Why Can't Rachel Dolezal Identify As Black?

A couple of weeks ago, Rachel Dolezal caused a sensation when she told Matt Lauer that she 'identified as black'.  The problem, for most of us, at least, is that her skin tones would tend to suggest a far whiter ancestry, which her parents confirmed her heritage as Chech, Swedish, German, and a smattering of Native American.

To be clear, I find Dolezal's argument to be facetious, not to say stupid.  Of course she's not black, which is not to say that she was not doing a good job for the NAACP in Spokane.  She may well have been, but apparently, that's not what the issue is.  The issue is her race, and what/whom determines it.

Perhaps in a year of 'change', Dolezal simply assumed that it was what one thought of oneself that determined what one was.  Case in point, Bruce Jenner, former Gold Medal Olympian, the biggest man's man going, and one of the most famous athletes in the world back in the day.  Jenner decided that he was a woman, and the world, for the most part, went along with it.  ESPN went so far as to give Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award stating in part:

This year, we are proud to honor...Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance.

In light of that Award, it might be easy to understand why Dolezal could think that one only had to put forth what they 'believed' they were, and they would be universally accepted.

If that was the case, she would have done well to examine the case of Riley Weston, who in 1998 lost her writing gig with Touchstone Television when it was revealed that she was 32, not the 19 she had claimed to be.  Weston was genetically blessed enough that this ruse was easily accomplished, until her star began to shine too brightly.

It's also possible that Dolezal was taking her lead from former President Bill Clinton, who identified as the nation's 'first black' President.  In fact, Clinton was honored by the Congressional Black Congress for being just that.  At the ceremony Clinton said "I am happy in Harlem and I am honored to be thought of as the first black president."  Congressman John Lewis said of Clinton "He understands the hopes and dreams and the frustration of African- Americans. We identify with him and he can identify with us."

So perhaps the big mistake that Dolezal made was not getting an important enough person to give her permission to identify as black.  If that had occurred, then she may not have all the problems she is currently going through.

Then again, in a year in which a CAT wins the National Hero Dog Award, anything and everything is on the table.  Unfortunately for Dolezal, her story is not compelling enough, and it doesn't fit any storyline that the media or politicians are trying to force down our throats.

This year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf

his year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf

his year, we are proud to honor Caitlyn Jenner embracing her identity and doing so in a public way to help move forward a constructive dialogue about progress and acceptance. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/06/04/espn-defends-decision-give-courage-award-jenner-lieu-someone-deserving#sthash.FKIG8x9z.dpuf

Is Taylor Swift the Most Powerful Woman in the World?

In the world today, there are currently 22 women who are the leaders of their nations, with Chancellor Angela Merkel having the longest tenure.  She took power on November 22, 2005.

On that same date, Taylor Swift's major label debut album was nearly a full year away (it would hit the world on October 24th, 2006.)  Since that time, Swift has released 4 more studio albums that have hit #1 on the Billboard chart, sold over 40 million albums across the globe and she has topped 130 million digital downloads of her songs.  She has also toured nearly non-stop, selling out venues everywhere and anywhere that hosts artists.  Merkel has chaired the G8, and in 2013 was named the world's most powerful woman by Forbes magazine.

However, for all she has done, nothing that Merkel has done in her long career can compete with what Swift did this week, without even releasing a new album.

Earlier this month, Apple announced that they would be jumping in to the streaming music business, launching 24 hour a day radio stations that would allow for paid subscribers and 'free accounts'.  The new venture is scheduled to start on June 30th, and to garner attention and subscribers, Apple announced new users would receive the service for 'free' for 3 months.  What was not as widely publicized was the fact that Apple also would not pay artists for their music that they played.

Enter Taylor Swift, who took umbridge with this maneuver by Apple.  She penned an open letter to Apple stating her decision to not allow her latest release, 1989, to be part of Apple's streaming service, because she felt it would unfairly deprive artists, in particular new or less 'famous' artists of revenue.  She noted that with 5 studio albums in hand, along with a world tour, she is more than able to pay her bills and tuck money away for a rainy day, but new artists could not afford such a period of time without being paid.  She closed her letter by stating:

We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

 Back in 1994, one of the biggest musical acts in the world, Pearl Jam, launched a campaign against ticketmaster due to what they felt were unfair practices by the ticket seller.  There were campaigns, Congressional hearings, and Pearl Jam even staged their own short-lived tour all to no avail, but a year and a half later, Ticketmaster crushed Pearl Jam, and there has been no substantive movement against them in the nearly 20 years since.

I first saw Swift's letter yesterday (06-21-2015.)  Less than 24 hours later, Apple changed course, and precisely as Swift asked them to do, announced that they would pay artists per stream, even during the promotional period.  This is a huge victory for struggling artists, and puts Swift squarely in the driver's seat for the title "Most Powerful Woman in the World".  The next time Merkel takes down an $800 Billion behemoth in under 500 words, she can feel free to re-apply for the title.  Until such time, it's Swift's.

The CA Union Shell Game

The impetus for today's argument comes from this article published in the L.A. Times that lays out the argument of Rusty Hicks, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, to allow exemptions for unionized employers with regard to the new, mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage that was implemented.

The main reason for these exemptions, so Hicks' argument goes, is that workers who are unionized and their employees should be allowed to set their rate of pay at whatever they see fit.  Normally, I'd be in lock step with Hicks, because after all, this is America, and one of our fundamental rights should be the ability to determine what our own value is in the free market.

However, in this instance, I'm going to take umbrage with Hicks and his union cohorts, for this simple reason:  they were the ones who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the minimum wage was approved.  As is always the case, it was cloaked with words of caring for the poor, the underprivileged, none of whom would ever be associated with organized labor.  What a joke.

Having worked in various union shops, I can say without question that the only thing that labor leaders care about is the amount of union dues they collect so that they can line their own pockets with fatter salaries.  This would be fine, because this is also the American way- get paid as much as you can without violating the law.  The big difference here is that once a shop is unionized, workers' rights go out the window.  There is nearly never an opportunity for someone to come in and work in an union shop unless they first join the union and pay dues.

In today's age, I find it nearly impossible that anyone, anywhere who is working a legal job is in need of a union.  Union leaders come up with great slogans and rally people against corporate big wigs, but they never take the time to mention that they are part of that power structure.  They are the 1%, and will continue to be so, as long as there are new recruits in to the system to pay dues.  Without that, the system collapses.  If time allowed, an analogy to our Social Security crisis could be made, but we'll save that for another day.

So Hicks and his union cohorts force through a minimum wage hike, all the while pretending that it is to benefit the workers that they 'represent'.  Once the initiative goes through, and 'private' businesses are subject to the law, the union leaders then petition for an exemption that will allow unionized companies to pay a sub-minimum wage to their employees.  Who might benefit from this scenario?

Unions, of course, along with their 'leaders'.  By increasing the 'minimum' wage to such a ridiculous level, if unions are given an exemption, companies would be foolish to not allow their businesses to unionize, because it will allow them to keep their labor costs down.  The net result is that there is no real gain for the average worker, but there is a money transfer from the lower level (the "99%") to the upper levels (union leaders, or the "1%".)

The rhetoric won't play out that way, because the union leadership is not as dumb as most of the nation is.  They'll spin how great a deal it is for their workers, and the members will parrot what they're told, because just like in 1984, it's what you do.  You do what is asked of you, and never question why your leaders can't seem to move you forward.  This is nothing more than a shell game, and the big losers in the equation are the employees who thought their lot might somehow be improved.