Untitled w/ a little Content

I hate writing descriptions, so I won't.
Tags of interest: my art, my podfic, my original posts
Young, white, Christian, trans, unschooled, and caretaker of three gorgeous and sweet rats.


In light of the 50 Shades of Grey trailer coming out today, quick reminder that that book is about an abusive and controlling relationship, not BDSM.

Fanfiction (published or not) is important for women of all ages to explore gender roles and sexuality in a way that is less stigmatized and more accessible. 

But do not do the BDSM community a disservice by calling the relationship described in the book a BDSM experience. 

Really fucking important, thank you!

Interpersonal vs Sociocultural Problems


There are two main ways people can have problems with each other: interpersonally or via cultural systems of oppression.

Let’s say we have a guy named Mike and a woman named Lisa. If Mike is triggered by purple shirts and Lisa happens to be wearing a purple shirt when they meet and they have a hard time relating to each other as a result, that’s an interpersonal problem. It isn’t reflective of anything other than the individual relational difficulties these two bring into the situation. But if Mike has a hard time relating to Lisa because he believes women are too emotional, that’s a problem that’s larger than just their interpersonal interactions. If Mike becomes standoffish, antagonistic, or condescending to Lisa as a result of his beliefs, it creates more interpersonal problems. Even if Mike manages to realize that Lisa as an individual is hurt by his beliefs and recants about her in particular, he may go on believing negative things about other women and this can go on hurting Lisa. For real change and healing to happen here, Mike needs to become aware not only of how his negative beliefs about women hurt Lisa individually but how they contribute to a culture in which women in general are hurt. 

The difference between interpersonal and sociocultural problems also applies to educating and setting boundaries about doing so. It’s our responsibility as loving adults to learn how and when to educate others about our individual interpersonal needs, which we cannot possibly expect others to predict with 100% accuracy. Expecting others to be able to predict, intuit, or anticipate our interpersonal needs is often abusive. But it’s not our responsibility to educate ignorant people about about sociocultural problems, and being expected to is another element of oppression.

This kind of education isn’t the same as educating someone about a neutral subject such as art technique or cooking. Educating someone about oppression often implicitly includes answering the question “Are your existence, experiences, and needs valid and real?” This is an unpleasant question to be forced to answer, and after being asked it often enough, many people begin to doubt the validity of their own experiences and existence. 

When being asked to educate someone, ask yourself whose needs are being served and how and why. With interpersonal problems, it’s usually clear how your needs are being served. And your needs may also be served by educating someone about an oppression they unintentionally enacted upon you, but it’s often more complex than that. Education in this situation is more often about the offender’s needs than it is about the person who has been hurt. The offender wants to be convinced that their behavior was “really” wrong before they’ll even begin to care about the feelings of the person they’ve hurt. This means the hurt person ends up expending even more personal time and resources in engaging with someone who has hurt them, often while they’re still feeling hurt, unsteady, and invalidated. When someone has done something microaggressive to us, what we often need is validation, compassion, and support, not further challenges to our reality and sense of self. Demands for education thus more often serve the offender’s needs than they do the needs of the hurt person. 

And unlike interpersonal needs, we CAN expect others to educate themselves about sociocultural issues. Indeed, if someone truly cares about and understands their place in the problem, once their behavior is pointed out they will be willing and happy to educate themselves. Someone truly invested in not being part of the problem would much rather expend effort upon self-education than further contribute to systems of oppression via demands for education.

One of the issues with differentiating between a sociocultural problem and an interpersonal one, however, is that one of the ways offenders perpetuate systems of privilege and oppression is by convincing the person they’ve hurt that a sociocultural problem is actually an interpersonal one instead. For example: “You’re so sensitive/antagonistic/unfriendly that this is clearly your relational issues coming up, not anything I did wrong.” Statements of this type further destabilize the reality and sense of self of the person who’s been hurt. Further, because expecting someone to intuit and anticipate interpersonal needs is so often used as an abuse/control tactic, people who ask others to educate themselves often have this legitimate request turned upon them with accusations of abuse. But telling someone “It’s reasonable to expect you to be able to predict and meet my every interpersonal need without me having to tell you about it first” is very different from “It’s reasonable to expect you to educate yourself about sociocultural problems which benefit and privilege you and actively oppress me.”

My God in heaven, this is perfect!

Reasons Why I’m Not Supporting Disney’s Frozen


There has been a lot of debate circulating Tumblr lately about Disney’s upcoming film Frozen. A lot of this debate was sparked by the fact that the character design of the film’s heroine, Anna, is strikingly similar (read: identical) to that of Rapunzel in Tangled. Implications of lazy animation aside, the whole thing once again makes it startlingly clear that Disney, and most all media for that matter, makes stories about the same thin, wide eyed white women over and over again while missing out on any opportunities for diversity. 

These are of course, valid accusations and a really important conversation. If these revelations are motivation for choosing to not see or support Frozen, they are perfectly legitimate. They are certainly a contributing factor for me. But I made the decision to not support Frozen before any character design was revealed. In short, the direction that Disney is taking this film is distasteful not just to their own record of creativity — (Say what you will,  but I have great respect for the filmaking legacy of the studio. With all the critiques and caveats that media awareness brings, I’m still a fan. )— but to the source material that they are drawing from.

Frozen is, by Disney’s account, an adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson’s story, The Snow Queen. When I first heard rumors and saw concept art for a Disney adaptation of the story, I was overjoyed. The film was originally in development as a traditional animated feature, which was appealing to this old school Disney and animation fan. But aside from that, The Snow Queen is one of my all time favorite fairy tales. It’s epic, melancholy, emotionally complex, and fantastically feminist.

Hans Christian Anderson’s oeuvre is not exactly female friendly. If you think the silencing and lack of agency implied in Disney’s The Little Mermaid is problematic, you haven’t read the original. Anderson so often writes of sadistic punishments for heroines’ slight, heavily gendered sins like vanity and sanctifies heroines for gendered virtues like silence and passivity, that many of his works demonstrate deep seated misogyny. 

The Snow Queen is not one of those works, and it makes me wonder what sort of feminist tonic Anderson ingested before writing it. It tells the story of a young girl named Gerda who must embark on a journey to rescue her best friend, a boy named Kai, from both the clutches of the Snow Queen and the soul killing influence of a cursed shard of mirror that has become lodged in his heart. 

That Gerda is the active and resourceful rescuer of her passive, male best friend is already a refreshing twist on mainstream western fairy tales, but the female power on display in the story is apparent in other ways. The Snow Queen is what I would call a Bechdel Test win. Female characters outnumber male characters to a startling degree. In fact, Kai is the only significant male character to speak of. Every other role in Gerda’s hero’s journey is fulfilled by a woman, girl or even an expressly female animal guide.

There is the Snow Queen herself, a formidable villain who’s power is treated with respect. There is Kai’s grandmother, who provides an essential catalyst to Gerda’s journey. There is the old witch woman with the enchanted garden who functions as a threshold guardian for Gerda while being characterized in a respectful manner that serves as a good subversion of the old witch trope. There is a female crow who knows how to sneak into palaces, a helpful princess who heads a side plot in which she will only marry a prince as intelligent as her (!!!), a robber and her daughter, head of a band of robbers who kidnap Gerda. The daughter is a spunky, knife wielding girl who befriends Gerda and aids her on her way. And finally, there is an old Lapp woman and an old Finn woman, the latter of whom helps Gerda understand the inherent power she has always had within her, a power that will ultimately save her friend, and the world.

Please excuse my while I go squee into a pillow over that roster of amazingly diverse female characters and the female agency on display in this story.

Well, now that I’m done with that, can we just take a minute to reflect on how many incredible female characters Disney had at their disposal. Expanded on with the studio’s signature storytelling skill, these ladies could have made up one of the most diverse, predominately female casts to ever grace children’s media. Not to mention the story’s Scandinavian setting offers a great opportunity for some racial diversity and indigenous representation, from Inuit to Sami and beyond. 

So you can imagine that I was profoundly disappointed when I heard that Disney’s adaptation, now called Frozen (a Tangled-reminiscent decision that stinks of avoiding the need to market a film with a female centered title), had cut out every single one of these female characters save for Gerda, now called Anna, and the Snow Queen, who is now Anna’s sister. The women have been replaced with a cast of men, and Anna is now accompanied on her journey by a “Mountain Man” named Hans. Hans is obviously intended to serve as romantic interest for the now aged up Anna, who as Gerda in the original, felt a love for her friend Kai that was strictly platonic. (Kai, by the way, has been dropped altogether.)

Now I know that Disney often drastically changes the plot of fairy tales that it adapts and I’ve never been one to complain about it. But most of these fairy tales have been simple stories with archetypal characters and a bare bones plot. Most of the changes made by Disney improve the original in terms of depth of narrative and character. 

The Snow Queen is not that story. Disney’s changes not only appear to play down the emotional and narrative depth of the story, they violate many of its central themes. 

That Disney feels it’s necessary to take a female driven, female dominated story and cut it down to one princess protagonist with a dashing male helper/love interest, is honestly disgusting and one of the most blatant examples of Hollywood’s lack of faith in women in recent memory.

It’s one of those clear examples in which everything that is wrong with our media’s approach to women and female agency is even more apparent, if only because we have a clear source to compare it to, and we can see what the studio chose to change.

A female protagonist who primarily goes it alone? Can’t have that. She needs a hot dude to be by her side so the audience doesn’t get bored by all the lady time, and also she needs someone to get with at the end. And on that note, let’s make her older and also a princess.

A bunch of women who, if expanded, could be diverse and original characters, friends, villains and comic relief? No way that would work. Let’s just replace them with some dudes and a talking snowman. We can’t have more than two women in a story. After all, every other fairy tale we’ve produced has only let women be a princess or a villain. Why break the pattern now? Why let girls know that they have inherent power no matter where they come from? Why let them know they have other options. And while we’re at it, we’ve got to make sure everyone is white.

So yeah, that’s why I’m boycotting Frozen.  



Growing up in America, I have observed just how powerful propaganda can be. Americans are so brainwashed it is almost unbelievable. One of the biggest examples, of course, is 'terrorism'. More specifically, ‘Islamic terrorism’. There is a fear and stigma that exists here in America that I have tried so hard to understand. I have tried to find out why Americans think this way, and if this thought process is actually logical, but to no avail. The mentality of Americans is based purely off of propaganda. The propaganda is so intricately and cleverly woven into society that the Americans do not even realize it is propaganda; they do not realize they are being lied to.

terrorism: noun "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

By that definition, every single country, organization, and person that has participated in any war throughout history is a terrorist.

War is won through aggression, fear; through violence and intimidation. That is the very nature of war itself. There is no escaping it. Every single soldier is a terrorist. Whether you think your motives for participating in war are justified or not, you are a terrorist. So what makes a Muslim soldier any different? They are religious. Well that is something to be respected. A religious man is a good man; they are hard to find these days. What is it then? Are they just extremely violent? They kill lots of people?

They dropped atomic bombs on innocent civilians killing hundreds of thousands of people instantly and tens of thousands more from radiation?

Oh wait… That was America.

They invaded Vietnam on false pretexts resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Oh wait… That was America too.

They caused around 1.5 million civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 2003 invasion?

Oh wait… I am starting to see a trend here.

But it is all ok because it is in the name of democracy, right? Who cares if you kill millions of children.. it is for democracy, right?

Democracy, democracy, democracy.

Motherfucking democracy.

It is a noble cause; at least that is what we are taught to believe here in America. The United States of America is a beacon of hope; we are going to save the world from ruthless dictators, spreading democracy one country at a time.

Like Saddam Hussein! He was an evil dictator. It was our job to remove him from power and install a true democracy in Iraq!

…Except during the Iraq-Iran war, where the United States knew Hussein was using chemical weapons but continued to aid him anyway. |x|

Realistically, America does not want authentic democracy in the Arab world. Why not? 90% of Egyptians regard the United States and Israel as the biggest threats they face. |x|

"Opposition to US policy is so strong, that a majority [of Arabs] believe that security would be improved for the region if Iran had nuclear weapons; in Egypt that’s 80%." |x|

They generally do not like the American Government. If real democracy was in place in the Middle East, and public opinion really affected the policies of the region, the US would lose control of the region. That is not really part of their plan.

America has a history of supporting democracy when it is in the strategic and economic interests of the United States and opposing democracy when it is not in the strategic and economic interests of the United States.

It has never been about spreading democracy. It has never been about protecting your freedoms. It has never been about keeping you safe.

America is an imperialist country. They use people; countries. They support them one minute and turn on them the next. They do what they can to gain wealth and power. They invade countries, steal their resources, kill innocent civilians, and if the civilians dare stand up for themselves, they turn the tables and make it seem like America is the one being attacked. And Americans are so dumb that the Government gets away with it.

Do not think for one minute that the ‘War on Terror’ is any different.

But what about these evil terrorists which hate us for our freedoms?! We must stop them and their extreme ideologies! We must fight them at all costs! They are a threat to American freedom! …except when we are training them, arming them; for fucks sake we created them. |x|

We created them, trained them, and gained their trust. Then invaded their countries and killed their children.

No wonder they are mad.

They have every fucking right to be mad at America.

America is the aggressor. They are simply fighting back against American imperialism. (crowd gasps.)

If we attack them they have every right to attack back. That is war.

Since 9/11, a total of 241 Americans have died due to terrorist attacks, while millions of Iraqi and Afghan citizens have died at the hands of the United States of America. Who is the real threat here?

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. |x|

The overwhelming amount of evidence is just showing you that as an American, the only threat to peace and security that you should be concerned about is your own government.

America is not the victim in this ‘War on Terror’. America is the aggressor and there is no way to justify the horrific carnage that these countries have been subjected to. Does that not upset you, knowing that millions have been killed in your name? Or has the propaganda had such a magnificent effect on you that it does not even bother you; that you do not even bat an eye when children are getting blown up by American drones?

It is time to wake up and see the United States of America for what it really is.

The biggest terrorist organization that has ever existed.

Female Reading of the Male Gaze, and Sherlock



Why the dismissal of women’s readings of Sherlock bothers me so much

Male showrunners and actors: They’re just friends. Why are you reading sex into this?

Female fans: They obviously want each other.

Male showrunners and actors: No they don’t. You’re hysterical and oversexualized and deluded.

Female fans: No we’re not. It’s OBVIOUS they desire each other.

Male showrunners and actors: NO THEY—

Female fans: YES THEY—

[ad infinitum]

Film and television are visual mediums. The text comes from what we see, not just the script, and definitely not extra-text commentary. Sherlock especially is a strikingly visual story that is all about looking.


Any woman with any sense of self-preservation spends her whole life learning to read the male gaze. The reason is not because women are constantly checking to make sure they are desirable (as many men like to think); the reason is because women have to. The consequences for not noticing when a male gaze equals “desire” are very dangerous, and so obvious I don’t even have to explain them. Any woman who walks through a parking lot at night, who has to spend her days avoiding a co-worker who sexually harrasses her but not enough to make it worth it to fight back, who deals with members of the public service who laugh at her when she is being threatened (I am thinking of that woman in San Francisco who tried to get a BART bus driver to call the police when a man was threatening to rape her and got ignored)—any woman who LIVES ON THIS PLANET has to learn to be aware of the male gaze and interpret it for signs of arousal and/or danger from a young age. This is SO MUCH BIGGER than “women want romance” or “women want love” or any of that ignorant shorthand for “women aren’t reading this show correctly.” It is definitely bigger than Sherlock.


If a man stood right in my personal space and stared into my eyes I would know how to interpret that. If a man licked his lips while staring at my face I would know how to interpret that. If a man belitted and chased off my romantic partners I would know how to interpret that. If a man asked me to reach into his jacket and pull out his phone I would damn well know how to interpret that. Any time I have tried to brush aside suspicions under these circumstances, I was proved right that I should have trusted my instincts, and I wound up in dangerous situations (luckily, nothing terrible resulted thanks to being able to escape, but the danger was real). If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but at least I don’t get locked in a basement in Cleveland for a decade. Women have to err on the side of caution. People are right when they say the sexual tension moments in Sherlock are brief, but that doesn’t matter: if you’re a woman you have to take even the briefest flashes into account. There is a reason we call these moments “eyefucking.”


Sherlock is all about the power of sight, of the gaze, specifically the male gaze. (There’s a whole article in that, but I’ll resist.)


We get Sherlock POV when he interprets a scene, with those subtitles and graphics; we get John POV for everything else (that’s my reading, anyway; Watson is the narrator of the Sherlock Holmes tales, after all). There are only a few establishing shots/omniscient narrator scenes that aren’t from John or Sherlock’s POV, e.g. the victims at the beginning of ASIP, or Moriarty texting in front of Big Ben in ASIB or in a cell in THOB. We briefly see Irene’s POV as she looks at pictures of Sherlock (in that beautiful sequence where they look at pictures of each other), but that’s about it. (I’ve never been certain whether that dream sequence of Irene interpreting the “bed scene” was from her POV or Sherlock’s or both.) I have hopes we’ll see Molly’s POV in TEH but of course I haven’t seen it yet.

The denial of the male showrunners of Sherlock and the firm disagreement of the female fans just proves to me that even in the 21st century, men and women live in different worlds.

5 men: There’s no sexual tension.

Thousands of women: Yes there is.

5 men: Clearly you’re wrong!

I don’t need this ship to be canon, it’s not the differing opinions that bothers me. The writers are free to write whatever they want and I’m on board. I just want some acknowledgement—from the world at large—that women’s perspective on human interactions is just as valid as men’s and doesn’t come from wishful thinkingQuite the opposite.

Bottom bit bolded, because THIS. Fucking THIS, a thousand times THIS. It cannot be said strongly or loudly or often enough: we get so, so fucking tired of being told that we’re delusional, when everything - everything - is telling a different story than the ones TPTB think they’re telling.

Women are forever being told we’re imagining it all - from PMS to actual hostility and danger to narrative romance, and everything in-between. Women are always ’imagining things’, and men are always there to set us straight. Well, fuck that.

I’m in shock. Sometimes other people arrange your thoughts into words in a way that’s magic. Thank you, a million times for this.

Frostiron Month: Character Traits | Fanmix - black lace on sweat

Frostiron ship is all about the intensity. Cataclysmic violence? Filthy hot sex? Soulbonded love? Yes, yes, also yes. It’s a match made in Múspellsheim. Add in Loki’s genderfluidity, Tony’s bisexuality, mixed gender relations… ♥*♥*♥

Simon Curtis - Diablo | Alice Cooper - Bed Of Nails | Enrique Iglesias - Tonight (I’m F*king You) | Billy Joel - She’s Always a Woman | Alice Cooper - Poison | Poe - Wild | Marilyn Manson - Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This) | London After Midnight - Love You To Death | Rúnar eff - Holding out for a hero

listen (nsfw)

Sometimes you want porn and you find angst. Sometimes you just want the feels but you get distracted by the porn. That’s just life.


Guys please get this out there. I don’t know if anyone’s posted about this yet, but DO NOT try and make those diy crystals!

I’m not sure that 4chaners understand that many TEENAGERS and CHILDREN use tumblr. People who don’t have the mental development to always understand that you must check multiple sources before getting creative with chemicals.

Jokes aren’t funny when they can kill people, k?

A well conceived plot is the skeleton of a story:  anatomically sound, by itself, but still dead.

The real world values, moralities, and ideals which the story champions (and those it rejects) are the meat.

Emotion is the blood.

And style is the skin that holds it together.


Tony and Loki would probably get into a bitter two week long fight because they each told someone else that they toootally weren’t in love, at all, and it got spread around the Avengers tower what the other said

So naturally they wouldn’t communicate properly, and everyone else BUT them knows they’re lying to themselves so after one of their explosive arguments manages to literally set something ablaze, Thor finally just bellows “CLINT HAS SPOTTED EACH OF YOU SHED TEARS OVER THIS MATTER WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOURSELVES IN SOLITUDE”

Loki is so embarrassed he stalks out of the room without even checking Tony’s face to see if it’s true, but Tony finally swallows his pride, goes after him, and an hour (and 1.5 rounds of make up sex) later they’re actually sucking face in public and everyone else almost wants the fighting back. ~ (Later, Clint is hiding from the both of them because they want to throttle him for spying from high vantage points)

Am I the only one thinking Much Ado About Nothing? “Here’s our own hands against our hearts. — I would not deny you, but, by this good day, I yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your life, for I was told you were in a consumption. — Peace! I will stop your mouth.” :D

How Walmart's Low Wages Cost All Americans, Not Just Its Workers »


Bloomberg View: Yesterday, we looked at the benefit to McDonald’s of having its workers subsidized by state and federal aid. Today, its Wal-Mart’s turn. Recall our discussion last month on the related subject of “How McDonald’s and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens.” We learned that employees of these two companies are often the largest recipients of aid in their states.

McDonald’s recently found itself in the spotlight courtesy of its “McResource” line — the company help line that helps its poverty-level, full time employees enroll in various welfare programs. A recording of that McResource line sparked outrage, driving this issue into public view.

More from Bloomberg View:
Government Jobs Shouldn’t Be Soul-Killing
One KKR Is Acquiring Another KKR. Which One Loses?

kim ruocco
U.S. House of Representatives

More recently, Wal-Mart’s holiday public-relations headache began when a Canton, Ohio, store decided to hold a food drive for needy local families for the holidays. What made this a PR nightmare was that the needy families were full time Wal-Mart employees who were working in the store holding a food drive.

Thus, our questions over the arc of these columns about some of the largest retailers in America — Wal-Mart is the single largest private employer in the country; McDonald’s, the largest fast food chain – are simply this:

What should it mean to be employed full time in America?

Should taxpayers be supplementing the salaries of these often minimum-wage workers at large profitable firms?

What would it mean if higher salaries were mandated by an increased minimum wage?

Wal-Mart has 2.2 million employees, including 1.3 million hourly workers. It employs 1.2 million people in the U.S. alone. Gross revenue is $475 billion, generating profits of $17.20 billion. It dominates the discount retail space, and according to Bloomberg, has a 66.70 percent market share.

The size of Wal-Mart is sometimes difficult to visualize. To put it into some context, consider the following: 100 million U.S. shoppers patronize Wal-Mart stores every week. Wal-Mart has twice the number employees of the U.S. Postal Service, a larger global computer network than the Pentagon, and the world’s largest fleet of trucks. Americans spend about $36 million dollars per hour at the stores. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other company in the world, capturing one of every four dollars spent on food in the U.S. The average American family of four spends over $4,000 a year there. Each week, it has 200 million customers at more than 10,400 stores in 27 countries. If the company were an independent country, it would be the 25th largest economy in the world.

Given the sheer size of Wal-Mart, how it pays “associates” is likely to have an outsized impact on their local and state communities, according to a number of studies.

Wal-Mart’s low wages have led to full-time employees seeking public assistance. These are not the 47 percent, lazy, unmotivated bums. Rather, these are people working physical, often difficult jobs. They receive $2.66 billion in government help each year (including $1 billion in healthcare assistance). That works out to about $5,815 per worker. And about $420,000 per store. But the federal and state aid varies widely; in Wisconsin, a study found that it was at least $904,542 a year per store. (See the accompanying chart.)

Why, I keep asking myself, do we effectively want to subsidize a private company’s employees? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to raise the minimum wage to a level that a full-time worker could support the average American family of four? Just $11.33 puts a 40-hour employee over the poverty line. The costs of this increase would be borne by the company and its consumers — not the taxpayer.

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this are the advantages to the retailer of higher associate salaries. Some stores have discovered that raising wages provides acompetitive advantage. Retailers like Trader Joe’s and Costco pay significantly more than their giant competitor. At Costco, employees earn 40 percent more than at Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club. Average employees wages at the warehouse retailer are $21.96 per hour, and most of Costco’s U.S. employees are eligible for benefits.

The “underinvestment in labor” is part of the reason Wal-Mart has such enormous turnover. Estimated as high as 70 percent, the retailer incurs enormous costs for recruitment, administration and training.

Harvard Business School study found higher wages decreased employee turnover, increased morale, and improved customer satisfaction ratings. This adds up to increased sales and improved profitability for the retailer.

Can Wal-Mart afford to increase employees’ salaries? Let’s crunch the numbers. The retail giant does $474.88 billion a year in sales; across their 2,200,000 employees, that nets out to $213,255 sales per employee. Given a 5.93 percent operating margin, that nets out to $12,646.02 profit margin per employee. Adding $3 per hour per full-time employee would consume almost half of that profit. But that before any potential increase in productivity, reduced turnover costs and higher revenues.

The question before us is not whether or not Wal-Mart should voluntarily increase its wages to capture these benefits. That is a business decision for the owners and management to make.

Rather, the present issue is whether or not we as taxpayers should be funding private companies paying below-poverty wages. My view is we should put the full costs of shopping at Wal-Mart back where they belong: On the customers and the company itself.



Has anyone ever noticed that when you’re talking about our history with some white people they always say stuff like “We walked on the moon” or, “We won the Revolutionary War” or, “We invented television” or some other modern day appliance but then when you get to the bad stuff it’s “They owned slaves” and, “They denied people civil rights” and They committed genocide.       

they will get upset soon