As I’ve suggested before, this case may not have been a big deal if decided in court, and it will probably be even less so since the judiciary didn’t get involved at all:
The [Tiverton] School Committee still has to work out some legal details, but it decided to extend the health-care benefits of retired teacher Cheryl McCullough to her spouse, Joyce Boivin. The couple, who live in Swansea, were married last June in Massachusetts.
There may be future cases that attempt to push this sort of decision further and further, but if McCullough’s contract extends the benefit to a spouse recognized in her state of residence, then the legal implications of extending the benefit to a spouse recognized in her state of residence are very limited. Things would be different if Rhode Island law explicitly forbid recognition of same-sex marriages in any form, but it does not.
Of course, as I’ve previously said, it increasingly seems that judges can find precedent anywhere and anyhow they wish, so even there, a school board’s decisions either way are of little consequence. What’s interesting, though, is the Providence Journal news department’s analysis. (Perhaps “speculation” would be a better word, because staff writer Michael McKinney offers no substantiation. Indeed, his independent quotations minimize the significance of the case.) Here’s the headline and first paragraph of the piece:
Towns providing benefits to married same-sex couples
A decision by the Tiverton School Committee this week may signal that Rhode Island is beginning to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriages among Massachusetts couples by affording them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.
There are two ways to interpret the spin: either the Projo is merely attempting to exaggerate controversy to sell newspapers, or it is attempting to frame the public’s understanding of the issue and the precedent with an eye toward future same-sex marriage cases. Neither option instills much confidence in the objectivity of its reportage on this matter.
[Open full post]This aspect of the article to which Don links in the previous post particularly caught my eye:
Ban anyone, other than a “recognized employee of a news organization,” from videotaping or taking photographs of House sessions and House committee meetings “without the express permissions of the speaker.”
I’m aware of the tendency of the blogosphere to inflate its importance. Nonetheless, although I’m sure it’s incidental, this proposed rule almost sounds like an anti-blogger policy. The House simply can’t have people hanging around with their digital video cameras and potentially offering streaming video to the entire world through the Internet when something interesting happens, now can it?
Well, I happen to have a digital video camera, and there are a number of bloggers with huge audiences who are just fascinated by the power of the New Media. Speaker Murphy isn’t exactly Dan Rather, but video of a blogger being dragged out of the state house or having his equipment confiscated would raise a whole series of interesting questions — from the status of bloggers as news gatherers to citizens’ right to an open government.
I have sparse time to be making that sort of political statement, but the lure of this particular gauntlet may prove too strong to resist. Hopefully Mr. Murphy will save both of us the time and trouble.
This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation, building on eight previous postings (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII).
In addition, this posting also builds on previous postings (here, here, here as well as other postings by Justin and Marc here), all of which have noted the difficulty Rhode Island Speaker William Murphy has had in respecting his oath of office and the rule of law as it relates to the separation of powers constitutional amendment.
Now that he has relented, at least on the surface, from thwarting the will of the people regarding separation of powers, Speaker Murphy is now looking for new ways to thwart the ability of Rhode Island residents to follow State House political activities and exercise their duties as citizens. Katherine Gregg of the ProJo tells this latest story in an article about proposed House rules changes. In that article, she highlights some of the possible changes:
Shorten the time that lawmakers — and the public — have to scrutinize bills, including the multibillion state budget, before final votes.
Ban anyone, other than a “recognized employee of a news organization,” from videotaping or taking photographs of House sessions and House committee meetings “without the express permissions of the speaker.”
Spare lawmakers from having to disclose on whose behalf they have introduced a bill, such as a special-retirement bill.
Free committee clerks from having to keep minutes, including records of who testified pro and con…
…a proposal to give the majority leader, the minority leader and the speaker “voting rights” on every committee…
…raise the threshold from 30 signatures — which comes close to matching the number that voted against Murphy’s reelection as speaker — to 42 of the 75 House members.
In the article, Ms. Gregg also noted certain responses to these proposed rules changes:
H. Philip West, the executive director of Common Cause, accused the House Rules Committee of trying to “restrict public access to information about public officials doing public business.”
Others who turned out for last night’s State House hearing on the proposed rule changes used words like “drastic,” “burdensome” and “unncessary” to describe the efforts by House leaders…
In response to these concerns, Speaker Murphy claimed:
…we are just trying to run the House of Representatives more efficiently…
Just like Mussolini promised to make the trains run on time?
Ed Achorn of the ProJo continues the public debate with an editorial that discusses these proposed changes:
The man who holds the most powerful political position in Rhode Island, House Speaker William Murphy (D.-West Warwick), is trying to assert that power…
Far more ominous, though, are recent moves to enhance his power at the expense of the public. House leaders have rolled out proposed rules changes that could make Rhode Island politics even more of an insider’s game, with less opportunity for the public to play a meaningful role and check bad ideas or potential corruption…
Information is power. The longer information can be kept from the public, the more powerful government agents can be…
Politicians understand that public knowledge of government is perhaps the greatest check on their power. That is why the Founders drafted the First Amendment, which barred the government from controlling the press…
Watch carefully, your freedom continues to be at risk.
ADDENDUM:
A more recent ProJo article confirms the worst fears of freedom-loving Rhode Islanders. Here are some of the frightening excerpts:
The end-of-session maneuvering that has enabled state lawmakers to vote on major pieces of legislation — without advance public notice or hearings — could become the norm at the Rhode Island State House, rather than an exception, under new rules approved by a committee last night.
Early in the session, House committees would still have to give the public 48-hour notice of their hearings on proposed legislation.
But even that rule could be waived by “the consent of the majority.”
It would not apply, after a certain point, “to House bills returned from the Senate with amendment.”
And a committee could, by majority vote, consider bills “not previously distributed in print or electronically to its members.”
And from April 14 on, the 48-hour minimum-notice requirement that the legislature has imposed on all other government bodies, across the state, would go out the window.
A one-day notice requirement would take its place and what that could mean is this: A bill approved by a House committee on a Tuesday afternoon could potentially be put to a vote by the full House the following day…
…a proposed ban on the use of “video or photographic equipment” by anyone except “credentialed representatives of the news media,”…[led to a compromise]…the new ban would only apply to the use, by House members themselves, of video and still-cameras in the House chamber and committee rooms.
…the Rules Committee also backed off on another proposed rule change that would have reduced the amount of time between House Finance Committee approval and a full House vote that the $6-billion state budget has to be available for public scrutiny…
…For instance, the two Republicans pounced on this sentence: “A committee shall not consider any public bill or resolution not previously distributed in print or electronically to its members except by a majority vote of the members present.”
Last year’s House rules had a similar provision, but it required “the unanimous consent” of those present — not a simple majority — for a committee to take up a previously unseen bill…
The Republicans also questioned the need to make anyone who wanted to know how a committee voted to put that request in writing…
Barely mentioned last night was the removal from the House rules of a long-standing requirement that legislators identify, in writing, “any lobby group, individual or other entity,” on whose behalf they have introduced a bill.
In its place, the House Rules Committee is proposing this language: “Upon presentation of testimony before a committee, the prime sponsor of a bill or a resolution shall provide to the committee the name of any individual, group or organization responsible for the substantive basis or text of the bill.”…
The full House is expected to vote next week on these rules. Will you speak up before it is too late?
ADDENDUM II:
Well, it happened:
Veteran Republican lawmakers tried last night to school newer members in the House on what it was like in the days when special pension bills were rammed through the legislature — unseen — on voice votes, and lawmakers were unable to pry loose bills that might have averted the state’s devastating banking crisis.
But the majority in the House voted again and again last night to roll back the clock to the way it used to work at the Rhode Island State House.
They voted down a Republican-backed effort to prevent House committees from considering — and even voting — on bills without any prior public notice, as long as a majority gave their consent.
They rejected a suggestion that the House adopt for itself the same minimum two-day public-notice requirement the legislature has applied to all other state and local agencies, from town councils, zoning boards and school committees on up.
They rejected a proposal that would have required House Speaker William J. Murphy’s leadership team to let them see, in writing, every piece of legislation on which they are being asked to vote.
On a 39-to-28 vote, they also adopted new rules that will make it easier for the Democratic majority to make decisions that previously required “unanimous consent,” and harder for anyone on the outs with the leadership to pry a bill from a committee to the House floor for a vote.
And what did Speaker Murphy and his ilk have to say in response to criticism?
… “For us to get things done, in my opinion, these rules are reasonable,” Crowley said…
Deputy House Whip Paul E. Moura, D-Providence, told the Republicans to “stop acting like the Philadelphia Eagles. You lost the game. Stop crying.”…
…one after another, Murphy’s legislative lieutenants rose to try to disabuse the freshmen of the notion that the public-notice requirements and other reforms …were anything more than “a scam.”…
Ed Achorn of the ProJo has commented on the vote:
But most people understand some basic facts of human nature: Unchecked power corrupts. Secrecy allows the powerful to serve themselves at the expense of the public. Citizen participation, openness and transparency are the hallmarks of well-run governments.
Mr. Murphy and his allies have made it harder for those outside their inner circle to know what is going on in time to influence legislation. They have given themselves greater power to ram through bad bills. They have made the majority — as defined by House leaders — immensely powerful.
Those outside Mr. Murphy’s circle are no longer guaranteed that they may even read legislation before it comes to a vote. And the House refused to abide by the same open-meeting disclosure requirements it imposes on cities and towns…
Rhode Island’s recent history amply demonstrates what happens when checks on power are removed. In the banking crisis, citizens and taxpayers suffered devastating financial losses, and the public’s faith in its government was dealt a grievous blow…
What a sad day for freedom in Rhode Island. How un-principled. How un-American.
ADDENDUM III:
Former state legislator Rod Driver has written an editorial entitled “Rhode Island House: Back to the Bad ’80’s” on the issues addressed in this posting. Here are a few highlights:
Feb. 17, 2005, was a dark day for Rhode Island. In the 1980s, special pension bills had been slipped through the General Assembly unseen. Credit-union regulatory bills were quietly killed, without even a committee vote. A bill to eliminate credit-union liquidity reserves was passed under false representations. These and other outrages cost Rhode Islanders hundreds of millions of dollars.
So in the early ’90s, the House of Representatives adopted some new rules. Committee chairmen were required to honor sponsors’ requests for consideration of their bills. The public was to be notified of hearings on bills. Members were to be allowed to see bills before voting on them, and the House would pass no more than 40 bills in one day…
But in 2005, Rep. William Murphy (D.-West Warwick) was re-elected speaker, by a vote of “only” 45 to 30. So on Feb. 17, a majority in the House acted to give the speaker virtually every bit of power that the position might previously have lacked — shutting out the minority entirely. During a four-hour debate on the rules for 2005, the majority rejected 20 attempts (by Representatives Savage, Watson, Gorham, Long, Amaral, Voccola, Menard, Caprio, Smith, Ehrhardt and others) to preserve some of the safeguards…
Last year’s rules provided that if a committee chairman fails to consider a bill at the sponsor’s request, the speaker “shall” send the bill directly to the House for consideration. The new rules say that the speaker “may” do so — at his or her discretion.
A petition to discharge a bill from committee will now require the signatures of 38 representatives, instead of 30. (The no longer sufficient 30 is the number of votes Rep. John DeSimone got in his unsuccessful race for speaker.)
Among other new rules, the speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader may drop in on any committee to vote on any bill.
A committee may consider a bill without notice to the public and without copies’ being distributed. It only requires the acquiescence of a simple majority of the committee members who happen to be in the room.
Representatives may now have little opportunity to see bills before voting on them. Bills may be distributed as late as half a day before the House votes — and sometimes not at all.
A bill may skip the committee process entirely and be passed immediately on the floor unread, unless one-third of the members object. Even in the 1980s, any one member could insist that a bill go through the committee process.
And if any power for the speaker and majority leader has somehow been overlooked, the new rules may now be suspended without the consent of the minority leader…
Why would any representative think these activities or the new rules are acceptable? For that matter, why does the majority routinely do whatever the speaker wants?
The answer lies in a simple, unwritten, self-fulfilling rule: To get one’s bills passed, a representative needs the blessing of the speaker. And to earn this blessing, the representative must do whatever the speaker wants.
This irresponsible process will not change until legislators add more calcium to their backbones — or Rhode Island voters and media pundits start paying attention. We Rhode Islanders criticize the General Assembly, but we traditionally re-elect our representatives and senators, or promote them to higher office, oblivious of their records…
Driver then lists who voted for these unfortunate new rules. He asks a good question each of us should ask ourselves: Why do we re-elect or promote the very people in RI government who consciously strip away our freedoms?
Does our passivity get us what we deserve? What have you personally done to improve the quality of the political debate in Rhode Island?
If you’re interested, over at Spinning Clio I’ve posted on how a piece of historical “fact” has been misused to support the oft-used “the-Founders-weren’t-religious” argument. (Fair warning: it deals with treaty language.)
[Open full post]So, Providence Mayor Cicilline thinks he’s made quite a deal with the Providence Crossing Guard union because he negotiated down the hourly wage of new guards from $16.95 to $11.20. The truth of the matter is that guards are guaranteed a four hour work day, so it is essentially a 20 hour, $224/week salaried position. This is to make sure the kids cross the street and the cars stop. Providence, Cranston and Warwick are the only cities in the state that pay crossing guards. The efforts, and results, of Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey against the Cranston crossing guards are well-known, and Warwick Mayor Scott Avedesian made a deal last year that was more than this taxpayer could accept. The Providence deal doesn’t strike me as any sort of “deal”:
- Taxpayer-funded free health care for life for all crossing guards with 10 years’ service.
- A guaranteed four hours of “work” a day — though only part of that time is spent supervising children crossing streets — letting guards rack up a total of 20 hours a week and thus be eligible for city pensions. The guards will use up the extra time by patrolling schools and doing whatever principals tell them to do, said John Simmons, the mayor’s director of administration.
- Protection against privatization of the crossing-guard program (Cranston discovered that private companies were willing to deliver the service at a much lower cost). The contract stipulates that layoffs cannot exceed 10 percent of the workforce.
- Minuscule co-pays for health insurance. Crossing guards would pay only .006 percent of their base salary for an individual program, and .0138 percent of their salary for a family program. Do the math: If their annual salary is about $8,006, they would pay $48 a year for the individual plan. (But at least the city got its foot in the door by requiring some co-pay!)
- Free dental coverage.
- Extra money if they don’t participate in the health plan — say, because a spouse on the public payroll already gets free coverage. Crossing guards would get $750 a year for declining the individual plan.
- Another $8 a day from the taxpayers, to go into a fund to pay for drug prescriptions, vision care and “wellness” benefits.
- Another $8 a day per guard to go into the Laborers’ pension fund.
- An extra $1.20 per day per guard to go into a Laborers’-connected legal fund.
- Time off, with pay, for three crossing guards to engage in union negotiations.
- Paid vacations.
Look, I don’t mean to attack the individual crossing guards: they can’t be blamed for wanting a good deal. Nonetheless, these are the types of agreements that add up to create the huge government/union Shelob, never sated, always hungry and always happy when the political Gollums bring her another juicy morsel of taxpayer money. Until taxpayers start taking elected officials to task, by either voicing their complaints or kicking the Gollums out of office, Shelob will engorge herself and continue to grow, ever looking for more.
[Open full post]Hm. Well, now it’s my turn to think out loud. Dems–>Repubs has been done before, especially in the south. But I somehow doubt such would occur here. Instead, what would probably happen is that Langevin would become characterized as an “independent” Democrat. My guess is that the “politics of the polity” in Rhode Island would be slow to change, if at all. In fact, now that I think of it, Rhode Island takes great pride in being the rebel….it’s been that way since, well, Roger Williams —> and then the Constitution! So, somehow I think most Rhode Islanders would embrace playing the part of the “rogue” state…”Rogue Island” was coined many years ago, after all.
[Open full post]You raise some interesting points, Marc, and you’ve sparked a wacky idea — just an out-of-the-box consideration, really, but…
Assuming that we don’t manage to change the political culture in Rhode Island to begin unseating incumbents, and given current political trends, what are the chances that a Langevin in the tenth or fifteenth year of his reign might switch parties? If Republicans continue to cement their position in the federal government, and if the Democrats continue to refuse to risk losing their kooks, I wonder if a relatively conservative, relatively young senatorial Democrat mightn’t find it in his state’s interest (and his own) to make the switch.
Just thinking out loud.
A commenter to Justin’s post remarks:
One would hope that maybe Steve Laffey would challenge Linc for the Republican nod. Of course the White House would probably offer the traitorous Chafee the same support it gave Arlen Specter. In a Kennedy-Chafee race, truly a contest of empty suits I think I would have to abstain. Should Langevin throw his hat in the ring, I could be comfortable voting for him against Chafee.
To which another responded:
I respectfully disagree. Unless RI Democrats run someone to the right of Chafee, I think Republicans should faithfully pull the Chafee lever. Failure to do so would elect yet one more liberal Democrat and bring Harry Reid one vote closer to being Majority Leader.
Further, dumping Chafee so that a civil war will break out in the RI GOP would be a death knell for the Republican Party in that state. RI is not secretly waiting for the true conservatives to ride back in and save them from mushy moderates. To the contrary, RI is one of the most liberal states in the nation. The only kind of Republican that can win there is the liberal kind. It’s this kind of thinking — that conservatives should demand nothing less than ideological purity — that has destroyed the GOP in Illinois, New Jersey, and California.
As they say: “Aye, thar’s the rub!” That Chafee is a Republican benefits all Rhode Islanders because he belongs to the party in power, even if he is a bit out of the Republican mainstream. Some view his “rogue” status as a political benefit and he garners much admiration for his “independent” nature, much like Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. However, there is a difference between he and the two senators from the Pine Tree State. While they may be independent, Chafee is more, well, “loose.” To wit, Senator Chafee has:
- Come out against and then for the President’s Social Security Reform proposal.
- Vacillated over whether to “stay” a Republican.
- Voted for the wrong Bush.
And these are just a few recent examples.
In essence, Chafee has continued to be a pain in the neck to the conservative core of the Republican party. And though some view him as just another “independent” Northeast Liberal Republican like Snowe and Collins, Chafee’s actions have convinced many Ocean Staters that he is less “independent” and more “loose cannon.”
What Republican, other than Chafee, should conservatives support? The first rule of Rhode Island politics is name recognition. Thus, I think Governor Carcieri, a “kinder, gentler” Republican, is the type of Republican who would be palatable to both the Republican core and the Rhode Island electorate at large. Steve Laffey is a firebrand, and we conservatives love his style, but he would have a tough time selling himself to many of the traditional RI liberal voters. Yet, Laffey does have the aura of a populist about him, and that can be just as appealing as party affiliation or political ideology to many undecided voters.
Langevin has that name recognition and his life story is compelling, capped by his heroic triumph over personal tragedy to hold a U.S. House seat. He is a rare pro-life Democrat in a heavily Catholic state, which allows traditionally conservative Catholics to vote with their Democrat predispostions with a clear conscience. In short, he’s the strongest Democrat candidate in the field.
I think Langevin would beat Chafee and lose to Carcieri in a close race. A contest between he and Laffey would be fun, but Langevin would win by 4-6 points because Laffey’s hard-charging style simply turns some people off and alienates union households (and we know how many of those are in Rhode Island).
Politically, supporting Langevin would be a mistake for conservatives. It would be a risky venture to rid the Republican party of Chafee now in the (faint?) hope of recapturing the seat at a future date with a more ideologically “pure” candidate. Given the political proclivities of the Rhode Island polity–“we will remove no incumbent unless he’s REALLY corrupt (or inept)”– if Langevin ever won the Senate seat, he would be extremely difficult to dislodge.
If Republicans were to get rid of Chafee, it would have to be done in the Republican primary. However, if the attempt failed and he survived, it would be politically wise to support him in the general election. Romantic notions have no place in politics: maintaining political power (senate seats), even by electing a candidate whose views lay outside of the ideological norm of the party, is preferable to losing power, even if the perception is that the loss in power would be more illusory than real. Voting for a Democrat, no matter how appealling he may be, for the sake of ousting an ideological pariah would probably result in a near-permanent surrendering of both Senate seats to the Democrats, especially in a state dominated by Democrats. Thats the political angle.
However, there is also another angle: following your conscience. Who would be the best man for the job? If the race is indeed Chafee v. Langevin, I believe it would be Langevin. I disagree with him on some of his political stances, but I also agree with him on some issues that are significant to conservatives. The political differences between he and Chafee are marginal, but on the single biggest conservative issue, abortion, it is Langevin who is pro-life while Chafee is pro-abortion. Also, Langevin supported the Iraq War, while Chafee didn’t. Langevin strongly opposes the President’s Social Security Reform proposals, while Chafee has been tepid. However, probably the most important factor is this: Langevin simply isn’t as “kooky” as Chafee.
Thus, the quandry. Should conservatives take the political gamble and support a Democrat in the hope of pulling a thorn from their side, even if it could mean permanent loss of national power for RI Republicans? Does the fact that the Langevin is conservative on some key issues serve as a pallative? What of the risk that the seat could eventually be filled by one more ideologically liberal than Langevin? However, this last is mitigated by an earlier point: Rhode Islanders do love their incumbents. Thus, if conservatives are willing to have Langevin as their Senator for six years, they had better be ready to have him as their Senator for thirty years. For some, especially those for whom abortion is the most important issue, this will be entirely acceptable.
ADDENDUM: A comment by The Senescent Man reminded me that I had neglected to point to a similar conversation on his blog. He is very optimistic about a Steve Laffey run.
Ramesh Ponnuru raises a sore point for Rhode Island conservatives:
If Langevin wins the Democratic primary, I’d be open to the idea that conservatives should support him over Chafee. Langevin at least votes pro-life most of the time.
I’ll admit that I don’t get out there and network as much as I should, but my sense is that there’s a whole lot of antipathy to Chafee among Rhode Island conservatives. In fact, I’ve never observed even hesitance when I’ve half-joked that we should make it a cause to unseat him, regardless of who would take his place in the Rhode Island delegation.
Unless the choice is between Chafee and Patrick Kennedy, even a liberal Democrat may benefit from conservatives’ skipping that line on the ballot. Personally, I think there’s a strong argument to be made that our long-term interests are better served by letting the seat slip, clearing the boards for the looming intra-Republican scuffle, and attempting to rebuild the state’s political balance once that hard first step is over.
Of course, the wonkish wisdom of the move may not ultimately be a factor anyway. Especially taking into account Senator Chafee’s general conduct and demeanor since September 11, many of us just don’t have the mastery of our emotions to actively assist in perpetuating the embarrassment.
Only seventeen years old, and one Charlestown, Rhode Island, high school student already has the contemporary “no thought required” art world all figured out:
Jeffrey Eden devised his award-winning project less than 30 minutes after his high school art teacher asked him to express a thought or two in a three-dimensional way. …
The student’s diorama-like assemblage juxtaposes Hitler quotes with statements by Mr. Bush, Nazi swastikas with American flags, desert-colored toy soldiers with olive plastic figures. And so on.
He’s got the Rhode Island education establishment figured out, too. Apart from an A from Lynn Norton, his teacher, Eden took home a “silver key” at the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards, and the work, “Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself,” is on display at the Seekonk, Massachusetts, Alperts Furniture Showplace. And to cap it all off, he’s gotten art-world manna: publicity.
The man who “phoned TV stations and newspapers to complain about a high school student’s art project” has gotten publicity, too. The Providence Journal begins its follow-up article by reporting that a “few of Paul Lewis’ friends called him an ‘angry Republican’ yesterday.” By way of contrast, the grownups who’ve pushed young master Eden into the spotlight haven’t anything to say — teaching our state’s youth another important lesson about the liberal strongholds of education and art:
Leaders of the art association refuse to identify the three judges who picked the project entered by Jeffrey Eden, a junior at Chariho Regional High School, to be one of the winners in the three-dimensional category.
Mary Wayland, who chaired the awards committee, and Christine Mullen, a teacher at Mt. Hope High School and president of the Rhode Island Art Education Association, say they want judges to have the freedom to make decisions without worrying about a public outcry.
No explanation of opinions is required. Standing up for principle isn’t the job of the fifteen “teachers and professional artists.” Even Ms. Norton doesn’t step forward to edify the public about the work’s merits — or defend the A that she gave it. Instead, the initial article saved that space for Jeff Eden to illustrate his further mastery of the artist’s empty-nuance dodge:
He thinks they show that the work is comparing Hitler and President Bush — not equating them.
“I felt I was clear about what I was trying to get across,” he said. “I believe those who misconstrued the artwork didn’t take the time to really read into it.”
Those who do take the time to do some reading would discover the following:
To the right of President Bush, Eden’s handwriting said “No justification” and “Saddam had no affiliation with the Taliban and there are no weapons of mass destruction.”
We can only speculate that the fact that nobody has ever cared whether Saddam was affiliated with the Taliban was the reason Ms. Norton withheld the “+” from the grade. Or perhaps the artwork is brilliant after all… if its point is that one needn’t be concerned with facts while making facile “comparisons” of the sitting President of the United States to one of the greatest monsters of the twentieth century.
Either way, there are at least sixteen adults who would be well served by the multipart educational supplement that Rocco DiPippo suggests for the seventeen year old. Perhaps during the “hour of post-liberation death camp videos showing the bodies of Hitler’s victims being bulldozed into mass graves” one of the professional artists could contrive a “diorama-like assemblage” comparing bitter New England liberals with Iraqis dancing in the street and crying for joy at the opportunity to vote.
Of course, the desire of the former to secure the “freedom to make decisions without worrying about a public outcry” has meant that one side of the juxtaposition would be faceless. Luckily, the other side would have plenty of pictures, even though they were provided at the risk of their subjects’ losing the freedom not to be decapitated.
