Life's a Little Messy

Justice Ginsburg DID Dissent

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:00:42 -0700

There’s a lot of debating going on about whether or not Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote in NFIB v. Sebelius (the ACA decision). I have no idea whether he did or not. Many people are citing as evidence a statement in the joint dissent that is widely misunderstood. The joint dissent’s reference to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent is not an error. At that point the joint dissent is discussing the Commerce Clause. The section of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion that addresses the Commerce Clause is a dissent.

In NFIB v. Sebelius the Supreme Court decided three questions:

Is the individual mandate in Title I of the ACA constitutional under the Commerce Clause?
Is the individual mandate in Title I of the ACA a constitutional exercise of Congress’ taxing power?
Would withholding all Federal funds for Medicaid from states that refuse to implement the expansion of Medicaid contained in Tittle II of the ACA be an unconstitutional abuse of Congress’ spending power?

The Court’s decision gave these answers:

Yes, the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
No, the mandate does not exceed Congress’ taxing power.
Yes, it would be an unconstitutional abuse of Congress’ spending power if Secretary Sebelius withheld all Medicaid funds from states that refuse to implement the expansion. BUT that defect can be cured by forbidding Secretary Sebelius from applying 42 U.S.C. section 1396c to withhold funding for existing Medicaid services from states that do not comply with Title II.

Justice Ginsburg answered the questions this way:

No, the individual mandate is not unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. (This is a dissent. She rejects the Court’s answer to this question.)
No, the mandate does not exceed Congress’ taxing power. The Court’s opinion explains the reasons why it does not exceed that power. (This is a concurrence. Justice Ginsburg agrees with both the answer the Court gave and way the Court explained its answer.)
No, it would not be unconstitutional under the Spending Clause for the Secretary to withhold all funding for existing Medicaid in order to induce states to comply with Title II. However, since the Chief Justice has solved what he sees as a constitutional problem without striking down 42 U.S.C. section 1396c I can live with the result he reaches. All the Chief Justice has done is limit the way the Secretary can apply section 1396c to the ACA. I can accept that result. (This is a concurrence in the result. Justice Ginsburg takes a different route but she ends up at the same destination. She doesn’t agree the Chief Justice’s explanation but she agrees with his final answer.)

With respect to the Court’s opinion, Justice Ginsburg’s opinion concurred in part (Q.2), concurred in the result in part (Q.3), and dissented in part (Q.1). Both the sentence describing Justice Ginsburg’s opinion on p. 1 of her opinion and the reference to her dissent on the Commerce Clause issue on p. 13 of the joint dissent accurately describe her opinion.

That was fun! Thanks. Is this your first post? Are we suppose to guess who you are?

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:55:42 -0700

I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s not my first post, you should be able to see the other ones. There’s nothing to guess with respect to who I am. If you read my other posts you may notice a pattern. I usually write about a contribution to a public discussion that I think is unclear or confusing. One of my pet peeves is news providers (newspapers, TV news shows, etc.) and professional journalists who do inadequate fact checking. I think it’s become a serious problem in the American news business. I ignore it most of the time though because I’m busy living my life. Once in a while I write a tumblr post about something. I’ve never met any of the people I wrote about in the Mike Daisey/NYT post. I’m not connected to Apple.

Mike Daisey and the Lazy NYT Journalist

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:44:00 -0700

Mike Daisey got relativity favorable press coverage about his attack on Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, the co-producers of the AllThingsD conference, for allegedly not asking Apple CEO Tim Cook tough questions about Apple’s subcontractors in China. The labor practices of those subcontractors were the topic of Daisey’s one-man show The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs. In March journalists exposed key sections of Daisey’s purportedly true show as fictional or greatly exaggerated.

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, the Opening Session of the tenth AllThingsD conference was a public Q & A of Tim Cook with Swisher and Mossberg doing the questioning. The event was live-blogged but not live-streamed and ended at about 8:00 pm. Mike Daisey read the live-blog and based upon it wrote a post on his blog criticizing Swisher and Mossberg harshly. Daisey claimed he was outraged because they had asked Cook “easy” questions about what Apple is doing to protect the employees of its Chinese subcontractors. The only question he actually quoted, however, was one that referred to his history of passing fiction off as truth.

At 11:11 pm Daisey sent Swisher and Mossberg an insulting tweet that included a link to his blog post. “An open letter to AllThingsD. Short version: you hacks. http://goo.gl/u1EFH ‪#allthingsd‬ @allthingsd @karaswisher @waltmossberg” Why did Daisey ensure he would antagonize Swisher and Mossberg by calling them hacks? Twitter made him do it.

Shortly before midnight AllThingsD announced that video highlights of the Cook event were posted on the AllThingsD website. One highlight was the full exchange about Apple’s involvement with manufacturing in China. This video contains significant information that wasn’t caught in the live-blog, including Cook’s reference to extensive documentation about Apple’s oversight of its suppliers posted on Apple.com.

As any rational person would expect, Swisher and Mossberg refused to engage with someone who called them hacks. Instead they responded in kind. Swisher tweeted: “well, you’re a professional at being a hack” and Mossberg replied: “Hmm…being attacked by an admitted liar is sort of a badge of honor.”

Daisey announced to his twitter followers (some of whom are very gullible indeed) that Swisher had ceded the high ground. The implication he held the high ground was accepted as fact by many of his lazy followers who didn’t bother to check where the name calling began.

The next morning Daisey could have looked at the AllThingsD website and watched the video clips of Cook. Instead he wrote a new blog post vilifying Swisher and Mossberg. Daisey quoted Swisher’s tweet to show how “Kara Swisher chose to respond to these serious allegations.” But there had been no serious allegations in Daisey’s tweet to Swisher, just “Short version: you hacks.” Perhaps Swisher’s tweet was simply a response to being called a hack? Impossible. As far as Daisey is concerned reading links contained in a tweet is mandatory. (Now you know how to get Daisey to read something you’ve written.)

What about Mossberg’s comment that Daisey is an admitted liar? Daisey treated it as a badge of honor. “[E]veryone lies. What’s notable is that I’ve actually admitted it.” Not quite. What’s notable about Daisey is that he got caught telling lies for a living. Daisey tweeted a link to his new blog post at 7:30 am: “Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg respond. Short version: nyah nyah nyah, can’t hear you! http://goo.gl/pwrL7 #allthingsd”

At this point something truly remarkable happened. Noam Cohen of the New York Times wrote about this conflict for the NYT’s Media Decoder blog using Daisey’s two blog posts as his primary source. Cohen ignored the video clips of Cook on the AllThingsD website and the wealth of information on the Apple website. Instead he repeated what Daisey had written, casting Daisey in the role of hero in the process. According to Cohen, Daisey “has not given up the cause” of exposing working conditions in China. Unfortunately Daisey’s “past gave Mr. Mossberg and Ms. Swisher all the ammunition they needed.” Cohen didn’t decode anything, he just rehashed Daisey’s version.

Once Daisey’s semi-accurate tale got the stamp of approval from the New York Times it spread quickly throughout the journalistic Twittersphere. Poynter chimed in with a lament (based on the live-blog not the video) that Swisher and Mossberg hadn’t followed up on a January NYT article about conditions at Apple’s Chinese supplier’s factories. Andrew Beaujon would like to know more about them. He just doesn’t want to have to personally go to the trouble of checking to see what information is available at AllThingsD.com and Apple.com.

stfuconservatives: Hrm… these areinteresting. Although the...

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:13:49 -0700

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

The World of 100

stfuconservatives:

Hrm… these areinteresting. Although the whole “a village of 100 people” seems so odd I’m just sitting here thinking “yeah, that’s how percentages work?”

-Joe

Kony2012: The Very Short Non-expert Version

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:28:19 -0800

Kony2012 has started an important discussion about a complex tragedy. Experts have written about it brilliantly. But what if you are a time-starved, emotionally overwhelmed American who needs to decide how to react right now? Here’s a one paragraph analysis you don’t need expertise to evaluate.

I saw the #stopkony hashtag trending on Twitter on March 7 and watched the film. My reaction was cynical for a number of reasons. The film does not make sense. I first heard of the LRA years ago. If someone like me, who has no connection to Uganda, had heard of them, then obviously millions of other people had too. If Kony was still free, there was a reason why, one the film did not explain. Either he could not be found or the law enforcement authorities were choosing not to arrest him. How was putting up posters around the world going to solve either of those problems? The film presented a heartbreaking situation and then offered me a painless way to feel that I had done my part to fix it. Life isn’t that simple. Making someone famous doesn’t get them arrested. People are arrested when the legal authorities have both the resources and motivation to arrest them. If there’s a shortage of either of those some odd world-wide party is an incredibly inefficient (and perhaps completely ineffective) to supply what’s needed. Playing on people’s compassion to get them to direct energy and money that could be used to do good, into something useless isn’t “making a start.” It’s making the world worse. Maybe just a little bit worse, but worse nevertheless.

That’s the core of the issue. Will doing A cause B?

If that was too short and you want to learn more about Invisible Children or Kony or Uganda, Siena Anstis’ excellent blog post is a great place to start.

Best explanation of voting I’ve heard. Well worth watching...

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:25:21 -0800

Best explanation of voting I’ve heard. Well worth watching the (very short) ad for. Sam Seder on The Majority Report, Jan. 30, 2012.

WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD?

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:37:28 -0800

Talking to a friend.

False Alarm About Distribution of Health Care Costs

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:54:03 -0800

Mother Jones published a piece about the unequal distribution of health care costs in the US. The purpose of the piece was to present the numbers. It did not claim to analyze them and acknowledged that the current popular political response was inadequate.

My comment is a supplement to the piece. I point out why this kind of unequal distribution is normal and should be treated as such in the public policy debate about health care. Here it is:

There’s nothing abnormal here. The frequency of this type of pattern is why we have an insurance industry and why the other Western democracies have universal health insurance. There are a lot of small probability, high cost events in life. Most states make every car owner buy auto insurance even though only a small number of them will cause car crashes.

What percentage of the US population suffers financial losses as a result of a house fire each year? I guarantee it’s a small number. But because the expense of losing your house to fire is so high, a huge number of people buy fire insurance. The same is true of everything else we insure.

There may be a few people in the 1% of the population that generates 20% of health care expenses who could have prevented their need for that care. But most of them just got unlucky (or old). It’s extremely expensive to be a quadriplegic. Does that mean it’s preventable? I wish. You or I or anyone we know could become a quadriplegic tomorrow. All it takes is a moment of bad luck. The same is true of traumatic brain injuries. A very expensive catastrophic injury that any person could suffer on any given day. Nancy Hall mentioned a few of the host of chronic or long-term illness that are not related to lifestyle. People with those had no way to prevent themselves from being in the 1%. We don’t either. Not being in the 1% today doesn’t mean we won’t be in it sometime in the future.

That chart isn’t bad news. It’s good news. The vast majority of people in the US are healthy. It would be wonderful if no one had any serious health problems but that won’t happen anytime soon. In the meantime a small % of the population will have a serious illness or injury that requires significant on-going medical care.

The incidence of a few chronic illnesses can be dramatically reduced by lifestyle. But our politicians talk about health care as if all chronic illnesses are preventable. Our public policy debate about health care is taking place in a fantastyland where the ill and disabled are to blame for their medical problems. In addition to being extremely cruel, that leads to unrealistic and foolish suggestions for public policies. The more we buy into that myth, the worse America’s public policy on health care will be.

Protect Your Direct Deposits

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 13:54:23 -0700

Direct deposit is a loyalty program on steroids. There’s a reason some bank account benefits are only available to people who have paychecks directly deposited into that account.

I’m all for people switching to a credit union or a local bank but those who get direct deposits should protect themselves during the transition period. Getting regular payments that go into your current bank account sent to a different one can take time. You will get your money eventually but you may not have it when you need it. Never forget the money is much more important to you than it is to the company or agency paying you. Your instructions to send the money to a new account may take a few weeks, or even months, to process.

If you receive direct deposits and want to change banks I urge you to protect yourself from any delay in receiving your money. Open an account in the new financial institution and move as much of the money currently in your old account into it as you want. But don’t close the old account until your direct deposits show up in the new account. That’s the only way you can ensure you get your money on time every time.

Under normal circumstances changing the account that gets direct deposits can take a little while. Large organizations move at a slower pace than individuals. If there is a sudden surge in demands for changes of direct deposit recipient accounts, it could cause logjams at paying institutions and banks even if they act with the utmost good faith.

If getting your money on time is of urgent importance it’s worth taking this precaution despite its price of temporarily postponing severing all your ties with a financial institution you want to stop doing business with.

Support Occupy Wall Street, Dye Your Hair

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:27:54 -0700

This photo shocked me:

I read a Facebook comment underneath this photo: “I’m going to dye my hair red in solidarity.” At first glance that struck me as well-intentioned but silly. The commenter may have been joking. But I’m not. I think it’s a good idea.

The photo is unsettling. What’s happening when a girl as young as this is arrested for participating in a peaceful demonstration?

How does this photo make dying our hair red a good idea? The vanguard of this movement is occupying cities across the country. They are there to make the 99% visible. Most of the 99% can’t join one of the occupations. We have jobs, families or other responsibilities/limitations that prevent it. But if we dye our hair red we will become visible. Dying our hair would be in harmony with the methods of the movement as I understand them. It is visible but non-confrontational and it takes the message to those who need to hear it. It’s not an easy, purely symbolic gesture like tinting a Twitter avatar. It’s a commitment. You have to live with both the new color and the attention it attracts in real life for weeks. It would have an impact on the lives of those who did it without seriously disrupting them.

It’s also a statement that’s hard to repress. I’m not suggesting everyone dye their hair the color of the girl in the photo’s. Many shades of red are appropriate for work and other conservative surroundings. Hair color is a personal choice. It would be very hard for an employer or anyone else (outside immediate family) to object to the change. Imagine what it would be like if red hair started spreading across the land as a constant but silent reminder of how many of us there are.

Hair is a very personal thing. Not everyone can dye their hair red. Not all who can will want to. But if just a small fraction of the 99% do it we will make a powerful statement.

Disturbing

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:22:48 -0700

Disturbing

majorityreporters: Suzanne Mettler talks our hidden government...

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:20:31 -0700

majorityreporters:

Suzanne Mettler talks our hidden government benefits

This is a great interview about how tax breaks provide government subsidies to people who don’t realize they are getting government help and therefore don’t include it when evaluating the usefulness of the government. Specific, solid and understandable.

The Senate Cares, It Really, Really Cares

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:52:00 -0700

This is the calendar for the United States Senate for Monday, August 1, 2011:

CALENDAR OF BUSINESS Monday, August 1, 2011

SENATE CONVENES AT 10:30 A.M.

PENDING BUSINESS

HOUSE MESSAGE ON S. 627 Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, an act to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays, with an amendment. (July 29, 2011.)

S. 1323 (ORDER NO. 93) A bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in resolving the budget deficit. (July 11, 2011.)

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

HOUSE MESSAGE TO ACCOMPANY S. 627

Ordered, That following any Leader remarks on Monday, August 1, 2011, the Senate resume consideration of the House Message to accompany S. 627, an act to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays; provided, that the time from 12:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two Leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

We all know that what S. 627 is. Despite its title it is the debt ceiling bill that has been a the center of all this controversy. But what is S. 1323? It is proof that the Senate really, really cares about ordinary Americans.

The text of S. 1323 is:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SHARED SACRIFICE.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Wall Street Journal reports that median pay for chief financial officers of S&P 500 companies increased 19 percent to $2,900,000 last year.

(2) Over the past 10 years, the median family income has declined by more than $2,500.

(3) Twenty percent of all income earned in the United States is earned by the top 1 percent of individuals.

(4) Over the past quarter century, four-fifths of the income gains accrued to the top 1 percent of individuals.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.

The legislation the Senate is preparing may not reflect this deep concern, but don’t think it isn’t there.

Rules Committee Summary Wrong About Student Loans

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:39:00 -0700

Section 502 was not changed during the revision of the Boehner plan.

The House Rules Committee’s Section by Section summary of the Boehner plan currently being debated on Wednesday, July 28, overstates the number of students who would not be affected by the abolition of subsidized Stafford loans. Students who would continue to be eligible for subsidized loans would be (1) those enrolled in a program necessary for a teaching credential or certification where such credential or certification is required by the state; and (2) students who already have a B.A. but did not take some of the prerequisite courses for the graduate program they wish to enter. The group (2) students would be eligible only while they were enrolled in a course of study necessary to prepare them for the graduate or professional program they wished to enter.

This is the description from the House Rules Committee’s Section by Section analysis of the revised Boehner plan:

“Sec. 502. Termination of Authority to Make Interest Subsidized Loans to Graduate and Professional Students.

This section eliminates the ability of graduate and professional students to take out subsidized Stafford loans, beginning on July 1, 2012. This elimination does not apply to students enrolled in a program leading up to a degree or certificate or students enrolled in a program necessary for a teaching credential or certification where such credential or certification is required by the state.”

The summary as worded implies students enrolled in a graduate or professional program other than one for a required teaching credential or certification would remain eligible for subsidized Stafford loans. That is a misstatement.

CBO: How Grad & Professional School Students Would Be Affected by Boehner Plan

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:41:33 -0700

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Boehner plan. (Download as a 9 page PDF) This is what it says about the plan’s provision terminating subsidized student loan for students in graduate and professional schools.

“Student Loans. As required under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, most of costs of the federal student loan programs are estimated on a net-present-value basis. (Footnote 2) The bill would make two changes to the student loan programs. CBO estimates those changes would reduce direct spending by $9.6 billion over the 2012-2016 period and $21.6 billion over the 2012-2021 period. The legislation would:

1. Eliminate the subsidized loan program for graduate students. Beginning July 1,2012, the bill would eliminate the interest subsidy on subsidized student loans for almost all graduate students while a borrower is in school, in the post-school grace period, and during any authorized deferment period. Certain post-baccalaureate students would still be eligible.) The current annual and cumulative loan limits for unsubsidized loans would be adjusted to permit students to borrow additional funds in the unsubsidized loan program. CBO projects that, over the 2012-2021 period, the provision would shift approximately $125 billion in loan volume from the subsidized to the unsubsidized loan program. Because borrowers would be responsible for the interest accrued on those loans while in school, CBO estimates that this provision would reduce direct spending by $8.2 billion over the 2012-2016 period and $18.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period.”

“Footnote 2. Under credit reform, the present value of all loan-related cash flows is calculated by discounting those expected cash flows to the year of disbursement, using the rates for comparable maturities on U.S. Treasury borrowing. (For example, the cash flow for a two-year loan is discounted using the Treasury rate for a two-year zero-coupon note.)”

A few days ago The New York Times published an article about the increasing difficulty of obtaining a job without a Masters degree.

With the current very high rate of unemployment is this change wise? Won’t this change increase the barriers facing young people from low income families who seek a brighter financial future for themselves? Is this another example of forcing the poor, working class and lower middle class to bear the cost of resolving the debt ceiling fight while the wealthy pay nothing?

What's the Effect of the Boehner Plan on Med Students?

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:28:39 -0700

What effect would the Boehner plan have on student loans for everyone pursuing a graduate degree? I don’t know. It contains a provision titled “Termination of Authority to Make Interest Subsidized Loans to Graduate and Professional Students.” I don’t know enough about the sources of either student loans or subsidized loans to know if how broad the effect of an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 would be. But whatever effect is has would apply across the board to medical students, law students, and everyone pursuing a Masters degree or a Ph.D.

I’ve read articles recently that raised the question of whether law school was worth its cost. It’s become very expensive to pursue additional education after college yet in some areas Masters degrees are increasingly required. Lawyers, doctors and MBAs aren’t the ones who go to professional schools. Librarians and social workers do to.

How could this country benefit from making it harder for its citizens to become educated?

Here is the language of Section 502 of the Budget Control Act of 2011

(If you download the PDF version of the bill section 502 is on page 54.)

SEC. 502 TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE INTEREST SUBSIDIZED LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS.

Section 455(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(3) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE INTEREST SUBSIDIZED LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B) and notwithstanding any provision of this part or part B, for any period of instruction beginning on or after July 1, 2012

‘‘(i) a graduate or professional student shall not be eligible to receive a Federal Direct Stafford loan under this part;and

‘‘(ii) the maximum annual amount of Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford loans such a student may borrow in any academic year (as defined in section 481(a)(2)) or its equivalent shall be the maximum annual amount for such student determined under section 428H, plus an amount equal to the amount of Federal Direct Stafford loans the student would have received in the absence of this subparagraph.

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an individual enrolled in course work specified in paragraph (3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).’’.

loichay: Facts About The Internet via...

Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:41:16 -0700

loichay:

Facts About The Internet via images.medicalbillingandcoding.org.s3.amazonaws.com

Amazing

Slate's Dickerson Slides Clinton Administration to the Left

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:16:23 -0700

Until recently news buffs following the career of John Dickerson, of Slate.com and CBS, could reasonably believe his goal was to establish a reputation as a serious, objective journalist of the old-school variety. Now there’s room for doubt. Dickerson has started to say things that rewrite history rather than describe it.

For example moderate Democrat President Bill Clinton has suddenly been transformed into a progressive. Even more surprising to those who remember the eight year middle-of-the-road Clinton era may be the news that everyone who worked in the Clinton administration was also a progressive.

On the July 2, 2010, edition of the Slate Political Gabfest podcast, Dickerson said this about United States Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Was she so good at running the traps* because she’s been in politics? You know, because she was in the Clinton White House, um, she also had to admit the fact that she was a progressive Democrat which Stotomayor wouldn’t have had to admit, but, I mean, if you’ve worked in a Democratic administration you can’t pretend you didn’t.” Slate Political Gabfest, July 2, 2010, at minute 6:44 to 6:59.

Shifting the political “center” to the right has been an important part of right wing efforts to make their policy positions look mainstream. Only from a position substantially to the right of the true political center do all Democratic administrations appear to be left-of-center. Unfortunately someone standing at that position does not get the unobstructed view necessary for objective journalism.

*particularly difficult questions

The Alleged Groping Gabfest is available for audio streaming or download at http://www.slate.com/id/2258291/

The Slate Political Gabfest is also available as a podcast on iTunes. This episode appears under the title The Groping for Answers Gabfest.

finallyseeing: (via youarebonbon)

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:08:44 -0800

finallyseeing:

(via youarebonbon)

hawaii: popspotting: “Change” by Ryan P. (Orem, UT) Love...

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:06:48 -0800

hawaii:

popspotting:

“Change” by Ryan P. (Orem, UT)

Love This!