No hay nada más poderoso que una muxer educada.Welcome to Chicana Power! This blog is mainly comprised of articles that deal with a variety of issues. Here you'll find thoughts on politics, sexism, racism, theory, economics, natural medicine and pretty much everything else under the sun. I do my best to tag everything according to the topic, location (i.e. country), article name, and authors. Feel free to browse through the tags to find what you're looking for.
Well, there are a bunch of answers to that. I think this argument is an interesting one because it comes from people’s experience of capitalism. If work is so dehumanising, alienating and shitty, how could we get rid of the wage. It is the only reason people work under capitalism.
But let’s be clear. People would relieve the fruits of their labour under socialism. In fact, working class people would receive more wealth from the work they do than they do under capitalism, where most of that wealth is expropriated. Working class communities would receive the full value of the working class’s labour in the form of direct for need social services.
People work for many reasons. They might enjoy it. They might do it out of a sense of duty or loved or their community. They might do it to become better at it. If we made work an enjoyable experience, and gave workers direct control over the conditions under which they worked, then I think more people would want to work that previously.
Also, just fuck the alienated, mostly unnecessary, work under capitalism (where they steal most of what you produce anyway). I have no interest in incentivising people to carry on with that.
Absolutely. I totally support and understand why people don’t want to fucking do stuff under capitalism. Alienated, unproductive work that you don’t receive full value for is totally bullshit and of course people don’t want to do it.
I once told a joke about a straight person.
They came after me in droves.
Each one singing the same:
Don’t fight fire with fire.
What they mean is: Don’t fight fire with anything.
Do not fight fire with water.
Do not fight fire with foam.
Do not evacuate the people.
Do not sound the alarms.
Do not crawl coughing and choking and spluttering to safety.
Do not barricade the door with damp towels.
Do not wave a white flag out of the window.
Do not take the plunge from several storeys up.
Do not shed a tear for your lover trapped behind a wall of flame.
Do not curse the combination of fuel, heat, and oxygen.
Do not ask why the fire fighters are not coming.
When they say: Don’t fight fire with fire.
What they mean is: Stand and burn."
Did you know the FBI was tapping Dr. King’s phone? I knew they were tapping mine, that’s understood. I’ve never hid my hatred for them, nor my contempt, nor my desire to destroy them. As a matter of fact, the older I am the more determined I become to destroy these pigs. Consequently, that they should try to destroy me is only automatic. Indeed, the great son of Africa, Sekou Toure says, “If the enemy if not doing anything against you, you aren’t doing anything.”
Not too long ago I was speaking to a young brother, he said,”Hey man, ain’t you afraid they will kill you?” “What makes you think they’re not going to get you before they get me? As a matter of fact, the chances of them getting you before they get me is more because I’m alert; I know they’re trying to get me.” The FBI knows that I came out of the same conditions that you live in. The FBI know I’m no different than you. So the FBI not afraid of me because of who I am, they’re afraid of me because of who you are. Me, by myself, I can’t do anything. But us together, we could burn 256 cities in a weekend.
So, some people think that the FBI only taps the phones of people who are working for the people. You’re making a big mistake. I’ll tell you from my travels throughout the world, from my research throughout the world, that the American people are more followed by their government authorities than any people in the world. Just your credit card company knows more about you than the government agencies know about its people in other countries. The American people are totally followed."
A high-ranking Israeli official on Sunday slammed a statement from Catholic bishops, who called for international organizations to lead the cause of Palestinian statehood.
Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Bustros sparked an interreligious firestorm when he suggested that Israel was “using Scripture” to continue its occupation of Palestinian territory.
"The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians,” Bustros said at the close of a two-week conference in Rome, Italy, “to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands.”
The Archbishop then questioned the biblical idea of a “promised land” set aside by a specific group of people.
"We Christians cannot speak of the promised land as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people,” Bustros continued. "This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people – all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."
Bustros led the group that drafted the synod’s concluding statement on Israel and the Palestinians.
The controversial comments came at the conclusion of a two-week Vatican conference assembled to discuss the plight of Christians in the Middle East.
Pope Benedict XVI was in attendance at the synod and celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s Cathedral on Sunday with the bishops.
On Sunday, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon criticized the concluding statement of the conference, saying the forum has been “hijacked by an anti-Israeli majority.”
"We express our disappointment that this important synod has become a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda," Ayalon said in a statement. "The synod was hijacked by an anti-Israel majority."
Ayalon then called on the Vatican to distance itself from the comments, which the Israeli official said amounted to “libel.”
"We call on the Vatican to distance themselves from Archbishop Bustros’ comments which are a libel against the Jewish People and the State of Israel and should not be construed as the Vatican’s official position," the foreign minister said in his statement. "These outrageous comments should not cast a shadow over the important relationship between the Vatican, the state of Israel and the Jewish people."
The Palestinian Authority, however, praised Bustros’ comments.
"Israel cannot use the biblical concept of a promised land or chosen people to justify new settlements in Jerusalem or Israeli territorial claims," Saeb Erakat, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said in a statement released Sunday.
Erakat said the synod sent “a clear a message to the government of Israel that it may not claim that Jerusalem is an exclusively Israeli city.”
"The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security," the statement continued optimistically. "The State of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within their internationally recognized borders."
"The Holy City of Jerusalem will be able to acquire its proper status, which respects its particular character, its holiness and the religious patrimony of the three religions: Jewish, Christian and Muslim," it said. "We hope that the two-state-solution might become a reality and not a dream only."
Pope Benedict XVI first called for a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis during a visit to the region in May 2009 when he voiced the Vatican’s support of a sovereign Palestinian homeland. At the time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was opposed to a two-state solution.
The Vatican, however, eager to boost its sagging popularity worldwide, noted during the synod that only 2.1 per cent of those living in Israel are Christian, who continue to be outnumbered by high Jewish and Muslim birthrates.
The Catholic Church also mentioned conflict, religious discrimination and economic woes as the cause of its shrinking influence in the Middle East.
No sign of apology
The Vatican in January blamed Israel not only for the exodus of Christians from Palestinian-controlled territories, but for the plight of Christians across the entire Middle East.
The statement, which served as the basis for the latest Vatican synod, was also authored by Arab bishops from the Middle East, who argued that Israel’s “occupation” of Arab-claimed lands is the root cause of most of the oppression suffered by Christians in the region.
They suggested that in the absence of an “occupation,” radical Islamic forces across the Middle East would lose their support base, and stop causing problems for Christians.
The Vatican said they were not trying to take sides in the issue, but that the Arab bishops “know the situation well.”
This is not the first time of late that religious tensions have boiled over between the adherents of Judaism and Christianity.
Earlier this year, the Catholic Church became suddenly embroiled in a string of pedophile cases, some of them dating back many years. Some inside of the Catholic Church saw a “Jewish conspiracy” behind the reports.
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Meridiaga, the archbishop of Honduras, said there was something curious about the media’s timing of the revelations, coming as they did as the conflict in the Middle East was heating up.
"It certainly makes me think that in a moment in which all the attention of the mass media was focused on the Middle East, all the many injustices done against the Palestinian people, the print media and the TV in the United States became obsessed with sexual scandals that happened 40 years ago, 30 years ago…"
L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s daily newspaper, criticized what it said was a “clear and despicable intention” by the media to strike at Benedict “at any cost.”
American lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a well known defender of Israeli interests, called the Cardinal’s assertions a “cockamamie theory” and “blood libels,” while arguing that much of the criticism (concerning the pedophile cases) “comes from disappointed Catholics.”
Strange how two religions that emerged from the same seed are so committed to dragging each other down at every opportunity.
If you’re thin, you don’t have to say ‘but I eat all the time!’/’I have a fast metabolism!’
If you’re fat, you don’t have to say ‘it’s genetic!’/’I’m trying to lose weight!’
You don’t need to explain to anybody why your body is the way it is. Your body is YOUR body, and that’s all the justification you need.
Men want what they want.
So much of our culture caters to giving men what they want. A high school student invites model Kate Upton to attend his prom, and he’s congratulated for his audacity. A male fan at a Beyoncé concert reaches up to the stage to slap her ass because her ass is there, her ass is magnificent, and he wants to feel it. The science fiction fandom community is once again having a heated discussion, across the Internet, about the ongoing problem of sexual harassment at conventions — countless women are telling all manner of stories about how, without their consent, they are groped, ogled, lured into hotel rooms under false pretenses, physically lifted off the ground, and more.
But men want what they want. We should all lighten up.
It’s hard not to feel humorless as a woman and a feminist, to recognize misogyny in so many forms, some great and some small, and know you’re not imagining things. It’s hard to be told to lighten up because if you lighten up any more, you’re going to float the fuck away. The problem is not that one of these things is happening, it’s that they are all happening, concurrently and constantly.
These are just songs. They are just jokes. They are just movies. It’s just a hug. They’re just breasts. Smile, you’re beautiful. Can’t a man pay you a compliment? In truth, this is all a symptom of a much more virulent cultural sickness — one where women exist to satisfy the whims of men, one where a woman’s worth is consistently diminished or entirely ignored."