Monday, December 11, 2006

Darfur Wall

I haven't blogged here in a while due to election busy-ness, illness and travel. But this is worth signing on today and sending people to: the Darfur Wall. Their hope is to get many, many people to give at least a little, so let's all pitch in. If you're curious about what organizations receive the donation, see the "About" page. Thanks to Sheila Lennon for the pointer.

Monday, October 02, 2006

We have generic Zoloft God bless America

If you're wondering about the title, it comes from a Molly Ivins misquote of a Walgreen's sign in Austin not long after 9/11:

Anyway, so I was excited to hear that my drug of choice, Zoloft, had gone generic recently. With my crappy health plan (nonetheless the best available to me in this state with the insurance monopoly), I have been paying almost full price for Zoloft every month. So I thought, oh good, now I'll have substantial savings. Wrong. I save a grand total of eleven bucks with the generic. So next time the insurance companies try to claim that the reason rates are so high is because people refuse to use generics, tell them to go fuck themselves. Actually, tell them that no matter what.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

It follows logically

Hmm. Losing senatorial candidate Steve Laffey once said:
"All the homosexuals I've seen are sickly and decrepit, their eyes devoid of life."

Well, here's Laffey:

Look at those eyes. According to what he once said, he must be a homosexual. I'm just saying.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

The brilliant convergence of our local media

I don't believe that there is any conspiracy at play here. As Twain said, "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity." But it is almost breathtaking how the local media have played things in such a perfect way as to keep the voters an uninformed as they can.

I'm sure this is the case all over the state, but what I have in mind is the example from my own neighborhood. The state senate seat is open for the first time in ten years, and there are four candidates running in the primary. There's a lot of interest in this race -- signs all over the neighborhood and all that. So what do the local media do? The local weekly newspaper, the Cranston Herald, decides that it will sponsor a candidate debate, to take place less than a week before the vote. But, likely because of their sponsorship of said debate, they do not report at all on an earlier debate/candidate forum which they did not sponsor. (And I should add that this candidate forum also had candidates for other races of interest in the community.) So the voting public misses out on a chance to read about what was said at that forum.

One might figure, well, that's the paper's prerogative; they want to promote their own debate. But...their debate, as we heard in the previous paragraph, takes place less than a week before the primary. And they are...a weekly paper. And so, they will not be able to run a story about the debate before the election, as the paper comes out on the same day as the debate is held. And just to put the icing on the cake, since the Cranston Herald sponsored the debate, that gives the Providence Journal an excuse not to acknowledge that it happened (not that they apparently feel they need an excuse, as their coverage of state legislative races around the state has been uniformly poor.) So, no one reports on the debate. I even looked around for blog coverage, but nothing there either. Amazing. I have already decided who gets my vote, so this failure does not affect me personally. But it is a disservice to voters who want to be informed and hope that the media will help them with that.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

A Dem with spine in Alabama

This just made my day:

The survey by the Christian Coalition of Alabama also wants to know where candidates stand on a host of other issues including prayer in school.

Democrats are accusing the coalition of attempting to gather the information and then skew it to favor their opponents.

One Democrat, Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) (pictured), has sent Coalition President John Giles a letter saying he would gladly answer the 75 question poll if Giles would answer questions showing the source of the Christian Coalition's money.

Giles in the past has refused to divulge the information and is currently not required to. Holmes is supporting legislation that would force the coalition and other nonprofit groups to disclose the source of money used to run ads to influence a legislative issue or a referendum such as the gay marriage ban.

"Until you answer those three questions, go straight to hell," Holmes said in the letter to Giles.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The next best thing in this day and age

Someone noticed one of those "sleds" in their neighborhood, you know, those things that tell you how fast you're going to shame you into actually following the speed limit. And someone thought, wow, it would be a funny bit of political theatre to cover up the "Your Speed" with something else. Someone figured it would be easy to do -- just take measurements and get some posterboard and put the doctored sign on top of the regular one. But then, someone thought it might be a bad idea. First off, there's a legitimate safety issue, namely that people might be distracted by it from laughing or from being confused. And so the local police might not like that and might come after someone. But moreover, someone worried that maybe an even bigger deal of it might be made given the particular message, and that a federal case might be made of it, and someone might be in an even bigger amount of trouble. Someone adores the Freeway Blogger and is pleased to see locals following that person's lead, but someone is worried that authorities might not take as kindly to temporarily altering a sled. So, someone had to settle for the next best thing in this day and age, a photo edited to put in the message that someone wished were on the sled. Knowing of someone's plight, I took pity on someone and am publishing the edited picture here. (Apologies for any formatting oddities it causes. Someone is an amateur at editing photos.)

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lose Chafee

The Lincoln Chafee re-election campaign has signs and stickers around with the slogan "Keep Chafee." What a lot of people don't realize is that it's a throwback to one of his father's previous campaigns. I don't have a link, but when he was running six years ago, he mentioned in a news story that some (mostly elderly) people came up to him and gave him old buttons from his father's campaign with that slogan on it. So it's somewhat clever for him to be using the same slogan this time around. I don't necessarily think that any voters around here have forgotten that his father is dead (unlike in Knoxville, where I'm not sure if voters realize that Rep. John Duncan Sr. died something like 18 years ago, and his son Jr. is in the seat now.) But it reminds some people of the goodwill that his father earned (and that he himself, in my opinion, has not.)

Anyway, the signs and stickers are becoming more numerous (in Warwick, even ubiquitous) as the primary approaches. At the same time, some people on both ends of the political spectrum are sick of him. So, on a comment thread on the RI's Future blog, someone suggested that someone needed to make a "Dump Chafee" sticker. Another person rose to the challenge although changed the slogan a bit. So now those who are interested can buy "Lose Chafee" stickers. I am not affiliated with (and don't even know) the person selling them, and I probably won't buy one myself, but I am impressed with his taking the initiative. It's amazing what can be done in the age of the Internet.

Monday, August 07, 2006

If I Wrote the Headlines, 7 August 2006

In today's ProJo: Republican Statewide Candidates Ignore Dominican Community. Subheadline: Chafee, desperate for crossover primary votes, is lone exception.

In fairness, this is of course assuming that the ProJo's article is accurate. Would the reporter know the down-ticket Republican statewide candidates by sight? Well, Sue Stenhouse is easy to spot due to her resemblance to local drag queen Miss Kitty Litter (yeah, I know, I know, but I just couldn't resist. And why do you assume it's an insult? Kitty is a friend of mine), and they might recognize Centracchio. And Laffey's mouth is hard to miss. But the others? Maybe not.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Letter of the day

Great letter in Sunday's ProJo:
Snobby pictures consume space

The Journal keeps running pictures from the National Museum of American Illustration, in Newport, on its Commentary pages. Consider the recent F.X. Leyendecker illustration of two well-dressed boys golfing. I rather suspect it is an image of how members of The Journal editorial board view themselves, and in that respect they are undoubtedly correct.

However, bear in mind that every time The Journal consumes valuable real estate with these images, it has deprived its readership of one of my brilliant letters.
You're wrong, Mr. Pinning. Rather, those images deprive their readers of yet another random letter from Mr. Saul Ricklin of Bristol, who has had approximately seventeen published in the last twelve months.

On edit: I remembered an Achorn column that had talked about how they choose which letters to run, and I finally found it here. Honestly, it seems like their policy gives the layout editor a lot of power. Perhaps that's why Ricklin gets published so often -- the short comments are easy to fit into leftover spaces.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Got Spellcheck?

My guess is that whoever is currently writing the headlines for the ProJo does not use Spellcheck on them. Perhaps they don't think it makes sense to use it because many proper names appear in the headlines, so it would just slow things down to use it. But...maybe it's because Mercury is retrograde, or perhaps the usual headline writer is on vacation or something. But whatever the reason, there is an inordinate number of typos in the headlines of Wednesday's ProJo, at least the web version. I suspect they may correct some of them in at least some of the print editions. But for now, we read:

Having collected these, I realize that they are all from either the letters section (which has lately been notoriously bad about typos in headlines) or from the various local sections that are not distributed statewide except on the web. So perhaps a different person is responsible for writing those headlines. But no matter what, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

He said what?

Looks like the Boston press corps actually does their job, unlike the Washington press corps. I enjoyed reading about how Romney squirmed in response to press questions at an event he staged in support of a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. The whole thing is worth reading, but check out this excerpt:

“I believe the ideal setting for raising a child is where there’s a mother and a father, and the development of a child is enhanced by having the attributes of a male and a female part of their parents. . .”

"A male and a female part"? Really, that's kind of dirty, if you think about it. Why are some heterosexuals so obsessed with sex? And why won't they let my bowling teammate and her wife live their lives in peace? (Of course I don't mean all of you, and probably not even a majority of you in Massachusetts. We're still working on it in RI, though.)

On edit: oh yeah, I forgot about this picture of Romney, from around the time he declared that he could decide whether same-sex couples from Rhode Island could marry in Massachusetts:

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Local media oddness

A news story that normally wouldn't really interest me has me noticing and pointing out curious things about how the local media work.

Here's the deal. A Warwick city council member was arrested over the weekend for shoplifting. I previously lived in Warwick, but I was not in his district and don't really know much about him, so I just sort of shrugged when I read it on Channel 12's website on Saturday. I assume they ran a story on the broadcast news, but I try very hard to avoid watching local news because it all seems pretty annoying and mostly useless to me (all channels, not just 12.)

The story stayed on Channel 12's website all weekend (not sure what time it was posted Saturday, but Google news says it was Saturday.) On Monday, the Providence Journal ran an article about the incident. Interestingly, the original story on Channel 12's website had a piece of information which the ProJo story did not report, namely that the police said that "this may not be the first time they have caught Councilor Gallucci in a shoplifting incident."

So, later Monday morning, Rhode Island Law Journal, an interesting local blog, posted a brief note about the incident, with a link to the ProJo story. In the comments, I posted a link to the Channel 12 story and mentioned the additional information it had. Then I went to bed (I usually sleep during the day, for those who don't know). When I got up, the owner of the blog had posted a response saying that the Channel 12 link didn't work, that the story Channel 12 now had on their website didn't mention anything about a possible prior incident, and that he couldn't find a mention anywhere of a report of a possible prior incident. So I clicked on the link that I had posted earlier, and sure enough, the original story was gone. In its place was an error message saying, "The page you requested is currently unavailable. Pages on this site are constantly being revised, updated, and occasionally removed. You may have followed an outdated link or have outdated pages in your browser cache." Elsewhere on the site, they posted an AP story which had summarized the ProJo story, and Channel 12 had interjected into it that the Providence Journal is their "news partner." The news partnership entails some sort of setup between them where Channel 12's late night newscast has someone from the ProJo come on for a moment to give a preview of what will be in tomorrow's paper. I think they also do a news scroll type thing of ProJo headlines at other times. (I don't know for sure because as I said, I rarely watch broadcast news.)

Anyway, I was rather flummoxed by this turn of events. I was afraid it might make me look like one of those anonymous commenters who post false rumors to stir up trouble, like so many people over at the Rhode Island's Future blog. So, I set out to try to find the original story. It had been wiped from Channel 12's website, and clicking on the Google cache of it did not work. However, I was able to reconstruct parts of the story by Googling phrases I had remembered being in the story, and I posted the results in the comments of the Rhode Island Law Journal post (saying I wanted to prove I wasn't crazy or lying!) Early Tuesday morning, a story appeared on the Warwick Daily Times website about the incident, and this story did mention the possible prior incident. (It also got Gallucci's name completely wrong in the headline, but the paper is new in Warwick, after all.)

So, what does all of this signify? Could be any number of things. Could be that Channel 12 reported the possible prior incident without enough evidence to back it up. They did hedge by saying "may," and I don't know what the broadcast story was like (probably sensationalized.) Perhaps they got a call from legal counsel asking them to take it down for that reason. It is interesting that the ProJo surely must have been aware of this information but did not report it. Did their editor feel that there wasn't enough evidence to justify publishing it? Are they perhaps collecting evidence for a future story, keeping their powder dry? Are they annoyed that Channel 12 scooped them? (Perhaps not since they are "partners," but who knows.) Is there a political motive, i.e., someone trying to protect Gallucci? I doubt this given how the ProJo generally hates Democrats, but there's obviously stuff going on behind the scenes that is not being talked about.

I am annoyed with Channel 12 for basically attempting to throw the original story down the memory hole. I cannot be the only person who saw it given that it was on their site for days and probably broadcast as well. But now they are trying to cover their tracks, it appears. If they reported incorrect information, they should post a retraction. But given the subsequent story in the Warwick Daily Times, with an officer on record, it appears that there is indeed at least suspicion of a prior incident. So the information appears to have been correct. Did they pull the story from their site because their "partner" the ProJo is working on their own followup story? If so, that is a good argument against these news partnerships. We need news reported by more sources independent of each other, not fewer. If you need proof of this, compare the ProJo's coverage of the court decision about ballot questions with that of Jim Baron of the Pawtucket Times and its sister papers. I think Baron's coverage is better, and even if not, it certainly adds information not in the ProJo story. (Anyone serious about following RI politics should make a point of reading Baron's work regularly, and likewise that of Joe Baker of the Newport Daily News.)

So those are my reflections on the local media's strange coverage of this incident. I wish no ill upon Mr. Gallucci and hope that he is able to work out whatever problems he may be having.

On edit early Wednesday morning: the Warwick Beacon, which comes out Tuesdays and Thursdays, has a story in Tuesday's edition. Meanwhile, the ProJo has another story about it in Wednesday's edition, in the West Bay section, so it may or may not have run in the print version in other parts of the state. (They usually pick one or two stories from the regional sections to distribute statewide, I think.) This story does mention the possible prior incident and I think goes into more detail about it than other sources did. Meanwhile, Channel 12 has removed the AP story from its main page although you can still access it via a direct link. Meanwhile, they still have at least one out of date story about another topic on their main page ("Judge to hear arguments on ballot questions," but the decision has already been rendered.) Make of that what you will.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Yet another rotten move by AOL

Yes, I know you've probably heard the story of the hell the guy went through recently trying to cancel his AOL, but that's not what this post is about.

I run an email list with about 600 subscribers, so naturally I get bounces from time to time as people cancel their email accounts without unsubscribing from the list first. No great shakes. But I just now got the daily bounce report, listing a now-former AOL user, and the bounce message included this:

Last error: 5.1.1 550 We would love to have gotten this email to [username] But, your recipient never logged onto their free AIM Mail account. Please contact them and let them know that they're missing out on all the super features offered by AIM Mail.

And by the way, they're also missing out on you...
(16 bytes suppressed)

(The cutoff means that I don't know what the rest of their bounce message said because the machine which runs my email list kindly spared me from having to read it.)

Amazing. AOL is putting ads in its bounce messages now. Not a good way to win friends and influence people to use your products, guys. Geesh.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Separated at birth?

For those not in this area, that's RI's Sen. Lincoln Chafee. If you have caption suggestions, post them in the comments.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Use this phrase in everyday conversation

Here's what the Providence Visitor, Rhode Island's Catholic newspaper, had to say about recent comments made by Sen. Edward Kennedy about same-sex marriage:

He spoke at length about his opposition to the amendment and criticized anyone who dare insist that "gay marriage" was wrong. "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple," he said.

Alas, same-sex marriage is neither "pure" nor "simple"; rather, it is a real threat to traditional marriage, family life and religious freedom in our nation. To simply dismiss all those who support a constitutional protection of traditional marriage as "bigots" is ridiculous and dangerous. Among its supporters are members of the Catholic Church, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, representatives of the Jewish faith, the Mormon Church, the Coalition of African-American Pastors and 49 of his fellow senators.

It appears that, after many years of public service, Kennedy has become bloated by the blight of political hysteria and demonic demagoguery. Defending marriage is neither a movement by bigots nor an attempt to legalize prejudice. Pure and simple, it is an effort to establish in law what has always been true: that marriage is between one man and one woman.

"Bloated by the blight of political hysteria and demonic demagoguery." Wow. I think we all should make the effort to start using that phrase in everyday conversation, don't you?

Sunday, June 25, 2006


However you got here, welcome. You've reached the blog of someone who is often cranky in Rhode Island. There's always plenty in this state and in the rest of the world about which to be cranky, so I figured I might as well put in my two cents. Some of you know who I am and some don't, and that's fine. Hopefully what I write will stand on its own, never mind who I am offline. Comments are welcome, but I reserve the right to moderate them if it comes to that. Can't think of anything else to write for an intro, so I'll post this and then start posting on actual subjects right after.