Monday, July 25, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
There is no Obamacare- but there is Obama reform
There is no "Obamacare" because Obama did not win a public option or Medicare for all. The health care plans under the Affordable Care Plan are optional and PRIVATE.
The main cost control will be national exchanges where people can go shopping for insurance from any state - regardless of where they live. Insurance companies that enact unreasonable rate hikes may not be allowed to participate in these exchanges - so they will be limited to hard selling people in their own states.
The Affordable Care Act says that parents can keep their kids on their private insurance until the kids reach 26; it prevents insurance companies from dropping insured people for getting sick (after all they paid their premiums) prohibits insurance companies from capping coverage - so they can't stop paying just because you have a serious illness that requires costly treatment, it also requires that some preventative care be free of deductibles and co-payments.
The new law also gives tax credits to small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. I really support this law. Once you actually read it and see what it does - it makes life better for most Americans.
If you want to read more about the law - there is a summary on this link. The complete act is available online at the Government Printing Office at this link.
The main cost control will be national exchanges where people can go shopping for insurance from any state - regardless of where they live. Insurance companies that enact unreasonable rate hikes may not be allowed to participate in these exchanges - so they will be limited to hard selling people in their own states.
The Affordable Care Act says that parents can keep their kids on their private insurance until the kids reach 26; it prevents insurance companies from dropping insured people for getting sick (after all they paid their premiums) prohibits insurance companies from capping coverage - so they can't stop paying just because you have a serious illness that requires costly treatment, it also requires that some preventative care be free of deductibles and co-payments.
Starting in 2014 the law prevents insurance companies from denying policies to people who have pre-existing conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was almost impossible for people with pre-existing conditions to get any health insurance, regardless of how much they paid. The law sets up an external review process - so that if a private insurer denies a claim, the patient can get a neutral party to review their decision instead of being forced to appeal directly to the insurance company.
The new law also gives tax credits to small businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. I really support this law. Once you actually read it and see what it does - it makes life better for most Americans.
If you want to read more about the law - there is a summary on this link. The complete act is available online at the Government Printing Office at this link.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
An Open Letter to a Paul Ryan Fan
- Ignacio - the library is a pretty vague explanation of where you get your economic information.My guess is that Fox/Federalist Society/Koch/American Enterprise Institute et al are tuning you into the economic posturings of people such as Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises (the German economic school).
They do not provide any context for their ideas (such as Von Mises pandering to fascism as a support for total absolute capitalism).
This is filtered information designed to support ideas that are generally not supportable by facts, and that help the richest one percent while harming the rest of the country. country.Mainstream America heeds mainstream economists - such as the Americans Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Both are Nobel prize winners in economics (by contrast Von Mises could barely get a job when he came to America - and he was bosom buddies with Ayn Rand) Stiglitz won the 2002 Noble for describing market assymetry because market players have different levels and quality of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz. Stiglitz wrote: "Whenever there are “externalities”—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can each complement each other." If you really get your information from neutral sources, then you should be aware of Stiglitz and Krugman. Krugman has been repeatedly warning that the unemployment crisis is caused by lack of consumer demand (because of stagnant/sinking wages for the middle class and unemployment). Paul Ryan, following Rand and Von Mises, believes that the rich create jobs - not consumer demand. Actually the rich are sitting on enormous piles of wealth - the worsening economy has benefited them, executive bonuses and corporate profits are at all time highs. Tax breaks do not give them incentive to create jobs only consumer demand creates jobs. This is a vital point, which is why I dwell on it. I don't think it will convince you anyway but it may help other readers understand the core economic disagreement over Paul Ryan's budget engineering.
Ryan favors cutting social safety net programs for the elderly - Social Security and Medicare, so he can give more money to corporate tax breaks. These are called tax expenditures and they are enormous - mind shattering. The United States gives away most of its wealth to corporations. Many of the biggest corporations don't pay a dime of state or federal tax while receiving enormous subsidies and tax breaks such as the Foreign Tax Credit and the Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (See Env. Law Institute report "Estimating US Gov. Subsidies to Energy Sources - you won't find it on Fox News or the American Enterprise Institute). The rich and the largest corporations are not turning around and creating jobs in the United States. High unemployment and stagnant wages means there is low consumer demand in the United States - but there is growing consumer demand and rising wages in developing countries such as China and India. American corporations are thus creating jobs in China and India. Bottom line - cut the tax expenditures for corporate welfare - and stop pillaging Social Security and Medicare to fund corporate welfare.
All the best,
Maria
Sunday, July 03, 2011
A bevy of hats
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Constitutionalism a la carte
I've written before that constitutionalists, originalists and so-called strict constructionists are trying to force the constitution into such a tight mold that it is functionally ineffective. But that's not the only problem. These ideologues have a tendency to cherry pick. Their judicial opinions often appear almost arbitrary in terms of application of an ideology. Their arbitrariness allows them great discretion to the point where they can rewrite the constitution by choosing when to acknowledge the rights it grants the people and when to shut their eyes to those rights.
In yet another example of why originalists are full of beans - please see the Clarence Thomas dissent in the June 27 decision on Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association.
California wanted to ban the sale of very violent video games to young children. The video game vendors sued. The Supreme Court supported the vendors. J. Scalia, who claims to be an originalist, does actually stick to literal text of the first amendment when writing for the majority. They find the violent video games worthy of free speech protection - beyond the reach of parents seeking to protect their children (by penalizing merchants who would sell these games to minors). Scalia notes the video games often are like stories, with characters, plots, themes and ideas. Scalia writes: "Like the protected books, plays, and movies
that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and
even social messages." California tries to find safe harbor for the law in obscenity restrictions. Historically obscenity is considered unprotected speech. But Scalia thinks only sexual matters should fall under the obscenity category. Violence in itself is not obscene.
All this is nice and good.
But it's too much for Clarence Thomas to stomach.
He thinks the justices should be more concerned with the rights of parents to protect their children from noxious influences than be attentive to the ideas inherent in the video games themselves. He concludes:
“The freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. He says this as if children were owned by their parents, as if children were property. If we accept his conclusion, the First Amendment does not apply to children. It sounds good, but it's dangerously arbitrary. This kind of thinking would set precedent for parents to restrict their children from exposure to other ideas. What if these video games were promoting revolution, or evolution? Thomas gives parents absolute, unfettered power to censor the information that reaches their children. It's a power many parents crave -but is it fair to children? Is it constitutional? Thomas thinks so. He supports his position with history books about parenting and writes: "Parents had total authority over what their children
read." He notes the constitution prevents minors from voting or serving on juries. His examples are inapposite. Jury duty and voting involve making decisions about the Republic's future. Playing a video game is not making a decision about the nation's future - but sometimes playing a video game can expose a young mind to new ideas. One creative programmer designed a nifty game about terrorism. The player shoots and kills as many terrorists as he can - but every time he kills a terrorist, more terrorists spring out to replace the deceased. This free video game is violent - but it conveys an important idea - that killing terrorists simply breeds more terrorists and that violence is not an effective solution to terrorism. Under Clarence Thomas' interpretation of the First Amendment - minors might not have the freedom to play a game like that, or be exposed to an idea like that.
Thomas professes to take the constitution literally - to refuse to read into it - but he butted heads with Scalia about whether free speech that depicts violence qualifies for protection. Thomas said the founders always contemplated that parents could protect their children from harm and the ban on violent video games fell into that safe harbor. Personally, I agree with that assessment. But there is no way that can be considered "originalism." The founders did not write any clauses with exceptions into the First Amendment, but somehow Thomas has found them. These exceptions to free speech protection are not in the constitution, they are in Thomas' own conceptions of right and wrong, his personal conceptions based on society's values. This is exactly what he professes to oppose.
It's even more amusing that other members of the court's conservative wing use the same tack as Thomas - even though they concur with the majority. They arrive at the same conclusion using a different strategy, they argue that California did not give constitutents proper notice and would strike down the ban on those grounds. But part of their strategy involves looking at the matter through historical lens - not simply taking the text of the First Amendment literally.
J. Alito writes, "For better or worse, our society has long regarded many depictions of killing and maiming as suitable features of popular entertainment, including entertainment that is
widely available to minors."
The best critique I've seen comes from Garrett Epps in The Atlantic. (Link here) Here's an excerpt from the article:
"In nine cases out of ten, "originalists" are the ones employing free-form interpretive techniques, applying them to carefully selected historical materials rather than to the text and structure of the Constitution. The result is a claim that ancestral voices have told them how to resolve present legal disputes. Justice Thomas's dissent should stand, for a while, as the most egregious example of this voices-in-my-head originalism."
What Epps is too nice to say (but I'm not) is that originalists are usually arbitrary and often render arbitrary opinions. The only thread of consistency is that their opinions are consistent with their personal values, quirks and personalities.
In yet another example of why originalists are full of beans - please see the Clarence Thomas dissent in the June 27 decision on Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association.
California wanted to ban the sale of very violent video games to young children. The video game vendors sued. The Supreme Court supported the vendors. J. Scalia, who claims to be an originalist, does actually stick to literal text of the first amendment when writing for the majority. They find the violent video games worthy of free speech protection - beyond the reach of parents seeking to protect their children (by penalizing merchants who would sell these games to minors). Scalia notes the video games often are like stories, with characters, plots, themes and ideas. Scalia writes: "Like the protected books, plays, and movies
that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and
even social messages." California tries to find safe harbor for the law in obscenity restrictions. Historically obscenity is considered unprotected speech. But Scalia thinks only sexual matters should fall under the obscenity category. Violence in itself is not obscene.
All this is nice and good.
But it's too much for Clarence Thomas to stomach.
He thinks the justices should be more concerned with the rights of parents to protect their children from noxious influences than be attentive to the ideas inherent in the video games themselves. He concludes:
“The freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. He says this as if children were owned by their parents, as if children were property. If we accept his conclusion, the First Amendment does not apply to children. It sounds good, but it's dangerously arbitrary. This kind of thinking would set precedent for parents to restrict their children from exposure to other ideas. What if these video games were promoting revolution, or evolution? Thomas gives parents absolute, unfettered power to censor the information that reaches their children. It's a power many parents crave -but is it fair to children? Is it constitutional? Thomas thinks so. He supports his position with history books about parenting and writes: "Parents had total authority over what their children
read." He notes the constitution prevents minors from voting or serving on juries. His examples are inapposite. Jury duty and voting involve making decisions about the Republic's future. Playing a video game is not making a decision about the nation's future - but sometimes playing a video game can expose a young mind to new ideas. One creative programmer designed a nifty game about terrorism. The player shoots and kills as many terrorists as he can - but every time he kills a terrorist, more terrorists spring out to replace the deceased. This free video game is violent - but it conveys an important idea - that killing terrorists simply breeds more terrorists and that violence is not an effective solution to terrorism. Under Clarence Thomas' interpretation of the First Amendment - minors might not have the freedom to play a game like that, or be exposed to an idea like that.
Thomas professes to take the constitution literally - to refuse to read into it - but he butted heads with Scalia about whether free speech that depicts violence qualifies for protection. Thomas said the founders always contemplated that parents could protect their children from harm and the ban on violent video games fell into that safe harbor. Personally, I agree with that assessment. But there is no way that can be considered "originalism." The founders did not write any clauses with exceptions into the First Amendment, but somehow Thomas has found them. These exceptions to free speech protection are not in the constitution, they are in Thomas' own conceptions of right and wrong, his personal conceptions based on society's values. This is exactly what he professes to oppose.
It's even more amusing that other members of the court's conservative wing use the same tack as Thomas - even though they concur with the majority. They arrive at the same conclusion using a different strategy, they argue that California did not give constitutents proper notice and would strike down the ban on those grounds. But part of their strategy involves looking at the matter through historical lens - not simply taking the text of the First Amendment literally.
J. Alito writes, "For better or worse, our society has long regarded many depictions of killing and maiming as suitable features of popular entertainment, including entertainment that is
widely available to minors."
The best critique I've seen comes from Garrett Epps in The Atlantic. (Link here) Here's an excerpt from the article:
"In nine cases out of ten, "originalists" are the ones employing free-form interpretive techniques, applying them to carefully selected historical materials rather than to the text and structure of the Constitution. The result is a claim that ancestral voices have told them how to resolve present legal disputes. Justice Thomas's dissent should stand, for a while, as the most egregious example of this voices-in-my-head originalism."
What Epps is too nice to say (but I'm not) is that originalists are usually arbitrary and often render arbitrary opinions. The only thread of consistency is that their opinions are consistent with their personal values, quirks and personalities.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Is Clarence Thomas Above the Law?
Common Cause filed a complaint in January based on a section of law governing judges and conflicts of interest: 28 U.S.C. § 455 which states:
a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
§ 455 (b)(4) specifically expands potential conflict of interest to cases that could bring financial benefit to the spouse or child of a judge. The Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1)(A)) also requires federal officials, including Supreme Court justices, to disclose spousal income.
Virginia Thomas earned more than $680,000 between 2003 and 2007 from Heritage Foundation and Clarence Thomas reported his spouse had no noninvestment income in his financial disclosure forms. She received more than $500,000 when she started Liberty Central and fought health care reform - but he didn't report that income either.(LA Times story here) Common Cause made public its complaint on Jan. 11 and Thomas filed amended financial disclosures from 1989 to 2009 - 20 years of disclosures - on Jan. 22, 2011. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, conferred with Common Cause about Thomas' issue and raised concerns about potential violations to Government Ethics Act. He wrote about some of his concerns in the LA Times.
"The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, issued on January 21, 2010, provided a substantial benefit to Liberty Central while Ms. Thomas was its CEO by enabling it to raise and spend corporate funds directly advocating the defeat or election of political candidates for the first time in more than 60 years. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, Ms. Thomas stated that Liberty Central “would accept donations from various sources – including corporations – as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.”
Monday, June 06, 2011
Economists start facing reality
I just read a powerful post by Harvard economist Dani Rodrick who was floored by a paper that told him what all working people have known for years. Productivity is way up, and pay is way down. Working people are not sharing in the gains to which they contribute.
"Labor productivity increased by 78 percent between 1980 and 2009, but the median compensation (including fringe benefits) of 35-44 year-old males with high school (and no college) education declined by 10 percent in real terms," Rodrick writes.
The paper Rodrick cites is "Addressing the Problem of Stagnant Wages" by MIT professors Frank Levy and Tom Kochan. They call for a new social compact to save the middle class. Their paper contains everything conservative Republicans have been militantly denying.
These are shell games, not true productivity increases. As corporations leveraged themselves, they leveraged the country. We have not really seen any benefits from it. America has succeeded in spite of, not because of, the laissez-faire market.
I encourage everyone to look at the first graph in the paper. So few economists pay attention to more than gross profits these days. Let's pay respect to economists being intellectually honest. A few of the comments on Rodrick's page were less than encouraging. One poster actually said that these workers deserved to earn less because all the productivity gains were coming from the executives. Sure. Their golf scores are AMAZING.
Anyway, take a look at Dani Rodrick's blog.
If you have time, read the paper published March 17 by the Employment Policy Research Network - it's 30 pages long, but well worth the time.
"Labor productivity increased by 78 percent between 1980 and 2009, but the median compensation (including fringe benefits) of 35-44 year-old males with high school (and no college) education declined by 10 percent in real terms," Rodrick writes.
The paper Rodrick cites is "Addressing the Problem of Stagnant Wages" by MIT professors Frank Levy and Tom Kochan. They call for a new social compact to save the middle class. Their paper contains everything conservative Republicans have been militantly denying.
- The link between productivity and compensation has been broken. The people earning the most are not necessarily productive, let alone most productive.
- Education and training are necessary for higher wages, but not sufficient.
- Declining wages are one potential cause of divorce and single parent families. (Where is the religious right - hello? Can we get some help here?)
- Since the 1970s the US has largely deregulated large corporations (little guys are still heavily regulated) - By deregulation I mean declining to enforce labor laws, denying federal increases to the minimum wage, and prioritizing shareholders over other stakeholders in companies.
These are shell games, not true productivity increases. As corporations leveraged themselves, they leveraged the country. We have not really seen any benefits from it. America has succeeded in spite of, not because of, the laissez-faire market.
I encourage everyone to look at the first graph in the paper. So few economists pay attention to more than gross profits these days. Let's pay respect to economists being intellectually honest. A few of the comments on Rodrick's page were less than encouraging. One poster actually said that these workers deserved to earn less because all the productivity gains were coming from the executives. Sure. Their golf scores are AMAZING.
Anyway, take a look at Dani Rodrick's blog.
If you have time, read the paper published March 17 by the Employment Policy Research Network - it's 30 pages long, but well worth the time.
Jesus Christ or Ayn Rand - The economic conservative's conflict
Many Republican Conservatives claim to be very religious - they spouse the evangelical Christian faith or publicly embrace traditional values. This crowd has really taken to Ayn Rand lately. Rand was known for writing racy novels and "The Virtue of Selfishness." She isn't taken seriously by philosophers, although she did try to create a philosophy based on selfishness, which she called "objectivism." Rand used objectivism to promote her belief in unregulated markets and total laissez-faire free market capitalism.
Followers of Rand's objectivism believe if their actions benefit themselves, it is morally acceptable. Objectivism gives people permission to be utterly irresponsible for others. As Cain once asked "Am I my brother's keeper." Rand's answer is a resounding no.
I thought it might be helpful for conservatives to see the contrast between the teachings of Jesus on self, money, and the concept of eternal life with those of Ayn Rand. Christ seems beyond politics. I would not hang a label on him. He is neither conservative nor liberal. Yet his teachings make it clear that we are our brother's keeper.
The values of Jesus Christ vs. The values of Ayn Rand
Topic | Ayn Rand wrote: | Jesus Christ says: |
| Ego | “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Atlas Shrugged) | “I am not seeking glory for myself” John 8:50 “Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:43-45. |
| Eternal Life | “Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth” | “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” John11:25 “What good can it be for a man if he gains the whole world yet forfeits his soul? For what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:26 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, he has crossed over from death to life.” John 5:24 “Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am my servant will also be. My father will honor the one who serves me.” John 12: 26 |
| Money | “Money is the barometer of a society's virtue.” “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.” | “Watch out. Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Luke 12:14 “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Luke 6:20 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven... For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Matthew 6:19-21 “No man can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and serve the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despite the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Luke 16:15 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you will go hungry.” Luke 6:24-25 “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10:23 |
| God | “Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do—then, I know they don't believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life.” Source: We The Living Part One Chapter 9 | “God is spirit and his followers must worship in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 |
How is Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness having an impact on our society today? Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, embraced this philosophy and was a devoted personal acquaintance of Rand. (See "All the Devils are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis" by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, p.85) Despite repeated warning about excess credit, the credit bubble, and horrible abuses in mortgage lending, Greenspan declined to take any action. Many of his decisions to avoid regulation can be attributed to his adherence to Rand's teachings. Paul Ryan, the Republican trying to eviscerate Medicare for our seniors, is another of Rand's devotees. Rand prioritized property rights equally with human rights. In Rand's eyes, if humans suffer, so be it, they have to rescue themselves or perish. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, is a devotee (he has told a number of magazines and written about it in his autobiography), as is his wife Virginia, a Tea Party Queen and anti-universal health care lobbyist.
If anyone would like to add quotes or comparisons to the chart above, please feel free. Thanks.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Fake Constitutionalism: How Republicans use the Courts to Disempower the American People
Today's Republicans believe the key to power in the United States is controlling the judiciary. To that end, during Republican administrations they appoint young conservative judges, even if unqualified (See Clarence Thomas*) and stonewall judge appointments during Democrat administrations.
Think Progress has a great article about this, noting that only 58% of Obama's judicial appointments have been confirmed, the lowest of any president by far. Alliance for Justice has detailed reports on pending nominees and vacancies.Apparently, Democrats are much more willing to support conservative judges than Republicans are to support Democratic-leaning judges.
Conservatives are appalled when one of their own appointees actually judges fairly. Justice David Souter, a typical New Hampshire Republican, stunned right wingers with his integrity. Souter in turn was baffled when they turned on him. This may be why Souter stepped down from the court. He was unaccustomed to the animosity and to being described in a way that did not fit him at all. Souter is simply not a liberal, no matter how the Republicans howl. He's a New Hampshire conservative (Most New Englanders will understand what I mean.)
Souter does not abide by what conservatives - such as the radical right wing racialist American Thinker - call constitutionalism. Their version of constitutionalism - a kind of legal formalism - actually is a fake constitutionalism. I say this because the conservatives use formalist "strict construction" readings in a way to subvert the law's intent, purpose and meaning. Legal formalism is what the US Supreme Court employed in Plessy v. Ferguson, in the Dredd Scott decision, and in other holdings that stripped Americans of rights. Michael Klarman, a legal historian at Yale, has done substantial scholarship on how the courts used formalism to permit states to deny black voters the right to vote despite the 14th and 15th amendment. His article "The Plessy Era" published in the 1998 Supreme Court Review is particularly eye-opening. Klarman todays argues for a living constitution. If you disagree, remember that under the original constitution, black Americans counted as only three-fifths of a person. The South didn't want black Americans to vote, but they wanted to use their slaves to increase the number of votes they had in Congress. It's important to honor the law by obeying its purpose, not reading it so narrowly as to prevent it from being enacted.**
Souter, on the other hand, contemplated the nuances of the law. He took the purpose of the law into consideration when writing his opinions. He was sensitive to the criticism lodged against him for his fair-minded approach. He encountered what he perceived as "criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties."
Conservatives who label themselves constitutionalists (which they are not) argue that using such an analysis to arrive at decisions can comprise a kind of law making. The constitution clearly sets aside the lawmaking power for Congress alone. We don't want the courts making new laws. But we do want court's interpreting the laws fairly and honoring the purpose of the laws.
Souter took on the fake constitutionalists when he addressed graduates at Harvard University's 359th commencement last year.
I'll directly quote him because the language is so beautiful. (He really is a fine craftsman with words) This is directly from a copy of his speech printed verbatim by the Harvard Gazette May 27, 2010.
"The charges of lawmaking and constitutional novelty seem to be based on an impression of the Constitution, and on a template for deciding constitutional claims, that go together something like this. A claim is made in court that the government is entitled to exercise a power, or an individual is entitled to claim the benefit of a right, that is set out in the terms of some particular provision of the Constitution. The claimant quotes the provision and provides evidence of facts that are said to prove the entitlement that is claimed. Once they have been determined, the facts on their face either do or do not support the claim. If they do, the court gives judgment for the claimant; if they don’t, judgment goes to the party contesting the claim. On this view, deciding constitutional cases should be a straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.
There are, of course, constitutional claims that would be decided just about the way this fair reading model would have it. If one of today’s 21-year-old college graduates claimed a place on the ballot for one of the United States Senate seats open this year, the claim could be disposed of simply by showing the person’s age, quoting the constitutional provision that a senator must be at least 30 years old, and interpreting that requirement to forbid access to the ballot to someone who could not qualify to serve if elected. No one would be apt to respond that lawmaking was going on, or object that the age requirement did not say anything about ballot access. The fair reading model would describe pretty much what would happen. But cases like this do not usually come to court, or at least the Supreme Court. And for the ones that do get there, for the cases that tend to raise the national blood pressure, the fair reading model has only a tenuous connection to reality.Even a moment’s thought is enough to show why it is so unrealistic. The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These provisions cannot be applied like the requirement for 30-year-old senators; they call for more elaborate reasoning to show why very general language applies in some specific cases but not in others, and over time the various examples turn into rules that the Constitution does not mention.
But this explanation hardly scratches the surface. The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them."
***********************
Conservative Republicans excel at marketing - they often use terms in an Orwellian sense - and when they say Constitutionalism, they generally mean playing word games to subvert rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Why would anyone do this? Being a conservative Republican has been very lucrative for otherwise banal people. Witness Clarence Thomas, our nation's most famous affirmative action recipient. (He hates knowing that, and knowing that everyone knows it, and opposes affirmative action, yet will not step down). He was 43 when named to the nation's highest office and he had suddenly groomed for the post. They plucked from the EEOC and set him up as an Appeals Court judge. Most Appeals Court judges rise through the ranks and spend some time learning the ropes as Federal District Court judges. Conservative Republicans wanted someone willing to use the the nation's top court to disenfranchise minorities. Who better than Thomas, an outspoken conservative Republican who happens to be black. They had seen him in action at the EEOC, effectively working against his own Thomas' wife has made three-quarters of a million dollars now in her quest against universal health care and the Affordable Health Care Act and her husband is on the court that will decide whether the Affordable Health Care Act. He has been greatly enriched by opposing the Affordable Health Care Act but he has not recused himself. The New York Times ran an interesting article about the problem in February. (Read it yourself, link here) Velvet Revolution called for an FBI investigation link here. Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-NY, has a petition demanding Thomas stop delaying filing his current financial disclosure forms (currently overdue). If Thomas and the court strike down the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by Congress, are they not taking upon themselves lawmaking powers. The very lawmaking powers that the Constitution has reserved for Congress alone. As constitutionalists, shouldn't they oppose any such action to overturn the will of congress because they happen to disagree? Well, there you have it. Constitutionalism, as a movement promoted by Clarence Thomas, is a fraud, a chicanery, and a marketing term for conservative Republicans who oppose the constitution.
I suspect that New Hampshire Republicans, like Souter, will remain committed to seeking fair application, fair judgment and intellectual integrity in the judicial process. Souter, by the way, although retired, continues to serve on the Appeals Court.
Constitutionalism must be exposed for what it is. It has already cost the American people one of their finest judges, David H. Souter, and burdened them with one of the worst, Clarence Thomas.
Today's Democrats ignore the judicial confirmation process at their peril. The conservative Republicans know that they can use the judiciary to subvert democracy and the Constitution. The number of vacancies in the nation's high courts show that Obama has been virtually powerless to appoint judges.
In every state, there is a judicial committee to nominate judges. This is how the pipeline to presidential nomination starts. I recommend you get involved now. Make some phone calls. Find out how to get on that committee. Talk to the people on that committee. Get involved.
Next, send a few emails to your Democratic Party leaders explaining the problem. Brainstorm ways to get around the conservative blockade. The future of our nation's children future depends on you.
* Thomas was on the appellate bench 15 months before Bush nominated him to the nation's highest court. Prior to that he had been head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was well known for NOT investigating allegations of discrimination. Cornell West in Race Matters (p. 23) alleges that Thomas left 13,000 age discrimination complaints to "dying on the vine for lack of investigation" during his 8 years at the EEOC. Even today, Thomas deals with the reality that most people know his ultraconservative law clerks do much of his writing and research. He seems quite defensive about it too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22779-2004Oct10.html
**That's what today's conservative Republicans have been fighting for - strict readings that actually disempower Americans. Across the nation, Republicans have launched new proposals for laws (often drafted by a sinister group named ALEC) that make it more difficult for young people and minorities to vote. If those laws go to conservative judges - well, we will probably see more decisions reasoned the way the Supreme Court did in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Olivia Emisar: Representative Anthony Weiner - Twitter Scandal
Update as June 6, 2011: Congressman Weiner held a press conference today acknowledging that he has tweeted some inappropriate photos of himself to private persons. How did these photos ended up in the hands of his enemies? Obviously he wasn't sexting Breitbart. Whatever.
Terror by Twitter:
Why would anyone photoshop Congressman Weiner's twitter account onto a twitpic of a man clad only in his underpants? Could it be that they oppose universal healthcare. It sounds insane, but opponents of universal healthcare have been hounding Weiner and his supporters via Twitter. (It seems so unmanly to harrass via Twitter) Olivia Emisar connects the dots between Weiner championing universal healthcare on Twitter and subsequent Twitter photo on her blog: http://OliviaEmisar.blogspot.com.
Incidentally, the woman who received the Twitpic has publicly stated it did not come from Weiner. She suspects it came from a number of right wingers who have been harrassing her via Twitter and making all sorts of speculation about Weiner and his female followers on Twitter.
Read Ms. Emisar's piece and comment. She's been getting flak for just writing the piece.
Thanks everybody.
UPDATE: The final nail in the coffin for the story that Congressman Weiner tweeted this photo comes from an analysis by The New Republic. Experts hired by the magazine could not find a match for the camera used to take the Yfrog photo. These experts specialize in matching photos to the types of cameras which took the photos. They maintain an archive of 15,000 possible matches (phones, tablets and cameras). Previous photos tweeted by the Congressman from his Blackberry phone match the Blackberry phone in the database. This leads to the conclusion that either the Congressman either tweeted the photo with a camera so new it is not in the database or that the Yfrog photo was digitally altered so it no longer matched the metadata for the camera that snapped the photo. Other experts have come to the same conclusion using different analyses of the metadata. This brings us back to the original question - why would anyone plant a fraudulent story about the Congressman's Twitter account? Olivia Emisar puts forward some interesting ideas.
Olivia Emisar: Representative Anthony Weiner - Twitter Scandal
Click Here For More
Terror by Twitter:
Why would anyone photoshop Congressman Weiner's twitter account onto a twitpic of a man clad only in his underpants? Could it be that they oppose universal healthcare. It sounds insane, but opponents of universal healthcare have been hounding Weiner and his supporters via Twitter. (It seems so unmanly to harrass via Twitter) Olivia Emisar connects the dots between Weiner championing universal healthcare on Twitter and subsequent Twitter photo on her blog: http://OliviaEmisar.blogspot.com.
Incidentally, the woman who received the Twitpic has publicly stated it did not come from Weiner. She suspects it came from a number of right wingers who have been harrassing her via Twitter and making all sorts of speculation about Weiner and his female followers on Twitter.
Read Ms. Emisar's piece and comment. She's been getting flak for just writing the piece.
Thanks everybody.
UPDATE: The final nail in the coffin for the story that Congressman Weiner tweeted this photo comes from an analysis by The New Republic. Experts hired by the magazine could not find a match for the camera used to take the Yfrog photo. These experts specialize in matching photos to the types of cameras which took the photos. They maintain an archive of 15,000 possible matches (phones, tablets and cameras). Previous photos tweeted by the Congressman from his Blackberry phone match the Blackberry phone in the database. This leads to the conclusion that either the Congressman either tweeted the photo with a camera so new it is not in the database or that the Yfrog photo was digitally altered so it no longer matched the metadata for the camera that snapped the photo. Other experts have come to the same conclusion using different analyses of the metadata. This brings us back to the original question - why would anyone plant a fraudulent story about the Congressman's Twitter account? Olivia Emisar puts forward some interesting ideas.
Olivia Emisar: Representative Anthony Weiner - Twitter Scandal
Click Here For More
Monday, May 23, 2011
Osamacide: Killing the bad guy
I'm a huge fan of Hugo Farrant's poetry and his satirical news show "Rap News" He and co-creator Gianni Nanni have put together eight of these, on topics from Wikileaks to Moon bombing. Their latest
video deals with the US Seals mission that eliminated Osama bin Laden.
This was a long time coming. But many in the United States wondered why the US did not bring the Osama bin Laden to trial. The US pushed for Nuremberg trials to punish the Nazis. We insisted on rule of law over vengeance.
The choice to assassinate bin Laden instead of bring him to trial and executing him afterward makes me wonder as well.
Why didn't President Obama choose to prosecute bin Laden?
RAP NEWS 8: Osamacide - the truth about the Osama bin Laden
video deals with the US Seals mission that eliminated Osama bin Laden.
This was a long time coming. But many in the United States wondered why the US did not bring the Osama bin Laden to trial. The US pushed for Nuremberg trials to punish the Nazis. We insisted on rule of law over vengeance.
The choice to assassinate bin Laden instead of bring him to trial and executing him afterward makes me wonder as well.
Why didn't President Obama choose to prosecute bin Laden?
RAP NEWS 8: Osamacide - the truth about the Osama bin Laden
Friday, April 22, 2011
Rule of Law under seige
Rule of law is under siege in some parts of the United States.
I never thought that conservatives,who prize freedom of contract, privacy rights and rule of law, would take on absolutist powers to nullify contracts between parties. Conservatives, as classical liberals, view the right to contract as a inviolable part of the free market economy. But under the leadership of its conservative governor, Michigan is striking down valid contracts with teachers. Isn't that considered 'statist' and overreach of power?
This did not start with the Republicans. Michigan's former governor, Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, appointed Mr. Robert Bobb, to be emergency manager of the Detroit Public Schools to help close a massive deficit. Bobb uncovered numerous instances of fraud at the school system - by rooting out corruption, he was trying to stop the fiscal bleeding. Then the conservative Republican Rick Snyder took over as governor. He wanted immediate action. The Detroit school system has a $327 million deficit. So just how did Robert Bobb handle the problem? He issued layoff notices to all the teachers in March. More 5,000 notices went out.
Brilliant. Just what we need. In a city struggling to compete, he fires the educators. Then Bobb gets an $80,000 raise . That's just for one year. His raise costs more than a teacher's total annual salary. The Michigan Citizen wryly observed that everyone but Bobb is being asked to sacrifice to close the deficit. The manner in which Bobb is trying to close the deficit - privatizing the schools -- raises some additional questions. Bobb is a public employee - but he also receives huge payments from foundations that promote school privatization. He gets $280,000 in public money a year - and the rest comes from private foundations. This year he will earn close to half a million. The Broad Foundation paid him $56,000 last year alone.
There is a lot of money to be made in privatizing schools. Bobb wants to place 41,000 students in Detroit in the hands of charter schools - and pay the schools to educate them. He would give the private schools no-bid contracts of course. So it looks like he's sending a huge amount of business to charter schools -- the very ones promoted by the foundations that pay him. Does anyone else see a problem here? I have been supportive of charter schools in the past, but I'm rethinking my support. This looks underhanded and unethical. To Bobb's credit, he has helped the school system by uncovering many instances of fraud and theft that contributed to the schools' massive deficit. But is he part of the problem? Bobb is not acting alone - he was ordered to close half the public schools by the Michigan Education Department (which answers to Snyder). The state wants to prevent Detroit schools from declaring bankruptcy, which could grant the district relief and save the teachers. If the district doesn't declare bankruptcy and continues its belt-tightening, students will be packed 60 to a room as schools are closed. Bobb, throughout this crisis, is collecting on his contracts with charter school advocates while getting paid by the government. Weird, right?
It sounds unethical - but that didn't bother Gov. Granholm and it doesn't bother Gov. Snyder. Apparently, in the minds of some people, unionized teachers are the enemy. It's incredible. Teachers are the ones who teach us to read, write, do math, they model social skills, they mentor us. They teach us about life, kindness, sharing as well as instructing us on the Pythagorean theorem, how to conjugate verbs and modify nouns, how to design an experiment using the scientific method and how to parse a newspaper article to find bias. There are good teachers, bad teachers and so-so teachers, but we need them. What the Republicans have done is betray every ideal libertarians hold - employing massive statist controls - in service of the libertarian ideal of full privatization.
Why would they do this? And while the Republicans push to lay off unionized teachers - because of the budget deficit - Snyder simultaneously proposes giving corporations a $2 billion tax cut. Is he serious? Does he think this makes any kind of sense?
Today's conservatives, the descendants of the classical liberals, are a study in contradictions. They promote the free market, but the free market is based on the private right of contract. By eviscerating the worker's right to negotiate contracts through their unions, the conservatives have actually set a precedent for voiding the private right of contract, the basis of classic liberalism, of conservatism. They are sowing the seeds of the demise of their own ideology. It is inevitable. I have never seen a political ideology that didn't fail when tested in the crucible of real life.
For an interesting take on this, read more here:
http://motorcityliberal.blogspot.com/2011/04/michigan-emergency-manager-robert-bobb.html
I never thought that conservatives,who prize freedom of contract, privacy rights and rule of law, would take on absolutist powers to nullify contracts between parties. Conservatives, as classical liberals, view the right to contract as a inviolable part of the free market economy. But under the leadership of its conservative governor, Michigan is striking down valid contracts with teachers. Isn't that considered 'statist' and overreach of power?
This did not start with the Republicans. Michigan's former governor, Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, appointed Mr. Robert Bobb, to be emergency manager of the Detroit Public Schools to help close a massive deficit. Bobb uncovered numerous instances of fraud at the school system - by rooting out corruption, he was trying to stop the fiscal bleeding. Then the conservative Republican Rick Snyder took over as governor. He wanted immediate action. The Detroit school system has a $327 million deficit. So just how did Robert Bobb handle the problem? He issued layoff notices to all the teachers in March. More 5,000 notices went out.
Brilliant. Just what we need. In a city struggling to compete, he fires the educators. Then Bobb gets an $80,000 raise . That's just for one year. His raise costs more than a teacher's total annual salary. The Michigan Citizen wryly observed that everyone but Bobb is being asked to sacrifice to close the deficit. The manner in which Bobb is trying to close the deficit - privatizing the schools -- raises some additional questions. Bobb is a public employee - but he also receives huge payments from foundations that promote school privatization. He gets $280,000 in public money a year - and the rest comes from private foundations. This year he will earn close to half a million. The Broad Foundation paid him $56,000 last year alone.
There is a lot of money to be made in privatizing schools. Bobb wants to place 41,000 students in Detroit in the hands of charter schools - and pay the schools to educate them. He would give the private schools no-bid contracts of course. So it looks like he's sending a huge amount of business to charter schools -- the very ones promoted by the foundations that pay him. Does anyone else see a problem here? I have been supportive of charter schools in the past, but I'm rethinking my support. This looks underhanded and unethical. To Bobb's credit, he has helped the school system by uncovering many instances of fraud and theft that contributed to the schools' massive deficit. But is he part of the problem? Bobb is not acting alone - he was ordered to close half the public schools by the Michigan Education Department (which answers to Snyder). The state wants to prevent Detroit schools from declaring bankruptcy, which could grant the district relief and save the teachers. If the district doesn't declare bankruptcy and continues its belt-tightening, students will be packed 60 to a room as schools are closed. Bobb, throughout this crisis, is collecting on his contracts with charter school advocates while getting paid by the government. Weird, right?
It sounds unethical - but that didn't bother Gov. Granholm and it doesn't bother Gov. Snyder. Apparently, in the minds of some people, unionized teachers are the enemy. It's incredible. Teachers are the ones who teach us to read, write, do math, they model social skills, they mentor us. They teach us about life, kindness, sharing as well as instructing us on the Pythagorean theorem, how to conjugate verbs and modify nouns, how to design an experiment using the scientific method and how to parse a newspaper article to find bias. There are good teachers, bad teachers and so-so teachers, but we need them. What the Republicans have done is betray every ideal libertarians hold - employing massive statist controls - in service of the libertarian ideal of full privatization.
Why would they do this? And while the Republicans push to lay off unionized teachers - because of the budget deficit - Snyder simultaneously proposes giving corporations a $2 billion tax cut. Is he serious? Does he think this makes any kind of sense?
Today's conservatives, the descendants of the classical liberals, are a study in contradictions. They promote the free market, but the free market is based on the private right of contract. By eviscerating the worker's right to negotiate contracts through their unions, the conservatives have actually set a precedent for voiding the private right of contract, the basis of classic liberalism, of conservatism. They are sowing the seeds of the demise of their own ideology. It is inevitable. I have never seen a political ideology that didn't fail when tested in the crucible of real life.
For an interesting take on this, read more here:
http://motorcityliberal.blogspot.com/2011/04/michigan-emergency-manager-robert-bobb.html
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Cattle starving in Japan
A few souls braved the risk of radiation to check conditions in Fukushima. Livestock had been forgotten. The owners, afraid of the radiation clouds emanating from a nearby nuclear plant, fled without making any provisions for their livestock. I thank the animal activists who risked their health for this. More details here
In this farm, the cattle were slowly starving to death. It is painful to see. Japan's struggle isn't over yet.
We need to pull together. The same team went back later to find some townspeople had visited the farm to feed the cattle, but then the Japanese government issued a ban on travel to the area. Evacuation is mandatory. It was deemed to dangerous for humans to travel across a 20 kilometer radius. The volunteers can no longer get in. Update here
For more of my posts on Japan click here: Best political cartoons on Japan disaster
and here.
In this farm, the cattle were slowly starving to death. It is painful to see. Japan's struggle isn't over yet.
We need to pull together. The same team went back later to find some townspeople had visited the farm to feed the cattle, but then the Japanese government issued a ban on travel to the area. Evacuation is mandatory. It was deemed to dangerous for humans to travel across a 20 kilometer radius. The volunteers can no longer get in. Update here
For more of my posts on Japan click here: Best political cartoons on Japan disaster
and here.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Asia Noreen Bibi - Chickenpox on Death Row
Just when things seemed like they could not get worse for Asia Noreen Bibi, they did.
While fasting for peace during Lent, she contracted Chickenpox.
Bibi has been in solitary confinement in a Pakistan prison for three months and in prison for two years. She is a Christian and Muslim neighbors accused her of blasphemy and demanded her execution. The court sentenced the mother of five to death by hanging on Nov. 8, 2010 for defending her Christian faith. The Muslim extremist community, apparently very influential in rural Pakistan, assassinated the province governor for seeking a pardon for Bibi. Then they assassinated the Christian minister of minority affairs in Pakistan, a gentleman who had called international attention to Bibi's case. Christians sentenced to death under Pakistan's blasphemy law have always been murdered before they are executed.
Yet Bibi is still alive. She cooks her own food, even in prison, out of fear of being poisoned. She's alone, separated from her family, surrounded by religious enemies. If anyone deserves asylum, it's her.
Instead of asylum, she got Chickenpox. This irritating and potentially disfiguring disease causes hundreds of small, itchy, fluid-filled blisters to appear all over the body. Eventually, they burst and form craters that eventually heal. The trick with Chickenpox is to avoid scratching the blisters, which can easily lead to a more infection. Anyone who has ever had Chickenpox will remember the itchiness even years later. It's constant, like a mosquito buzzing in your ear. But you can't scratch -- you might get an infection or leave a scar.
Well, if anything can take your mind off potential assassination and looming execution, I suppose Chickenpox will do just fine. Bibi has contracted a case of the Chickenpox that has left her gravely ill. The question is -- how did Bibi, stuck in solitary confinement for three months, get exposed to this disease?
I can't help but remember the original cause of Bibi's arrest. She is a farm worker. She worked the fields with a number of other women.
When they were thirsty from working in the fields, Bibi fetched water for them. They refused and said water from a Christian was impure. She defended her faith. They accused her of violating Pakistan's blasphemy law. The penalty is death. All this took place over a simple act of kindness.
For all she has suffered, Bibi is a martyr for freedom of religion.
Happy is the age that needs no martyrs.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Asia Noreen Bibi - target of suicide bombers?
The religious extremists of Pakistan meted out a death sentence on Asia Noreen Bibi using trumped up charges of blasphemy. But that's not extreme enough for some. The extremists are calling for one of their own to assassinate Asia Noreen Bibi before the state executes her. Are they really going to have a suicide bomber detonate himself right in prison?
It's as if they find murder enjoyable. Maybe they get an adrenaline rush out of it.
Suicide attack planned on Noreen BibiBibi, the mother of 5, has been afraid to even eat the prison food, since many Christian prisoners in Pakistan, jailed under the blasphemy laws, are killed before the state execution. Perhaps it saves the government the embarrassment of engaging directly in such savagery.
For more information about the case of Asia Noreen Bibi, see my previous post. Asia Noreen Bibi
Monday, April 04, 2011
Plan B - Who will feed the world
Scientific American calls Lester R. Brown "the persistent prophet."
Brown, an agricultural economist and futurist, fits the title.His best-selling book, Plan B, has evolved through to its fourth incarnation on how humanity can save the environment and why we must.
He has moved from a place of hope, telling us we can change, to a place of urgency, telling us we must change, and immediately, and in drastic ways. This white-haired oracle believes his message so deeply that he is giving it away for free. Here's your copy: Plan B 4.0
Brown can easily make more money by making his followers buy the book - but he's far more interested in saving the world. He's putting his money where his mouth is. He's up to the challenge. Are we?
Brown's plan calls for us to to eliminate 80% of net carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (Gulp, that seems rather soon!) to halt climate change. To do that we probably need to replace our coal and oil with wind farms, solar energy and geothermal. He also wants to have the international community pitch in to provide basic universal health care and primary education to the world's poorest nations. It actually doesn't cost that much compared to the billions we waste on less important things.
If you don't believe the situation is urgent, just read the first few chapters. He's quite convincing, and he echoes the theme by Jared Diamond, author of "Collapse" that our civilization is following the pattern of demise based on a dwindling food supply.
Some readers might laugh at the term "dwindling food supply." Just like at the stacks of food on sale at grocery stores or the fact that most Americans are overweight. The problem is - our country is fat because we are disproportionately consuming the global food supply. We are a nation out of balance. We live like McDonald's reflects reality. We are not taking responsibility for our actions. We are not eating responsibly.
Brown doesn't dwell on America's eating habits. He focuses on things that are easier to change - getting support for wind farms and solar energy.
But my darling youth cartoonists from cartoonmovement.com have been more than willing to critique the American appetite. They know a hungry world cannot be a peaceful world. Here are a few gems:
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Youth Cartoonists Support Japan
Cartoonmovement.com inspires me. Youthful artists hopefully send in their political cartoons to the web site and the site editors select a few for its prominent space. Fortunately, the editors also show the pitched cartoons. I found an amazing selection of great drawings that show how much young artists around the world rally for support Japan with their talent. The web site also lets you vote for the best cartoons.
Here's a selection for you to peruse and enjoy. If you really like one of them, feel free to hop on over to cartoonmovement.com and vote for it. I'm sure these young artists would appreciate your support.
Here's a selection for you to peruse and enjoy. If you really like one of them, feel free to hop on over to cartoonmovement.com and vote for it. I'm sure these young artists would appreciate your support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)