Andrew puts his post about Rhode Island’s fiscal position relative to its neighbors in the “Rhode Island Economy” category, but the issue is at least as political and cultural as it is economic. Over years of patchwork research, I’ve found that Rhode Island always tops Massachusetts in all the wrong ways. It takes bad or questionable policies, or policies that require moderation, and goes a bit further with them.
- The process for becoming a master tradesman, for example, is longer and more arduous, providing incentive to conduct such business in other states.
- As I recall from personal experience, teacher certification is just a bit more difficult to maintain and the inducement for those already in the club is a bit stronger, providing incentive (if not a requirement) for the young and innovative to ply that trade out of state.
- The welfare net is somewhat more generous (and tolerant of delinquency), providing incentive for the non-productive to move here.
Throw in the prominence of such “passing through” industries as tourism and higher education (which, I’ve a feeling, generate “residents” with minimal personal investment in the state), and you’ve got a state heading in all the wrong directions at once.
[Open full post]I was clicking around last night before Monday Night Football and came across a Public Access show in which Mayor Laffey was being interviewed by an unknown-to-me but seemingly sympathetic host. (It was around 8:45 PM on Cox 13, didn’t catch the name of the show). I watched for about ten minutes and came away with a couple things.
First, he explained that the problem with education spending in the cities and towns of RI, Cranston in particular, is that the Mayors and City Councils have little or no control over the education budgets set by the school committees. Using Cranston as an example, he stated that the education budget consumes 55% of the overall city budget. If the school committe passes a mandated increase in school spending of 8%, the mayor and council would have to cut 11% of the other 45% of the city budget to maintain current spending levels. (These were off the top of his head figures). As I didn’t see the beginning of the explanation, I assume this was one of his explanations as to why property taxes in Cranston and other RI communities continue to rise. At the very least communities want services maintained–never mind cut!–so raising the taxes is the only way to fund the budget.
He also talked of his support for the Voter Initiative because it can be used to circumvent the politicians who don’t work for the people anymore. He alluded to the “my guy is ok, it’s the rest that are bad” attitude by saying that it had to change and RI voters had to take a more holistic approach to state politics. However, though he didn’t say as much, there doesn’t appear to be much chance of that, so the Voter Initiative may be the only way to go. This is also especially true in light of the recent defeat of the Constitutional Convention that would have been a more proper way to deal with government reform. (In an aside, he remarked as to how “for some reason” Common Cause of RI joined with the Unions to defeat the measure…I wonder about that too.)
The Providence Journal’s Bob Kerr slipped a curious few paragraphs in the midst of a 600-word piece of derision:
Brown students are not enjoying their unintended celebrity. But then they haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory on the social front lately.
For a while now, neighbors of the university have been complaining that student parties have spilled over in sometimes loud and ugly ways. There is apparently no guarantee that with high tuition comes an increased sense of social responsibility. At Saturday’s event, some students had to leave in ambulances due to assorted excesses. High tuition also doesn’t guarantee a sense of personal limits.
So Brown officials have decided to take a long overdue look at campus party policy. There could be changes.
And now, thanks to Fox News and its own roving party animal, thousands of people across the country know that at some parties at Brown University in Providence, students have sex.
Readers might infer that Brown’s “long overdue look” was already underway before Bill O’Reilly gave Fox News viewers around the world a peek into the Ivy League weekend. They might therefore conclude, as Kerr does, that O’Reilly’s report was “a sneaky, pointless piece of work.” But that would, at the very least, assume more than the ProJo’s own coverage (“Drunken revel at Brown prompts review of school policy“) should allow. The party and O’Reilly’s revelation thereof appear to have been a single event, from the perspective of Brown’s policy makers.
What’s curious is that, from the rest of his piece, one might wonder whether Kerr truly believes that Brown’s policies — or its social life — need any investigation at all. His focus is not “the seedy social underbelly of a prestigious university,” but the ostensible voyeurism of conservatives — whom he casts as superficially desiring reassurance “that they live lives Bill O’Reilly would approve of.” But — given the longevity (and banality) of Kerr’s proffered storyline — why the heat? Why the hackish interjections of “Gawwwwlleeee!!!” and “Shazzzam!!!”? Assuming that Kerr was not at that particular party, why does the stench of embarrassment puff out from behind his ire?
Perhaps what so upsets Kerr is not Fox’s voyeurism, but rather its motivation, as he fancies, to “look inside the kinds of places where liberals surely lurk and do liberal things with their clothes off.” In like spirit to Kerr’s characterization, Anne Hersh, a Providence resident who is pushing Brown to tone down the partying in her neighborhood, suggests that the university find a way to “maintain your liberal image and curriculum, but still encourage your students to be respectful of the community at large.”
It would seem beyond liberals’ purview to insist — or to institute policies to ensure — that Brown students conduct themselves in a manner befitting the Ivy League. Who are they to define such a thing? In Bob Kerr’s world, it is less judgmental to shriek at conservatives for noticing what liberalism apparently signifies.
If the choice had been his alone, Benjamin Franklin would have selected the turkey to be the symbol of the United States of America…
For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country�For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.You disagree with Ben Franklin at your own risk. However, with the benefit of hindsight, I can think of at least 5 reasons why we should be glad the eagle beat out the turkey for the honor of representing the United States of America…
5. I’m not sure that it’s possible to do a realistic drawing of a turkey holding arrows with one foot and an olive branch with the other for the Great Seal of the United States.
4. I doubt that “Sam the Turkey” would have become the cultural icon that Sam the Eagle has.
3. Do you really think that John Wayne would have starred in a movie titled “The Wings of Turkeys”? How about Clint Eastwood in “Where Turkeys Dare”?
2. The 101st Airborne division would be known as “The Screaming Turkeys”.
1. Having the Apollo 11 crew announce that “the Turkey has landed” would have destroyed the moment.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! [Open full post]
First, here is a worthwhile example of what Thanksgiving can mean in contemporary America. Contrast that with this jeremiad by someone who thinks Thanksgiving celebrates the oppressiveness of white European-types over Native Americans (don’t read it if you want to keep your teeth from grinding–though some of the comments are worth reading). (via Instapundit).
Also, in an effort to prove that all historical revisionism isn’t bad, I’d like to point to an article in the latest Smithsonian called “Squanto and the Pilgrims: Native Intelligence, ” (PDF). The author is Charles Mann who wrote the critically acclaimed 1491 (I haven’t read it yet). In the Smithsonian piece, Mann “suggests that the Native Americans were far more sophisticated than previously believed-and yet at the mercy of forces that abetted the settlers’ ambitions.” It’s an interesting and worthwhile read. It’s not hagiography, but it’s also not demonization.
Ed Whelan has highlighted liberal Stuart Taylor’s thoughts on Judge Alito.
Taylor continues to be one of the sane voices in the judicial debate, a man whom we can all easily respect even when we disagree with his opinions at time.
[Open full post]…Sure, Alito seems a bit to the right of the current Supreme Court’s somewhat left-of-center majority (and of yours truly, too). But his now-famous 1985 application, considered together with his 300 closely reasoned judicial opinions over the past 15 years, places him much closer to the center of American public opinion than his critics are. He also seems closer to the center than does Clinton-appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (confirmed by 96-3), and quite comparable to Chief Justice John Roberts (78-22).
Here’s what Alito wrote 20 years ago, in applying to then-Attorney General Edwin Meese for a promotion from his civil service job as an assistant solicitor general to a politically appointed position:“I am and always have been a conservative…. I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.”
Not so scary. But now come what critics call the smoking guns:
“I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate…. In college, I [strongly disagreed] with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the establishment clause, and reapportionment…. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
These are certainly the words of a Reagan conservative. But are they outside the mainstream? Somebody should tell The New York Times that Reagan won 49 states in 1984…
If Alito is outside the mainstream on abortion, then so are the very large percentage of constitutional scholars — including many pro-choice liberals — who agree that Roe was a judicial usurpation of legislative authority with no basis in the Constitution. Even Ginsburg herself wrote (also in 1985) that Roe was “heavy-handed judicial intervention [that] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
To be sure, most Americans disagree with Alito’s 1985 view that Roe should be overruled. But this is partly because many do not understand that the Roe abortion right is virtually absolute, and many are under the false impression that overruling Roe would make abortion illegal.
Polls show clearly that wide majorities of Americans want more restrictions on abortion — especially late abortions — than Roe allows…
As for racial preferences, Alito’s 1985 assertion that “racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed” places him squarely in the middle of public opinion — unlike Ginsburg, who has voted to uphold wholesale use of quota-like preferences in college admissions, contracting, and other areas.
Polls show overwhelming public opposition to quotas. And neutrally worded polls that avoid the word “quota” show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose racial preferences…
The closest that Alito came to being “outside the mainstream” in his 1985 application was his whack at unspecified Warren Court decisions on “criminal procedure, the establishment clause, and reapportionment.”
It is clear, however, that Warren Court decisions in these areas were subjected to trenchant criticism by mainstream scholars, and some were broadly unpopular at the time. These include decisions expanding defendants’ rights, barring school prayer, and striking down aid to religious schools.
It is also clear that any moves by Alito toward greater governmental accommodation of religion would put him closer to the center of public opinion than Ginsburg is. Some of the liberal precedents that she has supported have been plausibly interpreted by a federal appeals court (among others) as barring all governmental “endorsements” of religion, including even the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The appeals court ruling provoked a unanimous Senate vote of condemnation in 2002. Is the entire Senate outside the mainstream?
As for Alito’s unexplained 1985 objection to reapportionment decisions, perhaps he had read the widely revered Justice John Marshall Harlan’s demonstration in a 1964 dissent that “one person, one vote” was a judicial creation with no basis in the Constitution’s text or history…
The list of other Alito statements distorted by critics is long. You will hear of him letting cops “strip-search” a 10-year-old girl. And upholding removal of black people from juries. And gutting the Family and Medical Leave Act. And seeking to legalize machine guns.
You will hear critics scoffing at the virtually unanimous praise of Alito by people who know him well — liberals, moderates, and conservatives. You will hear him called a “right-wing suck-up” and (by The New York Times again) an “ideologue.”
But you will know better…
With H/T to Power Line, Dafydd ab Hugh writes:
Paul over at Power Line poses a fascinating question — in subtext — in a recent post:
How does the CIA protect its turf so well? Its skill in the art of the leak must play a major role. For one thing, this skill helps explain how the agency exerts so much control over those in the mainstream media who cover it.
The subtextual question is, of course, what to do about this?
My suggestion is that the Bush administration must realize that this is a terribly dangerous situation: at a time of national danger, when we are at war, the CIA has become a rogue agency, uncontrolled by any branch of the federal government. It conducts its own foreign policy; it dictates military policy (through control of the intelligence the Department of Defense needs); it has seized control of a significant portion of the powers of the elected Executive.
It’s time to fight back… and best and quickest way to do so would be for President Bush to direct Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to immediately begin Justice Department investigations of this rash of recent leaks from the CIA, including the decision to allow Joe Wilson to go public with his lying claims in the New York Times about “what [he] didn’t find” in Niger; the leak about the previously secret prison facilities for terrorists; and so forth.
Reporters should be subpoenaed; if they refuse to testify, put them in jail for contempt until they do. Use the full powers of the Patriot Act to seize records and find out who is doing the leaking. And then drop the hammer on them: prosecute them for misuse of classified information or even worse criminal violations. At the very least, get enough evidence to strip them of their security clearances… make it plain that leaking to the press to damage the administration is a career-terminating offense and might even lead to prison time.
Also, be sure to widely publicize the names of leakers as soon as you dredge them up. These people rely upon anonymity; if word gets around that whatever you tell Harry ends up in a Walter Pinkus column tomorrow, the leakers will be shunned by many of the folks who have unwittingly been helping them funnel damaging information to the mainstream leftist media.
Bush can do all of this without Congress lifting a finger. He can do it over the Thanksgiving Day weekend, and he doesn’t need any votes from the Democrats. The press will scream; but if Bush were to demand time to give a short speech for broadcast and explain his reasons to the American people, I think they would not only back him, they would applaud lustily: “My fellow Americans, this constant stream of political leaks from the CIA has just got to stop… for God’s sake, we’re in a war! It’s time for the Central Intelligence Agency to get out of politics and back to their actual job: gathering intelligence on our enemies, not leaking stories to the press.”
JunkYardBlog has more.
[Open full post]Tireless Providence Republican Party Chairman Dave Talan passes along an announcement of what promises to be interesting panel discussion & straw poll he’s put together for Tuesday evening…
PROVIDENCE REPUBLICAN PARTY
GENERAL MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22 @ 7:00 P.M.
THE COLUMBUS THEATRE
(270 Broadway – In Federal Hill)
Featuring a special panel on “How The News Media Covers Politics” with guest panelists…
ARLENE VIOLET
WHJJ talk show host; former Attorney General; Providence native; former teacher in Providence (St. Xavier)
STEVE KASS
Former WPRO talk show host; former host of RI PBS The Lively Experiment; Governor Carcieri’s Communications Director; One-time GOP candidate for Providence City Council (Ward 3)
BARBARA HAMILTON TRAINOR
Former anchorwoman for Channel 12 news; Now in Gov. Carcieri’s Press Office; Member Prov. Ward 8 GOP Committee; Was Public Relations Advisor for the State Legislature
Atty. General candidate Bill Harsch, and possibly other statewide candidates, will be present.
Plus: Vote in unofficial straw poll on U.S. Senate race; win great GOP door prizes; meet hundreds of fellow Republicans.
No cost. Everyone welcome.
Byron York, using figures from the website PoliticalMoneyLine, noted that, among other things, the Charles Schumer (D-NY) led National Democratic Senatorial Campaign Commitee outpaced the Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) led National Republican Senatorial Campaign Commitee, $3,030,580 to $2,350,853 in October and leads overall $20,588,392 to $9,127,833, respectively. In response, he received a number of emails, of which (York says) this was representative:
I suspect that there are others who refuse to give to the RSCC for the same reason as mine. Under various chairmen/persons, this committee has stuck its nose in Republican primary campaigns to support RINO incumbents against a conservative or more conservative challengers, as follows:
Vermont–Jeffords/Griffes
Pennsylvania–Specter/Toomey
Rhode Island–Chafee/Laffey
It appears that the committee is just out to protect its incumbent members, spineless lot that they are, and that’s inexcusable in my opinion.
———————–
I know I decided not to contribute to the RNC or NRSC, but instead to try to contribute to individual senators’ accounts, because I cannot stand the official Republican support of the RINOs and McCain (not a RINO but close), and their backtracking on true Conservative issues. Do you think they get the message yet?
———————–
The RSCC is supporting Chaffee in RI over a conservative and I, a conservative, am supposed to approve of this? I’ll support specific conservative candidates but the days of supporting national GOP organizations is long over.
I wonder if the anonymous emailer is, perchance, an Anchor Rising reader/contributor? It certainly sounds like the sort of thing brought up in our debates for the last few months. I think it is close to the mark, though there are probably other factors. The Republicans are defending fewer Senate seats this year (15 to 18) than are the Democrats and of the five open seats, 4 are in the Democrat column. I also think the Dems are more motivated this far out. Nonetheless, as has been stated before, the fundamental purpose of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee is, above all else, the re-election of current Republican senators. It’ll be interesting to see if their current strategy works.
[Open full post]