Cato's first art exhibition ends on Flag Day

 Allen Hart, The Harpist, oil on canvas, 2006

Giuseppe Palumbo, Sword vs. Pen, bronze, 2016/Photo by Patricia Leslie

In the first, but certainly not the last, Cato Institute's art exhibition with works by 76 artists will close on Flag Day, two months after opening for public viewing.

Entitled Freedom: Art as the Messenger, the curators invited artists to explore the meaning of freedom and identity, embracing "manifestations through art." 

It is fitting that the exhibition closes on June 14, a time which coincides with the think tank's mission to follow the principles of Cato's Letters of the 18th century "that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power." 

The show's contents are not the extreme, harsh examples by contemporary artists as one has grown to expect and often observes in public and private galleries, but the artists here offer more promise in attempts to evoke personal reflections upon the theme.

Still, the connections between art you see and theme are frequently hard to discern. That the artists could be present to explain or have available their intent and meanings would be welcome guidance, but as with most exhibitions, "beauty" and meaning belong to the viewer.

Two of the most interesting works (at least to this beholder) are shown above, and all may be seen at the website. The curators received almost 2,200 submissions from 500 artists in 40 states, a much larger response than they anticipated. (Why the U.S. was only represented is a question.) 

Brief essays by Cato's president and CEO, Peter Goettler, and the curators, Harriet Lesser and June Linowitz, are included in the softbound 76-paged, free, color catalog printed on glossy stock. (Do 76 pages and 76 artists have anything in common with 1776?)

Ms. Lesser writes the purpose of the exhibition at Cato “is to provide a medium for conversation about freedom through art” since the two "have always been allies" and fit Cato's dedication "to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace."

She believes each selection “has something special and unique to say about freedom."

Ms. Linowitz hopes the show leads each viewer “to contemplate what freedom means.” She decided that, although her own political philosophy differs "notably" from Cato's, she and Cato would make a good match since the institute exhibits its own tolerance and respect for views and expressions in the show which it doesn't necessarily hold.

Mr. Goettler trusts that the exhibition “may teach us a lot about what freedom means to us and to others.” The essence of Cato is “freedom of speech and expression" which "are among our most cherished values and only with them can art prosper.” The “unconventional, the controversial, and even the distasteful” may call for limits on our freedoms which need to be protected. 

What:  Freedom:  Art as the Messenger

When:  10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Closing June 14, 2019 

Where:  Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20001

Closest Metro station:   Green, Yellow and Orange lines all have stops close to Cato. Check Metro.

For more information:  Call Cato at (202) 842 0200.

patricialesli@gmail.com

CATO panel condemns U.S. spying on us

CATO's Julian Sanchez, left, and Congressman Tom Poe at CATO on Tuesday/Photo by Patricia Leslie

Have you ever attended a presentation at the CATO Institute when the "other side" was not represented?

Me neither. 

Until this past week.

After the fourth of July, it was the Fourth Amendment* to the U.S. Constitution and "digital privacy" which drew attention from about 100 who came to hear four panelists, one keynote speaker, and a moderator discuss government snooping on its citizens, and the critical need to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 

The way the U.S. government interprets the law, without a warrant it can sneak, peek, and keep private communications which are stored "in the cloud."

The law remained current about a nanosecond after it passed Congress and was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Although 220 members of Congress endorse reform of the ECPA, proposals languish on Capitol Hill because..."the government wants to read your email without you knowing it, and that's why legislation is stalled. That's it," said Katie McAuliffe, the executive director of Digital Liberty, Americans for Tax Reform, and a panel member.

"It's gotten to the point of absurdity," Greg Nojeim, another panelist and senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said. Ms. McAuliffe echoed:  "It's absurd." 

The right of government to track citizens by "location information" on cell phones and towers will be decided by "the Supremes" quicker than Congress will act, Mr. Nojeim predicted, noting that the courts have issued different opinions on the matter.  Digital searches are many times more pervasive than wiretaps, he said.

Before the panelists discussed, Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) gave a short presentation and history of the Fourth Amendment, and brought along a placard with the amendment spelled out, which stood on an easel nearby.

If vision was blocked, but probably to emphasize the content, Mr. Poe read the amendment out loud and frequently cited the wording in his talk which the panelists did, also.

Mr. Poe, a former prosecutor and criminal court judge in Houston, said that based on his experience, government spying is government oppression:  "Law enforcement will always push the envelope to get their way," he said.

The National Security Agency violates the Patriot Act with its snooping.  "We don't know what they have, and they won't tell us....Government seizure of information on citizens" violates the Fourth Amendment, and he read again some of the amendment to the audience.

Americans are weary of hearing that old, tired refrain: Rights must be relinquished to protect national safety and security, Mr. Poe said.
 
Mr. Nojeim has "lived in Washington a long time, and I have never seen" an issue which has produced as much consensus among disparate groups (he named the ACLU and Americans for Tax Reform).

"It is really amazing," he said and mentioned a website devoted to citizens' privacy protections:  Digital Due Process.org.

Responding to a question from an audience member, no members of the panel knew of any challenges in the courts to the government's claim of "ownership" of letters mailed in the U.S. Postal System. In other words, because a sender "gives" her letter to the U.S. Postal Service to mail, the government then "owns" it and can track it, which it does.

Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at CATO and the event's moderator, said the CIA routinely tracks and analyzes snail mail.

Earlier, Mr. Poe said he was working to pass this year new legislation on citizen privacy. Email should receive stronger privacy protection than a letter snail mailed since the government does not have legitimate possession of email, he said.

Mr. Sanchez reported that in a recent six-month period the government sent Google almost 8,000 requests for user data for more than 16,000 accounts.

If anyone in the audience disagreed with the tone of the discussion, if anyone meant to defend the government, or to endorse government snooping, if anyone favored the idea, that person(s) remained silent. Perhaps, the NSA was too busy taking notes.

Edward Snowden's name never came up during the 90-minute presentation.

Also on the panel were attorneys David Lieber from Google and Nate Jones from Microsoft.
 
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

patricialesli@gmail.com

Don't go to law school!

That was the strong message conveyed at a Cato book forum where Washington University law professor Brian Tamanaha presented data he’s found researching law school statistics which he describes in his newest book, Failing Law Schools.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts only 22,000 law school graduates will be needed this year, but 40,000 will earn law degrees, Tamanaha said.

Brian Tamanaha by Lorenzo Ciniglio-WUSTL

Just about half the graduates at 75 law schools had found fulltime law jobs within a year after graduation, and the headline in the Washington Examiner March 11, 2013 tells the local story:  "GW pays law firms to employ its grads," but George Washington University, it turns out, is not alone hiring its own at $15 an hour.

Why the imbalance?

Market demand.

During a period of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, many perceive more education, including law school, to be a good investment.  But the cost of a legal education (tuition, debt, jobs and salaries lost while attending law school) far outweighs the value, according to Tamanaha's research.

SPRING COUPON_MARCH MADNESS_Save 15% on hotels near the Big Game with code MARCHBBALL15
                     
The 2013 crop of prospective lawyers will be a big one despite the leap over 11 years (2001 to 2012) of law school costs which more than doubled for students at public universities and almost doubled for private school students. 

The highest cost to earn a law degree is found at Columbia University:  $82.000.

Catholic University ranks No. 7 in top charges and just about 44 percent of its grads secured fulltime legal jobs, carrying a debt load of about $142,000, according to the numbers Tamanaha cited.

Nine months after graduation, about 55 percent of law school graduates overall had found fulltime law jobs, and half of them earned between $45,000 and $60,000.  Many cannot meet their monthly school loan payments.

About 90 percent of students finance a portion of their schooling, and when they graduate, public law school students face an average debt load of about $76,000; private university students, $125,000.

Tamanaha said he wasn't making anything up:  His statistics come from the numbers reported by law schools themselves.

 
Law schools are so hungry for students, the acceptance rate has climbed to 80 percent v. 50 percent in 2004 indicating “a declining quality of the pool.”  

But it looks like some prospective students have gotten the message.  In 2010, 20,000 took the LSAT but only 1,300 applied to law school.

Another law professor on the Cato platform with a book to sell was Paul Campos from the University of Colorado at Boulder whose most recent book is Don't Go to Law School (Unless). 

With a lot of caustic humor which made audience members laugh several times, Professor Campos said half of the 200 law schools sanctioned by the American Bar Association have “absolutely no justification for their existence.”

He said exaggerated numbers presented by law schools show "clearly, some instances of fraud."

Campos called a legal education "dysfunctional in so many ways.” It can block employment since some employers are scared of hiring lawyers.  

Take the law degree off your resume and go out and get a real job, he urged the unemployed.

Also, the mass media presents “a false image” of lawyers.  (Writer's note:  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor who watched a few episodes of Perry Mason when she was growing up might have a different take.)

Cato's Neal McCluskey said colleges and law schools are “profit-making industries” which welcome student funding that is borrowed from taxpayers to pay for education. He called for the elimination of federal aid to education which would allow private lenders with a “natural interest” to loan money and benefit all principals. 

Rankings by U.S. News and World Report are "very superficial," McCluskey said.

Save $300 off qualifying flight + hotel vacation packages with code SPRINGME300

patricialesli@gmail.com