Today the Supreme Court listened to heated legal arguments about the tariffs recently imposed by the US. But the arguments over tariff policy have been going on for a long time.
Over a century ago, Winsor McCay, the creator of Little Nemo, drew the following political cartoon about the effect of tariffs:
In my view, today's political cartoonists haven't learned much from the past century.
On the other hand, neither have today's politicians.
30 comments:
Don't feel too bad, the EU have been using customs and other financial sticks against US imports for decades, as I know from purchasing from the States, and have somehow evaded the same criticism they mete out to you chaps.
They even got the government in Ireland to impose the same restrictions and charges on imports from the UK as are now applied by the States to stuff from Europe, despite the fact that there was a preexisting trade agreement between Ireland and the UK that antedated the common market; thus meaning that there was no reason, legal or other obligation, on Ireland to do so.
To get a sense of the stupidity of this you need to realise that the UK is Ireland's biggest export market (about a third of exports go there).
Britain gave the Irish government a year to reconsider the folly of their moves (taken at the behest of the EU, who were trying to punish the UK for having the temerity of leaving their looney neo-commie club [not hyperbole, many EU + european politifians - including Justin Trittin of the German Greens who had a policy of legalising paedophilia down to two years of age - are former communist party members] ) before reciprocating.
So, you can see why quite a lot of people here, while perhaps not fully understanding events in the US that don't affect them, just shrug their shoulders about some of the things such as US tariffs.
I once read an article by Winsor McCay about his special trick for drawing perspective but I can't find it anymore. Has anyone here read it?
JSL
Hide everything behind the crockery ?
Don't blame McCay. McCay was hired by the newspaper editors to popularize what the owners of that newspaper wanted people to believe. So they could continue hauling in trainloads of money off cheap foreign goods.
I expected you to post up the latest New Yorker propaganda cover that presents the newly elected Islamist Socialist Globalist fake as some kind of man of the people riding in a diversity poster subway car. The leftist dream of destabilizing American society to bring about their vengeful woke tyranny continues to gain steam. And the Islamists piggybacking on those useful idiots to take over the west are sleeping well tonight.
~ FV
Yup.
https://x.com/AzatAlsalim/status/1800458557504299282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1800458557504299282%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fworldisraelnews.com%2Fwatch-muslims-hunt-for-jews-to-kill-on-streets-on-london%2F
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2888961/Video-Mother-boy-dropped-Quran-says-received-death-threats.html
JSL-- I remember that article. McCay was famous for his wonderful, vertiginous use of perspective and angles in Little Nemo, and it attracted a lot of attention. McCay helped to train the illustrator Jules Guerin, and McCay himself was schooled by Maxfield Parrish-- there was a lot of improvisation and sharing of tricks of the trade back then. McCay didn't use a conventional approach to perspective but whatever he used was very effective. I have no idea how to retrieve that article now, but there are people here who are more resourceful than I.
Anonymous-- the crockery here may not be a good example of McCay's perspective, but I do like the drawing, which is why I posted it. I believe it hasn't been shown for over a century--- it shows McCay's exploding, disorienting use of detail. He must've been a phenomenally fast worker.
As if the other side is innocent.
https://youtube.com/shorts/uM5fkhET7jY?si=yZboABZF6QTNdGuQ
https://xcancel.com/goddeketal/status/1984285852038549683
https://youtube.com/shorts/GIJprk8LEuA?si=r9hYlCe1H9PMdjLX
FV-- The Supreme Court case was not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy, but rather whether the US Constitution gives the power of tariffs to the executive or legislative branch of government.
I'm certain the case had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration or Islamic terrorism. The same can be said of McCay's cartoon.
This seems bonkers to me. Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax obviously rests with the legislative branch, as does the power to regulate commerce. It's spelled out clearly in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Of course, the text of the Constitution has long since become irrelevant, and all that matters is how the high priests of the court feel about it.
Israeli stuff ? In gaza ?
As opposed to a gang of inbred islamists getting a police escort across Sadiq Khan's London to the neighbourhood of the jewish community in Golders Green - who have no connection to events in Israel - calling for their blood.
Wake the f'k up.
Or the second link - which concerned a non-muslim english woman pleading for her fourteen year old son's life before a Sharia Court in Wakefield, with police in attendence, as he had scuffed a koran his mate had brought to school. And the local muslim community leaders had called for his execution.
Note how she had to prostrate herself before the religious leaders of a religion she doesn't follow, wearing a hijab, and submit herself to Islam to save her son.
Instead of, y'know, the men who called for the death sentence beingbjailed or deported.
All ahead of you...
Comments disappearing, think google automated censorship was triggered
Anonymous-- Thanks, I'll check to see if any comments have been intercepted by one of google's automated filters. This blog post doesn't have anything to do with immigration, the Middle East, Islam, socialist globalists, or terrorism but at the same time I don't censor anything here except spam.
Thank you, but If it crossed any house rules feel free to leave it deleted. Google is the enemy, but I'm all for local (blog owner's) sovereignty
This seems bonkers to me. Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax obviously rests with the legislative branch
There are many more questions at issue than merely whether the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes to the legislative branch.
For example, on the question of whether tariffs are “taxes,” they plainly are not. Those who claim that tariffs are taxes do so by arguing that they act like taxes, by creating costs for American consumers that are paid to the government. But if we followed that logic, then the power to print money would also be a tax, since every new dollar printed moves money from citizens holding money to the government, and would thus be the sole right of the legislative branch. In that case, neither the (independent) Federal Reserve nor the (executive branch) Mint could exist.
Second, those who naively argue that tariffs are the sole power of the legislative branch, and therefore could not be delegated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), must also believe the IRS cannot exist. Clearly, Congress could not have delegated the power to collect taxes to the executive branch, since the Constitution plainly states that “The Congress shall have Power To [...] collect Taxes.” Furthermore, the International Trade Administration would also have to shut down, since the Constitution gives the legislature the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”
The IEEPA granted the president the power to “regulate … importation or exportation.” Levying tariffs is a clear example of “regulating” importation, as established as far back as Hamilton v. Dillin (1875). It is also entirely consistent with the nature of emergency powers acts that the statute dealt with the matter broadly rather than enumerating every specific emergency power delegated.
Richard-- I write this blog in part to get away from the practice of law, but your legal analysis tests my resolve. I won't engage on the substantive legal points (since both the right and left factions of the Supreme Court have already agreed that a tariff is a tax, that only leaves you an appeal to the Mercy Court of Heaven to test your claim with the Seven Spirits of God). However, let me pass along a tip on effective legal writing from a wise old judge. He said that the more a legal brief relies upon adverbs (such as clearly, plainly, merely, etc.) the more skeptical he becomes.
Now more to the point, what did you think about the McCay drawing?
Or perhaps this was the opinion of his Hearst editor, Mussolini admirer Arthur Brisbane? McCay didn't have much fun working for him. See the Canemaker bio.
For a completely opposite McCay take, see https://picryl.com/media/buy-american-policy-winsor-mccay-cartoon-original-art-abfd66. McCay probably had to toe whatever the line-du-jour was if he wanted to keep his vast Hearst salary (which he needed - his family were big spenders).
As for the drawing, it's always fun to see McCay at work. But his rendering when drawing "realistically" always seems a little off. Not tight enough or well-observed enough to be realism, but not it's quite cartooning either. The crockery makes a standard art nouveau impression - not very specific or interesting. And McCay can't use his real strength here, which is people and complicated perspective drawing. I think it's a run-of-the-mill editorial cartoon.
The esteemed Rick Marschall, editor of the McCay book Daydreams and Nightmares, as well as innumerable other well regarded reference works, asserts that "when McCay’s cartoons accompanied Brisbane’s essays... McCay was the horse and Brisbane the cart. That is, it frequently was made clear that the day’s editorial agenda was set by McCay’s cartoon, to which Brisbane added comments."
He rejects the "McCay-as-wage-slave-for-Hearst-politics " theory, saying, "This version of history, itself, belongs in a land of wonderful dreams, for those who wish that Winsor McCay, fantasist, was a 21st-century flower child, mistreated by corporate overlords. Fueling such distortions, I have wondered, might be the contemporary disdain for Hearst – borne, perhaps of peoples’ affection for the Citizen Kane version of events, as well as prejudice against Hearst, whose career ended as a notable conservative (having commenced as a radical Socialist)." To read more about McCay's actual political views, go to https://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-crowded-life-in-comics.html?lr=1.
One could write a whole encyclopedia about the issues created by art for clients, from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling for Pope Julius II to Norman Rockwell's covers for the highly conservative and famously controlling George Horace Lorimer (not to mention the beastly Ken Stuart). Sometimes (as with Hearst's protection of George Herriman) a wealthy client could be a godsend. Other times, artists such as Michelangelo could be dragged into debates about whether biblical Adam could be painted with a belly button since he was not born of woman.
Where, though, would you put the apparent contradiction between the two cartoons? In a change of heart paralleling that of his employer?
From your link - "His views consistently were anti-war, isolationist, nationalist, anti-immigration, and Christian", which might not necessarily contradict your title here but certainly modifies any application to current debates, the connection made in this post.
(I'm not the person who posted the link to the Buy American cartoon)
"Esteemed"
Even assuming that Winsor McCay was somehow running the editorial page now and then, which seems laughable knowing how these media rooms jealously covet their power - What did Winsor McCay know about trade and tariffs except what he read about in the paper? And what did any paper's editors write about trade and tariffs that was against the paper's wealthy or corporate owners' views?
~ FV
It doesn't even have to be an artist's employer. Did you see that those fascists at ICE are using Norman Rockwell's art on their website to promote white Christian xenophobia bullshit? The Rockwell family asked ICE to take it down because Norman would have opposed what ICE is doing but ICE said fuck you like they say fuck you to everybody.
"McCay helped to train the illustrator Jules Guerin, and McCay himself was schooled by Maxfield Parrish"
When you last wrote of Jules Guerin you stated he was the one who had studied with Maxfield Parrish. (Though I can't find much information on the two men except that they were acquaintances and Parrish helped get him an industry connection with Century Magazine.) I think McCay was just heavily influenced by Parrish. And Parrish's "Seeing Things" (1904) was probably an impetus for Little Nemo (1905). (prior, all McCay's sleepers were at a diagonal, angling into depth. Afterward McCay's cartoons were heavily front-facing deadpan.)
In their early 20s, Guerin and McCay shared a studio and "traded techniques" circa 1889 and 1890. I can't find any early McCay work to check his quality level at that age. Guerin went on to study and work with a lot of people in fields related to architectural rendering. So he had a great deal of diverse training for his eventual high-level picture making starting in 1901. https://nationalacademy.emuseum.com/people/79/jules-guerin
I too would like to read about McCay's personal bespoke perspective techniques. (Stanislaw Szukalski also developed his own perspective methods.)
The Democrats are importing voters to win elections. They allowed in 20 million illegals. TWENTY MILLION. If they win elections they get to keep all the money and power and hide their crimes and shenanigans. If not, it all collapses.
They teach dum-dums like you to cry fascist! and white christian xenophobia! so you help hide the fact that they're simply importing voters to hold power and get rich. Using the government to funnel money to their big donors like Soros and to their children, friends, and themselves through NGOs etc.
New York and California have NO VOTER ID. That allows them to cheat. And to add to that, they get foreigners into the country and give them American taxpayers' money to buy their votes. Mamdani would not have won if not for the foreigners given American taxpayer money to essentially vote Democrat in NYC. That's why Democrats are sleaze. Money grubbing power-grabbing liars.
So you are an ignorant clown who does the propaganda work of very evil people who pretend to be good. You enjoy calling other people bigots because it makes you feel moral and smart. Democrats know exactly who they're dealing with when they make up their talking points - "Baizuo". Dangerously useful idiots.
As a visual metaphor, this illustration fails. As multimodal simile characteristic of its time, it’s OK. As a drawing, meh.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse.
>>>>>Using the government to funnel money to their big donors like Soros and to their children, friends, and themselves through NGOs etc.
The NGO-industrial complex grift is also paying for the rent-a-riots that Democrats use to pretend that they have "the people" behind them on their fake TV news shows. It funds their activist networks using taxpayer money, employing a bunch of otherwise unemployable leftist agitators. Democrat operatives literally run buses between campaign stops, political rallies, and pop up riots. A Potemkin party paid for by you and me.
~ FV
Kev Ferrara-- You're absolutely right, It was Guerin, not McCay, who worked with Parrish. I got sloppy, relying on my memory of a blogpost from 15 years ago rather than going back and checking it out. (I remember being astonished that McCay's path crossed with Guerin at their formative stages.). Thanks for the correction.
Wonder what Rockwell's family think of Sharia courts in the US. Because, as has effectively happened in parts of the UK, it is Islamic belief that they have precedence in any community that becomes majority muslim.
Post a Comment