While Congressman David Cicilline is right to raise questions about Amazon’s monopoly power, the fact that he’s leading the charge is worrying.
Rhode Island’s employment picture is looking better, but improvements are either possible statistical aberrations, the consequence of slow growth (rather than recent policies), or undone by other economic factors.
Angelo Codevilla summarizes the history of how the U.S. Congress undermined our system of government as the end of “regular order.” By this, he means the process by which laws were supposed to be reviewed in committee and then passed on the floor, all in full view and deliberation, with each legislator ultimately accountable for votes. But…
… For over a century, congressmen and senators’ procrastination had pressed legislative business into the last weeks before the end of congressional sessions. Members had noted that they could slip items into bills in frenzied times, which would not have survived regular order’s scrutiny. In the 1970s, some committees started to procrastinate on purpose, so that the end of the government’s fiscal year would come without an appropriation for one or more department of government. The Appropriations Committee would then prepare a “continuing resolution” to substitute for the uncompleted appropriations. These were supposed to just “keep thing going next year as in the previous year,” thus avoiding all issues. At the very least, they obviated whatever major changes anyone might want to make. But it was never that simple: from the beginning, these CRs always had riders. The more influence you had, the more you could slip into the CR.
This gave leadership more power, because they had more leeway to determine what could and couldn’t be “slipped into” continuing resolutions. In the last decade, according to Codevilla, Harry Reid pushed Congress to the final step, essentially making continuing resolutions the rule for the whole budget and, therefore, the whole government.
If this sounds familiar to local ears, it’s because this is exactly the way in which the Rhode Island legislature operates. The entire session is warm-up and theatrics for a final push during which the action is frenzied, the rules are suspended, and legislative leaders have all of the say.
The solution is the same, too: Voters have to insist on regular order, not a few oligarchs who leverage a weak version of representative democracy for their own benefit. Unfortunately, the corrupt system works well for special interests, too, who corrupt our electoral system.
Here’s some interesting philosophizing on a rainy summer day. Building on the observation that folks in England are too content to accept drying machines that don’t dry, Corinne Purtill draws broad conclusions about the difference between Brits and their American peers.
Purtill herself is an American just returning to her native country after five years across the Pond, and although she flirts with complimenting her fellow Americans, she can’t quite bring herself to side with us. Indeed, in backing away from that conclusion, she may capture modern progressives’ true sense of trade offs:
This American bias toward change—newer, better, different—has fueled countless innovations. It has also fueled a culture of thoughtless consumerism.
Like progressives, one gets the sense that Purtill’s final analysis is that “thoughtless consumerism” outweighs “countless innovations” on the scale of human values:
Under the proper circumstances, [the British have] is a mature and useful perspective. Suffering—large and small—is an unavoidable feature of human existence. In the face of illness, loss, or heartbreak, the American insistence on looking on the bright side and fixing the problem can feel heartlessly clueless. Some things cannot be fixed.
Here’s what Purtill misses: Seeing a “bright side” shows that there is acceptance of suffering. We accept what is and seek to improve what can be changed. Why compound the loss of a loved one with the frustrations of a dryer that doesn’t work?
For that matter, why not work to reduce the amount of human suffering? Let’s turn our lens in the other direction and witness Charlie Gard, whose parents the British government told they could not try to save his life, even though they had the money and a doctor willing to attempt new methods for helping him. Where did the parents want to take the child for help? The United States.
Maybe it’s because I’m so thoroughly American that I can’t achieve an adequately “mature and useful” perspective, but I can’t quite see how innovating to fix problems while maintaining a fundamentally positive outlook on life is the “heartlessly clueless” attitude, here.
This clip from today’s Providence Journal “Political Scene” seems telling to me:
Asked by a TV reporter if she believed there was anything she “could learn from″ Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, with his 71 percent highest-in-the-nation approval rating, the 5-foot-3-inch Raimondo quipped:
“Maybe be taller? No.”
Doesn’t that response seem perfectly indicative of what she thinks of us, Rhode Island voters. Her lack of introspection suggests that she really doesn’t feel the approval of the people whom she’s supposed to be representing is all that important. After all, what do we know? The impression is that she simultaneously holds the “smaht people know best” view of governance and has her eye on a different voter pool — national voters.
Even the nature of her quip is insulting, insinuating that, for Rhode Island voters, the difference between the most popular governor in the country and one of the least popular is physical height. Yeah, “hey, guv,” you’re thwarted by the cruel fate of governing a shallow people.
Incidentally, just by way of a small correction, reporter Katherine Gregg writes that Raimondo has “43 percent approval and 47 disapproval, among those with an opinion.” That is incorrect. Those are the governor’s overall numbers, but 10% of survey respondents were unsure, so the percentages “among those with an opinion” are 48% approval and 52% disapproval.
Americans are still receiving daily updates about Russia’s interference in our elections, last year, beginning with the still-unattributed hacking and publication of Democrats’ emails. Followers of Tiverton politics, however, don’t have to go that far for their intrigue. As I write on Tiverton Fact Check:
The day before our Charter Review Commission (CRC) election, Deborah Scanlon Janick published on her Facebook page a string of private emails sent among some members of the town’s Budget Committee, not including her. Her explanation, as secretary of the committee, is that I “erroneously left [them] in [her] pile of attachments.” …
Her next move was to show them to Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto to ask whether the email chain violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Under state law, a quorum (usually a majority of a board) can’t communicate privately about official business because that would essentially be a secret meeting. …
In this case, there were five of us on the email chain out of 11 Budget Committee members, so Mr. DeSisto concluded we’d done nothing wrong. Nonetheless, Janick held on to the emails for five months and attempted to throw them like a grenade the day before an election, hoping to affect the outcome.
So, acting in her official capacity, the elected secretary of the Budget Committee took private emails that she knew weren’t meant to be shared and released them on her own Facebook page for political advantage. There’s nothing to the emails, but the folks in town who aren’t happy that taxes haven’t continued to climb faster than inflation are trying to compensate for the lack of controversy with dark insinuations that elected officials’ communicating is somehow overly secretive.
Unfortunately, it appears the only way to stop the union-progressive policy tide from further drowning families, businesses, and taxpayers is for Washington, D.C. style drama to create legislative paralysis in the Ocean State.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were Raimondo’s polling numbers, the “secret summit,” Montanaro under investigation, and Flanders shows he’s serious.
Paul Mirengoff, of PowerLine, notes that Secretary Ben Carson’s Housing and Urban Development department (HUD) is moving in a direction that should please anybody who was concerned about the implications of RhodeMap RI:
Here’s a reminder of why [even Trump critics on the Right should be happy that he beat Hillary Clinton]. Yesterday, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson announced that his agency will “reinterpret” the ultra-instrusive Obama housing rule known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). The rule was designed by the Obama administration to seize federal control over local zoning for the purpose of creating neighborhoods that comply with the left’s race-based vision of where people should live. We discussed it here, among other places.
Secretary Carson didn’t say exactly how he plans to “reinterpret” AFFH. However, he told the Washington Examiner that he doesn’t believe in the “manipulation” associated with the rule or with the burdens it imposes on local communities. As a candidate for president, he called it “a doomed-to-fail attempt to “legislate racial equality.”
Mirengoff is right to subsequently warn that “reinterpreting” a rule is a softer protection than simply canceling it, but a step in the right direction is clearly better than a jump in the wrong one, which a different administration might have brought about.
That point, however, brings us back to an inexhaustible theme that conservatives must wake up reminding ourselves: Our real work is cultural and in education. As long as we continue to allow the Left to pervert the minds of younger generations as if they are invading aliens, the assaults on our liberty will return like a plague every decade or so, when the politic mood shifts.
If the government can take a couple’s children away from them based on an undefined sense that they’re more likely than average to make mistakes, we’ve reached a state of totalitarianism that handles parenting as a privilege, not a right. Continuing one’s ancestral line must be at least as fundamental a right as working to persuade others to share one’s ideas and striving to perpetuate one’s belief system.
But Oregon appears to be pushing the boundaries:
For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.
Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.
One has to read a little between the lines, but it appears that the problem began with a bitter grandfather who didn’t like his daughter and had just lost his wife. In the outcome, however, this story may not be all that unusual:
Across the country, a national study estimates that somewhere between 40 percent and 80 percent of parents with intellectual disabilities lose their parental rights.
The topic certainly isn’t an easy one to discuss broadly, because few folks would want to insist on an absolute right to parent, even in cases of clear and immediate danger to children. However, if the standard is, as Samantha Swindler’s Oregonian article seems to imply, that a parent might fall asleep while lying next to a baby and periodically forgets to feed his dog, broad swaths of our society will be at risk of having children confiscated.
On this path, we can’t be far from government’s asserting a right to take children away from parents whose children might be at risk of learning undesired values.
Well, here’s perhaps the key political consequence for Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo upon her veto of legislation that would ensure that teachers and municipal employees are exempt from the state law limiting all government employment contracts to three years:
“I think that the classified ad is out: ‘Real Democrat wanted for governor of Rhode Island,”’ Robert Walsh, executive director of the National Education Association Rhode Island, said Thursday.
Much of my analysis of likely outcomes has been premised on Walsh’s previous statement that the 2014 election season had convinced his union that unity with Raimondo was important. The truce has expired, apparently, an result that I expected Raimondo to seek to avoid.
It’s pretty rich, though, for Walsh to break faith with Raimondo and divulge that she mentioned her donors during a private meeting that the two had. The NEA-RI’s PAC alone hands out $15,000 or more per year to state-level politicians, and that doesn’t count the combined total of every union local giving out money across the state, let alone individual members.
Hopefully Walsh was right a few months ago about the importance to progressives that they stick together. That way he and Raimondo can both lose.
The idea that evergreen contracts are needed to balance public-sector labor’s leverage with that of management ignores Rhode Island’s reality.
If we want to live under a government with the power to forbid children and their parents from seeing what therapeutic options might be available for unwanted feelings, I guess that’s a conversation that we can have, although I find myself on the side of the ACLU in worrying about giving legislators “wide latitude to ban unpopular medical treatments.” But if we’re going to have this conversation, we should do so with accurate information about what the bans cover, and Linda Borg’s Providence Journal article on Rhode Island’s new ban of “conversion therapy” fails on that count:
The bill makes it illegal in Rhode Island for licensed health care professionals to advertise or engage in conversion therapy for anyone under 18. It does not affect religious counselors or leaders — or adults who choose such a program.
That “does not affect” sentence is just not correct. Read this section of the law:
23-94-4. Prohibition on state funding for conversion therapy. No state funds, nor any funds belonging to a municipality, agency, or political subdivision of this state, shall be expended for the purpose of conducting conversion therapy, referring a person for conversion therapy, health benefits coverage for conversation therapy, or a grant or contract with any entity that conducts conversion therapy or refers individuals for conversion therapy.
This is separate from the section that bans “licensed professionals” from offering such therapy to minors, and it goes much farther. It covers “any entity that conducts… or refers individuals for conversion therapy.” So, while a licensed professional would only lose his or her Rhode Island license if he or she provides the therapy to minors, that professional would lose access to any state or local funds that somebody might complain subsides the therapy for for adults, as well as any “grant or contract” whatsoever, whether related to conversion therapy or not.
This would apply, as well, to any person, group, or organization that refers an adult to such a therapist. An aggressive judiciary could find within this language justification for removing tax exemption from any church that even suggests trying therapy to any church member.
This bill is your supposed representatives using your government to tell you what you must believe about the universe and your very self.
I’ll admit that I’m surprised that Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo vetoed the eternal contracts bill:
In a veto message that echoed the strenuous arguments raised by city and town leaders, Raimondo wrote: “Current Rhode Island law protects the taxpayers from being obligated indefinitely for contract provisions that, in the future, may not be affordable.
“The proposed legislation before me extinguishes this existing protection, hurting the public’s position in contract negotiations, and placing taxpayers at risk of being forever locked into contractual provisions they can no longer afford.”
Raimondo has seemed to me to make decisions on political grounds, and she’s in a precarious enough position that she can’t really afford to push away the teachers’ unions, which have been explicit about not intending to target her next time around. This action could change that.
It’ll be telling to watch the political play. If, for example, the General Assembly overrides the veto and the teachers’ unions (especially the National Education Association – Rhode Island) do nothing more than issue a strongly worded press release against the governor (which is already done), then it would indicate that there’s a political dance going on, meant to give the governor cover with taxpayer advocates and municipal leaders while not harming the unions.
As part of this picture, note that Raimondo “allowed a disability-pension bill that was also championed by organized labor to become law without her signature,” according to Kathy Gregg. Here the calculation is slightly different. She didn’t sign it, thereby providing herself a little cover with taxpayer advocates (being able to say she didn’t “support” it), but she didn’t veto it, saying it was simply a legal codification of existing practice. I think she’ll be proven wrong on that, inasmuch as the law now explicitly allows for work-related physical and mental illnesses to be grounds for a disability pension, but one could see how her calculation would be different.
I mentioned, yesterday, that John DePetro had different expectations for the likely outcome of the State Police investigation of state employee and labor-union prince Frank Montanaro, Jr., and his receipt of a college-tuition benefit to which he was dubiously entitled. Existence of the investigation came to light early this week, with the subject having been interviewed on Friday.
Well, Tim White and Ted Nesi published this yesterday afternoon:
Just a day after confirming the investigation, the Rhode Island State Police said Tuesday they have completed their examination of a top State House staffer who got about $50,000 in free tuition, and forwarded their findings to the attorney general.
What might a quick resolution of the investigation mean? It would seem that a law was either obviously broken or the State Police have passed along the nothing-to-see-here conclusion that I predicted.
In the balance of elections, Tiverton’s charter review commission is relatively obscure, but its importance this year is evidenced by the facts that 24 candidates ran for the nine available seats and the election brought around 150 more people to the polls than voted in Newport’s simultaneous Democrat primary for the state Senate seat vacated by former Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed.
The conclusion of Tiverton’s campaign, yesterday, saw the candidates endorsed by the Tiverton Taxpayers Association PAC sweep all nine available offices. The commission will spend a year reviewing the town’s Home Rule Charter (essentially the local constitution) and gathering feedback from residents and town officials, ultimately recommending changes that the Town Council should (and typically will) put on the November 2018 ballot. The election outcome has huge significance on the policy side and the political side.
On the policy side, the TTA candidates ran with a promise not to substantially modify the financial town referendum (FTR) method of setting a budget, which has produced tax increases under 1% for the last four years. The candidates also pledged to ensure that millions of dollars in revenue expected from the new Twin River casino currently under construction in town will be put through the regular budgeting process, rather than sectioned off beyond the reach of taxpayers’ annual vote.
On the politics side, the election marks a translation of TTA’s budget-election success into a more-traditional campaign for office, with an outcome more decisive than the group’s partial victory securing a large minority of Budget Committee seats in November (including one currently occupied by this writer).
The next challenge for the taxpayer group will be similar achievements during the regular election cycle, rather than special elections and spring referenda. The prospects are brightened by the fact that five of the nine winning candidates have not held public office in Tiverton before, and at least two of the five have shown an interest in political activity beyond the commission, with Richard Rom and Justin LaCroix having run for state senate and representative seats last year, ultimately unsuccessfully. In yesterday’s election, LaCroix was the highest vote-getter, with nearly 50% of the vote in the 24-person race.
Addendum (2:42 p.m., 7/19/17):
RI Future’s Steve Ahlquist makes the reasonable point that this post should mention my involvement with the Tiverton Taxpayers Association, with which I hold and have held various “official” positions, although the simpler truth of the matter is that I’m one of a handful of “core” members. The omission was in no way intended to mislead, but was premised on the expectation that most readers would know of my deep involvement with the group or, at the very least, that I’m sympathetic with it, whatever my involvement.
In that regard, such a “disclosure” would be similar to requiring Providence Journal reporters to mention their union affiliation any time they report on related labor unions. Of course, I’ve faulted them from time to time for not doing so, so given the specific nature of this post, I should have mentioned the affiliation.
During my weekly call today to the John DePetro Show on 1540 AM WADK, John and I disagreed, a little, on the news that, at Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s request, the State Police are investigating the process by which Frank Montanaro, Jr., got around $50,000 in free public-higher-education tuition as a benefit for a job that he no longer held with Rhode Island College.
The disagreement, minor as it was, involved John’s expectation that there’s legal fire behind the smoke of this issue and my skepticism that the State Police will find and pursue anything that’s actually a legal problem for Montanaro. John mentioned other legislators who’ve been nailed on legal challenges, but with some of the more-notable cases (Fox & Gallison), federal officials were involved, not just the state.
I guess I’ve just reduced my expectations for the State Police in recent years, based on various seemingly political decisions they’ve made. Maybe that’s fair, or maybe it’s not, but it’s my feeling.
A key point that I didn’t manage to make adequately on the radio is that Rhode Island has a dire need to start enforcing rules that aren’t quite laws. The moment Montanaro was found to have filed false reports in pursuit of his benefit, he ought to have been gone, whether or not it proved to be illegal. And to ensure that reform, we need something other than the State Police.
If the State Police come out and say that they found no evidence of criminal activity — however bad the whole thing might stink — that counts as absolution for crooked behavior. What we need is some other authority, like an inspector general or something, who can bridge that gap, both recommending legal prosecution and providing credible analysis that a particular deal did not seem to jibe with the spirit of a personnel policy.
A lot of corruption can go on between completely legit government activities and clearly illegal behavior. Our government officials have proven unwilling to enforce that gray area on the side of justice, so we need something more.
In the meantime, I’ll remain skeptical.
Rhode Island House Minority Leader Patricia Morgan (R, Coventry, Warwick, West Warwick) asked the administration of Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo for some information about a public relations firm’s activities placing stories about Rhode Island in out-of-town publications at taxpayer expense. Here’s the response:
Our office completed a review of the requested materials. There is one document responsive to your request but is being withheld, as it is not deemed public. This document is an internal e-mail thread reflecting work product of the Governor’s staff.
The next paragraph laughably invites the person requesting the information to appeal the decision to Raimondo Chief of Staff Brett Smiley, a left-wing activist.
Given the notable, noteworthy, and much-noted appearances of our governor in out-of-state publications that were explicitly promoting her, not Rhode Island, one would think her administration would be eager to prove that it isn’t buying that coverage with taxpayer dollars. The lack of transparency will inevitably make Rhode Islanders suspicious that this may be exactly what the governor is doing.
An activist having a breakdown on Jeff Jacoby’s doorstep illustrates the importance of maintaining perspective and balance in political life.
When it comes to Don Junior’s meeting with a Russian lawyer, it seems a lot of the key questions, the “and so”s, are being left out of the arguments.
A few days ago, I noted that Maine’s waiters and waitresses had actually organized to fight against a minimum wage increase. Now Jazz Shaw has spotted a story out of Maine that messes with another mainstream narrative. Apparently, when the number of available immigrants for low-end work hits a ceiling, employers will find ways to make the positions into jobs that Americans will do:
The article describes some of the “creative ways to attract local labor” and they include things such as offering flexible hours and even… (gasp) higher wages. If your business is booming all summer to the degree that you can’t hire enough workers to meet the demand, then in a normal capitalist system the demand for labor would drive up the cost. Higher wages attract more and better workers… it’s really that simple. And if that enhanced compensation package is attracting more employees locally, why are you relying on the H-2B program to begin with?
The economic questions with immigration are not simplistic. Fluid immigration is arguably a subsidy to employers; rigid immigration is arguably a subsidy to workers. (Although, of course, a sense of fairness does seem to make the former argument more natural than the latter.)
As we work through these policies, though, deceptive rhetoric is kind of like a subsidy to those who dominate the media. Ultimately, there’s no such thing as a “job Americans won’t do.” There are just jobs that Americans won’t do for the compensation that employers want to pay. Immigration policy, in this regard, should balance the needs of employers who can add to the economy if they have lower labor prices with an appropriate aversion to allowing global poverty to drive down salaries in the United States.
For my weekly call-in on John DePetro’s WADK 1540 AM show, last week, the topics were the budget intrigue at the State House, the labor unions’ textbook thuggishness in East Greenwich, and the popularity of senators.
The Ocean State is engaged in a battle of visions.
Tiverton goes through this every few years, but it never gets easier to take.
This latest time around, a local police lieutenant, Timothy Panell, was (let’s limit it to) “accused” of leading his shift in a regular “quiet time,” during which, “allegedly,” his car could often be found at his house. The many charges brought against him, as described in the latest Newport Daily News article on the matter, were “obtaining money under false pretenses and filing false overtime slips.”
As I pointed out on Tiverton Fact Check back in 2014, before the investigation, overtime regularly made Panell the second-highest-paid employee in town, “earning” well over $100,000. So, here’s the insult to injury from the Newport Daily News:
Because [the 47-year-old has been permitted simply to retire], he is also eligible for payment for unused vacation time, unused sick time and unused personal days. The unused vacation time totals $5,266, unused sick time totals $15,784 and unused personal days total $752, according to Town Administrator Paul McGreevy.
The town will continue to pay for his Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthmate Coast to Coast health insurance at a monthly cost of $1,908, McGreevy said [until he is 65]. The contract states that should a retiree get a job that has equal or better health coverage, they must inform the town so it can stop the coverage.
I think local elected officials need to take a look at the definition of “settled.” Maybe the health insurance would have been a step too far for the accused, but could the Town Council really not insist that it would not settle if it meant a cop accused of fraudulently filing for overtime and taking money under false pretenses walked away with a parting check for $21,802 based on “unused” time off? Seriously, how in the world does our electoral system stick us with “leaders” like this?
In case anybody familiar with the area wants to know, the Town Council members who voted to “settle” — defined, apparently, as “abuse taxpayers in order to make an uncomfortable issue go away” — were:
- Council President Joan Chabot
- John Edwards the Fifth (son of Democrat Representative John Edwards the Fourth)
- Randy Lebeau
- Christine Ryan
The end of the June brought the usual confusion and back room dealing in the General Assembly’s closing days, but an important bill was passed without any real public discussion.
Alright, it’s Saturday afternoon, and the sun has made an appearance, and I spent the day moving furniture, and I have to spend the evening helping out with a Bingo night, so cut me a little slack, here. I couldn’t help but chuckle (Chortle? Guffaw?) at this Ted Nesi tweet:
@GinaRaimondo said after Musk talk she’s less concerned on AI as civilizational threat + more on how many more jobs will soon be automated.
Well, gee, governor, you’d better get right on ushering in minimum wage increases and progressives’ mandatory paid time off legislation! That’ll hold back the tide of automation for sure!
N.B.: If you didn’t catch the sarcasm in the previous paragraph, watch this:
And that’s before we get to the fact that one of Governor Raimondo’s corporate-crony taxpayer giveaways was to GE Digital, which forces Rhode Islanders to subsidize efforts to automate their jobs.
Caitlin Dewey recently reported in the Washington Post on an interesting turn of events in Maine. A referendum increased the minimum wage for waitstaff, but then waiters and waitresses rallied to undo it:
James Dill, a college professor and the Democratic state senator from Maine’s 5th District, received hundreds of emails and phone calls from unhappy servers, he said. He initially voted for the ballot referendum because he supports a higher minimum wage. After the outcry, he signed onto a Republican measure to lower the tipped wage down again.
That measure passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 12 on June 7, and the House on June 13. Governor LePage signed the bill into law last week, a spokesman for his office said, though the signing was not publicly announced for several days. It’s expected to go into effect in January 2018.
“I realize not everyone is in the same boat,” said Dill. “But the ones who called me were saying, ‘I make $20 to $25 per hour, I’ve bought a house with that income, I support my kids — it’s really important that you don’t mess with my tips.’”
Even with a subject as apparently narrow as the minimum wage for tipped restaurant worker, legislators can’t possibly know all of the consequences of changing policy. Maybe the law works well for some and not for others; who ultimately has the right to decide between them?
The problem, I think, is that people too often rely on general impressions and anecdotes or, at best, broad statistical averages that don’t give a real sense of the lives people lead. This is one area in which the market sets prices better than the government can, and in which legislators should accept reality and seek other ways to resolve circumstances they see as problems.
The question of whether a public school ought to be able to require some social media compliance raises the question of what rights must be guaranteed at every level throughout the country… and the world.
Uncovering the Dropbox folder with compromising photographs of female students may prove to have been an illegal act on the part of Burrillville High School.
Clearly the Valley Breeze’s Ethan Shorey is unhappy with me, but he’s still forcing me to figure out why.