How to End the Great Recession

From The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?ref=opinion

By ROBERT B. REICH

Berkeley, Calif.

THIS promises to be the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans. Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force. Members of non-organized labor — most of the rest of us — are unemployed, underemployed or underwater. The Labor Department reported on Friday that just 67,000 new private-sector jobs were created in August, while at least 125,000 are needed to keep up with the growth of the potential work force.

The national economy isn’t escaping the gravitational pull of the Great Recession. None of the standard booster rockets are working: near-zero short-term interest rates from the Fed, almost record-low borrowing costs in the bond market, a giant stimulus package and tax credits for small businesses that hire the long-term unemployed have all failed to do enough.

That’s because the real problem has to do with the structure of the economy, not the business cycle. No booster rocket can work unless consumers are able, at some point, to keep the economy moving on their own. But consumers no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services they produce as workers; for some time now, their means haven’t kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.

This crisis began decades ago when a new wave of technology — things like satellite communications, container ships, computers and eventually the Internet — made it cheaper for American employers to use low-wage labor abroad or labor-replacing software here at home than to continue paying the typical worker a middle-class wage. Even though the American economy kept growing, hourly wages flattened. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted for inflation, than he did 30 years ago.

Continue reading at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03reich.html?ref=opinion

Another Bleak Jobs Report as Unemployment Edges Up to 9.6 Percent

From AlterNet: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/03/another-bleak-jobs-report-as-unemployment-edges-up-to-9-6-percent/

Posted by AlterNet on @ 9:40 am
Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/03/another-bleak-jobs-report-as-unemployment-edges-up-to-9-6-percent/

This report by Dean Baker supports the case that unemployment is cyclical, not structural. It originally appeared at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

The unemployment rate edged up to 9.6 percent in August as the economy shed 54,000 jobs. The decline was entirely attributable to the loss of 114,000 temporary Census jobs. Excluding these jobs, the economy created 60,000 jobs. With job growth for the prior two months revised up by 123,000, excluding the Census jobs, the August pace is roughly even with June and July.

The largest increases in unemployment were among African Americans who saw their overall rate rise 0.8 percentage points to 16.3 percent, near the recession peak. The unemployment rate for black teens jumped 4.8 percentage points to 45.4 percent. Unemployment for Hispanics edged down to 12.0 percent, a full percentage point below its year-ago level.

jobs-2010-09
Involuntary part-time employment rose by 344,000, reversing declines in the prior two months. All the duration measures of unemployment fell, but this likely reflected the long-term unemployed dropping out of the workforce as their benefit period ended. The percent of the unemployed attributable to voluntary quits fell 0.3 percentage points to 5.9 percent, which is near its low-point for the downturn.

Gay and Lesbian Journalists to Bust Boycott by Hotel Workers in Order to Hold Their Conference as Planned

My grand parents on my father’s side came here from Poland.  At Ellis Island they got a different name.  From Ellis Island they were taken to the iron mines of a company town called Mineville with company housing and a company store.  They were paid in company money called script good only for that company house and the company stores.  They were illiterate and the doctor who delivered my father spelled his name differently from the rest of his brothers and sisters.  My grandfather died of miner’s lung.

My other grandmother worked as a seamstress in the clothing and textile factories.

After my father came home from WW II he got a union job as a welder.  He was a member of the United Steel Workers Union.  Good pay, good benefits and a pension for hard body breaking work.

I grew up in a union house and learned early on that only the lowest forms of life cross workers picket lines. Rats, louses and scabs…

I am working class and proud.  I believe every worker should belong to a union and that unions should be able to break a corporation as easily as the corporations now break unions.

Therefore imagine my utter shock and disgust when I read the following from The Washington Bladehttp://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/01/gay-journalists-to-face-union-picket-line/

Gay journalists to face union picket line

Lou Chibbaro Jr. | Sep 01, 2010

The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association has declined a request to withdraw its annual convention from San Francisco’s Hyatt Regency Hotel this weekend in connection with a labor union boycott of the hotel.

In a statement posted on its website, NLGJA officials said a cancellation of its contract with the hotel, which was signed three years ago, would result in a $150,000 penalty that could bankrupt the group.

The San Francisco chapter of Pride at Work, an LGBT labor group affiliated with the AFL-CIO, joined the city’s hotel workers union, Unite Here! Local 2, in calling on NLGJA to honor the union-initiated boycott of the Hyatt in an effort to win a long-delayed union contract for hotel employees.

“Although NLGJA understands the importance of collective bargaining and recognizes that worker actions are not to be blithely ignored, it is simply impossible at this late date for us to move this year’s convention to another hotel,” NLGJA President David Steinberg said in a statement.

“NLGJA was contacted by organizers from Unite Here! Local 2 in June, and we have had conversations with them for more than a month,” the statement says.

About 225 people were expected to attend the NLGJA convention, which was scheduled to take place at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco’s Embarcadero waterfront district Sept. 2-5, according to NLGJA executive director Michael Tune.

<snip>

Israel Alvaran, community outreach organizer for Unite Here! Local 2 and a member of Pride at Work said NLGJA would likely be faced with some added expenses for moving its convention to another hotel. But he said the union would have intervened to help NLGJA challenge a penalty fee from the Hyatt on grounds that the hotel most likely did not inform NLGJA of labor disputes and the possibility of a hotel boycott at the time the gay journalists group signed its contract with the hotel.

He noted that hotel labor disputes have been taking place in San Francisco for the past four years or longer.

“We’re disappointed that it never got to that point,” Alvaran said. “They never took the first step to look into moving the meeting.”

Read entire article complete with rationalizations on the part of this Gay and Lesbian Journalists organization as to why they won’t honor the picket line at:  http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/01/gay-journalists-to-face-union-picket-line/

Today when I listen to so many people who transition in middle age I am struck how many have class privilege.  They have professions and degrees, economic security that so many of us who were runaways or throwaways, people of color who grew up poor will never have.

I listen to those who carry on about ENDA, which for them means keeping that professional job.  But ENDA doesn’t mean so much when the jobs available to members of your class are part of the new servant economy.  When you are a barista with a degree.

For some of us the Employee’s Free Choice Act, benefits that include part time and contract/temp worker as well as issues like a “Living Wage” mean as much or more than things like ENDA.  Big fucking deal if you get a job where you aren’t discriminated against if you can’t afford to keep a roof over your head, eat, dress well enough to meet the dress code.  And I might add have enough left to enjoy living if only a little.

When the Textile workers in Lowell, Mass. went out on strike in the early 20th Century they demanded not just bread but roses too.

The LGBT/TQ movements owe much to the idea of Unions.  Harry Hay was a union organizer and many of us who have fought long and hard for LGBT/TQ rights are the children of union parents.

So I say to those of you who are journalists attending this conference. Shame upon you if you do not honor the worker’s picket lines.

Newt Gingrich Teams With Anti-Gay Zealot Lou ‘Uganda’ Engle For U.S. Cyber-’Revival’

I can’t believe that I am actually listening to LGBT/T folks rationalize not supporting the Democratic Party in this fall’s elections.  Granted I’m mainly hearing this from conservative gay white men who are way too often blinded by both their class and skin privilege or their worship of strong powerful men to actually get up off their asses and support much of anything other than another party. (not the political sort)

Too often the heavy lifting has fallen on the political LGBT/T folks.  The activists who get abused by the do-nothings for not getting things done that might have gotten done had more people been willing to do the work.

You have to support the Democratic Candidates this fall.

Your lives may depend on it.

From Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/story/148037/newt_gingrich_teams_with_anti-gay_zealot_lou_%27uganda%27_engle_for_u.s._cyber-%27revival%27#disqus_thread

By Frederick Clarkson, Talk To Action
Posted on September 1, 2010, Printed on September 2, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148037/

The Christian right has often sought to stay the hand of God, angry with our failings as a nation, by “standing in the gap” at large prayer rallies and pleading for mercy. They have made a special point of doing so in the run-up to national elections since 1980, praying for “Godly” government and righteous candidates, and this year is no exception. The beneficiaries are almost always Republicans — and this year is probably no exception in that regard as well. But there is also an ominous element that mostly transcends parties and is on vivid display as we enter the fall campaign season.

On Labor Day weekend, Lou Engle, head of the fiery neo-Pentecostal group, The Call, is leading a worship service in a sports arena in Sacramento, California, and a “solemn assembly” at the state Capitol the next day. These events were initially billed as a 10th anniversary of The Call’s first youth rally on the National Mall which drew, according to the organization, 400,000 people. Since then, the Sacramento event has been repositioned as the kick-off of a major Christian right fall political campaign initiative. Engle says it will be the “hinge of history” opening the door to “the greatest awakening” and “returning our nation to its righteous roots.”

There are several important dimensions of this effort. One is that this is an effort at reaching and mobilizing evangelical young people into Republican politics, particularly in California; another is that it represents a new stage in the long-term cooperation between conservative Catholics, fundamentalists and the neo-Pentecostals. And finally, the militant rhetoric of Engle’s armies of activists is escalating, and their organizational infrastructure seems to be increasing, especially in cyberspace.

Before we discuss these, there is one additionally remarkable aspect of this. The eminence grise of this initiative appears to be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose organization Renewing American Leadership (ReAL) is apparently the force behind a series of Christian right events being organized under the rubric of “Pray & Act.” This is politically important, but as Gingrich’s role becomes more public, it may also become morally dissonant, since Gingrich is well-known (and has been recently highlighted in the news) as a thrice-married serial philanderer (his recent conversion to Catholicism not withstanding). This certainly makes him an unlikely guide for a religious political movement whose leaders believe that the fate of America hinges on the health of heterosexual marriage.

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/story/148037/newt_gingrich_teams_with_anti-gay_zealot_lou_%27uganda%27_engle_for_u.s._cyber-%27revival%27#disqus_thread

Stephen Hawking: God didn’t create universe

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/?hpt=T2

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN//
September 2, 2010 3:41 p.m. EDT

LONDON, England (CNN) — God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book “The Grand Design” that, given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in the excerpt.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going,” he writes.

Continue reading at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/?hpt=T2

Britain – The Equality Act 2010 – Where are we now?

[2010-09-02 Boyes Turner]

http://www.boyesturner.com/news-article.html?id=1163

Boyes Turner Employment lawyers for employers

2010-09-02 18.32

The Equality Act 2010 – Where are we now?

After much speculation, the Government will be bringing The Equality Act 2010 into force – albeit with some changes to public sector responsibilities which are currently the subject of consultation.

Unlike other pieces of legislation which come into force on a set date, the Equality Act 2010 needed Parliament to pass special legislation to bring it into being. This has now happened. On 06 July 2010 ministerial regulation-making powers and Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) powers to issue codes of practice under the Act came into force allowing the government to issue subordinate legislation or guidance. This was followed with further ministerial regulation-making powers and government-issued codes of practice on 04 August 2010.

…..

When will it come into force?

It is anticipated that the Equality Act 2010 will come into force in various tranches, the first of these being 1 October 2010 when the follow pieces changes will take effect:-

• The basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions; premises; work; education; associations, and transport. This will replace the various separate pieces of discrimination legislation into one single Act of Parliament.

• Changing the definition of gender reassignment, by removing the requirement for medical supervision.

• Levelling up protection for people discriminated against because they are perceived to have, or are associated with someone who has, a protected characteristic, so providing new protection for people like carers.

• Clearer protection for breastfeeding mothers.

• Applying the European definition of indirect discrimination to all protected characteristics.

• Extending protection from indirect discrimination to disability.

• Introducing a new concept of “discrimination arising from disability”, to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment.

• Applying the detriment model to victimisation protection (aligning with the approach in employment law).

• Harmonising the thresholds for the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

• Extending protection from 3rd party harassment to all protected characteristics.

• Making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out when applying for jobs, by restricting the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health.

• Allowing hypothetical comparators for direct gender pay discrimination.

• Making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable.

• Extending protection in private clubs to sex, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment.

• Introducing new powers for employment tribunals to make recommendations which benefit the wider workforce.

• Harmonising provisions allowing voluntary positive action.

…..

Provisions the Government is still considering:

• The Socio-economic Duty on public authorities – this is currently the subject to consultation. (see below)

• Dual discrimination.

• Duty to make reasonable adjustments to common parts of leasehold and common hold premises and common parts in Scotland.

• Gender pay gap information.

• Provisions relating to auxiliary aids in schools.

• Diversity reporting by political parties.

• Positive action in recruitment and promotion.

• Provisions about taxi accessibility.

• Prohibition on age discrimination in services and public functions.

• Family property.

• Civil partnerships on religious premises.

Ministers are considering how to implement these remaining provisions in the best way for business and for others with rights and responsibilities under the Act. Their decisions will be announced in due course.

…..

And for the Public Sector …

A government consultation, Promoting equality through transparency, on proposed draft regulations for specific public sector duties, and on the list of public bodies that will be subject to the general and specific duties was published on 19 August 2010 and closes on 10 November 2010. The results of this consultation are expected to be published 3 months thereafter.

…..

What should employers be doing?

1. Ensure your policies and procedures are up to date and comply with the October changes; having an equal opportunities policy that has not been reviewed as at October 2010 will not be acceptable to an Employment Tribunal.

2. Check contracts of employment to ensure there are no secrecy clauses stopping employees discussing their salaries – from October these will not be allowed.

3. Ensure managers are trained in equal opportunities and are aware of the forthcoming changes – keep records of training session attended. Have a look at ACAS guidance and the Codes of Practice issued by EHRC, these provide useful guidance; they can be accessed through their websites.

The key thing with any legislation change is to be prepared! The Equality Act 2010 marks a massive change in the culture of equality within the workplace and its effects should not be underestimated.

We will be running seminars and training programmes on the Equality Act 2010. For more information about courses for your business, please contact us on elg@boyesturner.com

Consistent with our policy when giving comment and advice on a non-specific basis, we cannot assume legal responsibility for the accuracy of any particular statement. In the case of specific problems we recommend that professional advice be sought.

SEE ALSO:

Our people
http://www.boyesturner.com/our-people.html

Our services
http://www.boyesturner.com/our-services.html

Speak to us

Give us a call on +44(0)118 959 7711 or click < http://www.boyesturner.com/contact-us.html > to submit an enquiry.

© 2010 Boyes Turner

It’s Not About Alan Simpson Anymore, It’s About Barack Obama

From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/its-not-about-alan-simpso_1_b_702630.html

Terry O’Neill

President, National Organization for Women

Posted: September 1, 2010 05:18 PM

Since the publication of Alan Simpson’s now infamous categorization of Social Security as “a milk cow with 310 million tits,” calls for his resignation or firing by President Obama have spread like wildfire. I agree that Simpson should go — but that’s the easy part. The real elephant in the room isn’t the one on the Social Security commission — it’s President Obama.

As Robert Kuttner wrote on the Huffington Post, “Simpson’s ‘Tits’ Are the Least of It.” Kuttner observed:

The campaign to fire Simpson has the right spirit but the wrong target. Obama should draw a line in the sand and make clear that if the commissioners propose cuts in Social Security, he will consider the whole exercise tainted.

Sounds good — but has Barack Obama shown any sign of the intestinal fortitude to take such a step? The ticking time bomb co-chaired by Alan Simpson, d/b/a the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (a name only a focus group could love), was created, as Kuttner reminds us, to be a smokescreen from the start, the theory being that the commission would give the president “cover” and demonstrate that he was fiscally responsible.

After the drubbing Obama has received from Republicans in Congress over health care, energy and the economy, he should be giving this strategy a big re-think. Exactly who is Obama looking for “cover” from? How many Republicans who are not from the state of Maine are likely to be persuaded by a Democratic President’s contortions to display “fiscal responsibility,” — which in this case means throwing the middle class under a bus? With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Let’s be clear: Social Security hasn’t contributed one penny to the deficit, and cutting it won’t fix the problem. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Social Security and the deficit:

“When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you’re talking about apples and oranges.To change Social Security in order to balance the budget, they aren’t the same thing in my view.”

The silence from the White House on this score has been deafening. And Barack Obama’s hesitation has only affirmed the very deliberately framed argument beneath Alan Simpson’s seemingly impromptu, asinine remarks.

Simpson has spent his entire time on the commission trying to convince the U.S. public that cutting Social Security benefits will somehow help reduce the federal deficit. That simply isn’t so. Social Security has nothing to do with the federal budget deficit. Its financing is completely separate from general revenues. In fact, by law, Social Security funds are not permitted to be directly spent on government operations other than its old age, survivors and disability programs.

Oh, and that tired old saw that Social Security isn’t solvent and won’t be there when most of us retire? That’s not so either. Social Security is solvent all the way to 2037 because of steps taken back in 1983, which successfully prepared the system for the retirement of the baby boomers. And with very modest tweaking, the system can be solvent through 2084. (For more details, see the Social Security Trustees 2010 Report.)

The good news is that the people of this country are not fooled. Polls show overwhelming opposition to cuts in Social Security — huge majorities of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, even Tea Party supporters don’t want benefit cuts. But despite all that, Barack Obama still won’t draw a line in the sand to protect Social Security.

That’s why the National Organization for Women is pushing back. We’re calling on President Obama to go beyond generalities and vague assurance and take a clear, unambiguous and forceful stand. Women can’t wait until the next election–or even next week–to hear it.

And Alan Simpson? He can go back to “putting his size 15 feet” in his mouth along with the baby pacifiers NOW members are this week sending his way!

Summer’s Almost Gone

Yesterday evening the sky clouded up and it started to rain.

This morning I woke up to rain.  The kids are back in school already and Labor Day weekend starts tomorrow.

Next week we are going to hearing on toxic coal ash pollution with the Sierra Club.

September brings Dallas Pride Day and the State Fair.  We are going to see the Yankees play the Rangers again.  Baseball being arguably the only professional sport in America that hasn’t degenerated into pure macho dick waving, with the dick wrapped in a flag.

So I woke up this morning with end of summer songs in my head.

A little Doors

And a little Lotte Lenya

Maker of Botox Settles Inquiry

Questionable use of unapproved medical product by a major corporation.  Ho hum no big deal just a fine and no jail time.

Possession of more than an ounce of pot by a poor person.   Really big deal and up to ten years behind bars in the newest fast growing business in America, a private for profit prison.

It is time for CEOs and other executives to do some serious hard time and have fines that take away all their private wealth.  A time when corporations that are found guilty of serious crimes are sentenced to death by dis-incorporation and sale or nationalization of all assets.

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02allergan.html?_r=1&hp

By NATASHA SINGER

Allergan, the maker of Botox, agreed on Wednesday to pay $600 million to settle charges that it illegally promoted and sold the drug through 2005 for unapproved uses like treating headaches.

That settlement, the latest in a continuing Justice Department crackdown on off-label drug promotion by pharmaceutical companies, comes with an unusual postscript. In recent months, the Food and Drug Administration has been seriously weighing approval of Botox for treatment of chronic migraines, a remedy that has been cited as beneficial in new studies and which was ratified last month in Britain.

The charges of illegal marketing cover the first half of this decade, before the F.D.A.’s review.

The settlement also represents the latest in a series of prominent deals by drug makers to resolve criminal and civil allegations, and it closely follows news that the federal government has expanded an investigation into the overseas practices of several big pharmaceutical companies involving suspected bribery of foreign officials.

Continue reading at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02allergan.html?_r=1&hp

Fidel Castro Apologizes For Treatment Of Gays During The Revolution

1969 was an eventful year for me, for the Left and for L/G folks.  I came out and transitioned.  People’s Park happened and white kids were shot at and killed by the police, a year before Kent State.  The Weatherman faction of SDS expelled the Progressive Labor faction (PL was neither progressive nor actual laborers).  Stonewall happened.

Gay and lesbian people were denouncing the treatment of L/G folks in Cuba.  Even though L and G didn’t include people with transsexualism I considered myself a part of that struggle as well as part of Weather.

Therefore I was dismayed at the low level of consciousness displayed by members of the straight Left including the Weather faction when so many went running off to Cuba that summer to join the Venceremos Brigade on what was ostensibly a mission to aid in the harvest of Cuba’s sugar cane but which came off as a junket by those on the Left who were affluent enough to afford the trip during which they got to meet Castro.

Many of us were angered by the failure of those privilege folks, the elite of the straight left to confront Castro over his abuse of L/G people.

Perhaps if they had it would have awakened Fidel’s awareness of his counter-revolutionary stance regarding L/G people much earlier.

From Latin Dispatchhttp://latindispatch.com/2010/09/01/fidel-castro-apologizes-for-treatment-of-gays-during-the-revolution/

Today in Latin America

Top Story — Former Cuban President Fidel Castro has been in the news a good amount recently.

In an interview with the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, the former Cuban head said that in the early years of the revolution homosexuals were persecuted and that he regretted that they were marginalized or sent to agrarian reform camps as punishment.

“If someone is responsible, it’s me,” he said, according to the BBC.

Castro added that he was too busy dealing with attacks against him and his government to put a stop to homophobic attitudes within his regime.

The communist government did however soon change their stance on homosexuality. In 1979 homosexuality was decriminalized and there have been recent efforts to legalize same-sex unions.

Continue reading at:  http://latindispatch.com/2010/09/01/fidel-castro-apologizes-for-treatment-of-gays-during-the-revolution/

Study: Job Growth Is Limited to Really Crappy Jobs

From Alternet: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/01/study-job-growth-is-limited-to-really-crappy-jobs/

This post originally appeared on the Daily Kos.

The recession may have magnified a trend that began nearly four decades ago – wage stagnation, or worse. Michael Luo at The New York Times writes,For Many, a New Job Means Lower Wages, Studies Find:

With the country focused on job growth and unemployment continuing to hover above 9 percent, there has been comparatively little attention paid to the quality of the jobs being created in this still-struggling economy and what that might say about the opportunities that will be available to workers when the tumult of the Great Recession finally settles. …

For years, long before the recession began, job growth had become increasingly polarized in this country, with high-paid occupations that demand significant amounts of education and training growing rapidly, alongside low-wage, entry-level, service-type jobs that do not require much schooling or special skills, according to David Autor, a labor economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The growth of these low-wage jobs began in the 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and began to really take off in the 2000s. Losing out in the shuffle, according to Dr. Autor, are jobs that he describes as “middle-skill, middle-wage” — entry-level white-collar positions, like office and administrative support work, as well as certain blue-collar jobs, like assembly line workers and machine operators.

Continue reading at:  http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/01/study-job-growth-is-limited-to-really-crappy-jobs/

European Union – Call for new laws on transgender rights…

From Brenda Lana Smith’s mailing List

From The Parliament.com  http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/call-for-new-laws-on-transgender-rights/

09/01/2010

Call for new laws on transgender rights

By Martha Moss

01st September 2010

There is an urgent need to improve the rights of transgender people in the EU, a parliament conference has heard.

Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson, who chairs parliament’s women’s rights and gender equality committee, told participants that the EU should think about changing legislation on transgender rights because “things aren’t happening quickly enough”.

“We’ve got to improve our know-how and expertise in decision making bodies so we can tackle the discrimination that transgender people are still subject to in society,” she said.

“It is 2010, and people are still being discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender.”

Svensson, one of the speakers at the Greens/EFA conference on transgender equality held in Brussels on Wednesday, spoke of “heterocentric rules” underpinning power structures, “which means that men have more power in society”.

“We have got to work on these issues in parliament,” she said.

She acknowledged that the FEMM committee “haven’t prioritised the rights of transgender people as much as we should have” but insisted that certain steps had been taken to improve the situation.

“As MEPs we have a say in EU decision making, but we must also lobby at national level,” she added.

“We also have work to do in civil society because that’s where we can put transgender issues high on the political agenda.”

Raül Romeva i Rueda, vice-president of parliament’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) intergroup, said urgent action was needed to prosecute the perpetrators of violence against transgender people.

“These people need to be prosecuted,” he said, adding that such actions could not be accepted on the grounds of “cultural difference”.

Romeva i Rueda highlighted talk of the ‘big g’ and ‘small t’ in the LGBT movement, saying “this is something that needs to be changed”.

“Action is crucial, it’s urgent,” said Romeva i Rueda, also a member of parliament’s women’s rights and gender equality committee. “In many places it’s a question of life or death – not simply a philosophical issue.”

Event organiser and Dutch deputy Marije Cornelissen, who has been shortlisted for a Parliament Magazine MEP award in the employment and social affairs category, spoke of the importance of mainstreaming transgender issues into work across the parliament.

Speaking on behalf of the gender equality and non-discrimination unit in the European commission, Belinda Pyke said there was still a “huge intolerance and ignorance about transgender issues”.

Emphasising the need to increase the “knowledge base”, she promised to “raise more general awareness” on transgender issues, and said it was particularly important to distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity.

In this context, Pyke welcomed the June 2009 parliament resolution, which included a specific reference to gender identity.

© Dods Ltd 2010

New Feature: Survival Hints

I wear whole lots of different hats which is one major reason I feel extremely constrained by identity politics.  None of the neat identity packages really fit.

Over my life time I’ve picked up whole bunches of skills from cooking and sewing to page layout and computer construction.

Many people whose lives have been impacted by trans-prefixed words are facing hard times economically.  Un-employment and under-employment particularly if one is older or not so passable are  real facts of life.

Identity be damned though… It isn’t just being trans ******… Many other formerly middle class people are facing the same problems thanks to Extremist Capitalism and the Free Market waging class war on the working classes.

Hence… The new column “Survival Hints”…  I want this to be a co-operative effort…  Especially on the part of people outside the US.  There is an e-mail address for this blog suzan.wbt@gmail.com I’ll run articles submitted by others that address this topic.  Some suggested topics might include negotiating Name Changes, free or low cost medical care etc. Others could include tips on turning various skills into income producing endeavors that do not require conforming to some sort of corporate standards.

If you have a blog and have posted articles on these themes this is an opportunity for links and a link back to your blog or website.

Today I am featuring an article I found on Alternet.  It particularly hit home as I have spent a great deal of money on glasses this year that I am not all that happy with.

The following is reposted with the permission of Anneli Rufus.

She has written several interesting appearing books and has the following sites:

http://www.annelirufus.com/

http://scavenging.wordpress.com/

Wow — the Eyewear Industry Is an Incredible Ripoff, But There Are Alternatives

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet
Posted on August 31, 2010, Printed on August 31, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148024/

Those of us who need prescription eyewear need prescription eyewear. Are you wearing yours to read this? Imagine if you weren’t. Imagine life without your glasses for a year, a week, an hour. Yet many health insurance plans, especially for the unemployed or self-employed, don’t cover them.

Mine doesn’t.

Last year, I went shopping for no-line progressive bifocals in small oval metal frames. Name brands mean nothing to me. Price does. My high astigmatism and need for bifocals disqualify me from those buy-one-get-one-free deals, which almost always involve only single-vision specs.

In store after store, megachains and optical boutiques alike, small oval metal frames fitted with lenses matching my prescription started at $300. One popular shop quoted me $582 for the lenses alone.

I bought a pair of no-line progressive bifocals in small oval metal frames for $44 online. I’m wearing them right now.

Perhaps because prescription glasses are where medicine meets fashion, they’re among the world’s most overpriced merchandise. Imperfect eyesight isn’t your fault: You can’t make yourself nearsighted by eating too much fudge. Yet if your health plan excludes vision care, you’ve spent years at the mercy of a $64 billion industry characterized by 500-percent markups.

This has begun to change over the last few years. A knowledge-is-power, power-to-the-people, Web-driven DIY wave is rocking the optical industry’s very foundations. Dozens of companies now sell prescription glasses online, frames and lenses included, for as little as $7.95.

It works like this: Google “cheap glasses” to find a frame you like at a price you like at a site you like. (Among the most popular are 39DollarGlasses, ZenniOptical — where I bought mine — and Goggles4U.) Use the virtual fitting mechanism to “try it on.” Type in your prescription (obtained from an actual eye doctor), pupillary distance (aka PD, derived by measuring the space between your pupils with a ruler), address and payment information. Send.

It’s a virtual myopian/hyperopian/presbyopian Tea Party, led largely by Minnesota software engineer Ira Mitchell, who launched his revolutionary GlassyEyes blog (its motto is “Saving the World from Overpriced Glasses!”) in 2006. Packed with forums, product reviews, discount deals, and tips for buying specs online, it’s the vision-impaired version of Yelp.

“There is no appreciable functional or material difference” between prescription eyewear bought online and bought in brick-and-mortar stores, Mitchell tells me, but in stores “the cost to the consumer is anywhere from four to ten times more. It turns out that they’re making ridiculous margins on the frames, the lenses and the coatings.”

Complete with antiscratch coatings and other pluses, his own glasses cost between $30 and $60 per pair online. Over the last three years, he’s bought around 40 pair — because, at that price, he can.

Mitchell was appalled when he first began researching wholesale prices for optical merchandise and realized that opticians acquire lenses for as little as $3 each. “I’ve easily paid twenty times that when I didn’t know any better,” he says.

Granted, these glass, plastic, polycarbonate or polymer blanks must be ground to fit frames and prescriptions, and this takes work, but it’s not rocket science. Typically, lens grinding is done by optical laboratory technicians. According to PayScale.com, OLTs in the United States earn between $9.73 and $14.40 per hour. Most learn on the job, and have only a high-school diploma or a GED. No specific certification is required.

The fleecing, Mitchell says, is just as bad on frames.

“A consumer-level frame costs significantly less than $10 to manufacture. The rest is operations, licensing and profit. Think about that the next time you pick up an average $150 frame. These aren’t markedly different or superior to the $30 glasses available from reputable online dealers — and those include lenses, probably the same ones you were just about to pay $200 for in the store.”

A key to the industry-standard overpricing is the fact that a single corporation — Luxottica, the world’s largest eyewear firm — owns many retail eyewear chains and many popular eyewear brands. Based in Milan, Italy, Luxottica owns and operates LensCrafters, Sears Optical, Target Optical, Pearle Vision, Sunglass Hut, Ilori, and other chains in the United States, along with yet more chains throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, India, the Antipodes and the Middle East.

Luxottica owns Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, Vogue, and other brands, and makes glasses under license for over a dozen designer labels including Versace, Prada, Bulgari, DKNY, Burberry, Ralph Lauren, Dolce & Gabbana, Donna Karan, Tiffany, and more. As if that isn’t enough, Luxottica is also the parent company of a vision-care benefits program, EyeMed.

Eyewear prices in brick-and-mortar stores stay artificially high, Mitchell says, due to “the lack of real competition, inasmuch as Luxottica owns massive manufacturing, licensing, retailing and insurance interests” — albeit EyeMed is “not so much insurance as a marketing ploy to get people to buy from their stores at a discount and to force the remaining independent stores to buy Luxottica controlled frames. But, again, most people are unaware of this.”

Because one company holds a near-monopoly on brick-and-mortar eyewear stores, “pricing models are somewhat static across the lot of them. They also have a knack for using the mattress sale model … constantly running sales that seem too good to pass up when in reality they’re still making enormous profits.”

“Semi-Annual 50% Off Sales Event,” reads a current LensCrafters ad. But the frames in question range from around $100 to around $300, and that’s without lenses.

“People pay what the brick-and-mortars are asking, primarily because the vast majority don’t know there are better, cheaper options,” Mitchell says.

As with any purchase — in fact more than with most purchases, as this involves eyesight — it pays to research each company’s delivery and return policies, Better Business Bureau status, and accessibility. Does its Web site list a phone number? If not, why not? If so, call it. Can you reach live people? Are they knowledgeable about your prescription? Does the company have its own in-house optometrists? It should. If you care about brand names, can you ascertain that the logo-bearing frames sold by any given company aren’t counterfeits? Factories churn out fakes.

While many online outfits sell real and bogus designer frames, the least expensive frames available online are unapologetically nameless generics: current and classic styles, sans logo. As is true with most consumer products, they’re not necessarily worse than their name-brand counterparts. After a year-plus of daily use, my $44 generics still look new. (That being said, I should have paid a few dollars more for higher-quality polycarbonate lenses and I should have sought bifocals with a wider middle-vision band, but these errors were my own, not the company’s.)

“Very high-priced frames may have somewhat better materials,” Mitchell says, “but from my experience, the no-names have been very well made.” Having owned dozens of generic pairs, he’s experienced “no more issues with them than with the name brands from LensCrafters. I think they’re pretty much on par.”

These days, he notes, “there are a lot more online retailers now than at the end of 2006. There aren’t a whole lot more reputable ones, however. I’ve shopped at over a dozen, and narrowed things down to about three or four that I feel comfortable recommending to others. As this is a fully custom market, mistakes can enter the process anywhere from the initial customer entering prescription information to the production process. I’ve found that a few of the sites do a better job than others at fixing mistakes. Some do better at this than the traditional stores.

“Prices haven’t dropped at all in the traditional brick-and-mortars, but downward price pressure from Wal-Mart will undoubtedly start to make an impact in certain parts of the country. I saw a sign in a
Wal-Mart recently for $38 glasses. The selection was tiny, but we’re starting to see a price intersection.”

The first online eyeglasses company was Houston-based FramesDirect. In 1992, optometrists Dhavid Cooper and Guy Hodgson closed their several Texas brick-and-mortar shops, then pondered their future.

“We knew that we wanted to sell eyewear in all fifty states 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year,” Hodgson says. “We had no idea how to do this.” Renting a small office, they installed computers.

“When you talked about the Internet in those days, no one knew what you meant. Search engines were in their absolute infancy. We thought a 56k modem was blisteringly fast.”

Cooper had won a Surgeon General’s Commendation Award in his native South Africa for creating a program providing the poor with recycled glasses for free. Hodgson specialized in treating the nearly blind. Barely fluent in email, the pair created a basic Web site, offering designer glasses at low prices because, unlike brick-and-mortar opticians, they needed to pay neither storefront rent nor employees’ salaries, nor did they need to keep large quantities of merchandise in stock.

“Everyone around us thought we were completely mad: Eye doctors, giving up their lucrative practices to go into this weird thing,” Hodgson laughs. But once orders started pouring in, “The whole optical industry completely shunned us. They said we were ruining them.”

At eyewear conventions, he and Cooper wore their nametags backward to avoid verbal abuse. Since then, dozens of imitators have emerged, many based overseas and most able to offer even lower prices because they sell generics. Buying prescription eyewear is like buying prescription drugs: It’s cheaper online. It’s cheaper when it comes from outside the U.S. GlassesUnlimited, for instance, can afford to sell hundreds of different stylish frames fitted with prescription lenses for only $9.99 because its entire operation is based in Thailand.

“We don’t have big margins here. That’s how we are serving our clientele. That’s why we’re getting hundreds of orders on a daily basis, 70 percent of which come from the U.S. and Canada,” GU manager Sam Davis tells me. “We have virtually no expenses. We have our own home brand and do our own production. We don’t outsource anything.”

Based in the U.S., FramesDirect still undercuts retail-store prices for guaranteed designer goods.

“What we sell and what the brick-and-mortar stores sell are the exact same products,” Guy Hodgson says. “How can they afford to charge the prices they charge?”

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, most recently The Scavenger’s Manifesto (Tarcher Press, 2009). Read more of Anneli’s writings on scavenging at scavenging.wordpress.com.

Wing Nut Daily

Headlines at the Nazi Ninny Pages says it all…

If marriage is lost, we lose everything

Don Feder
Posted: August 31, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

Last Saturday, Glenn Beck held his Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C. An estimated 300,000 to half a million people came from all over the country. The Fox News host made the event an interfaith revival. “America today begins to turn back to God,” Beck declared.

But while America turns back to God, Beck turns his back on God’s law. Hey, that’s catchy!

A guest on the “O’Reilly Factor” in early August, Beck was asked, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Answer: “No I don’t. Will gays come and get us?” Apparently, this jocularity was meant to belittle the bumpkins who oppose turning marriage into a free-form institution.

Beck then quoted his hero, Thomas Jefferson (who thought the French Revolution was groovy): “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?” Apparently, demolishing the institution of marriage, and undermining the family, should be matters of supreme indifference to those fighting to save America from the clutches of Obamaism.

No link.. The Nazi pukes don’t deserve one.

Although their eating their own is some what amusing in an Animal Planet sort of way…

Strong Suggestion or Order… Bookmark and Read Paul Krugman

You make the call.  One of the best of the best voices regarding the economics issues that govern our daily lives is Paul Krugman.  He is a Nobel Prize winning Economist and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times and has a New York Times Blog.

Bookmark his Blog and read his column. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ Read his column in opinion http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

What brought this on was his blog entry today.

August 31, 2010, 9:50 am

The Unbearable Pettiness Of Being Rich

Andrew Ross Sorkin’s column today makes Wall Street honchos sound like spoiled kids; they went for Obama because he seemed like their kind of guy, then turned on him with a vengeance because they think he’s looking at them funny.

Based on what I know, that’s about right.

I talked to some financial-industry backers of Obama back during primary season; they really didn’t know or care much about policy issues, but were in love with Obama over his style — and also over the prospect of being in his inner circle, something they knew wouldn’t happen with Hillary. Now they’re mad because they don’t feel that they’re getting enough stroking.

And you have to bear in mind that this comes after Obama has made immense efforts to placate the financial industry. There were no bank nationalizations; there were hardly any strings attached to bailouts; the financial reform bill was by no means draconian given the scale of the disaster. But Wall Street is furious that Obama might even hint that they caused the crisis — which he does, now and then, because, well, they did.

And as far as I can tell, hardly any of the new anti-Obamanites is thinking at all about what will really happen once John Boehner is speaker.

You know, one might have thought that having all the money in the world would make people less petty, less concerned about whether they feel that they’re in the in-group. But nooooo </Belushi>

Council of Europe – Human rights of transgender persons are still ignored or violated…

[2010-08-31 commissioner.cws.coe.int]

http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=74

Human Rights Comment
Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights

Forced divorce and sterilisation – a reality for many transgender persons

Posted on 2010-08-31 10:02

The rights of transgender persons are still ignored or violated, but some signs of understanding now begin to appear. One example is the outcome, at long last, of Lydia Foy’s struggle in Ireland. She was registered as male at birth but has lived as a woman since 1992. This summer she finally succeeded in her battle for legal recognition by the Irish state as a woman and for a birth certificate that reflects this reality.

Most people legally defined as man or woman will experience a corresponding gender identity. Transgender persons, however, do not have such a corresponding identity and may wish to change their legal, social, and sometimes also physical status.

The case initiated by Lydia Foy in 1997 led to a High Court ruling ten years later that Ireland was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing recognition of Dr. Foy in her preferred gender. It took the Irish government another 2.5 years to accept that Irish law is incompatible with the European Convention. In June 2010 the Irish government withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court and will now recognise Lydia Foy as a woman.

The Irish government will introduce legislation to recognise transgender persons in their preferred gender including the possibility for them to obtain new birth certificates. An inter-departmental working group has been set up by the Irish government to develop a legal framework which respects the human rights of transgender individuals. It is crucial that representatives of the transgender community as well as other experts be represented in this working group. This could become a good model for other states which are currently considering improving their legal framework for transgender persons, including Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands.

Still viewed as a mental disorder

Ireland is not the only country where transgender persons have faced obstacles in obtaining legal recognition of their preferred gender. Some Council of Europe member states still have no provision at all for official recognition, leaving transgender people in a legal limbo. Most member states still use medical classifications which impose the diagnosis of mental disorder on transgender persons.

Even more common are provisions which demand impossible choices, such as the “forced divorce” and the “forced sterilisation” requirements. This means that only unmarried or divorced transgender persons who have undergone surgery and become irreversibly infertile have the right to change their entry in the birth register. In reality, this means that the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, a requirement which clearly runs against the principles of human rights and human dignity.

Some positive legal developments can however be found. The Austrian Administrative High Court ruled in 2009 that mandatory surgery could not be a prerequisite for gender change, and in Germany the Federal Supreme Court indicated in 2005 that operative interventions as a precondition for the change of gender are no longer tenable.

Full right to physical and moral security

All countries need to develop expeditious and transparent procedures for changing the name and gender of a transgender person on official documents, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

In 2002, in Goodwin v UK, the Strasbourg Court’s Grand Chamber stressed that in the twenty first century the rights of transgender persons should be effectively protected by states. They should have the same right to personal development and to physical and moral security enjoyed by others in society. One cannot but agree.

There is a strong need for an informed dialogue about the widespread discrimination against transgender persons in Europe today. One contribution will hopefully be a comparative study, the result of which my office will present early next year, on continued discrimination in all parts of Europe on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

-

Thomas Hammarberg

Forced Sterilization?  WTF?

Sex Reassignment Surgery includes sterilization.  It is in the nature of the procedure.  I swear sometimes it seems as though transgender folks are opposed to sex reassignment surgery and want to end it the same way they insist on erasing Transsexual in the name of some imagined unity of identity under the rubric of “Transgender as Umbrella”.

This is bad form and discourages people with transsexualism from acting as part of a coalition on issues that concern all.

It is a denial of our needs and has been one of the major causes of the TS/TG War that has gone on for some 20 years now.

Sometimes, I swear I would be better off devoting energy to tree hugging and general worker’s rights issues.

Class War, not just for the rich anymore.

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?ref=frankrich

By FRANK RICH

ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.

Vive la révolution!

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.

All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.

Continue Reading at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?ref=frankrich

ENDA and the ERA

I’m reading Sherry Wolf’s Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics, and Theory of LGBT Liberation. I came across an interesting piece of information.

In 1974 Bella Abzug introduced the original version of ENDA called “The Equality Act of 1974″

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug

Abzug served the state of New York in the United States House of Representatives, representing her district in Manhattan, from 1971 to 1977. For part of her term, she also represented part of The Bronx as well. She was one of the first members of Congress to support gay rights, introducing the first federal gay rights bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974, with fellow Democratic New York City Representative, Ed Koch, a future mayor of New York City.

In 1974 transgender did not exist as either an identity or social construct.  One was a heterosexual CD, a queen or transsexual and while we might have been friends there wasn’t that much of a sense of collective identity. Indeed while bisexuality was a lived reality it was a vastly under-appreciated identity by lesbians, gays and straights alike.

This makes ENDA in its various iterations some 34 years old.

We were on a roll in 1974…

In 1972 we finally got the Equal Rights amendment introduced.  Remember that one?

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3.
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That one…   Alice Paul first proposed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1923 on the 75th anniversary of the first Woman’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, NY.

We got that amendment though the house and senate.  All it needed was ratification.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm
The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since the 18th (Prohibition), with the exception of the 19 Amendment, Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.
Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.

Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.

Pro-ERA advocacy was led by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and ERAmerica, a coalition of nearly 80 other mainstream organizations. However, in 1977, Indiana became the 35th and so far the last state to ratify the ERA. That year also marked the death of Alice Paul, who, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony before her, never saw the Constitution amended to include the equality of rights she had worked for all her life.

Hopes for victory continued to dim as other states postponed consideration or defeated ratification bills. Illinois changed its rules to require a three-fifths majority to ratify an amendment, thereby ensuring that their repeated simple majority votes in favor of the ERA did not count. Other states proposed or passed rescission bills, despite legal precedent that states do not have the power to retract a ratification.

As the 1979 deadline approached, some pro-ERA groups, like the League of Women Voters, wanted to retain the eleventh-hour pressure as a political strategy. But many ERA advocates appealed to Congress for an indefinite extension of the time limit, and in July 1978, NOW coordinated a successful march of 100,000 supporters in Washington, DC. Bowing to public pressure, Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982.
The political tide continued to turn more conservative. In 1980 the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform, and Ronald Reagan was elected president. Although pro-ERA activities increased with massive lobbying, petitioning, countdown rallies, walkathons, fundraisers, and even the radical suffragist tactics of hunger strikes, White House picketing, and civil disobedience, ERA did not succeed in getting three more state ratifications before the deadline. The country was still unwilling to guarantee women constitutional rights equal to those of men.

The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time. In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), it has been introduced as S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY). These bills impose no deadline on the ERA ratification process.  Success in putting the ERA into the Constitution via this process would require passage by a two-thirds in each house of Congress and ratification by 38 states.
The struggles for equality are generally long and difficult.  They are battles not just for hearts and minds nor are they won simply by appealing to people’s sense of social justice.

The people we are fighting hate equality and consider the very idea of Social Justice to be communistic and repugnant.

One thing both ERA and ENDA share in common is that the right wing uses the bath room issue as a club to argue against both.

It is telling that not only the same arguments are used but the same wealthy ultra right wing extremists are leading the campaigns against both ENDA and ERA. They are the same Ayn rand worshiping Neos who are attacking public education, Social Security and any use of the government to better the lives of any one outside that 20% that owns 85% of the wealth in this nation.

Rather than focusing on one particular issue as a minority based on identity politics perhaps instead we need to examine the potential for systematic change. It would seem that as a class the 80% of people who have seen their wealth devoured by that top 20% would have numbers on their side.

The rich right wing elite loves identity politics.  They have created this huge mess and if the working poor unite around our class interests instead of being divided by our single issues well then it sort of turns into pitch forks and torches time.

Because of this they use these cultural issues to divide and conquer.

ENDA and ERA are about the same thing.  Equality.

Particularly for transsexual and transgender people.”Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

I See White People

The ultra Reich Wing Republi-Nazis that worship the slimy likes of the weeping Glenny Beckster reflect KKK values right down to the bottoms of their pasty white racist hearts.

I just looked through the pictures of the Huckster Glenn’s rally.

Gee… This ain’t the America I know and love.  The one with people of all sorts of different races and ethnicities.  Not to mention the people of the queer alphabet soup.

What these people are mourning is the fact that the pendulum is swing back from their Nazioid vision of an America run by the rich, for the rich, governed by one interlocking board of directors with liberty and justice for well to do white men and screw everyone else.

Screw Glenn Beck

Today in 1963 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr gave his “I have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington.  Less than five years later the racists murdered him and this nation started its downward spiral into the hell of ever more racist and more extreme right wing regimes.

Today Crocodile Tears Glenn Beck is desecrating a day that should be set aside to remember the noble goals of civil rights and fairness, of justice for all.

That this ugly puke, this slimy piss poor excuse for a human being has the audacity to call a rally of his neo KKK racist know nothings on this day is an affront to real Americans every where.  It is a desecration of everything I was taught to believe this country stands for.

The Real August 28th, speech, the one you should remember and associate with today.