It's absolutely no mystery why Republicans need Putin to win in Ukraine.
Timothy Snyder with everything you ever wanted to know about how it all came about, and where it might go.
Feb 24, 2023
Russia vs Ukraine
Today's Brian
Things must be looking really bad for The Trump Criming Team - or they think they're really close to tipping us over the brink into full blown chaos, in order to tear it all down and install the plutocracy that so many of them dream about.
This level of crazy isn't inadvertent or merely coincidental.
Today's (deleted) Tweet
¾ of the world's population came across our southern border ?
Seems a little high.
(her media team had to be thrilled at all the engagement this was getting, but then they deleted it once they realized it was so bad not even her fans were buying it, and there was no way for them to spin it into pretending it was just snarky and sarcastic)
(her media team had to be thrilled at all the engagement this was getting, but then they deleted it once they realized it was so bad not even her fans were buying it, and there was no way for them to spin it into pretending it was just snarky and sarcastic)
A Year Ago
KYIV, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy marked the first anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion on Friday with a sombre message of defiance to his people and tears for the thousands of soldiers who have died.
On a cold, cloudy morning in Kyiv, the 45-year-old addressed members of Ukraine's armed forces and a small gathering of dignitaries in St Sophia Square, next to the green- and gold-domed cathedral that is a symbol of the city's resilience.
"I want to say to all of you who are fighting for Ukraine ... I am proud of you. We all, each and every one, are proud of you!"
As he has done throughout the war, Zelenskiy showed his feelings in the 30-minute ceremony, choking back emotion as he gave out Hero of Ukraine awards to troops - one of whom was on crutches - and to the mother of a soldier who had been killed.
As a band played the national anthem, there were tears in his eyes. Those present bowed their heads for a minute's silence.
In a packed programme, Zelenskiy gave state awards to military chaplains at Kyiv's historic Lavra monastery complex, visited wounded soldiers undergoing treatment in a hospital, and hosted Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
Poland allowed millions of refugees to cross from Ukraine early in the war and has been a close ally throughout. It announced on Friday that a first batch of Leopard tanks were already in Ukraine, as Zelenskiy pushes for more heavy weaponry.
'WE WOKE EARLY AND HAVEN'T SLEPT SINCE'
The president's office released a special address of nearly 15 minutes titled "The Year of Invincibility" for the anniversary.
"A year ago on this day, from this same place, around seven in the morning, I addressed you with a brief statement, lasting only 67 seconds," he said, recalling the first day of what has become Europe's worst conflict since World War Two.
"'...We are strong. We are ready for anything. We will defeat everyone'. That's how it began on February 24, 2022. The longest day of our lives. The most difficult day in our recent history. We woke up early and haven't slept since."
Western military officials estimate casualties on both sides at more than 100,000 killed or wounded. Tens of thousands of civilians are also feared to have died, while millions have fled the threat of fighting.
"Almost everyone has at least one contact in their phone that will never pick up the phone again," Zelenskiy said. "He who will not respond to the SMS 'How are you?'. These ... simple words got a new meaning during the year of the war."
Ukrainian forces repelled Russia's advance on Kyiv early in 2022, and the conflict, which Moscow calls a "special military operation" to protect its security, has become one of grinding trench warfare in the east and south.
In recent months, Russia has also targeted Ukraine's power grid, causing blackouts and loss of water and heat for millions across the country.
With both countries showing no sign of backing down, the prospects of an end to the fighting any time soon look bleak.
Zelenskiy praised his people.
"We became one big army," he said. "We have become a team where someone finds, someone packs, someone brings, but everyone contributes.
"We withstand all threats, shelling, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, kamikaze drones, blackouts and cold. We are stronger than that," he said. "We were not defeated. And we will do everything to gain victory this year!"
We can't let these people down.
Слава Україні
🌎🌏🌍❤️🇺🇦
Feb 23, 2023
And Down They Go
Every time I think the Republicans can't possibly get any lower, they find a way - it's hard to get below whale shit, but these clowns manage.
Actually, this one could swing either way. You know there's going to be some selective editing going on because, fuck yeah there will be. But maybe - just maybe - DumFux News is so battered and bruised that they'll do it in a way that pins it all on Trump and works to let themselves and various congress critters off the hook.
In granting exclusive access to Jan. 6 Capitol surveillance footage to a cable news host bent on rewriting the history of the attack, the speaker effectively outsourced a politically toxic re-litigation of the riot.
WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to grant the Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to thousands of hours of security footage from inside the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack was his latest move to appease the right wing of his party, this time by effectively outsourcing a bid to reinvestigate the riot to its favorite cable news commentator, who has circulated conspiracy theories about the assault.
The most conservative Republican members of Congress — many of whom have worked to downplay or deny the reality of the Jan. 6 attack — have been pushing Mr. McCarthy for weeks to release the video after he promised to do so during his campaign for speaker.
Mr. McCarthy has shown little appetite for the kind of aggressive public re-litigation of what happened that day that some of his colleagues have called for, but he is sensitive to the dangers of angering his hard-core base by seeming to drop or disregard the matter.
That is where Mr. Carlson comes in.
“I promised,” Mr. McCarthy said on Wednesday in a brief phone interview in which he defended his decision to grant Mr. Carlson exclusive access to the more than 40,000 hours of security footage. “I was asked in the press about these tapes, and I said they do belong to the American public. I think sunshine lets everybody make their own judgment.”
Still, the sunshine Mr. McCarthy referred to will, for now, be filtered through a very specific prism — that of Mr. Carlson, a hero of the hard right who has insinuated without evidence that the Jan. 6 attack was a “false flag” operation carried out by the government.
After Mr. Carlson has had his way with the video, Mr. McCarthy said he planned to make the footage more widely available. His team has had internal conversations about providing the footage to other media outlets after Mr. Carlson has had his “exclusive” first airing, according to a source familiar with the deliberations who insisted on anonymity to speak about them.
For now, however, Mr. McCarthy has given a large head start to a purveyor of conspiracy theories about the attack.
Mr. Carlson declined on Wednesday to comment on his review of the tapes, except to say that he and a large team of staff members looking at the footage were “taking it very seriously.”
Democrats have revolted at Mr. McCarthy’s decision, arguing that it is a politically driven move that risks the security of the Capitol.
In a letter to fellow Democrats on Wednesday, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said the speaker was “needlessly exposing the Capitol complex to one of the worst security risks since 9/11.”
“By handpicking Tucker Carlson, Speaker McCarthy laid bare that this sham is simply about pandering to MAGA election deniers, not the truth,” Mr. Schumer wrote. “Tucker Carlson has no fidelity to the truth or facts and has used his platform to promote the Big Lie, distort reality and espouse bogus conspiracy theories about Jan. 6.”
Some Republicans, too, said Mr. McCarthy was taking a political risk with his decision. Should Mr. Carlson use the video — through selective editing — to further false narratives, it could supercharge the appetite in the right-wing base for the continued re-litigation of Jan. 6. That could force the issue onto the agenda of more House Republicans, a move that is likely to turn off swing voters.
“It helps McCarthy solidify his speakership among the right, especially those who held their vote out,” said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist. “It shows to conservatives that he’s providing complete transparency, and that’s what Republicans have wanted for a long time. That said, if the footage is misused in some way, this could end up generating another black hole for Republicans on Jan. 6. It could cause Republicans to be wrapped around that issue, and to look backward, not forward, toward getting things done.”
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, has portrayed the treatment of Jan. 6 prisoners as a civil rights atrocity and demanded the release of security footage that could exonerate them. But Mr. McCarthy has not shown the same passion as his right flank for re-examining Jan. 6 — an issue that some of his advisers view as a political loser — and, thus far, he has had little interest in dedicating limited staff resources to doing so.
He set up no select committee to investigate the events surrounding the Capitol breach, though he warned the House Jan. 6 panel last year to preserve its files. He has signaled interest in exploring one avenue, saying that the House select committee that investigated the attack during the last Congress ignored the security failures that allowed the Capitol to be breached. He appointed Representative Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, a Republican he views as being unfairly maligned by the Jan. 6 panel, as the chairman of a House Administration subcommittee tasked with investigating the matter.
Mr. McCarthy has risen to power during a tumultuous time on Capitol Hill. Republicans have a slim governing majority, and he had to repeatedly bend to a demanding hard-right flank in his quest for power.
Some of those same resisters celebrated Mr. McCarthy’s decision to give the footage to Mr. Carlson. “Thank you @SpeakerMcCarthy for following through on this!” Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado and one of Mr. McCarthy’s loudest detractors during the speakership battle, wrote on Twitter.
And Mr. McCarthy himself was eager to take political advantage of the move, blasting out a fund-raising email that told potential donors: “I promised I would give you the truth regarding Jan. 6, and now I am delivering.”
Even more mainstream Republicans backed him up.
Former Representative Rodney Davis of Illinois, who as the top Republican on the Administration Committee during the last Congress watched hours of the footage, said he had pushed for it to be released to refute what he called Democrats’ “lies” that Republicans had given tours of the Capitol to rioters in advance.
He dismissed concerns that releasing the footage would endanger Capitol security, citing the Jan. 6 committee’s depiction of the evacuation of Vice President Mike Pence and others during the assault.
Mr. Davis also said there was nothing particularly surprising in the footage he reviewed, which showed the attack on the Capitol largely as it is widely understood to have transpired.
“The Capitol came under attack,” Mr. Davis said. “The brave men and women of the Capitol Police fought back. Hopefully, those who broke the law that day are held accountable.”
Still, Democrats said the move was deeply irresponsible, warning that Mr. McCarthy was granting access to sensitive video of escape routes, security camera angles and logistics at the Capitol.
“We have tremendous security concerns about what’s happening and we want to know what rules are in place for the viewing of this material, which goes right to the heart of how we protect the Capitol and our staffs,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who was a member of the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee. “We want to make sure we are not giving a blueprint for attacking the Capitol.”
The Big Stick
Janet Yellen speaks to the issue plainly and clearly.
Ahead of a meeting of G20 finance ministers, the Treasury secretary offered a dark assessment of Russia’s economy and warned China of the consequences of helping Moscow skirt U.S. sanctions.
BENGALURU, India — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Thursday that the United States would redouble its efforts to marshal global support to help Ukraine and warned that China would face repercussions if it helped Russia evade American sanctions.
She spoke as top policymakers from around the world gathered in southern India for a meeting that is expected to focus largely on accelerating a global economic recovery after three years of international crises. The warning to China underscores how the impact of the war continues to reverberate, straining ties between the world’s two largest economies as they were attempting to stabilize their relationship.
“We have made clear that providing material support to Russia or assistance with any kind of systemic sanctions evasion would be a very serious concern for us,” Ms. Yellen said. “We will certainly continue to make clear to the Chinese government and the companies and banks in their jurisdiction about what the rules are regarding our sanctions and the serious consequences they would face for violating them.”
Ms. Yellen declined to describe specific U.S. intelligence about Russian attempts to avoid sanctions but the Treasury Department has pointed to attempts by Russia to seek assistance from China to supply it with items such as semiconductors which face trade restrictions.
Trade data shows that China, along with countries including Turkey and some former Soviet republics, has stepped in to provide Russia with products that civilians or armed forces could use, including raw materials, smartphones, vehicles and computer chips. Biden administration officials have expressed concern that China could provide Russia with lethal weapons, however China does not appear to have done so yet.
The United States has cracked down on some of the companies and organizations supplying goods and services to Russia. In January, it imposed sanctions on a Chinese company that had provided satellite imagery to the Wagner mercenary group, which has played a large role in the battle for eastern Ukraine. In December, it added two Chinese research institutes to a list of entities that supply the Russian military, which will restrict their access to U.S. technology.
On Thursday, Ms. Yellen made clear that the United States would crack down on sanctions evasion. “We are seeking to strengthen sanctions and to make sure we address violations of sanctions,” she said.
The effectiveness of sanctions on Russia continues to be a subject of intense debate, as recent forecasts from the International Monetary Fund suggested that its economy is performing better than expected.
But Ms. Yellen offered a dark assessment of Russia’s economy, arguing that sanctions imposed by the United States and other Western nations were working to isolate the Kremlin, drain the country of talent and sap its productive capacity. Still, the United States continues to view the conflict as the biggest threat to the global economy, and Ms. Yellen made clear that the Biden administration is prepared to continue punishing Russia for its incursion.
Ms. Yellen said that the United States plans to unveil additional sanctions on Russia and that it is working with its allies to devise ways to tighten restrictions already in place.
“We will stand with Ukraine in its fight — for as long as it takes,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference as finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations, which include Russia and China, convened for two days of meetings.
The Treasury secretary said that the United States had already provided more than $46 billion in security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and that another $10 billion in economic support would be delivered in the coming months. Ms. Yellen also called on the I.M.F. to “move swiftly” with a fully financed loan package for Ukraine. The I.M.F. last year approved more than $1 billion in emergency financing to Ukraine to mitigate the economic impact of the war.
“Continued, robust support for Ukraine will be a major topic of discussion during my time here in India,” Ms. Yellen said.
The United States hopes to include a condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine in the joint statement, or communiqué, that the finance ministers are set to release later this week. However, it is not clear if a decisive statement will be possible because Russia is a member of the G20 and India, which is hosting the event, continues to buy large quantities of Russian oil.
Despite the urgency to address the crisis in Ukraine, Ms. Yellen offered an upbeat assessment of the global economy, which has begun to recover. While she acknowledged that headwinds remained, she said the world was on more stable footing than last fall, when many were forecasting a global recession.
“It’s fair to say that the global economy is in a better place today than many predicted just a few months ago,” Ms. Yellen said, pointing to a recent global growth upgrade from the I.M.F.
She added that the United States economy was proving to be resilient, with inflation moderating while the labor market remains strong.
During their meetings on Friday and Saturday, finance ministers are also expected to discuss ways to alleviate the debt crises facing many developing countries. Officials are also expected to put pressure on China, which has become one of the world’s largest creditors, to demonstrate more willingness to let more countries restructure their debt.
“I will continue to push for all bilateral official creditors, including China, to participate in meaningful debt treatments for developing countries and emerging markets in distress,” Ms. Yellen said.
It was unclear if Ms. Yellen would have any meetings with Chinese officials this week. She said that keeping lines of communication open about macroeconomic issues remained important.
“I certainly expect that we will resume discussions,” Ms. Yellen said, adding, “I don’t have a specific time frame in mind but I think it’s important to do so.”
The Big Flub
DeSantis’s flop on foreign affairs comes as no surprise
The idea of Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis running for president has sounded swell to many Republicans desperate to find an alternative to defeated former president Donald Trump. The reality, as they are discovering, might be sobering and deflating.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
In the space of just a few days, DeSantis demonstrated his limitations when his state record comes under scrutiny and when he is compelled to opine on foreign policy.
This week, he began a national tour in New York City, presumably to tout his record on crime. In the minds of MAGA Republicans, crime is about not just public safety but also elites’ irresponsibility and the culture wars. DeSantis blamed New York’s bail laws “on Democrats trying to ‘out-woke’ each other,” as the New York Daily News reported. It’s far from clear what he means in this context by “out-woke” — a slur usually deployed to intimate that Democrats are catering to minorities and ignoring Whites’ legitimate concerns.
Regardless, any comparison between Florida and New York does not serve DeSantis well. In 2020, the homicide rate in Florida was 5.9 murders per 100,000 people, and the violent crime rate was 384 per 100,000, according to the Daily Beast, citing the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. New York, meanwhile, had 4.2 homicides per 100,000 people and a violent crime rate of 364 per 100,000 people. New York City itself had a homicide rate of 5.6 per 100,000, slightly below the national average of 6.5 and half Miami’s rate of 12.8.
Meanwhile, DeSantis has wasted police resources on his election-crimes unit, whose cases have led to three dismissals and serious questions about whether other cases will ever come to trial.
Predictably, Eric Adams, New York’s law-and-order mayor, blasted DeSantis. “Welcome to NYC, @GovRonDeSantis, a place where we don’t ban books, discriminate against our LGBTQ+ neighbors, use asylum seekers as props, or let the government stand between a woman and health care,” he tweeted.
DeSantis’s crime foray, however, was not his worst moment on tour. At the moment President Biden was getting plaudits for venturing into a war-torn country to stand with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, DeSantis pandered to pro-Russian apologists.
“The fear of Russia going into NATO countries and all that and steamrolling, you know, that has not even come close to happening,” he said in an interview, neglecting to mention that it hasn’t happened because of the heroic efforts of Ukrainians and the alliance Biden stitched together. DeSantis went on, saying of Russia: “I think they’ve shown themselves to be a third-rate military power.” The third-rate power nevertheless has committed countless atrocities and devastated the economy and landscape of Ukraine.
DeSantis then reverted to an America First talking point about Biden: “He’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world. He’s not done anything to secure our own border here at home.” In over his head, he muddled along: “And I don’t think it’s in our interest to be getting into proxy war with China, getting involved over things like the borderlands or over Crimea.”
Next he declared, “I think it would behoove them to identify what is the strategic objective that they’re trying to achieve, but just saying it’s an open-ended blank check, that is not acceptable.” The objective is a free and independent Ukraine without Russian troops, obviously.
Perhaps Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who told the Munich Security Conference that “Republican leaders are committed to a strong transatlantic alliance” and that “America’s own core national interests are at stake” — could help the governor understand.
DeSantis might be utterly uninformed on foreign policy, or he might be pandering to the MAGA base. Regardless, his tone-deaf, reflexive know-nothingism should set off alarms for Republicans. If they want to restore the party’s image as tough on national security and find someone to make Biden look feeble, they might want to look elsewhere.
The idea of Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis running for president has sounded swell to many Republicans desperate to find an alternative to defeated former president Donald Trump. The reality, as they are discovering, might be sobering and deflating.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
In the space of just a few days, DeSantis demonstrated his limitations when his state record comes under scrutiny and when he is compelled to opine on foreign policy.
This week, he began a national tour in New York City, presumably to tout his record on crime. In the minds of MAGA Republicans, crime is about not just public safety but also elites’ irresponsibility and the culture wars. DeSantis blamed New York’s bail laws “on Democrats trying to ‘out-woke’ each other,” as the New York Daily News reported. It’s far from clear what he means in this context by “out-woke” — a slur usually deployed to intimate that Democrats are catering to minorities and ignoring Whites’ legitimate concerns.
Regardless, any comparison between Florida and New York does not serve DeSantis well. In 2020, the homicide rate in Florida was 5.9 murders per 100,000 people, and the violent crime rate was 384 per 100,000, according to the Daily Beast, citing the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. New York, meanwhile, had 4.2 homicides per 100,000 people and a violent crime rate of 364 per 100,000 people. New York City itself had a homicide rate of 5.6 per 100,000, slightly below the national average of 6.5 and half Miami’s rate of 12.8.
Meanwhile, DeSantis has wasted police resources on his election-crimes unit, whose cases have led to three dismissals and serious questions about whether other cases will ever come to trial.
Predictably, Eric Adams, New York’s law-and-order mayor, blasted DeSantis. “Welcome to NYC, @GovRonDeSantis, a place where we don’t ban books, discriminate against our LGBTQ+ neighbors, use asylum seekers as props, or let the government stand between a woman and health care,” he tweeted.
DeSantis’s crime foray, however, was not his worst moment on tour. At the moment President Biden was getting plaudits for venturing into a war-torn country to stand with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, DeSantis pandered to pro-Russian apologists.
“The fear of Russia going into NATO countries and all that and steamrolling, you know, that has not even come close to happening,” he said in an interview, neglecting to mention that it hasn’t happened because of the heroic efforts of Ukrainians and the alliance Biden stitched together. DeSantis went on, saying of Russia: “I think they’ve shown themselves to be a third-rate military power.” The third-rate power nevertheless has committed countless atrocities and devastated the economy and landscape of Ukraine.
DeSantis then reverted to an America First talking point about Biden: “He’s very concerned about those borders halfway around the world. He’s not done anything to secure our own border here at home.” In over his head, he muddled along: “And I don’t think it’s in our interest to be getting into proxy war with China, getting involved over things like the borderlands or over Crimea.”
Next he declared, “I think it would behoove them to identify what is the strategic objective that they’re trying to achieve, but just saying it’s an open-ended blank check, that is not acceptable.” The objective is a free and independent Ukraine without Russian troops, obviously.
Perhaps Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who told the Munich Security Conference that “Republican leaders are committed to a strong transatlantic alliance” and that “America’s own core national interests are at stake” — could help the governor understand.
DeSantis might be utterly uninformed on foreign policy, or he might be pandering to the MAGA base. Regardless, his tone-deaf, reflexive know-nothingism should set off alarms for Republicans. If they want to restore the party’s image as tough on national security and find someone to make Biden look feeble, they might want to look elsewhere.
It's A Fight
... because we can always find something to fight about.
Students painted a mural for a bakery. The town wants it removed.
In a small New Hampshire tourist town, the front of a roadside bakery is adorned with an image of the sun rising over a row of doughnuts, muffins and other pastries.
Whether that painting is a mural or a sign will determine whether the high school students who created it will see it taken down.
The Conway, N.H., community has been captivated for months by a dispute, previously reported by the Conway Daily News, over whether the art project is considered a sign under the municipal code. The town says yes, because the painting shows baked goods — and that the image exceeds the legal size limit for signs. The owner of Leavitt’s Country Bakery says no — and, in a federal lawsuit, contends the town ordinance violates the First Amendment.
“We didn’t want to take the mural down,” said the owner, Sean Young. “At first I was just upset for the kids, and I didn’t feel that they were right in telling us that it wasn’t art.”
Later, Young said, the disagreement became a matter of principle. In the lawsuit filed last month, he argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The suit claims that because the law defines a sign by what images it shows, it discriminates based on the content of the speech and the identity of the speaker.
Conway officials say they are upholding the will of the citizens who voted to pass the sign ordinance, and they point out that they have not enforced the rule against Leavitt’s through fines or other consequences.
The saga began last spring, when a friend of Young’s heard that another friend, local art teacher Olivia Benish, wanted to get her students involved in the town and noticed the bakery was essentially a blank canvas. Young had bought the decades-old Leavitt’s, once deemed “the unofficial town hall of Conway,” in 2021 and quickly led it to the prime spot on a list of best doughnuts in New Hampshire.
When he connected with the five Kennett High School students, he gave them free rein to create any image. The team talked about the need to avoid painting the Leavitt’s name or logo on the mural, Benish said. They did not want anyone to confuse it for a sign.
“I thought we were aware,” the teacher said. “Obviously, I was not completely aware, because I had never imagined it becoming what it has become.”
Benish brought Leavitt’s doughnuts to school one day, and the group began brainstorming. They considered ideas centered on the character of their northeast New Hampshire region, which attracts skiers in the winter and hikers and water tubers in the summer.
Maybe, the students thought, the mural could show people floating down the Saco River on doughnuts. Or it could display the sun as a doughnut over the White Mountains, which blanket roughly one-quarter of the state.
When the group landed on a design, they spent about five weeks painting it on exterior-grade panels and sealing them with primer. A community member hung the panels on Leavitt’s — the first time Young saw the image. He said he had not wanted to dictate to the students what they should create.
“There were plenty of people in town who wanted to be on committee to decide what the kids paint,” said Young, 51. “I said it was up to the kids.”
About a week after the painting’s unveiling, a municipal code enforcement officer stopped by Leavitt’s. He had seen an article about the painting in the local newspaper and felt compelled to act. The mural was actually a sign, he said, and it was roughly four times as big as was allowed.
Young could not afford the $275 per day that he could be fined for disobeying the statute. He was still finding his footing with the business, he said, and had not even paid himself a salary yet. He also did not want to risk being charged with a misdemeanor for violating the code.
So in August, Young urged Conway’s zoning board members to overrule the enforcement officer’s assessment that the painting was a sign. They denied his request.
Then Young requested a variance to keep the painting on the store. The board said no. When Young asked for a rehearing, the panel turned him down again.
To town leadership, getting Young to remove the painting is a matter of fairness to the residents who approved the zoning provisions. Zoning board chair John Colbath said the rule, as written, considers an image on a business to be a sign if it represents a product that the business sells.
“It’s a zoning ordinance, which was enacted by the legislative body, which are the voters of the town who are here,” he said at the August meeting. “And there is a process for changing it if they don’t like it.”
Luigi Bartolomeo, another zoning board member, said the ordinance is painfully vague. Still, he voted to uphold the code enforcement officer’s judgment that the painting is a sign.
They died leaving labors of love undone. Strangers complete their work.
Throughout the process, many in the community rallied behind Leavitt’s. More than a dozen customers each day have been expressing support, Young said. A local tattoo shop asked Benish if it could raise money for the high school art department. Residents packed the room for the August zoning board meeting.
“I just feel that the gray area of the sign definition — I don’t feel something related to kids doing artwork is the time to be trying to define that,” Shawn Foss, a longtime Leavitt’s customer, told the board.
Benish said she is disappointed by the controversy. She feels sorry for the students who poured their hearts into the painting, and she wonders whether she will get a chance to lead other public art projects.
One of Benish’s students who worked on the painting feels that the situation has dragged on for too long. Ben Rieser, 18, said that at first he loved seeing his work displayed in town. But he and the other students accidentally created a sign, and Leavitt’s should have taken it down as soon as the mistake was realized, Rieser wrote in an assignment completed for his English class and shared with The Washington Post.
“I don’t want to see it up there any more,” he wrote, “because it has turned into something political and not artistic.”
In early January, the lawsuit says, the town sent Young a letter threatening enforcement of the ordinance. Town attorney Jason Dennis said the municipality asked Leavitt’s to take down the painting temporarily and never got an answer.
With the help of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, Young filed a legal challenge. A judge this month ordered the town not to enforce the ordinance until further notice.
Both sides of the dispute see a potential solution ahead: A proposed ordinance scheduled for a vote in April would define a graphic as a sign only if its main purpose is to advertise. Young and the town agree that if the rule takes effect, the students’ painting probably would no longer be considered a sign.
“For me, my legal opinion is that if this passes, Leavitt’s sign could stay,” Dennis said at a planning board meeting last month.
If voters reject the proposal, Young said, the lawsuit will continue. He sees the disagreement as a free-speech issue, and he does not want to let down the people who are rooting for him.
“Now that everyone’s watching,” Young said, “we have to follow through with this.”
 |
| Kennett High School student Ben Rieser, student Emma Gallant, art teacher Olivia Benish and student Morgan Carr pose with the mural they painted for Leavitt’s Country Bakery (Justin Chafee) |
First - The object in question is, IMO, a sign because it satisfies the description in the ordinance.
Second - So fucking what?
Third - Rules is rules
Let the wrangling begin.
In a small New Hampshire tourist town, the front of a roadside bakery is adorned with an image of the sun rising over a row of doughnuts, muffins and other pastries.
Whether that painting is a mural or a sign will determine whether the high school students who created it will see it taken down.
The Conway, N.H., community has been captivated for months by a dispute, previously reported by the Conway Daily News, over whether the art project is considered a sign under the municipal code. The town says yes, because the painting shows baked goods — and that the image exceeds the legal size limit for signs. The owner of Leavitt’s Country Bakery says no — and, in a federal lawsuit, contends the town ordinance violates the First Amendment.
“We didn’t want to take the mural down,” said the owner, Sean Young. “At first I was just upset for the kids, and I didn’t feel that they were right in telling us that it wasn’t art.”
Later, Young said, the disagreement became a matter of principle. In the lawsuit filed last month, he argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The suit claims that because the law defines a sign by what images it shows, it discriminates based on the content of the speech and the identity of the speaker.
Conway officials say they are upholding the will of the citizens who voted to pass the sign ordinance, and they point out that they have not enforced the rule against Leavitt’s through fines or other consequences.
The saga began last spring, when a friend of Young’s heard that another friend, local art teacher Olivia Benish, wanted to get her students involved in the town and noticed the bakery was essentially a blank canvas. Young had bought the decades-old Leavitt’s, once deemed “the unofficial town hall of Conway,” in 2021 and quickly led it to the prime spot on a list of best doughnuts in New Hampshire.
When he connected with the five Kennett High School students, he gave them free rein to create any image. The team talked about the need to avoid painting the Leavitt’s name or logo on the mural, Benish said. They did not want anyone to confuse it for a sign.
“I thought we were aware,” the teacher said. “Obviously, I was not completely aware, because I had never imagined it becoming what it has become.”
Benish brought Leavitt’s doughnuts to school one day, and the group began brainstorming. They considered ideas centered on the character of their northeast New Hampshire region, which attracts skiers in the winter and hikers and water tubers in the summer.
Maybe, the students thought, the mural could show people floating down the Saco River on doughnuts. Or it could display the sun as a doughnut over the White Mountains, which blanket roughly one-quarter of the state.
When the group landed on a design, they spent about five weeks painting it on exterior-grade panels and sealing them with primer. A community member hung the panels on Leavitt’s — the first time Young saw the image. He said he had not wanted to dictate to the students what they should create.
“There were plenty of people in town who wanted to be on committee to decide what the kids paint,” said Young, 51. “I said it was up to the kids.”
About a week after the painting’s unveiling, a municipal code enforcement officer stopped by Leavitt’s. He had seen an article about the painting in the local newspaper and felt compelled to act. The mural was actually a sign, he said, and it was roughly four times as big as was allowed.
Young could not afford the $275 per day that he could be fined for disobeying the statute. He was still finding his footing with the business, he said, and had not even paid himself a salary yet. He also did not want to risk being charged with a misdemeanor for violating the code.
So in August, Young urged Conway’s zoning board members to overrule the enforcement officer’s assessment that the painting was a sign. They denied his request.
Then Young requested a variance to keep the painting on the store. The board said no. When Young asked for a rehearing, the panel turned him down again.
To town leadership, getting Young to remove the painting is a matter of fairness to the residents who approved the zoning provisions. Zoning board chair John Colbath said the rule, as written, considers an image on a business to be a sign if it represents a product that the business sells.
“It’s a zoning ordinance, which was enacted by the legislative body, which are the voters of the town who are here,” he said at the August meeting. “And there is a process for changing it if they don’t like it.”
Luigi Bartolomeo, another zoning board member, said the ordinance is painfully vague. Still, he voted to uphold the code enforcement officer’s judgment that the painting is a sign.
They died leaving labors of love undone. Strangers complete their work.
Throughout the process, many in the community rallied behind Leavitt’s. More than a dozen customers each day have been expressing support, Young said. A local tattoo shop asked Benish if it could raise money for the high school art department. Residents packed the room for the August zoning board meeting.
“I just feel that the gray area of the sign definition — I don’t feel something related to kids doing artwork is the time to be trying to define that,” Shawn Foss, a longtime Leavitt’s customer, told the board.
Benish said she is disappointed by the controversy. She feels sorry for the students who poured their hearts into the painting, and she wonders whether she will get a chance to lead other public art projects.
One of Benish’s students who worked on the painting feels that the situation has dragged on for too long. Ben Rieser, 18, said that at first he loved seeing his work displayed in town. But he and the other students accidentally created a sign, and Leavitt’s should have taken it down as soon as the mistake was realized, Rieser wrote in an assignment completed for his English class and shared with The Washington Post.
“I don’t want to see it up there any more,” he wrote, “because it has turned into something political and not artistic.”
In early January, the lawsuit says, the town sent Young a letter threatening enforcement of the ordinance. Town attorney Jason Dennis said the municipality asked Leavitt’s to take down the painting temporarily and never got an answer.
With the help of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, Young filed a legal challenge. A judge this month ordered the town not to enforce the ordinance until further notice.
Both sides of the dispute see a potential solution ahead: A proposed ordinance scheduled for a vote in April would define a graphic as a sign only if its main purpose is to advertise. Young and the town agree that if the rule takes effect, the students’ painting probably would no longer be considered a sign.
“For me, my legal opinion is that if this passes, Leavitt’s sign could stay,” Dennis said at a planning board meeting last month.
If voters reject the proposal, Young said, the lawsuit will continue. He sees the disagreement as a free-speech issue, and he does not want to let down the people who are rooting for him.
“Now that everyone’s watching,” Young said, “we have to follow through with this.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)