Republican Debate Round 2-a Rhode Islander's Take

Last night brought us round 2 of the GOP primary debates.  While this is not really a local issue, and with Rhode Island being a ridiculously blue state almost doesn't matter here, it is important nationally, which makes it important to us.

I watched both debates myself, so from 630 to 11 pretty much straight I listened to 15 candidates discuss some of the nation's and GOP's most pressing issues, ranging from Iran to Planned Parenthood to each other's backgrounds and qualifications for the office of the President of the USA.

The early debate featured 4 of the "lesser candidates" or those polling below 1% nationally.  In this debate, ex NY governor George Pataki, current LA governor Bobby Jindahl, ex Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and current South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham all squared off.  Lindsey Graham used the 90 minutes to set himself apart from the far right wing, choosing reason over partisanship over and over again, at one point saying he was done with telling people what they want to hear.  He clearly was swinging for the fences in this debate, and I think he knocked it out of the park.  He was realistic, while sticking to his conservative principles.

Of the other three, Santorum did well, but there are just too many people competing for that evangelical vote, and while Santorum may be spot on when it comes to the economy, I think a lot of his social positions push a large percentage of voters away from him.  Pataki at times seemed like he'd be a better fit in a Democratic debate, countering Republican rhetoric with reason and rational thought over and over, although it mostly landed on deaf ears given his audience.  I think this debate might have been the last appearance for Bobby Jindahl, who just didn't make a splash yesterday.  He's had a hard time separating himself from the pack, and I think his best chance to do so is to withdraw from it.

The later debate-which began at 8pm on CNN and lasted until 11pm-featured the top ELEVEN candidates.  This means the likes of Senator Rand Paul, ex Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, NJ governor Chris Christie, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator Ted Cruz made the main stage with the 6 I consider more "real" candidates; ex CEO Carly Fiorina, ex Florida governor Jeb Bush, Ohio governor Jon Kasich, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.  Oh, and of course Donald Trump, who most that know me, know I don't consider a real candidate at all, just an attraction to bring attention to the other candidates who are real options.  However, about 30% of the republican party currently wants his three ring circus to be part of the process, so he is.

I think this debate may have been the turning point downward for him though.  I think he finally found out what "too far" is in the GOP when he went after Bush 2, and inferred we were not safer because of him.  The crowd and all the candidates in the field seemed to immediately reel on him when he started down that path.  And then the NY democrat in him quieted down, and he as a whole quieted down, and the debate took a turn towards substantive issues.

When that happened, Carly Fiorina showed that there IS an "outsider" in this field with the knowledge and judgement to lead this country and deal with foreign affairs.  She was very specific as to what she would do, and how she would do it on all issues, ranging from Iran to ISIS to Egypt, which fleets and forces needed bolstering, etc.  I GUARANTEE she does more than watch television to be informed on the issues.

Of the other candidates, Jeb Bush finally showed some backbone, standing up to Trump several times, demanding an apology for his wife (which he didn't get of course, since Trump is an overgrown toddler) and not allowing Donald to dominate the stage in any way during their exchanges.  Marco Rubio really sounded strong on foreign policy.  I don't think he'll win the presidency, but he could be a guy that the next president looks towards as Secretary of State.  He's very articulate and intelligent, and knows what he's talking about when it comes to foreign affairs.  Christie had a few moments, and might make a push for Attorney General, but he's not going to be President either.  Same with Carson, except for the Attorney General part.  He's clearly very intelligent and articulate, but he's just not ready for office.

One way or another, I think that by the next debate several of these candidates have to drop out, so we can focus more on substantive issues, and learn more about the real candidates.  If the next debate featured only Scott Walker, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio for three hours, it'd be A LOT better.

Moses the Dog and Animal Cruelty in Rhode Island

Ever since the untimely and very public demise of "Cecil the Lion", here in Rhode Island we've seen a renewed interest in the care taking of animals, and punishment for those who do them wrong.  Perhaps it was just the timing as it relates to the story of Cecil the Lion, but "Moses the dog" truly captured all of our hearts-and how could he not?  A sad story about a dog that was all skin and bones, with an offender right here, that we were sure we could make pay!  But can we?

Despite being regularly ranked by the Animal Legal Defense Fund as one of the top states in the nation for animal protection laws, we quickly found out that justice isn't so swift, nor is it guaranteed for animals like Moses.  It wasn't 24 hours after we discovered Moses' true owner that we discovered that owner had more dogs that he still kept.  The next day, on talk radio here in Providence Dr. Finocchio or the RISPCA was interviewed, and he didn't even know that the current dogs of Brian Kenney-the suspect in the Moses the dog case-would or could be taken away.  He also revealed that not only does he consider the laws here very lax when it comes to animal cruelty, but he says they're not properly enforced either.  That although the laws may allow for up to a year in jail or $500 fine for such an offense, he'd never seen such a penalty levied in any animal cruelty case put before the Providence courts.

After calming expectations and calls for his figurative head, Dr. Finocchio set up a meeting for September 14 (last night) at the RISPCA for those worried about such laws to meet up and talk about taking action that will affect such cases in the future.  Amongst them, and the rest of us interested in the topic of animal cruelty one question really stands forth: do penalties for such crimes need to be increased, or do our current laws simply need to be enforced?

According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund's annual report, in 2014 Rhode Island was ranked in the top ten (9th overall) for animal protection laws, we also know that this report measures only the laws, not their implementation or enforcement.  And while laws are nice, what are they without implementation and enforcement but wasted paper and lip service?  In 2015, we've certainly made strides in written laws, but are we enforcing them?

On July 10, David Rodriguez of Johnston, RI was the first Rhode Islander arrested under the new law covering dogs being left in hot cars.  He was due in court July 16, where he could have lost his pet and ultimately faced up to a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.  What did he get?  We have no idea, because nobody has followed up, mentioned, or probably even thought about David Rodriguez since that day.  He's not a part of our current news cycle-in other words he hasn't done anything in the last 2-3 days-so we've completely forgotten about him.

Given the progressive nature of Rhode Island's animal cruelty laws, and apparent inaction of the court to enforce them thus far, I think it's fairly clear that the true path to dissuading animal abuse here in Rhode Island, is for us to ask judges to enforce the laws as they're currently written, and enact the punishments they're empowered to.  Collectively we need to put more pressure on our judicial system to do just that.

"Dear Fat People"

Not exactly a local issue, but definitely something people have been talking about this past weekend...

Since when did “being nice” become such a short-sighted endeavor?  At exactly what point in time did we decide in America that it was “nicer” to turn a blind eye and watch someone destroy themselves-to celebrate them for doing so even-than to give them constructive (even if it’s a bit pointed) advice?  Recently, a video on You Tube from comedian Nicole Arbour entitled “Dear Fat People” has been getting a lot of attention online, and even got her fired from a movie.  Someone who saw it told me they thought it was wrong she was making fun of fat people.  That it’s not okay to make fun of people for being gay, or disabled, or fat.  It amazed me.

Do we as a country really not realize what an epidemic obesity is?  Do we not realize it IS a choice?  Let’s review the facts: according to the National Institutes of Health, obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death in the US behind only tobacco use.  That’s right, being fat kills more people than crack.  Than heroin.  Than any other stupid thing people do to kill themselves slowly except cigarettes.  Let me ask you: have you ever thought to yourself “we better not bother that crackhead, let them keep smoking that rock, it’s not nice to tell them it’s bad for them”?  Has anyone reading this ever thought that’s the best way to treat addiction?  I doubt it.

The fact is, for most people being fat is a choice, and it’s a dangerous one that costs about 300,000 Americans their lives every year.  If you’re pretending it’s okay, celebrating someone’s obesity even, as with shows we see today like “My Big Fat Fabulous Life” for instance, you’re doing nothing more than enabling, the same as the person who gives a friend who is an addict money so they can go score.  There is little to no difference.  What you’re doing is not in fact being nice to them, it’s killing them, quite literally.  You’re taking the easy way out, you’re being nice to yourself, in point of fact you’re being quite selfish.  Taking the easy way out to avoid a few moments of potential discomfort while you help that person feel better about choosing to shorten their lifespan, negatively impact their health, and overall destroy themselves really couldn’t be more selfish.

Being fat is not a parallel to being gay, or disabled.  It’s a choice, it’s something you can change.  You do not choose to be gay.  You cannot change being disabled.  Now I’m not saying we should ridicule fat people.  But what I AM saying is we should stop celebrating being fat, and stop pretending it’s anything but an unhealthy choice that can be changed if you want to.  Now if people don’t want to, that’s fine with me.  If you want to eat, or don’t feel like working out, not only am I cool with it, I sympathize-I’m a 330 pound guy who likes burgers and is not a big fan of treadmills myself-but you need to know it’s a choice you’re making.  The fact that we’ve come so far to cater to the sensitive that at this point in time people think being fat is the same thing as being tall, or being disabled or any other natural physical trait or development is evidence that what’s really killing us is being sensitive.

Providence Firefighters A Problem for Taxpayers

You simply cannot write about current events in Rhode Island without mentioning the firefighters of Providence.  Over the past 15 years at least, we've seen signs of the struggle between firefighters and city administration.  Sometimes the signs are literal-like the one that stood outside the North Main St. fire station for years-while others are seen in the form of protests at city hall, letters to the editor from both sides, and angry voices all over public radio from hosts and callers alike.  While many think the problems began in 2001, others look even deeper and think the problems started with the contract before 2001, that expired in that year.  No matter where you stand on the timing of when it began, firefighting in Providence and the costs and problems associated with the issue is clearly a problem that's coming to a head in the immediate future.

But this isn't a problem solely in Providence.  As a recent Washington Post article pointed out, rising costs related to firefighting have become a national trend.  In that article, Fred McChesney pointed out the growing difference between the need for firefighting and the costs and staffing of fire departments around the nation.   According to his numbers, as compared to 30 years ago, today there are half as many fires, yet 50% more firefighters.  Even more shocking, nationally according to numbers released by the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) fewer than 4% of calls that firefighters respond to are actually calls for fires, with the remaining 96% being comprised primarily of "cat stuck in the tree" type of calls, fire alarm pulls, lockouts, and the like.

After reading the Washington Post article, and hearing stories from our own firefighters about long shifts and hours, I wanted to see how those numbers related to Providence firefighters.  So I went right to the source, digging up the annual activity reports published by the firefighters themselves to analyze exactly what they spent their time doing:

According to their reports, over the past two years Providence firefighters have gone on a total of 97,791 total runs, spending a total of 29,591.13 hours on those runs-or 40 hours per day, split between 23 trucks (or just under 2 hours per truck per day spent on a run).  Now, how do these runs break down you might ask?  Let's take a look...

Of those 97,791 runs, 43,092 were EMS runs, on which a truck (or more) tagged along after an ambulance on their runs.  EMS runs in Providence, make up 44% of Providence firefighters' total runs.  That's nearly an hour a day each truck spends shadowing an ambulance, testing the "too many cooks in the kitchen" theory as it applies to emergency medical situations almost as a profession.

Now, of course the fire trucks leave when fire alarms are pulled also, so let's see how much of their time is spent there: During 2013 and 2014, fire trucks in Providence responded to 29,399 total box alarms, of which 12,365 were false alarms (5,022 of which were labeled "malicious"), 14,464 were classified as "other" and just 2,570 were legitimate fire alarms.

Now to the actual fires...

During 2013 and 2014, Providence firefighters responded to a total of 8,959 fires, 4,435 of which were structure fires, 466 were vehicle fires, and 4,058 "other" fires.  Now to break those numbers down even further...

In 2013, the 23 trucks totaled 129,236 minutes responding to actual fire calls.  That's just a shade under 2,154 hours, or 93.6 hours per truck, fighting fires in 2013.

In 2014, the 23 trucks totaled 166,833 minutes responding to actual fire calls.  That's 2,780.5 hours, or about 121 per truck.

Now in these annual reports, the fire department reports how many total minutes the trucks spent on runs.  For the two years, the total was 1,775,357 minutes on all runs.  Of that time, 296,069 minutes were spent fighting or traveling to actual fires.  That-by the minute-is 16.6766% of their time spent on runs, spent fighting fires.  This is an increase over the percentage of calls in which fire trucks in Providence responded to fires, which was 9.16% of the time (8,959 fire runs of 97,791 total).

Total Minutes on Runs

1775357

Minutes on Fire Runs

296069

% of Time Fighting Fires

16.68%

So that's how we break down here in Providence, by the call and by the minute, in terms of the actual fire fighting production we get from our 14 fire stations, 23 trucks, and at least 435 active firefighters.  More importantly, that's what we get from their $70,000,000 per year budget (not including $10,000,000 in overtime costs per year).

In total, Providence firefighter salaries cost us $37,775,801 in 2014.  Broken down by the hour spent fighting actual fires, that's $13,585.97 Providence paid per hour, to our firefighters for the time they spent actually fighting fires.  Broken down amongst all 435 firefighters, that's 31.23 per man, per hour, for time spent fighting fires.

Those numbers wouldn't be so bad, but remember that the Fire Department's budget is pretty much double that, doubling all of those cost numbers to 27,000 per hour for fighting actual fires, about $60 per man per hour fighting fires.  The firefighters and their union would have you believe they make 50,000 calls a year, actively fighting fires for your safety all day and night long.  The reality is that they spend the bulk of their time hanging around the firehouse, waiting for the 10% of the runs when they might actually get called to fight a fire.  Remember these numbers when they want you to support their constant and never ending protests.

The Perplexing Priorities of the Providence Police

Tonight I watched a pizza shop owner run into a family's yard where he threatened the 5, 6, and 7 year old children of two families with a beating, and screamed at them at the top of his lungs that if they did "that" again, it'd be the last thing they'd ever do.  The youngest kid ran upstairs and hid.  Another hid in the backyard for the next 40 minutes.  The other two just stood flabbergasted.  What they'd done, was been running around the backyard with sticks and one of the sticks accidentally banged off the pizza place's vent, apparently making a banging sound inside.  His immediate answer was the prior story.  Not a request, not asking, not even talking to the parents who were home at the time.  But going and threatening to beat the 5-7 year olds to death.

I confronted him about this in a reasonable manner, telling him he'd gone too far and maybe being more reasonable next time would be good.  His answer was to come back and continue to give the kids a hard time.  He threatened to call the police on them when their 12 year old sister and 15 year old sister yelled at him about his previous actions.  So they called the police.  After all, kids have been taught that the police are here to protect right?

The police showed up, listened to myself, an adult tell them the full story (I'd been sitting right next to my window where I'm sitting now as I write this, and observed the whole thing), then said he wasn't sure he could do anything.  I asked him wasn't threatening 6 year olds a crime?  He answered sure, but maybe the shop owner would want him to arrest the kids too.  I used my flashlight (by the time they arrived it was dark out) to show him the back of the shop was a concrete wall and no damage had been, or could be done by the 6 year old children.  He said they might have broken a window and he wanted to get the shop owner's side.  (Bear in mind, there are no windows on the back wall of this building.)

He went and spoke to the owner, then called someone and spoke on the phone for a few minutes.  He returned to advise us no crime had been committed by the owner trespassing on the property to threaten the children, and that he was going to tell him not to do it again.  He blamed his sergeant, saying he was the one who had said no crime had been committed.

If you're a police officer in this city-or any city-and you're not there to help 6 year olds being threatened by angry strangers over-reacting to them playing, then what exactly are you here to do?  Is there anyone in this city more deserving of your protection?  Shame on you officer, and your sergeant, for not doing your job for those in this city that need your help the most.

Homelessness is NOT a Simple Problem

We've recently been hearing about advocates for the homeless speaking out against abuse they claim those they advocate on behalf of suffer at the hands of the Providence Police Department.  Demanding to meet with the mayor, who they insist must take action on the matter, advocates gathered Thursday afternoon for a protest on Fulton St. along Kennedy Plaza, spurring conversation on the topic within the city and all over our airwaves.

For some people it's easy to look at the homeless population and come to certain conclusions.  "Homeless people are drug addicts." or "They're choosing to be homeless because it's easy and they're lazy" or my personal favorite line "There are plenty of jobs out there".  While it's certainly true of homelessness and social safety nets as it is of every system ever set up anywhere, there certainly ARE abuses of the system.  However, characterizing the entire population as lazy drug addicts who would prefer to beg than work and are turning down job offers in an applicant friendly job market is not only incredibly ignorant of the job situation in this area, but also over simplifying the problem, and only serving to further the issue, not help solve it.

We must all start with the understanding that a) Homlessness is something we'd all like to eradicate, and b) there are paths to that solution.  Once we get past the initial point, which is where some people get hung up, with both sides pointing fingers at each other as if anyone wants to fight towards no solution.  We DO ALL want to solve this problem.  Both sides of the aisle.  They just both take philosophically different routes, and neither is correct.

In order to solve any problem, you must understand it's causes. While there are abusers of the system who would rather float along than get real jobs, that's not the main cause of homelessness in this or any other state.  If it was, criminalizing homelessness might be a great answer.  But it just isn't.  The bulk of homeless people are there as the result of hard times economically, mental disease/condition, or drug addiction-perhaps a combination, or a domino effect where losing one's job and finances lead to drugs, lead to addiction, and now you're fighting out of a deeper hole than most people are capable of.

The real problem with our social safety nets is not that there are too many, or that there aren't enough restrictions.  Quite the opposite.  The real problem is that individually, one can only access enough help to exist.  And it can often be difficult, requiring repeated visits to a social worker, acquiring documents, making phone calls, etc.  Social workers are over worked, difficult to get ahold of, an missing just one appointment can mean months of delay in getting the help you need.  This is a system that actually caters to the abusers.  The abusers of the system have time to sit around cutting through red tape, they can drop everything at a moment's notice to go meet a social worker and keep their aid, they may even have vehicles to get to these places, making it that much easier.  By contrast, a single mom of 2 who is homeless after her husband died in a car crash, losing their only vehicle, with limited job skills as her job was once caring for her kids while her husband works, might have a more difficult time fulfilling certain requirements.

She might have a low skill minimum wage job she can't get time off of for various meetings, or her kids' doctor appointments, or whatever.  Making an appointment to keep a hundred or a couple hundred in food stamps might cost her that job.  Riding the bus places adds hours on to your trip, so she's already limited in where and when she can travel to job interviews, look for apartments, or anything else to help herself and her family.

I spent a year working at Crossroads while in college, and we used to see first hand all the time both sides.  You see the people struggling, who need that extra hand to get back to where they want to be, where they used to be, or where they should be.  But you also see people abusing the system terribly.  And your hands are tied, you simply can't do anything about it.

I believe that if we continued federally funding social safety net programs, but made approval a much more localized process, primarily the responsibility of the social worker, we'd save a great deal of money.  I think if social workers were allowed to help individuals more than current limits allow, and were able to act as the red tape for the approval process, they could cut out the percentage of people abusing the system, give real help to those trying to get off of government help, and with the same pool of money make a MUCH larger impact than they currently do.  The inability to abuse the system should push the optional homeless population back into the work force as well, or at very least out of the city and state, to a place they can more easily abuse the system.

In this manner, we're limiting the potential for abuse by taking away the ability to simply learn acceptable answers and fill out forms, we're assigning personal responsibility to the social worker in the assistance they're issuing, and helping tie them to the success of their clientele.  Help would be available, but not easily abused.  Social workers would need to be held to a high ethical standard, overseen as far as the assistance they issued, and potentially higher qualifications would need to be sought for new workers, but within the first 6-12 months I'd expect their workload to decrease, and the intrinsic rewards of their job (nobody gets into social work for the money) to drastically increase, making their job that much better as they watched themselves making real, life changing impact in the lives of those who truly need it.

I believe this to be a great solution to the homelessness problem everywhere, not just here in Providence.  Maybe you disagree, and maybe I'm wrong, but one thing I'm certainly right about is that it's not so simple.  The issue of homelessness isn't a cut and dry choice of the homeless themselves.  It's not a mark of laziness, it's not a mark of stupidity, and it's not an open door to ridicule, harass, or arrest people.  We cannot let the desires of the few to abuse the system turn us into heartless and cold monsters who no longer help those who need it.

Redefining the Term "Sanctuary City/State"

Since early 2011 when Lincoln Chafee opened the front doors of our state to illegal immigrants by rescinding the Illegal Immigration Control Order-or e-verify order-Governor Carcieri had previously signed, Rhode Island has been known as a Sanctuary State, and Providence within it as a Sanctuary City.  That is, a state or city whose policies shelter illegal immigrants from federal deportation.  Even criminal illegal immigrants in some instances, while our tax dollars feed and shelter them as they sit sometimes for years in our jail system, awaiting deportation that we’ll never allow.

Later in 2011 we moved farther down the road of becoming a sanctuary state by allowing illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at state public colleges, becoming just the third state behind Maryland and Connecticut to do so.  Over the years since, local politicians have looked into allowing illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, with a bill being introduced this past January to that effect, claiming it would somehow make the roads safer.

Last month when a national map outlining American sanctuaries for illegal immigrants was published and made national news, we were reminded of our status in Rhode Island as one of just two sanctuary states in this country (with the other being North Dakota). Last week however, we learned our local mayors are working to truly redefine the term, building highways from Central America that end in Providence.  

Mayor Elorza was in Guatemala last week, shaking hands in an effort to encourage the direct flights to TF Green from Guatemala, and increased traffic into the Port of Providence directly from there as well.  Elorza says it’s to increase tourism and trade.  Given the fact Guatemala’s GDP per capita is about $3,500 and their gross national income per capita is about 7,000 “PPP” (which according to one site translated to something like 2,000 USD) I can’t imagine there’s going to be a whole lot of tourism coming to spend thousands here.  So are we really going there to secure trade agreements for coffee, sugar, and bananas, Guatemala’s top three exports?

I can’t imagine we are.  What Mayor Elorza and those of his ilk have done, and seem to be in the process of doing, is try to put us on a path to de facto citizenship for illegal immigrants in this city and state.  They’ve ensured there’s no concern of deportation, that illegals can secure a job, and are hoping to even ensure they can secure a license.  And what’s truly shocking is that they haven’t done it to do some service to the Guatemalan people.  They’re doing it to get re-elected.  Any human interest is merely a side bonus.  

Some assume voter fraud, while others suggest a potential future path to legal voting by illegal immigrants.  But one way or another what is becoming very apparent is that before most of us even knew what the term “sanctuary state” meant let alone that we are one, we’re about to find ourselves at a point where the next battle is whether or not illegals can legally vote, and formally reward the politicians who paved the highway for them to get here.  Is that the kind of state we want to live in?  The kind of city?  One where even our local politicians ignore the needs of their constituents while schmoozing even more corrupt politicians half a world away in order to import potential voters that keep them in office?  Haven’t we had enough of that on a national scale, from our DC politicians?

Let’s bear in mind while Elorza is visiting his future constituents in Central America, his current constituents on the East Side were still suffering a rash of break-ins, the pools in the city were closing in the middle of the summer’s final heat wave, and local companies with huge growth potential like TeeSpring are packing their bags and heading for greener pastures without so much as a phone call from the mayor’s office to entice them to keep their jobs here.

Those of you that agree should make sure your voices are heard, on local radio, in the opinion pages of local papers, and even in conversation amongst your friends before you turn around and realize it’s too late, you’re now drastically outnumbered due to what will surely become Providence’s new number one import: democratic voters.

Welcome!

I've created this blog to work with other citizens of Rhode Island so that we can post and comment on current events, happening here in Rhode Island, and also nationally.  While we'd like to focus on local events, local news, and local politics, obviously very often a national story takes over the headlines and requires a little local perspective.  We encourage that.

We're happy to have you here as readers.  If you're looking to contribute here, please contact us and we'll set that up based upon your writing skills and interest.

Thanks again for your visit.  We hope you enjoy the reading.