hugger Bish?
It would be a much better one than the thugs in the United Nations have in mind.
Yeah, run, Joe Bish! Run and hide, you dirty smelly hippie! Cap'n Mike has pwned your sorry ass! Bow down and grovel before the rhetorical might of the mighty Cap'n Mike Caldwell!
Aherm, yes. Anyway, so that's Joe Bish, cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #1. Who's our next contestant, Cap'n Mike?
In October 2006, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 began airing of a terrorist propaganda video obtained, as CNN put it, "through intermediaries from the Islamic Army of Iraq." For the uninitiated, that means "the bad guys."
For the even more uninitiated, the Islamic Army of Iraq is mainly (though not wholly) composed of Sunnis, the Iraqi minority group that Saddam Hussein belonged to. They organized after Saddam's fall for the purpose of fighting the American troops and their allies. For a while, they specialized in kidnapping and killing foreigners. Later on, they divided their time between fighting the Americans and fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2005 they participated in the October constitutional referendum. In recent months, they've been unofficially aiding the Americans against Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Shia militias.
Now, it may seem that Cap'n Mike is being a little simplistic, or possibly even simple-minded, in referring to this group as "the bad guys" in scare quotes. Some might even accuse Cap'n Mike of relying on childish name-calling in an effort to divert attention from the complex reality on the ground in Iraq, in which yesterday's enemy becomes today's ally.
The tape showed enemy snipers killing American troops. Cooper claimed that this story "is one we believe needs to be told." One wonders how long a news service doing the same thing during World War Ii would have survived the resultant American outrage.
That's actually a pretty good question, Cap'n Mike. Suppose the German government had released footage in 1944 showing German troops shooting at and killing American troops, and suppose that an American news organization had obtained this footage. Well, they didn't have television back in 1944, so no American news organization could have broadcast it. They could have passed it along to one of the Hollywood movie studios for inclusion in a newsreel, though this kind of dilutes the question, since it would be the studio showing the footage and not a news organization. But suppose it just the same. A 1944 moviegoing audience is sitting in a theater, and a newsreel comes on showing German troops killing American troops. I imagine the people would be angry at the Germans for killing the Americans, but would they be angry at the movie studio or the news organization for showing it? I'm pretty sure that the American people in 1944 had a pretty clear idea of the fact that Americans and Germans were trying to kill each other in combat, and that sometimes the Germans succeeded in killing Americans. There were even, if I'm not mistaken, works of fiction called "movies" that occasionally showed actors playing American soldiers being shot and killed by offscreen German soldiers, so it's not like movie audiences in 1944 had never seen portrayals of American soldiers being shot. Would the audience be angry at the movie studio for showing American soldiers dying in a newsreel? I have to believe they wouldn't.
Of course, this raises the question of why Cap'n Mike thinks TV audiences ought to be outraged by the sight of Iraqi snipers killing American troops. Does Cap'n Mike think that the audiences are unaware that there are Iraqis shooting at Americans? Does he think that this will come as some horrible shock to the American viewing audience? Well, we know that Cap'n Mike and his fellow wingnuts have conniption fits themselves whenever any news organization shows a flag-draped coffin, or lists the names of American soldiers who have been killed in action. From the evidence, it seems that Cap'n Mike himself is indeed unaware that people, even American soldier-type people, are killed in wars. He apparently finds the very idea utterly shocking, and no doubt he believes that the rest of his fellow citizens will feel the same way. Again, though, I have to believe that most of the people in this country are more worldly than Cap'n Mike, and are indeed aware that Americans are occasionally shot and killed in Iraq. They might be angry at the Iraqi snipers for killing American troops, but they won't be angry at CNN for showing them doing it.
Oh, and props to Cap'n Mike for picking Anderson Cooper, someone I've actually heard of, as cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #2. (Fun fact: Anderson Cooper's great-grandfather, Cornelius Vanderbilt II, built a Newport mansion called The Breakers.)
A good fisking tends to take up a lot of space, which can lead to some unwieldy blog posts. With that in mind, I'm going to stop here and take up Cap'n Mike's other four America-bashers in a couple of subsequent posts. Stay tuned!
(this post is cross-posted at Rhode Island's Twelfth)
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Live From Thompson Middle School
Rain was pouring down as I walked the hundred feet from my house to Thompson Middle School to see the candidates forum sponsored by the Newport County chapter of the NAACP. The forum was held in the school cafeteria, where a row of three tables had been set up facing 150 folding chairs. Peter Martin got up and said hi, and handed me a campaign button. He also greeted Mary Coaty, who was three seats down on my left. She was soon joined by Steve Coaty, who also greeted me and gave me one of his business cards. While the attendees were coming in and seating themselves, US Senate candidate Christopher Young was setting up a video camera to record his performance.
There were about fifty people present, half of them candidates and their spouses. There were a total of eighteen candidates running for ten seats, and only two hours for all of them, so there wasn't a lot of information from any individual candidate. The program started at four minutes after seven, when political action chair Josephine Brown introduced the event's moderator, Bud Cicilline.
First up were the candidates running for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives 1st District. The incumbents, Jack Reed (D) and Patrick Kennedy (D), were too busy actually doing their jobs in DC to attend (Reed was probably decompressing from his trip to the Middle East with Barack Obama), so they both sent notes saying they couldn't make it. Seated at the table were Reed's Democratic primary opponent Christopher Young, and his Republican general election opponent Bob Tingle. Tingle introduced himself first and mentioned that he wanted to drill, drill, drill for more oil, and also wanted to seal America's borders (not evidently being aware that in theory, America's borders are already sealed). Young was next, taking the opportunity to bash Reed for not coming to the forum, thereby incurring Cicilline's displeasure. Next came Patrick Kennedy's Republican opponent, Jonathan Scott, who stated that his big issues were energy and health care. Finally came Kennedy's independent opponent, Kenneth Capalbo, who spent his introductory period going on about the USS Liberty incident from 1967. I should probably go into some detail about the three questions that were posed to these candidates, and their answers to them, but since none of them is going to come close to beating Reed or Kennedy, I'll settle for just summarizing them thusly: Scott and Tingle are standard conservatives, Young is a standard liberal, and Capalbo is a standard nut. The people running the forum must have agreed with me, because they cut the federal candidates forum short and switched over to the RI Senate candidates at 7:38.
This stage of the forum included seven candidates up for three seats. There were the 11th district candidates, incumbent Democrat Chuck Levesque, his Republican challenger Chris Ottiano, and independent challenger John Vitkevich. In their opening remarks, Levesque talked about disunity, Ottiano talked about state budget mismanagement and the need for budget cuts, and Vitkevich talked about how Aquidneck Island gets left behind in a state dominated by Providence. When asked what their first priority was, Levesque said it was health insurance, Ottiano said it was lowering taxes (duh!), and Vitkevich said it was alternative energy. When asked about getting better transportation to the Aquidneck Corporate Park, Levesque talked about the need to expand the rail network, Ottiano said that RIPTA needed to be redesigned, and Vitkevich said that there did indeed need to be better public transportation to the Aquidneck Corporate Park. When asked about how to help people who've suffered from cuts in services, Levesque speechified, Ottiano basically said "tough luck for them", and Vitkevich managed not to say anything.
The 12th District candidates were, incumbent Republican June Gibbs and her Democratic challenger Louis DiPalma. Gibbs noted that as a retiree she could devote her full attention to the state senate and said that she was working for change (which, in a General Assembly dominated by Democrats, presumably means more Republicans). DiPalma cited his position as a technical director at Raytheon and his two terms in the Middletown Town Council as proof that he knew how to Get Things Done. When asked what their first priority was, Gibbs cited energy costs and the need to reorganize state departments. She also mentioned the Medicaid Global Waiver reform, but didn't have time to talk about it. DiPalma stressed the need for fiscal responsibility. When asked about Aquidneck Corporate Park, both candidates agreed on the need to expand public transportation. When asked about the victims of service cuts, Gibbs said they would have to "work out what's going to work", while DiPalma managed not to say anything.
Finally, the 13th district candidates were Democratic incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva-Weed and her Republican challenger Donna Perry. Paiva-Weed described herself as the voice of Newport and Jamestown in Providence, and cited the new Newport campus of CCRI as an important accomplishment. Perry described herself as a Jamestown resident and radio news reporter who was making her first run for public office. When asked what their first priority was, Paiva-Weed mentioned completing property tax reform, while Perry talked about targeting illegal immigrants and criticized Paiva-Weed for opposing Governor Carcieri's crackdown. Concerning Aquidneck Corporate Park, Paiva-Weed noted that her law firm had its offices there and that public transportation needed to upgraded across the state, and also responded to Perry's criticism from the first question. Perry responded to Paiva-Weed's response before Cicilline got her back on topic, at which point she stated that Aquidneck Island was ill-served by RIPTA. Concerning the victims of service cuts, Paiva-Weed quoted statistics and legislative details, while Perry echoed Ottiano's "tough luck" sentiments, and added that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to receive government services.
Finally, at 8:26 the third panel, RI House of Representatives candidates, took the stage. These included Democratic incumbent Raymond Gallison of the 69th district (though his Republican challenger William Grapentine didn't show), Democratic incumbent "Landslide" Amy Rice of the 72nd district (whose Republican challenger Daniel Patrick Reilly also didn't show), Democratic incumbent J. Russell Jackson of the 73rd district (who is running unopposed, but classily chose to participate anyway), Republican incumbent Bruce Long of the 74th district and his Democratic challenger Deborah Ruggiero, and Republican incumbent Steve Coaty of the fightin' 75th district and his Democratic challenger Peter Martin.
First question for the candidates was, "Do you support term limits for state legislators?" Everybody answered no and pointed out that the voters had a chance every two years to limit a legislator's term. Jackson noted being a state legislator was a part-time job, and that it took a while to learn the ropes. Second question for the candidates was, "Do you support the Governor's veto of the Renewable Energy Bill?" All the candidates said no, except for Coaty, who said he didn't like the bill's energy contracts, then switched to talking about mass transit. Rice called Carcieri's veto unbelievable. Peter mentioned the idea of using the Sakonnet River Bridge to generate tidal energy. The final question was how to bring more bilingual and minority teachers to local schools. Coaty ignored the question and talked about school choice instead, Peter said the schools should be encouraging multilingualism, Rice, Long and Ruggiero all said the state needs to do more to attract bilingual and minority teachers, Jackson said the state needed to expand Paul Crowley's vocational school program, and Gallison said that when minority students had better educational opportunities they would provide the state with more teachers.
That marked the end of the forum. As the attendees began leaving, Paiva-Weed stopped me to say that she was sorry I dropped out of the race, and that more people needed to get involved in politics. Peter introduced me to another one of his supporters, none other than my fellow Rhode Island's Twelfth contributor Anthony Spiratos. This was something of a surprise, since I had been under the impression that Anthony was a Republican. He explained that he used to be, but that Governor Carcieri had convinced him to leave the GOP and become an independent. (Anthony, this is just the sort of thing blogs were invented for. Details! I want details!) I said goodbye to Peter and Anthony, and made my way back out into the rainy night.
(This post is cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth.)
There were about fifty people present, half of them candidates and their spouses. There were a total of eighteen candidates running for ten seats, and only two hours for all of them, so there wasn't a lot of information from any individual candidate. The program started at four minutes after seven, when political action chair Josephine Brown introduced the event's moderator, Bud Cicilline.
First up were the candidates running for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives 1st District. The incumbents, Jack Reed (D) and Patrick Kennedy (D), were too busy actually doing their jobs in DC to attend (Reed was probably decompressing from his trip to the Middle East with Barack Obama), so they both sent notes saying they couldn't make it. Seated at the table were Reed's Democratic primary opponent Christopher Young, and his Republican general election opponent Bob Tingle. Tingle introduced himself first and mentioned that he wanted to drill, drill, drill for more oil, and also wanted to seal America's borders (not evidently being aware that in theory, America's borders are already sealed). Young was next, taking the opportunity to bash Reed for not coming to the forum, thereby incurring Cicilline's displeasure. Next came Patrick Kennedy's Republican opponent, Jonathan Scott, who stated that his big issues were energy and health care. Finally came Kennedy's independent opponent, Kenneth Capalbo, who spent his introductory period going on about the USS Liberty incident from 1967. I should probably go into some detail about the three questions that were posed to these candidates, and their answers to them, but since none of them is going to come close to beating Reed or Kennedy, I'll settle for just summarizing them thusly: Scott and Tingle are standard conservatives, Young is a standard liberal, and Capalbo is a standard nut. The people running the forum must have agreed with me, because they cut the federal candidates forum short and switched over to the RI Senate candidates at 7:38.
This stage of the forum included seven candidates up for three seats. There were the 11th district candidates, incumbent Democrat Chuck Levesque, his Republican challenger Chris Ottiano, and independent challenger John Vitkevich. In their opening remarks, Levesque talked about disunity, Ottiano talked about state budget mismanagement and the need for budget cuts, and Vitkevich talked about how Aquidneck Island gets left behind in a state dominated by Providence. When asked what their first priority was, Levesque said it was health insurance, Ottiano said it was lowering taxes (duh!), and Vitkevich said it was alternative energy. When asked about getting better transportation to the Aquidneck Corporate Park, Levesque talked about the need to expand the rail network, Ottiano said that RIPTA needed to be redesigned, and Vitkevich said that there did indeed need to be better public transportation to the Aquidneck Corporate Park. When asked about how to help people who've suffered from cuts in services, Levesque speechified, Ottiano basically said "tough luck for them", and Vitkevich managed not to say anything.
The 12th District candidates were, incumbent Republican June Gibbs and her Democratic challenger Louis DiPalma. Gibbs noted that as a retiree she could devote her full attention to the state senate and said that she was working for change (which, in a General Assembly dominated by Democrats, presumably means more Republicans). DiPalma cited his position as a technical director at Raytheon and his two terms in the Middletown Town Council as proof that he knew how to Get Things Done. When asked what their first priority was, Gibbs cited energy costs and the need to reorganize state departments. She also mentioned the Medicaid Global Waiver reform, but didn't have time to talk about it. DiPalma stressed the need for fiscal responsibility. When asked about Aquidneck Corporate Park, both candidates agreed on the need to expand public transportation. When asked about the victims of service cuts, Gibbs said they would have to "work out what's going to work", while DiPalma managed not to say anything.
Finally, the 13th district candidates were Democratic incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva-Weed and her Republican challenger Donna Perry. Paiva-Weed described herself as the voice of Newport and Jamestown in Providence, and cited the new Newport campus of CCRI as an important accomplishment. Perry described herself as a Jamestown resident and radio news reporter who was making her first run for public office. When asked what their first priority was, Paiva-Weed mentioned completing property tax reform, while Perry talked about targeting illegal immigrants and criticized Paiva-Weed for opposing Governor Carcieri's crackdown. Concerning Aquidneck Corporate Park, Paiva-Weed noted that her law firm had its offices there and that public transportation needed to upgraded across the state, and also responded to Perry's criticism from the first question. Perry responded to Paiva-Weed's response before Cicilline got her back on topic, at which point she stated that Aquidneck Island was ill-served by RIPTA. Concerning the victims of service cuts, Paiva-Weed quoted statistics and legislative details, while Perry echoed Ottiano's "tough luck" sentiments, and added that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to receive government services.
Finally, at 8:26 the third panel, RI House of Representatives candidates, took the stage. These included Democratic incumbent Raymond Gallison of the 69th district (though his Republican challenger William Grapentine didn't show), Democratic incumbent "Landslide" Amy Rice of the 72nd district (whose Republican challenger Daniel Patrick Reilly also didn't show), Democratic incumbent J. Russell Jackson of the 73rd district (who is running unopposed, but classily chose to participate anyway), Republican incumbent Bruce Long of the 74th district and his Democratic challenger Deborah Ruggiero, and Republican incumbent Steve Coaty of the fightin' 75th district and his Democratic challenger Peter Martin.
First question for the candidates was, "Do you support term limits for state legislators?" Everybody answered no and pointed out that the voters had a chance every two years to limit a legislator's term. Jackson noted being a state legislator was a part-time job, and that it took a while to learn the ropes. Second question for the candidates was, "Do you support the Governor's veto of the Renewable Energy Bill?" All the candidates said no, except for Coaty, who said he didn't like the bill's energy contracts, then switched to talking about mass transit. Rice called Carcieri's veto unbelievable. Peter mentioned the idea of using the Sakonnet River Bridge to generate tidal energy. The final question was how to bring more bilingual and minority teachers to local schools. Coaty ignored the question and talked about school choice instead, Peter said the schools should be encouraging multilingualism, Rice, Long and Ruggiero all said the state needs to do more to attract bilingual and minority teachers, Jackson said the state needed to expand Paul Crowley's vocational school program, and Gallison said that when minority students had better educational opportunities they would provide the state with more teachers.
That marked the end of the forum. As the attendees began leaving, Paiva-Weed stopped me to say that she was sorry I dropped out of the race, and that more people needed to get involved in politics. Peter introduced me to another one of his supporters, none other than my fellow Rhode Island's Twelfth contributor Anthony Spiratos. This was something of a surprise, since I had been under the impression that Anthony was a Republican. He explained that he used to be, but that Governor Carcieri had convinced him to leave the GOP and become an independent. (Anthony, this is just the sort of thing blogs were invented for. Details! I want details!) I said goodbye to Peter and Anthony, and made my way back out into the rainy night.
(This post is cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth.)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Meet the Candidates
From the July 23 Newport Daily News come the following two items:
Firstly, the local chapter of the NAACP will be sponsoring a candidate forum at 7 PM this evening at Thompson Middle School. The group has invited candidates for US Senate, US House o' Representatives, and the General Assembly (including, of course, Peter and Steve here in District 75). Candidates will be fielding questions from attendees. For info call 847-5570.
Secondly, a shadowy group called the Newport Democratic City Committee held a meeting sometime in the recent past, in which they (surprise, surprise) endorsed all the Democratic candidates (including, of course, Peter here in District 75). They also announced an upcoming Meet the Candidates Rally scheduled for September 20 at the Elks Lodge at the corner of Pelham Street and Bellevue Avenue. For info call 864-3535.
Firstly, the local chapter of the NAACP will be sponsoring a candidate forum at 7 PM this evening at Thompson Middle School. The group has invited candidates for US Senate, US House o' Representatives, and the General Assembly (including, of course, Peter and Steve here in District 75). Candidates will be fielding questions from attendees. For info call 847-5570.
Secondly, a shadowy group called the Newport Democratic City Committee held a meeting sometime in the recent past, in which they (surprise, surprise) endorsed all the Democratic candidates (including, of course, Peter here in District 75). They also announced an upcoming Meet the Candidates Rally scheduled for September 20 at the Elks Lodge at the corner of Pelham Street and Bellevue Avenue. For info call 864-3535.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Hits Just Keep On Coming
Even though my run for the General Assembly folded a week ago, word has apparently been slow to reach the various special interest groups. Today saw the arrival of a big manila envelope with a questionnaire from the Progressive Leadership Fund, "a political action coalition made up of the election arms of Rhode Island's most progressive organizations." The members of the PLF include the American Association of University Professors, the National Organization for Women (which already sent me a questionnaire), the United Auto Workers, the United Nurses and Allied Professionals, the Sierra Club, and the National Education Association. The PLF questionnaire is 35 questions long, covering such topics as civil rights, health care, the environment, education, and taxes. (It turns out I'm not alone in wanting to reduce Rhode Island's sales tax to 5%.)
Tuesday saw the arrival of another questionnaire, this one from the RI Right to Life Committee. In glancing over it, I was surprised to find out that the rite2lifers not only oppose abortion and stem cell research, but also universal health care (which they refer to, in standard wingnut parlance, as "health care rationing").
Memo to conservatives everywhere: we already have rationed health care. It's rationed according to who can afford it. What has the wingnuts outraged is the thought that they might have to wait in line with us proles for their health care on a first-come-first-served basis, instead of being able to use their money as a magic wand.
What specifically have the rite2lifers got againt universal health care? Well, it turns out that "rationing" health care could lead to lack of treatment which equals involuntary euthanasia. So, to recap: if someone dies from lack of treatment because they can't afford it, that's perfectly acceptable; but if someone dies from lack of treatment because they've been put in the back of a queue, that's the same as involuntary euthanasia and thus unacceptable. This is so utterly twisted that I can only gasp in wonder. In other words, typical conservative thinking.
Here's a little questionnaire of my own for you to take.
1. Conservatism is
A. Nonsensical.
B. Stupid.
C. Insane.
D. Just plain evil.
(The answer of course is E. All of the above.)
Anyway, final item in today's mailbag is a catalog from a company that makes campaign materials: buttons, lawn signs, door hangers, bumper stickers, and much more. It turns out special interest groups aren't the only people who peruse the candidate listings on the Secretary of State's website.
UPDATE: Saturday brings another catalog, and a questionnaire from REPPAC, Real Equality and Progress for Rhode Island, a new progressive PAC founded by Jennifer Lawless, Jim Langevin's 2006 primary challenger. Given Langevin's recent vote for the Protect AT&T Act, it's a shame she isn't running against him this year.
Tuesday saw the arrival of another questionnaire, this one from the RI Right to Life Committee. In glancing over it, I was surprised to find out that the rite2lifers not only oppose abortion and stem cell research, but also universal health care (which they refer to, in standard wingnut parlance, as "health care rationing").
Memo to conservatives everywhere: we already have rationed health care. It's rationed according to who can afford it. What has the wingnuts outraged is the thought that they might have to wait in line with us proles for their health care on a first-come-first-served basis, instead of being able to use their money as a magic wand.
What specifically have the rite2lifers got againt universal health care? Well, it turns out that "rationing" health care could lead to lack of treatment which equals involuntary euthanasia. So, to recap: if someone dies from lack of treatment because they can't afford it, that's perfectly acceptable; but if someone dies from lack of treatment because they've been put in the back of a queue, that's the same as involuntary euthanasia and thus unacceptable. This is so utterly twisted that I can only gasp in wonder. In other words, typical conservative thinking.
Here's a little questionnaire of my own for you to take.
1. Conservatism is
A. Nonsensical.
B. Stupid.
C. Insane.
D. Just plain evil.
(The answer of course is E. All of the above.)
Anyway, final item in today's mailbag is a catalog from a company that makes campaign materials: buttons, lawn signs, door hangers, bumper stickers, and much more. It turns out special interest groups aren't the only people who peruse the candidate listings on the Secretary of State's website.
UPDATE: Saturday brings another catalog, and a questionnaire from REPPAC, Real Equality and Progress for Rhode Island, a new progressive PAC founded by Jennifer Lawless, Jim Langevin's 2006 primary challenger. Given Langevin's recent vote for the Protect AT&T Act, it's a shame she isn't running against him this year.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Miscellaneous Questions
Nomi Hurwitz has questions.
Against. Marlin Perkins never bothered with bookbags. If he wanted to tag an animal, he just shot it with a tranquilizer dart and collared it. Best to stick with what works.
Banning breeds of dogs is, um, breedist. There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. Some of the sweetest dogs I've ever met have been pit bulls.
Other pet-related positions? My usual position is lying down while the pet lies on my stomach and licks my face.
Disch's best-known novels are On Wings of Song, The Puppies of Terra and Camp Concentration. Also check out the short story collection Fun With Your New Head.
I recognize this issue sprung up in Middletown, not Newport, nonetheless: What is your position on the microchipping of students' bookbags?
Against. Marlin Perkins never bothered with bookbags. If he wanted to tag an animal, he just shot it with a tranquilizer dart and collared it. Best to stick with what works.
Do you have any position regarding pit bulls in Newport?( I understand they're banned from Pawtucket). Any other dog or pet-related positions?
Banning breeds of dogs is, um, breedist. There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. Some of the sweetest dogs I've ever met have been pit bulls.
Other pet-related positions? My usual position is lying down while the pet lies on my stomach and licks my face.
Are you familiar with the works of Thomas Disch who committed suicide last week? If yes, would you recommend anything in particular for me. I've read nothing of his, but am intrigued.
Disch's best-known novels are On Wings of Song, The Puppies of Terra and Camp Concentration. Also check out the short story collection Fun With Your New Head.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Another One Bites the Dust
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get the required fifty signatures on my Nomination Papers, so my campaign for the General Assembly has come to a premature close. There will be no primary on September 9, and it's now up to Peter Martin to unseat Steve Coaty.
I'll continue to cover the race in this blog, but from a position on the sidelines (or as a volunteer with Peter's campaign). The Rhode Island blogosphere will have to survive without reading my response to Planned Parenthood's questionnaire or learning my positions on alternative energy or liquified natural gas terminals, and my proposals to establish a state-run health care service and establish a ban on political robocalls will remain unproposed.
To my handful of readers, especially Nomi Hurwitz, thanks for your encouragement. To the people who signed my Nomination Papers (if any of you are reading this), thanks for your support.
I'll continue to cover the race in this blog, but from a position on the sidelines (or as a volunteer with Peter's campaign). The Rhode Island blogosphere will have to survive without reading my response to Planned Parenthood's questionnaire or learning my positions on alternative energy or liquified natural gas terminals, and my proposals to establish a state-run health care service and establish a ban on political robocalls will remain unproposed.
To my handful of readers, especially Nomi Hurwitz, thanks for your encouragement. To the people who signed my Nomination Papers (if any of you are reading this), thanks for your support.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Is Our Children Learning?
When I dropped in on a block party on the 4th of July, one of the people attending asked me what my position on education was. I couldn't tell her then, but now I can tell you: I don't have one.
Let's face it: education is a hugely complicated issue. There's the federal Department of Education, the Rhode Island Department of Education, Congressional committees, state committees, and 39 local school boards. There are unions, state agencies, commissions, study groups, nonprofit groups, reports, programs, and on and on and on. It would be the work of a lifetime to master all this stuff.
One of the advantages of having a legislature is that different members can concentrate on different subjects. My own interests tend towards immigration policy, energy policy, LGBT issues, and privacy issues. At this point, all I can say on the subject of education is that if I'm elected, I'll keep an open mind and use my own judgment.
UPDATE: Per Nomi's request in the comments, the source for the title of this post is Governor G. W. Bush, during a campaign stop in Florence, South Carolina on January 11, 2000.
Let's face it: education is a hugely complicated issue. There's the federal Department of Education, the Rhode Island Department of Education, Congressional committees, state committees, and 39 local school boards. There are unions, state agencies, commissions, study groups, nonprofit groups, reports, programs, and on and on and on. It would be the work of a lifetime to master all this stuff.
One of the advantages of having a legislature is that different members can concentrate on different subjects. My own interests tend towards immigration policy, energy policy, LGBT issues, and privacy issues. At this point, all I can say on the subject of education is that if I'm elected, I'll keep an open mind and use my own judgment.
UPDATE: Per Nomi's request in the comments, the source for the title of this post is Governor G. W. Bush, during a campaign stop in Florence, South Carolina on January 11, 2000.
The Moderate Party
The RI chapter of NOW isn't the only group whose attention my run has attracted. I recently got a letter from the Moderate Party of Rhode Island, which was created last year by a Barrington business owner named Ken Block. Taken as a whole, Block's positions -- term limits for state legislators, a two-year term limit for the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, stringent ethics rules, and general lowering of taxes and spending -- are actually a reprise of old-fashioned limited-government conservatism.
Block has a point when he states that this is a position that is no longer favored by either major party. The Republicans used to believe in limited government, or said they did, but since the Newt Gingrich radicals have seized control of the national GOP, that party is now more closely associated with intrusive government and untrammeled executive power. The Rhode Island GOP now finds itself tainted by its association with the national party's disastrous policies, and small-government conservatives now have nowhere to go but the Libertarian Party, which suffers from its own form of ideological extremism.
Ken Block's way is not my way. I'm not a moderate, as I think my policy positions make clear. I do, however, recognize the inherent danger of having a government dominated by one political party. If Ken Block can build his Moderate Party into a political force capable of providing a reasonable alternative to the Democrats, then more power to him. So to speak.
Block has a point when he states that this is a position that is no longer favored by either major party. The Republicans used to believe in limited government, or said they did, but since the Newt Gingrich radicals have seized control of the national GOP, that party is now more closely associated with intrusive government and untrammeled executive power. The Rhode Island GOP now finds itself tainted by its association with the national party's disastrous policies, and small-government conservatives now have nowhere to go but the Libertarian Party, which suffers from its own form of ideological extremism.
Ken Block's way is not my way. I'm not a moderate, as I think my policy positions make clear. I do, however, recognize the inherent danger of having a government dominated by one political party. If Ken Block can build his Moderate Party into a political force capable of providing a reasonable alternative to the Democrats, then more power to him. So to speak.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
More Meetings
I was walking my dogs Wednesday afternoon when I noticed a short, blonde woman in her forties on the sidewalk by Washington Park. What caught my eye was the distinctive blue of a set of Nomination Papers. It was State Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva Weed, who also happens to be my representative in the State Senate. I showed her my own Nomination Papers, which I had on a clipboard attached to my belt, and pointed out that we were on the same errand. I explained what seat I was running for, and she offered to sign my papers, until I pointed out that she didn't live in the right district. I offered to sign her papers until she pointed out that the papers she was carrying were for Jamestown. Then we wished each other luck and went on our ways.
Back in 2002, during the Great Contraction, Paiva Weed found that the redistricting put her in the same senate district as her Democratic colleague J. Clement "Bud" Cicilline. There was nothing for it but for Paiva Weed and Cicilline to face each other in a primary election, and Paiva Weed won. Cicilline retired from public life until last year, when he ran for the special election for the 75th. As noted below, he lost the special election to Republican Steve Coaty, who is now the incumbent that Peter Martin and I are running against.
Cicilline called me on Tuesday and said he'd like to meet me. I agreed, and we met at the Newport Creamery on Bellevue Avenue. Cicilline explained that he had already met with Peter to talk about his plans for the election, and that in all fairness he felt he ought to meet with me to do the same. I explained about the issues I was interested in and told him about this blog, and he gave me advice about how to meet with potential voters and gain some attention (because, let's face it -- politics is all about getting peoples' attention). He happened to be carrying Nomination Papers for Jack Reed, and I happily signed, but I'd forgotten to bring my own. A pity.
If nothing else, running for this seat is serving as an introduction to the local political shakers and movers.
Back in 2002, during the Great Contraction, Paiva Weed found that the redistricting put her in the same senate district as her Democratic colleague J. Clement "Bud" Cicilline. There was nothing for it but for Paiva Weed and Cicilline to face each other in a primary election, and Paiva Weed won. Cicilline retired from public life until last year, when he ran for the special election for the 75th. As noted below, he lost the special election to Republican Steve Coaty, who is now the incumbent that Peter Martin and I are running against.
Cicilline called me on Tuesday and said he'd like to meet me. I agreed, and we met at the Newport Creamery on Bellevue Avenue. Cicilline explained that he had already met with Peter to talk about his plans for the election, and that in all fairness he felt he ought to meet with me to do the same. I explained about the issues I was interested in and told him about this blog, and he gave me advice about how to meet with potential voters and gain some attention (because, let's face it -- politics is all about getting peoples' attention). He happened to be carrying Nomination Papers for Jack Reed, and I happily signed, but I'd forgotten to bring my own. A pity.
If nothing else, running for this seat is serving as an introduction to the local political shakers and movers.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Questionnaire from RI NOW
Evidently, the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women is keeping an eye on General Assembly elections, because their political action committee sent me a questionnaire. Here is a list of the questions they asked, and the answers I provided. I'll skip part A, which covers general information.
B. Reproductive health
B1. Do you think comprehensive sex education should be taught in public schools?
Yes. None of that abstinence-only nonsense.
B2. Do you support public funding for abortion for low-income women?
Yes. Especially as part of a national health-care system.
B3. Current RI law requires minors seeking abortions to notify a parent or get permission from a judge. Do you favor repealing this law?
Yes.
B4. Do you support limitations on a woman's access to abortion?
No.
B5. During the last several legislative sessions, a "24 Hour Waiting Bill" was introduced which would increase informed consent requirements for abortion services, require multiple trips to the doctor's office to fulfill the waiting requirement, require rigorous reporting by doctors, grant rights to "fathers" and "grandparents", and require disclosure regarding who would be performing the abortion procedure. Do you/would you oppose such legislation?
Yes.
Part C: Violence against women
C1. Do you support funding services for women who are victims of domestic violence, as well as for children who witness domestic violence?
Yes.
C2. Do you support comprehensive legislation to address the issue of human trafficking in Rhode Island, including funding for victim services?
Yes.
D: Constitutional equality
D1. Do you support adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the state and U.S. Constitution?
Yes.
E: Lesbian, gay, bisexual , and transgendered (LGBT) rights
E1. Do you support legal marriage for same sex couples?
Yes.
E2. Do you support some other form of legal recognition for same sex couples, such as civil unions?
Yes. Civil unions would be better than nothing, but I would prefer full marriage equality.
E3. Do you support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage?
No.
F: Economic equality
F1. The Woman's Fund of Rhode Island published a report regarding the status of women and girls in Rhode Island. In it, they state that "Part Time work, occupational segregation, and the wage gap mean that women at all educational levels are twice as likely to be poor as men." Do you believe there is a role for public policy to play in addressing this issue?
Yes.
F2. Do you support affirmative action?
Yes.
G: Racial justice
G1. During this passt legislative session, many anti-immigration bills were introduced at the State House that would impact women and children. What is your position on the issure regarding immigration in our state?
I oppose placing further legal disabilities on immigrants, who already face too many disabilities in our current legal and social climate. I favor granting a path to citizenship to all illegal immigrants.
H. Leadership
H1. What leadership have you taken on issues that impact women, including but not limited to the issues addressed in this questionnaire?
Sadly, as a private citizen I have had little opportunity to take a leadership role in any issues, other than the occasional letter to the editor.
H2. If elected, on what issues affecting women would you be willing to take a leadership role?
I feel very strongly that the current demonization of immigrants is unhealthy and anti-democratic, and I will do everything in my power to oppose it.
H3. Do you have any additional comments regarding your positions on issues that impact women and girls in Rhode Island?
Anything that endangers the dignity and well-being of any person is a threat to all of us. Women are one of the groups who have traditionally suffered discrimination in our society, and are at particular risk from those who seek to roll back the progress that has been made in gaining equality for everybody. I intend to help protect those gains, and I intend to continue the effort to advance our society toward full equality for everyone.
B. Reproductive health
B1. Do you think comprehensive sex education should be taught in public schools?
Yes. None of that abstinence-only nonsense.
B2. Do you support public funding for abortion for low-income women?
Yes. Especially as part of a national health-care system.
B3. Current RI law requires minors seeking abortions to notify a parent or get permission from a judge. Do you favor repealing this law?
Yes.
B4. Do you support limitations on a woman's access to abortion?
No.
B5. During the last several legislative sessions, a "24 Hour Waiting Bill" was introduced which would increase informed consent requirements for abortion services, require multiple trips to the doctor's office to fulfill the waiting requirement, require rigorous reporting by doctors, grant rights to "fathers" and "grandparents", and require disclosure regarding who would be performing the abortion procedure. Do you/would you oppose such legislation?
Yes.
Part C: Violence against women
C1. Do you support funding services for women who are victims of domestic violence, as well as for children who witness domestic violence?
Yes.
C2. Do you support comprehensive legislation to address the issue of human trafficking in Rhode Island, including funding for victim services?
Yes.
D: Constitutional equality
D1. Do you support adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the state and U.S. Constitution?
Yes.
E: Lesbian, gay, bisexual , and transgendered (LGBT) rights
E1. Do you support legal marriage for same sex couples?
Yes.
E2. Do you support some other form of legal recognition for same sex couples, such as civil unions?
Yes. Civil unions would be better than nothing, but I would prefer full marriage equality.
E3. Do you support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage?
No.
F: Economic equality
F1. The Woman's Fund of Rhode Island published a report regarding the status of women and girls in Rhode Island. In it, they state that "Part Time work, occupational segregation, and the wage gap mean that women at all educational levels are twice as likely to be poor as men." Do you believe there is a role for public policy to play in addressing this issue?
Yes.
F2. Do you support affirmative action?
Yes.
G: Racial justice
G1. During this passt legislative session, many anti-immigration bills were introduced at the State House that would impact women and children. What is your position on the issure regarding immigration in our state?
I oppose placing further legal disabilities on immigrants, who already face too many disabilities in our current legal and social climate. I favor granting a path to citizenship to all illegal immigrants.
H. Leadership
H1. What leadership have you taken on issues that impact women, including but not limited to the issues addressed in this questionnaire?
Sadly, as a private citizen I have had little opportunity to take a leadership role in any issues, other than the occasional letter to the editor.
H2. If elected, on what issues affecting women would you be willing to take a leadership role?
I feel very strongly that the current demonization of immigrants is unhealthy and anti-democratic, and I will do everything in my power to oppose it.
H3. Do you have any additional comments regarding your positions on issues that impact women and girls in Rhode Island?
Anything that endangers the dignity and well-being of any person is a threat to all of us. Women are one of the groups who have traditionally suffered discrimination in our society, and are at particular risk from those who seek to roll back the progress that has been made in gaining equality for everybody. I intend to help protect those gains, and I intend to continue the effort to advance our society toward full equality for everyone.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Medical Marijuana
From the Providence Journal comes news that Governor Carcieri has vetoed a bill that would have studied the question of whether to establish distribution centers for medical marijuana. In his veto message, Carcieri wrote “This study commission intends to create the roadmap for making the state a party to the manufacture, procession and distribution of a controlled substance.” In other words, even asking whether we ought to create distribution centers is as bad as actually creating the distribution centers.
The General Assembly may well override this particular veto and create a commission to study whether the state should allow the distribution of medical marijuana. If so, then the commission is going to have to deal with the one great problem facing the establishment of such distribution centers: the fact that owning and distributing marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Medical marijuana is legal in California, but the federal government raided several municipal distribution centers last year. Of course, by this time next year the DEA could have new orders from a new administration to look the other way when medical marijuana is distributed to patients, but as long as the laws are still on the books, enforcement will always be at the whim of the federal government.
I personally support the establishment of distribution centers, but it will be up to Rhode Island's Congressional delegation in Washington to change the law at the federal level. Until that happens, any laws passed by the General Assembly will be under a permanent shadow.
The General Assembly may well override this particular veto and create a commission to study whether the state should allow the distribution of medical marijuana. If so, then the commission is going to have to deal with the one great problem facing the establishment of such distribution centers: the fact that owning and distributing marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Medical marijuana is legal in California, but the federal government raided several municipal distribution centers last year. Of course, by this time next year the DEA could have new orders from a new administration to look the other way when medical marijuana is distributed to patients, but as long as the laws are still on the books, enforcement will always be at the whim of the federal government.
I personally support the establishment of distribution centers, but it will be up to Rhode Island's Congressional delegation in Washington to change the law at the federal level. Until that happens, any laws passed by the General Assembly will be under a permanent shadow.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Puttin' on the Dog
Every day I take my dogs for a walk, and inevitably several people stop and ask me what kind of dogs they are. Since receiving my Nomination Papers, I've been bringing them with me on a clipboard and my "Vote For Me" button whenever I do my dog walking, in case I run into a registered voter. I always manage to get a few signatures this way during my dog walks.
On the 4th of July, as my dogs and I were returning home via Mann Avenue, we came across a block party at the intersection of Mann and Bush. The dogs attracted attention, as they always do, and while I was talking to one of the partygoers, she mentioned that Steve Coaty was present, and was gathering signatures for his Nomination Papers. We soon met and exchanged some friendly words, and wound up signing each others papers. He mentioned having met Peter Martin earlier that day, and I mentioned running into him on Broadway the week before.
I collected a number of signatures at the block party, and whenever anyone asked my what I was running for, I simply mentioned that I was running against Steve, and that was explanation enough.
On the 4th of July, as my dogs and I were returning home via Mann Avenue, we came across a block party at the intersection of Mann and Bush. The dogs attracted attention, as they always do, and while I was talking to one of the partygoers, she mentioned that Steve Coaty was present, and was gathering signatures for his Nomination Papers. We soon met and exchanged some friendly words, and wound up signing each others papers. He mentioned having met Peter Martin earlier that day, and I mentioned running into him on Broadway the week before.
I collected a number of signatures at the block party, and whenever anyone asked my what I was running for, I simply mentioned that I was running against Steve, and that was explanation enough.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Taxes
You will never hear a Republican say "Taxes are low enough already. We don't need to cut them any more." For a Republican, cutting taxes is not the result of a rational train of thought. It's more like the automatic reaction that results when a doctor taps someone's knee and their leg jumps. In fact, it would not be going too far to compare Republicans to the creatures in a zombie movie; instead of mumbling "Brains . . . brains . . . " as they shamble down the street, they mumble "Tax cuts . . . tax cuts . . . "
It's a human characteristic to want to get something for nothing, and Republicans rely on that when they tell people they can pay less taxes and still get all the government services they want by "cutting waste". Sadly, no. If you want your government to take care of the elderly, and children, and the disabled, and keep your highways fixed and your sidewalks clean and your libraries open and stocked with books you'd like to read, you're going to have to pay for it. If there's not enough in the budget to pay for all the services you want, the solution is to raise more money. The solution is to RAISE TAXES.
Aren't taxes too high already? The Republicans think so, but as we've already seen, the Republicans always think taxes are too high. You can't go by what they say. The answer to the question Aren't taxes too high already? isn't "Yes, because they're higher than I'd like them to be", the answer is "No, not if they aren't high enough to pay for everything we want". That's the only true measure of whether taxes are too high.
So, if we're going to raise taxes, how should we do it? One thing we shouldn't do is raise the sales tax. That's one tax that already is too high, yet for some reason, whenever it's time to cut taxes, it's never the sales tax that gets cut.
Some quick history: Back in the ancient days of the 1980s, a collection of mobbed-up bankers and crooked state politicians ransacked the Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corporation. The RISDIC went belly-up in 1991, and over a billion dollars in deposits in various credit unions vanished like so many soap bubbles. To cover the cost of reimbursing the people who lost their money, the state raised the sales tax from 6% to 7%. It was just an emergency measure until the financial crisis was dealt with, but darned if it isn't seventeen years later and the sales tax is still at 7%. And the sales tax is the most regressive tax in Rhode Island. People who are too poor to owe income tax have to pay the sales tax.
So, if we're going to cut the sales tax back to, say, 5%, how do we make up the difference? By the time-tested liberal method of soaking the rich. Why should rich people pay higher tax rates than everyone else? Well, why shouldn't they? They get to live in a society where the rules allow them to accumulate as much money as they want. Instead of being grateful that they're allowed to do so, and even that they get to keep most of it, they mostly just whine like spoiled children because they aren't allowed to keep more.
But rich people create wealth, and higher taxes discourage them from doing so. Nope. Rich people do not create wealth, rich people accumulate wealth. Wealth is created by everybody, and the better quality of life people lead, the more wealth they can create. People who are better-educated, with better health care, living in healthier places, create more wealth. And the way to produce a higher quality of life is with higher taxes. That's why states with low tax rates tend to be poorer than states with high tax rates. If you lower Rhode Island's taxes until they're as low as Mississippi's, then you'll end up with, well, Mississippi.
But if you raise taxes on rich people they'll move out of the state. Even if this is true, which I doubt, so what? It's not as though rich people are a perishable resource. Rich people who leave, if they leave, can and will be replaced by other people as they become rich.
So, if I'm elected to the General Assembly, I'll work to lower the sales tax and make up for it by raising the top income tax bracket by whatever amount is necessary to eliminate the budget deficit.
It's a human characteristic to want to get something for nothing, and Republicans rely on that when they tell people they can pay less taxes and still get all the government services they want by "cutting waste". Sadly, no. If you want your government to take care of the elderly, and children, and the disabled, and keep your highways fixed and your sidewalks clean and your libraries open and stocked with books you'd like to read, you're going to have to pay for it. If there's not enough in the budget to pay for all the services you want, the solution is to raise more money. The solution is to RAISE TAXES.
Aren't taxes too high already? The Republicans think so, but as we've already seen, the Republicans always think taxes are too high. You can't go by what they say. The answer to the question Aren't taxes too high already? isn't "Yes, because they're higher than I'd like them to be", the answer is "No, not if they aren't high enough to pay for everything we want". That's the only true measure of whether taxes are too high.
So, if we're going to raise taxes, how should we do it? One thing we shouldn't do is raise the sales tax. That's one tax that already is too high, yet for some reason, whenever it's time to cut taxes, it's never the sales tax that gets cut.
Some quick history: Back in the ancient days of the 1980s, a collection of mobbed-up bankers and crooked state politicians ransacked the Rhode Island Share and Deposit Indemnity Corporation. The RISDIC went belly-up in 1991, and over a billion dollars in deposits in various credit unions vanished like so many soap bubbles. To cover the cost of reimbursing the people who lost their money, the state raised the sales tax from 6% to 7%. It was just an emergency measure until the financial crisis was dealt with, but darned if it isn't seventeen years later and the sales tax is still at 7%. And the sales tax is the most regressive tax in Rhode Island. People who are too poor to owe income tax have to pay the sales tax.
So, if we're going to cut the sales tax back to, say, 5%, how do we make up the difference? By the time-tested liberal method of soaking the rich. Why should rich people pay higher tax rates than everyone else? Well, why shouldn't they? They get to live in a society where the rules allow them to accumulate as much money as they want. Instead of being grateful that they're allowed to do so, and even that they get to keep most of it, they mostly just whine like spoiled children because they aren't allowed to keep more.
But rich people create wealth, and higher taxes discourage them from doing so. Nope. Rich people do not create wealth, rich people accumulate wealth. Wealth is created by everybody, and the better quality of life people lead, the more wealth they can create. People who are better-educated, with better health care, living in healthier places, create more wealth. And the way to produce a higher quality of life is with higher taxes. That's why states with low tax rates tend to be poorer than states with high tax rates. If you lower Rhode Island's taxes until they're as low as Mississippi's, then you'll end up with, well, Mississippi.
But if you raise taxes on rich people they'll move out of the state. Even if this is true, which I doubt, so what? It's not as though rich people are a perishable resource. Rich people who leave, if they leave, can and will be replaced by other people as they become rich.
So, if I'm elected to the General Assembly, I'll work to lower the sales tax and make up for it by raising the top income tax bracket by whatever amount is necessary to eliminate the budget deficit.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
In Defense of Partisanship
If you spend a lot of time walking dogs in Newport, you'll find yourself staring down at a lot of the city's sidewalks. At some point, you're bound to come across a small metal plate set into the concrete that reads:
The Works Progress Administration, or WPA, was a government agency set up during the New Deal to build infrastructure and employ workers during the Great Depression, thereby ameliorating two problems facing the country back then: too little infrastructure, and too many unemployed workers. The WPA built dams, bridges, libraries, airports; the Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas; the Picnic Shelter in Piedmont Park, Atlanta; and of course, the sidewalks in Newport, Rhode Island.
Seventy years after they were built, the sidewalks of Newport still provide value to the good people of this city (and their dogs), a testament to the power of good government to improve the lives of generations of citizens, and a testament to those Democratic politicians of the 1930s who embraced the concept of good government and made it work.
Now try to think of some comparable accomplishment by the Republicans. Pretty much the only positive accomplishment they can point to is President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, and even that was actually created by Democrats: Representative George Hyde Fallon of Maryland, and Senator Albert Gore, Sr., of Tennessee. The reason Republican accomplishments are so rare is because of the GOP's philosophy of governance. Republicans believe that government doesn't work, and (as they've demonstrated numerous times) whenever they gain power, they set out to prove it. The current administration of George W. Bush provides a case in point. When he leaves office, what legacies will he leave behind him? Well, all the budget deficits he ran up will still be unpaid, and all the people he's managed to kill will still be dead, and that's about it.
It's become fashionable lately to decry partisanship. As the blogger Digby notes, in Washington, D.C. denunciations of partisanship always vanish whenever the Republicans gain power, then reappear whenever the Democrats take over. It has become an article of faith among Beltway opinionmakers that partisanship is always bad and bipartisanship is always good, even though (as Glenn Greenwald documents) bipartisanship has given us the worst legislation of the past eight years. By contrast, the only notable instance of Democratic partisanship during those eight years was when Democrats united to prevent the privatization of Social Security.
This worship of bipartisanship has filtered down from its point of origin in Washington to infect the rest of the country. For example, when a newly-elected Steve Coaty talked with Charlie Bakst of the Providence Journal back in December, he said, “The first thing I think I’m going to tell them is that the time for partisan bickering is over. I think Rhode Islanders are sick of the stalemates.”
Coaty his his ideas of what Rhode Islanders are sick of, and I have mine. I think Rhode Islanders are sick of Democrats who think like Republicans, pushing Republican ideas like tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts in services for everyone else. I think Rhode Islanders would like an end to Washington-style help-the-Republicans bipartisanship. I think they'd like their Democrats to start acting like Democrats.
I think Rhode Islanders are ready for some actual partisanship.
BUILT
BY
WORKS PROGRESS
ADMINISTRATION
1935 - 1937
The Works Progress Administration, or WPA, was a government agency set up during the New Deal to build infrastructure and employ workers during the Great Depression, thereby ameliorating two problems facing the country back then: too little infrastructure, and too many unemployed workers. The WPA built dams, bridges, libraries, airports; the Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas; the Picnic Shelter in Piedmont Park, Atlanta; and of course, the sidewalks in Newport, Rhode Island.
Seventy years after they were built, the sidewalks of Newport still provide value to the good people of this city (and their dogs), a testament to the power of good government to improve the lives of generations of citizens, and a testament to those Democratic politicians of the 1930s who embraced the concept of good government and made it work.
Now try to think of some comparable accomplishment by the Republicans. Pretty much the only positive accomplishment they can point to is President Eisenhower's interstate highway system, and even that was actually created by Democrats: Representative George Hyde Fallon of Maryland, and Senator Albert Gore, Sr., of Tennessee. The reason Republican accomplishments are so rare is because of the GOP's philosophy of governance. Republicans believe that government doesn't work, and (as they've demonstrated numerous times) whenever they gain power, they set out to prove it. The current administration of George W. Bush provides a case in point. When he leaves office, what legacies will he leave behind him? Well, all the budget deficits he ran up will still be unpaid, and all the people he's managed to kill will still be dead, and that's about it.
It's become fashionable lately to decry partisanship. As the blogger Digby notes, in Washington, D.C. denunciations of partisanship always vanish whenever the Republicans gain power, then reappear whenever the Democrats take over. It has become an article of faith among Beltway opinionmakers that partisanship is always bad and bipartisanship is always good, even though (as Glenn Greenwald documents) bipartisanship has given us the worst legislation of the past eight years. By contrast, the only notable instance of Democratic partisanship during those eight years was when Democrats united to prevent the privatization of Social Security.
This worship of bipartisanship has filtered down from its point of origin in Washington to infect the rest of the country. For example, when a newly-elected Steve Coaty talked with Charlie Bakst of the Providence Journal back in December, he said, “The first thing I think I’m going to tell them is that the time for partisan bickering is over. I think Rhode Islanders are sick of the stalemates.”
Coaty his his ideas of what Rhode Islanders are sick of, and I have mine. I think Rhode Islanders are sick of Democrats who think like Republicans, pushing Republican ideas like tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts in services for everyone else. I think Rhode Islanders would like an end to Washington-style help-the-Republicans bipartisanship. I think they'd like their Democrats to start acting like Democrats.
I think Rhode Islanders are ready for some actual partisanship.
How to Run For Office
The first step to running for office is deciding to run for office. This is probably the biggest, most difficult step in the process. The idea has grown up in the last fifty or sixty years that the government is a separate entity from the people being governed. Back in 1944, a Canadian politician even compared the government to cats and the governed to mice. "Why" he asked rhetorically, "do the mice keep voting for cats to govern them?"
This idea is not only wrong, it's dangerously wrong. The traditional American view has always been that government is not only "of the people", it's also "by the people". We ARE our government. The more people forget this, the easier it is to alienate people from the government, to convince them that government is some sort of ruling elite that's been imposed upon them from outside. When you decide to run for office, you reject the idea that government is an alien ruling class, and embrace the idea that WE are the government.
So, having decided to run for office, the next step is to show up at the local Board of Canvassers and let them know that you're running for office. This is done by filling out a Declaration of Candidate form. There's a three day period when you can do this -- this year it was June 23 to 25.
When you declare your candidacy, the Board of Canvassers hands you a bunch of forms that have to be filed with the Rhode Island Board of Elections in Providence. First is the Notice of Organization, which informs the Board who your campaign treasurer is. Every campaign is required to have a treasurer, though in Rhode Island the candidate is allowed to be his own treasurer. It's the campaign treasurer's job to keep track of all the money collected and spent by the campaign. The treasurer also has to send in periodic reports on "campaign activity" (ie money received and spent).
Once you've declared yourself a candidate, in due course the Board of Canvassers provides you with your Nomination Papers. This is basically a petition, and you have to get a certain number of signatures from registered voters by a certain date. This year, the candidates get their Nomination Papers on July 1, and they have until 4:00 PM on Friday, July 11 to turn them in. (In my case, running for the state House of Representatives, I have to get 50 signatures from people living in District 75.) It's always a good idea to get extra signatures, ideally twice the required minimum, just in case some of them aren't valid.
If you can get enough signatures, then you qualify for a place on the ballot. At this point, you start to do the actual "campaigning" part of the campaign: persuading people to vote for you by kissing hands and shaking babies. The most basic form of campaigning is knocking on doors, saying "Hi" to the people who answer, and asking them to vote for you. All other forms of campaigning -- handing out flyers, telephoning people, staging rallies, participating in debates -- are variations on this basic theme. They're all different ways of persuading people to vote for you.
If there's more than one person from your party running for the same office, you all go head-to-head with each other in a primary election. In my case, since Peter Martin is also running as a Democrat, the two of us will be running against each other until Primary Election Day, Tuesday, September 9, when the Democrats and unaffiliated voters of the 75th get to choose between us. The only other person running for the seat is the incumbent, Steve Coaty, a Republican. Since he's the only Republican in the race, he doesn't have to worry about a primary election. He only has to get ready for General Election Day, Tuesday, November 4, when the voters of the 75th get to choose between him and whoever wins the primary between Peter and me.
After the election is over, you have to file a final post-election set of reports on "campaign activity", and you also file a form dissolving your campaign. And of course, if you win the election, you become part of the government. But that's a whole different set of worries.
This idea is not only wrong, it's dangerously wrong. The traditional American view has always been that government is not only "of the people", it's also "by the people". We ARE our government. The more people forget this, the easier it is to alienate people from the government, to convince them that government is some sort of ruling elite that's been imposed upon them from outside. When you decide to run for office, you reject the idea that government is an alien ruling class, and embrace the idea that WE are the government.
So, having decided to run for office, the next step is to show up at the local Board of Canvassers and let them know that you're running for office. This is done by filling out a Declaration of Candidate form. There's a three day period when you can do this -- this year it was June 23 to 25.
When you declare your candidacy, the Board of Canvassers hands you a bunch of forms that have to be filed with the Rhode Island Board of Elections in Providence. First is the Notice of Organization, which informs the Board who your campaign treasurer is. Every campaign is required to have a treasurer, though in Rhode Island the candidate is allowed to be his own treasurer. It's the campaign treasurer's job to keep track of all the money collected and spent by the campaign. The treasurer also has to send in periodic reports on "campaign activity" (ie money received and spent).
Once you've declared yourself a candidate, in due course the Board of Canvassers provides you with your Nomination Papers. This is basically a petition, and you have to get a certain number of signatures from registered voters by a certain date. This year, the candidates get their Nomination Papers on July 1, and they have until 4:00 PM on Friday, July 11 to turn them in. (In my case, running for the state House of Representatives, I have to get 50 signatures from people living in District 75.) It's always a good idea to get extra signatures, ideally twice the required minimum, just in case some of them aren't valid.
If you can get enough signatures, then you qualify for a place on the ballot. At this point, you start to do the actual "campaigning" part of the campaign: persuading people to vote for you by kissing hands and shaking babies. The most basic form of campaigning is knocking on doors, saying "Hi" to the people who answer, and asking them to vote for you. All other forms of campaigning -- handing out flyers, telephoning people, staging rallies, participating in debates -- are variations on this basic theme. They're all different ways of persuading people to vote for you.
If there's more than one person from your party running for the same office, you all go head-to-head with each other in a primary election. In my case, since Peter Martin is also running as a Democrat, the two of us will be running against each other until Primary Election Day, Tuesday, September 9, when the Democrats and unaffiliated voters of the 75th get to choose between us. The only other person running for the seat is the incumbent, Steve Coaty, a Republican. Since he's the only Republican in the race, he doesn't have to worry about a primary election. He only has to get ready for General Election Day, Tuesday, November 4, when the voters of the 75th get to choose between him and whoever wins the primary between Peter and me.
After the election is over, you have to file a final post-election set of reports on "campaign activity", and you also file a form dissolving your campaign. And of course, if you win the election, you become part of the government. But that's a whole different set of worries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
