December 20, 2012 – RI Future

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

An Amicable Nativity Story: ‘A Child To Die For’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Wiping the tears from his eyes, David finally spoke. “It’s good to see you. What can I do for you?” Somehow David knew it would do no good to ask how Gabe had found him, so he let that question go unspoken.

Smiling, Gabe said, “I need your help, David. I am sure you saw that couple in the vacant lot just a couple of blocks away. The woman has just given birth and they could use some assistance.”

“What do you want me to do, Gabe? I have very little money, I can afford only my one small room, and I am not supposed to have guests overnight,” David replied. If the truth be told, David really didn’t want to get involved or be burdened with responsibilities. Who knew what this couple would want or demand.

“David, this is a great couple and a child to die for. The miracle of birth is a power that can light up any darkness. Just stop by and say hello. You know, a kind word and a smile are also gifts we can give. I know you will do the right thing.”

And with those words, Gabe turned, walking out of the store and into the night.

“What am I going to do?” David thought to himself. But just as quickly came the reply, “What else can I do?” And with that he called out to Jack, the security guard, telling him he had to run an errand for a friend and would be back soon. Just as he was about to leave, David had a thought.

He went back to where he had been stocking the shelf and grabbed a bag of disposable diapers. After going to the cash register and paying for the diapers, he picked up a couple of flattened cardboard boxes. With the cardboard boxes under one arm and diapers in hand, David walked through the door. Spotting a shopping cart on the sidewalk, he place the boxes on the bottom of the cart, threw the diapers in on top, and pushed it in front of him in the direction of the vacant lot.

Jose heard the shopping cart’s wheels long before he could see it. As the sound came nearer, Jose stood to see what it might mean. He watched closely as the cart and the man pushing it continued in their direction. Jose and Maura stared wordless as the man and cart halted in front of them. They did not know what to think or say. Before them stood a man with long, dark, straight hair, pulled back in a ponytail. He wore a heavy plaid flannel shirt with a Walgreens vest over it, blue jeans and boots. His face had the angular features, weathered skin and smooth shaven face of a Native American.

David spoke first. “Hi, my name is David. Gabe asked me to stop by and say hi.” He wasn’t sure why he had mentioned Gabe. It had just sort of slipped out.

A shudder went through both Jose and Maura when David spoke of Gabe. “Gabe?” Jose questioned. “A tall African-American? Dressed in black?” David nodded. “You know Gabe?” Maura continued.

David shrugged. “We had met before, and he just showed up at the store a little while ago. He told me I should stop by and say hello. Said you were a great couple, with a wonderful child. He thought you might like company. I brought a cart. Thought you might be able to use it as a crib. I put some cardboard in for insulation. Also thought these diapers might come in handy.”

“Thank you!” said Maura, warmly. “You are very kind. We welcome your visit.” “What’s the baby’s name?” David asked.
“Hope.” Jose replied.

It was as if the air had been knocked out of him. David stared from Jose to Maura to Hope. Hope. In this dark, cold, desolate place, in this miserable condition and yet they name their baby Hope. He looked again from Jose to Maura to Hope. And then David understood. He was touched in a way he could not explain by this place and this birth. He felt the love that overcame the darkness and the misery.

Shaking Jose and Maura’s hands good-bye, David returned to work filled with joy. He did not know completely what it all meant, but he knew that he had found Hope.

____________________

Editor’s note: Check back here tomorrow for the next installment in Rev. Bill Sterritt’s modern adaptation of the nativity story. RI Future is serializing Sterritt’s 26-page short story throughout the holiday season. Here’s my post on the Amicable Congregational Church’s nativity story and scene.

Chapter 1 – Jose Crosses the Border
Chapter 2 – Jose’s Union Sympathies
Chapter 3 – A Child Bearing a Child
Chapter 4 – A Miraculous Pregnancy
Chapter 5 – A Hospital Turns Them Away
Chapter 6 – Jose and Maura, Out In the Cold
Chapter 7 – A Baby Is Born
Chapter 8 – A Man Named Gabe
Chapter 9 – A Baby Named Hope
Chapter 10 – David Eagle Wing

December 20, 2012

Rolling Stone Ranks RI 4th Most Likely to Legalize Pot

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rolling Stone magazine has ranked Rhode Island as the fourth most likely state to legalize marijuana, and notes that we could become the first state to do so through the legislative process rather than by voter referendum.

Pot watchers believe little Rhode Island may be the first state to legalize through the state legislature instead of a popular referendum. ”I’m hoping this goes nowhere,” one prominent opponent in the state House told the Boston Globe. ”But I think we’re getting closer and closer to doing this.”

Back in June 2012, lawmakers in Providence jumped on the decriminalization bandwagon, replacing misdemeanor charges for adult recreational use with a civil fine of $150. (Youth pay the same fine but also have to attend a drug education class and perform community service.)

In the wake of Colorado and Washington’s new state laws, Rhode Island has joined a slate of New England states that are vowing to vote on tax-and-regulate bills. A regulated marijuana market in Rhode Island could reap the state nearly $30 million in new tax revenue and reduced law enforcement costs. ”Our prohibition has failed,” said Rep. Edith Ajello of Providence, who is sponsoring the bill. ”Legalizing and taxing it, just as we did to alcohol, is the way to do it.”

Jan Wenner may think David Klepper reports for the Boston Globe, but here in the fourth most likely state to legalize it, we know he works for the AP.

Here’s the seven states, in order, Rolling Stone says is “debating the merits of treating marijuana less like crystal meth and more like Jim Beam.”

Oregon
California
Nevada
Rhode Island
Maine
Alaska
Vermont

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

Has the DLT Given Up?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Island has an unemployment problem that has no quick solution. One of the lessons learned from the rhetoric and subsequent results of our most recent election cycle is that an economic rebound and resultant hiring hike is not going to come in the form of a vertical jump on the line-graph.

Nor should it.

Such sudden upswings tend to be followed by equally as drastic drops creating the shape that coined the phrase “spike.” The state doesn’t need a spike. What is needed is a long term solution that builds a real and diverse economic foundation rather than a quickly constructed house of cards.

It seems that every conversation that occurs about the subject turns every individual involved into an expert with his or her own take on the matter. There are currently about 60,000 different theories of how to solve Rhode Island’s economic mire. This purely hyperbolic number of proposed solutions has a margin of error of 50,000 in either direction.

In the meantime, jobless individuals still need a safety net. And businesses around the state still money coming in to keep their doors open and their staff working. But it seems as if the DLT administration has given up. Due to major cutbacks last summer based on a sunset on federal stimulus funding for operations and a lack of initiative to locate funds at a state level, the department, by their own admission, is understaffed.

Recent reports by the Providence Journal as well as local NPR discussed long wait-times and insufficient technology to keep up with high claimant volume on busier days. And, at some point in the future, sources report contact by telephone will no longer be an option. Official spokesperson, Laura Hart, said, “The department now has 123 workers assigned to unemployment insurance, Hart said, down from 151 before the layoffs.”

But, keep in mind, that does not represent an accurate number of staff assigned to answering phones. That number includes the Central Adjudication Unit whose sole function is to fact-find and render decisions on entitlement to benefits based on separation issues. They don’t process claims. They determine, by law, who gets to collect. When administrators decided which classifications to cut when initial lay offs were being conducted back in July, that job classification was completely protected, whereas, those who answered phones and provided front-line, customer-service was initially reduced by close to two-thirds. Some have since been recalled through specific grant funding designated to technological improvements.

Granted, long term unemployed will no longer be a concern as Emergency Unemployment Compensation (Federal Extended Benefits) will be completely cut off at the end of the year. And State Extended Benefits have been triggered off for over six months. So, where the average length for lack of full time work in the state is forty weeks, the period of full payments of weekly unemployment benefits is not to exceed twenty-six weeks. That is a three and a half month period with no income.

Having no income tends to make it more difficult to find suitable employment. No means by which to pay phone bills, internet bills, rent or even laundry means employers are less likely to see an individual as an attractive or reliable candidate for employment.

Furthermore, not only does that mean that jobless individuals will no longer have any income to keep up with bills, mortgage and car payments or grocery bills for themselves and their families, but those recipients of such payment will lose them. Insurance companies, grocery stores, etc., will have less income as businesses and will, subsequently, reduce their own workforce. This is basic Keynesian recovery tactics breaking down due to turning off the stimulus tap. When this happens before the drain is plugged, the basin dries up. Unemployment levels will rise and Rhode Island’s recession will continue … or worsen.

On a more basic and human level, if the claimants who need assistance but have no access to internet, will be even harder pressed to find a means by which to make communication with the department for general inquiries, re-files, or basic new claims filing. Previously, the neWORKri locations would offer computer services for those without home access, but with Pawtucket and Middletown locations both closed and Wakefield only open a few days a week, that disenfranchises a significant percentage of claimants from access to entitlements in a timely fashion. Even libraries, those that are still operational, have long waits for use of internet ready computers.

And what is to happen to the employees who work in the call center when the call center is no longer a call center? Are they to be laid off, some of them for the second time in a year? All that is known for sure is that they will not be eligible for more than twenty-six weeks worth of benefits. But for all those who are left jobless from the state, the taxpayer is, once again, on the hook for their unemployment compensation benefits due to the state’s status as a direct-reimbursable employer, rather than a contributory employer.

So, jobless Rhode Islanders will be hung out to dry even more than they are now. State taxpayers will be on the hook for benefits to any and all laid off from the state. The economy as a whole will suffer from lack of benefits stimulus. The question stands: has the DLT given up? The Assistant Director of Income support – the man who actually directs and implements policy for Unemployment and TDI and is well known for his draconian, micro-management techniques and demoralizing promotional decisions – has announced his retirement.

Governor Chafee will have a hard fight ahead of him if he chooses to run again in 2014 and that means DLT Director Charlie Fogarty (a gubernatorial appointment) may no longer retain that position. Have they given up? If they are no longer focusing on providing much needed income support, are they focusing on programs to increase or improve the state’s labor conditions? Are they providing adequate training? In today’s competitive job market, where a bachelor’s degree is now what a high school diploma was thirty years ago, are they providing tuition waivers or assistance for masters programs or post graduate certification? This particular author, a former employee of the DLT’s Unemployment Insurance sector, asked the Administrator in charge of tuition waivers whether or not a tuition waiver would be possible for a masters program and was told, flat out, no.

Mark Gray of Ocean State Action affiliated Where’s the Work wrote an article callled Don’t Push Rhode Islanders off Fiscal Ciff, both inspiring and complimenting this one about pushing for the re-institution of Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits. It is recommended reading. To further that agenda on a state level, Rhode Islanders need to push the DLT to be held accountable for their mission to provide aid in Labor, Training, Income Support, Regulation. Furthermore, until Rhode Island’s lawmakers are able to create and implement successful legislative programs to restore economic stability to the state, the DLT is the state agency responsible for helping its citizens maintain economic and business stability in the labor market? The DLT is the first line of economic safety for the state and is responsible, by any means necessary, to prevent Rhode Island’s citizens and businesses from sliding further into the economic abyss. They can’t defer responsibility and they can’t give up.

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

Is A Marriage Equality Referendum Legal, or Necessary?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The word from RIPR’s Ian Donnis is that Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed expects a committee vote on same-sex marriage in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But it’s never just that simple. The pressure on Senate Judiciary members will be enormous, but most of the members are reasonably solid in their positions on the issue.

Mr. Donnis suggests that it might be likely that an amendment will be attached to any marriage equality bill asking that it be brought before voters. This has been suggested by the Providence Phoenix‘s David Scharfenberg as a more palatable option for legislators than a pure floor vote; and much of Rhode Island’s media has been providing cover for such a position since marriage referendums passed in Maryland and Maine and recent polls showed a majority of Rhode Islanders supporting marriage equality (though virtually all local polls have been shown to be unreliable in Election Day votes).

You can see why a voter referendum would be fine for legislators, it neatly sidesteps responsibility one way or the other; the choice will be in the voters’ hands, legislators will merely be bringing the question to voters. But that neat sidestep is problematic; it elevates a change in state law to the position of a constitutional amendment or an issuing of a state bond, something which is both unnecessary and unheard of.

To understand that, we have to look at where marriage rests in law. It’s not in the Rhode Island Constitution. Yes, despite our Constitution explicitly stating that an “Almighty God” is responsible for creation in the “freedom of religion” section (irony) and explicitly denying a “right to abortion”, it lacks even the word “marriage” (though bills have attempted to change that in the past). Marriage is not a matter of importance for the Rhode Island Constitution.

Marriage lies in Title 15 of the Rhode Island General Laws. It is a pretty confusing set of laws, that appears (in my eyes) to be in need of serious revision. There are numerous sections that have been repealed (including all sections of Chapter 15-11 “Reciprocal Enforcement of Support”). Notably, Chapter 15-1 “Persons Eligible to Marry” only lists the persons men and women are forbidden to marry as kindred, such as your “daughter’s son’s wife” or your “wife’s daughter’s daughter” (if you’re male). Both sections fail to explicitly prevent same-sex marriage.

In no part of Title 15 is same-sex marriage explicitly banned (both in the written law, and in former Attorney General Patrick Lynch’s opinion from 2007). The list of ineligible people to marry for an individual is focused solely on kindred (though if you’re Jewish, guess what? Exception!); or is concerned with preventing the “mentally incompetent” from marrying. There is the new civil unions law, but that’s in Chapter 15-3.1 “Civil Unions”, and though it references the parts of Chapter 15-1 that say that men and women can’t marry their kindred of the opposite sex, it fails to mention those sections don’t mention same-sex kindred. The complete lack of mention of same-sex marriage, even in a negative sense, is astounding; especially if the presumptive law of the land is that same-sex marriage is illegal.

Proponents of “traditional marriage” (which is anything but “traditional”) might make the argument that someone like Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin would be forced to preside over marriages of same sex couples, despite their opposition to such marriages, if same-sex marriage were to ever become legal. This is patently false, and is as truthful as asserting that current law forces Bishop Tobin to marry Muslim couples or Jewish couples, or even Episcopalian couples.

Who gets to marry you? Yes, Section 15-3-5 of the General Laws empowers “every ordained clergy or elder in good standing” to “join persons in marriage”, but it also recognizes a host of clerks and justices (including “bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution”). Title 15 never mandates that any official must solemnize marriages. Furthermore, in the text of the law, at no point does it specify “join a man and a woman in marriage”; even the language here is neutral in regards to both the gender and sexual orientation of the people in the marriage ceremony.

Beneath all the pomp and circumstance, behind the dress, the priest, the church, the flowers, the cake, etc., etc., your marriage in the eyes of the State of Rhode Island comes down to a very simple ceremony: you, your future spouse, the official solemnizing your marriage, two witnesses; the endorsement of the marriage license by the official, and then the return of the marriage license to the appropriate clerk within 72 hours. That’s the legal requirement that the state has created. It has virtually nothing to do with religious figures, though they are free to play a part as they will.

Does that lessen the importance of marriage as a cultural and religious institution? Not an ounce. That final kiss performed in most ceremonies is as powerful in the eyes of God and your family and your community as ever, regardless of what the state says. The separation of church and state was to prevent the state from meddling in and poisoning religious affairs, if you believe Roger Williams. That separation should hold true here; the state of Rhode Island’s version of marriage not a sacred ritual, as is the Church’s; for the state it is a profane (in the “not sacred” sense) one, intended to bestow upon you a reward for choosing to bind yourself to another person. Our governments have recognized that two people living and working together is a thing that should be supported and strengthened.

Who’s to say that the merely because you’re binding yourself to someone of the same sex, that it’s not worth the same reward that opposite-sex couples get? Who’s to say that that commitment shouldn’t be recognized by the state? You might as well ban the LGBTQ community from getting fishing or driving licenses for all the legal sense this makes. But that would be absurd, only the extremely bigoted would vote to deny someone a state license based on sexual orientation. Only the most ridiculous legislator would vote to bring such legislation to the citizens of this state as a ballot question. And yet, this ridiculous situation is where some speculate we may find ourselves headed.

Such speculation and suggestion is bad, because it ignores the law in favor of political gamesmanship. And if we could ignore the law, this debate would not exist in the first place.

December 20, 2012

Americans Call for Tax Increases on the Wealthy

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

House Republicans may not want to see taxes raised on the rich, but the American people sure do. Reporting from outside the Capitol building is Graham Vyse, a former Chafee communications staffer who is now a grad student at American University’s Journalism and Public Affairs program.

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

All Guns Should Be Insured, Just Like Cars

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s an old idea that hasn’t gotten a lot of play, but the recent events in Newtown and the seemingly endless impasse in our society over what if any restrictions should be applied to firearms has gotten a few people to start thinking outside the box. Hence Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding have proposed that Congress should push for mandatory gun insurance.

Given the amount of licensing, regulation and insurance required to drive a car, why should guns be any different? One argument is that the right to bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution whereas the right to drive an automobile is not, but this idea fails when one considers the Ninth Amendment, which says that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, doesn’t mean it is not a right. In other words, you DO have a constitutional right to drive a car. But the government has a compelling interest to regulate that right to prevent people from driving recklessly.

Mandating insurance on guns should be little different from automobiles. Pass a test to prove competency, renew your license every few years, and carry insurance on each weapon owned. Free markets, which everybody loves, “should be efficient at weighing the risks” say the authors, and they provide the following example:

So a shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident could be charged far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic. In other words, people would be financially discouraged from purchasing the most risky firearms and encouraged to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. And the insurance could provide some restitution for those hurt by guns.

Taking this a step further, why does this have to a federal law? Don’t states license drivers and register automobiles? Don’t states compel drivers to be insured? What is to prevent the Rhode Island General Assembly from passing some variation of mandatory gun insurance? Licensing and registering a gun should be as easy (or difficult) as a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The General Assembly might also consider other outside the box ideas. Tort reform might make it easier to sue the owners of guns that fall into the wrong hands, incentivizing gun owners to keep their weapons secure. Heavier taxes on weapons and ammunition could be a way to enrich government coffers.

The first step is banning assault weapons in our state. Let’s face it: throwing stars are technically illegal, but assault weapons aren’t? That’s just dumb. But after that, there is a lot of work to be done, and a compassionate, pioneering General Assembly could point the way towards a safer environment for everyone.

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

An Amicable Nativity Story: David Eagle Wing

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

amicable nativity david night — David Eagle Wing. (Photo by Bob Plain)

The hair on the back of David Eagle Wing’s neck rose, causing him to pause and look around. There was something about this night that seemed different, but he couldn’t say why.

It wasn’t the fact that he was working in Walgreens in the middle of the night. He had gotten used to living life under the glare of florescent lighting. Strange as it sounded working the night shift was not as bad as one might imagine. David had always chaffed under the watchful eye of management and there was a certain amount of independence working through the night. There was enough to do, but he could decide when to do what. Occasionally, in the middle of the night, a customer would come in needing assistance, but otherwise he could set his own pace without someone always standing over him.

On his knees now David began unpacking a large box of disposable diapers and putting them on the shelf, his thoughts were drawn back to the couple he had passed on his way to work. He had seen some desperate people and situations since he had arrived in Springfield, but this was, without a doubt, the most miserable. By the sounds he had heard, as he walked by, it seemed, unbelievably, that the woman was in the beginning stages of labor. Her cries had been filled with fear and pain.

Such desperation was not new to David, who had grown up on the Crow Creek Reservation. David Eagle Wing’s family was part of the Sioux tribe. Locked on the reservation, David’s people had always felt trapped and desperate. The land was desolate and hard. Southeast South Dakota had never been good farm land and the Sioux had never been farmers. The Sioux had had a proud tradition as warriors and hunters before the arrival of the Europeans. They had always been nomadic, following the migration of the wild animals. For many generations now his people had been left behind, lost between two worlds; unable to live by past traditions, unable, and unwilling, to conform to “the ways of the white man”.

“Hello, David.” The voice startled and frightened David. He sprang to his feet and twirled around. Standing before him was a tall black man, all dressed in black.

“Don’t be frightened, David. You remember me, don’t you?”

The fear in David’s face softened to uncertainty and bewilderment. “Hel …, ah … Hello, Gabe.” At a loss for words David began to straighten his Walgreens vest, which had gotten twisted in his abrupt rising. In the moment of awkward silence, David’s mind filled with a multitude of questions. How is this possible? How did Gabe find me here? Is this really just a coincidence? What is going on?

Seeing Gabe reminded David of the feeling, only minutes earlier, of the hairs on the back of his neck rising. It was the same feeling as the first time he had met Gabe. Suddenly other memories began to fill David’s head and tears began to well up in his eyes, as the pain of those days returned. David remembered how his younger brother, Sam, had committed suicide. Sam seemed to have been filled with the disconnectedness and uncertainty, the desperation and helplessness of his people.

Like so many of his friends, Sam found the pain easier to bear with alcohol. It had been an easy slide down into the use of various other illegal drugs. David had tried to stop his younger brother’s downward spiral, but how was he supposed to convince Sam to look for hope and be of good cheer, when he himself had so little of both.

Sam’s suicide devastated David. For weeks he wandered the reservation aimlessly. He had started to drink heavily, trying to drown the pain that engulfed him. It was in a drunken stupor, as David lay on an isolated hillside, his face turned toward the starlit sky, that suddenly the hairs on the back of his neck rose. David forced his eyes to focus and there standing before him was Gabe, dressed then, as now, in black. Filled with fear, David sat up.

Then, as now, Gabe had said, “Do not be afraid.” There had been something reassuring in Gabe’s voice and David’s fears melted away. Their meeting had been brief. It was Gabe who suggested that David leave the reservation for a while and go in search of himself. So David began his own personal “walkabout,” which had brought him to Springfield, Illinois, and, for a while at least, the night clerk’s job at Walgreens. That night meeting on a lonely hill in South Dakota was the only time David had seen or talked to Gabe. And now here was Gabe, standing in front of him.

December 20, 2012December 20, 2012

The Right Needs A Head On A Stick; Erik Loomis’ Will Do

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s been a bad end of the year for conservatives. After deluding themselves into thinking they were going to win the presidential election by a landslide, they instead found themselves routed by a president they’d labelled “socialist” and claimed that he “palled around with terrorists.” And then in the wake of a national tragedy which left twenty-eight people dead, among them 20 children and six educators, politicians decided that they were no longer willing to sacrifice the lives of American citizens so that a few people could own assault rifles. Mike Huckabee’s remarks that the removal of Christian worship from public schools was to blame for the Sandy Hook massacre didn’t go over that well.

In the face of these failures, the right wing fell back to the cultural warfare they so successfully waged during the 1980s and 1990s. With Christmastime a few weeks away, it wasn’t hard to resuscitate that narrative. Now, with gun control looking to be increasingly likely, conservatives needed a target. Enter University of Rhode Island professor of labor and environmental history Erik Loomis. A perfect target for the “universities are indoctrinating our children” theme of conservative writing.

Prof. Loomis, known best in left wing circles for his political blog, Lawyers, Guns & Money, tweeted that he wanted Wayne LaPierre’s (CEO of the National Rifle Association) head on a stick and that the NRA should be classified as a terrorist organization (he has since deactivated his twitter account).

In the civilized world, this is what is known as “hyperbole.” In the conservative world, this is calling for Mr. LaPierre’s assassination. Anchor Rising’s Marc Comtois postulated that Prof. Loomis was merely seeking attention. How did Mr. Comtois prevent him from receiving that attention? With a broadside blog post, that was later redistributed and linked to by “traditional” media on their Twitter accounts and websites.

Better people than I have already written in Prof. Loomis’ defense such as Prof. Daniel Nexon at the Duck of Minerva and Prof. Loomis’ colleagues Robert Farley and Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns & Money. The academics who write for Crooked Timber issued a joint statement that went a bit further; they asked readers to contact URI’s Dean Winnie Brownell (winnie@mail.uri.edu), Provost Donald DeHays (ddehayes@uri.edu), and President David Dooley (davedooley@mail.uri.edu) in a polite, civil, and firm manner and tell them to protect free speech.

That’s the right manner of response. The wrong response was URI’s shameful and cowardly statement that played directly into the conservative bullies’ hands, while also elevating what was essentially a story contained to right wing loudmouths and left wing reactions into “real news”.

Let me be clear, the right wing are being bullies here. These are the same people that use hyperbolic language every day. These are the people who claimed that our President assists terrorists and was one himself, that he’s an Islamic Kenyan sleeper agent who hates America, that he’s destroying the nation with his godless socialism, that he’s a fascist fostering a cult of personality so he can end the American Republic forever.

If URI buckles to the demands of these hypocrites it will be a blow against intellectual freedom that will reverberate across the United States; and I do not believe I am being hyperbolic here. No academic’s opinions are safe, regardless of whether they’re left, right, or center. It will prove to the right wing that intimidation works, that no use of hyperbole that the right can portray as offensive anywhere should be protected speech. And tactics that work are often copied. The left will push back in the exact same manner, and then it will be a battle over who can collect more heads.

Universities and colleges need to be centers of academic freedom regardless of political belief, if only because we are all enriched when they can have debates that political discourse is too soundbite-based to have. It’s a near-sighted and hypocritical game the right is playing. And they should be condemned for playing it.