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.