Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Climate Change Denial Montage, 2014

14 companies to avoid if you support equality in America.

14 Companies to Avoid If You Support Equality in America



The midterm elections are right around the corner, presenting a perfect opportunity to exercise our right to vote — despite what Fox News might suggest. But as critical as casting ballots is to ensuring democracy and expanding equality, there is another important albeit often overlooked way that Americans can vote: with our wallets.
In the context of our capitalist democracy, dollars aren't just green pieces of paper we exchange for goods and services, they represent our values and our priorities. If we invest in women-friendly and LGBT-friendly companies and divest from those with ties to anti-equality groups and politicians, we have a chance to dramatically impact our country's political and social landscape. Not for nothing, "money talks" is one of this country's more ubiquitous expressions.
"Women should vote on their wallet and their rights — both on Election Day and when they shop," Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, told Mic. 
With that in mind, here are some examples of companies to avoid, as well as few we should patronize:

1. Hobby Lobby



Source: Ed Andrieski/AP

Hobby Lobby took its fight against women's health care all the way to the Supreme Court — and won. Claiming that it should be exempt from covering birth control in its employer-sponsored health care plan for religious reasons, the Oklahoma City-based retailer helped set a dangerous legal precedent to deny women, as well as LGBT communities, certain rights.
Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby's retirement plan invests in birth control manufacturers. So, not only are they anti-woman, they're hypocrites.  

2. Hooters



Source: Wilfredo Lee/AP

Hooters' blatant hypersexualization of women is well known at this point, but that's not the only reason why feminists should steer clear of this infamous chain. In 2010, two of its former waitresses filed alawsuit alleging weight discrimination in what is probably the least surprising lawsuit in recent history. 
One woman claimed her "civil rights were violated when she was placed on 'weight probation' during an annual evaluation and offered a gym membership," while another claimed she was fired because she didn't fit into the extra small uniform. Keep it classy, Hooters.

3. Curves International



Source: PAT WELLENBACH/AP

This woman-only gym franchise has made a fortune helping women get into shape. But its founder, Gary Heavin, has contributed to anti-choice organizations that are aligned with Operation Save America, a group that lobbies Congress for anti-woman policies and proudly proclaims its goal of "unashamedly tak[ing] up the cause of preborn children in the name of Jesus Christ" on its website. 

4. Exxon



Source: Gene J. Puskar/AP

The big oil company has a long history of fighting against LGBT rights. As the Huffington Post reported in 2013, Exxon "has been fighting for years against non-discrimination protection and equal benefits coverage for their employees." Moreover, before Exxon acquired Mobil in 1999, Mobile had "policies to protect discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and even offered benefits to same-sex couples," but Exxontook that all away, according to LGBT news site the Dallas Voice.
In perhaps a new low for the company, the Human Right Campaign gave the massive employer a score ofbelow zero on its 2012 Corporate Equality Index, which measures LGBT equality and workplace protections. And in July, a lawsuit that alleged the gas and oil company discriminated against LGBT employees as part of its hiring practices was allowed to move forward in Illinois, according to the Washington Blade. 

5. American Apparel



Source: Uncredited/AP

The clothing chain first gained notoriety for its former CEO's sexist and unethical behavior. Dov Charney, who American Apparel's board ousted in June, mired the company in scandal, ranging from his championing of uncomfortably sexual ads featuring highly sexualized young women to sexual harassmentlawsuitsallegations of a personal "sex slave" — and financial fraud. 
While the board made the right decision to fire Charney, it took them entirely too long, and they will need to earn back the trust of their consumers.

6. MillerCoors



Source: William B. Plowman/AP

Sorry, beer lovers, but if you value women's rights you better put down that Blue Moon, Coors Light, Keystone Ice, Miller, Killians or Fosters (or any of these myriad other alcoholic beverages). 
"When it comes to women's reproductive rights, both Pete and Joe Coors have (unsuccessfully) run for political office on platforms that would deny women bodily autonomy," according to Salon. "In his bid for Senate in 2004, Pete touted his anti-abortion stance. And to prove to voters how passionate he was about limiting women's rights, he committed to changing the Coors Co. health plans so that abortion coverage would be removed." 
And Joe Coors, Jr. is no angel, either. He donated to a "personhood" amendment, calling himself a visionary for doing so in the process.
The company also has a terrible track record with unions, the LGBT community and minorities. 

7. Urban Outfitters



Source: GEORGE WIDMAN/AP

In addition to perpetrating many a fashion faux pas, Urban Outfitters has also earned a reputation as being a company that is bad for women and members of the gay community. The clothing chain's CEO is notoriously anti-gay and doesn't seem to mind the company's severe underrepresentation of women when it comes to leadership positions. 
Currently, only one woman — his wife — serves on Urban Outfitters' board of directors and two women (also including his wife) are executive officers.

8. Cracker Barrel



Source: Pat Wellenbach/AP

Cracker Barrel has been frustrating advocates with its overtly racist and anti-gay practices for years.According to the Huffington Post, 11 employees were fired in 1991 for not displaying "normal heterosexual values," and in 2004, the U.S. Justice Department "found that the chain restaurant had segregated customers, seated and served white customers before black customers, and allowed for white servers to refuse to wait on black customers."

9. Wal-Mart



Source: Seth Perlman/AP

Wal-Mart seems to be constantly getting itself into and out of scandals — they were recently critiqued for a "Fat Girl" section of their Halloween costumes. But the massive big-box chain is no friend of women in other ways as well. 
Its systematic and institutionalized discrimination against its female employees made its way to the Supreme Court in 2011. As USA Today reported, the women who signed on to the class action suit "described how male workers with less seniority were promoted and paid more. They have talked of a culture of female stereotyping, of being called 'Janie Qs' and told to wear cosmetics and 'doll up.'" Ultimately, SCOTUS dismissed the case.

10. Eden Foods

Not only did Eden Foods sue the Obama administration over covering contraception as per the Affordable Care Act's mandate, but for a long time, its CEO managed to exclude birth control coverage for employees by classifying it as a "lifestyle drug." (In fairness, Viagra was also excluded. So that's something?)

11. Abercrombie & Fitch



Source: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Mike Jeffries, the CEO (and former chairman) of Abercrombie & Fitch, has a history of fat-shaming young women. According to Business Insider, the retailer had a longtime policy that prohibited stocking "XL or XXL sizes in women's clothing because they don't want overweight women wearing their brand." What's more, Jeffries' marketing plan relies solely on selling sex. 
"That's why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don't market to anyone other than that," Jeffries told Salon in 2006, 
After word of the comments became widespread, the company was forced to apologize and said it would begin to stock larger sizes starting in 2014. The damage is clearly already done, however, as Abercrombie's years of exclusionary tactics paving the way for problematic newcomers like the "one size fits most" company Brandy Melville.

12. Waffle House



Source: Stanley Leary/AP

In 2012, the breakfast food chain's CEO was accused of demanding sexual acts from a female employee over the course of nearly a decade in exchange for letting her keep her job. In 2013 this scandal was compounded after two more women came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against the CEO. And in August, he found himself mired in a court case involving a sex tape. And still, apparently had kept his job. Waffles with a side of skeeze? No thanks.

13. Carl's Jr.



Source: J. Vespa/Getty Images

The burger chain — which has no problem selling its food with sex — was founded by vehemently anti-choice, anti-gay crusader Carl Karcher. According to AlterNet, "He was reviled by abortion rights activists for his contributions to anti-abortion groups and his oft-repeated story about talking a Carl's Jr. employee out of an abortion. Gay rights groups dubbed his hamburgers 'bigot burgers' after Karcher supported a 1978 proposition that would have allowed school boards to fire teachers who were gay or advocated homosexuality."

14. Any one of these 46 companies



Source: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

On the heels of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling, these 46 companies, along with several nonprofits, filed lawsuits over the defunct contraception mandate:
1. Tyndale House

2. Freshway Foods

3. Johnson Welded Products

4. Willis Law

5. Trijicon, Inc.

6. Barron Industries Inc.

7. Midwest Fastener Corp.

8. Electrolock, Inc.

9. Zumbiel Packaging

10. Encompass Develop, Design & Construct, LLC

11. Holland Chevrolet

12. Autocam Corp.

13. Domino's Farms
14. Mersino Management
15. Eden Foods, Inc.
16. MK Chambers Co.
17. M&N Plastics
18. Mersino Dewatering, Inc.
19. Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc.
20. Triune Health Group
21. Grote Industries
22. Tonn and Blank Construction
23. Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel, LLC
24. Hart Electric, LLC
25. Ozinga Brothers
26. O'Brien Industrial Holdings
27. American Pulverizer Co.
28. Annex Medical Inc.
29. Sioux Chief Manufacturing
30. O'Brien Industrial Holdings
31. Bick Holdings, Inc.
32. SMA, LLC
33. QC Group
34. Feltl and Co.
35. Randy Reed Automotive
36. Doboszenski & Sons, Inc
37. Hastings Automotive
38. Stinson Electric
39. Hercules Industries, Inc.
40. Continuum Health Partnership & Connessione
41. Cherry Creek Mortgage Co.
42. Beckwith Electric Co.
43.  Geneva College
44. Weingartz Supply Co.
45. Sharpe Holdings Inc.
46. Catholic Benefits Association


Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gar Alperovitz and Michael Moore on Workplace Democracy

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Rich state, poor state

Rich state, poor state

by HENRY on OCTOBER 26, 2007
Andrew Gelman and his co-authors build on results from a recent paper to draw some fascinating maps of what the 2004 presidential elections would have looked like if only (1) poor, (2) middle income, or (3) rich people had been able to vote.
gelman1.png
gelman2.png
gelman3.png
These maps show some obvious class differences (as well as illustrating the importance of poor voters to Democratic electoral prospects), but also suggest (as does the paper) some interesting relationships between how people at different income levels vote in rich and poor states.
For poor voters, there is no systematic difference between rich and poor states. But for middle-income and especially for rich voters, there is a very strong pattern of rich states supporting the Democrats and poor states supporting the Republicans.
In short, rich people and poor people who live in poor states have very different voting preferences from each other. Rich people and poor people who live in rich states have much more similar voting preferences. Gelman et al. don’t have any hard and fast explanation for this (they note that race explains about half of this disparity, but only half). However, their results do suggest that some of the conventional wisdom of American journalists on class, voting and geographic location stands in sore need of revisiting.

Aesthetically Pleasing NSFW