Today’s REVIVE show topic is entitled:
It would be amazing to hear your perspective. So please call in we want to hear what you guys out there have to say always. Once again this show is for the people. We here at REVIVE thrive off of communication. So call us at (215)490-9832. This episode of REVIVE will be an open forum so all perspectives can be heard through great conversation.
This episode on REVIVE is entitled “Sunday Edition” we will be talking with your guy Keith Taylor from TLSpolitics! We also have a weekly thrill guest that is out of this world! Call in to REVIVE at (215)490-9832, you never know what may happen!
Brittany Garret: Brittany Garret originally from NYC found her passion for saving young lives, similar to her own. She used her inner fat girl, as a voice for change, and has embraced herself from inside out. She is the creator if Dear fat girl. It’s a brand that is dedicated to promoting body positivity among women and young girls through mentor-ship, workshops and a variety of events. It is a brand that inspires and motivates women and young girls to be true and unapologetic in their journey to self awareness and acceptance. Their Motto is “Fat is not always physical , sometimes it’s a mindset.”
YOU CAN CATCH REVIVE EVERY SUNDAY 11 AM-1 PM & EVERY WEDNESDAY 8 PM-10 PM!!!
It would be amazing to hear your perspective. So please call in we want to hear what you guys the listening audience out there have to say always. Once again this show is for the people. We here at REVIVE thrive off of communication. So call us at (215)490-9832 & follow on Twitter, IG & Facebook @REVIVE_POC
WE NEED YOU ALL TO BE APART OF THE CONVERSATION!!
You Might also like
By Elliot Booker — 3 years ago
“Time for an Awakening” for Sunday 11/26/2017 at 7:00 PM (EST) guest was Attorney, Author, Historian, Founder and President of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network, Ezilli Danto. On the heels of the government decision not to extend protection for Haitian earthquake victims (TPS), we talked about Americas foreign policy in Haiti from the Clinton administration to the present administration along with other topics with our guest, Attorney Danto.
Please listen, and leave your comments.
https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ezilidanto.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgoldsborough%40msn.com%7Ce068d3b68a794031291e08d535342d81%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636473420567973619&sdata=203v6BPHOcmxYrr8tlnVr7Nxo6ZKA0a0rROtkaDCb9I%3D&reserved=0Post Views: 841
By Elliot Booker — 5 years ago
A new five-year study into Black women’s hair products has found that a significant number contain ingredients that can increase the risk of miscarriage, uterine fibroids, cancers and respiratory problems.
The report, called Natural Evolutions – One Hair Story was produced by Los Angeles based not-for-profit organisation Black Women for Wellness (BWWLA) and was compiled by collecting health data, specialist reports, conducting focus groups of Black women who used hair products as well as interviews with product manufacturers and over 100 hair salon professionals.
Nourbese Flint and Teniope Adewumi – co-authors of Natural Evolutions – One Hair Story said they decided to compile the report because of the seeming lack of knowledge and research about the potential health risks of using hair products aimed at Black women in the US, the UK, Caribbean and parts of Africa.
Among some of the key concerns found by the report were the presence of chemicals such as formaldehyde, used in many hair straightening products, ammonia, which is used in hair dyes and bleaching agents all of which have been known to cause breathing difficulties and occupational asthma.
The report also cites research published in the International Journal of Cancer that deep-coloured dyes used over long periods are thought to increase the risk of both non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and multiple myeloma and also increase the risk of bladder cancer.
Other research included in the report is a recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology which showed that the use of hair relaxers is linked to the incidence of uterine fibroids in Black women and girls.
The BWWLA report lists over 40 products most commonly used by hair care professionals, which feature a hazard rating given by Skin Deep, an online database created by non-profit organisation Environmental Working Group. The products listed range from those that are chemically synthesised to raw natural products.
Among them are popular products such as Luster’s Pink, Tigi Bed Head Self Absorbed Mega Nutrient Shampoo, and Organic Root Stimulator Olive Oil Sheen Spray.
Adewuni told reporters: “Though many of the salon workers we interviewed had gone to cosmetology school, very few had learned about the negative impacts that chemicals in products could have on their health. There is a great need to have products that Black people use assessed for health impacts.”
She added: “We believe that the onus should not be on consumers and workers to have figure out what is safe or not. Toxic personal care and cosmetic products should not be in on the shelves.”
Market research firm Mintel estimated the size of the Black haircare market in the US at $946 million in 2015. The market figure for the UK is harder to pin down, but according to some estimates African Caribbean women spend up to six times more on hair and beauty products than women of other ethnicities.
Yet the report found that products marketed at this group are the least tested of all hair and beauty products.
South-east London based Sandra Pinnock-Brown, sales & marketing director of Hair Everlasting Wholesale Hair Manufacture and distributor of Xsandy’s Brand said she was not surprised by the report’s findings.
She said: “The attitude of some manufacturers appears to be that they can sell anything to Black women and they will buy it. A more robust testing regime would cost more but they appear reluctant to incur greater expenses for this customer group.”
Rachael Corson, CEO and co-founding director of ethically-sourced haircare brand Afrocenchix , also based in London, agreed.
She said: “Sadly, those who gain financially from filling shelves with cheap chemicals promising beautiful, shiny hair are unconcerned with the health risks. They are not made by the Black women who use such products themselves.”
According to Irene Shelley, editor of Black Beauty & Hair magazine, lack of willingness and possibly funds on the part of manufacturers and retailers to conduct research are likely reasons for the continued availability of harmful products in the market.
“We read stories about Black women who have ended up in hospital on respirators because they had adverse reactions to products like hair dyes or hair glues,” she said.
Shelley added that more women are now talking about their experiences, and boosting knowledge and awareness of natural haircare.
“Black Beauty & Hair has a natural hair section and we’ve found that the natural hair movement has made women look closely at the products that they are using on their skin and hair,” she said.
By: Kirsty Osei-BempongPost Views: 1,082
By Elliot Booker — 5 years ago
Has the Congressional Black Caucus Lost Its Conscience?
The activist group Color for Change charges that the CBC PAC serves corporations, not African Americans.
By David Dayen
March 2, 2016
Throughout primary season, Hillary Clinton has dominated with African Americans, winning higher percentages than Barack Obama garnered against her in 2008. This can lead to a too-pat assumption that the black community represents a monolithic voting bloc, with identical concerns and preferences. While it’s true that African Americans are empirically among the most loyal Democratic voters, the idea that there’s no daylight between millions of people makes no sense.
Organizations like Color of Change and the Black Lives Matter movement are targeting a fundamental question in the networked political era: Who gets to speak for a community.
One example of the fault lines within this large constituency presented a challenge this week to the black political leadership in Washington. Online progressive group Color of Change directly questioned the motives of the Congressional Black Caucus’s political action committee, or CBC PAC. The challenge was precipitated by a non-endorsement of high-profile black U.S. Senate candidate Donna Edwards, but it raised a much larger issue: Does the Congressional Black Caucus faithfully represent the best interests of the community at large, or instead of the corporate interests that fund it?
This campaign arm of the CBC, Color of Change charged, trades off the history and prestige of the caucus, but is dominated by corporate lobbyists. Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, calls the maneuver “civil-rights washing,” much like the “greenwashing” that corporations engage in to burnish their environmental image. “Corporations give money or create alliances with civil-rights communities to avoid being held accountable for their bad practices,” Robinson says.
The CBC brand is used for multiple entities. First, there’s the congressional caucus, which dates back to 1971 and now includes 46 members, 45 of whom are Democrats (Republican Mia Love of Utah is also a member). There’s the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, nominally a research institute with a separate leadership team, which features a scholarship program, a philanthropic fund, and various other initiatives. There’s the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, a “social purpose” organization engaged in voter education and leadership training. Finally, there’s the CBC PAC, launched in 1990 to increase the number of African Americans in Congress and foster black political participation.
These last three, all one step removed from the actual caucus, sadly often serve as a way to launder corporate contributions through the political system. Back in 2010, The New York Times explained that over a five-year period, the CBC Foundation had pulled in $53 million in corporate money from pharmaceutical, financial, telecommunications, and other interests. Little of that cash went to research or scholarships; the lion’s share went to glitzy conventions, golf and casino junkets, and paying off the foundation’s headquarters.
Despite the long history of the Congressional Black Caucus as an un-bought collection of socially conscious leaders, these extreme efforts to buy influence cannot help but have an impact. In recent years, CBC members have joined with Republicans to repeatedly undermine Dodd-Frank financial rules. Others have been accused of shilling for for-profit colleges. Still others formed the backbone of the fight against the (eventually passed) net-neutrality rules.
Color of Change focused on the CBC PAC because of the makeup of its 21-member board of directors, which decides political endorsements. Only eight of those directors are elected CBC members; the other 13 include two employees of the PAC and eleven corporate lobbyists. As Lee Fang laid out last month at The Intercept, these lobbyists represent dozens of firms, including student-loan servicer Navient, routinely accused of violating consumer-protection laws; Lorillard Tobacco, manufacturer of Newport cigarettes; dirty energy utilities Entergy and Energy Future Holdings; and Purdue Pharmaceuticals, maker of OxyContin and perhaps as responsible as any company for the opioid epidemic.
The PAC, which has raised $2.7 million since 2010, gets its funding from the biggest firms in America, like telecoms AT&T and Comcast, payday lender Cash America, mega-banks JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, minimum-wage foe the National Restaurant Association, and private-prison firm Corrections Corporation of America.
Many of these industries directly target black communities, whether through mass incarceration or the subprime lending crisis or opposing the Fight for $15. Even the white Democratic presidential candidates have disavowed private prison money; the fact that the CBC PAC cannot is disquieting. “These are corporations that we’re consistently campaigning against,” says Robinson. “They represent institutions that are not in the interest of black folks.”
While Bernie Sanders supporters criticized the CBC PAC for endorsing Hillary Clinton for President last month, the non-endorsement for Maryland’s open Senate seat is perhaps more egregious. Representative Edwards, a CBC member, is running to become only the second black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. But the PAC refused to endorse her in the primary against Representative Chris Van Hollen, who is white.
Former Congressman Al Wynn, now a corporate lobbyist and a CBC PAC board member, led the charge against endorsing Edwards, according to Politico. This is incredibly problematic; Wynn lost his seat in a primary to Edwards in 2008. “It raises all the questions that people have about Washington, and why people don’t trust Washington,” Robinson says.
When the CBC PAC endorses political candidates, it gives the mistaken impression that the caucus members made the endorsement. Congressional Black Caucus members had to correct the record by disavowing the Clinton endorsement of their own PAC within hours of the announcement.
When CBC PAC held its endorsement announcement for Clinton, Robinson says, “Nowhere in the pictures did you see corporate lobbyists at the microphone.” To Color of Change, the CBC PAC allows corporate power to brandish the shield of institutions with high regard among black people, in ways that deceive the community. In the group’s petition to members of the CBC, Color of Change demands that the caucus change the composition of the PAC board and drop ties with industries that directly harm the black community.
When asked by BuzzFeed about the Color of Change action, CBC PAC executive director Benjamin Branch (himself a former telecom lobbyist) declined to comment.
Organizations like Color of Change and the Black Lives Matter movement, which sit outside the political power base and can criticize the gatekeepers, have always operated as a spur to hold leaders accountable. And they are targeting a fundamental question in the networked political era: Who gets to speak for a community?
It can be uncomfortable to criticize an organization that has persevered for decades as the “Conscience of the Congress.” But when the CBC tries to play an inside game and falls under the spell of big money, the credibility it’s worked so hard to sustain—and which corporations want desperately to tap into—can vanish.
Robinson says he’s received a lot of thanks—privately—from members of the African American political community in Washington for taking a stand. “Just because someone’s on the PAC and works as a lobbyist doesn’t mean they’re not a good person,” he says. “But it does mean they’re compromised. If we don’t raise this issue, then we lose our moral authority.”Post Views: 1,553