By the Way (A Political Angle)

I had been thinking about a Robert Whitcomb column earlier, and it could not have been more timely. Writes Whitcomb:

The terminology has been successful in cutting taxes for the wealthy and reducing programs that particularly assist the middle and lower classes. More generally, it makes Americans forget that the socio-economic walls are getting higher. Meanwhile, although traditional GOP views have included (to me admirably) balancing the budget, the budget deficits swell and areas of government grow like Topsy (in part, of course, because of 9/11), but the "conservative, small-government" Republicans don't seem particularly self-conscious about that. They can change the subject to, say, gay marriage.

However much the bulk of that paragraph might raise questions worthy of consideration, the closing sentence betrays a bias that undermines all the rest. The Republicans (much less conservatives) are not the ones pushing the subject of same-sex marriage into the light. Moreover, one cannot fault them for seeking to write something explicitly into law when judges seem inclined to leverage the lack of such explicitness in order to codify the opposite policy.

As for whether conservatives are "self-conscious" of the Republicans' abandonment our other priorities, I'd suggest that Mr. Whitcomb keep his eyes open during elections to come.

The Judiciary Continues to Shine Its Murky Light on Marriage

Rhode Island's marriage law is astonishingly specific when it comes to which relatives men may not marry:

Men forbidden to marry kindred. — No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister.

Indeed, the legislature is so specific as to add an entirely separate section to spell out the same for women:

Women forbidden to marry kindred. — No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, son's son, daughter's son, stepfather, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, son's daughter's husband, daughter's daughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's son's son, husband's daughter's son, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or mother's brother.

And it added yet another section to affirm the status of marriages if somehow contracted in contravention of the law:

Incestuous marriages void. — If any man or woman intermarries within the degrees stated in 15-1-1 or 15-1-2, the marriage shall be null and void.

So why, given all of this specificity, would the Rhode Island legislatures of the past not have specified whether men could marry men and women women? Well, a person not set on bending culture and law to his or her social ideology might reasonably suggest that the legislatures of yore did not deem it necessary to legislate what they thought to be a clear and unambiguous definition.

Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not, apparently, populated by reasonable people who are not set on bending culture and law to their social ideology. When determining whether a Massachusetts law that denies the granting of marriages to couples whose home states would forbid them, that court determined (PDF):

... that same-sex marriage is not prohibited in Rhode Island. No evidence was introduced before this Court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage; and, after an exhaustive search, this Court has found no such prohibitory positive law.

The problem, it seems to me, is one that is sure to pop up whenever a court declares the English language to be void: we imaginative creatures can concoct all sorts of things that are not explicitly stated in amendment, statute, or appellate decision for the reason that nobody ever believed they had to be. It's possible that some obscure case would prove me wrong, but I don't see how the Massachusetts SJC could conclude otherwise than that Rhode Island does not prohibit men from marrying their fathers, grandfathers, sons, and so on. (Indeed, a very quick look at Massachusetts' laws reveals the same for that state.)

Of course, what I've found in discussions on this topic before is that those who disagree with me on principle, having leveraged the absence of specific language to get their way, will fall back on the vagaries of "understanding" in order to reapply historical standards and intentions to the newly created "marriages." In other words, once a court has asserted that the government has previously acted through inaction in such a way as to leave same-sex marriages possible, it then will turn around and interpret the statutes' failure to ban same-sex incestuous marriages as clearly an oversight that needn't be perpetuated in the law.

Why such a lackadaisical legislature would feel it necessary to write and enact equivalent statutes for each gender is a question beyond my ability to answer. Sadly, I fear that the Rhode Island judiciary, which will soon be poring over newly minted Massachusetts marriage licenses, will offer their rubber stamp without even asking the question.

Judge Darigan and the Station Fire Victim Impact Statements

I wasn't intending to post anything on the Station fire victims' impact statements, but I feel the continuing judicial over-reaching by Judge Francis Darigan that now extends to today's proceedings requires comment. According to the Projo's 7-to-7 blog, Judge Darigan has told the victims that they cannot use their impact statements to comment on the legal process that has brought them to this point...

Jay McLaughlin, related to Sandy and Michael Hoogasian, said he felt a sense of "pain caused by disrespect, apathy, betrayal, all of which have victimized us over and over again."

McLaughlin, who is married to Michael Hoogasian's sister Paula, then criticized the sentence and Judge Francis Darigan called a recess. Darigan has told fire victims family members and friends to restrict their comments to memories of their loved ones and the effect their death has had on them.

Darigan told the people in the courtroom that he understands their frustration, but that the hearing isn't an opportunity for a diatribe against the proceeding.
He later allowed McLaughlin to return and continue.

Again, members of the audience applaued when McLaughlin finished. Darigan asked them to refrain.

Judge Darigan is out of line here. If he didn't want people to discuss the sentences in their statements, he shouldn't have decided on sentences before the statements were given. There are limits to how much reality judges can demand that people ignore.

In our system of government, judges are insulated from popular accountability. This is for a sound purpose, to give them the freedom they need to make decisions that are unpopular with the public but legally correct. But the protection of judges from popular passions was never intended to protect the type of action Judge Darigan took in accelerating the resolution of the Derderian brothers' case. The Judge was not making a decision that was legally necessary when he inserted himself directly into sentence negotiations and accepted a plea deal over the formal objection of the Attorney General.

This doesn't mean that Judge Darigan's decision was wrong, but it does make inappropriate his use of his judicial position to hide from and even stifle questions and criticism about his role in what happened. Had there been a trial, victims would have been allowed to comment in their impact statements on things said during the proceedings. Since Judge Darigan has gone far beyond adjudicating questions of law and made himself a substantive part of the resolution of this case, statements regarding his actions should be considered fair game.

If the final stage of a court proceeding isn't the appropriate forum for crime victims to discuss how the courts have failed or served them, then where is that place?

UPDATE:

Prior to formally announcing the sentence, Judge Darigan is outlining in detail how the Derderian plea deal came about; he certainly can't be accused of hiding from describing his role in the disposition of the case at this moment. Why this information couldn't have been made public at the same time that the plea deal was announced is unclear. People may have had more confidence in the system if it had been.

Meet Karen Salvatore, Candidate for State Representative

Karen Salvatore is running for State Representative in Rhode Island's 33rd district, which includes South Kingstown, Narragansett, and North Kingstown. This is Ms. Salvatore's second try at the seat. Two years ago, she lost to 17-year incumbent Donald Lally by just 156 votes. Her run for office is the natural continuation of her efforts to bring good ideas and good people to state government...

Ms. Salvatore is the founder of Food And Truth, a non-profit organization dedicated to inform, educate, motivate and organize people around food ingredient issues. She was the Executive Director for the John Hazen White Sr. Red Alert program which encouraged citizen awareness of issues and involvement in government. In 1990, Ms Salvatore founded DOT Watch, a citizen advisory group on transportation issues.

Anchor Rising recently had the opportunity to interview Ms. Salvatore...

Anchor Rising: What's motivating your run for office?
Karen Salvatore: What's motivating me is good government. We need that. My opponent has been in the House of Representatives for seventeen years. I believe that our Founding Fathers created a system where we would leave the family farm or the family business for a few years, serve, and then go home. I think that's the way it should be. I don't think we should turn government into a career.

AR: Your opponent, Donald Lally, is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a vocal opponent of voter initiative. What are your thoughts on voter initiative?
KS: I am very much for voter initiative. I think people should have the right to put something on the ballot. 28 states have voter initiative. Our neighbors in Massachusetts have had it for many, many years, and they have lower taxes and better voter turnouts than we have. Many states that have voter initiative do have better voter turnout.

AR: I know you've run for office once before, but you've also been involved with government through DOT (Department of Transportation) Watch, correct?
KS: I founded DOT watch, a citizen advisory committee on transportation issues. We promoted mass-transit alternatives.

AR: Tell us about how DOT Watch was ahead of the curve on some of the state's major transportation issues.
KS: Seventeen years ago, when we started DOT watch, people were saying "fuggedaboutit" to the things we were promoting. For example, there was skepticism about water transport. Now we have a high-speed ferry on the bay. We were promoting train stations in Warwick and Wickford. People asked us if we were crazy. They claimed we didn't have the density for trains. Of course we have the density. Now, the Warwick and Wickford train stations will become a reality.

AR: What other issues are important to you?
KS: Our taxes our too high, we spend too much money. If you want to lower taxes, you have to stop spending. Our spending exceeds the cost-of-living increases. We have to stop that. I want to lower health and property insurance costs. I want to help increase the number and the quality of jobs in Rhode Island, by making the tax structure more attractive for families and business that want to come here. And, of course, education that is affordable and of good quality is a top concern of mine.

No Vote on the Bolton Nomination Before the Election

The Associated Press (via the Washington Post) is reporting that the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations Ambassador will not be sent to the Senate floor anytime soon...

John R. Bolton's quest for a longer lease on his temporary job as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations remained elusive Thursday as the Senate shied away from a vote to confirm him.

Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the Senate likely would recess later this week without voting on his nomination....

Lugar said that if one Democratic senator were to step forward and support Bolton, he might be able to set a committee vote before the recess. In the meantime, Lugar added, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, is holding up the nomination with questions about the Bush administration's Middle East policy.

Specifically, Chafee wants the administration to restrain Israel from expanding settlements in Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bolton, as U.S. ambassador, has taken a strong and visible role in across-the-board support for Israel.

The Senate could still vote to confirm Bolton, after its electoral recess, when it reconvenes in November. However, Bolton's best scenario for confirmation appears to be for Senator Chafee to be defeated in November's election while the Republicans remain control of the Senate, allowing a different Republican Senator to take a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Station Plea and the Responsibility for the Foam that Shouldn't Have Been There

It appears that much the Derderian brothers legal defense in a Station Fire trial would have focused on who was most responsible for the presence of flammable sound-proof foam in the building. The defense, according to Mark Arsenault et. al. in Sunday's Projo, was going to argue that the Derderians believed they had installed fireproof foam, but had been defrauded by a foam company that sent a different product than was ordered and actively concealed that fact. Furthermore, according to the defense, the Derderians were never alerted to the problem despite multiple-fire inspections...

"We hung the foam in the nightclub but there are so many extenuating circumstances that we would have brought out," [Kathleen Hagerty] said. The [Derderian brothers], she said, had ordered "sound foam," which in any place of public assembly must be fire-retardant.

"But instead of getting the sound foam they'd ordered," said Hagerty, "they got packing foam and were never told that they weren't getting the sound foam they had ordered."

Foam is sold with a material data warning safety sheet, Hagerty said, but that information was never given to the Derderians by the salesman from American Foam.

"And we would have presented testimony from employees of American Foam who would have told the jury that they were under orders from the owner not to supply that sheet unless the buyer specifically asked for it," Hagerty said. "But the manufacturer of the foam had sent a letter to the distributors encouraging them to give the safety sheet to the end-user."

Hagerty also said that the defense would have presented evidence that [West Warwick Fire Inspector Denis Larocque] had inspected The Station six times after the foam was installed but never cited the Derderians for having flammable foam in their club.

We have no idea how strong that defense would have been. On the one hand, Attorney General Patrick Lynch hasn't indicted anyone from the foam company, indicating he doesn't believe that the case against them is strong. On the other hand, the lenient sentence accepted by Judge Darigan could be an indication that he believed that shifting the blame to the foam-company (or to Larocque) would have been effective.

Whatever the answer, when there is such a discrepancy between the prosecution's and the defense's version of events, shouldn't the judge wait to see the case presented at trial before deciding on a sentence?

Is Elizabeth Roberts Using Push-Polling?

RI Law Journal has a firsthand report on what sounds like a push-poll commissioned by the Elizabeth Roberts campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

Jon Pincince (primary contributor to RILJ) told a pollster who had called him that he'd likely be voting for Robert Healey. Here's what happened next...

Then I was asked for whom I would vote if Healey were not running (to which I answered neither, for no particular reason), and I was then bombarded with negative statements about [Reginald Centracchio] and asked whether those statements would change my mind.

Apparently Ms. Roberts campaign staff doesn't think that their candidate has any positive accomplishments or interesting ideas that will sway undecided voters. If her own campaign staff is unimpressed by her platform, then why should you be?

Using Voter Initiative for Eminent Domain Reform (but not in Rhode Island)

Opponents of voter initiative say it's a bad idea because it somehow gives undue influence to special interests. According to an article from Monday's USA Today, however, voters in eleven states have the opportunity to use voter initiative protect themselves from special interests that might use governmental processes to seize their homes...

Eleven states are giving voters their first chance this fall to override last year's Supreme Court ruling that allows local governments seeking more tax revenue to seize private property and give it to developers.

Thirty state legislatures have passed laws or constitutional amendments since June 2005 to negate or limit the ruling's effect in their states. Voting 5-4, the high court said the Constitution permits state and local governments to condemn a home through eminent domain powers so developers can build hotels, offices or retail centers on the site.

The eminent domain initiatives provide support for the arguments that voter initiative proponents have been making...

• Special interests often, if not always, have more influence on the legislature than they do on the electorate as a whole, and
• Voter initiative can be used to pass laws popular with and in the interest of the general public that cannot get through the legislature because of special interest influence or lack of legislative interest.

Rhode Island's legislature failed to pass eminent domain reform this year, despite the introduction of a number of bills addressing the subject. Unfortunately, Rhode Island doesn't have a voter initiative process that can be used to bypass the legislature (the implementation of voter initiative was also blocked by the legislature this year). Without voter initiative, the only choice for Rhode Islanders who want to see eminent domain reform passed is to vote out the legislators who refuse to make it a priority.

Equal Opportunity Offense, Selective Sensitivity

If you still need proof that the West is being frightened into applying inconsistent standards to free expression involving religion, depending upon what religion is involved, I don't think it can get any clearer than this report from Reuters...

Four cancelled performances of a Mozart opera have re-ignited an anxious and heated debate in Europe over free speech, self-censorship and Islam.

By canning its production of "Idomeneo", fearful of security threats because of a scene that might offend Muslims, Berlin's Deutsche Oper provoked front-page headlines across the continent and found itself fending off charges of cowardice.

The controversy centred on a scene in which King Idomeneo is shown on stage with the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and the sea god Poseidon.

Out of four severed heads -- three from living religons -- only one is singled out as an unacceptable display. Can there be a rational explanation, i.e. an explanation not based on power and fear, for this?

Andrew Lyon for General Treasurer, Part 1: Rhode Island's Unfunded Pension Problem

Andrew Lyon is the Republican Candidate for the office of Rhode Island General Treasurer. Anchor Rising recently had the opportunity to interview Mr. Lyon and ask him about the duties of the office, his qualifications for the office, and his reasons for running...

Anchor Rising: I don't think that most people understand why it makes a difference who the Rhode Island General Treasurer is. Give us some idea about what the office of the General Treasurer does.
Andrew Lyon: There are a few different facets of the General Treasurer's office. One is overseeing and managing the state pension fund. People who work for the state, judges, police officers, firefighters, teachers, etc. all pay into the state pension fund. There are other departments that are important; there is an unclaimed property division, for personal property or monies without clear ownership. People can go onto the General Treasurer's website and find out if some of that property is theirs. There is a crime victims unit, which needs to be made more accessible. The state treasurer's office is responsible for the Rhode Island College-Bound Fund where people can put away money for their children's education. But the most important situation is the state pension fund.

If the state pension fund is underfunded, meaning that its liabilities exceed its assets, you have a problem. Unfunded liabilities are the total of the benefits owed to current retirees plus the benefits that will be owed to people who will be retiring soon, compared to the net asset value of the current portfolio. The treasurer has investement advsiors whom he picks to help him manage the assets, but the general treasurer has the final responsibility for overseeing them. The treasurer is integral to how the money is invested.

Right now, Rhode Island rates fourth worst in the country in its ratio of unfunded liabilities to value of current assets. Now, it's true that 65% to 70% of state pensions are underfunded. However, when RI is fourth worst, there is a looming problem that will become dire for state taxpayers unless something is done. The current General Treasurer, Mr. Tavares, has not kept good oversight over his investment advisors and not kept his eye on the ball over the past eight years. He has not adapted his asset allocation as markets have fluctuated.

This is something I brought up four years ago, when I ran against Mr. Tavares. I pointed out that while the market was going down, he did not change his asset allocation at all. His philosophy was why change in a down market; if the elevator is going down, why get off? I advocated a full audit and review of the investment activities and a change of asset allocation.

Ironically, after the election he did just that. He took my advice. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of Rhode Island, he took my advice too late.

If we wait too long, there will be only three ways of rectifying this problem. Here's one fix that won't ever happen; the Federal government won't come to bail out a state pension fund. What happened with Enron could easily happen with the RI state pension fund and the Federal Government didn't come to rescue Enron. Eventually, the only choices become cutting programs, raising taxes, or cutting benefits. Let's be realistic. The benefits aren't going to be cut. You could make people paying into the state pension fund pay in more of their paycheck. They won't be happy with that.

Here's a perfect example. In San Diego, city hall withheld a lot of information regarding their unfunded liabilities. Eventually, the city had to cut a lot of programs, regarding sanitation, education, etc. Those cuts are causing problems. This is what the state of Rhode Island could be looking at. To give you a raw number that shows you what a dangerous situation we are in, Rhode Island's unfunded liabilities consume 96% of our state budget.

Rhode Island should have made some changes ahead of time. We have one of the oldest workforces paying into a state pension fund. Our state and municipal workers are ranked second oldest amongst state pension participants. We have some of the oldest retirees receiving benefits. In the next few years, there may be more people receiving benefits than people paying in. This is the reason that President Bush is trying to change Social Security, because more people are retiring and fewer people are paying in. We've known about this problem for a long time, but we haven't done anything serious about it.

The General Treasurer is important because, if the office is mismanaged -- which it has been -- it affects the taxpayers. The treasurer affects our property taxes. He has a bearing on the bond rating for the state of Rhode Island. He affects the business climate in the state of Rhode Island. Businesses aren't going to come into the state when they see we are already fifth highest in taxes paid and then they see that the pension fund has not been run properly by the General Treasurer's office. They're going to say that it is too risky to come here. And all of this effects whether Rhode Island will be paying more or less in taxes in the very near future.

Casino Profits and Budget Shortfalls

Beyond the sloganeering, here is the budgetary aspect of the casino debate in a nutshell...

1. Harrah's is going to take money away from Newport Grand and Lincoln Park. Even the study that casino supporters paid for says that.
2. Because the state gets about 60% of gambling revenue from Lincoln in Newport, while it is projected to get about 25% from the proposed Harrah's deal, the state will lose money every time a gambler decides to spend his or her gambling money at Harrah's instead of at Newport or Lincoln. This could result in a net loss of revenue for the state.
3. Legally mandated "slippage" payments, where the state must pay Newport and Lincoln after the construction of a new casino if certain revenue targets are not met, further increase the likelihood that a Harrah's casino will cost the state money.
4. But, according to the terms of the deals currently being discussed, Harrah's and the Narragansett Tribe can still make huge profits, even as their business drives the state into budget shortfalls totalling hundreds of millions of dollars per-year.

In light of this, two important questions that you need to consider when voting in November on Question 1 and for your state legislators are...

1. If the proposed casino creates big profits for Harrah's at the same time it creates a state budget shortfall, what will be the response of Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas when it comes time for him to collect his share of the profits? Will the attitude be "a deal is a deal, I got mine, and a budget shortfall is your problem", or will some kind contingency plan where the Narragansetts (and Harrah's) defer their profits be considered?
2. Can Rhode Island taxpayers afford to leave the details of a casino deal in the hands of a legislature that is probably too dumb and/or too corrupt to structure a deal that includes safeguards to prevent a private corporation from making a huge profit while it depletes the state budget? Do we perhaps need to replace some of the legislators who have already spurned the public interest by voting for a no-bid casino deal with legislators who will better protect the interests of Rhode Island taxpayers?

RIPEC's Casino Analysis

The Rhode Island Public Expenditures Council has released their analysis of the impact of a Harrah's casino in Rhode Island (pdf format). Here's the key result from their executive summary...

While the introduction of a Harrah?s Commercial Casino would increase overall gaming activity statewide by 27.0% by FY 2020, The State would experience a 17.3% decline ($1.1 billion) in net tax revenue.

• If the casino were not built, gaming activity over the ten year period is estimated at $10.3 billion, and the State would collect $6.3 billion in taxes.
• If a casino is approved and operational by FY 2010, gaming activity over the ten year period would total $13.0 billion, but the State would collect $5.2 billion in net taxes.

Bottom line of the RIPEC analysis: To compensate for the revenue that the state loses because of Harrah's, the constitutionally mandated "property tax relief" will have to be more-than-offset by either other tax increases or spending cuts, and there can be no net tax relief for Rhode Island without major spending cuts.

RIPEC is not the final word on the matter, but they've laid out their argument in detail. If you don't like their conclusion, try to explain which of their assumptions are unreasonable.

John McCain (aka Lincoln Chafee's Most Important Senate Electoral Ally) Says Confirm Bolton Now

The Associated Press (via the Washington Post) is reporting that Senator John McCain is calling for swift confirmation of the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador. Senator Lincoln Chafee, whom Senator McCain plans to campaign for in Rhode Island on October 4, is the individual responsible for bottling up the Bolton nomination at the committee stage.

Is this a hopeful sign for the Bolton nomination, i.e. would Senator McCain risk embarrassment for all sides by making his statement without knowing if Senator Chafee has changed his mind on this issue? Or has Senator McCain underestimated Senator Chafee's penchant for sticking his thumb in the eyes of people who should be his strongest supporters?

Part of the motivation for McCain?s call for swift confirmation of Bolton is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?s crude attack on George W. Bush at the United Nations last week?

McCain, R-Ariz., joined lawmakers from both parties in condemning Hugo Chavez's speech last week at the United Nations in which the Venezuelan called President Bush "the devil."

"I would say that this is an argument to get John Bolton confirmed as our U.N. ambassador," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "He's smart, he's tough, he will respond to these guys. And he could talk back to these two-bit dictators who have the airfare to New York."

Here is the beginning of the Chavez speech which Senator McCain believes merits a tough response?

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil ? the devil, himself, is right in the house.

And the devil came here yesterday.

(APPLAUSE)

Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

The Chavez speech has an interesting parallel. During the confirmation hearing of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Senator Chafee asserted that criticism of President Chavez?s anti-democratic record was ?disrespectful? to the Venezuelan people. Here is what not-yet Secretary Rice had to say about the government of Venezuela and President Chavez in particular?

RICE: Thank you, [Senator Martinez]. I think that we have to view, at this point, the Government of Venezuela as a negative force in the region, negative in terms of its effect on its neighbors, as you have outlined, and negative in embracing the only undemocratic government in the region?as I said, the only place there?s an empty chair in the OAS is for Cuba?negative in the sense of what he is doing inside of his own country to suppress opposition. And it?s a very, very serious matter. And the?we can, I think, work with others to expose that and to say to President Chavez that this kind of behavior is really not acceptable in this hemisphere that is trying to make its way toward a stable, democratic future.

Here is what Senator Chafee had to say about Rice?s remarks?

CHAFEE: In particular, after having just come back from South American and meeting with President Chavez?here he has been?gone before his people?high, high turnout, just had a referendum. And, as one of the people from our embassy said, ??He cleaned their clocks and kicked their butts.?? And it seems to me to say derogatory things about him may be disrespectful to him, but also to the Venezuelan people. How do you react to that?

Of course, the things that Ms. Rice said were a) true and b) rather mild ? she certainly didn?t call Chavez a ?two-bit dictator?, as Senator McCain did. I wonder if Senator Chafee now thinks that Senator McCain has been disrespectful to the Venezeulan people.

Anyway, the questions raised by all of this are...
1. Given that President Chavez?s remarks were much more ad-hominem and much harsher than anything said by Condoleezza Rice, will Senator Chafee apply the same standard to President Chavez?s remarks and denounce them as disrespectful to the American people?
2. Given the kind of discourse leaders like Hugo Chavez feel is appropriate for the UN, does Senator Chafee agree with Senator McCain that the U.S. needs the ?straight-talking? style of representation provided by an Ambassador like John Bolton, or does he disagree with Senator McCain and prefer that Bolton be replaced by a representative with a more apologetic, appeasing style?

Senator Jack Reed and Senate candidate Sheldon Whitehouse should also be asked question #2.

Name That World Leader: Special Media Paranoia Edition

Here are two quotes from recent media interviews. One was spoken by current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the other by former U.S President Bill Clinton. See if you can guess which quote came from which leader.

Here's quote #1...

I always get these clever little political yields where they ask me one-sided questions....And it always comes from one source.

And here's quote #2...

Are you asking the questions that are on your mind or questions that are given to you by others?

Perhaps the sometimes inexplicable affinity between the American left and international totalitarianism comes from the conspiratorial worldview that both movements share.

Answers: The first quote is from an interview conducted with President Clinton by Chris Wallace on Fox News. The second quote is from an interview with President Ahmadinejad conducted by Anderson Cooper on CNN.

Carcieri/Fogarty Debate Schedule

According to Elizabeth Gudrais of the Projo, Rhode Island gubernatorial candidates Donald Carcieri and Charles Fogarty have agreed upon most of a schedule of four debates to be held in the month of October...

• Friday, October 6, 8-9 pm, WNAC-TV Channel 64
• Tuesday, October 10, 5-6 pm, WHJJ 920-AM (The Arlene Violet Show)
• Wednesday, October 18, 5-6 pm, WPRO 630-AM (The Dan Yorke Show)
• Date and time to be determined, WJAR-TV Channel 10

Democrats to Blacks: You Cannot Leave Our Plantation

During the Chafee-Laffey campaign, this blog site was highly critical of the heavy-handed tactics of the National Republican Senate Committee.

Now the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee deserves its own public spanking for their actions described in Democrats set to air ads in bid to derail Steele:

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's assertive campaign for U.S. Senate since the Sept. 12 primary has prompted national Democrats to start running attack ads sooner than they had planned.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee originally bought $1 million worth of TV time for the two weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 general election, then decided to start running ads Tuesday, according to the Steele campaign.

"This is a clear indication of the national Democratic Party bosses' scramble to maintain control over Maryland," said Michael Leavitt, campaign manager for Mr. Steele, a Republican...

Mr. Steele, the first black person elected to statewide office in Maryland, says the Democrats' strategy against him was revealed as early as last spring when an internal party memo was leaked to the press.

The memo called Mr. Steele, 47, a "unique threat" to black voters' loyalty to Democrats and advised Maryland Democrats to begin a "persuasion campaign ... as soon as possible to discredit Steele as a viable candidate for the community."

"Connecting Steele to national Republicans ... can turn Steele into a typical Republican in the eyes of voters, as opposed to an African American candidate," the memo stated.

Mr. Steele also points to the illegal theft of his credit report by a Democratic committee staffer a year ago, before he had declared his candidacy. The staffer pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court and was sentenced to community service.

"The fact that they had to steal it speaks to the fear that they have of my campaign," Mr. Steele said recently. "Quite frankly, the only way they think they can beat me is to, as they said in their own memo, denigrate and demonize me."...

The latest Steele TV ad, in which Mr. Steele warns voters that critics will go as far as accusing him of not liking puppies is intended to blunt the effect of such criticisms and images.

"Soon your TV will be jammed with negative ads from the Washington crowd -- grainy pictures and spooky music saying 'Steele hates puppies' and worse," Mr. Steele says in the ad. He then pauses and says playfully, "For the record, I love puppies."...

The Steele campaign has also criticized Mr. Cardin after a staffer was discovered Sept. 15 to have posted racist and anti-Semitic comments on an online blog. The unidentified staffer has since been fired.

Can't you just imagine a conversation like this among the Democratic senators in Washington:

"We cannot let a black Republican into the Senate. It could be the first step toward us losing our monopoly on the black vote in America. By the way, can we wrap this conversation up now? I have to go to the Senate floor and vote against the latest school choice bill for inner city children in Washington, D.C. and then attend a school function for my daughter at St. Albans."

Hypocrites.

Theocrats, Moral Relativism & the Myth of Religious Tolerance, Part IV: Moral Recovery via Rediscovering the Meaning of Words

The comments sections of

Part I: The Difference Between Religious Freedom and Religious Tolerance
Part II: Are We Hostile Toward or Encouraging Religious Belief?
Part III: Consequences of Excluding Religion from the Public Square

of this Theocrats, Moral Relativism & the Myth of Religious Tolerance series, plus Justin's Favoring the Non-Participatory posting, offer up many statements which present a largely incoherent vision for how our society will develop, share, and sustain a set of core values necessary for it to exist in a cohesive manner.

Distilled to their essence, the comments highlighted four major issues:

1. Do moral truths (discovered via either faith or reason) exist and belong in the public square - and how should they affect our public life?

2. How do we define reason and religious freedom?

3. What does religious freedom - as defined in the 1st Amendment - mean and how has jurisprudence and societal practices changed our interpretation of religious freedom over the years?

4. What role and importance did the Founding Fathers assign to religion in our society and why?

This posting focuses on the first part of question #1 and subsequent postings in this series will address the remaining issues.

To provide a context before tackling question #1, here are some of the statements from the comments sections:

At no time do I want to interfere with your right or anyone else's right to practice [religion] as you choose...It is impossible for the state to speak on religion without giving the impression that one has been preferred. As you increase "liberty" for one, you decrease it for others. The Founders wanted balance for all...The Government does not have the right to allow one advocacy over another even if we can't figure out what the other is...We can never figure out what "all" advocacy is...Since the "all" universe cannot be determined, the only way to keep balance is the "no" universe...The Government cannot allow the advocacy of religion on public grounds because it limits the freedoms of others to express their religious views when they are not advocated. The non-advocated position has been de-established by the Government�How do you know with certainty that every religion has been asked to participate? You assume so because as a mainstream sect, you were. However, the guy who worships Kelly Clarkson as a demi-goddess was not...he was left out, his religion is valid, and therefore demeaned...Since everyone will not choose to participate...you cannot allow some belief system to obtain an advantage because they choose to participate. Therefore, no one gets to participate.

There are two striking features to these comments: First, they avoid any discussion of substantive issues such as freedom, justice, rights, and moral common sense. Instead, they devolve into ideas emphasizing how our government should restrict the freedom of citizens to express their beliefs in any public forum.

And when we equate the suggested religion of Kelly-Clarkson-as-a-demi-goddess with either the Jewish or Christian tradition, have not we just endorsed an unserious moral relativism which denies there are any moral truths discoverable by faith or reason? If there are no moral truths, have not then words like freedom and justice lost all meaning?

Reflections on Pope John Paul II's role in the demise of Communism - as highlighted in an article in the extended entry below - offers some guidance about where to begin:

Language, then, and the restoration of its relationship with reality were critical to the Communist collapse. This was no small feat since, for many in the West, words had lost their meaning. A recovery of meaning was essential before a real challenge could be presented...You cannot use "evil" as an adjective until you know it as a noun...the new struggle [today] is over the meaning of freedom...In Veritatis Splendor, the pope warned of "the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgment of truth impossible." If truth is impossible, so are the "self-evident truths" upon which free government depends. Then, one can understand everything in terms of power and its manipulation...[John Paul II] raised the hope that moral recovery is possible by calling for it.

That loss of meaning means we - at least implicitly - deny the existence of moral truths and, by default, fail to address the societal consequences of the moral relativism now dominating the public square, as described by these words from Pope Benedict XVI:

No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless...

The culture of relativism invites its own destruction...by its own internal incoherence...

Yet, acknowledging the existence of moral truths is part of both our American and Western Civilization heritages. As Lee Harris writes, our heritage is a rich one:

Christian Europe, after all, was a fusion of diverse elements: the Hebrew tradition, the experience of the early Christian community, the Roman genius for law, order, and hierarchy, the Germanic barbarians' love of freedom, among many others. In this cultural amalgam, Greek philosophy certain played a role. St. Clement argued that Greek philosophy had been given by God to mankind as a second source of truth, comparable to the Hebrew revelation. Benedict argues that the "inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history."

Our heritage not only acknowledges the existence of moral truths but argues that these truths can be discovered by either faith or reason - thereby confirming what has been true for centuries: This public conversation about the role of moral truths in the public square does not require everyone to hold identical religious beliefs. It does require us to be morally serious and to firmly place moral relativism in the dustbin of history.

Moral truths belong in the public square to avoid the societal consequences of moral relativism. Only with a belief in moral truths can words become meaningful again and enable us to begin a public conversation about principles such as freedom and - from there - to discuss proper ways to introduce their meaning back into the public square.

As a first step toward the recovery of meaning, let's next ask ourselves whether we truly understand the meaning of freedom - including religious freedom - and reason as we explore how best to live our American experiment in ordered liberty.

Robert Reilly wrote these words in Fearless: How John Paul II Changed the Political World:

John Paul II was a shaker of world events. He regraded the political landscape of the 20th century and was counted among the few who were responsible for the relatively peaceful demise of the Evil Empire...

Language, then, and the restoration of its relationship with reality were critical to the Communist collapse. This was no small feat since, for many in the West, words had lost their meaning. A recovery of meaning was essential before a real challenge could be presented to the East. No single individual did more for this restoration than John Paul II, who insisted upon calling things by their proper names...You cannot use "evil" as an adjective until you know it as a noun...

Everyone now celebrates "our" victory over Communism, conveniently forgetting that the struggle was not only with Communism but within the West as to what Communism meant. The anti�anti-Communists in the West were frightened by the vocabulary of the pope and President Ronald Reagan for the Soviet Union because they feared it might lead to war, but also because the use of the word "evil" had implications for themselves with which they were extremely uncomfortable. As English writer Christopher Derrick once said, the only real Iron Curtain runs through the soul of each one of us. If we can know what evil is, how then does that apply to our own lives? Rather than answer that question, many preferred to attack the people using it and to explain the Cold War away as just another variation of power politics and realpolitik. Communism was simply a mask for traditional Russian imperial expansionism and could be dealt with similarly. Power dealing with power can reach an understanding.

So long as this view was regnant in the West, Communism was a form of absolutism fighting a form of relativism. As such, Communism had the clear advantage and gained it on the field with stunning geographic advances�in Central Asia, Africa, and Central America�and strategic advances in both conventional and non-conventional weaponry. So great was the progress of the Soviet Union in the 1970s that anyone looking at these factors alone would have expected it to win. Those expectations were defeated by a factor outside of these calculations...

Reagan was the first political leader to use the moral vocabulary of "evil" to describe the Soviet empire in the recent era. The reaction was hysterical. How reckless could Reagan be? Yet the president calmly responded that he wanted them, the Soviets, to know that he knew. This acknowledgment inspired great hope behind the Iron Curtain. Then, finally, the Soviets used the term themselves. Once the proper vocabulary was employed, it was over. Semantic unanimity brought the end not in the much-feared bang, but a whimper. Truth�the splendor of truth�turned out to be the most effective weapon in the Cold War. The bearer of that truth in it fullest splendor was John Paul II...

Radek Sikorski, the former deputy foreign minister of a free Poland, wrote in a tribute to John Paul II that, "Before people demand democracy and social rights, they have to gain faith in their own human dignity." That was the prerequisite for liberation: You must know you should be free before you can be free. This is what the pope restored to them. "Be not afraid" were his first words as pope. You need not be afraid because of the truth. Know that truth, and it will set you free.

One needs not only physical courage to be free but, above all, courage of the mind in identifying and speaking the truth. Living in the spirit of the truth is what banishes fear...It is difficult for people in the West to appreciate how galvanizing the Truth is when it is spoken publicly in a society oppressed by a lie�an institutionalized lie about man that is enforced by state power.

The pope�s "politics" were really quite simple, as they derived from his conviction that God is sovereign and man�s human dignity and rights are endowed by Him. Without God, they have no origin. He stressed the irreducible fact that the source of man�s dignity is in his Creator...

The political implications of this are clear: If you wish to save man, first restore God to His rightful place. Then, "If you want peace, remember man"�that is, man made in His image, blessed with reason and free will. Therefore, the political arrangement of man�s life should comport with his nature as a free and reasoning creature, ordered to a transcendent good...

Then what about the rest? What about John Paul II�s excoriating critique of the West after the Cold War, and the puzzlement with which it was greeted? Why did he interrupt our victory celebrations? Those who had reduced the pope�s role to the political results of his actions missed, perhaps deliberately, the transcendent moral standards that animated his actions. The same people who failed to grasp the true nature of the Cold War also failed to appreciate the pope�s critique of the West. Those who did not understand what was morally wrong with Communist ideology also do not understand what is wrong with us.

While the struggle within the West during the Cold War was over the meaning of Communism, the new struggle is over the meaning of freedom...In other words, it is not putting yourself into relationship with what is that frees you, but making up what you wish. This became the empty credo of modernity.

The same moral relativism that weakened the West during the Cold War remained after the war ended...The pope�s critique of Communism is important to understand because its principles apply to his critique of the West after the Cold War. It is, in fact, the same critique of modernity, albeit modernity in a different manifestation. Apparently, getting to make up reality for ourselves is not a harmless endeavor. In fact, John Paul II used the same terrible word to describe it: totalitarian.

In this case, however, the pope startlingly juxtaposed the words "totalitarian" and "democracy" and warned of "totalitarian democracy" as the new danger, even in America. A "totalitarian democracy" may seem a contradiction in terms. However, when its context in the "laws of nature and of nature's God" is removed, democracy loses its authority in higher law and becomes simply another vehicle for the expression of the primacy of the will. This is the basis of totalitarianism. What one wills, not what one reasons, is paramount. Force, not free will, is the means. Whether it is the force of the majority or of the minority matters not...

In his brilliant [Crisis Magazine] article, "Why the Pope Loves America" (February 1997), Dennis Teti pointed to the source of John Paul II�s affection for the United States in the natural law grounding of its founding documents. The pope consistently spoke of "the paramount value of the natural law." That love for America was clearly still intact when he addressed President Bush during a 2001 meeting:

Your nation�s founders...were guided by a profound sense of responsibility towards the common good to be pursued in respect for the God-given dignity and inalienable rights of all. America continues to measure herself by the nobility of her founding vision in building this society of liberty, equality, and justice under the law...

...In Veritatis Splendor, the pope warned of "the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgment of truth impossible."

If truth is impossible, so are the "self-evident truths" upon which free government depends. Then, one can understand everything in terms of power and its manipulation. The concern is not simply with evil but with its institutionalization...

John Paul II continued to call things by their true names. As he had refused to comply with the old lie of slavery, he would not bend to the new lie of false freedom. He preserved the integrity of words because of his fidelity to the Word. People celebrate him because of the victory over Communism but not for the deeper reasons behind that victory, because they do not like being told that they are abusing their freedom. However, he raised the hope that moral recovery is possible by calling for it...

Re 2: Judge Decided on Station Fire Plea Deal

1. According to Roger Williams University Law Professor David Zlotnick, as reported by Kate Bramson on the Projo's 7-to-7 blog, a greater degree of secrecy is allowed in Rhode Island courts than is allowed in Federal courts...

A law professor at Roger Williams University says the controversy swirling around the Derderians' plea agreement highlights the downside of negotiating deals in secret....

It can be an efficient way to bring cases to closure. But there�s a downside, and Rhode Island is witnessing that right now, Zlotnick said today.

"Now the danger is: People are saying, 'I didn't say that,' 'I didn't mean that'", he said.
"That's the downside of allowing an informal system with judge participation. The downside is that sometimes people disagree about what happened in chambers and there's no court reporter in chambers and we don't know what happened."

That wouldn't have happened if this were a federal court case, Zlotnick said, because federal judges are not permitted to engage in plea-bargaining in closed chambers.

We appear to have yet another case of Rhode Island's weird civic culture concentrating power in the wrong places. The rules in Rhode Island seem to make judges into semi-prosecutors, who can help negotiate plea deals and make sentencing decisions before a complete case has been presented at trial.

This is not an appropriate role for a judge. A judge is supposed to apply the law impartially before and during a trial phase, without taking a position on what punishment defendants "should" get for crimes that have been committed. Judges are only human; if they are allowed to directly participate in plea negotiations, it is unavoidable that they will become emotionally invested in seeing certain outcomes brought about. That may be a large part of what has happened here.

Rhode Island rules concerning judges and plea negotiations should be changed to more closely resemble the Federal rules in this area.

2. As Dave Kane has discussed (noted by Marc), the families and friends of the fire victims live with the Station tragedy every day, no matter what the legal process says or does. It's doubtful that the day or two of extra secrecy that Judge Francis Darigan wanted would have changed much. But deciding on a sentence for the Derderians, before the victims have had the chance to present their side, has reinforced a tragic sense of powerlessness and become a real source of further harm.

3. It is still unclear why Kathleen Hagerty, defense lawyer for Michael Derderian, is insisting that who offered the deal be publically acknowledged, to the point of making unusually detailed revelations about plea negotiations (the handwritten note, the phone message from Assistant AG William Ferland).

Given the circumstances, the Derderians got an outcome very favorable to them. Why does making public the way in which the deal came about matter to their lawyers?

Fogarty's Support from Opponents of Eminent Domain Reform Continues to be Strong

The Fogarty campaign's parade of support from opponents of eminent domain reform continues. Last month, Governor Tom Vilsack, who vetoed an Iowa legislature bill that placed some mild restrictions on giving property seized through eminent domain to private developers, came to Rhode Island to campaign for Lieutenant Governor Fogarty. Now, the top item on the Fogarty campaign website is a message of support from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who also vetoed eminent domain reform legislation earlier this year. Richardson also made a fundraising appearance for the Lieutenant Governor in May.

Given that Lieutenant Governor Fogarty seems determined to bring as many Governors who have vetoed an eminent domain reform bill to Rhode Island as he can, (note to the Fogarty campaign: Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona may still be available for an appearance), and that his own record on eminent domain reform has been spotty at best, it is hard to believe that eminent domain reform will be a priority in a Fogarty administration.

Or perhaps Fogarty is a true believer in the approach to the problem favored by Governor Richardson -- form a commission rather than take action. This is from the Associated Press report of Richardson's veto...

[Governor Richardson] promised to create a task force to study the eminent domain issue and propose legislation "to appropriately protect private property from condemnation that is geared solely at private commercial development.

One last question: If Lieutenant Governor Fogarty couldn't work with the legislature to get a simple eminent domain reform bill passed this year, how does he plan to get his term-limits proposal through the legislature?

Dueling Gubernatorial Anti-Corruption Platforms

On Wednesday, Governor Donald Carcieri unveiled a four point anti-corruption plan for Rhode Island. The Governor notes that “all four of these reforms can be enacted by the Ethics Commission, without the approval of the General Assembly”…

• Revise financial disclosure to require legislators to disclose specific sources of income; eliminating the loophole created for General Assembly in the financial disclosure law approved last session. For instance, lawyers, consultants and insurance brokers would be required to report their clients.
• Require legislators to disclose any interest or connection to programs and entities funded by the General Assembly.
• Revise Ethics Code definition of conflicts to address non-financial conflicts. Presently, “conflicts” are limited to ones involving “direct monetary” gain. This provision would broaden the scope of a conflict of interest to capture indirect benefits.
• Prohibit legislators from voting on any measure that affects a business or industry from which the legislator (or a member of his or her immediate family) derives more than minimal income.

His Democratic opponent, Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty, has a four point anti-corruption plan of his own…

• Term limits in the General Assembly (8 consecutive years).
• Disclosure of every meeting between a lobbyist and elected official: Rhode Islanders will have public access to see who lobbyists are meeting with, what bills they are lobbying for and to who’s campaigns they are contributing. All information will be kept together by the Secretary of State through an online form. Lobbyists will fill out the form on a weekly basis. It will include who the meeting was held with, what the meeting was regarding, and what type of contact was made.
• Stronger revolving door laws: Public officials will not be allowed to profit from any business or entity that they have regulated, funded or controlled for at least two years. General Officers and members of the General Assembly will not be able to become lobbyists for at least three years after they leave office.
• Increased financial disclosure: Public Officials will be required to disclosure of all sources and amounts of income as well as the value of all of assets.

Much of Lieutenant Governor Fogarty’s plan would require legislation to be enacted.

Which plan do you prefer?

I’ll make two quick points here...
1. Lieutenant Governor Fogarty’s response to Governor Carcieri’s announcement of his program, at least as reported by Elizabeth Gudrais in the Projo, was classic Charles Fogarty: He didn’t say whether he favored or opposed any of the specific proposals, he just criticized the Governor for not offering a plan sooner.
2. I’m not opposed to term-limits in the abstract (if they’re good enough for the President and for state general officers, then they’re good enough for state legislators), but how exactly does Lieutenant Governor Fogarty plan to get them through the legislature?

Stenhouse’s Secretary of State Proposals

Sue Stenhouse, Republican candidate for Secretary of State, had an op-ed in Wednesday’s Projo where she discussed the importance of voter participation and outlined her camapign platform…

There are many reasons why people do not exercise their right to vote. As a candidate for Rhode Island secretary of state, I propose a plan to encourage stronger voter participation and involvement....

As Rhode Islanders, we're known for having strong opinions and for sharing them. Some think that the future of Rhode Island lies in a few powerful hands; I believe that it belongs to every person who casts a vote on Election Day. Let's work together to make our election process more efficient and accessible, and increase voter participation throughout the state.

Here is the concise summary of the five-point plan propsed by Ms. Stenhouse, as presented on her campaign website…

The 2010 Stenhouse Election Reform Plan proposes:

• VOTER CREDENTIAL CARDS: that the city of Warwick be 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 will be sought to pay for the equipment to be used.
  
• EXPANDED VOTING HOURS: that the City of Warwick also be a test pilot site to allow voters to cast their votes the Saturday and Monday prior to election Tuesday in November 2010 at designated polling places in the city. With the institution of voter swipe cards and expanded days to vote, Stenhouse believes voter turnout will increase by becoming more efficient and convenient.
  
• SECRETARY OF STATE REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: that the Secretary of State or his/her designee serve on the Board of Elections as a non-voting member to foster better communication between the two entities responsible for overseeing elections in the state.
  
• JUNE PRIMARY DATE: to move Rhode Island’s primary date from the second week in September to the second week in June during a general election year. This change, which would require legislative action, would be instituted for the 2010 general election. Stenhouse believes that voters need more than 8 weeks following a primary to become a truly educated electorate to choose individuals to represent our state in the United State Senate for a six-year term and to lead our state as Governor for a four-year term.
  
• INCREASED PUBLIC MATCH DOLLARS: that candidates who then win the June primary and choose to participate in public financing and adhere to spending caps would receive 30 percent more in the public match than they would have received for the 8-week period from primary to general. Stenhouse believes that by increasing the match, more qualified candidates with limited means will come forward to run for public office. The proposed increase in the public match also would need legislative approval.

Re: Judge Decided on Station Fire Plea Deal

There are at least four problems with Judge Francis Darigan's statement regarding the Derderian pleas in the Station Fire case that Marc posted on earlier this afternoon.

Two problems appear in the first two paragraphs of the 7-to-7 report on Judge Darigan's statement...

Superior Court Associate Justice Francis J. Darigan said this afternoon that he decided to accept a plea in The Station nightclub fire case to spare victims' families and the state the trauma of criminal trials.

Darigan also acknowledged that he approved the terms of the deal with club co-owners Michael and Jeffrey Derderian over the objection of the state Attorney General's Office.

1. The Judge says he "approved the terms of the deal". We know who was on one side of the deal -- the Derderian's lawyers. Who was on the other side? Was the judge negotiating independently, or did he take an intermediate offer being negotiated by the AG and decree it to be the final deal? There are problems in either scenario.

2. The Judge says he decided to accept the plea "to spare victims' families and the state the trauma of criminal trials". But a judge's job is to apply the law impartially. It is a prosecutor's job is to decide which cases to bring maximum resources to and which cases to dispose of quickly. Why is the Judge usurping prosecutorial discretion here?

The third and fourth problems aren't legal issues, but concern what appears to be a disturbing display of judicial arrogance...

He also criticized the Attorney General's Office for what he called leaking news of the agreement to the press yesterday, calling it unethical....

Darigan said he would like the media to focus less on the back-and-forth between the Attorney General's Office and the court and more on the merits of the plea agreement.

3. Courts have no business trying to hide their actions from the public, unless the rights of people not on trial may be infringed by revealing certain information in open court. So exactly on what basis is Judge Darigan asserting that there should be some sort secrecy regarding this plea deal?

4. And what gives any judge the right to tell the media what they should and shouldn't be reporting on?

Judge Decided on Station Fire Plea Deal

Earlier, I asked "who made the decision?" to accept a plea deal in the Station Fire court case. We now have our answer:

Superior Court Associate Justice Francis J. Darigan said this afternoon that he decided to accept a plea in The Station nightclub fire case to spare victims' families and the state the trauma of criminal trials.

Darigan also acknowledged that he approved the terms of the deal with club co-owners Michael and Jeffrey Derderian over the objection of the state Attorney General's Office.

The Derderian brothers each have agreed to plead no contest to 100 involuntary manslaughter charges, effectively ending the criminal prosecution against them. The charges represented the 100 who died in the Feb. 20, 2003, blaze, the worst in the state's history.

In exchange for their pleas, Darigan has agreed to a sentence of no jail time for Jeffrey Derderian and four years to serve in prison for Michael Derderian.

The news of the deal, which has not yet been accepted in court, came in a letter to victims' families released yesterday by Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch.

In a followup address to reporters this afternoon at the Kent County Courthouse, Darigan said a trial would "serve to further traumatize and victimize" not only the families of the victims but the entire state.

Darigan addressed the reporters for 25 minutes, reading from a letter he said he sent last night to families of the victims and also reading from a statement.

He also criticized the Attorney General's Office for what he called leaking news of the agreement to the press yesterday, calling it unethical.

In the letter Darigan sent to the victims’ families, he spoke about the sentences for the brothers.

“The difference in the sentences between the two defendants reflects their respective involvement with regard to the purchase and installation of the foam in question,” Darigan wrote. “It is my belief for the reasons stated above that the sentences I will impose are reasonably appropriate in light of all of the facts and circumstances as I understand them.”

The fire at the club started after the band Great White's pyrotechnics ignited foam used as soundproofing around the stage.

Darigan then read from a prepared statement, in which he criticized the way the plea agreement became public.

“The premature leak of the attorney general’s letter to the media by an anonymous source was unethical, reprehensible, devoid of any consideration for the victims of this tragedy and totally abrogated an agreement reached after weeks of discussion between the parties in this case,” he said. “This court sincerely regrets – beyond the court’s ability to articulate – the shock, anger, disbelief and sense of betrayal some of the families must feel because of the despicable action taken by the anonymous source within the Attorney General’s Office.”

Darigan said he would like the media to focus less on the back-and-forth between the Attorney General’s Office and the court and more on the merits of the plea agreement.

This should put to rest the rumors that AG Lynch wanted the case to go away. Now the only question is: What was the motivation for someone in his office to leak this to the press? What purpose did it serve? Did they think that leaking it would help the AG get ahead of the story and enable him to put a positive spin on it while disavowing his acquiesence to any deal? If so, it backfired. Most of the armchair analysis I heard today was based on the assumption--supported by the Derdarians' lawyer--that the AGs office proffered the deal. By being the first out of the gate, the AG's office ended up giving the impression that they were engaging in damage control. That was a mistake. It has also somewhat diverted attention from the fact that the Derdarian's lawyer has a few questions to answer, though I suspect the questions are now being asked of her motivation for apparently lying about the source of the plea deal. Unless, of course, she didn't know the judge had made the decision and assumed that the deal was based on earlier discussions between the AGs office and herself. We'll have to wait to find out.

Lost in all of this is what I believe to be what most of the victims families feel about the judge "sparing them" a long trial. As Dave Kane, who lost a son in the fire said on the Dave Barber show this morning, he has to live with this ordeal every day, whether or not the trial is going on. As such, he isn't being spared anything.

Translating Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's address to the United Nations General Assembly was laced with what might be interpreted as standard progressive rhetoric. Here's an example...

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world. We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions and, instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values, such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection, and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.

Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world, with the will of the almighty God. It is imperative and also desirable that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

OK, I guess the reference to "Almighty God" means that Ahmadinejad's statement couldn't have come from American or European-style progressives. But references to God aren't the part of Ahmadinejad's remarks that people need to be concerned about. The quest for "good, virtue, perfection and beauty", the stuff that might resonate with the post-Christian West's "spiritual but not religious" crowd, should be of more concern.

Contemporary Islamist thought is clear that earthly harmony and the universal acceptance of Islamic law are one and the same. Here is Sayyid Qutb, a main influence on modern radical Islamist thought, explaining the concept in Milestones, a tract widely read in the Islamic world today...

Indeed, the Shari'ah of God harmonizes the external behavior of man with his internal nature in an easy way. When a man makes peace with his own nature, peace and cooperation among individuals follow automatically, as they all live together under one system, which is a part of the general system of the universe.

When Ahmadinejad talks about ending "oppression" in his address (which he does frequently), if he is true to radical Islamist beliefs, he is not talking about Western-style progressive programs for ending oppression, e.g universal health care or a living wage or giving Africa a veto on the Security Council. Radical Islamists believe that freedom from oppression can be achieved only by destroying every earthly system not based on Islamic law. Here's Qutb again...

Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to God, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man....Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world.

Ahmadinjead's speech is consistent with Qutb's philosophy. Nothing that he said gives any sign that he or his government believes that Islam and other religions can peacefully co-exist. Instead, he tells us that one single version of justice and virtue -- his version -- is coming, "whether we like it or not".

Station Fire Plea Deal: Who Made the Decision?

One of the very first blog posts I ever wrote was in reaction to the Station Night Club fire. Now the ProJo and other outlets are reporting that the Derderian's have agreed to a plea deal and that there will be no trial. The one big question is: Who offered the deal?

Attorney-General Patrick Lynch has sent a letter to the victims' families explaining that he disagrees with the plea deal:

Superior Court Associate Justice Francis J. Darigan Jr., has advised my office that, on September 29, 2006, he will allow Defendants Michael Derderian and Jeffrey Derderian to withdraw their ''not guilty" pleas and enter "nolo contendere" (meaning no contest) pleas to one hundred counts of involuntary manslaughter. The nolo contendere pleas are equivalent to admissions of guilt by Michael Derderian and Jeffrey Derderian. Judge Darigan is expected to sentence each Defendant for those crimes after hearing from the victims. Depending upon the number of victims who appear, sentencing may occur on that same date....

....I want each of you to understand that as Attorney General, I have not agreed to this disposition, and I will continue to strongly voice my objection.

....Faced with evidence gathered by my office, in conjunction with the West Warwick Police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Warwick Police, the Rhode Island State Fire Marshal and the Rhode Island State Police, and with the expected testimony of Daniel Biechele, both Michael Derderian and Jeffrey Derderian last week informed Judge Darigan that they were prepared to accept responsibility for their roles in the fire at The Station nightclub and change their not guilty pleas.

Despite their desire to admit to the charges against them, I was unwilling to recommend or agree to the sentences that I have been advised the Court will impose.

Subsequently, Judge Darigan decided that, in light of the Defendants' willingness to plead to one hundred counts of involuntary manslaughter, he would accept those pleas without the agreement of my office. Though it had been my desire to bring these cases to trial....the law shows the Court to accept a change of plea without the Attorney General's agreement.

Judge Darigan has stated that he has taken into consideration what he anticipates would be the untold emotional impact and pain that two trials, each of which could last upwards of four months, would inevitably cause...

I respectfully disagree with, and object to, the sentences that the Court intends to impose on Michael Derderian and Jeffrey Derderian. Most significantly, I strongly disagree with the Court's intention to sentence Jeffrey Derderian to less than jail.

Notwithstanding my objection to, the sentences that Judge Darigan intends to impose, there can be no dispute that the right to a trial that the United States Constitution affords is a right that belongs to the accused, not to the State. In other words, our system of justice does not allow the State to demand a trial; that right belongs exclusively to the criminal defendant.

The Derderian's attorney, Kathleen Hagerty, disputes the Attorney-General's explanation:

Kathleen Hagerty, lawyer for the Derderians, disputes Lynch's claim and told NBC 10's Brian Crandall that "the attorney general made that offer to us on Aug. 10, and at the time, the Derderians rejected the deal" wanting to go to trial so that "everyone would know what happened, and that the truth about the fire would come out."

Hagerty continued saying that after talking to potential witnesses, it was just too painful and that the Derderians wanted to spare the witnesses, survivors and the families from reliving the horrors of that night. As a result, the Derderians went back and "Judge (Darigan) honored the attorney general's offer despite them trying to renege on it."

And Judge Darigan has also issued a statement, according to the ProJo story:

Darigan did not return a call seeking comment last night, but a courts spokesman released a statement. "There is a plan for the dignified release of information that is sensitive to the families of the victims of the tragic fire at The Station nightclub," spokesman Craig N. Berke said. "The premature release of information about this matter is unfortunate and will be answered." The statement said the court will have a further response around noon today.

Before jumping to conclusions, we must wait to see the source of the plea deal: Judge Darigan or AG Lynch's office. But regardless of who offered the deal--and despite AG Lynch's promise that he will make legal materials (evidence) available to the public--the fact is that the lack of a trial will prevent the trial process from doing what it often does best, which is to inform the public. Now we can only hope that the local media will do the digging to fill in the gray areas. In particular, the public deserves to know the culpability of local and state government officials who didn't properly inspect or permit the Station Night club.

Robert Novak: Senate Republicans Still Hoping for Chafee’s Support on Bolton

Columnist Robert Novak (via The Conservative Voice) has an update on the status of John Bolton’s stalled nomination to the post of United Nations Ambassador. Apparently, Senate Republicans are still holding out hope that Senator Lincoln Chafee can be convinced to support the nomination, allowing it to move to the Senate floor…

Senate Republican Whip Mitch McConnell sat down Tuesday for a heart-to-heart talk with Chafee, pleading with him to permit Bolton's nomination to reach the Senate floor....

Chafee's avowed complaint, laid out in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had nothing to do with Bolton's performance at the UN. Chafee complained that U.S. Middle East policy under Bush tilted too much toward Israel, and demanded an answer before he would discuss Bolton's nomination.

Although the Bush administration generally answers letters from Capitol Hill with glacial speed, Rice immediately responded to Chafee. The senator, however, was in no hurry to get back to Washington from Rhode Island after his renomination. Thus, McConnell waited a week before pressing Chafee Tuesday to support Bolton (as he did last year) or at least permit the nomination to go to the Senate floor. The outcome of the meeting was not divulged.

Given Senator Chafee’s history on similar decisions, I think it is safe to assume that the non-divulged outcome was “I’ll think about it”.

Novak also notes that Senator Charles Schumer of New York is now likely to support Bolton’s nomination…

AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, now backs Bolton, and the usually partisan Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer has indicated he will change his vote from last year and vote for cloture to end debate.

It’s going to be hard for a candidate who moves to the left of Charles Schumer on foreign policy to maintain a “I am the true moderate” façade.

Because Senator Chafee’s objection is not based on professional competence, but on an ideological disagreement with Bush administration policy towards Israel, it is not clear what type of UN ambassador the Senator would accept should he cast his vote against Ambassador Bolton.

Patrick Kennedy Ducks Debates

All too unsurprisingly, Congressman Patrick Kennedy is looking to limit any serious discussion of the issues in his re-election campaign to the least-visible format possible -- a format arguably even less visible than blogs, if such a thing is possible! This is from a Jon Scott campaign press release...

Jonathan Scott, Republican challenger for the RI First District Congressional seat currently held by Patrick Kennedy, won his primary on September 12, 2006 and immediately called for a series of debates with the incumbent. That challenge was met today with an offer to appear on the cable access "Glen Medeiros Show", a show hosted by a close personal friend of the Congressman.

Mr. Scott has turned down this offer, as he does not feel that it is the proper venue for such an important debate and further exemplifies Mr. Kennedy's history of rewarding his friends and ignoring those who do not afford him favorable treatment.

During the 2004 race, Mr. Kennedy agreed to do a pair of debates on the "Glen Medeiros Show" with then challenger, David Rogers. The host did not allow Mr. Rogers to voice his views without interruption in the first of the series and the challenger then chose not to appear on the second. In lieu of a fair debate, Medeiros placed an empty chair on the set and he and Kennedy, in bizarre fashion, would ask the empty chair to answer questions. Neither show demonstrated that the host wished to even appear neutral.

Mr. Scott has this to say about the less-than-good-faith offer…

It is ridiculous to think that the Congressman can make the time to appear on a limited viewership cable access show, hosted by a personal friend, but he can't use that same time to tape a debate hosted by a neutral party from a network news service. I believe that we need a series of debates in a forum that allows the broadest audience possible to get a look at their candidates and our views on the issues.

Glen Medeiros may as well be on Patrick's staff. The debates in '04 should have carried a paid for by friends of Patrick Kennedy line, or at least he should have had to report it as an in-kind donation

The Kennedy and Scott campaigns have agreed, so far, to a single debate, to be held on October 27, 2006, arranged by the League of Women Voters. However, the Kennedy camapaign has not indicated any intention to use the time allocated for the cable-access debates for any higher profile or more neutral events. Mr. Scott is disappointed by the decision of an elected representative to hide from public view…

While I am happy that Mr. Kennedy has agreed to a debate in a suitable venue, I do not believe that October 27 gives voters the best opportunity to completely explore both candidacies. It's very late and close to Election Day. I hope to meet the Congressman in debate much sooner and with one of the network news services hosting. Giving the public more information can only be better for the political process.

Clearly, Congressman Kennedy and his supporters have decided that the less people see of the Congressman, the better his chances of re-election are.

The Brown University September Poll is Out

The latest Brown University Poll of Rhode Island voters conducted by Darrell West and the Taubman Center for Public Policy has been released. Here are some results and some insta-analysis…

1. Probably the biggest surprise is the result on the casino amendment. At least according to Professor West, the Harrah’s/Narragansett Tribe strategy of saturation bombing via the airwaves is not working…

Question: Do you favor or oppose amending the state constitution to allow a gambling casino in West Warwick operated by Harrah’s in association with the Narragansett Indian Tribe?

• Favor 36%
• Oppose 55%

From responses to other questions asked, it appears as if people believe that a casino would bring economic benefits to the state, but are displeased with the no-bid insider deal that's being proposed. Save Our State and other anti-casino groups need to make sure that as many people as possible realize that they will be voting on a constitutional amendment for a no-bid casino, and not just on the general idea of whether the state should have a casino or not.

2. The numbers in the Governor’s race are starting to look like what people thought they would at this point…

• Donald Carcieri 50%
• Charles Fogarty 38%

Governor Carcieri is still polling well below his approval rating of 58%, which continues to be a good sign for him.

I know there are people with experience looking at polling numbers who disagree with me on this, but I still say what’s happening in this race is that cranky Rhode Island independents who were willing to consider voting for Charles Fogarty are becoming increasingly turned off by his general claim that he is a reformer on one hand, while he refuses to take a stand on any of the specific problems facing the state on the other. Here’s a recent example of that behavior from Charles Bakst of the Projo…

Fogarty didn't rush to sign on when I suggested recently that lobbyists be banned from making political contributions. Carcieri liked the proposal -- as long as it includes labor lobbyists. (Fogarty is labor's favorite.)

3. A second Republican now has the lead in a statewide race, Sue Stenhouse over Ralph Mollis for Secretary of State…

• Sue Stenhouse 35%
• Ralph Mollis 30%

Elizabeth Roberts is barely ahead of Reginald Centracchio in the Lieutenant Governor’s race…

• Reginald Centracchio 30%
• Elizabeth Roberts 34%
• Robert Healey 11%

I wonder if Healey could have been competitive if he had run for Senator this year. Speaking of which…

4. Lincoln Chafee and Sheldon Whitehouse are neck-and-neck in the race for U.S. Senate…

• Lincoln Chafee 39%
• Sheldon Whitehouse 40%

Not much of a change from the previous poll, but an incumbent running at 39% can’t be feeling too confident. On the other hand, the Chafee campaign may be figuring as long as they keep it close, the Republican turnout machine will save them.

5. Q: What do Rhode Island’s two political Patrick’s have in common? This wasn't a real poll question. However, the answer is...
A: Unlike Governor Carcieri or Senator Chafee, the job-approval ratings of Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Attorney General Patrick Lynch are significantly worse than their election poll numbers. Patrick Lynch leads 57%-24% over William Harsch, despite Lynch’s job-approval rating of only 51%. Patrick Kennedy leads Jon Scott 60%-25%, despite Kennedy’s dismal job approval rating of 43%. This means there are opportunities for the challengers to move up in these races, if they can get their messages out. (Also, do people belive that Patrick Kennedy is really as popular as James Langevin, who leads his opponent Rod Driver by a similar margin of 60%-19%?)

What the Heck...Even More Poll Numbers!

(Heads Up--or Nota Bene for the cultured sort--Andrew and I were obviously working the same story and posted them within 1 minute of each other. This proves we Anchor Rising Contributors don't collude!!!! I kept my post up because of the wonderfully witty and pithy observations....but I did truncate most of it to the "extended" section.)

As noted in the comments to my earlier "poll post" {and Andrew's new post--MAC} a new Brown poll (Darrell West) is out, with some encouraging numbers for both Governor Carcieri and Senator Chafee.

Governor

Carcieri (R) - 50%
Fogarty (D) - 38%

U.S. Senate

Whitehouse (D) - 40%
Chafee (R) - 39%
Undecided - 21 %

Note: The sample was 578 likely voters taken from September 16-18 (over the weekend) and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

Editorial note: First, notice how this poll was taken (responsibly, imo) a few days after the contentious primary. Second, it's my strictly anecdotal understanding that polls that sample over the weekend favor Democrats. Third, there can be no doubt in which direction these two races are trending as the average voter starts paying attention: toward the incumbents.

Now, for some numbers regarding other races of import:

Lieutenant Governor

Roberts (D) - 34%
Centracchio (R) - 30%
Healey (CM) - 11%
Undecided - 25%

Attorney General

Lynch (D) - 57%
Harsch (R) - 24%

Secretary of State

Stenhouse (R) - 35%
Mollis (D) - 30%
Undecided - 35%

Treasurer

Caprio (D) - 43%
Lyon (R) - 18%
Undecided - 39%

Congress (RI-2)

Langevin (D) - 60%
Driver (I) - 21%
Undecided - 19%

Congress (RI-1)

Kennedy (D) - 60%
Scott (R) - 25%
Undecided - 15%

Casino Amendment

Oppose - 55%
Approve - 36
Undecided - 9%

Note: Of these, according to West, 66%:

...think there should be competitive bidding on the right to operate a gambling casino in West Warwick, while 27 percent do not.

When asked their thoughts about this casino, 75 percent claim it would result in people betting money they can't afford to bet, 61 percent feel it would boost tourism in the state, 60 percent believe it would create more gambling addicts, 59 percent it would create meaningful jobs, 55 percent feel it would reduce revenues the state gets from gaming at Lincoln Park and Newport Grand, 47 percent think it would benefit the Rhode Island economy, 51 percent say it would increase crime rates, 42 percent think it would raise the level of organized crime activity in the state, 39 percent believe it would help reduce taxes, and 36 percent say it would harm the hotel and entertainment industry in Providence.

Hmmmm. Methinks Harrah's has just increased their advertising budget for the next few weeks.

School Choice: Making Progress in Rhode Island

In July, I pointed to a Morton Kondracke column that noted that those of diverse political persuasions may be forming a consensus on school reform. While I was away on vacation in August, I missed a report that suggests we are making such bipartisan-supported progress here in Rhode Island.

The Heritage Foundation has issued their "School Choice: 2006 Progress Report", which divulges:

Seven states—Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island— have tax credits or deductions for education expenses, including private school tuition, or incentives for contributions to scholarship programs....

In Rhode Island, lawmakers cre­ated a new $1 million corporate scholarship tax credit program to provide tuition scholarships to children from low-income families. To receive a scholarship, a student must be from a family with an income below 250 percent of the poverty line.

Upon further digging, I discovered this press release from the Alliance For School Choice.

The Rhode Island Senate Saturday passed a corporate scholarship tax credit program that will allow hundreds of low-income families to expand their educational options and send their children to private or parochial schools. Rhode Island becomes the eighth state in the country to enact a targeted school choice program and the third state with a school choice victory this month.

“This program is the result of bipartisan statesmanship, putting kids' interests above politics. This has been a record-setting year for school choice, which is great news for children across the country,” declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Phoenix-based Alliance for School Choice, a national nonpartisan policy organization that supports expanded educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren.

With a cap of $1 million, the state’s first private school choice program allows corporations to donate up to $100,000 per year to scholarship granting organizations. It passed an overwhelmingly Democrat House and Senate as part of Gov. Don Carcieri’s budget.

“The program makes sense. It saves money for the public schools and it gives poor kids a choice in education and allows them to afford non-public schools,” said Rev. Bernard A. Healey, government liaison for the Catholic Diocese of Providence.

Qualified families must have a household income of 250 percent of the poverty level. Each donating business will receive a 75 percent credit for a one-year commitment and a 90 percent credit for a two-year commitment

The Alliance commends Senate President Joe Montalbano, House Speaker Bill Murphy and Rev. Healey for their tremendous courage in supporting this much needed educational opportunity for Rhode Island's working families.

The targeting of low-income children is the proper focus and this is definitely progress....but I want more! More money, more tax credits--for both corporations and parents--and more school choice options for all students.

What the Heck...Here's Some Poll Numbers

The ProJo has a story about the latest Rasmussen poll that offers a snapshot of where we stand in the races for Governor and U.S. Senate 7 weeks out from the General Election (actually 8 weeks, the poll was taken last week).

Governor

Carcieri (R) - 47%
Fogarty (D) - 45%

U.S. Senate

Whitehouse (D) - 51%
Chafee (R) - 43%

Note: The sample was 500 likely voters taken a day after the primaries and has a margin of error of +/- 4.5%.

Editorial note: How likely are "likely" voters to vote in an off-year election? With regards to the Senate race: how seriously to take numbers gathered a day after one of the most negative and contested primaries in recent memory?

What Was the Pope Trying to Say?

Although the furor over Pope Benedict's University of Regensburg lecture has centered on a perceived insult to the prophet Mohammed, I believe that the remarks were directed at a more recent figure, Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian writer active in the Muslim Brotherhood in the mid-20th century whose writings are widely read in the Islamic world today. Qutb's works have been a major influence on the modern philosophy of Islamic radicalism, including that of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran. After Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966, his brother fled to Saudi Arabia, where he became a teacher of Osama Bin Laden.

It is doubtful that it is mere coincid