Teppichfressungen In Our Schools

A young product of BlueState America’s education system was awarded a state art prize last week for a school project that equated W to everyone’s favorite Teppichfresser (carpet-chewer).

Jeffrey Eden, 17, insisted he was trying to make comparisons between the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the German blitzkrieg without actually equating Hitler to Bush, the Providence Journal reported.But his piece, titled "Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself," immediately prompted a complaint after it was displayed at a store with other winners of the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards.

Check out the picture. Lovely.



Color me surprised, but I can’t think why I should be. This sort of thing was only a matter of time. I don’t fault the young man—although it would be satisfying if we still had press gangs and could “induct” him into the Marines and send him to Al-Anbar Province to experience a slice of life as it really is outside the Great American Parentheses.

No, I fault his teachers, school administrators, and everyone else involved in the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards program. Undoubtedly, they didn’t think twice about propagating this treasonous calumny. The kid was just cutely aping what they’d all taught him for years. This is just another symptom of the moral bankruptcy of many of our school systems that ChefJef wrote of a few days ago. (Update: Mark Steyn has further good thoughts here.)

It seems to me today's Teppichfresseren are the Lefts. Commentators are pointing out how things like this go hand in hand with things like the Eason Jordan scandal. These folks are preaching to the choir and that’s all they know how to do. Unfortunately for the Left, that’s probably all they’ll ever know how to do. This type of thinking has been entrenched for a long time—take film critic Pauline Kael’s remark back in 1980: “I don’t know how Reagan won—I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

One listener on Bill Bennett’s program this morning was right to point out how such things may have gone on unnoticed for a long time, but have recently been brought under scrutiny by indymedia like talk radio and the blogs. The era in which this sort of thing could be propagated without others noticing is over. Predictably, those whose rocks have been turned over are already crying “McCarthyism.” (Update: More of same here.)

(BTW, my twelve-year-old daughter put together a more professional looking presentation in a day. I guess they’re too busy teaching political correctness in RI to actually teach “art.”)

Monk

Updates: This post engendered a long thread, reproduced in its entirety below:

Okay, the "art" piece was cheesy, insofar as it purports to be a "work of art." But I don't see how it is treasonous. If the guy truly thinks that Bush's war policy is similar to Hitler's, how is he a traitor? Just because W is the President of the United States doesn't mean to oppose him, be it on one issue, several issues, or all issues, is somehow treasonous.

Furthermore, there is a grain of truth to the assertion. Am I saying Bush is a Nazi? Of course not; that's insane. But, the German blitz - among other things -was imperialistic in nature. The "Bush Doctrine," as it were, is also imperialistic. Now, whether or not the Doctrine is justifiable is another question. A pre-emptive strike is a pre-emptive strike; some are justifiable while others aren't, but those that are justified do not, as a result of so being justified, somehow become "un-preemptive."

My concern, though, is two-fold. The first is the apparent lack of academic standards at the boys' school. Again, his work, under any objective art analysis, is terrible. I sincerely hope that academic standards in other disciplines at his school are much more stringently maintained. In addition, given the lack of artistry reflected in his work, there is a strong possibility that the work received high marks because the evaluator(s) found its political message agreeable. This disturbs me.

On the other hand, I am guessing there are many people who would find the work disagreeable, yet similarly have no problem with the occasional "FemiNazi" rantings of Rush Limbaugh - that is when he is sober enough to babble-on. This equally disturbs. And therein, my-friends, is the real issue here. PARTISANSHIP. Partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that is so strong that otherwise intelligent, reasonable people either love Bush and hate Clinton, or hate Bush and love Clinton, when both are palpably pathetic and not remotely worthy of what was, for a time, an Office of passionate statesman.

Chefjef

Hans was next:

I'm truly glad that this guy's brain is not totally oatmeal. Yes the standards of the school are questionable. But more important is this guys belief of any similarity between the German Blitzkrieg and our war in Iraq. I'm not sure why liberals insist on comparing Bush to Hitler and our policies to those of the Nazis. The last time I checked, there weren't any concentration camps being built in Iraq. Our national policies have never included the systematic elimination of an entire race of people.

It is most unfortunate that these idiot morons actually believe this crap. This poor idiot 17 year-old kid should really just stick his head in the microwave now and get it over with. Although the kid is not necessarily a traitor (yet), he is definitely an idiot mouthpiece of the liberal crap that he hears everyday in school. Let's just hope that we can change his mind before he produces a kid even dumber and ignorant than he is.

My head hurts.

Hans

Chefjef posted a riposte:

Your comments, while appreciated, edify my concerns about partisanship. You saw the words "Bush" and "Hitler" together and got a little miffed.

To clarify, I never compared the policies of Bush to the policies of the Third Reich; that would be a broad stroke, to say the least, and, obviously, beyond the pale of reason. The "Blitz" was a particular war tactic, and while it was practiced by a mad-man whose total paradigm included world domination and the wholesale slaughter of a race of people, that does not somehow render any particular aspect of the Blitz, as an innovative (at the time) war tactic, not subject to analysis, via comparing and contrasting, to other war tactics. If I were to compare or contrast Rommel's desert offensive strategies to Patton's, would you accuse me of calling Patton a "Jew-hater?"

I disagree with most of Bush's foreign policy. But I don't think he is a mad-man, or an idiot or any such thing. I just disagree with him. Nevertheless, the Blitz, as a war tactic, has, as ONE of it's aspects, a pre-emptive element similar to the manner in which we attacked Iraq (keeping in mind that striking Iraq, as a policy idea, has been outlined and pushed by several key people in Bush's administration long before there was a Bush administration). Whether you like it or not, this is an inescapable truth. How anyone can take that micro-analysis and somehow induce that it must derive from a macro-analysis which concludes that U.S. middle east policy is similar to Nazi Germany war policy is absolutely beyond me, unless I presume such a person to be an extreme political and/or ideological partisan. And it is THAT type of partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that makes me fear for the Republic. I may be wrong,
and if so, I SINCERELY apologize, but some of your language - specifically the several points of name calling in your response - lean me toward believing I am correct on the partisan issue.

Incidentally, I am not a liberal. Also, while I agree with you that we have not had a national policy centered around the systematic elimination of an entire race, I do think it is an arguable point; I am familiar with several Native Americans who have made strong, reasoned arguments to the contrary.

Chefjef

And finally, Veep weighed in:

OK, one question, maybe two...

Since when did spreading democracy mean a government is "imperialistic?" imperialism, suggests a government spreading an empire. An empire is run by a emperor or monarch. Since our country is a democratic republic, we cannot by nature be imperialistic. My problem with the whole art thing is that this kid can so easily without any question display his WRONG opinion. Would a child that had an art piece with a Christian theme be allowed to display? I think not. I am not for censorship, just truth. We as a society need to decide what truth we believe in. Everything has some truth or the traditional conservative ideal that there is an ultimate truth.

Well, gotta go get a car load of conservative Christian kids, that happen to be the revolution of tomorrow.

Peace be with all.

Veep

I concluded the thread by enjoining all correspondents to keep conversation civil and leave ad hominem arguments out of Vita ab Alto. I also disagreed with Veep that it was not possible for a democratic republic to be "imperialistic" simply because its government was consensual to some degree. The US has been imperialistic in its past--I argue that "imperialism," however, entails the intent and fact or conquering, keeping, and ruling states, lands, resources, and people legally ruled or owned by others. US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to meet these criteria, even if they should be conducted brutally or prove very destructive.