text:
Elizabeth Warren's Other Cherokee Scandal: Her Fight Against Tribal Sovereignty
Elizabeth Warren's Other Cherokee Scandal: Her Fight Against Tribal Sovereignty
Elizabeth Warren's 2020 presidential aspirations may have ended before they began this week thanks to her team's bizarre decision to proudly broadcast the results of a DNA test that shows she may have had a relative 10 generations removed that was of indigenous American heritage. As Senator Warren was once promoted as "Harvard Law School's...first woman of color," the results seem to only confirm that she misrepresented her ancestry in her past career as a law professor.
Not only has the decision been met with a blistering condemnation from the Cherokee Nation, but it has once again made her the butt of President Trump's jokes.
Lost in the laughing at Warren's expense however, is a larger issue exists over how American politicians continue to treat tribal sovereignty.
After all, if Warren had used her position as senator to serve as an advocate for the Cherokee Nation's right to self-determination, her history of misrepresenting her genetic connection to the tribe would perhaps be more excusable. Say what you will about Rachel Dolezal, she at least cared enough to be an advocate for the African American community. Instead, Warren's political record is one that has regularly promoted the continued imperial rule of Washington on land that is tribal in name only.
Though never officially serving as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren has been widely credited as being the guiding force behind the creation of the agency. The CFPB was created as part of the Obama Administration's response to the financial crisis, a powerful financial regulator that lacks the traditional checks of other executive agencies. Under the lead of former director Richard Cordray, the CFPB went to work becoming a heavy handed regulator in its fight against "unfair, deceptive and abusive" practices.
Soon, various tribal financial services businesses found themselves in the cross hairs of the enthusiastic CFPB. The result is that the agency has been described by Dr. Gavin Clarkson, a tribal finance expert, as "the most hostile federal agency towards Indian tribes since Indian Affairs was in the War Department."
One example is a variety of short-term lending operations that various tribes started up to try to capitalize on the growth of e-commerce. In theory, tribal sovereignty should have given these ventures a competitive advantage over other US lenders who had to deal with the Washington red tape. Unfortunately Obama's Justice Department decided these operations represented a "national security risk" and worked with the CFPB to shut them down as part of Operation Choke Point – in spite of pleas from tribal advocates that doing so would be economically devastating.
While it would be unfair to blame Elizabeth Warren for any and all actions taken by the CFPB and DOJ, she served as a primary defender of Operation Choke Point when legislative pressure mounted to end it.
Similarly, she has been the chief voice in the Senate attacking the pay day lending industry, which became a point of particular emphasis under the Cordray CFPB. This has put the Warren-Cordray camp into ongoing legal conflict with various tribes over whether federal financial regulation should apply to tribal land, leading the CFPB to sue various tribal lenders.
While the Supreme Court refused to take up the case, which could have provided a legal precedent in favor of tribal sovereignty, the suit was eventually dropped earlier this year after Mick Mulvaney took over as the CFPB's acting head. Warren wrote a letter to Mulvaney criticizing the decision.
Warren's indifference to the cause of tribal sovereignty appeared again this year with a vote on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act.
The issue here was whether tribal-owned businesses should be forced to follow federal labor laws on collective bargaining. The issue has been a major one for a number of American tribes, upset that tribal governments are subjected to labor laws that state and federal governments are exempt from.
As Jefferson Keel, the President of the National Congress of American Indians, wrote in The Hill:
Sovereignty means tribes should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own workforce policies. The truth is that many tribal nations openly welcome labor unions into the businesses that they own; others choose not to. And a growing number have designed and enforce their own labor regulations. But the NLRB ignores all of this and, instead, forces tribal governments to adhere to the NLRA. Just us. No one else. This is a plain violation of our inherent rights as sovereign nations and governments.
Unfortunately Senator Warren's loyalty lay with labor unions over tribal sovereignty, and she joined with 41 other Senators to successfully kill a vote on the bill.
While Warren has made it easy to laugh at about "fauxocahontas" and 1/1024th memes, her political contempt for tribal self-sovereignty is what should make her false claims to Cherokee heritage truly insulting.
Elizabeth Warren and her fellow progressives believe Native Americans are better off following her rules, rather than granting tribes the political self-determination to make such decisions for themselves. It's a form of ideological imperialism, driven by their own belief in their moral superiority and the belief on "the right side of history." The progressive person's burden is to use to the power of the state to impose social justice, regulate "fairness" in the market, and impose egalitarian social norms.
This is precisely why it's important for those who recognize the dangers of federal overreach and political centralization should take the issue of tribal sovereignty so seriously. The goal for a more civil and free society should not be the aim of some grand universal political order, but a respect for political self-determination. To that end, a respect for tribal rights is just as important as any other fight in favor of political decentralization.
Jeff Deist on the Kavanaugh Nomination, Civility, and "the Dregs of Society"
Spitznagel on Bloomberg: Future Financial Crises Will Be Deeper
Recently Mark Spitznagel, Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Universa Investments, joined Bloomberg to discuss the lessons learned from the 2008 financial crisis.
"What [the 2008 financial crisis] taught us ultimately is that interventionism - monetary interventionism - is a Faustian bargain. It gives us short term gains, and longer term pains."
The Supreme Court Is Even Worse than You Think
This morning on The Wasatch Report on the Cerberus Radio Network, Suzanne Sherman and I discussed how the US Supreme Court has become far more powerful than was ever intended. We also looked at the problem with the common American idea that the Supreme Court exists to limit federal power, or that its judges are impartial and non-political, seeking only a reasoned, legal interpretation of the laws. This has never been true, but the political nature of the court is far more damaging now because so much power has now been concentrated in the federal government.
Three Lessons from the Kavanaugh Debacle
You might not particularly care if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court or not, but we should care very much about the spectacle playing out in the press and social media. The overall effect is to remind us of Washington DC's status as the center of the universe, how Supreme Court justices necessarily and justifiably wield tremendous power over our lives, and why we should feverishly vote this fall to make sure the bad guys don't win and inflict their judges on us for the next fifty years.
It's hysterical, and demeaning. But people understandably feel forced into treating the Supreme Court makeup as a life and death political struggle.
All of this diverts attention from what should be a key issue, if not the key issue, in Kavanaugh's nomination: the 4th Amendment. Judge Andrew Napolitano, who knows and likes the nominee, makes the damning case that his views regarding the misnamed Patriot Act, FISA courts, search warrants, and domestic surveillance are deeply illiberal and dismissive to constitutionalism.
Kavanaugh's legal opinions are nothing short of terrible when it comes to an individual's basic right to live free of government searches, snooping, or seizures of property without specific proof that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion. His record is not one of "originalism," but rather undue deference to the wishes of a rapacious executive branch.
His nomination will not turn on this, however.
Instead it appears we will be subject to lurid testimony before the Judiciary Committee about the nominee's alleged high school groping, delivered by his accuser, in a dramatic turn that can only result in two segments of the country adamantly believing and disbelieving her. Are Senators on that committee prepared to act as would-be judges in what amounts to an accusation of criminal conduct? Are they competent triers of fact in a he said/she said scenario from 30 years ago?
These hearings showcase several particularly American phenomena. They're televised, which turns every Senator into a grandstanding showman intent on bolstering a national image. They're voyeuristic, taking us inside the presumably boring personal lives of federal judges: Mr. Kavanaugh apparently drinks beer, uses credit cards, holds season tickets to the Washington Nationals, and is either a sexual assaulter or unassailable soup kitchen volunteer. Above all, they inject the phoniest of politics into what should be a simple inquiry into the nominee's basic fitness as a judge. Even when that nominee is a native of DC, a true company man who has been around the federal government all his life (Kavanaugh worked a stint in the Bush I administration), his Senate interrogators have to make a big show of some imagined clash of worldviews.
Three clear lessons emerge from the Kavanaugh fiasco:
First: the politicization of the Supreme Court is total and cannot be undone. You'd be hard pressed to find an American who views the Court as anything other than an unelected super-legislature that issues sweeping "laws" governing everything from abortion to guns to healthcare mandates to government surveillance and spying. There's a reason people say any given court decision is "the law of the land." Justices are black-robed tenured monarchs, selected by presidents as a form of political spoils to carry out a political agenda. They are Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and rule accordingly-- starting with their intended political result in any given case, and working backward to fashion a legal argument justifying that result. Judicial activism is triumphant, and no pretense of impartiality remains regardless of the shifting "philosophies" offered for statutory interpretation.
Second: judicial overreach has not limited executive or legislative overreach. The doctrine of judicial review is specious at best, with no support in Article III of the Constitution. Our understanding of Marbury v. Madison is deeply flawed. Yet millions of American kids escape high school believing the Supreme Court is supreme not only over lower federal courts, but also over the other branches of government.
Has this extra-constitutional power assumed by the Court served to limit the unconstitutional actions of those branches? Hardly. Congress runs roughshod over Article 1, section 8, while cravenly refusing to declare war; the General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause are interpreted laughably; economic substantive due process--read "property rights"-- hasn't been recognized for nearly a century; the 9th and 10th Amendments are dead letters, the 4th Amendment is on life support; and the entire 20th century serves as stark evidence of the Court's willingness to rubber stamp unchecked executive power.
Judicial review serves as legal cover for government power, not a check on it.
Third: centralized judicial power is as damaging to liberty as centralized executive and legislative power. Having a single court run by nine humans make top-down decisions for 320 million people is a recipe for disaster. Common law is inherently decentralized; it evolves locally and slowly creates universal precepts (i.e. prohibitions on murder) only when there is near unanimity of agreement across time and geography. The gradual imposition of positive civil law in America, along with the federalization of vast areas of law that once were determined locally, created a federal judiciary that is unworkable and unresponsive to millions of Americans. For the vast majority of us, recourse against the federal government for its lawless acts is an illusion-- we don't have 10 years and millions of dollars for lawyers.
The divisive nature of Supreme Court nominations is a feature and not a bug of our federal politics and government.. Truth, justice, and fairness, the hallmarks (or at least goals) of a decent legal system, must give way to tribal war and endless "whataboutism" in any culture where politics predominates. This is what politics does to all of us, and to a judiciary that is supposed to constrain the politicians.
Higgs on Hulsmann and Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism
I have known Guido a long time, and when he was working on the book, I used to goad him by asking frequently, "When are you going to finish that Mises book?" I had no idea what a tremendous project that research was or what magnificent fruit it would bear. After reading it, I wrote to Guido as follows:
"I have finally finished reading your great book about Mises. When I use the word 'great,' I mean not simply that it weighs at least a kilo and contains more than 1,000 pages. I mean most of all that it is a magnificent scholarly achievement. I can't remember when I have taken more pleasure from a book. It is a joy to read, in every way. The English is precise and polished, and everything is put just right. The research is amazingly broad, yet deep, too. The judgments are sensible and mature. The coverage–from the personal details to the content of Mises's ideas to the context in which he lived and worked–is extraordinary, and the organization puts everything into comprehensible order. The bibliography is more than impressive. All in all, the book is simply an amazing accomplishment, and a fitting tribute to its great subject.
The Mises Institute deserves great credit, too, not only for its support of your work on this project, but also for producing a book that is a fine example of the publisher's art: the typeface is clean and clear, and large enough to permit effortless reading; the layout is spacious and proper; the footnotes are where they should be, and they, too, are large enough to be read without a magnifying glass; the illustrations are splendid complements to the text; and the indexes are terrific. The work is thus not simply beautiful intellectually, but beautiful physically, as well.
If I had ever written anything half so wonderful–and I recognize that I lack the abilities to do so–I would consider my career a complete success, and feel myself justified in taking my ease, to rest on my laurels. I do not perceive that you have this plan in mind for yourself, and therefore the world will be the better, not only for your great book on Mises, but also for all the great achievements that lie in your future. I salute you, my friend, not without a touch of envy, but with my whole heart."
(Hardcover and Audio book available now at the Mises Bookstore.)
h/t LewRockwell.com
What Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Need to Learn About Income Inequality
Without the Federal Government, Who Will Regulate Dog Meat?
The federal government is running a massive deficit right now. American wages are stagnant. The US is involved in multiple costly wars with no apparent objective. And the president raises taxes on Americans at will through his tariff policy.
But fortunately the Congress is getting down to what is really important. Federalizing laws banning the sale of cat and dog meat.
The silliness of Congress's involvement in the matter is so obvious that even CBS news begins its article on the topic with a snide comment:
The government shuts down at the end of the month, and Democrats and Republicans seem unable to make a deal to keep it open. They are, however, united in trying to stop people from eating pets.
But the new bill does provide a chance for politicians to crow about "accomplishing" something in Congress. Bill sponsor and Florida Democrat Alice Hastings released a glowing statement:
"The House of Representatives has voted to unify animal cruelty laws across the country, which would prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption," Hastings said. "I am proud to have championed this effort in Congress to explicitly ban the killing and consumption dogs and cats across the United States, and am greatly appreciative of my friend and colleague Congressman Buchanan for taking the 'Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act' across the finish line today."
Boy, without the federal government, who could possibly regulate such things? I mean, other than the county commissioners who could just as easily pass an ordinance on the matter? The sale and handling of dog meat is already illegal nearly everywhere in the US. The new federal law is being passed because it gives politicians a shiny object to distract the voters with on the campaign trail this fall.
Keep in mind also that if the feds plan to enforce the new regulations, it will require work from federal employees who will need to surveil, investigate, and prosecute any suspected lawbreakers. The people who do it will collect a federal salary and, eventually, a federal pension.
Needless to say, there's no section of the Federal Constitution that expresses the necessity of federal involvement in regulating cat meat. But such trifles don't concern Congress when there is good politicking to be had. After all, from the politician's standpoint, only a few odd eccentrics like yours truly are going to bother condemning the bill. Meanwhile, the bill's supporters will be able to make stump speeches to suburban moms and college activists about how "I am fighting for you" in Congress by making dog-meat boutiques illegal under federal law.
This leads us to ask the question of how widespread this black-market industry even is. If is is not widespread then why the need for federal legislation? And if consumption of dog meat is widespread, then this tells us that somewhere in America private citizens — presumably taxpayers — like to eat dog meat. So, the federal legislation is either pointless, or it's trampling on the property rights of someone somewhere.
In either case, the question must be answered: are we to believe that dog-meat lovers have no rights just because lots of people think dogs are cute? Yes, I get it, I have a dog too and she's swell. Barring a Venezuela-style apocalypse, I'm totally not going to eat her.
On the other hand, if some people somewhere like eating dog, why is it my place to sign off on threatening those people with fines imposed by federal agents for doing something I find distasteful.
At this point in the debate, of course, the opponents of dog meat will start repeating totally arbitrary reasons for why eating dog ought to be verboten. "They' cute, they're intelligent, they make good companions." And so on.
But as anyone who has worked with pigs knows, those animals are very intelligent, too. Some are even cute. Some people keep pigs as pets. And yet, many of the same people who sob over dog meat have few scruples about ordering a sausage pizza.
Hardliner animal rights people are, at least, consistent in this. They are against all animal slaughter. And that's a respectable position — although not one I agree with.1
Dog Meat vs. Horse Meat
Unfortunately, we've already been over this, and the federal government has already been blazing the trail for regulating meat slaughter and sales for quite some time. In fact, it was just late last year that the Congress was debating ending an existing federal ban on the processing of horse meat. And although I've been a personal fan of many horses I have met, I also came out against that federal ban.
[RELATED: "Do We Really Need a Federal Ban on Horse Meat?" by Ryan McMaken]
In that case, though, opponents of horse-meat bans had something more in their favor: Americans were still eating horse meat in the mid twentieth century. Even more recently, Americans were feeding horse meat — ironically, given the current debate — to their cats and dogs. Moreover, as I pointed out in the article, Western society has a long history of eating horse meat, although it was never especially popular in the United States. But in the case of horse meat, why ought the "rights" of horses trump those of private taxpaying citizens who happen to make their living from selling horse meat? Or who enjoy eating it?
With cats and dogs, of course, there is very little history of them being eaten in the US or in Europe.
Eating dogs, however, is apparently common in China, Indonesia, and Korea. Some immigrants from those places still eat dogs.
But, there aren't enough people in the US who like dog meat to make the pro-dog-meat lobby in the US politically significant. Congress simply doesn't have to worry about any of those people when campaigning for re-election this November. Those horrible foreigners and new arrivals who like dog meat? To hell with them. And if they get caught eating a dog or cat? Well then its a $5,000 fine. Xenophobia continues to be great politics, just not in the way you think. It's not the Trump voters in this case who are wanting to stick it to foreigners and immigrants. This time, banning dog meat is all about pandering to soccer moms and well-to-do twenty-somethings who refer to their dogs as their children. It's probably a winning strategy.
- 1. Unfortunately, with many hardcore animal rights activists, this admirable consistency often fails to extend to opposing the killing of human life pre-birth.
Price Gouging: A Life-Saving Market Mechanism
As Hurricane Florence prepares to ravage the Southeastern United States, social media warriors, and "news" outlets are exclaiming their outrage at the business owners who are raising prices on essential items such as water, food, gasoline, plywood, and even hotel rooms. This "price gouging," however, is absolutely essential, for people's lives are at risk due to this storm. When clouded by emotion, increasing the price of these commodities may come across as detrimental, and even malicious. But a sober mind must acknowledge the necessity of price flexibility.
Price Gouging and Basic Economics
We can look at the effects of price gouging from two perspectives: supply and demand.
On the demand side, increasing the price of these goods makes consumers more conscious of their purchases. In other words, this encourages people to live within their means. When a disaster is incoming, such as a hurricane or a blizzard, people will see others at grocery stores stocking up on water and other essentials. They will, however, purchase too much if the price stays the same. Whereas a storm and its immediate aftermath may last for a few days, people will purchase enough to last them for months, resulting in shortages.
By increasing the price of a good, customers are more likely to purchase only what they need to survive. Now, many will say that this just means that the rich will outbid the poor on necessary resources. But this is not the case when one thinks on the margin. In everyday life, the rich don't outbid the poor on food because the rich do not need all the food in the world. They will only purchase food so long as the perceived benefit acquired is worth more than the money they will have lost if they make the purchase. In other words, price gouging stops the rich from buying all of the water and thus allows the poor to buy water that they may desperately need.
Keeping the Prices the Same Hurts Everyone
Suppose water stayed at the same price throughout a disaster. The receivers of the water will then be the first to show up. But what if the first comers take far more than they need for this disaster? Then there will be nothing left. By increasing prices, store managers are making sure that people only buy what they find to be necessary so that they do not run out of goods. This allows for a greater distribution of essential goods.
On the supply side, price gouging helps increase the quantity. The rich can only outbid the poor if there is a fixed amount of a given resource within the area in which a disaster has occurred. This is far from the case. By increasing prices, the market is signaling to businesses to reallocate resources to the area in need of resources. This has two effects.
First, entrepreneurs who live outside the disaster area see a willingness of consumers to purchase items at a higher price. That means that entrepreneurs will be far more likely to take the risk of traveling to the area to sell the items. This makes the number of goods to rise, allowing for more people to be able to access essential resources.
Second, charities see higher prices and begin initiatives to give resources to those in need. Governments cause shortages by implementing price controls. Charities and entrepreneurs save lives. There is not a fixed amount of goods. The price system readjusts incentive structures to ensure that enough people have what they need to survive a natural disaster.
Price gouging is no different from any other instance of price flexibility. Those who charge a higher price despite popular outrage deserve a medal, for they are saving lives by ensuring people only purchase what they need to survive a disaster. For all of you who will be affected by Hurricane Florence, stay safe and thank a price gouger!
Great New Lew Rockwell Interview
I've been following Lew Rockwell's work pretty closely for more than 15 years, but there's a lot of good stuff I haven't heard before in this new interview between Tom Woods and Lew. He goes a little more deeply into some of his work with Ron Paul in Congress, and Lew apparently has a new book coming out soon, called Against the Left.
Barack Obama's Return Just Reminds Us How He Fueled American Distrust
Former president Barack Obama is back. He kicked off a series of campaign appearances last week with a blistering attack on the Trump administration and said the Republican Party had "embraced a rising absolutism." President Donald Trump deserves plenty of harsh criticism, but Obama's indictment is akin to the kid who killed his parents and then sought mercy from the judge because he was an orphan.
Obama declared that"the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism." He also called for "a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government." But his eight years as president fueled the distrust of Washington that Obama now condemns.....
When Obama took office, the United States had the 20th-most-free press in the world, according to the Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. By 2016, it had fallen to 41st — worse than South Africa and barely ahead of Botswana. Obama appointees severely undermined the Freedom of Information Act.
"It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel," the former president said. Trump's declarations about federal prosecutions are appalling. But while the FBI was investigating the legality of Hillary Clinton's private email server, Obama repeatedly publicly declared that she had committed no crime.
The Inspector General report released in June revealed that, after a half-hearted probe, the FBI planned to absolve Clinton unless she openly confessed to wrongdoing when FBI agents finally talked to her. The stifled investigation of her email shenanigans helped assure her the Democratic Party presidential nomination and, indirectly, paved the way to a Trump presidency.


text:
shmenguin wrote:Next Food Network Star is mind bogglingly bad this year. There is absolutely no one in the cast who will be capable of having their own TV show.
this has been the case for a couple of seasons. the sandwich king, aarti party...they have been trainwrecks for a while now. that being said, i think its the dark, short-haired working mom's to lose.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
bhaw wrote:Pot math... $10k per day but $250k per year?
Now that you mention it.
bhaw wrote:Pot math... $10k per day but $250k per year?
Sarcastic wrote:bhaw wrote:Pot math... $10k per day but $250k per year?
Now that you mention it.
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:Sarcastic wrote:bhaw wrote:Pot math... $10k per day but $250k per year?
Now that you mention it.
I think those figures are independent of each other but $10k a day seems grossly inflated.
Sarcastic wrote:Men ejected from Saudi festival, deported for 'being too handsome'
An annual culture festival in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh was interrupted when three men from the United Arab Emirates stand were ejected for being too handsome. "A festival official said the three Emiratis were taken out on the grounds [that] they are too handsome and that the Commission members feared female visitors could fall for them," a news service said, adding that "the festival's management took urgent measures to deport the three to Abu Dhabi."
These brown bears are keen to play with discarded barrels - because they have developed a nose for aviation fuel.
The creatures sniff kerosene and gasoline from containers left in the Kronotsky Nature Reserve in the far east of Russia.
They take deep breaths for minutes at a time before digging a shallow hole and lying in a 'nirvana' position.
The fuel is used to power generators and helicopters used by nature reserve workers.
Photographer Igor Shpilenok, 52, spent seven months with the community of bears.
He said some of the addicted predators even stalked helicopters, waiting for take off and drops of fuel to leak onto the hard soil for them to hoover up.
He added: 'In another case a helicopter brought a few barrels of gasoline.
Bethel Park police said Frank J. Zahler, 70, asked two people he was talking with at the Barnes and Noble to watch his briefcase, saying he had "Bomb making material from the Boston Marathon Bombing inside," Officer James Linz wrote in a criminal complaint.
"It's crazy. I didn't have anything. I was making a joke with the kid. These kids are whacky man, you know. What can you do with them? That's America today. In my day, we would have laughed it off," Zahler said while sitting in the back of a police car.
blackjack68 wrote:Teacher fired for urinating in classroom trashcan.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/0 ... rt_m-rpt-1
canaan wrote:that guy is a moron.
A NEW DOCUMENTARY called Unclaimed claims to introduce the world to former Army Sergeant John Robertson, lost over Vietnam in 1968 and left behind for over four decades.
The Toronto Star reports Edmonton filmmaker Michael Jorgenson found Robertson, 76, living in a rural Vietnam village stooped with age, unable to speak English, remember his birthday, or names of the children he left behind in the U.S.
MRandall25 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/texas-judge-issues-double-entendre-filled-ruling-strip-151235719.html
The judge had a field day with this one.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests


text:
Artist description:
...Chayote that's right! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Ref:[Link] Btw Happy 4th of July to all the ones who celebrates it,oh and also IDEAS FOR D plz? XD
Java Draw Created Jul 04, 2010 338 x 470px Unless noted Copyright 2010 Emiily.
We encourage you to submit a comment and let the artist know what you think of this drawing. Please log in or join to post a comment.
Post a comment
D = dewberry
Chayotoso 83 5/5
O_O WHAT? Hehe nice work! :3
For D you should draw a donut ! :D
wow awesome done! i love the way it shines! x] 5/5!
this is really great :D i like how you did the highlights
this is really realistic, awesome job ;) 5h~
ha i love it! never even knew there was a chatyote.. um for d.. date,
cool!! you should definitely do dates! they're delicious! 5h
doughnut or drumstick XD


text:
The phrase "genius school" has been tossed around quite a bit over the past few years, especially after Cornell University won an international contest to create a high-tech mecca in New York City. Slated to open in 2017 on Roosevelt Island, a narrow, 150-acre slab of land smack in the middle of the East River, the campus is expected to attract thousands of top-flight students, teachers and researchers from all over the world to work on green technology, computer programming and urban planning (among other disciplines) while pumping billions of dollars back into the New York economy.
Other New York-based schools lost out on the big prize but -- with financial help from the city -- are planning their own counterparts to Cornell's mid-river jewel. New York University, for example, is planning an urban sciences center that will operate out of a disused Metropolitan Transit Authority building in Brooklyn, while Columbia has plans for new engineering institute that will be funded in part with a $15 million gift from the city.
In Gotham, it seems, geniuses will soon be as thick on the ground as pigeons, tourists and out-of-work actors.
But this is not the first time New York has played host to a "genius school." In fact, seven decades ago, the city housed just such a venture at Hunter College — a school filled not with post-adolescent megaminds and college-age uber-geeks, but 450 apparently well-adjusted, engaged kids who just happened to enjoy IQs averaging around 150. (Post-graduate students, by comparison, generally fall in the 120-130 range.)
As LIFE noted in a March 1948 feature on the school:
The school they go to is P.S. 600, part of New York's public-school system and the only institution in the U.S. devoted entirely to the teaching and study of gifted children. It is held in a wing of the college's main building, in whose long corridors the bright little kids from 3 to 11 years old like to stop off for between-class chats.
Offhand, young geniuses would seem to present no immediate problems because they are usually bigger, healthier and even happier than average children. However, an educational problem exists simply because they are too bright for their age. If they are promoted rapidly through school on the basis of their studies they will end up as social misfits, unable to enjoy the society of children their own age. On the other hand, if they are held back with their own age group, their quick minds are apt to stagnate.
Hunter children know they are smart, but they are more humble than cocky about their intelligence. . . . Although their interest are advanced, their plans for the future have a refreshing normality. There is a 9-year-old who wants to be a fur trapper, an 8-year-old who wants to be a babysitter and a 7-year-old who wants to be president of the Coca-Cola Company.
Here, LIFE.com presents photos from the feature in the magazine, as well as pictures that never ran in LIFE.
Liz Ronk, who edited this gallery, is the Photo Editor for LIFE.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LizabethRonk.


text:
Adventures in Concert Programming
By Anthony Tommasini
Thomas W. Morris, a former executive director of the Cleveland Orchestra and now a consultant to orchestras, is hardly naïve about the tradition-bound field of classical music. He realizes that conductors of American orchestras face many pressures to play it safe in choosing programs.
Still, it exasperates him that so many conductors seem so wary of taking chances with unconventional or challenging programs.
"When I'm on a consulting project and I encounter a boring program," he said in a telephone interview, "inevitably I'm told, 'The marketing department made us do it.'" But to him hewing to the timeworn three-part program (an overture, a concerto, a popular symphony) makes as little sense financially as it does artistically.
Read more about this at the New York Times website:


text:
Web Content Display Web Content Display
Would you buy a used car from a dealer who had no license, no permits, no liability insurance, and not even a business address?
That's what you're doing when you buy a car from a curbstoner.
The term "curbstoning" comes from the practice of parking automotive "inventory" along the curb, although many curbstoners also use vacant lots and unmonitored parking lots as temporary places of business.
Curbstoners are car "flippers" – people who regularly buy cheap cars, fix them up to look decent, and sell them for a quick profit. They often pose as the car's owner, but they're not – so they can dodge limits on the number of vehicles an individual can sell before having to register as a dealer.
Curbstoned vehicles may be lemons, salvaged, or even cobbled together from parts from the wrecking yard. They may have been written off as total losses by insurance companies due to collision, flood, or other damage.
Sometimes, unethical used car dealers use curbstoning as a way to get rid of duds they can't sell on their lots.
Once you buy a curbstoned vehicle, you have nowhere to turn if the car develops problems. If the problems are serious enough, the car may fail inspection or be denied insurance coverage. And, the law requires you to disclose the problems when you sell the car.
According to ABC News, experts estimate that 80% of the used cars in classified ads are not being advertised by individual owners. And, some state licensing officials say that as many as one in five cars sold outside a commercial automotive dealership are curbstoned.
It is up to you, as a buyer, to make an informed purchase. We're here to help!
Web Content Display Web Content Display
Can You Detect Collision Damage?
Uncover the tell-tale signs of collision damage with this free field guide from Stop Curbstoning.
"If I put a For Sale sign on my car, am I a curbstoner?"
Absolutely not! Curbstoning is a big business involving the sale of many, many vehicles vehicles by people who are not licensed to sell them. In fact, although curbstoners often pose as a car's owner, they usually do not hold the title to the cars they sell.
Find out how much one curbstoner can cost your city in this special report from Stop Curbstoning.


text:
Tad Boyle staying at CU this year, but just how long can the Buffs keep him?
Consider this a warning in a largely new life for the Colorado athletic department and fans of the basketball program. The coach, Tad Boyle, is a wanted man; a truly wanted man.
This week was first, but not nearly the last in what will no doubt become a yearly struggle for the University of Colorado to keep its basketball coach.
Yes, Texas A&M was interested in speaking with Boyle about its vacant head coaching spot, a position opened by the departure of Mark Turgeon – one of Boyle's coaching mentors – to Maryland. But fans can feel secure in the fact that Boyle will more than likely be on the CU bench next season, the first for the Buffs in the inaugural year of the Pac 12. And by more than likely, I mean there's a 99.9 percent chance he's returning to the team.
This year probably wasn't great timing anyway with his arrival at CU barely a calendar year old. But know this: Colorado is probably going to have to do what it can to up the financial ante if it intends on retaining Boyle past this season and early indications are it will. With incentives Boyle makes just north of $735,000. Don't be surprised if eventually that number gets pushed to the brink of $1 million or, pardon the pun, a tad more.


text:
MTV's New Docu-Series "Catfish: The TV Show" Is Based on the Critically-Acclaimed Documentary Film "Catfish"
MTV's new docu-series "Catfish: The TV Show," based on the critically-acclaimed documentary film "Catfish," will focus on couples who have fallen in love online but have never met face-to-face. The series will follow filmmakers Yaniv "Nev" Schulman and Max Joseph on their quest around the country to tell the stories of these hopeful romantic partners. Each of the 12 hour-long episodes will be an emotional voyage to discover the truth about his or her significant other, with the journeys filled with mystery, surprises, and sometimes even shocking revelations. The series has not yet been assigned an airdate.
Yaniv "Nev" Schulman started a film and photography production company with his older brother, Ariel, at the age of 19. One of the projects that came out of this successful partnership was the hit documentary feature, "Catfish." Nev has lived and worked in New York City his entire life. After five years of studying dance and performing internationally as a child, he began taking photography seriously in high school. In 2004, Nev began photographing the New York ballet community and has worked with many companies and choreographers, and continues to be a passionate advocate of the art form.
Max Joseph is a young filmmaker from New York City who at the age of 18, licensed his first short film to HBO Family, where it aired over the next four years. Since then, Max's films have screened at festivals all over the country, including Sundance, Telluride, and SXSW, and he's directed and edited award-winning commercials for well-known brands including Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks, TOMS and Toyota Prius. Additionally, Max formerly served as creative director of video at GOOD Magazine, where he wrote and directed over 60 short films, some of which screened at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM,) and the Gagosian Gallery in New York.