text:
Ok, here's one idea, although I don't know if this is a great one. Since all browsers are getting a minimalistic look, with fewer toolbars as possible, how about removing the f-secure toolbar and do the url filtering at the http level? This way all the browsers are supported and there will be no need to release fixes for the toolbar every time the browsers get updated to a new version.
actually IS does so already(thus it's actually compatible with all browsers), and toolbar and browser plugin if disabled IS will block website
I just minimize the toolbar and move the icon in firefox.
Hi nikols,
Thanks for your idea. This is something that we are considering as part of our upcoming releases.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Visit the Community
Check our Forums or How-to & FAQs for advice or answers
View User Guides
Refer to our getting started guides and product manuals
Get Support
Talk to our Support and get answers to your questions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia/Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia
Argued: March 14, 1923. --- Decided: Apr 19, 1923
The question presented for determination by these appeals is the constitutionality of the Act of September 19, 1918, providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia. 40 Stat. 960, c. 174 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3421 1/2 a-3421 1/2 w).
The act provides for a board of three members to be constituted, as far as practicable, so as to be equally representative of employers, employees and the public. The board is authorized to have public hearings, at which persons interested in the matter being investigated may appear and testify, to administer oaths, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and production of books, etc., and to make rules and regulations for carrying the act into effect.
By section 8 the board is authorized—
'(1) To investigate and ascertain the wages of women and minors in the different occupations in which they are employed in the District of Columbia; (2) to examine, through any member or authorized representative, any book, pay roll or other record of any employer of women or minors that in any way appertains to or has a bearing upon the question of wages of any such women or minors; and (3) to require from such employer full and true statements of the wages paid to all women and minors in his employment.'
And by section 9—
'To ascertain and declare, in the manner hereinafter provided, the following things: (a) Standards of minimum wages for women in any occupation within the District of Columbia, and what wages are inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living to any such women workers to maintain them in good health and to protect their morals; and (b) standards of minimum wages for minors in any occupation within the District of Columbia, and what wages are unreasonably low for any such minor workers.'
The act then provides (section 10) that if the board, after investigation, is of opinion that any substantial number of women workers in any occupation are receiving wages inadequate to supply them with the necessary cost of living, maintain them in health and protect their morals, a conference may be called to consider and inquire into and report on the subject investigated, the conference to be equally representative of employers and employees in such occupation and of the public, and to include one or more members of the board.
The conference is required to make and transmit to the board a report including, among other things:
'Recommendations as to standards of minimum wages for women workers in the occupation under inquiry and as to what wages are inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living to women workers in such occupation and to maintain them in health and to protect their morals.'
The board is authorized (section 12) to consider and review these recommendations and to approve or disapprove any or all of them. If it approve any recommendations it must give public notice of its intention and hold a public hearing at which the persons interested will be heard. After such hearing, the board is authorized to make such order as to it may appear necessary to carry into effect the recommendations, and to require all employers in the occupation affected to comply therewith. It is made unlawful for any such employer to violate in this regard any provision of the order or to employ any woman worker at lower wages than are thereby permitted.
There is a provision (section 13) under which the board may issue a special license to a woman whose earning capacity 'has been impaired by age or otherwise,' authorizin her employment at less than the minimum wages fixed under the act.
All questions of fact (section 17) are to be determined by the board, from whose decision there is no appeal; but an appeal is allowed on questions of law.
Any violation of the act (section 18) by an employer or his agent or by corporate agents is declared to be a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Finally, after some further provisions not necessary to be stated, it is declared (section 23) that the purposes of the act are—
'To protect the women and minors of the District from conditions detrimental to their health and morals, resulting from wages which are inadequate to maintain decent standards of living; and the act in each of its provisions and in its entirety shall be interpreted to effectuate these purposes.'
The appellee in the first case is a corporation maintaining a hospital for children in the District. It employs a large number of women in various capacities, with whom it had agreed upon rates of wages and compensation satisfactory to such employees, but which in some instances were less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the board made in pursuance of the act. The women with whom appellee had so contracted were all of full age and under no legal disability. The instant suit was brought by the appellee in the Supreme Court of the District to restrain the board from enforcing or attempting to enforce its order on the ground that the same was in contravention of the Constitution, and particularly the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In the second case the appellee, a woman 21 years of age, was employed by the Congress Hall Hotel Company as an elevator operator, at a salary of $35 per month and two meals a day. She alleges that the work was light and healthful, the hours short, with surroundings clean and moral, and that she was anxious to continue it for the compensation she was receiving, and that she did not earn more. Her services were satisfactory to the Hotel Company, and it would have been glad to retain her, but was obliged to dispense with her services by reason of the order of the board and on account of the penalties prescribed by the act. The wages received by this appellee were the best she was able to obtain for any work she was capable of performing, and the enforcement of the order, she alleges, deprived her of such employment and wages. She further averred that she could not secure any other position at which she could make a living, with as good physical and moral surroundings, and earn as good wages, and that she was desirous of continuing and would continue the employment, but for the order of the board. An injunction was prayed as in the other case.
The Supreme Court of the District denied the injunction and dismissed the bill in each case. Upon appeal the Court of Appeals by a majority first affirmed, and subsequently, on a rehearing, reversed, the trial court. Upon the first argument a justice of the District Supreme Court was called in to take the place of one of the appellate court justices, who was ill. Application for rehearing was made, and, by the court as thus constituted, was denied. Subsequently, and during the term, a rehearing was granted by an order concurred in by two of the appellate court justices, one being the justice whose place on the prior occasion had been filled by the Supreme Court member. Upon the rehearing thus granted, the Court of Appeals, rejecting the first opinion, held the act in question to be unconstitutional and reversed the decrees of the trial court. 284 Fed. 613. Thereupon the cases were remanded, and the trial court entered decrees in pursuance of the mandate, declaring the act in question to be unconstitutional and granting permanent injunctions. Appeals to the Court of Appeals followed, and the decrees on the trial court were affirmed. It is from these final decrees that the cases come here.
Upon this state of facts the jurisdiction of the lower court to rant a rehearing, after first denying it, is challenged. We do not deem it necessary to consider the matter farther than to say that we are here dealing with the second appeals, while the proceedings complained of occurred upon the first appeals. That the lower court could properly entertain the second appeals, and decide the cases does not admit of doubt; and this the appellants virtually concede by having themselves invoked the jurisdiction. See Rooker et al. v. Fidelity Trust Company et al., 261 U.S. 114, 43 Sup. Ct. 288, 67 L. Ed. --, February 19, 1923.
We come then, at once, to the substantive question involved.
The judicial duty of passing upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress is one of great gravity and delicacy. The statute here in question has successfully borne the scrutiny of the legislative branch of the government, which, by enacting it, has affirmed its validity, and that determination must be given great weight. This court, by an unbroken line of decisions from Chief Justice Marshall to the present day, has steadily adhered to the rule that every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of an act of Congress until overcome beyond rational doubt. But, if by clear and indubitable demonstration a statute be opposed to the Constitution, we have no choice but to say so. The Constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law of the land, emanating from the people, the repository of ultimate sovereignty under our form of government. A congressional statute, on the other hand, is the act of an agency of this sovereign authority, and if it conflict with the Constitution must fall; for that which is not supreme must yield to that which is. To hold it invalid (if it be invalid) is a plain exercise of the judicial power-that power vested in courts to enable them to administer justice according to law. From the authority to ascertain and determine the law in a given case, there necessarily results, in case of conflict, the duty to declare and enforce the rule of the supreme law and reject that of an inferior act of legislation which, transcending the Constitution, is of no effect and binding on no one. This is not the exercise of a substantive power to review and nullify acts of Congress, for no such substantive power exists. It is simply a necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a case or controversy properly before the court, to the determination of which must be brought the test and measure of the law.
The statute now under consideration is attacked upon the ground that it authorizes an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contract included within the guaranties of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. That the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual protected by this clause is settled by the decisions of this court and is no longer open to question. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 591, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357, 373-374, 38 Sup. Ct. 337, 62 L. Ed. 772, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 10, 14, 35 Sup. Ct. 240, 59 L. Ed. 441, L. R. A. 1915C, 960; Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. 277, 52 L. Ed. 436, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Butchers' Union, etc., v. Crescent City, etc., 111 U.S. 746, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585; Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 421, 28 Sup. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551, 13 Ann. Cas. 957. Within this liberty are contracts of employment of labor. In making such contracts, generally speaking, the parties have an equal right to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of private bargaining.
In Adair v. United States, supra, Mr. Justice Harlan (208 U.S. at pages 174, 175, 28 Sup. Ct. 280, 52 L. Ed. 436, 13 Ann. Cas. 764), speaking for the court said:
'The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, i its essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell. * * * In all such particulars the employer and the employe have equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land.'
In Coppage v. Kansas, supra (236 U.S. at page 14, 35 Sup. Ct. 243, 59 L. Ed. 441, L. R. A. 1915C, 960), this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Pitney, said:
'Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each-is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.
'An interference with this liberty so serious as that now under consideration, and so disturbing of equality of right must be deemed to be arbitrary, unless it be supportable as a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state.'
There is, of course, no such thing as absolute freedom of contract. It is subject to a great variety of restraints. But freedom of contract is, nevertheless, the general rule and restraint the exception, and the exercise of legislative authority to abridge it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances. Whether these circumstances exist in the present case constitutes the question to be answered. It will be helpful to this end to review some of the decisions where the interference has been upheld and consider the grounds upon which they rest:
(1) Those dealing with statutes fixing rates and charges to be exacted by businesses impressed with a public interest. There are many cases, but it is sufficient to cite Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77. The power here rests upon the ground that, where property is devoted to a public use, the owner thereby in effect grants to the public an interest in the use which may be controlled by the public for the common good to the extent of the interest thus created. It is upon this theory that these statutes have been upheld, and, it may be noted in passing, so upheld, even in respect of their incidental and injurious or destructive effect upon preexisting contracts. See Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, 31 Sup. Ct. 265, 55 L. Ed. 297, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671. In the case at bar the statute does not depend upon the existence of a public interest in any business to be affected, and this class of cases may be laid aside as inapplicable.
(2) Statutes relating to contracts for the performance of public work. Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207, 24 Sup. Ct. 124, 48 L. Ed. 148; Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175, 36 Sup. Ct. 78, 60 L. Ed. 206, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 287; Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 27 Sup. Ct. 600, 51 L. Ed. 1047, 11 Ann. Cas. 589. These cases sustain such statutes as depending, not upon the right to condition private contracts, but upon the right of the government to prescribe the conditions upon which it will permit work of a public character to be done for it, or, in the case of a state, for its municipalities. We may therefore, in like manner, dismiss these decisions from consideration as inapplicable.
(3) Statutes prescribing the character, methods, and time for payment of wages. Under this head may be included McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U.S. 539, 29 Sup. Ct. 206, 53 L. Ed. 315, sustaining a state statute requiring coal to be measured for payment of miners' wages before screening; Knox ille Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13, 22 Sup. Ct. 1, 46 L. Ed. 55, sustaining a Tennessee statute requiring the redemption in cash of store orders issued in payment of wages; Erie Railway Co. v. Williams, 233 U.S. 685, 34 Sup. Ct. 761, 58 L. Ed. 1155, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1097, upholding a statute regulating the time within which wages shall be paid to employees in certain specified industries; and other cases sustaining statutes of like import and effect. In none of the statutes thus sustained was the liberty of employer or employee to fix the amount of wages the one was willing to pay and the other willing to receive interfered with. Their tendency and purpose was to prevent unfair, and perhaps fraudulent, methods in the payment of wages, and in no sense can they be said to be, or to furnish a precedent for, wagefixing statutes.
(4) Statutes fixing hours of labor. It is upon this class that the greatest emphasis is laid in argument, and therefore, and because such cases approach most nearly the line of principle applicable to the statute here in volved, we shall consider them more at length In some instances the statute limited the hours of labor for men in certain occupations, and in others it was confined in its application to women. No statute has thus far been brought to the attention of this court which by its terms, applied to all occupations. In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780, the court considered an act of the Utah Legislature, restricting the hours of labor in mines and smelters. This statute was sustained as a legitimate exercise of the police power, on the ground that the Legislature had determined that these particular employments, when too long pursued, were injurious to the health of the employees, and that, as there were reasonable grounds for supporting this determination on the part of the Legislature, its decision in that respect was beyond the reviewing power of the federal courts.
That this constituted the basis of the decision is emphasized by the subsequent decision in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133, reviewing a state statute which restricted the employment of all persons in bakeries to 10 hours in any one day. The court referred to Holden v. Hardy, supra, and, declaring it to be inapplicable, held the statute unconstitutional as an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract and therefore void under the Constitution.
Mr. Justice Peckham, speaking for the court (198 U.S. 56, 25 Sup. Ct. 542, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133), said:
'It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the state. There is no dispute concerning this general proposition. Otherwise the Fourteenth Amendment would have no efficacy and the legislatures of the states would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the health or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation the claim might be. The claim of the police power would be a mere pretext-become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the state to be exercised free from constitutional restraint.'
And again (198 U.S. 57, 58, 25 Sup. Ct. 543, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133):
'It is a question of which of two powers or rights shall prevail-the power of the state to legislate or the right of the individual to liberty of person and freedom of contract. The mere assertion that the subject relates, though but in a remote degree, to the public health does not necessarily render the enactment valid. The act must have a more direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.'
Coming then directly to the statute (198 U.S. 58, 25 Sup. Ct. 543, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133), the court said:
'We think the limit of the police power has been reached and passed in this case. There is, in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a health law to safeguard the public health or the health of the individuals who are following the trade of a baker. If this statute be valid, and if, therefore, a proper case is made out in which to deny the right of an individual, sui juris, as employer or employe, to make contracts for the labor of the latter under the protection of the provisions of the federal Constitution, there would seem to be no length to which legislation of this nature might not go.'
And, after pointing out the unreasonable range to which the principle of the statute might be extended the court said (198 U.S. 60, 25 Sup. Ct. 544, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133):
'It is also urged, pursuing the same line of argument, that it is to the interest of the state that its population should be strong and robust, and therefore any legislation which may be said to tend to make people healthy must be valid as health laws, enacted under the police power. If this be a valid argument and a justification for this kind of legislation, it follows that the protection of the federal Constitution from undue interference with liberty of person and freedom of contract is visionary, wherever the law is sought to be justified as a valid exercise of the police power. Scarcely any law but might find shelter under such assumptions, and conduct, properly so called, as well as contract, would come under the restrictive sway of the Legislature.'
And further (198 U.S. 61, 25 Sup. Ct. 545, 49 L. Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133):
'Statutes of the nature of that under review, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual and they are not saved from condemnation by the claim that they are passed in the exercise of the police power and upon the subject of the health of the individual whose rights are interfered with, unless there be some fair ground, reasonable in and of itself, to say that there is material danger to the public health or to the health of the employes, if the hours of labor are not curtailed.'
Subsequent cases in this court have been distinguished from that decision, but the principles therein stated have never been disapproved.
In Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U.S. 426, 37 Sup. Ct. 435, 61 L. Ed. 830, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1043, a state statute forbidding the employment of any person in any mill, factory, or manufacturing establishment more than ten hours in any one day, and providing payment for overtime not exceeding three hours in any one day at the rate of time and a half of the regular wage, was sustained on the ground that, since the state Legislature and state Supreme Court had found such a law necessary for the preservation of the health of employees in these industries, this court would accept their judgment, in the absence of facts to support the contrary conclusion. The law was attacked on the ground that it constituted an attempt to fix wages, but that contention was rejected and the law sustained as a reasonable regulation of hours of service.
Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 37 Sup. Ct. 298, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024, involved the validity of the so-called Adamson Law (Comp. St. §§ 8680a-8680d), which established an 8-hour day for employees of interstate carriers for which it fixed a scale of minimum wages with proportionate increases for overtime, to be enforced, however, only for a limited period. The act was sustained primarily upon the ground that it was a regulation of a business charged with a public interest. The court, speaking through the Chief Justice, pointed out that regarding 'the private right and private interest as contradistinguished from the public interest the power exists between the parties, the employers and employees, to agree as to a standard of wages free from legislative interference,' but that this did not affect the power to deal with the matter with a view to protect the public right, and then said (243 U.S. 353, 37 Sup. Ct. 304, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024):
'And this emphasizes that there is no question here of purely private right since the law is concerned only with those who are engaged in a business charged with a public interest where the subject dealt with as to all the parties is one involved in that business and which we have seen comes under the control of the right to regulate to the extent that the power to do so is appropriate or relevant to the business regulated.'
Moreover, in sustaining the wage feature, of the law, emphasis was put upon the fact (243 U.S. 345, 37 Sup. Ct. 301, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024) that it was in this respect temporary 'leaving the employers and employees free as to the subject of wages to govern their relations by their own agreements after the specified time.' The act was not only temporary in this respect, but it was passed to meet a sudden and great emergency. This feature of the law was sustained principally because the parties, for the time being, could not or would not agree. Here they are forbidden to agree.
The same principle was applied in the Rent Cases (Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 41 Sup. Ct. 458, 65 L. Ed. 865, 16 A. L. R. 165, and Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170, 41 Sup. Ct. 465, 65 L. Ed. 877), where this court sustained the legislative power to fix rents as between landlord and tenant upon the ground that the operation of the statutes was temporary to tide over an emergency and that the circumstances were such as to clothe 'the letting of buildings * * * with a public interest so great as to justify regulation by law.' The court said (256 U.S. 157, 41 Sup. Ct. 460, 65 L. Ed. 865, 16 A. L. R. 165):
'The regulation is put and justified only as a temporary measure [citing Wilson v. New, supra]. A limit in time, to tide over a passing trouble, well may justify a law that could not be upheld as a permanent change.'
In a subsequent case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 Sup. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. --, decided December 11, 1922, this court, after saying, 'We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change,' pointed out that the Rent Cases dealt with laws intended to meet a temporary emergency and 'went to the verge of the law.'
In addition to the cases cited above, there are decisions of this court dealing with laws especially relating to hours of labor for women. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 Sup. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551, 13 Ann. Cas. 957; Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U.S. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. 469, 58 L. Ed. 788; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 35 Sup. Ct. 342, 59 L. Ed. 628, L. R. A. 1915F, 829; Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385, 35 Sup. Ct. 345, 59 L. Ed. 632.
In the Muller Case the validity of an Oregon statute, forbidding the employment of any female in certain industries more than 10 hours during any one day was upheld. The decision proceeded upon the theory that the difference between the sexes may justify a different rule respecting hours of labor in the case of women than in the case of men. It is pointed out that these consist in differences of physical structure, especially in respect of the maternal functions, and also in the fact that historically woman has always been dependent upon man, who has established his control by superior physical strength. The Cases of Riley, Miller, and Bosley follow in this respect the Muller Case. But the ancient inequality of the sexes, otherwise than physical, as suggested in the Muller Case (208 U.S. 421, 28 Sup. Ct. 327, 52 L. Ed. 551, 13 Ann. Cas. 957) has continued 'with diminishing intensity.' In view of the great-not to say revolutionary-changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political, and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point. In this aspect of the matter, while the physical differences must be recognized in appropriate cases, and legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take them into account, we cannot accept the doctrine that women of mature age, sui juris, require or may be subjected to restrictions upon their liberty of contract which could not lawfully be imposed in the case of men under similar circumstances. To do so would be to ignore all the implications to be drawn from the present day trend of legislation, as well as that of common thought and usage, by which woman is accorded emancipation from the old doctrine that she must be given special protection or be subjected to special restraint in her contractual and civil relationships. In passing, it may be noted that the instant statute applies in the case of a woman employer contracting with a woman employee as it does when the former is a man.
The essential characteristics of the statute now under consideration, which differentiate it from the laws fixing hours of labor, will be made to appear as we proceed. It is sufficient now to point out that the latter, as well as the statutes mentioned under paragraph (3), deal with incidents of the employment having no necessary effect upon the heart of the contract; that is, the amount of wages to be paid and received. A law forbidding work to continue beyond a given number of hours leaves the parties free to contract about wages and thereby equalize whatever additional burdens may be imposed upon the employer as a result of the restrictions as to hours, by an adjustment in respect of the amount of wages. Enough has been said to show that the authority to fix hours of labor cannot be exercised except in respect of those occupations where work of long continued duration is detrimental to health. This court has been careful in every case where the question has been raised, to place its decision upon this limited authority of the Legislature to regulate hours of labor and to disclaim any purpose to uphold the legislation as fixing wages, thus recognizing an essential difference between the two. It seems plain that these decisions afford no real support for any form of law establishing minimum wages.
If now, in the light furnished by the foregoing exceptions to the general rule forbidding legislative interference with freedom of contract, we examine and analyze the statute in question, we shall see that it differs from them in every material respect. It is not a law dealing with any business charged with a public interest or with public work, or to meet and tide over a temporary emergency. It has nothing to do with the character, methods or periods of wage payments. It does not prescribe hours of labor or conditions under which labor is to be done. It is not for the protection of persons under legal disability or for the prevention of fraud. It is simply and exclusively a price-fixing law, confined to adult women (for we are not now considering the provisions relating to minors), who are legally as capable of contracting for themselves as men. It forbids two parties having lawful capacity-under penalties as to the employer-to freely contract with one another in respect of the price for which one shall render service to the other in a purely private employment where both are willing, perhaps anxious, to agree, even though the consequence may be to oblige one to surrender a desirable engagement and the other to dispense with the services of a desirable employee. [1] The price fixed by the board need have no relation to he capacity or earning power of the employee, the number of hours which may happen to constitute the day's work, the character of the place where the work is to be done, or the circumstances or surroundings of the employment, and, while it has no other basis to support its validity than the assumed necessities of the employee, it takes no account of any independent resources she may have. It is based wholly on the opinions of the members of the board and their advisers-perhaps an average of their opinions, if they do not precisely agree-as to what will be necessary to provide a living for a woman, keep her in health and preserve her morals. It applies to any and every occupation in the District, without regard to its nature or the character of the work.
The standard furnished by the statute for the guidance of the board is so vague as to be impossible of practical application with any reasonable degree of accuracy. What is sufficient to supply the necessary cost of living for a woman worker and maintain her in good health and protect her morals is obviously not a precise or unvarying sum-not even approximately so. The amount will depend upon a variety of circumstances: The individual temperament, habits of thrift, care, ability to buy necessaries intelligently, and whether the woman live alone or with her family. To those who practice economy, a given sum will afford comfort, while to those or contrary habit the same sum will be wholly inadequate. The co-operative economies of the family group are not taken into account, though they constitute an important consideration in estimating the cost of living, for it is obvious that the individual expense will be less in the case of a member of a family than in the case of one living alone. The relation between earnings and morals is not capable of standardization. It cannot be shown that well-paid women safeguard their morals more carefully than those who are poorly paid. Morality rests upon other considerations than wages, and there is, certainly, no such prevalent connection between the two as to justify a broad attempt to adjust the latter with reference to the former. As a means of safeguarding morals the attempted classification, in our opinion, is without reasonable basis. No distinction can be made between women who work for others and those who do not; nor is there ground for distinction between women and men, for, certainly, if women require a minimum wage to preserve their morals men require it to preserve their honesty. For these reasons, and others which might be stated, the inquiry in respect of the necessary cost of living and of the income necessary to preserve health and morals presents an individual and not a composite question, and must be answered for each individual considered by herself and not by a general formula prescribed by a statutory bureau.
This uncertainty of the statutory standard is demonstrated by a consideration of certain orders of the board already made. These orders fix the sum to be paid to a woman employed in a place where food is served or in a mercantile establishment, at $16.50 per week; in a printing establishment, at $15.50 per week; and in a laundry, at $15 per week, with a provision reducing this to $9 in the case of a beginner. If a woman employed to serve food requires a minimum of $16.50 per week, it is hard to understand how the same woman working in a printing establishment or in a laundry is to get on with an income lessened by from $1 to $7.50 per week. The board probably found it impossible to follow the indefinite standard of the statute, and brought other and different factors into the problem; and this goes far in the direction of demonstrating the fatal uncertainty of the act, an infirmity which, in our opinion, plainly exists.
The law takes account of the necessities of only one party to the contract. It ignores the necessitie of the employer by compelling him to pay not less than a certain sum, not only whether the employee is capable of earning it, but irrespective of the ability of his business to sustain the burden, generously leaving him, of course, the privilege of abandoning his business as an alternative for going on at a loss. Within the limits of the minimum sum, he is precluded, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, from adjusting compensation to the differing merits of his employees. It compels him to pay at least the sum fixed in any event, because the employee needs it, but requires no service of equivalent value from the employee. It therefore undertakes to solve but one-half of the problem. The other half is the establishment of a corresponding standard of efficiency, and this forms no part of the policy of the legislation, although in practice the former half without the latter must lead to ultimate failure, in accordance with the inexorable law that no one can continue indefinitely to take out more than he puts in without ultimately exhausting the supply. The law is not confined to the great and powerful employers but embraces those whose bargaining power may be as weak as that of the employee. It takes no account of periods of stress and business depression, of crippling losses, which may leave the employer himself without adequate means of livelihood. To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole.
The feature of this statute, which perhaps more than any other, puts upon it the stamp of invalidity, is that it exacts from the employer an arbitrary payment for a purpose and upon a basis having no causal connection with his business, or the contract or the work the employee engages to do. The declared basis, as already pointed out, is not the value of the service rendered, but the extraneous circumstance that the employee needs to get a prescribed sum of money to insure her subsistence, health, and morals. The ethical right of every worker, man or woman, to a living wage may be conceded. One of the declared and important purposes of trade organizations is to secure it. And with that principle and with every legitimate effort to realize it in fact, no one can quarrel; but the fallacy of the proposed method of attaining it is that it assumes that every employer is bound at all events to furnish it. The moral requirement implicit in every contract of employment, viz. that the amount to be paid and the service to be rendered shall bear to each other some relation of just equivalence, is completely ignored. The necessities of the employee are alone considered, and these arise outside of the employment, are the same when there is no employment, and as great in one occupation as in another. Certainly the employer, by paying a fair equivalent for the service rendered, though not sufficient to support the employee, has neither caused nor contributed to her poverty. On the contrary, to the extent of what he pays, he has relieved it. In principle, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods. If one goes to the butcher, the baker, or grocer to buy food, he is morally entitled to obtain the worth of his money; but he is not entitled to more. If what he gets is worth what he pays, he is not justified in demanding more, simply because he needs more; and the shopkeeper, having dealt fairly and honestly in that transaction, is not concerned in any peculiar sense with the question of his customer's necessities. Should a statute undertake to vest in a commission power to determine the quantity of food necessary for individual support, and require the shopkeeper, if he sell to the individual at all, to furnish tha quantify at not more than a fixed maximum, it would undoubtedly fall before the constitutional test. The fallacy of any argument in support of the validity of such a statute would be quickly exposed. The argument in support of that now being considered is equally fallacious, though the weakness of it may not be so plain. A statute requiring an employer to pay in money, to pay at prescribed and regular intervals, to pay the value of the services rendered, even to pay with fair relation to the extent of the benefit obtained from the service, would be understandable. But a statute which prescribes payment without regard to any of these things, and solely with relation to circumstances apart from the contract of employment, the business affected by it, and the work done under it, is so clearly the product of a naked, arbitrary exercise of power that it cannot be allowed to stand under the Constitution of the United States.
We are asked, upon the one land, to consider the fact that several states have adopted similar statutes, and we are invited, upon the other hand, to give weight to the fact that three times as many states, presumably as well informed and as anxious to promote the health and morals of their people, have refrained from enacting such legislation, We have also been furnished with a large number of printed opinions approving the policy of the minimum wage, and our own reading has disclosed a large number to the contrary. These are all proper enough for the consideration of the lawmaking bodies, since their tendency is to establish the desirability or undesirability of the legislation; but they reflect no legitimate light upon the question of its validity, and that is what we are called upon to decide. The elucidation of that question cannot be aided by counting heads.
It is said that great benefits have resulted from the operation of such statutes, not alone in the District of Columbia but in the several states where they have been in force. A mass of reports, opinions of special observers and students of the subject, and the like, has been brought before us in support of this statement, all of which we have found interesting, but only mildly persuasive. That the earnings of women are now greater than they were formerly, and that conditions affecting women have become better in other respects, may be conceded; but convincing indications of the logical relation of these desirable changes to the law in question are significantly lacking. They may be, and quite probably are, due to other causes. We cannot close our eyes to the notorious fact that earnings everywhere in all occupations have greatly increased-not alone in states where the minimum wage law obtains but in the country generally-quite as much or more among men as among women, and in occupations outside the reach of the law as in those governed by it. No real test of the economic value of the law can be had during periods of maximum employment, when general causes keep wages up to or above the minimum; that will come in periods of depression and struggle for employment, when the efficient will be employed at the minimum rate, while the less capable may not be employed at all.
Finally, it may be said that if, in the interest of the public welfare, the police power may be invoked to justify the fixing of a minimum wage, it may, when the public welfare is thought to require it, be invoked to justify a maximum wage. The power to fix high wages connotes, by like course of reasoning, the power to fix low wages. If, in the face of the guaranties of the Fifth Amendment, this form of legislation shall be legally justified, the field for the operation of the police power will have been widened to a great and dangerous degree. If, for example, in the opinion of future lawmakers, wages in the building trades shall become so high as to preclude people of ordinary means from building and owning homes, an authority which sustains the minimum wage will be invoked to support a maximum wage or building laborers and artisans, and the same argument which has been here urged to strip the employer of his constitutional liberty of contract in one direction will be utilized to strip the employee of his constitutional liberty of contract in the opposite direction. A wrong decision does not end with itself; it is a precedent, and, with the swing of sentiment, its bad influence may run from one extremity of the arc to the other.
It has been said that legislation of the of contract in the opposite direction. A of social justice, for whose ends freedom of contract may lawfully be subjected to restraint. The liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, even in innocent matters, is not absolute. It must frequently yield to the common good, and the line beyond which the power of interference may not be pressed is neither definite nor unalterable, but may be made to move, within limits not well defined, with changing need and circumstance. Any attempt to fix a rigid boundary would be unwise as well as futile. But, nevertheless, there are limits to the power, and, when these have been passed, it becomes the plain duty of the courts in the proper exercise of their authority to so declare. To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it; for surely the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members.
It follows, from what has been said, that the act in question passes the limit prescribed by the Constitution, and accordingly the decrees of the court below are
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
^1 This is the exact situation in the Lyons Case, as is shown by the statement in the first part of this opinion.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).


text:
Bumfuzzle and More3:21 AM
|Photo by Patrick Schulte (Bumfuzzle).
If you know us in real life then you know that a dream of ours is to live in a tiny home, or a motorhome traveling the country. Well, I guess you all know now too. Before we made our big move to Oregon from New Jersey we were seriously considering RV life, but honestly it all came down to what are goals were and money. Our number one goal was to remain car-free and get our butts to the west coast. Plus, we wanted to surround ourselves with some serious bike culture, which Portland obviously has. All that said, our apartment still feels too big, and I'm not sure owning a "normal" house in Portland is really in our future. It's not really what we want anyway. I know living tiny is in our future somehow, just not sure when or how yet.
Over the past few years I have searched the internet for families living the simple, tiny, and/or RV life. I found so many families living in such amazing and inspiring ways. One of those families is the Bumfuzzle crew. They are a family of four who for years lived on a sailboat in Mexico. Recently, they traded in boat life for RV life here in the states. I few months ago, while trying to figure out our move, I read Patrick Schulte (Bumfuzzle) and Nick O'Kelly's book, Live On The Margin to get more inspiration on simplifying our lives, especially financially. It was a great book and I even learned a thing or two about the stock market. Though Patrick and Nick made it easy to understand, I still can't really wrap my brain around the market completely. Numbers are just not my thing. Still a insightful and inspiring read. I definitely recommend it if you need inspiration on getting yourself out of debt and away from keeping up with those damn Jones'.
Anyway, the whole reason for this post is that Bumfuzzle has been hanging in Portland lately and decided to host get together here for anyone interested in meeting up with them. Of course, I wanted to go. No matter how awkward it felt. It's strange following people for so long and knowing their journey via the web, but at the same time it's great. It was awesome to connect with like minded people, learn about their lives on the road, and to thank some folks in person who have helped inspire us to make our lives better. The whole Bumfuzzle crew is really nice and they even had some time to check out our bikes. Plus, we were able to meet three other families who live full-time on the road, RV style. Thanks again Bumfuzzle Fam for hosting the get together and sharing your journey!
I can't wait to see how and when our tiny, simple life begins.
Actually, I guess it already has!
1 comments
- Anonymous7/21/2014 3:53 PM
That's great!!! You inspire me to live more simply with every post...we definitely have too much space. We did trade in our van this year for a tiny car. Most of the people we know think we are nuts..."your kids are so squished back there"--whatever...once we got used to the change, it was no big deal and now I'm plotting a move to an even smaller car next time. I wish it was easier to bike where we live. We would need to uproot and move to make biking our main form of transportation. It's so awesome that you did! I have always pictured myself and the hubby in retirement living in a tiny little A-frame house on a lake in Northern WI....ReplyDelete


text:
Course Description:
Advanced creative sewing and draping techniques are taught to permit students the opportunity to move forward their critical design thinking skills. This course includes a study of Haute Couture sewing and finishing techniques that enable students to recognize exquisite craftsmanship. The course provides students with the guidelines for collection concept that will be used in the Senior Collection Concept Development course.
Course Objectives:
Upon completion of this course, students are expected to:
Course Topics:
Special Projects/Activities to Be Completed Outside of Scheduled Classes:
Textbooks / Resources:
Alternative Textbooks:


text:
Chem! A programming language centered around chemistry!
The other day I was looking around a python wikipedia, and found that people make programming languages with python. Some are professional, while some others are not. I decided to create my own language. This is just a demo of my language. It is called Chem! Why chem? Because it is centered around chemistry! In chem to create a variable, it would look like this: "set oxygen level to 0;". To import a library it would look like " get tool library_name". Chem is a fun language to play around with.Just edit the test.chem file. Try it out!
Note: If it is not working, Fork it.
You are viewing a single comment. View All


text:
Blog Archive
- ► 2012 (43)
- ► 2011 (77)
- ▼ October (5)
Facebook Badge
Blog Archive
- 2014 (1)
- 2013 (8)
- 2012 (43)
- 2011 (77)
- 2010 (63)
- 2009 (67)
147 Million Orphans Blog
how many hits?
Domestic Adoption....orphan or not?
Right from the beginning, I am going to give the disclaimer that I am not an expert on this subject. The past few weeks I have had quite a few emails regarding domestic adoptions. I am VERY PASSIONATE about these babies and their birthmothers. Abortion is RAMPANT here in the US. It is an easy "out," for some women but for some, is their only option (so they think). African American children are the last children to be adopted. With both of our domestic adoptions, we were our birthmothers only options.
I have journeyed through two domestic adoptions. They were both TOTALLY different. (kinda like pregnancies, no two are alike) I have had positive responses like "I am so glad that you have children from the US, we have so many kids over here that need families and everybody keeps going overseas!!" Then there are negative responses like " are these children REALLY orphans? I mean, they have a mother, they are not sitting in an orphanage with no one to love them...they are in America, they are not going to starve to death, and not receive the medical care that is needed" I could fill up a whole page of responses that people have taken it upon themselves to "share" with me. I think I have a sign on my forehead that says "SHARE...SHARE EXACTLY what is on your heart in regards to my family!" haha
I've been walking with a friend through a domestic adoption. The social worker calls and says "we would like to show your profile to a birth mom.....here is her story..blah blah blah." Then, YOU decide if you want your profile to be shown....the struggle starts. Do we show it? Are we open to STD's? marijuana? cigarettes? alcohol? and the list goes on....and then you start feeling like you are "playing God." we WILL do this, we WON'T do that, we are open to this.....The grandparents start sharing about how they are concerned about the heartache that the adoption will bring. They ask: "What about the birthparents medical history? what if they have had mental illness?"
Well, if you do an international adoption...do you know any of those details? NO! But for some reason, it is safer in people's minds. Perhaps what you don't know won't hurt you? How do you "classify" an orphan? The definitions of the word orphan vary from 1)a child who has lost both parents 2)someone who lacks care, or support or supervision 3) a fatherless child.
At the end of the day, in domestic adoption, there is a single woman (typically) who cannot care for her child. IT IS A TRAGEDY. Regardless of your circumstances, there is not ONE single part of a mother's heart that wants to hand the child that she has been carrying for nine months to someone else to love. Often, after laboring and delivering these babies, these girls feel a love for these babies that they HAVE NEVER KNOWN or FELT in their entire lives, just to do the most sacrificial act, give them away, so that they can have a better life than they could ever offer. Even the children that are created from the act of rape. After carrying these babies for nine months, the mothers have so much love for them. I have a whole new perspective of these ladies that make an adoption plan after walking through the process alongside them. I pray for all three of my children's birth mom's EACH AND EVERY day and I thank my sweet Jesus for those women. I will never forget the first time that I was handed Joshua and the mom walked away. I literally fell in a slump over him and wept until I could hardly breathe. I felt as though my heart had been plucked straight from my chest. My heart THROBBED on her behalf. It was THE MOST life changing moment of my life and I have NEVER been the same since....
If there wasn't domestic adoption, we would have to have orphanages in the US. We would be so overwhelmed in our foster systems. If there wasn't this option for many of these mothers, we would find many more children left in dumpsters or they would try to parent them and who knows what the the future of these children would be. Abortion would be even MORE rampant. So, I am asked regularly "where is the largest need?" Hhhhhmmm...everywhere, there are hundreds of millions of needs.
Do we really think that our sweet Savior is sitting on his throne picking and choosing which child we should love because one is more in need than the other? Do we really think that if we bring a child into our home through domestic OR international that one might be where we are NOT "called" and if we bring one home from the wrong place that we will not be in His will and be sinning against Him? Sometimes I think that He just sits up there on that throne and just shakes his head thinking "THEY ARE MISSING IT!!!!" I just want you to love each other. It is so simple....LOVE ONE ANOTHER. We spend so much time thinking about WHAT we should do, instead of actually putting it to action.
I am so excited to talk to my friends that just came back from Africa. I cannot wait to say "SO, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH IT?!?!" They went, they saw, and now they know. I am sure that they are still processing it, so if they are at a loss, I have ALL KINDS of ideas for them! (hahahaha) The blog world is another crazy thing. We are exposed to story after story in people's lives. We have learned things that we NEVER knew before blogs. So all of you "bloggers" that don't necessarily travel...now that you know, what do you do with it?
I have done domestic adoption and international adoption. I would choose them BOTH again, again, and again. I would choose an HIV+ child again , again, and again.
29 comments:
- Kristin said...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I was adopted at a year old and I am so thankful that my birth mother chose that for me. This might sound totally weird, but the other night I had a dream and the only thing I remember about it was that Josie Love was in it and I was hugging her with a love that brought me to tears in my dream. That's all that the dream was. And I only recently starting reading your blog, so I hope you don't think I'm totally crazy! Ha!! I suppose her story has just touched my heart, as it has so many others, no doubt.
- October 14, 2010 at 8:01 PM
- soontobemomof9 said...
We have done Domestic infant, foster adoption, and international adoptions. The needs were great with each one.
I have come to understand that God intricately designs each family. He calls one to a child, not general adoption. He will see the child He has created to be a part of your family into your arms!
Great post! :)
Every child deserves a family! Whatever their physical state!
- October 14, 2010 at 8:19 PM
- mamamargie said...
Thank you for posting this!!!!!! We have 5 adopted children, all from the US foster care system. Adopting from the US doesn't seem as romantic as traveling overseas, but it's soooo necessary!
When I was little, my mom used to sing an old song to us called "Brighten the Corner Where You Are." It talked about taking care of the need around you before running off to faraway places. It has really stuck with me.
I'm not saying NOT to adopt from overseas, goodness NO! What I am saying, is not to cross domestic adoptions off either. Faith has no safety nets. You either trust God with the outcome of your adoption or you don't.
We have been and continue to be overwhelmed by the great need. It's easy to become paralyzed by the enormity of the problem. We've found it best to just keep asking God to show us step-by-step where to go and what to do next, trusting that He remembers we are but dust and won't take us any faster than we can go.
We're starting our next adoption. Where it will be from or who will join our family, we don't know. We're praying for guidance and we're praying for the newest member(s) of our family ... wherever they may be right now.
- October 14, 2010 at 9:42 PM
- James 1:27 Family said...
Having adopted both domestically and internationally, we get the same comments you have experienced and it's usually from people who have not adopted, are not planning to adopt, don't help orphans, and aren't planning to help them. Funny how that works, huh? Thank you for sharing your heart. It's like you wrote exactly what I'm feeling.
Much love in Jesus,
- October 15, 2010 at 4:25 AM
- Janel said...
Thanks for sharing these thoughts! I loved this line: We spend so much time thinking about WHAT we should do, instead of actually putting it to action. So true!
- October 15, 2010 at 5:53 AM
- Andrea said...
AMEN! What a wonderful post!!!
- October 15, 2010 at 6:03 AM
- ASH said...
Amen. I volunteer at the local crisis pregnancy center, and just last week we had a beautiful lady come in with a--literally--beat up face. Domestic violence. Wanted to protect the little life growing inside her. Considering adoption. There is a HUGE need here, just a different kind of need. Jesus, open our eyes to the brokenness ALL AROUND US.
- October 15, 2010 at 6:17 AM
- Rachel said...
Wow! Thanks for sharing this. I didn't know that you had done domestic adoptions I thought you had only done international. We are in the process of doing a domestic adoption. We are going to adopt an AA boy because of the need. Do you have an agency that you recommend? We are in the process of fundraising and it seems as soon as we have the funds we will be matched because of the need. growingwithjoy.blogspot.com
- October 15, 2010 at 7:01 AM
- Rachel said...
I hope it is ok but I added a link to this post on my blog
- October 15, 2010 at 7:15 AM
- Renee said...
Thank you so much for a very thoughtful, insightful post. The fact that your family was the only option for the birthmoms just totally shocked me. I honestly thought people were standing in line waiting to adopt domestically. I am just totally floored and you just rocked my world. What happens to the babies where there is no 'only one option'? Do they go into foster care? I am just stunned that there aren't more people waiting for newborn non-white babies. Wow. Can you share what agency you used?
I feel like your post is the Lord nudging me in this direction. DH will probably think I'm totally off my rocker if I bring it up. How DO you know if it's the Lord's leading, or just your heartstrings being tugged? How DO you know how much you can handle??
Wow, lots to ponder over my coffee this afternoon...
- October 15, 2010 at 8:34 AM
- Envyshope said...
WOW! This post is amazing! We are in the process of having a child placed with us through domestic adoption. He has some special needs such as visual impairment. We began our adoption journey with international adoption, but God navigated our family where we were needed most. I would love to share your post because you have said so eloquently what we believe! God wants children to have families! ALL CHILDREN! From everywhere! Domestic & Int'l Adoption are so important and are both needed! Thank you so much for blessing us with your words of encouragement today! My heart is full!
Kelli Stever
- October 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM
- Shannon said...
I'm wondering the same information as Rachel above. Do you have a domestic agency you would recommend for an African American adoption? You can email shannon(at)israelprophitt(dot)com
Thank you.
- October 15, 2010 at 9:08 AM
- Danielle said...
Love this! Thanks for sharing so concisely! I really believe God wants all believers to get involved in caring for His children all over the world as well as right here at home.....We have two daughters that we just adopted from Ethiopia, and are currently in the process of getting certified to be foster parents....kids are kids, and need to be loved with Christ's love...whether they are biological, international or American!!!
- October 15, 2010 at 1:34 PM
- Schenk Family Blog said...
Thanks for your encouragement, Suzanne. We are adopting from Uganda but know of several organizations there that are wanting to keep the kids in country as much as possible. So we struggle with the thought that we will be taking this child from their country. But on the other hand, the need is so Great! If not adoption for some of these kids.....they will end up in slums, in prostitution, as glue addicts, or boarding school. It seems like there is so much need that if you help where you experience God's burden, that's at least a step forward.....blessing to you!!!
- October 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM
- Sophie said...
The greatest tragedy is that these little humans are in need of a family and deserving of love and so often people view them as lepers. I am so astonished at peoples response as to why one child deserves to be adopted over another.
We are in the process of our 2nd Int'l adoption, we feel this is were God is leading us and if it is His will for us to one day adopt domestic than we will certainly follow His lead.
Great post
- October 15, 2010 at 8:32 PM
My son joined our family through domestic adoption. A young woman, at that time unknown to us, found herself in a situation she did not have the resources to cope with, and graciously gave us the gift of her baby. We do know that she did not use drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy, but we do not know the answers to many questions you spoke about in your post- because we did not ask. When god offers a gift so unimaginable, is it right to question his choice for you? Our son is perfect in every way. We were unconditionally blessed , and we unconditionally accepted. I thank god everyday for my son. Adoption, domestic or international, is a gift to everyone involved.
- October 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM
- Julie said...
Wow! Love, Love this post!!!! Thanks so much for putting it all out there...the good, the bad, and the ugly! You inspire me!!!
- October 17, 2010 at 9:22 PM
- Erica said...
Fantastic post. Absolutely beautiful. Adoption is important whether it's Domestic or International. A need is a need. No child should live without a family to fight for them, love them, defend them, and enjoy them. You bless my heart, love you.
- October 18, 2010 at 8:00 AM
- Jill said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- October 18, 2010 at 9:53 AM
- Rachelle said...
Thank you so much for addressing this issue! We are finally stepping out of our comfort zone to seek adoption through the foster care system. And I have wondered at moments if this is the right direction (like are we really caring for orphans?). The child we will adopt is likely sitting in foster care today, well fed, warm...but do they know they have a hope and a future? More and more my heart knows this is God's plan for our family and that this is about more than physical needs.
- October 18, 2010 at 10:13 AM
- Jill said...
Suzanne, Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for this post. I have felt so alone in this matter about the comments of dom. vs. inter. and I have told myself that others feelings ultimately do not matter, but I am human and as a woman whose heart beats for orphans the comments do take their toll. My heart is just sad that things can't be simple, just as you have stated "Just love". Why do people have to question it? With every question my heart aches. It is like in their minds they have reduced God's mercy and grace to a checklist of who really needs salvation, praise God for no checklists because I would have never made it. I also get a common comment that drives me crazy with my domestic adoption. It is like most people want to try to lift me up by putting the birthmom down and that DRIVES ME CRAZY! I really think that this why many birthmom's turn to abortion now. I know birthmoms that have chose adoption for 1 child (and due to non-Christian behavior by "so-called" Christians and their hypocritical behavior) then chose to abort their next pregnancy. When I hear this, I am saddened and sick and angry all at the same moment. The very people, Christians, that are called to step into the gap, are the reason why some of these birthmoms chose abort. They see the pain of abortion less that the condemnation of Christian who beat them down for their brave decision to bring life into this world, when the world is screaming at them otherwise. I would love to know your thoughts on this. Love and prayers to your family, Thank you again for posting and comforting me through your own loneliness in this, Love, Jill jagoston97atgmail.com
- October 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM
- Over-Caffeinated X 4 said...
Two thoughts.... first, a friend of mine told me one time when a mutual friend lost a family member, "Don't ask what you can do for them. Just go do SOMETHING!" Great advice, I've never forgotten it! So, you tell 'em sister! :)
Second thing... I agree with you on the domestic vs. international thing. I've only done international, BUT, I've walked with moms on the domestic side and their issues are very similar (attachment wise) to the ones we face. Their birthmother backgrounds are no safer OR scarier than the ones of my children. Need is all around us. However, where I DON'T believe there is a need and where I think people are missing it is the people who line up for YEARS AND YEARS for a HEALTHY WHITE INFANT. I don't think God really gives a hot-diggity what color your baby is. Lord knows I hope not anyway because if He cares about color, what if I am the wrong color? Guess no one ever thinks about that when they are advertising on those college campuses for those white infants.
- October 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM
- Audrey said...
Thank you so much for this post! We are in the process of our first adoption which is a domestic african american adoption. When we began our journey, our hearts were pulled internationally. But one by one God began closing those doors for us. And He opened the door to domestic adoption. Our hearts and minds have been opened to what birth mothers go through and how they feel. We have had similar responses when we talk about our upcoming adoption so it's great to hear this perspective.
- October 20, 2010 at 6:19 AM
- Polly said...
Oh I am so thrilled to have read your amazing post on domestic adoption! thank you, thank you, thank you! You put into words so eloquently what many are feeling but don't know how to express. We have three biological blessings and are pursuing domestic transracial adoption. We started with international but halfway through felt led in a totally different direction. Still open to international for future adoptions but excited to see what God has planned for our family here in the U.S. I agree with your definition of an orphan and just feel incredibly blessed that we are on this journey. BTW we are using Nightlight Adoptions which was formerly Carolina Hope, which came recommended by the guys who put on the "Together for Adoption" conferences.
God bless you!!
- October 21, 2010 at 6:33 AM
- Deb said...
Great post. Really blessed by it as a mama of a sweet domestic treasure and now a positive Ugandan princess. :)
- October 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM
- Dardi said...
Just happened upon your blog...this is an amazing post that hits so close to home for me! We have adopted from foster care, Ethiopia, & just last week brought home our little girl through domestic adoption. I could not agree more with what you have said. I also read your blog about birth mothers & have actually had a post on this subject brewing in my head. I am so ferociously protective of our birth mother when the stupid remarks are made. The post will come, but I just was finally able to share the story of how our sweet girl came to us!
- October 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM
- Sarah said...
Thank you for your amazing post! I totally agree, there is no child that is worth less or more than another and domestic or international, they all need homes and love! We just brought our sweet little boy home form Africa in July and have had so many negative comments from people seemingly angry that we chose to adopt from Uganda instead of choosing to adopt from the US when there are many children needing homes here. It has always frustrated me because they are basically saying that African children aren't worth as much. So not the case! We looked into domestic adoption. We felt lead to Uganda. We intend to adopt again in the future and may do a domestic adoption. There are no children more worthy of homes than others. They ALL need homes. It is just about where we feel God leading us and I am so glad that there are families that feel lead to adopt and do so from all over the world including America!
- December 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM
We have a lovely daughter adopted from the US (we are from Canada, and there is a lot of AA adoption movement from the States into Canada), but have been waiting 18 months now for a second child, and have had three adoption reversals (very, very difficult). Just saw the new program in the Congo, where the government is trying really hard to get the many orphans adopted internationally. We're considering having two adoption dossiers, one in the US and one in the Congo, just because we could realistically never get chosen in the adoption pool system (but we still strongly support Birth Parent choice and open adoption). It's a difficult decision, because we love the agency we adopted our little girl from, and we're hoping for proximity of Birth Moms/Dads....
- January 28, 2011 at 6:18 AM
- Michelle said...
I reread this blog today. We are adopting domestically for the first time. This will be our third child. We are 7 months into the process and I am sturggling with are we doing enough. This blog post again reminds me I am not incharge of this process God is and that we are doing what He says we should do. Thank you, Thank you for your encouragement!!! God knew this is exactly what I needed to hear TODAY!!!
- September 8, 2011 at 6:57 AM
About Me
- suzanne
- I am a lover of Jesus. I have the most fabulous husband that anyone woman could ask for. The Lord has blessed us with 7 beautiful children. I started this blog so that friends and family could follow our trip to Uganda to visit Katie Davis. I have decided to keep blogging to help bring orphan awareness to the world around me.


text:
Check out our top three reads of the week. They cover the challenges and opportunities facing American communities right now. This week, we're delving into Universal Basic Mobility, worker co-ops, and new research that looks at the connection between where you were raised and your economic mobility.
Have something to add to our list? Let us know on Twitter at @LISC_HQ.
Downward mobility: Where middle-class kids are worse off than their parents
By Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post
"The Opportunity Atlas data shows that these patterns aren't apparent only among middle-class kids. The same places that have better outcomes for middle-class kids also tend to have better outcomes for poor and upper-class kids, too. When it comes to neighborhoods, what's good for poor and middle-class kids seems to be good for rich ones, as well. Rising geographic tides lift all economic boats." Continue [+]...
Universal Basic Mobility Is Coming. And It's Long Overdue
By Matt Caywood & Alex Roy, CityLab
"Universal Basic Mobility would be a system of partnerships and/or policies that provide a minimum level of mobility to all members of society. An isolated, static population is unhealthy, unproductive and unhappy. A mobile population is economically, culturally, and socially dynamic. UBM can harness automation and new mobility platforms to accelerate economic growth, providing everyone with access to employment and the means to improve their quality of life." Continue [+]...
Worker Co-ops Catch on in Philadelphia
By Sandra Larson, NextCity
"The worker co-op model — in which businesses are collectively owned and democratically governed by their workers — has gained broad recognition in some cities as an avenue for tackling income inequality, growing wealth and stabilizing neighborhood-based businesses. New York City legislated $1.2 million in new co-op support funding in 2015. That funding has risen each year. The city has seen a quadrupling of co-ops — from about 20 to around 80 — generating more than 500 new jobs and an uptick in city contracts awarded to co-ops, according to the office of City Council Member Helen Rosenthal, who spearheaded the co-op law." Continue [+]...
The views and opinions expressed in the articles above are those of the authors and publications we are listing, and do not necessarily reflect LISC's perspective.


text:
The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State: The Discipline of Disegno
The Florentine Academy and the Early Modern State R^ constitutes a genealogy of the academic, confraternal, and guild practices of artists in Florence, from the mid-sixteenth to the mid-eighteenth centuries. It examines the institution's everyday practices, for which its daily transactions, expenses, sources of income, and seemingly inconsequential rulings provides an index, along with its official statutes, public mandates, and "extraordinary" proceedings, many of which have remained unpublished until now. Together with theoretical, critical and historiographical primary sources, these documents provide a picture of the operations and work of the Florentine Academy and the processes that governed the gestures, dictated the behaviors, and shaped the thought of those who moved within its walls. Looking diachronically at identity formation within a particular institution of the Medici state, this study also examines the connections between the Academy and an emergent public sphere within which modern bourgeois subjectivity took shape.
Please visit Help Page for Questions
regarding ISBN / ISBN-10 / ISBN10, ISBN-13 / ISBN13, EAN / EAN-13, and Amazon
Home | ISBN Directory | Affiliate
Program | Contact
Copyright © 2003-2014 AllDiscountBooks.net All rights reserved.


text:
The Shame We Feel
Yesterday in New Hampshire, First Lady Michelle Obama made an impassioned speech that tapped into the collective pain stirred up by Donald Trump's misogynistic language and the recent news that he allegedly sexually assaulted several women.
"The truth is, it hurts," the First Lady said.
And it does. It does hurt. So many old feelings and fears are called up in me when I hear Donald Trump and Billy Bush on the video, or when I read the account written by People writer Natasha Stoynoff, and I know I'm not alone.
It hurts so much, in fact, that I've been actively keeping the news from my ten-year-old daughter. The world she lives in now doesn't include the concept of sexual assault. I wish I could push pause for her and keep the world as it is in her eyes now. But I know it's only a matter of time until she learns the rest of the story.
When I was 24, I was working for a nonprofit that helps abused children. United Way asked my organization to give a fundraising speech about our work at a car dealership, and my boss asked me to handle it. When I walked in, I could feel a strange vibe in the small room packed with salesmen—an energy I wasn't used to. The men began snickering, and I felt that sinking feeling that the First Lady referred to in her speech. One man asked loudly where my boombox was and the room burst into rowdy laughter. I didn't get the joke; it would only be much later that I would realize, with my cheeks flushed and hot, that they were suggesting that I was about to strip for them. I gave my speech, feeling uneasy all the while. Despite not knowing exactly what had happened, by the time I got to my car, hot tears of shame were rolling down my cheeks.
I didn't tell my boss (who was a woman). I didn't tell the United Way. I don't even think I told my friends. It wasn't a big deal—that was what I told myself. But—although it obviously pales in comparison to the atrocities many women suffer—in my life, on that day, it was a big deal to me.
Now, almost two decades later, I can see the event in a broader context. I know the joke was just a joke; it wasn't a personal condemnation of me. They were just sharing a laugh, probably feeling jovial over the opportunity to take a bit of a break from the daily grind of work. They weren't thinking about my feelings (part of the definition of objectification). Heck, maybe even to them, comparing me to a stripper was a weird sort of compliment. I'm sure many of them were "good guys," guys who would be my friend if I knew them. (Although if I knew them, I feel quite certain that none of them would have made that joke in front of me.)
No, I'm no longer interested in asking why a group of guys would make a joke about a woman being a stripper, or why they would direct that joke toward me. Now the questions I'm most interested in asking are ones I ask of myself.
Namely these: Why was I embarrassed? Why did I cry those tears of shame? And why did I tell no one? Surprise and anger are the reactions I might expect—even fear or rage—but my first response (like that of so many others) was shame.
So where does the shame come from? They were the ones being inconsiderate; I did nothing wrong.
Or did I?
Often, I believe, when we women experience an act on the rape spectrum—whether it be rape, another form of sexual assault, or sexual harassment—we feel shame because we experience the act as a form of judgment, a condemnation of our character. The thinking goes something like this: This didn't happen to my neighbor, coworker, or friend. It happened to me. Why did it happen to me? It must mean something bad about me.
We internalize the act. Then we look inward for the cause:
Maybe it was something I said. Or did. Maybe my eye had a bit too much twinkle in it. Or did I forget to cross my legs? Did I lean in a little too far? Was it the tone of my voice? Or the way I cocked my head to the side and smiled when he spoke? My skirt might have been too short. Or did I unbutton my blouse too far? Was my lipstick too red? Maybe I shouldn't have laughed at his joke. (It actually wasn't that funny.) Or agreed to go on the boat / the bus / the date in the first place. I shouldn't have drunk so much. Or passed out. Or hung out with that crowd. Or left my house at all. Or maybe—hold on a second—did it even happen? My mind is spinning—have I just made this whole thing up?
We don't have to remember back very far in our history to get to a time when the men did much of the deciding for the women; depending on what point in history we are looking at, men determined whether women attended college, whether we voted, whether we owned property, whether we could get a loan, whom we would marry, whether we would have a baby, whether we would be beaten, even whether we would have a lobotomy.
It doesn't take a genius to observe that a hierarchical societal structure was in place, and men were at the top. But all women were not ranked equally in this structure (nor were men). Which would receive the most benefits? Which would suffer the most? The usual suspects—race, ethnicity, education, and family wealth—imparted their influence on the fate of both men and women alike. But due to a variety of reasons that stretch back far beyond the history of our country, women were affected by an additional factor: our sexuality.
Female sexual roles were defined by two opposite archetypes: the asexual role of the woman that a man chooses to bear his children (the wife, the mother, the nun, the Virgin Mary), and the hypersexualized role of the woman a man desires and sometimes fears (the mistress, the vixen, the witch, Eve). Although the latter role did carry with it certain freedoms and power, with a few notable exceptions, the asexual role offered the more secure path for a woman and her children.
So now let's think about the act of sexual assault against the backdrop of this societal structure. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are to the gender hierarchy what police brutality and racial killings are to the racial hierarchy. The threat and sometimes reality of sexual violence and harassment serve as a constant reminder to women as to our place in the structure, and thereby help to maintain the status quo.
Women who are raped are regularly criticized and shunned. In essence, they are knocked farther down the hierarchical ladder toward the direction of slut. Even our language reveals this effect. We say a woman who's been sexually assaulted has been "demeaned." I've heard it over and over these past few days.
The definition of "demean" is to cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something). But why should Natasha Stoynoff be demeaned? And what about Jessica Leeds, Rachel Crooks, Kristin Anderson, and Summer Zervos? Why should their dignity be reduced? Are they not as dignified as they always were? Do their acquaintances not respect them as much as they did last week? If a tree branch fell on their heads, would we consider them to have fallen metaphorically in our eyes? What about if they got into a car accident? Of course not. But yet Donald Trump (allegedly) assaults them, and suddenly they are demeaned.
This discrepancy always confused me, even as a girl. The perpetrator of an act of sexual violence is punished, yes (usually). But the sentence is often surprisingly light (e.g., 6 months), or even non-existent. Meanwhile, the woman's scarlet letter is sewn on permanently.
Today men no longer decide women's fate the way they once did. The hierarchical structure's power has been significantly eroded, and the rigid gulf between the two extremes of sexual roles for women is shrinking. (Now we women often find ourselves striving to magically fit into both extremes at the same time—as Usher described, "a lady in the street but a freak in the bed." One reason adolescence is so impossibly difficult for girls, and their math/science interest plummets as a result, is because once puberty hits, 80% of their brainpower is expended trying to appear to be both a virgin and a slut at the same time, à la Britney Spears in her glory days.)
But despite all the changes in power that have taken place, many of our old patterns of thinking still persist. Men may not control our actions anymore, but many of our thoughts still continue on as if they did.
I can remember, in my twenties, desperately fearing rape. I was afraid at night, walking alone to my car, in the shower. I was even afraid while vacuuming, my heart racing over the whir of the motor, because I knew I wouldn't be able to hear an intruder. I distinctly remember wondering, during my engagement to my first husband, if I were raped, would my fiancé be able to live with it—i.e., would he forgive me? I did not have the same fear of, say, my arm being accidentally chopped off, or being mugged. If one of those crappy life events befell me, I knew it wouldn't be my fault. But if I were raped …
I feared the damning judgment that a sexual assault carried with it. What we fear is often also intrinsically tied to what we hope. So while I feared being demeaned, I simultaneously hoped that I—an intelligent, kind, pretty, and thoroughly loved young woman—would be approved of, that one man or men in general would find me worthy. Was my twenty-something self an extreme example? Maybe. Maybe not.
My guess is that the biological conditioning and patterns of thought that helped us women to survive for centuries within an often hostile societal structure are slow to undo. And this is how it is that today that the following unnecessary truths continue to exist:
We women too often demonstrate a tendency to look outside ourselves for judgment rather than relying on our own knowledge, wisdom, intuition, experience, emotions, and opinions to assess our value and make our decisions.
We women too often censor the expression of our sexuality so that we might fit in and gain approval from others—in particular a patriarchal point of view.
These old patterns are no longer necessary, and they cause us much suffering.
As the First Lady said in her speech yesterday, although we women still face many injustices, we have innumerable tools at our disposal that were unavailable to our great-grandmothers, grandmothers, and even our mothers. We can vote. We can create, argue against, and rule on the laws of the land. We can even become President.
Now it's up to us to vote en masse for Hillary Clinton so that we might send a political message of righteous female anger that to align yourself with female oppression and misogyny is an act of career suicide. And then we must perform the much harder task of turning our eyes, hearts, and minds inward to consider how our own unexamined thoughts and actions are perpetuating an outdated status quo. We owe it to the women and men who fought for us to be where we are today. We owe it to our daughters and our sons. And we owe it to ourselves.
© Amy Daniewicz


text:
Of course this hand is a face up overpair by the action and I'm just paying someone off who's set-mining. I don't really worry about monsters here - I'd expect to see something like QxXd or T9s at least - not, uh, T8o,
But hey, go ahead and call off half a stack OOP with second pair no kicker - wonder what the plan was on the turn, besides spike and hit, because I'm never ever folding getting 3-1 on fourth street.
At least I wasn't last. 30/31 Seems like a nice enough site overall. Will have to explore further. Thanks to Pokermeister and Seals With Clubs for hosting!
Hand #19447768-5 - 2014-02-26 21:04:21
Game: NL Hold'em (0+0) - Blinds 10/20
Site: Seals With Clubs
Table: Bitcoin Blogger Freeroll - Table 4
Seat 2: robvegaspkr (3081)
Seat 3: BloodOfKings (3842)
Seat 4: cidoncha (2970) - sitting out
Seat 5: edgie1 (2208)
Seat 6: heffmike (2970)
Seat 8: MichelleD (2980) - sitting out
Seat 9: KingQuesnel (2949)
heffmike has the dealer button
MichelleD posts small blind 10
KingQuesnel posts big blind 20
** Hole Cards **
Dealt to heffmike [Ah Ac]
robvegaspkr folds
BloodOfKings raises to 170
cidoncha folds
edgie1 calls 170
heffmike raises to 500
MichelleD folds
KingQuesnel folds
BloodOfKings calls 330
edgie1 folds
** Flop ** [Qc 8d 7d]
BloodOfKings checks
heffmike bets 900
BloodOfKings calls 900
** Turn ** [Th]
BloodOfKings bets 2442 (All-in)
heffmike calls 1570 (All-in)
BloodOfKings refunded 872
** River ** [Kd]
** Pot Show Down ** [Qc 8d 7d Th Kd]
BloodOfKings shows [8s Tc] (Two Pair, Tens and Eights +K)
heffmike shows [Ah Ac] (a Pair of Aces +KQT)
BloodOfKings wins Pot (6140) with Two Pair
heffmike finishes tournament in place #30
Closing the book on 10 years of face-punching
19 hours ago


text:
Just do it
When my awesome friend Katie D. messaged me about this House of Go Pop-up in Chicago where we could go try on new running shoes and take amazing pictures, I jumped all over it. This was the first Nike pop-up that I've gone to and I had so much fun!
House of Go
We got to try on the latest and greatest Epic React running shoe. These running shoes were super light-weight and cushion-y. I love how they look and feel, but I don't know for sure since I only ran for about a minute in them at a moderate pace. I wouldn't mind trying them on again and running a few miles instead of just a minute.
Epic React shoes
These Epic React shoes stole the show. Their claim-to-fame is they are springy, bouncy and foamy. All while being light-weight. If you like cushion, you will love these shoes. They're also durable, supposedly lasting well over 500 miles of running.
The real reason we went
Instagram is going to be lit up! We went to take some great photos and even got a video of us running in these shoes. Check out some of the photos and click on my Instagram to see the video. We had such a great time and I'm looking forward to the next Nike pop-up!
Have you tried the Epic React shoes?


text:
Information on buying the freehold
To purchase the freehold to a block of flats both the building and the leaseholder must meet the following criteria:
Source: www.lease-advice.org
Considering the qualifications in the table, for example, if there are 10 flats in the building at least 5 of the flats of the qualifying leaseholders must participate in the Collective Enfranchisement process. If there are only two flats in the building, both leaseholders must participate.
Once it is established that the building and the leaseholders in the block of flats meet the criteria, to exercise the right to purchase the freehold the leaseholders must form a Right To Enfranchise (RTE) Company and the number of leaseholders mustequal at least half the total number of flats in the block. A series of steps must be adhered to. These include:
For more comprehensive information on Collective Enfranchisement please go to The Leasehold Advisory Service, which is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (ENDPB) funded by the Government. Their website is www.lease-advice.org.
The Leasehold Advisory Service comments that, "The procedures to collective enfranchsiement are straightforward and there is no reason why any group of leaseholders should not be able to successfully complete enfranchisement action."


text:
Crochet Tutorials: Chain Stitch & Counting Chains
In these tutorial blog posts, you'll find simple step-by-step guides to many useful stitches and techniques that you'll use every time you pick up a hook.
Use this stitch to make your foundation chain.
1. Hold the hook in your right hand, and both the yarn end and the working yarn in your left hand. Move the hook under and over the yarn to wrap it around anticlockwise.
2. Pull the hook towards the slipknot, catching the yarn in the hook, and pulling it through the slipknot loop. This forms your first chain (ch) stitch. Repeat steps 1 and 2 to form a chain length.
3. This is what your row of chains will look like. Hold the chain with your left hand near the hook, to keep the tension. Keep going until you have the number of chains stated in your pattern.
Each chain or loop counts as one stitch. Never count your first slipknot or the loop on the hook (called the working loop). So that you can be accurate, make sure the chain is not twisted and that the front is facing you.


text:
'What is so extraordinary about this body of work is the passionate clarity of the ideas that fuel it and the formal precision of the narrative and cinematographic structures which allow the viewer in.' Leslie Dick
Paul Bush's films challenge the boundaries that separate fiction, documentary and animation. His background in Fine Art is an influence on all his work and this is reflected in its inclusion in art collections and exhibitions as well as cinema distribution and television broadcast. During the 1980's he wrote and directed several short and medium length films that were critically acclaimed but it was not until the 1990's that his films became widely distributed and he was able to concentrate all his attention on film-making. During the 90's his films were commissioned by all the major broadcasters, won numerous awards and were shown in cinemas, exhibitions and television all round the world. During this period he usually used single frame techniques often involving live action elements. In 1999 he was polled in second place in Creation's list of top directors of animation. In 1996 he set up his company Ancient Mariner Productions to produce his own films and he also directs commercials and his clients have included Panasonic and Philips. In 2003 he was awarded a Nesta fellowship to develop feature films. His first feature Babeldom was completed in 2012. Due to the uncertainty of funding in the UK since 2000 he has increasingly relied on teaching to finance his work.
Bush was born in 1956 and studied Fine Art at Central School and Goldsmiths College, London. He taught himself how to make films while a member of the London Film-makers Co-op and Chapter Film Workshop in Cardiff. From 1981 to 1993 he taught film-making, establishing a film workshop in South London and supervising a wide variety of courses and the production of numerous student films. between 1995 and 2001 he taught on the visual arts course at Goldsmiths. He has lectured, run workshops and tutored at numerous art and film courses around the world including the Media Academy of Cologne, National Film Board of Canada, The Netherlands Institute of Animation Films, La Poudrière in France, TAW in Denmark, St Lukas in Brussels, KASK in Ghent, Anadolou University in Turkey, EIC-TV in Cuba, and the Royal College of Arts, Duncan of Jordanstone and the National Film and Television School in Britain. He runs workshops every year at Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia, Turin, and Lucerne University, and he is currently a visiting lecturer at Harvard.
'Paul Bush is part scavenger, part inventor. Nothing is out of bounds and everything is worth trying. This is what makes Bush's work so welcoming; you never know what you are in for but you know it will be smart, funny, provocative and unique.' Chris Robinson
'Let nobody forget the sheer pleasure of watching this work, for its technical achievement, for its verve and ambition,its pace and constant surprise, for its beauty.' Gareth Evans
'Bush has demonstrated a fascination with artistic techniques of the past, particularly those that have endowed us with works whose great and enduring beauty tend to eclipse the extraordinary degree of devoted labour involved in creating them.' Chris Darke
'The secret preoccupation of these films, finally, is beauty. It may be the case that the film-maker, in focusing so relentlessly on issues of time, narrative, history, the intersection of the graphic and the cinematic, and the question of clarity of presentation, doesn't himself see it but the viewer does. As if beauty were a necessary by-product of these investigations, beyond the intention of the artist, yet an inevitable result of his rigorous control and passionate pursuit of meaning.' Leslie Dick
Paul Bush has two children and lives in London
3 Inglis St
London SE5 9QT
contact: email@example.com
distribution (UK and world): firstname.lastname@example.com
distribution (US and world): firstname.lastname@example.com
DVD Sales: firstname.lastname@example.com
All content of this site is copyright Paul Bush and other artists credited and their publishers. This site is intended for private and personal study and reproduction in any form is not permitted. Commercial exploitation of any content whether that be images, films or text is expressly prohibited.