The Spirit of 75

How I predicted the false torture confessions

2009-05-15T01:08:00.004-04:00

Last month, we found out that the real reason the Bush administration tortured prisoners was the same reason that evil people always torture prisoners -- to extract false confessions. In particular, as we learned from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson yesterday, Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, so he ordered interrogators to torture prisoners until they said that Saddam Hussein was helping Al-Qaeda. Well, who could have predicted such a thing?

Me, that's who.

Way back in the fall of 2006, as Congress was debating the Military Commissions Act, the Providence Journal ran a hideous editorial defending the use of torture. It was such an odious pile of excrement that I felt compelled to issue a line-by-line rebuttal (a fisking, as we bloggers say) on my old blog, Newport 9. The Newport 9 blog no longer exists, but I felt the ProJo's atrocity deserved a wider airing, so I cross-posted my piece to a Daily Kos diary. That diary is still there, so I'd like to take this opportunity to quote a section of it:

While experts disagree on whether torture works,

Major, major weaselness here. Whenever people want to muddy the waters on an issue, they always resort to the old "experts disagree" dodge: "experts disagree" about global warming, "experts disagree" about cigarettes causing cancer, "experts disagree" about evolution, and on and on and on.

Anyone who isn't a moral cripple knows that torture doesn't work. All torture lets you do is make somebody say what you want them to say. Here's how it goes:

INTERROGATOR: Was Saddam Hussein working with bin Laden to attack America?
CAPTIVE: Of course not, they hate each others' guts.

INTERROGATOR: Wrong answer.

CAPTIVE: AAAAAAAAAHHH!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! AAAAAAAAAHHH!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! AAAAAAAAAHHH!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!

INTERROGATOR: Now, I'm going to ask you again. Was Saddam Hussein working with bin Laden to attack America?

CAPTIVE: YES!! YES!! AAAAAHH!! AAAAAHH!! ANYTHING YOU SAY!! AAAAAHH!! AAAAAHH!! AAAAAHH!!

INTERROGATOR: Williams, contact the President, tell him we've confirmed the link between Saddam and bin Laden.

There you have it, folks, proof of my awesome powers of predictiveness. (And yes, it's true that my Daily Kos User ID is 2558, making me one of the Secret Masters of the Great Orange Satan. Bow down and worship me, you ignorant masses!)

So, how did I do it? Did I have a time machine that I used to travel to the year 2009 to learn the truth about Bush's torture regime? Sadly, no. I had to rely on that rarest of faculties, simple common sense. I knew that torture didn't work, and that a person being tortured will say whatever his interrogators want him to say. I knew that the Bushies were using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq. Egro, logic suggested that the Bushies were using torture to gain a false link between 9/11 and Iraq.

QED.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

2009-03-24T23:44:00.002-04:00

From the Newport Daily News comes, via a great big notice taking up most of page A2, a public hearing on a zoning ordinance amendment dealing with signs. The public hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 8, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of City Hall. You can find the codified ordinances of Newport online here, and the section where the changes will be made are in Title 17, ZONING, within which can be found Chapter 17.76, SIGNS. As near as I can make out from the notice, the following changes will be discussed:

1) Add an opening paragraph to the "Intent" section of Chapter 17.76 to include four bullet points explaining why signs need to be regulated.

2) Add the phrase "to promote community aesthetics and public safety" to paragraph D of the "Intent" section.

3) Add definitions in the "Usages" section for A-frame sign, awning, business frontage, banner sign, directory sign, and incidental business sign.

4) Replace the word "license" with the word "permit" throughout Chapter 17.76, and change "director of public works" to "director of planning, zoning, development and inspections" in the "Applications" section.

5) Raise the price of a sign ~~license~~ permit from a graduated fee based on the sign's square footage to a flat $35 per sign fee "plus an additional $25.00 is Historic District review is required."

6) In the section on removing unlawful signs, a paragraph is added noting that signs installed on public property or right-of-way "shall be forfeited to the public and subject to confiscation by the City." Also, the city can charge the sign's owner for the cost of removing and disposing of the signs. This would presumably include political signage as well as signs of the "Newport Personals" variety.

7) Add "no parking, entrance, and loading only" to the list of permitted signs in the "Signs permitted in all areas" section, and add a paragraph on business internet address signs.

8) Streamline paragraph F in the "Signs prohibited in all areas" section, and amend paragraph M to allow businesses in certain zones to put up temporary signs between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.

9) In the "Business signs" section, paragraph B is amended so that businesses can put up as many business signs as they want as long as they don't take up too much space.

10) In the "Off-premises advertising" section, a paragraph is added allowing directory signs to be put up in the Waterfront Business zone. Also, the paragraph on billboards is amended to prohibit enlarging billboards or adding flashing lights or LEDs to them.

11) Add a new section on "City Council authorization" that allows the City Council to authorize the placement of signs on public property.

12) Add a new section on "City Manager approval -- signs on public property" allowing the City Manager to approve placement of directional signage to private parking lots on public property.

So, if you've got strong views on the subject of signage regulations, be sure to be at City Hall on April 8 to let your voice be heard.

More trouble for Coaty

2009-01-29T13:13:00.003-05:00

From the January 28, 2009 issue of the Newport Daily News comes word of more trouble for former 75th District Representative Steve Coaty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board filed charges against Coaty alleging that he forged a former client's name on papers filed with the Department of Corrections, and also that he forged a former client's name on a settlement check, endorsing the check and depositing it in his client account.

Another former client, Debra A. Mack, claimed that her civil suit against the City of Newport was dismissed because Coaty failed to show up for a court hearing. The board has charged Coaty with incompetence, failure to "act with reasonable diligence," lack of communication with his client and filing baseless claims against his former client and her new attorney, Richard "Mike" Fisher.

Debra Mack's legal odyssey began in May 2002 when she tripped and fell on a Newport sidewalk. She hired an attorney to sue the city, but he turned the case over to a partner (none other than District 73 Representative J. Russell Jackson), who in turn referred her to Coaty. The board alleges that Coaty failed for several months to produce Mack's medical records, and when the city's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the suit, it was granted on June 2, 2008 when then-Representative Coaty failed to show up for the scheduled hearing. Coaty never informed Mack that the case had been dismissed; Fisher happened to be in the courtroom that day, and since he was a family friend he told her. When Mack contacted Coaty, he promised to get the dismissal overturned and the case brought to court in July, but he never did.

Mack finally got fed up and hired Fisher to represent her. He requested that Coaty turn over his case files on Mack, but he never did. Instead, he sued Mack and Fisher on September 17. Mack then went to the Newport Daily News and told them what had happened, and two weeks before the election the paper ran a story on Mack's troubles with Coaty. On election day, Coaty lost his re-election race to Democratic challenger Peter F. Martin by 2823 votes to 2336.

As the NDN notes, Coaty's victory in the December 2007 special election "quickly became a rallying point for House Republicans, who felt Coaty's victory in a Democratic district signaled a turn of the political tide for Republicans in the state." Their hopes were dashed on November 4, 2008 when Coaty lost his seat, along with fellow Republicans Bruce Long of Middletown, William McManus of Lincoln, and Nicholas Gorham of Coventry. The Republicans also lost control of open seats in Districts 28, 41, 66, and 70.

Did Debra Mack's story cost Coaty his seat? Coaty's own lawyer, Christopher Gontarz, seems to think so. When he heard the NDN was running this story, he contacted them and said, "A Welsh politician, Nye Bevan, once said 'Politics is a blood sport.' It's certainly true in Rhode Island and it's especially true on Aquidneck Island." Is Coaty being targeted by the state's Democrats, or is Gontarz just being a WATB?

How I Spent My Autumn Vacation

2008-11-27T03:31:00.003-05:00

My reader, Nomi Hurwitz, has expressed interest in the tale of my campaign activities in Pennsylvania during the recent election. To satisfy her curiosity, here's how I came to be there.

I was planning all along to do something or other leading up to the election, so I took off work during the first week in November. My final decision was influenced by the McCain campaign's insistance that it was going to make its last throw of the dice in Pennsylvania. I was born and raised in northern Delaware, within thirty miles of Pennsylvania, and several close members of my family still live there. I could travel there during my vacation, get to spend some time with my family, and also sneak across the border to Pennsylvania to do some campaigning there for Obama. So that's what I did.

I spent Sunday driving from Rhode Island to Delaware and settling in with my parents. A quick perusal of mybarackobama.com found an Obama field office in nearby Chester, Pa., at Bethany Baptist Church. I set out there on Monday morning, and by a quarter past nine I was in the parking lot, greeting two women named Molly and Sara who were with the local campaign team. I spent the next eight hours in Chester, knocking on doors and leaving campaign literature. Most of the people in Chester are black, and somewhere between half and two thirds of the houses there had Obama-Biden lawn signs sitting out front. As is usually the case with door-knocking, most of the time there was nobody home, but on the rare occasions when there was, the people answering the door were usually happy to see me and assured me that they would be voting for Obama. I met several people who had attended a rally with Obama himself the week before.

Tuesday morning found me back at Bethany Baptist, and once more I was out knocking on doors, this time to sort out who had voted from who hadn't. The church basement where the Obama field office was located was a hive of activity, as volunteers arrived in a steady stream and were as quickly given orientation and canvassing packets and sent out again. There were boxes of campaign literature and door hangers, and at one end of the room was a widescreen TV tuned to CNN.

Canvassing is pretty lonely work. There's just you and a list of addresses to visit, and the day is spent going from one house to the next, and there's usually nobody home. When you finish canvassing an area and return to the field office, the constrast is startling. Suddenly, instead of being alone in a strange neighborhood, you're in a large room full of enthusiastic fellow campaigners, loud and bustling. All you want to do is sit down and soak in the energy, and it takes a conscious effort of will to get up, grab another canvassing packet, and head on out to another strange neighborhood to do some more lonely door knocking.

Twelve hours of canvassing finally ended at eight o'clock in the evening, when the polls closed in Pennsylvania. After that, those of us who remained in the field office sat around eating donated food and watching the returns come in on CNN. There was a big cheer when CNN called Pennsylvania for Obama (thereby driving the last nail in the McCain campaign's coffin), and we all started cleaning up. I left for Delaware around 9:30, then spent the next few hours watching the election returns in my parents' living room, grinning like an idiot when the polls closed on the west coast and the election was called for Obama. I stayed up long enough to see Obama's victory speech, then dragged myself off to bed.

Peter Martin for the win!

2008-11-14T03:28:00.003-05:00

Yeah, so I'm a little late with the news.* So sue me.

Per the Rhode Island Board of Elections, the final results were:

Peter Martin - 2823 (54.7%)
Steve Coaty - 2336 (45.3%)

And the precinct breakdown was as follows:

2108 - Martin 313, Coaty 256
2109 - Martin 385, Coaty 410
2110 - Martin 422, Coaty 306
2111 - Martin 351, Coaty 317
2112 - Martin 449, Coaty 264
2113 - Martin 421, Coaty 378

As Prince Edmund Plantagenet might aptly say, "At last, a chance for some real power!"

For those of you interested in helping Peter celebrate his victory, you can join him at the Hibernian Hall at 2 Wellington Avenue from 4 to 8 P.M. on Sunday, November 16.

*In my defense, I was busy helping Barack Obama turn back the McCain onslaught in Pennsylvania, and you don't recover quickly from that sort of thing.

Letters for Peter Martin

2008-10-31T01:37:00.003-04:00

Like a one-two punch, the Newport Daily News has two letters on successive days supporting Peter Martin. First, on Wednesday, was a letter from James Sullivan of Harrisville that was headlined "Martin's works to make his community a better place". Sullivan cites a letter from Ed Walsh that appeared in the NDN on July 25:

The letter speaks of Martin's honesty and integrity outside of the public arena.

Sullivan goes on to talk about Peter's ties to JFK's New Frontier era in the early '60s, and how Peter has kept that spirit alive over the course of his own life.

Next, on Thursday, was a letter from Edward P. Kane of Cranston, a retired JROTC instructor at Rogers High School. Kane talks about Peter's interest in issues like education, gambling, and the Pell Bridge E-Z Pass situation. He also mentions Peter's volunteer work with various organizations, and in particular his work as secretary of the Scholarship Committee of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and as the webmaster of the Hibernians' website.

How persuasive these letters we be with voters remains to be seen, but I think it's a good sign for Peter that these letters from supporters are showing up so close to election day, and one after another as well. If this is part of a coordinated effort on Peter's part, it shows him to be a savvy campaigner, and I like that in a candidate.

My Friend Hilary

2008-10-30T03:15:00.003-04:00

Hilary Stookey, that is. She's a fervent Obama supporter who helped the campaign set up its Newport field office during the primary back in those long-gone days of February and March. Much to my surprise, while I was reading over the election blog FiveThirtyEight.com, what do I find? A piece featuring Hilary canvassing for Obama in North Carolina! (They spelled her name wrong, btw. It's Hilary with one "L". Such is fame.) It's kind of weird reading about a friend in a high-traffic blog like 538. Rest assured, I won't let her forget this in a hurry.

Daily News Editorial Board Meeting

2008-10-09T23:56:00.002-04:00

If you're as gosh-darned excited about the presidential debates as I am (but, honestly, who could possibly be more excited about them than me?), then you'll find yourself wishing you could see a debate between our local candidates, especially between Peter Martin and Steve Coaty here in the Fightin' 75th.

Well, too bad. Ain't gonna happen.

The best we can manage is watching the editorial board of the Newport Daily News meeting with the candidates on Cox Channel 18. Yeah, it's just not the same. Not even close. Still, you go on the air with the candidate forum you have, not the candidate forum you wish you had. They'll be broadcasting their meetings with candidates for the RI House O' Representatives at 7:00 PM on the evening of Wednesday, October 22. There are four competitive local races, so if they go through them by the numbers, the candidates for the 75th ought to be coming on around 9:30 PM.

Judging by the number of yard signs for Peter I've seen around town lately, there is no doubt in my mind he would have kicked my ass on September 9. So, watching this thing on television is probably the closest I'll ever come to being grilled by Sheila Mullowney and company.

Life is just full of disappointments.

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 5

2008-08-28T00:53:00.004-04:00

For those just joining us, this is part 5 in a series of posts in which I respond to Captain Mike Caldwell, local wingnut extraordinaire, who has just published the second half of his screed on the vanishing soul of America in the Newport Daily News. After my first three posts appeared last month in response to the screed's first half, Eileen Spillane of Rhode Island's Twelfth noticed that Cap'n Mike didn't seem to exist in Middletown's public records, even though the NDN said he was a Middletown resident. This led me to speculate that Cap'n Mike might actually be a Colbertesque spoof, a parody wingnut being perpetrated by a fellow liberal. If you are a spoof, Cap'n Mike, please let us know. It doesn't have to be something blatant, just devote a few lines in your next piece to denouncing bears as godless killing machines.

But just in case Cap'n Mike is a real wingnut who really believes the things he publishes in the paper, I'd better carry on with mocking him. If you want to get up to speed, you can find part 4 of the series here.

When we last left Cap'n Mike, he was listing three instances of "notable policy shapers" who were destroying America's political soul by promoting big-government liberalism. The first two big-government liberals Cap'n Mike cited were Barack Obama and John McCain, so you can imagine what the rest of his rant was like. We pick up the thread as Cap'n Mike lists his third and final political-soul-destroying notable policy shaper: Speaker of the House Nancy "San Francisco values" Pelosi:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, regarding the enforcement of a "windfall tax" on individual retirement income: We need to work toward the goal of equilizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest. We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. We have an estimated 12 million immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."

When Cap'n Mike is quoting a Democrat, it's always a good idea to try to find the original source of the quotation, since he has, frankly, a poor record of verifying his quotes. A quick spin through the magical Google machine finds, surprise surprise, another page from Snopes.com. You will, I am sure, be shocked to find that Cap'n Mike is quoting from another chain e-mail, this one dating all the way back to 2006. As the good people of Snopes.com note, what Pelosi was actually proposing after becoming Speaker in 2006 was to eliminate $33 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies going to the oil companies. The quote from Cap'n Mike is not anything Speaker Pelosi actually said. In fact, it's a bit of pre-election satire based on liberal stereotypes that was falsely attributed to two New York Times reporters.

Do I have to point out the level of intelligence being displayed by Cap'n Mike here? No? He has two quotes which he attributes to Democratic politicians, and both of the quotes are bogus, pulled from right-wing chain e-mails. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that, yes, Cap'n Mike is actually a liberal spoof. More evidence is provided by the rest of Cap'n Mike's rant. Take it away, Cap'n Mike:

Folks, the above is but a sampling of pure Marxism-by-the-drink being fed to the American electorate -- and the most disturbing part

Is that I actually believe the quotes I cited above are real.

is that they appear to be swallowing every bit of this socialist bile as quickly as it is poured --

You kind of have to admire the way Cap'n Mike milks (so to speak) this metaphor.

predominantly by liberal Democrats, but nonetheless by both sides of the political aisle, the only difference being in terms of degree and volume.

In other words, Democrats are pouring a greater volume of socialist bile into the American electorate, and their socialist bile is a different temperature from the GOP's socialist bile. At least, I think that's what he meant by "in terms of degree". But does Cap'n Mike think the Democrats' socialist bile is warmer or colder than the Republicans' socialist bile? He really needs to be more specific about this sort of thing.

We appear prepared to give up, one by one, al the individual rights, political freedoms and liberties that have served to make this country, while perhaps not perfect,

Careful there, Cap'n Mike. You know as well as I do that only dirty smelly hippies think America is imperfect. Keep up this sort of talk and they'll take away your Rush Limbaugh Wingnut Decoder Ring.

the one to which people around the world look with longing.

Just as long as looking is all they do. We definitely don't want any more damn foreigners actually trying to come here and enjoy all our liberties.

Just ask the Chinese, or the Georgians of the former Soviet Union.

Cap'n Mike gets a gold star for topicality. Though I was rather under the impression that the Georgians were looking to us for more military aid rather than more liberty. They may have even been looking to us to go to war with Russia on their behalf. Too bad for them our military is bogged down in Iraq.

I suggest a twofold solution of sorts --

Ah, this is the good bit, where Cap'n Mike tells us What We Need To Do to get our country's soul back.

one near-term, the second of a more extended nature.

Ah, a phased implementation of soul-restoring activities. What should we do first, Cap'n Mike?

First, a return to traditional American values embodying the primacy and rights of the individual,

In other words, disenfranchising women and blacks and reinstituting slavery. Because those are the traditional American values that served our country so well during the first four score and seven years of its existence.

recognizing that with those rights also comes personal responsibility, accountability and consequences regarding one's choices and decisions.

Unless you're a famous right-wing radio blowhard, in which case you can become a drug addict and go on a sex holiday in the Dominican Republican without going to jail or losing your nationally syndicated radio show or having any of your devoted followers bat an eyelash.

That, and the exercise of individual freedom to succeed or fail one own's own merit.

Unless you run a big Wall Street investment bank and make a lot of really really bad decisions that cause you to go bankrupt. In that case, the government will be happy to bail you out and stick the taxpayer with the bill, and wingnuts like Cap'n Mike will be cheering all the way.

Reject the Faustian promises of socialist utopia, the "nanny state" providing for your needs -- needs to be determined, of course, by the "state".

Because, let's face it, nobody actually "needs" food, or a place to live, or medical care. That's why we can rely on the wonders of the free market to supply these things (or not, if that's how things work out), without having to bother with the wicked old nanny state.

Second, a return to educating our young people in the fundamentals of civics, American history and American government.

Though there's no need to bother their innocent minds with things like Indian massacres, overthrown governments, or the crushing of political dissent.

We should be demanding the education of our youngsters regarding the positive qualities, factual history and achievements of their country,

So, no need to dwell on the Sedition Act of 1918.

its system of governance and their eventual civic duties and responsibilities as adults.

Such as, when protesting the actions of a political leader, you must not be allowed within visual range of said leader.

Our nation's cultural and political soul can be reclaimed.

All you have to do is remove people who think like Cap'n Mike from power, and prevent them from ever regaining power.

It may require a Herculean effort,

An effort, in fact, reminiscent of Hercules' fifth labor.

but I'm confident the American people are up to the task -- all it takes is determination and guts.

And the permanent defeat of the GOP.

And that's it. So, what have we learned from our punishing five-part survey of the mind of Cap'n Mike? Well, we've learned that Cap'n Mike is a pompous git, that he gets his talking points from right-wing chain e-mails, that he doesn't bother with even the most elementary research, that he looks suspiciously like the late Don S. Davis, that he may be a parody of a wingnut rather than an actual wingnut, and that he can get his dumbass opinions printed in the Newport Daily News every month.

I hope you've enjoyed my mockery of Cap'n Mike as much as I've enjoyed mocking him. And if you find yourself becoming ticked off because there's so much wingnut stupidity afflicting our politics, remember to speak up, blog out, and vote Democratic.

Good luck.

(this post has been cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 4

2008-08-27T00:16:00.005-04:00

Unless a merciful God has erased it from your memory, you'll recall that last month Newport Daily News Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney chose to punish her paper's readers with the first half of a two-part rant by Cap'n Mike Caldwell, alleged Middletown resident, former Navy pilot, and spewer of right-wing talking points. Cap'n Mike's piece was called "Are we losing our nation's soul?", and it was every bit as grim as you'd expect from such a title. In my capacity as a smartass local liberal blogger, I chose to post a line-by-line rebuttal of Cap'n Mike's tirade, which the interested reader can find here, here, and here (it was necessary to break the rebuttal up into three parts for fear that a full column's worth of Cap'n Mike's wingnuttery might lead to a stupid overload).

Now, some might question the need for such a rebuttal. If the guy is such a tool, why devote so much time and effort to him? There are two reasons. First, it's necessary to document the atrocities. Skeptical future generations will question whether there ever was such a beast as Cap'n Mike Caldwell unless we trap his words in the electronic amber of this blog. Second, full-bore wingnut-bashing snarkiness is a skill that has to be honed occasionally in order to be kept in a state of razor sharpness. Cap'n Mike provides me with a monthly opportunity to keep my brain cells in perfect working order.

Yesterday's edition of the NDN brings us the second heaping helping of Mikeitude, this time under the title "Reclaim freedoms, regain our soul". And lest you think that the freedoms Cap'n Mike wants us to reclaim involve reinstating habeus corpus and ending warrantless wiretapping and officially sanctioned torture, the subtitle makes clear what's really gnawing at the Cap'n's vitals: "Dependence on government is not what founding fathers intended." Hoo boy.

Last month's chunk of Mikery was preceded by an editorial introduction, possibly composed by Mullowney herself. This month, we are given no such buffer. We plunge right in with Cap'n Mike's unique brand of pomposity:

Ladies and gentlemen,

And chiiiildren of -- whoops, already used that one, haven't I? Sorry.

I am genuinely concerned for America's political soul.

But not for any of the reasons that a sane person would be, like the way the Republicans have politicized every department of the executive branch, filling the civil service with incompetent party hacks like Monica Goodling and Michael "heckuva job" Brown.

The Constitution, as originally constructed by the founding fathers, has provided a roadmap for governance in a document unlike any other; the foundation of a governing system embodying not merely the will of the people via the ballot box,

As modified by proprietary voting machine software.

but the consent of the people as well.

Although, if the people won't consent to something the government really, really wants to do, the government will go ahead and do it anyway.

And while America's unique form of government is institutionally sound, it appears recent history has witnessed its morphing

When someone like Cap'n Mike starts using the word "morphing", that's a pretty good sign that "morphing" has outlived its usefulness and needs to be retired to the Old Words' Home.

into something virtually unrecognizable, an entity which would undoubtedly prove anathema to its framers.

Damned if I don't agree with this statement. Something tells me, though, that Cap'n Mike doesn't have the same problems with recent history that I do. Something else tells me that his definition of "recent" is "anything after March 30, 1933".

This system of representative government, which has proven the bedrock of America's prescription for limited government for 227 years, may be in danger of being usurped and overturned by elected officials and appointed judiciary at all levels. Rather than providing a mechanism for restraining the power of government, the Constitution now bears witness to a government increasingly out of control, one which incrementally restricts, regulates or eliminates one individual freedom or liberty after another through policies, mandates, laws or regulations designed to foster not only increased control over every aspect of our daily lives, but also increasing levels of social dependence on a beneficent, centralized bureaucracy.

For those of you keeping track at home, the preceding sentence contained sixty-nine words and seven commas. I'm starting to get the feeling that Cap'n Mike used up most of his material in the first half of his jeremiad, and is now forced to pad things out a bit. (By comparison, btw, my last sentence contained thirty-two words and one comma.)

This is afforded

Yep, padding. A normal person would use a word like "done" here.

through the promise of, among other things, "equality" through redistribution of both national and individual assets.

Because everyone knows that all this talk of "equality" is just a ploy by all those inferior people to bring us superior people down to their level.

Consider but three recent examples from notable policy shapers:

Yeah, Cap'n Mike definitely used up most of his ammo last month. From six soul-destroying America-bashers, we're reduced to three soul-destroying notable policy shapers. It's just not the same. You're letting us down, Cap'n Mike!

Anyway, here's the first soul-destroying notable policy shaper, just in time for this week's Democratic National Convention, it's none other than presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

"Globalization and technology all weaken the position of workers . . . " and as such, "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably." (Sen. Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal interview).

Say, readers, did you see what I saw in that quote? That's right, elipses! If there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that when a Republican elides part of a quotation by a Democrat, he's trying to pull a fast one. Let's fire up the magical Google machine and see if we can find just where Cap'n Mike got that quote from.

whirwhirwhirwhirwhirwhirwhirclunk

Ah, we've hit the jackpot! Cap'n Mike's quotation from Barack Obama actually turned up in this item from Snopes.com. It seems Our Captain is pulling his talking points from chain e-mails. Now that's the Cap'n Mike we've all come to know and love.

As the good people of Snopes.com note, this quote comes from a WSJ article from June 17, based on an interview of Obama conducted by Bob Davis and Amy Chozick (yes, that Amy Chozick). Although the phrase "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably" does appear in the article, it is not a quote from the interview. That was Davis and Chozick providing their own interpretation of what Obama said in the interview. Here's what Obama actually had to say on the subject of globalization:

WSJ: What about the role of taxation? ... For the most part, the way I look at your tax policy, seems to me that you look at it and say, tax policy over the past decade, and maybe even before that, has produced an outcome that has benefited people mostly at the top, and your goal is to try to redistribute it in a different fashion.

Sen. Obama: Here's what I would say: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates -- corporate tax rates -- on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest … You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

WSJ: You talked about the last eight years and the question of redistribution goes way back …

Sen. Obama: Oh, there's no doubt about it.

That's why I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II, we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers.

We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family.

What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things -- fair distribution and robust economic growth -- are mutually exclusive.

You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth … and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor.

There you have it, folks. That's Barack Obama saying that "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Scary, huh?

Of course, some might say Cap'n Mike looks kind of like an idiot claiming that Obama said something he didn't actually say. I disagree. Just because Cap'n Mike got the quote from a chain e-mail and didn't bother to actually check to see whether the quote was accurate or not doesn't mean he's an idiot. It just means he was too lazy to do the thirty seconds' worth of online research that I did that allowed me to discover what the next President of the United States of America actually said.

Mind you, a heads-up from Mullowney might be a good idea. Perhaps she could run a disclaimer along with Cap'n Mike's piece, something along the lines of, "The author of this article has demonstrated a tendency to acquire his talking points from chain e-mails, and has also demonstrated a disinclination to perform basic research in order to verify said talking points. Reader discretion is advised."

So that's political-soul-destroying notable policy shaper number one. Who's our next contestant, Cap'n Mike?

Sen. John McCain's arguable shortcomings on critical domestic issues, and attendant "big government" solutions, as well as an irresponsible pledge to commit "the entire resources of the United States" to combat manmade global warming.

This one is kind of a disappointment. Apart from that one reference to combating global warming (and half an hour with the magical Google machine has failed to turn up a pledge by McCain to commit "the entire resources of the United States" -- I guess Snopes.com hasn't come across that chain e-mail yet), it's all vague generalities. What shortcomings on what critical domestic issues? What "big government" solutions? What's going on here?

It's true that after losing the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000, McCain spent a few years tacking to the middle, and that he spent the summer of 2004 nagging John Kerry to pick him as his running mate. And even though McCain has been moving to the right again as he positions himself for another run at the Republican presidential nomination, diehard conservatives like Cap'n Mike have never trusted him since. What I think is going on here is that Cap'n Mike still suspects McCain of being a closet liberal, which of necessity means that McCain wants "big government" solutions, even though Cap'n Mike can't actually think of any. So we get that one quote of dubious origin along with dark mutterings about some unspecified "shortcomings" on unnamed "critical domestic issues". To be blunt, Cap'n Mike's got nothin'.

And a quick glance up at the stupidometer shows that we've reached critical and will have to scram the control rods before our brains melt down. So join me next time as I continue my critical examination of Cap'n Mike's critical examination of the de-souling of America.

(this post has been cross-posted to Rhode Island's Twelfth)

Metaphor Policy

2008-08-05T15:20:00.003-04:00

Bloggers, inevitably, tend to use a lot of metaphorical language. Given that this blog is primarily concerned with politics here in Rhode Island, aka the Ocean State, it will be my policy, when using metaphors, to always choose a nautical metaphor (eg "learn the ropes", "weigh anchor", "in the doldrums") over a non-nautical metaphor of similar meaning (eg "get up to speed", "hit the road", "in a rut"). The same, of course, will apply to similes, where necessary.

I Take It Back

2008-07-31T15:51:00.004-04:00

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)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 3

2008-07-31T06:53:00.002-04:00

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!

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)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 2

2008-07-30T06:10:00.007-04:00

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!

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)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 1

2008-07-29T17:09:00.006-04:00

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!

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)

Live From Thompson Middle School

2008-07-26T00:51:00.005-04:00

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.)

Meet the Candidates

2008-07-24T02:20:00.002-04:00

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.

The Hits Just Keep On Coming

2008-07-18T00:20:00.004-04:00

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.

Miscellaneous Questions

2008-07-13T06:42:00.002-04:00

Nomi Hurwitz has questions.

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.

Another One Bites the Dust

2008-07-12T00:51:00.003-04:00

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.

Is Our Children Learning?

2008-07-10T01:55:00.004-04:00

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.

The Moderate Party

2008-07-10T00:03:00.005-04:00

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.

More Meetings

2008-07-09T23:30:00.003-04:00

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.

Questionnaire from RI NOW

2008-07-08T13:48:00.004-04:00

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.

Medical Marijuana

2008-07-06T03:18:00.003-04:00

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.