housewifeswag:

it’s a bit long but read it. i have so much love for banksy. 

housewifeswag:

it’s a bit long but read it. i have so much love for banksy. 

(via housewifeswag)

poortaste:

The majority of things you buy at the grocery store come from just one of ten different companies. 
via world-shaker

poortaste:

The majority of things you buy at the grocery store come from just one of ten different companies.

via world-shaker

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

withrevolutionarycries:

unknowablewoman:

rubyvroom:

tooyoungforthelivingdead:

If you don’t know much about the history of the pink ribbon, or the massive cause marketing facets it has, then you need to watch this film.
The fight against breast cancer has been depoliticised. Pushes from pharma companies to produce a “cure”, combined with corporate links with fundraising campaigns, have fundamentally shifted the debate and public awareness of the disease.
History of the ribbon: corporate appropriation
The Guardian covered this in their recent article Cancer’s not pink:

The pink ribbon was originally orange. Conceived in 1990 by Charlotte Haley, a 68-year-old American, it was a grassroots protest against the fact that only 5% of the US National Cancer Institute’s budget was going towards cancer prevention.
When Estée Lauder asked to use the logo for a breast-cancer awareness campaign, Haley wanted nothing to do with it, saying she had no wish for them to use the ribbon as she felt it was too commercial. So the company changed the colour to pink, because research identified it as the most non-threatening, soothing colour – everything a cancer diagnosis isn’t.

Estee Lauder threatened Charlotte with their vast squad of lawyers, and then just evaded the legalities by slightly changing the colour.
From the start, a symbol tainted by corporate appropriation.
Cause marketing: framing it nice
Charities like Susan G Komen for the Cure (recently famous for their decision to not back Planned Parenthood) are largely responsible for the links between breast cancer fundraising and corporate cause marketing i.e. ‘buy this and part of the profits go to a good cause’.
The bottom line is that these companies only enter these partnerships because they are lucrative.
To be an effective sales tool, breast cancer needs to be portrayed as beatable. Positivity and reassurance mean that the more you buy, the more you’re helping is the dominant philosophy.
An off-shoot problem is that the focus on positivity is that it:
creates a frame of ‘the more I fight the more likely I am to succeed’, which promotes victim-blaming when it fails e.g. “oh you should have eaten more green veg”;
implies all breast cancer is always treatable and beatable;
softens something ugly and difficult, and invalidates the very valid feelings of anger people have.
This sanitising from corporate links took the teeth out of the growing movement pushing for prevention rather than a “cure”, and shifted focus from preventative options.
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business as usual”
Popular focus on the disease being beatable on one level encourages the quick fix self-help ideas you hear in the papers: “eat more fruit and veg”, “do more exercise”, etc.
What most people don’t know is that only 20-30% of breast cancer is caused by known risk factors. However, publicising this would undermining the public perception of the disease being manageable, and thus undermine the potential profits from cause marketing.
This focus on a cure encourages an atmosphere of medicalisation, even when that’s not necessarily beneficial for patients. 85% of funding goes towards cures in the form of pills that may only increase life expectancy by a small amount. Only 15% goes towards prevention of the disease - a far less lucrative market.
Of the money going to prevention, only a third is going towards investigating environmental causes for breast cancer. Another problem with corporate links: cause-marketing companies are ‘helping the cause’ whilst profiting from products that cause breast cancer.
A few quick examples: the estrogenic plastics used in Ford’s manufacturing; the rBGH growth hormone in dairy products (Yoplait); the fact that only 20% of ingredients in cosmetics have had any safety checks (Estee Lauder, Revlon). All these companies engage in breast cancer cause marketing.
The sad fact is that this is an inherent problem with corporate engagement in fundraising.
More reading
Not even touched on the fact that most research studies focus on white middle class women because those are the ones with buying power for cause-marketing products, or the globalisation of pinkwashing (using the social licence from breast cancer campaigning to operate in places like the middle east by the US after Iraq war).
Film review for Pink Ribbons Inc.
Pink Ribbons Inc. by Dr Susan Love is the book the film is based on
Welcome to Cancerland, an article by Barbara Ehrenreich
Breast Cancer Action do some great work in the US e.g. the Think Before You Pink campaign
big shout-out to Human Rights Watch for screening the film!

This is a good and important subject.
I’m not a big fan of the commercialization of breast cancer research.
I do want to point out one thing though. Breast Cancer went from being one of the most devastating forms of cancer to one of the most curable largely because of the fundraising and publicity brought to this particular form of cancer. Here’s a quick look at the improved survival rates

For local disease, the number of women alive at 10 years rose from 55.0% in the first decade of the study period when radiation therapy was the mainstay of treatment to 86.1% by 1995-2004 (P<0.0001 for trend).
For regional disease with skin or lymph node involvement, 10-year survival improved from a dismal 16.2% to 74.1% over the same period (P<0.0001 for trend).
Even for those who presented with cancer disseminated to distant sites, improvements were seen from 3.3% alive at 10 years among those seen in 1944 to 1954 up to 22.2% by 1995-2004, again a significant trend at P<0.0001.

Other kinds of cancer, such as Ovarian cancer, have not improved so significantly. There hasn’t been a new drug for Ovarian in something like 15 years. 
All the fundraising and activism does have an effect, a serious one. So I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the things quoted above about too much funding going to “cures in the form of pills”. People, those pills are the reason that breast cancer is a survivable disease. Pills like Tamoxifen and Herceptin allow people with the worst forms of breast cancer who might have been given 3-4 months to live to go on living their life for many more months, years, even a decade after that. To the person who now gets to see their 40th birthday or watch their kid graduate high school, that’s a big fucking deal. Actually complaining about that smacks of anti-medical paranoia that I’m really wary of right now.
Here’s the real problem: the whole reason we need fundraising and activism is that the government does not provide enough funding for medical research. If we had the funding structure to do the research that’s really needed for ALL forms of cancer, we wouldn’t need individual funding efforts like Susan Komen with all of the attendant problems that leaving research to corporations and semi-shady foundations brings. 
Other than that I fully agree with the critiques about cause marketing and linking products to breast cancer fundraising.

I NEED TO SEE THIS

I took a really great class my senior year of undergrad on the Biology and Policy of Breast Cancer (it was dope) I slept through most of the BIO part (uh not my forte) but the policy stuff and the construction of the movement? Very Very interesting. That class radically shifted my perspective on supporting national foundations that don’t explicitly outline the proportion of direct service action that they do on behalf of the communities they claim to represent.

Another major issue, otherwise un-addressed, is the corruption and conflicts of interest that are inherent here. The American Cancer Society is run by a board, and that board is made up entirely of executives and shills and lawyers and lobbyists from the pharmaceutical companies, or the conglomerates that own them. So, the ACS, especially its Pink Ribbon branch, raises money from government grants, public donations, and targeted fundraising. It takes that money, and spends it on salaries and overhead first, financing more fundraising second, lobbying for more money third, and takes the rest and puts that money into cancer research. And that last one, that sounds like the only good part here, is actually just “take the money that generous citizens gave us and hand it to the corporations that we really work for”. The money you donate, just finances R&D for the pharma corp to make drugs that they’re going to charge full market price for. 
Fuck these guys.

withrevolutionarycries:

unknowablewoman:

rubyvroom:

tooyoungforthelivingdead:

If you don’t know much about the history of the pink ribbon, or the massive cause marketing facets it has, then you need to watch this film.

The fight against breast cancer has been depoliticised. Pushes from pharma companies to produce a “cure”, combined with corporate links with fundraising campaigns, have fundamentally shifted the debate and public awareness of the disease.

History of the ribbon: corporate appropriation

The Guardian covered this in their recent article Cancer’s not pink:

The pink ribbon was originally orange. Conceived in 1990 by Charlotte Haley, a 68-year-old American, it was a grassroots protest against the fact that only 5% of the US National Cancer Institute’s budget was going towards cancer prevention.

When Estée Lauder asked to use the logo for a breast-cancer awareness campaign, Haley wanted nothing to do with it, saying she had no wish for them to use the ribbon as she felt it was too commercial. So the company changed the colour to pink, because research identified it as the most non-threatening, soothing colour – everything a cancer diagnosis isn’t.

Estee Lauder threatened Charlotte with their vast squad of lawyers, and then just evaded the legalities by slightly changing the colour.

From the start, a symbol tainted by corporate appropriation.

Cause marketing: framing it nice

Charities like Susan G Komen for the Cure (recently famous for their decision to not back Planned Parenthood) are largely responsible for the links between breast cancer fundraising and corporate cause marketing i.e. ‘buy this and part of the profits go to a good cause’.

The bottom line is that these companies only enter these partnerships because they are lucrative.

To be an effective sales tool, breast cancer needs to be portrayed as beatable. Positivity and reassurance mean that the more you buy, the more you’re helping is the dominant philosophy.

An off-shoot problem is that the focus on positivity is that it:

  1. creates a frame of ‘the more I fight the more likely I am to succeed’, which promotes victim-blaming when it fails e.g. “oh you should have eaten more green veg”;
  2. implies all breast cancer is always treatable and beatable;
  3. softens something ugly and difficult, and invalidates the very valid feelings of anger people have.

This sanitising from corporate links took the teeth out of the growing movement pushing for prevention rather than a “cure”, and shifted focus from preventative options.

“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business as usual”

Popular focus on the disease being beatable on one level encourages the quick fix self-help ideas you hear in the papers: “eat more fruit and veg”, “do more exercise”, etc.

What most people don’t know is that only 20-30% of breast cancer is caused by known risk factors. However, publicising this would undermining the public perception of the disease being manageable, and thus undermine the potential profits from cause marketing.

This focus on a cure encourages an atmosphere of medicalisation, even when that’s not necessarily beneficial for patients. 85% of funding goes towards cures in the form of pills that may only increase life expectancy by a small amount. Only 15% goes towards prevention of the disease - a far less lucrative market.

Of the money going to prevention, only a third is going towards investigating environmental causes for breast cancer. Another problem with corporate links: cause-marketing companies are ‘helping the cause’ whilst profiting from products that cause breast cancer.

A few quick examples: the estrogenic plastics used in Ford’s manufacturing; the rBGH growth hormone in dairy products (Yoplait); the fact that only 20% of ingredients in cosmetics have had any safety checks (Estee Lauder, Revlon). All these companies engage in breast cancer cause marketing.

The sad fact is that this is an inherent problem with corporate engagement in fundraising.

More reading

Not even touched on the fact that most research studies focus on white middle class women because those are the ones with buying power for cause-marketing products, or the globalisation of pinkwashing (using the social licence from breast cancer campaigning to operate in places like the middle east by the US after Iraq war).

Film review for Pink Ribbons Inc.

Pink Ribbons Inc. by Dr Susan Love is the book the film is based on

Welcome to Cancerland, an article by Barbara Ehrenreich

Breast Cancer Action do some great work in the US e.g. the Think Before You Pink campaign

big shout-out to Human Rights Watch for screening the film!

This is a good and important subject.

I’m not a big fan of the commercialization of breast cancer research.

I do want to point out one thing though. Breast Cancer went from being one of the most devastating forms of cancer to one of the most curable largely because of the fundraising and publicity brought to this particular form of cancer. Here’s a quick look at the improved survival rates

For local disease, the number of women alive at 10 years rose from 55.0% in the first decade of the study period when radiation therapy was the mainstay of treatment to 86.1% by 1995-2004 (P<0.0001 for trend).

For regional disease with skin or lymph node involvement, 10-year survival improved from a dismal 16.2% to 74.1% over the same period (P<0.0001 for trend).

Even for those who presented with cancer disseminated to distant sites, improvements were seen from 3.3% alive at 10 years among those seen in 1944 to 1954 up to 22.2% by 1995-2004, again a significant trend at P<0.0001.

Other kinds of cancer, such as Ovarian cancer, have not improved so significantly. There hasn’t been a new drug for Ovarian in something like 15 years. 

All the fundraising and activism does have an effect, a serious one. So I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the things quoted above about too much funding going to “cures in the form of pills”. People, those pills are the reason that breast cancer is a survivable disease. Pills like Tamoxifen and Herceptin allow people with the worst forms of breast cancer who might have been given 3-4 months to live to go on living their life for many more months, years, even a decade after that. To the person who now gets to see their 40th birthday or watch their kid graduate high school, that’s a big fucking deal. Actually complaining about that smacks of anti-medical paranoia that I’m really wary of right now.

Here’s the real problem: the whole reason we need fundraising and activism is that the government does not provide enough funding for medical research. If we had the funding structure to do the research that’s really needed for ALL forms of cancer, we wouldn’t need individual funding efforts like Susan Komen with all of the attendant problems that leaving research to corporations and semi-shady foundations brings. 

Other than that I fully agree with the critiques about cause marketing and linking products to breast cancer fundraising.

I NEED TO SEE THIS

I took a really great class my senior year of undergrad on the Biology and Policy of Breast Cancer (it was dope) I slept through most of the BIO part (uh not my forte) but the policy stuff and the construction of the movement? Very Very interesting. That class radically shifted my perspective on supporting national foundations that don’t explicitly outline the proportion of direct service action that they do on behalf of the communities they claim to represent.

Another major issue, otherwise un-addressed, is the corruption and conflicts of interest that are inherent here. The American Cancer Society is run by a board, and that board is made up entirely of executives and shills and lawyers and lobbyists from the pharmaceutical companies, or the conglomerates that own them. So, the ACS, especially its Pink Ribbon branch, raises money from government grants, public donations, and targeted fundraising. It takes that money, and spends it on salaries and overhead first, financing more fundraising second, lobbying for more money third, and takes the rest and puts that money into cancer research. And that last one, that sounds like the only good part here, is actually just “take the money that generous citizens gave us and hand it to the corporations that we really work for”. The money you donate, just finances R&D for the pharma corp to make drugs that they’re going to charge full market price for. 

Fuck these guys.

(via spongeofmalphas)

anticapitalist:


Of every dollar of income earned in the United States in the third quarter of 2011 — the latest period for which data is available — just 44 cents went to workers’ wages and salaries. That is the smallest share since the government began keeping track in 1947, according to the Commerce Department, and it continues a trend that predates the Great Recession. The average share of national income going to wages and salaries over the last 50 years has been about 57.6 cents on the dollar.
[…]
On the other hand, American businesses are doing extremely well.
Tepid job growth, stagnant wages for existing employees and growing international demand for American products have all helped corporate profit margins reach all-time highs, according to two different measures from the Department of Commerce and from earnings per share in the S.&amp;P. 500. - NYTimes

&gt;.&lt;

anticapitalist:

Of every dollar of income earned in the United States in the third quarter of 2011 — the latest period for which data is available — just 44 cents went to workers’ wages and salaries. That is the smallest share since the government began keeping track in 1947, according to the Commerce Department, and it continues a trend that predates the Great Recession. The average share of national income going to wages and salaries over the last 50 years has been about 57.6 cents on the dollar.

[…]

On the other hand, American businesses are doing extremely well.

Tepid job growth, stagnant wages for existing employees and growing international demand for American products have all helped corporate profit margins reach all-time highs, according to two different measures from the Department of Commerce and from earnings per share in the S.&P. 500. - NYTimes

>.<

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

anticapitalist:

(that’s the coolest fucking picture ever)
Why Karl Marx was right

Roubini, whose predictions of the financial crash of 2008 earned him thenickname “Dr. Doom,”has referred his patients to a specialist in capitalist crisis: Dr. Karl Marx.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Roubini said:

Karl Marx had it right. At some point, capitalism can destroy itself. You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. That’s what has happened. We thought that markets worked. They’re not working. The individual can be rational. The firm, to survive and thrive, can push labor costs more and more down, but labor costs are someone else’s income and consumption. That’s why it’s a self-destructive process.

For several hours on August 12, theJournalwebsite ran the video of the interview as a top story, under the headline, “Roubini: Marx was Right.”
Considering that the first edition of Marx’s three-volume masterwork Capital appeared in 1867, Roubini’s revelation isn’t exactly news to socialist opponents of capitalism. But given the intractable nature of the current crisis—a deep global recession, a weak recovery in the traditional core of the system in the U.S. and Europe, and now the possibility of a lurch into a second recession—mainstream, or bourgeois, economics has been exposed as ideologically driven and incapable of offering solutions.

Damn straight.

anticapitalist:

(that’s the coolest fucking picture ever)

Why Karl Marx was right

Roubini, whose predictions of the financial crash of 2008 earned him thenickname “Dr. Doom,”has referred his patients to a specialist in capitalist crisis: Dr. Karl Marx.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Roubini said:

Karl Marx had it right. At some point, capitalism can destroy itself. You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. That’s what has happened. We thought that markets worked. They’re not working. The individual can be rational. The firm, to survive and thrive, can push labor costs more and more down, but labor costs are someone else’s income and consumption. That’s why it’s a self-destructive process.

For several hours on August 12, theJournalwebsite ran the video of the interview as a top story, under the headline, “Roubini: Marx was Right.”

Considering that the first edition of Marx’s three-volume masterwork Capital appeared in 1867, Roubini’s revelation isn’t exactly news to socialist opponents of capitalism. But given the intractable nature of the current crisis—a deep global recession, a weak recovery in the traditional core of the system in the U.S. and Europe, and now the possibility of a lurch into a second recession—mainstream, or bourgeois, economics has been exposed as ideologically driven and incapable of offering solutions.

Damn straight.

stfuconservatives:

sarahlee310:

bluecheddar:

(Why you sloppy arrogant corporate puppet, you.)
Florida Rep. Rachel Burgin (forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement from a bill. The bill calls on the federal government to reduce taxes for corporations (HM 685).
source

SarahLee: Sorry, you got caught!

The next day, Rep. Burgin quickly withdrew the bill hoping that no one had noticed and then re-introduced it 24-hours later, with a new bill number (HM 717), but now without the problematic paragraph. Nobody seems to have noticed until now.


It’s… it’s almost like lobbyists are writing the laws to serve their own interests! Oh my god! Has anyone heard about this???????????? Somebody tell Congress that they’re just figureheads for corporate interests! Somebody tell their constituents that they don’t give two shits about their sad little lives! ALERT THE MEDIA!

stfuconservatives:

sarahlee310:

bluecheddar:

(Why you sloppy arrogant corporate puppet, you.)

Florida Rep. Rachel Burgin (forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement from a bill. The bill calls on the federal government to reduce taxes for corporations (HM 685).

source

SarahLee: Sorry, you got caught!

The next day, Rep. Burgin quickly withdrew the bill hoping that no one had noticed and then re-introduced it 24-hours later, with a new bill number (HM 717), but now without the problematic paragraph. Nobody seems to have noticed until now.


It’s… it’s almost like lobbyists are writing the laws to serve their own interests! Oh my god! Has anyone heard about this???????????? Somebody tell Congress that they’re just figureheads for corporate interests! Somebody tell their constituents that they don’t give two shits about their sad little lives! ALERT THE MEDIA!

(via stfuconservatives)

FACT: In 2011, Exxon’s total profit was $41.06 billion or $1300 every second.

…symptom number one of the sponsored mindset: we become collectively convinced not that corporations are hitching a ride on our cultural and communal activities, but that creativity and congregation would be impossible without their generosity.

-Naomi Klein

(via toneypalumbodoesnotapprove)

What&#8217;s wrong with Lincoln&#8217;s tie? Does anyone else see this? Just bugs me.

What’s wrong with Lincoln’s tie? Does anyone else see this? Just bugs me.