The Revolution will not Enjoy Corporate Sponsorship

The Revolution  absolutely will not be brought to you by Absolut

The Revolution will not give the leaders of the revolution passes to fly on American Airlines as long as they wear a corporate pin

Working Assets may fund a lobbyist to kiss up to some congress person but it will it put some one on a picket line?

Wearing a rainbow pin while waving a rainbow flag sucking down the beer that is sponsoring this years Pride Festival will give you neither freedom nor Pride

Do you really think corporations will sponsor workers rights to a fair share?

A living wage?

Or will they maybe try to buy you off  by helping you focus all your energy on getting a bill passed that will help you enjoy equal access to being a 9.00 dollar an hour barista with a college degree.  A job where you get to pee in the bottle for the manager of the Starbucks that under pays you and over works you.  You know the one that came in and drove the neat funky coffee house where they had poetry readings out of business.

I may be wrong but I sure wouldn’t count on Starbucks sponsoring the revolution.  Because when push come to shove Starbucks is just another Walmart.

Corporations will not sponsor your fight to end NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT or the off shoring of all the jobs that paid a decent wage.

I’ll tell you an open secret about corporation… The only purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for their executives and shareholders.  The corporations do not give a flying fuck about your gender identity or your sexuality.

They will throw you under the bus if some Christer doesn’t like your looks and complains.  If you are not in a union and have the misfortune to live in a so called “right to work” state they do not need a reason to fire you and see to it you do not get un-employment.  And ENDA won’t do a damned thing about that.  If you think otherwise look at the rate of un-employment for people of color.

Corporations do not have your best interests at heart.  You are a human resource to be used to increase the one thing that a corporation exists for, the bottom line.  They care only about money.

When they say something different they are lying.

There will be a revolution when and only when people stop arguing over bull shit like identity and unite to say they are tired of being collectively fuck by corporations that don’t give a rats ass about their lives.

The revolution will start when people start saying no to advertising.  When people stop buying stuff they don’t need but are brainwashed into wanting.  Or if they do buy it they pay cash and say no to paying the banks usurious piles of interest charged for using credit cards.

Because the only real value we have to the rich, to the corporations is  in buying, consuming, endlessly…

If we picked just one or two corporations at a time and stopped buying from them until they start treating workers with respect, permitting unions, paying a living wage etc…  That would be revolutionary and I guarantee that revolution will not have corporate sponsorship.

Posted in Anarchism, Civil Rights, Class War, Economic Issues, Employment, ENDA, Frugal Living, Human Rights, Labor, Police State, Social Justice, Unions. Comments Off on The Revolution will not Enjoy Corporate Sponsorship

City can’t define ‘gender identity’

I swear for all the talk about “gender” and “gender identity” that goes on in and among various transsexual and transgender groups I am forced to admit I have a hard time identifying “gender”.  Other than it seems like a social construct based on adherence to certain culturally defined norms for people based on their being male or female.  I.e. Masculinity/Femininity.

If these socially constructed norms are supposed to represent something real then I’ve been in constant violation since birth.  I’ve never let something being described as masculine or feminine stop me from doing it if I wanted to do it.  From sewing bead work to building computers.  If it is something I want to do I do it.

From the Topeka Capitol Journal:

September 1, 2010 – 11:12am

MANHATTAN — When Manhattan city commissioners last week authorized research into adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the city’s list of protected classes, the process hung up on one point. What exactly is “gender identity” and can it be defined for purposes of law?

The city administration, with help of the city attorney’s office, drafted the proposed amendment to the city’s discrimination ordinance. But city administrators chose not to define gender identity in the proposed amendment because there was a question of whether commissioners wanted to include it along with sexual orientation.

Now that a majority of commissioners support adding it, the city has been charged with finding a suitable definition to add to the ordinance. The amendment would also create a local process to enforce the protection of the sexual orientation and gender identity classes. The Human Rights and Advisory Board would become an investigative and quasi-judicial body, with subpoena powers and the ability to issue fines/penalties. Additional staff might be necessary to take on additional responsibilities if the amended ordinance is passed.

Larry Hackney, city human resources specialist and liaison to the HRSB, said the city is looking at communities that have implemented similar ordinances, such as Boulder, Colo., and San Francisco, for guidance in formulating a definition of gender identity. Hackney also said it might be a good idea to ask an organization such as the Flint Hills Human Rights Project for their definition.

But some human rights and gay rights groups don’t even define gender identity. Sam Brinton, the president of Kansas State’s Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender Questioning and More group, said his group doesn’t have a definition because it accepts every one, no matter what their situation.

“It is so easy for my student group to deal with this matter since we don’t have to define gender identity when dealing with a student,” he said.

Hackney said that it is too early to have a discussion or consensus on the definition. But that definition will become important because, as Mayor Bruce Snead said, people need to know what the prohibited practices under the discrimination ordinance are. He also said it might be necessary to provide examples of gender identity discrimination in various literature to help people understand what it actually is.

Commissioner Jim Sherow agrees. “It’s useless to put something in the ordinance that is not properly defined or properly enforceable,” he said.

Commissioners were provided with a copy of Boulder’s discrimination ordinance, which includes gender identity, for reference at last week’s meeting. They seemed to agree that it was too “bulky” to under stand clearly.

Boulder’s ordinance defined gender identity this way: “A person’s various individual attributes, actual or perceived, that may be in accord with, or sometimes opposed to, one’s physical anatomy, chromosomal sex, genitalia or sex assigned at birth.” Boulder also defined several other related terms. Two of the more relevant definitions are: Sex: “Biological sex is the sum of a person’s physical characteristics.”

Gender: “A psycho-social role, corresponding to norms of male or female behavior and judgments in a particular culture at a particular time, most prominently exemplified by dress and physical appearance, including secondary sexual characteristics.

Hackney said Boulder’s ordinance was extensive because they felt they had to go to great lengths to make sure it was defined properly. He said it’s always better if a definition is simpler.

Commissioner Loren Pepperd said he would have to hear a definition before he could vote “yea, nay or sideways” on the discrimination ordinance.

Commissioner Bob Strawn is concerned with another definition, though. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistics Manuel IV defines Gender Identity Disorder as a mental disorder.

Strawn said that he doesn’t necessarily think gender identity is the root of a mental disorder, but he’s wary because some professionals consider it one.

“I feel strongly that we should not codify discrimination by what professionals call a mental disorder,” he said.

The inclusion of gender identity as a mental disorder is controversial, as the American Psychological Association believes that including gender identity as a mental disorder “pathologies” it. Also, one of their policy statements says the organization “supports the passage of laws and policies protecting the rights, legal benefits, and privileges of people of all gender identities and expressions.”

Although Strawn and Pepperd agree with their fellow commissioners on the need for a clear definition, they both also feel that the amendment is unnecessary.

“I believe we have ordinances out there that cover pretty much everything,” Pepperd said.

They both have concerns about implementing an ordinance that has no precedent in the state. Strawn said the three “liberal commissioners” are going to put a law into effect without an idea how it’s going to be applied.

Sherow disagrees with that argument. He says Kansas has a rich history of moving forward with laws that had no precedent in the state or country, and that it’s not a valid reason not to pass an ordinance like this. He pointed out that Kansas was the first state to put the issue of women’s suffrage in front of voters, and said this ordinance is just another example of the state’s heritage.

“It’s surprising to me that some people want to turn their back on this,” he said.

National Cow Girls Museum

This afternoon Tina and I went to a Georgia O’keeffe exhibit over in fort Worth at the National Cowgirls Museum.

Georgia O’Keeffe and the Far Away: Nature and Image

Open through Labor Day, 2010

Through our partnership with the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe, NM, we are proud to present a groundbreaking exhibition featuring one of the most famous artists of the 20th century: 1991 Cowgirl Hall of Fame Honoree Georgia O’Keeffe.

O’Keeffe’s connection to the American West and her reputation at the forefront of American modernism are essential to the premise of this exhibition and pertinent to her induction into the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame. She identified herself with the ideals of the West- rugged individuality, fierce courage and a quest for the untamed. Nowhere is this more evident than through her arduous camping trips to paint the landscape of northern New Mexico, a place she romantically referred to as “the faraway.”

This 3,000 square foot exhibit, housed in the lower gallery of the Museum, includes several of O’Keeffe’s paintings on loan from museums and private collectors from around the country. Also included are her camping gear, which has never before been displayed to the public; numerous sketches made by the artist while camping and hiking in northern New Mexico; selected pieces of her clothing, including the black hat familiar to her many fans; multiple photos taken of her while camping; and many other images documenting her affinity with the West.

Their permanent collection upstairs celebrates the cowgirls from Annie Oakley to women ranchers and rodeo riders on the Women’s Rodeo circuit.

When we got to Texas we were taught various ‘Texas” phrases one of which was “Cowboy up or Cowgirl up”. When your horse (life) throws you and then steps on your foot when you get up.  You “cow girl up” and get back on the damned horse instead of wasting your time crying about how unfair it all is.

The women of the early west were strong.  They had to be because life was hard and there was so much work to be done on the ranches.

One picture was of Native kid named “Linder” (Linda) One Path, who entered steer riding contests as an eleven year old.  They assumed she was a little boy until the third time she did it and they found out she was a girl.  She said I ‘tolt you my name was Linda’…

In early rodeo the women and men competed in the same events until they ran the women out.  Guess they couldn’t handle the competition.

When I look at how these women shredded the social constructs of gender and how transgender folks reify them, I have to ask just who are the real “gender outlaws”.

We’re Being Conned on Social Security — How We Could Easily Raise Benefits or Allow People to Retire Earlier

From AlterNet:–_how_we_could_easily_raise_benefits_or_allow_people_to_retire_earlier/

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on September 3, 2010, Printed on September 4, 2010

Allow me to take a moment to fix that whole “Social Security crisis” that has everyone in Washington gnashing their teeth. When you see how easily it’s done, you may begin to realize that whenever our elites start chattering about “tax-gaps,” they’re almost certainly trying to rip you off — making a slick grab for something to which you are, ultimately, “entitled.”

But why stop there? Why play defense? After we fix the program, why don’t we increase Social Security benefits? Why not lower the age of retirement? With unemployment hovering around 10 percent, and some economists, like James Galbraith, arguing that at least some of those lost jobs are never to return, why not open up some jobs for the young ‘uns and put a dent in the number of Americans who are out of work? Maybe with more demand for workers, employers would see their way to raising wages a bit, bucking the long-term trend of stagnation that the majority of Americans have endured over the past 30 years. Think about it: if you enter the labor market at age 20, isn’t busting your ass for four decades long enough to merit a dignified retirement? We are a wealthy country — we can afford it.

Continue reading at:–_how_we_could_easily_raise_benefits_or_allow_people_to_retire_earlier/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on We’re Being Conned on Social Security — How We Could Easily Raise Benefits or Allow People to Retire Earlier