reblogged from amodernmanifesto
reblogged from thenewwomensmovement
reblogged from olehughr
reblogged from bohemianarthouse
That slavery still exists may surprise some readers, but the practice of violently coerced labor continues to thrive in every corner of the globe. There were 28.4 million slaves in the world at the end of 2006, and there will most likely be a greater number by the time you read this book.
Some are child slaves in India, stolen from their homes and worked sixteen hours a day to harvest the tea that middle-class consumers drink or sew the carpets that adorn their sitting rooms.
Others are bonded laborers in South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, who accrue or inherit debts that can never be repaid, no matter how long they work.
Slaves in the United States harvest agricultural products: onions, avocados, and corn in Texas, California, Florida, and the Carolinas.
Up to 5 percent of the world’s cocoa beans are picked by slave hands in the Ivory Coast. Slaves continue to harvest coffee in Kenya and Ethiopia, and they burn wood in hellish furnaces in Brazil to produce charcoal that is used to temper the steel in everything from garden shears to car axles.
Approximately 1.2 million of these 28.4 million slaves are young women and children, who were deceived, abducted, seduced, or sold by families to be prostituted across the globe.
These sex slaves are forced to service hundreds, often thousands of men before they are discarded, forming the backbone of one of the most profitable illicit enterprises in the world.
Drug trafficking generates greater dollar revenues, but trafficked women are far more profitable. Unlike a drug, a human female does not have to be grown, cultivated, distilled or packaged. Unlike a drug, a human female can be used by the customer again and again.
Kara, Siddharth, “Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery.” Columbia University Press; 2009, (Preface).
reblogged from descentintotyranny
reblogged from descentintotyranny
[P]ublic schools appeared to be attaining higher levels of mathematics performance than demographically comparable private and charter schools—and math is thought to be a better indicator of what is taught by schools than, say, reading, which is often more influenced directly and indirectly by experiences in the home. These patterns flew in the face of both the common wisdom and the research consensus on the effectiveness of public and private schools. Immediately, we checked to see what had happened in the analysis, whether “public” and “private” had been “reverse-coded” or some other such error was involved. But after further investigation and more targeted analyses, the results held up. And they held up (or were “robust” in the technical jargon) even when we used different models and variables in the analyses. We eventually posted a technical paper on a respected website and published a short article, which received some attention. And then, like any good researchers, we applied for funding to study this issue in more depth using the most recent, comprehensive databases. The results across datasets are consistent and robust—indicating that these patterns are substantial and stable, regardless of changes in the details of the analyses.
These results indicate that, despite reformers’ adulation of the autonomy enjoyed by private and charter schools, this factor may in fact be the reason these schools are underperforming. That is, contrary to the dominant thinking on this issue, the data show that the more regulated public school sector embraces more innovative and effective professional practices, while independent schools often use their greater autonomy to avoid such reforms, leading to curricular stagnation.
reblogged from blistered-soul
reblogged from noam-chomsky
reblogged from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
reblogged from femmeviva
Right off the bat, let’s note that it’s arguably well past time for the political world to stop equating “manhood” with “cruise missiles.” Being an “alpha male” or an “alpha dog” may somehow seem impressive, in a junior-high-school-yard sort of way, but when analyzing geopolitical crises, we need a different kind of framework.
Steve Benen writing at Maddow Blog on the propensity to invoke masculine gender roles as a metaphor for power in discussions about foreign policy (via beyondxy)