Art/Culture

Jill Greenberg Makes Glenn Beck Cry

Posted by on June 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm. NO Comments :

Last year, photographer Jill Greenberg became the subject of a mini-controversy over some less than flattering pictures of John McCain. The Republican media machine, led by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, condemned her for “not manipulating” the photos to make McCain look better. The vitriol directed at her was intense and threatened to curtail her access to conservative public figures.

Enter Glenn Beck. Greenberg just completed an assignment for GQ Magazine that features her photos of a sobbing Beck. This is a little more than ironic in that Greenberg is famous for her series of crying children:

What could be more appropriate than Beck portrayed in the same manner as the wailing toddlers with whom he has so much in common? He is just as infantile and ill-informed as the crybabies Greenberg previously captured so movingly.

It is also notable that the man who insists that his tears are genuine can put on a performance like this. He has previously asserted that he could never fake the emotion that pours out of him when contemplating the ruin of America by evil liberals. He told a Philadelphia Magazine reporter who questioned his sincerity that…

“If you’re going to make that case, I deserve a frickin’ Emmy. That’s unbelievable acting.”

I’m not sure I agree with his assessment of his acting skills. In fact, the reason so many people suspect him of feigning sentimentality is that he is such a bad actor. If he were any good at it, no one would be questioning him.

Under George W. Bush, Republicans peddled a flavor of right-wing ideology they called “compassionate conservatism.” It was a transparent ploy to make us believe that the party of selfishness actually cared. But don’t let Beck’s weepy punditry fool you into thinking that he gives a damn about anything but his own place on the media throne. He envisions himself a leader of a peasant uprising. He spent much of his show today haranguing his audience for not being out in the streets fighting for…well, whatever it is that Beck tells them to fight for. He begins every show by exhorting his viewers to, “Come on, follow me.”

Thank goodness for artists who can express the deeper meaning of their subjects with honesty and insight. Jill Greenberg deserves our gratitude for eliciting this vision of Beck – one that captures both his childishness and his superficial dishonesty.

Are Conservatives Getting Stupider?

Posted by on May 14, 2009 at 11:32 pm. 1 Comments :

“I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States.”

Those are the words of Judge Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner is also one of the founders of the Chicago school of law and economics, a cornerstone of modern conservatism.

I’m not sure that I agree that there was ever a vital conservative movement, but Posner’s essay this past weekend offers an interesting inside perspective of the decline of conservative intellectualism. You know that there are troublesome tempests taking shape when an icon of Posner’s stature says this:

“…it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising […] By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.”

Since the fall of 2008, things have only gotten worse. The Palin/Plumber contingent has grown to include Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon), Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Miss California. Whatever pretense held by a previous generation of conservative thought leaders (i.e. William F. Buckley) has been abandoned by the contemporary crop of conservatives who prefer style over substance. Their superficial aspirations are exposed by an agenda that values public relations over policy.

Recently Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference, advised his party peers to cut their legislative staff to make room for communications aides. And bigshots like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Eric Cantor launched an effort to re-brand the Republican Party, as if branding were their problem and not their paucity of ideas. In this environment, how do Republicans recruit a new generation of policymakers capable of contributions more profound than abstinence-only family planning?

Posner’s focus on this issue is not the first light out of the right-wing wind tunnel. Conservative stalwarts like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, and Arlen Specter have articulated similar laments as regards the right’s brain drain. I, myself, have long been frustrated by the apparent drift in American culture toward an exaltation of averagism as a superior alternative to reason and intellect. It is this trend that allowed an inarticulate, persistently mediocre, dynastic runt to pass himself off as a brush-clearing cowboy and assume the presidency. It is a mindset that defines anyone subjected to higher learning as elitist and out of touch and, therefore, unfit for public service. During last year’s campaign, I wrote a handbook for electoral success in this new era of self-imposed idiocy. It’s a concise guide for how to appeal to an electorate that has been deliberately stupefied by a congregation of conservative anti-intellectuals, and a compliant press corps.

It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers like Posner with the courage to tell the truth about their colleagues, the honesty to face their movement’s shortcomings, and the insight to understand the consequences. It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers who actually think. Unfortunately, what thinking conservative thinkers think is that today’s conservatives don’t think.

The Pre-Obituary Hate Thread

Posted by on May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm. 15 Comments :

George W. Bush: “History? We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

This past weekend, Jack Kemp, a giant of Reagan-era conservatism passed away. The news has been covered with an almost uniformly reverential tone, no matter the venue. Even from the most avowedly partisan Democratic sources, there was abundant praise and sympathy from all but a few insensitive weasels. And that’s as it should be, whether regarding Kemp, or William F. Buckley, or Tony Snow, etc.

Death is without a doubt the single most non-partisan issue that any of us will ever face. No amount of devotion to the second amendment or global warming will be sufficient to filibuster the grim reaper. And while mortality observes the purest form of equality, it is not in the remotest sense democratic. We must all comply with its laws, but no one gets to vote. Nature is such a Fascist.

So as time collects its due from amongst life’s loitering souls, those of us still queued up react to the passing of our earthly cousins. For the most part we are respectful and reserved. We follow the dictum that prohibits us from “speaking ill of the dead.” Whether the deceased is someone with whom we have affinity or hostility, we share the knowledge of our common fate and withhold judgment.

But no such forbiddance precludes us from ripping the living to shreds.

I can’t help but wonder what our reaction would be to the passing of certain individuals whom we regard as patently evil. Would we be as generous with our sympathy upon hearing that Donald Rumsfeld kicked the bucket? Would we exhibit the same tolerance for those responsible for lying us into a war that snuffed out the lives of hundreds of thousands? Would there be an R.I.P. thread for Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney? And what about George W. Bush himself?

Would we struggle to find redeeming qualities in folks who so resolutely brought pain and tragedy to so many? Would we be considerate of their mourning families? How would our demeanor change from what we would say about them today, compared to what we would say about them in hindsight?

I, for one, believe that there is a special place in Hell (if I believed in Hell) reserved for the mass murderers of BushCo. I could care less about their eternal souls, other than to hope that they suffer. The only sympathy I have for their families is due to their having been cursed with such despicable relatives.

This is not to say that I presently wish death upon anyone. And, despite the tone, it is not even vengeance that I seek. It is more something like justice (which, by the way, is something that we can still achieve while the perpetrators live). The question is, if I can articulate the harsh thoughts that I have above, while the subjects are still enjoying the fruit of their atrocities, could I still do so upon their demise? The answer is, probably not.

The impropriety of disparaging those who have shuffled off is so ingrained into our culture that anyone who engaged in it would be immediately ostracized. It is nearly irrelevant if someone practiced Satanism yesterday. If they die tomorrow society expects you to reassess your judgment and say something nice about the devil.

Well, it isn’t tomorrow yet. So we are still free to wail on the dastardly denizens of doom that torment us. And we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to bitch at the fiends who drove our nation into an unnecessary and illegal war; who tainted and trivialized our Constitution; who sanctioned torture; who continue to befoul our planet; who value wealth over human dignity and compassion. We should get it off our chests now, loudly and with conviction. We should pound them into pulp and show them no mercy.

Why? Because tomorrow they may be dead and we’ll have to bite our tongues.

The Horror Of A Laughing President

Posted by on March 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm. 4 Comments :

It’s really sort of pathetic how utterly humorless modern conservatives have become. Following Barack Obama’s interview last night on 60 Minutes, a torrent of indignation was released across the mediasphere that blew past Politico, Drudge, and countless right-wing blogs. What had Obama done to unleash such fury, even causing interviewer Steve Kroft to inquire if Obama was “punch drunk?” He laughed. Yep, that’s it. He laughed.

To any rational viewer, the moment merely demonstrated the President’s amusement of the relentless curiosity of media figures that don’t get it. At worst, he was just using laughter as a stress reliever. That’s something that many real people do during anxious times. For critics who have been hammering him for weeks about being too glum, it is absurd for them now to assert that a gentle laugh suggests that, all of a sudden, he is too flippant and detached.

All of this fits right in with the sorrowful character of conservatives. They were dismayed when they thought Obama did not do enough to assuage their grief. Now they are disturbed that he is not exhibiting enough grief of his own. Either way they are consumed by their incessant grieving and blaming it all on Obama.

The lack of humor on the part of the right is reaching epidemic proportions. Their comic heroes are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. How sad is that? Last week Tucker Carlson presumed to lecture Jon Stewart on the art of comedy. This weekend, Bill O’Reilly’s column attempted to bring the funny, but missed miserably. The article is a collection of fake headlines (something O’Reilly and Fox News should be adept at), aimed at mocking the liberal media. But there are two significant problems with O’Reilly’s comic foray. First, it isn’t remotely funny. Second, the only thing he succeeds at making a mockery of is himself. In the first paragraph he says:

O’Reilly: The other day, left-wing muckraker Seymour Hersh went on MSNBC and said he had information, provided by the usual anonymous sources, that Dick Cheney was running an assassination squad out of the White House.

However, the Pulitzer Prize winning Hersh never went on MSNBC with this story. So in an article seeking to ridicule the liberal media for making up news stories, O’Reilly actually made up a story of his own in the part of the article that he presented as factual. Is there any part of his wretched reality that doesn’t put satire to shame?

So where are the funny conservatives? Where is the right’s Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Chris Rock, Tina Fey, George Carlin (RIP), etc.? Is Rush going to have to be both the head of the Republican Party and the chief conservative comic? Or will it be the indecipherable Dennis Miller or Fox’s Greg Gutfield, who just got a few yucks at the expense of dead Canadian soldiers? There is, of course, the hysterical escapism of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but if you don’t already suffer from acute paranoia, do you really want to assume that risk?

It really is pathetic how desperate and forlorn the right has become. They appear to have nothing left but to invent outrage where non exists, and to cling to leaders who offer only obstacles. And when the human spirit requires uplifting more than ever, they are stuck with clowns who have painted on permanent sneers. And even worse, their melancholy is magnified merely by witnessing the horror of a laughing President. It makes me sad just thinking about it.

Are Artists Real People?

Posted by on February 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm. 2 Comments :

Believe it or not, there are actually living relics of the Dark Ages who have the audacity to publicly wonder as to whether artists are real people. One of them is Georgia’s Republican Congressman Jack Kingston who, addressing what he felt were wasteful provisions of the stimulus bill, said the following:

“We have real people out of work right now and putting $50 million in the NEA and pretending that’s going to save jobs as opposed to putting $50 million in a road project is disingenuous.”

Someone needs to tell Rep. Kingston that some of the real people who are out of work are artists, and that artists are more than the celebrities whose fame creates thousands of jobs. They are people who write textbooks as well as novels. They design ads for local businesses to help them to prosper. They create products in every industrial field, which puts other people to work manufacturing them. What’s more, some of those who are out of work are real people who have labored in jobs that support the arts like electricians, caterers, carpenters, truck drivers, seamstresses, ushers, janitors, printers, and accountants.

Arts = JobsKingston should surf over to the web site of AmericansForTheArts.org, where he would learn that 5.7 million people are employed in the arts; that the arts occupy a $166 billion chunk of our economy; that the arts generate almost $30 billion in taxes.

Kingston might then be able to figure out that $50 million is a pretty cheap way of putting millions of real people to work and boosting local economies across the country. Then he could tell his pal Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) to stop asking stupid questions like this one:

“…what does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs in Indiana?”

The stimulus bill, as passed by the House, contained the NEA grant. In the Senate, however, it was removed by an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that lumped arts funding in with a bunch of other projects. The amendment passed 73-24 with the votes of some supposedly art-friendly members such as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Bob Casey, and Russ Feingold. It stipulated that…

None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.

At this point I think it would be appropriate to note that Coburn’s daughter, Sarah, is a budding opera singer. She will be opening in November at the Los Angeles Opera playing in Handel’s “Tamerlano” opposite Placido Domingo. The LA Opera has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NEA over the years, but today, like so many arts enterprises, they are in dire straits. Domingo, the Opera’s general director, deferred his salary to reduce costs. Last month they announced that they would have to…

“…lay off 17 employees, stage fewer performances and reduce its operating budget by a quarter to cope with falling donations and reduced endowment income.”

For now, Tamerlano is still on the Opera’s calendar. But by November it may be a different story. I’m sure the Senator’s daughter/diva will be fine. I’m not so sure that the same can be said of the workers laid off by this facility, or hundreds of others – to say nothing of the related workers and small businesses that depend on these venues and other artistic enterprises. They number in the millions and, contrary to the insensitive blathering of Pence, Coburn, and Kingston, they are real people.

Update: Arts Recovery Funds Restored in Economic Stimulus Bill [Woo hoo]

AP Seeks Bailout From Shepard Fairey

Posted by on February 5, 2009 at 11:56 am. NO Comments :

Obama HopeIn the course of last year’s presidential campaign it was impossible to avoid an image that became irreversibly associated with Barack Obama. The work by Shepard Fairey was everywhere, distributed by the artist, the campaign, and by millions of individuals who, with Fairey’s consent, downloaded and printed the “HOPE” poster and plastered it on every available wall.

Apparently, it was impossible to avoid by everyone except the Associated Press, who seem to have just found out about it and are now seeking credit and compensation. They claim the work was derived from their copyrighted photo. In fact, Fairey admits that the photo was used as the source for his work. The question is whether it was “fair use.”

Now, there are plenty of people who would criticize Fairey for his tendency to take inspiration from the work of other artists. But in this case, the claim is beyond absurd. The derivative work was plainly an artistic representation of the original and was executed as constitutionally protected, free, political speech. And, according to Fairey, it was entirely non-commercial, with proceeds going to the Obama campaign.

This action by the AP is certain to further tarnish the reputation of the Conventional Media that is already suffering from a deficit of respect. You would have to wonder why they waited until after the campaign; after the image was globally recognized; after its inclusion in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery; for the AP to assert its claim. Are they merely hoping to benefit from the success of the image that was achieved without any effort on their part? Are they so hard-up for cash that they have taken to suing artists to keep their struggling enterprise afloat?

Surely the AP’s legal team is aware that they will have to show that they suffered financial harm in order to claim damages. That will be a hard case to make since, more likely, Fairey’s work has enhanced the value of the AP photo beyond anything they could have accomplished on their own.

McCain NOPEBut the big question here is: Why won’t anyone sue ME? I’ve been working my ass off promoting a variation on Fairey’s theme directed at John McCain. It is derivative of both Fairey’s art and a photo (of which I no longer know the source) that was probably copyrighted, so I have a double infringement liability. Fairey is already a wealthy artist whose work is published, collected, and displayed in galleries and museums. I, on the other hand, am trying to scrape up rent money and put my artwork on bus stop benches or telephone poles or anywhere else it can be seen. I need the fucking publicity!

It must be great to be AP and let somebody else, in fact, millions of somebody elses, do their work for them and then collect after the fact.

A Stimulus Bill For The Arts

Posted by on February 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm. NO Comments :

As the economy continues to wobble, and Americans face the bleakness of a looming depression, Washington is cobbling together a stimulus package designed to restore the economy and create jobs. The overwhelming majority of the $850 billion proposal is allocated to infrastructure spending and the rescue and reform of financial institutions and the manufacturing base.

Setting aside the merits of the bill as a whole, which reasonable people can debate, the political response to it is shaping up as just another partisan dogfight. Republicans are flailing away at anything they think they can disparage as wasteful, whether or not it actually is.

One example of this, that is close to my heart, is a $50 million grant to the National Endowment for the Arts. That amounts to about 0.006 of one percent of the total bill. That hasn’t stopped Republicans like Mike Pence from trying to use it to torpedo the whole package. But this minuscule appropriation actually has a valid purpose and can produce value that far exceeds its cost. While it’s easy for Dark Agists in Washington to target the arts for political gain, the truth is that art in our communities and schools is essential to both our economic and mental health.

In our efforts to get America working again, it should be remembered that artists are being hurt by the present economic slump along with everyone else. Perhaps more so, in that they are often the first to be cast off by belt-tightening employers and consumers. As such, they are no less deserving of a place in the recovery.

In the last depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration which, amongst other things, created work for 40,000 American artists. Those jobs resulted in projects that lifted the economic prospects of their communities by making them more livable and promoting trade and tourism. And they also contributed to a cultural Renaissance by documenting society’s pain, struggles, and victories. In addition there was an emphasis on arts education, which produced a generation of more well-rounded and literate citizens with an appreciation for the arts and the solace and inspiration they invoke.

Support for the arts is a critical part of our nation’s recovery and its character. It is what defines and preserves our history and our spirit. It propels us forward in good times and consoles us when hardships weigh us down. It is our essence, our connection to one another, to our ancestors, and to our heirs.

John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies is spearheading a campaign to advance government support for the arts. He is calling for more funding as well as a cabinet-level Secretary of Arts and Culture. The online petition for this movement already has over 4,600 signatures. You can add yours here: One Percent for the Arts

Martin Luther King: A Creative Rebel

Posted by on January 19, 2009 at 10:50 am. NO Comments :

The significance of this Martin Martin Luther King Jr. day takes on a new meaning with the awareness that tomorrow an historic milestone in American history will occur. The first African-American president is as potent a validation of King’s dream as anything I can imagine.

But there are still battles ahead. Contrary to the declarations by some (at Fox News) that the election of Barack Obama is evidence that the struggles for equality are over, last year’s campaign actually brought out some of the darkest expressions of prejudice ever made publicly. We must not forget that many of the opponents of Obama’s candidacy were overtly racist. Obama’s electoral victory was not unanimous, and although it obviously cannot be said that every John McCain voter was voting against Obama because of his race, there were certainly some of those millions who did just that.

Still, Obama’s election goes a long way toward a realization of King’s dream. It is an epic event that is both a frightful burden and an unparalleled opportunity. It’s too bad King couldn’t be here to celebrate along with us, but our reflections on him help to keep the dream alive. Following are excerpts from the article I wrote last year that still convey a personal expression of the impact King had on me, as a young artist.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Today as we celebrate the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., millions of Americans will reflect on the impact his life had. That impact, for many, is very personal. There is much for which to be grateful in the gifts of hope and justice that he left behind. For me there was a speech that was particularly transforming. It was his public entry into the anti-war movement, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. As a twelve year old peace activist and an aspiring artist, one sentence stood out and helped to shape the next 40 years of my life:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

That’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, after all). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The value of art in movement building stems from the uniquely personal relationship that binds us to works of insight and honesty. Speeches and op/eds will never evoke the intimacy of artistic expression. That’s why, despite protestations of the Cultural Imperialists, artists remain relevant and influential. At its best, art inspires, motivates and unites. It’s even better when it incites and provokes.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[W]e must persist in producing thoughtful, provocative work that leads us to a world with more liberty, more peace, more justice, and fuller hearts and bellies. We must confront the censors and the bullies who fear our voices and would silence them. And we must seek new and aggressive forms of distribution that spreads our messages from the Internet to the Interstate and beyond. As the activist/artist Vladimir Mayakovsky said:

“Art must not be concentrated in dead shrines called museums. It must be spread everywhere…on the streets, in the trams, factories, workshops, and in the workers homes.”

And as Dr. King declared, we, as artists, must be prepared to match actions with words and use our talents to manifest a world that reflects our dreams.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The extraordinary juxtaposition of the King holiday and the Obama inauguration present a profound opportunity to look both backward and forward at the same time. Backward to the contributions and sacrifices of King and an entire generation of freedom seekers. And forward to a new era of hope for justice and harmony.

Celebrate today. Get back to work tomorrow.

Smithsonian Corrects Text Accompanying Bush Portrait

Posted by on January 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm. NO Comments :

Yesterday I reported that a description associated with the newly unveiled portrait of George W. Bush at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery was grossly misleading. It said that the Bush administration was…

“…marked by a series of catastrophic events” including “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote a letter correctly pointing out that 9/11 DID NOT lead to the war in Iraq. The war was an unrelated initiative of the Bush White House, despite the fact that they attempted to tie the two issues together through a web of lies and innuendo.

Today the Gallery director, Martin Sullivan responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter, agreeing to amend the language:

“Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq…I appreciate your concern, however, about the words ‘led to’. We will revise the label and delete the words ‘led to.'”

Mr. Sullivan is to be congratulated for his prompt response, his open mind, and his integrity. Well, that is, pending the outcome of the revision. But his acknowledgment that the two events had no “causal connection” is evidence that he is striking the proper tone.

Chalk this one up as a victory for honest representations of history and for the diligence of public servants like Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders Sets The Smithsonian Straight

Posted by on January 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm. NO Comments :

It’s pretty sad when a respected national institution like the Smithsonian fails to uphold the minimum scholarly standards that its reputation implies.

The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery recently unveiled the portrait of George W. Bush that will hang in the museum. Accompanying the portrait will be a description of Bush’s tenure that says it was…

“…marked by a series of catastrophic events” including “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Of course the catastrophic events of 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Well, unless you consider the fact that the Bush administration conspired to exploit the tragedy in order to justify their previously determined agenda of aggression against Iraq and other Middle East oil producers. By now everyone knows that the claims about WMDs and connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda were lies. For the Smithsonian to be so careless in their exposition of these events is an irresponsible mangling of history.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has sent a letter to the portrait gallery director, Martin Sullivan, objecting to the language. The letter says in part…

“The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq. What President Bush was telling us (before the war) was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was somehow in collusion with Al Qaeda. Those were misstatements of fact, as even President Bush has since acknowledged. […] You can agree or disagree with the war. I simply think it’s important that history not be rewritten. Politicians spin all the time, but a wonderful national institution like the National Portrait Gallery should stick to the facts.”

The Smithsonian has not yet responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter. In the meantime, it might be useful to weigh in on the matter by letting the gallery know that people are paying attention and that accuracy in the depiction of American history is important. Particularly as it relates to matters of war and the trustworthiness of our government representatives at the highest levels.

Email the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery Exhibitions group and demand that they tell the truth: NPGExhibitions@si.edu. And please be respectful in your communications. Gallery director Sullivan has a distinguished record that includes this honorable act after the Bush administration permitted Iraq’s historical treasures to be stolen and destroyed:

“It didn’t have to happen,” Sullivan told Reuters. “In a pre-emptive war that’s the kind of thing you should have planned for.

Sullivan said that just prior to resigning in protest from his post at that time as chairman of the U.S. President’s Advisory Committee on Cultural Property. He had been appointed to that office by President Clinton. Also, as Gallery director Sullivan acquired the iconic “HOPE” poster of Barack Obama by Shepard Fairey. That’s the very same poster made internationally famous by my John McCain “NOPE” parody of it.

Victory Update: Gallery director Martin Sullivan has responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter conceding the inaccurate language and promising to revise it:

“Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq…I appreciate your concern, however, about the words ‘led to’. We will revise the label and delete the words ‘led to.'”

Much thanks go out to Mr. Sullivan and, of course, Sen. Sanders.