In today’s edition, the Projo runs its dueling articles on Patrick Lynch and Bill Harsch, this year’s candidates for Rhode Island Attorney General. Though other issues are discussed, each aricle devotes an ample amount of space to the Station fire and the Derderian trial.
On its face, Attorney General Lynch’s description of the events leading to guilty pleas by the Derderains continues to be different from the version given by Judge Francis Darigan in his final sentencing statement. Here is Attorney General Lynch’s description, current as of today, of how the final deal came about…
Lynch said that about 95 percent of the time, defense lawyers and prosecutors discuss and agree on terms and turn to a judge to approve the deal. But when that doesn’t work out, there are other options. He said in some cases when the prosecution and defense can’t agree, the judge can tell the defendant, if you plea to every count, I’ll give you the following and the state can enter their objection. He said, That’s what happened here.Judge Darigan described a different process in his sentencing statement, which is as about an official a version as is possible…
This Court was well aware that all parties desired to conclude these cases without a trial. As the structure of theses (sic) cases and the issues for the trial became clearer and more crystallized, the Court began to share this opinion.What exactly did the “parties” — which in legal terms usually refers to both sides prosecution and defense — ask the court for, if it wasn’t part of the AG’s office agreeing to deal? (Also, it is interesting to note that both Judge Darigan and AG Lynch make a point to emphasize that the state reserved a right to object to the final outcome).
As the date for the trial approached, the Defendants clearly indicated to the Court and the Attorney General’s Office that they wished to change their pleas.
It was at this time that the parties asked the Court if it would accept a change in the pleas and impose sentences to which the State, if it wished, could object.
I can come up with three ways to reconcile the disparate versions…
- When Judge Darigan talks about the “parties” asking for the Court to accept a change in pleas, he is referring to some technical legal procedure that is different from what the plain English might indicate. (But then what was the state formally asking for?)
- Judge Darigan was horribly imprecise with his description of events, e.g. he said “parties” when he really meant “Defendants”. (But then why tell us that the state reserved its right to object in the same sentence?)
- Patrick Lynch is telling a different version of events from what Judge Darigan experienced.
Dorinne Albright is running for State Representative in Rhode Island’s 14th District (Cranston), which is currently represented by Senate Representative Charlene Lima. Anchor Rising recently had the opportunity to interview Ms. Albright on the why she is running and what she thinks of her opponent’s recent performance in office…
Anchor Rising: What’s motivating your run for office?
Dorinne Albright: I think that everyone needs a choice when they go to the polls. Charlene Lima ran unopposed last time. She’s run unopposed a few times in the past. It’s not a real election unless people have a choice. Whether I win or lose, at least I’m on there for the people that don’t want to vote for her.
AR: What issues are most important to you?
DA: My biggest concern is taxes. I am a realtor and I see it in my business every day. People are losing their homes because they can’t afford the taxes. Our legislators are wasting a lot of our money. They voted to unionize the daycare providers, which is basically making them state employees — let’s pay for their benefits; let’s give them everything they want!
Daycare providers are independent contractors. As a realtor, I am an independent contractor. I’m not going to tell anyone they need need to pay for my health insurance and guarantee how much money I make. It was a risk I took when I decided to go into business for myself. The daycare workers need to run their businesses well and not rely on the taxpayers to support them.
AR: Your opponent, Charlene Lima, has been the House of Representative point-person on eminent domain reform. Any thoughts on this issue?
DA: Jim Davey had also proposed an eminent domain bill?
AR: …his was much better…
DA: …Yes! But hers was the one that started getting some action, because she is one of the Speaker’s friends. As I understand it, it was her refusal to compromise on the bill that prevented its passage.
The realtors I know were really unhappy with what happened. They were pleased she was going to support it and that she was putting this forward to prevent people from losing their homes to private businesses. But when it came time to make compromises to get the bill to pass, it was her pride, her saying it’s my way or nothing, that stopped action on the bill. So we got nothing. Sometimes you have to make compromises to get things done.
AR: Is there anything else you think people should know about your opponent?
DA: I think she has been a little duplicitous with a casino vote. She was quoted in the Journal as saying that Harrah’s isn’t going to be able to come in to do anything they want, because they would just get somebody else to do it instead. But after saying that, she turned around and voted against competitive bidding and she voted against the bill that would have prevented her as a legislator from working there and personally gaining from a casino. That’s wrong.
I think it was 44-25 when they took the vote on the personal gain bill. We have very few people at the State House who are willing to stand up and say I want to do best for Rhode Islanders, and not myself. We need to start getting the people who are just looking out for themselves out of office.
AR: Last question. Running as a Republican isn’t the easiest path to take into politics in Rhode Island. Why run as a Republican, and what does being a Republican mean to you?
DA: The biggest thing to me about being a Republican is the fiscal responsibility. We need to stop taking money out of taxpayers pockets, taking money away from people that are working hard to earn it and trying to get by, and saying let’s give it to all these other programs and things we can’t afford to be supporting. It’s great to want to help people, but when you are hurting some people to help others, there comes a point where you just have to stop. We’re driving businesses out of the state because we’ve got people involved with government saying they don’t want anyone to be running a successful business and making money. But it’s businesses that make money that provide jobs, that provide benefits to their employees and that build up our economy. We need to be working with them, not against them!
Ah, well. I understand the choices that are unavoidably part of crafting a short news segment, but I can’t say I’m thrilled with the soundbyte that BSR88.1 reporter Chris Gang chose from my 20 minute conversation with him for his piece on the casino question on Off the Beat. The argument I tried to present was as follows.
As usual, in this state, one gets the feeling that the interested parties haven’t come forward with an honest proposition, but rather that we’re merely seeing the public face painted on rank self interest. Throw in all of the other “only in Rhode Island” details, such as slippage and contentious debates about how long politicians have to wait before they can collect handouts, and the whole deal is just suspicious.
But the bottom line, even were everything completely ethical, is that Rhode Island is too small. This will become a central — perhaps defining — characteristic of the state.
To explain: I grew up in New Jersey, and I never understood the (sort of) primetime sitcom jokes about how urban and polluted the Garden State was until my father explained that most people judge New Jersey not by its suburbs and family beaches, but by the drive from the airport to New York City or to Atlantic City. Similarly, throw a large casino into the heart of Rhode Island, and the qualities that make this state genuinely attractive will recede.
The most recent pro-casino commercial that I’ve seen tacitly confirms this by emphasizing how significant supplying the casino can become to the Rhode Island economy. Personally, I don’t want a casino to become significant to Rhode Island. If it’s another thing to do (like Hai Lai or Lincoln park), fine, but as a Rhode Islander, I don’t want it to become the thing to do.
Now, the most relevant argument from casino proponents is that a major casino would act as a draw — that visitors will explore the state, as it were. But who will visit this sort of destination? If it’s night-trippers, as everybody I know has been every time they’ve gone to Foxwoods, then they’re not interested in exploring the area. For example, if they haven’t dined in their own area, they’ll do so at the casino. If it’s people seeking a casino vacation, then the resort casino is designed to keep them in the hotel gambling. Beyond gambling, food is there; shopping is there; shows are there.
The only people likely to leave the casino to explore Rhode Island’s other attractions are those who’ve come with the intention of doing so. And even if the casino’s lures to keep them in the building fail and they go out into the state, at the very least it will be true that some other hotel — a hotel located with the primary goal of providing access to Rhode Island — will have lost that business.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled, at least temporarily, that states can require voters to show a photo-ID before proceeding to vote. As the Washington Post reported on October 21…
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Arizona may enforce a new state law requiring voters to show a photo identification card at the polls on Election Day this year….In its unanimous five-page ruling, the court did not decide whether the Arizona law was constitutional. Rather, it overturned a federal appeals court in San Francisco that would have blocked enforcement of the law until the opponents’ suit could be decided.Not everybody is happy with the Supreme Court’s decision…
Arizona, which borders Mexico and has seen a surge in migration in recent years, is one of several states that have recently enacted a photo-ID requirement in response to reports that illegal immigrants and other ineligible voters have been casting ballots.
Opponents say that the ID requirement imposes an extra burden on minorities, the poor and the elderly, who are less likely than other citizens to have a driver’s license, the most common form of state-issued photo ID. Opponents say that because states charge fees for photo IDs, requiring one to vote is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax.Fortunately, there is a solution to the dilemma of using photo-IDs to discourage fraudulent voting that should be acceptable to reasonable people — the solution proposed by Rhode Island Secretary of State candidate Sue Stenhouse.
Ms. Stenhouse proposes issuing every voter a photo-ID at the time he or she registers to vote, pointing out that many municipalities already issue photo-ID library cards. She believes that it wouldn’t be difficult to apply the same technology to the voter registration process. If elected Secretary of State, Ms. Stenhouse would first test a voter photo-ID program in one community, then take it statewide…
The City of Warwick would serve as a test pilot site for the use of voters’ credential cards. Currently, Warwick provides photo identification cards with barcodes for library patrons. Stenhouse is proposing that a similar card be issued to all qualified voters in Warwick to be used in the general election in 2010. Stenhouse would explore ways to expand upon voting standards mandated in the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that have begun to be implemented in the Secretary of State’s Office. Legislation will be proposed in the 2007 General Assembly session establishing Warwick as a pilot site, and federal funds allocated through HAVA will be sought to pay for the equipment to be used.Unless progressives want to start making the argument that the process of voter registration itself constitutes an undue burden, the Stenhouse solution should satisfy the concerns of all sides of the voter-ID debate.
Occasionally, even in politics, an idea just makes sense. [Open full post]
A study commissioned by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and carried out by Global Insight Inc. analyzed the cost of doing business in Massachusetts in nine different commercial sectors. The study is of interest to Rhode Islanders for two reasons: 1) Rhode Island was one of six states used for the detailed breakdown of the cost-of-doing-business for a comparison to Massachusetts and 2) the study’s conclusion is different from the usual “Rhode Island is nearly worst in everything” you probably have grown accustomed to seeing when discussing the business climate in RI.
Since the study was focused on Massachusetts, basic results were presented in terms of how much more or less profitable a Massachusetts company would be be if it were located in another state. In two sectors, Rhode Island based businesses would do significantly worse than comparable businesses in Massachusetts…
- A plastics manufacturing company in Rhode Island would be 58.8% less profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A precision metal manufacturing company in Rhode Island would be 59.6% less profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A biotechnology manufacturing company in Rhode Island would be 16.8% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A financial services company in Rhode Island would be 31.1% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- An aerospace/defense company in Rhode Island would be 50.0% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A software company in Rhode Island would be 26.4% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A semiconductor equipment company in Rhode Island would be 18.4% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A medical device company in Rhode Island would be 12.1% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
- A search and navigation instruments company in Rhode Island would be 46.5% more profitable than a comparable company in Massachusetts.
The cost of energy was one factor among the 10 making costs in Massachusetts higher than elsewhere, and little can be done about that in the short term. But a number of the other nine are subject to reduction through policy changes, the report suggests.Mr. Iaia’s analysis suggests that Rhode Island’s education system may be so underperforming that it more-than-cancels out any economic advantages Rhode Island has over Massachusetts.
They include unemployment insurance, higher here than in four other states; municipal property taxes, where in biotech and finance sectors they were lower in three states; and corporate income taxes, where Massachusetts was the highest of all….
Stergios said Massachusetts businesses’ high costs can be controlled. An efficient procedure for siting a liquefied natural gas facility would even lower energy prices in the long run, he said….
Dave Iaia, senior principal at Global Insight Inc. and author of the study, said executives gave two reasons for staying in Massachusetts: the pool of skilled and educated workers, and simple inertia.
“It’s one ace in the hole, this pool of workers,” Iaia said. “If we start driving them away, that’s going to be a problem.”
Two quick cautions about the results…
- One consistent advantage Rhode Island had over Massachusetts in the study was cheaper property costs/rents. If Rhode Island did become attractive to businesses, that gap would almost certainly close.
- Although RI has an advantage of MA in many industry sectors, it was frequenty a smaller advantage than the two states outside of the Northeast (North Carolina and Texas) that were analyzed.
Over the past week or so I’ve written on the Bond Issues that will be placed before RI voters on November 7. I’m not entirely clear on the positives or negatives of all of the questions, but the comments offered have helped to clarify my own thoughts. Since we’ve got a week+ to go–and because I generally like to wrap up a series of posts in such a way–I thought it’d be helpful to put all of the posts together in an Index (or would it be a Table of Contents?) so that those so inclined can take a look at them.
Examining the Bond Issues I : Higher Education
Examining the Bond Issues II: Transportation
Examining the Bond Issues III: The Zoo
Examining the Bond Issues IV: Recreation
Examining the Bond Issues V: Affordable Housing
A George F. Will thought about Iraq from the winter of 2004 seems increasingly prescient…
A manager says, “Our team is just two players away from being a championship team. Unfortunately, the two players are Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.” Iraq is just three people away from democratic success. Unfortunately, the three are George Washington, James Madison, and John Marshall.At the moment, current Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki doesn’t seem destined to be remembered by history as the George Washington of Iraq. This is from a Reuters report from this morning…
Al-Maliki told Reuters on Thursday his Shiite-led government could get violence under control in six months if U.S. forces gave them more weapons and responsibility.The militias referred to are the Shi’ite militias operating in Baghdad and the southern part of Iraq.
He said police were having to share rifles but, with better American help, could bring respite from dozens of daily killings in half the 12-18 months the U.S. commander in Iraq says is needed before Iraqis can take full control.
Al-Maliki also said his priority was to suppress the insurgency and root out al-Qaida, rather than to disarm the militias.
The combination of wanting more weapons, but not wanting to confront the militias is not promising. Maliki’s statement suggests that his highest aspiration for the Iraqi government is building it up to the point where it shares power with Shi’ite militias. If this is the best Maliki has to offer, it will become increasingly difficult to convince America that there is any purpose in staying in Iraq much longer.
Ralph Peters expresses this idea in his New York Post column…
Our soldiers and Marines are dying to protect a government whose members are scrambling to ally themselves with sectarian militias and insurgent factions. President Bush needs to face reality. The Maliki government is a failure.Peters has a specific idea about what getting tough means…
There’s still a chance, if a slight one, that we can achieve a few of our goals in Iraq – if we let our troops make war, not love. But if our own leaders are unwilling to fight, it’s time to leave and let Iraqis fight each other.
The first thing we need to do is to kill Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now a greater threat to our strategic goals than Osama bin Laden.(Muqtada is the head of the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s largest Shi’ite militia. Peters continues…)
We should’ve killed him in 2003, when he first embarked upon his murder campaign. But our leaders were afraid of provoking riots.Another option comes from Max Boot (both Peters and Boot are experts on military affairs) writing in the Los Angeles Times…
Back then, the tumult might’ve lasted a week. Now we’ll face a serious uprising. So be it. When you put off paying war’s price, you pay compound interest in blood.
We must kill – not capture – Muqtada, then kill every gunman who comes out in the streets to avenge him.
There’s another course short of withdrawal: reducing U.S. forces from today’s level of 130,000 to under 50,000 and changing their focus from conducting combat operations to assisting Iraqi forces. The money saved from downsizing the U.S. presence could be used to better train and equip more Iraqi units. A smaller U.S. commitment also would be more sustainable over the long term. This is the option favored within the U.S. Special Forces community, in which the dominant view is that most American soldiers in Iraq, with their scant knowledge of the local language and customs, are more of a hindrance than a help to the counterinsurgency effort.Boot’s plan would help get Prime Minister Maliki more rifles for his soldiers, but as Peters noted about his own call for an offensive, Boot’s lighter, specialized force only works if implemented in conjunction with an Iraqi government determined to make itself into the sole legitimate governing authority in the country, and not just Iraq’s biggest militia.
Make no mistake: This is a high-risk strategy. The drawdown of U.S. troops could catalyze the Iraqis into getting their own house in order, or it could lead to a more rapid and violent disintegration of the rickety structure that now exists.
We have reached a point where how much of a commitment America continues to make towards Iraq will be largely determined by how much of a commitment the government of Iraq makes towards Iraq — all of Iraq, not just a few favored sects. [Open full post]
Over the past few months, the Projo has been running an interesting series of energy-policy editorials. Today’s editorial contained a reference to a possible new way to produce gasoline that I had never heard of before…
The coal in Illinois alone could make more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. And the technology to turn coal into gasoline is well tested. The Germans used it extensively during World War II. And the technology to control emissions of the traditional pollutants from coal-burning electricity plants — such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which cause acid rain — is readily available.The editorial calls to mind this famous (at least amongst energy-wonks) quote…
What is still needed is a way to remove carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, in large quantities.
Wallace Broecker, a climatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, says that pulling out the carbon dioxide is not difficult. It’s already done in submarines and space shuttles. The tough part is doing it on a gigantic scale, which would be necessary if coal were to be turned into motor fuel in large quantities.
Mr. Broecker asserts that doing this would come at a cost, but a manageable one. He says that gasoline can now be produced from coal for from $40 to $45 a barrel. The cost of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide would raise its price by 20 to 30 percent. But with oil recently at over $75 a barrel, the gasoline produced from coal could be economically competitive.
The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.If you think the above quote came from someone like a venture capitalist trying to drum up investement for an alternative energy start-up, you’d be wrong! The quote is actually from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a former Saudi Arabian oil minister, expressing concern that continually high oil prices would accelerate the process of alternative energy development and reduce the demand for (and therefore the price of) his country’s oil.
This kind of concern among oil-suppliers, intensified when they start hearing people talking about making gasoline from coal, is almost certainly a large part of the reason we’ve seen a sharp and sudden decline in oil and gas prices over the last couple of months. [Open full post]