Tag Archives: civil rights

Fair Trade …

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

Fair Trade

The first time I heard the term” Fair Trade”, I was still living at home. I have to admit that I did not understand nor relate to the conversation but i knew it was having an impact on someone in my family. While I may not have understood it then, I could hear the passion in my mom’s voice; she was adamant about laborers and wages, yes, it is tough to compete but we must support those who labour, are environmentally and socially aware while making products people can buy sell and use products that do no harm.

Fair Trade by definition: Although no universally accepted definition of fair trade exists… It is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency, and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers –especially in the South. Fair trade organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade. [7]Wiki

The company or industries I remember most talked about while living at home was Ten Thousand Villages’, which is a non-profit organization. They have always encouraged artisans to employ production methods that are environmentally sustainable or recycled and natural materials whenever possible. The thing that was impressive as a kid was that Ten Thousand Villages offered products from all over the world are diverse and true treasures from places we probably would never go while helping disadvantaged artisans at the same time. I loved the small gifts, goodies and handmade toys but I was too young to appreciate the home decor at the time but believe me I have bought and enjoyed scarves, baskets and gadgets from Ten Thousand Villages over the years. I remember the coffee was different than at other people’s houses … the exotic smells filled our house …I think that is why I love exotic fair trade coffee, it smelled so good at our house. Ten Thousand Villages, a Fair Trade company has been a leader in the quest to help the disadvantaged, respect for our environment by using sustainable products in all their forms. I have to say that growing up knowing that most of the people who benefited from Ten Thousand Villages premise were people of colour was major to my family and as the 90’s started to love retro. The “everything old is new again” industry and its revenue has and still is doing far better than those who probably are really supporting and working in the Free Trade world. While in college, I discovered The Body Shop, a Fair Trade company trying to bring environmental and sustainable product awareness to young women. The products cost more than the big box stores but the quality was and still is better. I know that my family felt good about supporting free trade companies that help folks earn reasonable wages, is environmentally aware; where sustainable products are readily available. I have beyond sensitive skin; suffice it to say they became a part of my life over the last few years.

I believe in the free enterprise system, but what we have heard lately, suggests corruption is on the rise. We need to have as much transparency in the Free Trade industry as possible. The old attitude of “I will help you if you help me” is definitely an issue with countries and this problem continues today when the art of politics and money gets in the way causing the seller, buyer and workers to become collateral damage.

Support Fair Trade…

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Your Supreme Court June Preview

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

The Supreme Court Will Decide Three Critical Cases This Month

Before the end of this month, the Supreme Court will rule on three cases that could affect the lives of millions of Americans and have a lasting impact on our Constitution. Today, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion with legal experts about what’s at stake as the justices prepare to rule on critical issues like marriage equality, health care, and civil rights.

Here’s what you need to know about these three critical cases:

Healthcare—King v. Burwell: We’ve talked a lot about what’s at stake in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. But as a refresher: a ruling against the ACA in King v. Burwell would strip premium tax credits away from 6.4 million people and send the health insurance market into chaos. Eliminating federal tax credits could cause more than 8 million people to become uninsured and lead to nearly 10,000 preventable deaths each year.

Marriage Equality—Obergefell v. Hodges: In this case the justices could extend marriage equality to all 50 states. This case combines challenges from four states that have laws that either ban same-sex marriage, fail to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, or both. While the Court is widely expected to rule in favor of marriage equality, the way the opinion is drafted will shape how LGBT rights continue to develop after this case is decided, which will be key given that a ruling for same-sex marriage would mean many LGBT Americans could legally be married one day and legally fired the next.

Civil Rights—Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. This case challenges the decades-old principle that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 should prohibit housing policies that result in discrimination, regardless of whether they were designed to discriminate. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case it could make it much harder to fight discrimination in housing—and potentially all civil rights cases. For a more detailed explanation of this case, check out this CAP column.

While some politicians remain divided on these issues, public opinion on these cases is pretty settled: 55 percent of Americans believing the court should not block federal health care subsidies and 61 percent of Americans supporting marriage equality.

The Supreme Court is traditionally considered to rise above the partisanship and politicking of Congress and the executive branch. But as we well know, the Roberts Court has handed down a series of ideologically-charged decisions that have advanced a distinctly conservative agenda. And as the justices prepare to issue opinions on such critical issues, it has rarely been more important to have a judiciary that protects the rights of all Americans equally.

BOTTOM LINE: This month the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to issue landmark decisions on health care, civil rights, and marriage equality. As the branch charged with upholding the rights of all Americans, the Supreme Court should apply the core tenets of our Constitution rather than reflect the ideological crusades of the conservative movement.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Alicia Keys – In Manila (Official Behind The Scenes)

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

3 Key Takeaways From The King v. Burwell Oral Arguments

06/10/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

Key Moments From Oral Arguments Bode Well For The Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell today, the latest partisan threat to the Affordable Care Act that threatens to strip subsidies away from millions of Americans in more than three dozen states. While the arguments presented by the lawyers and the questioning from the Justices certainly don’t give us the answer to how the case will turn out, they do provide an early indication of how the Justices may be leaning in their decision. With that in mind, we wanted to highlight three key points from the oral arguments today that could indicate that the subsidies for millions of Americans — and by extension Obamacare as a whole — will be safe when the ruling is handed down in June. For more in-depth analysis be sure to read Think Progress Justice editor Ian Millhiser’s complete analysis.

1. Justice Anthony Kennedy was concerned about what the consequences of a ruling for the challengers would mean. At one point during the arguments, Kennedy, always a potential swing Justice, acknowledged the reality that states would face if tax credits are cut off in states with federally run exchanges: premiums would spike, healthy people would drop out of the marketplace, and a so-called “death spiral” of higher premiums for fewer, sicker customers would ensue. An interpretation of the law that forces states to choose between setting up their own exchanges and eliminated tax credits raises “a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said.

2. The Justices got the challengers to admit that context matters. It may seem obvious that context matters — but this is actually somehow a critical debate in a legal argument where the challengers case rests on reading a single clause in place of the clear meaning of the entire law. After a nifty hypothetical from Justice Kagan, Michael Carvin, the attorney for the challengers, responded to “implore” the Justices to make their decision taking into account “the context of the Act as a whole.””

3. For any indication of momentum outside the courtroom, look no farther than right outside the Supreme Court steps. Hundreds of ACA supporters turned out to rally in support of the law and urging the court to protect health care for millions of Americans; meanwhile, just a handful of opponents thought it important enough to show up. The Washington Post writes, “If good organization could win a legal debate, supporters of the Affordable Care Act would triumph.”

Take a look at some of the best signs from the rally:

kvbpic2

kvbpic3

kvbpic1

And if that’s not enough, check out the spate of editorials in support of the law from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Tampa Bay Times, Kansas City Star, Dallas Morning News, Knoxville New Sentinel … (shall we go on? Yes we shall) … Albany Times Union, Orlando Sentinel, Bangor Daily News, and the Toledo Blade.

BOTTOM LINE: We’ve known from the beginning that this challenge to the Affordable Care Act is a politically-motivated, legally weak attack from those trying to use the Court to do what they have been unable to do in Congress or at the ballot box: repeal the Affordable Care Act. After today’s oral arguments, we hope the Justices will see that as well and make a decision that upholds the law, and doesn’t savage the reputation of the court. Momentum is with us.