Yeah! Beat the drum and raise your voice! We're ready for Hillary Clinton as POTUS!  Why, you may ask? I'll explain.

No other candidate in the race represents the crony capitalist, pay-to-play, back-door dealing candidate as much as Hillary Clinton. Rhode Islander's have accepted our own crony capitalist, pay-to-play, back-door dealing candidates  for a generation or more - most times without electoral opposition - so why shouldn't we accept the same on a national level?

Hillary Clinton represents everything wrong with the "Democrats" in the U.S. Too focused on the wants of the business "community", and ZERO focus on what is good for the people of this once great (on paper) country. To put one's faith in the corporations that control and guide elections - sometimes down to the local level - whose priorities lie not with the welfare or will of the people, but with the profits of shareholders and CEO's of large multi-national corporations, is beyond ludicrous.

"But Dave, Bernie Sanders is also running for President as a Democrat. Isn't he the anti-Hillary vote," you may ask? Yes, Senator Sanders is definitely a shift  away from the "democratic" policies of the past, but the fact that he thinks he can declare as a Democrat, and clean the party form the inside out is irrational. I'm reminded of a Ralph Nader quote from 2000. When asked why he wasn't running as a Democrat, he said something to the effect of, 'You can't clean a trash can if you're standing in it.' 

The modern Republican and Democratic parties exist for one goal: To propagate the existence of the party. That's it. They don't care about actually solving problems, they care about driving wedges between us on non-essential or non-existent issues to  "solidify the base." 

I suppose my frustration with so-called "progressive" democrats is this : 

The Green Party has represented your values for far longer that any "democrat' and yet you refuse to acknowledge them; Green party presidential candidates like Ralph Nader (2000), Pat LaMarche (2004), Cynthia McKinney (2008), and Jill Stein (2012). Instead, you continue to waste your vote on "the lesser of two evils" simply out of fear of a Republican in the White House.

So, go ahead, rally the cry for the sheepdog, Bernie Sanders. Progressivism is dead in the U.S. with Hillary at the helm, and Sanders declaration will only funnel votes to Clinton when he inevitably loses the primary.

I'll be voting for whomever is the Green party candidate  after the national caucus in July. I'm voting my values.

In an age when the Rhode Island electorate is clamoring for more transparency and government accountability, our esteemed Speaker of the House, Nick Mattiello, seems to be moving in the opposite direction from public opinion.

Last Thursday, April 30, Mattiello held a closed door meeting with Governor Gina Raimondo and the managing partners of the PawSox ownership group, Jim “Moral Obligation” Skeffington and Larry “Corporate Welfare Queen” Lucchino. Mattiello has also announced that the state Democrats will caucus in a closed door session today, May 6. Given that our House has only 11 Republican members, this is a de facto GA session without the votes. Oh, to be a fly on that wall…

Also in the news this week, Mattiello hired a consultant — at a rate of $225 per hour — to advise the members of the General Assembly on the merits of any proposal to spend taxpayer dollars on the construction of a new ballpark on the I-195 land on the Providence waterfront.

Unfortunately for the residents and taxpayers of this state, the consultant hired is sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, who was recently quoted on Rhode Island Public Radio as saying, “This ballpark is spectacularly situated. It’s close to downtown, it’s on the river, coming along with a riverwalk, it probably will promote hotel development there, there’s going to be a miniature baseball field, lots and lots of parking. It’s just a wonderful synergy possibility.”

Clearly, Zimbalist has already made his determination about the heavily taxpayer subsidized stadium proposal, and insofar, cannot be an impartial judge of the proposal on its merits.

I, for one, never questioned Mattiello’s commitment to government transparency. Bluntly, he has none.

What is transparent about Mr. Mattiello, however, is his clear disdain for the will of the people of this state, a complete disconnection from the financial realities faced by the vast majority of Rhode Islanders,  and commitment to the shady ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ deals that invariably soak the taxpayer. 

Today, in a full-plumage display of ignorance, Mattiello said that there are people in this state who wouldn't spend a dime of taxpayer money on this stadium and that approach, "... is a race to the bottom, and we're not going to do that."  Just go ahead and Google tax subsidies race to the bottom, and you will see that the preponderance of evidence shows that, at best, massive tax subsidies put competing states and municipalities on an economic "see-saw", and at worst, are the real race to the bottom.

To even entertain the idea of a taxpayer subsidized stadium in Providence should be a poison pill to any elected Senator or Representative in the General Assembly. I imagine that there are people all over the state that are seriously considering running against any elected official that supports this absurd proposal. One does not have to search far and wide to find a person who is vehemently opposed to this project. Finding supporters, on the other hand, is the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Let we, the voters of Rhode Island, make a commitment to transparency on this one issue. The choice has to be clear to members of the General Assembly. Zero public dollars spent on this project, or zero chance of reelection. Call your Representatives and Senators and tell them as much.

Baltimore is in flames. In the wake of the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police, protest devolved into riot. The typical news bloviators have - as they did in Ferguson - ignored the forest, preferring to concentrate on the trees.

Why do we applaud violent uprisings against oppressive regimes in other countries, but can't seem to wrap our heads around the fact that what we saw in Ferguson - and now in Baltimore - is exactly that? A marginalized and abused minority rising up against a government and their agents that would prefer to keep their collective jackboot squarely on the throats of the oppressed.

Violent uprisings in places like Iran, Syria, Egypt, China, and Pakistan are touted by our leaders and media as "witnessing the birth of democracy," and yet, when it happens on U.S. soil, they seem to be more concerned with property rights than human rights. Why are Ferguson and Baltimore not viewed as "the exercise of democracy?"

More maddening is the fact that many, if not all, of the critics of these violent reactions to oppression are the same Second Amendment absolutists that would arm every man, woman, and child in America to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They advocate for a bloody coup using firearms on U.S. soil, but denounce the actions of rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson who, in my opinion, are doing exactly what these armchair patriots say is necessary to prevent systemic oppression. If you shoot people, it's a revolution, but if you burn a building it's terrorism. I guess a rose by any other name DOESN'T smell as sweet.

We denounce the acts of "ethnic cleansing" by dictatorial regimes in Eastern Europe, sometimes even lending military support to those ethnic minorities, but ignore the same "ethnic cleansing" happening in our own country.

Then there are the cro-magnons who say things like, "Slavery ended 150  years ago. When are black people going to get their act together?" Newsflash, genius: Slavery was the most egregious tool of oppression, but it was not the only one. Those other tools of oppression continue to this day in the form of "broken windows" policing, stop-and-frisk tactics, and a society that, from the top down, is designed to keep blacks down.

Another nugget that I just love is, "We have a black president. How can there still be racism?" While true, that is, how we say, the exception and not the rule. Despite the skin color of our president, life for everyday black folks hasn't really gotten a hell of a lot better since the days of Martin Luther King Jr. It's still harder for blacks to find employment, and still easier for them to be harassed, arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for crimes committed - and in many cases - crimes NOT committed. You don't have to search far and wide to find cases where blacks are straight up MURDERED by police before the due process of law has even begun. Add to that an increasingly militarized police force whose jackbooted thuggery seems to know no bounds, and you've got an award-winning recipe for violent protest.

You will hear countless people, some in positions of power, say, " I/We don't condone what's happening in Baltimore," but WE DO condone it; in any and every other country except our own. It is the stratospheric height of hypocrisy, and just another indicator that bigotry is still alive, well, and thoroughly ingrained in the U.S. of A.