My online friend Christopher Elliott of the full TSA directive following the explosives incident last week, ordering pat-down searches of passengers as they board, and telling airline personnel to impose the equivalent of a lockdown the last hour of flight: no access to a host of conveniences from bathrooms to blankets to our own carry-on.

Next thing he knows, boom, he gets a subpoena!

Excuse me, but this is the kind of petty vindictiveness I’d expect from the George W. Bush administration. Some one rats out a stupid policy by telling the truth, and that someone gets squeezed.

I’m reminded of the old line from “We Don’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who:

Meet the new boss/
Same as the old boss

On issue after issue, the Obama administration acts far too much like “the old boss.” On climate change, Guantanamo, Afghanistan…and now on abusing imaginary enemies. And even when there’s a victory for “change,” like the watered down corporate giveaway they’re calling “health reform,” it’s a hollow, compromised one.

If Obama wants a second term, he darn well better start causing some positive change–and turning his back on both the small-minded get-even tactics and the egregious radical-right extremist policies of his slimy and self-righteous criminal predecessor.

Where is the change we voted for?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

1. Have you heard about the barbaric, fascistic anti-homosexuality law in Uganda? Yes, they’re calling for the death penalty for consensual sex. Read CNN’s article. Here’s the group to oppose it, please join.

2. Especially if you’re in Western Mass, but even if you’re not: a Facebook support group has sprung up for the Northampton, Massachusetts victims of arson. My old neighborhood in Northampton got hit with dozens of fires in a one-hour period Sunday night. Two people died, and two families including some friends of ours were left homeless. Several lost their cars or sustained severe damage.

Please distribute this message widely.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

For the last 28 years, I’ve lived in or just outside Northampton, Massachusetts. About ten years ago, Northampton established the position of City Poet Laureate, with a two-year term. Until two years ago, the post was mostly ceremonial. The official poet would occasionally show up and read a poem to mark some event or other, but kept a low profile.

Then Lesléa Newman was chosen for the post. She used her entire two years to work as a catalyst to bring poetry to the people–and the people to poetry. She organized event after event, and brought formidable community organizing skills into the task of making poetry relevant to every generation.

Among her accomplishments:

  • Filling an 800-seat theater with a poetry reading involving readers from the community as well as cities within a few hours drive (none of them superstars)
  • Getting poets to agree to write a poem a day for a month and get sponsors to pledge contributions, raing over $11,000 to benefit a literacy program that helps new immigrants
  • Putting together an anthology of local poets
  • Taking poetry programs into the schools
  • Providing exposure to local poets in a newspaper column
  • The list could go on and on. Newman has been a dynamo and an inspiration. Perhaps this is not surprising from a woman whose 57 published books (!) have included such groundbreaking material as Heather Has Two Mommies (possibly the first lesbian-friendly children’s book to get wide circulation, Letter to Harvey Milk, and one of the first novels about bulemia.

    In the United States, we tend to be uncomfortable with intellectuals. People who pride themselves on their lack of knowledge of the world around them actually do grow up to be President (GW Bush) and run for Vice President (Palin). When we do elect a leader who’s an intellectual, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, it’s because they disguise it well, and we see pictures of them doing “man of the people” activities like chowing down burgers at McDonald’s (Clinton) or taking his kids to the bumper cars at a fair (Obama). I think the last prominent US leader who was not afraid to show himself as an intellectual may have been Franklin Roosevelt.

    Other countries treasure their artists, and especially their dissident artists. The first president of free Senegal was the poet Leopold Senghor; in the Czech Republic, it was the playwright Václav Havel. In the United States, yes, we’ve had a number of Presidents who’d written books before taking the office, including both JFK and Nixon as well as Obama (and his former opponent Hillary Clinton)–but these people were already in public life when they wrote their books. Outside of the movies, which gave us Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and even former Carmel, California mayor Clint Eastwood, it’s hard to think of major US policy makers who really came up out of the arts.

    We’ve had plenty of dissident artists, some of them even pretty famous (Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, Ani DiFranco). But while art can shape people’s movements, as protest folk and protest rock helped to solidify protests against segregation, the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons, it doesn’t seem to shape policy. And in many cases, we find that the dissidents who achieve fame are quieter about their dissent, at least until they’ve already achieved fame (classic example: John Lennon, who did become quite visible in the peace movement after moving to New York). Not too many people stop to analyze the working-class-hero lyrics of Bruce Springsteen and find the progressive values underneath, because it’s cloaked in something that looks superficially like a right-wing version of patriotism. But get down-and-dirty with the lyrics of “Born in the USA”, and you’ll see it’s about a Vietnam vet who went into the army because he grew up in a depressed town, couldn’t find work, and got into trouble–and then after his hitch still can’t find a job.

    Hey, Bruce, ever thought about running for office?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    In a cutely titled post called “Six Degrees of Customer Separation,” my cyberfriend Sean D’Souza opined that it’s going to take six contacts before his prospects become customers. And that he actually doesn’t expect (or even particularly desire) a sale right away. Other experts use Jeffrey Lant’s “Rule of Seven” contacts.

    I take a heretical view of this. Here’s the comment I posted on Sean’s article.

    Actually, the answer is (like so many things) “it depends.” I actually talk in my book Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First about how to bring the six or seven impressions down to just one by laser targeting the intersections of prospect’s need/desire, frequency, and message. In other words, if you make exactly the right offer to the right person at the right time, you may only need one impression. If you have something that’s just not of interest, no amount of impression will shift. Example: as a 36-year vegetarian, I am not motivated to buy anyone’s burger by any amount of marketing. Only a sudden and very urgent need (like genuine starvation in a prison cell somewhere where meat was the only available alternative) would move me into the customer zone.

    But in truth, it works the opposite way, too. I have had people who were on my newsletter list or in a group I participate in for several years, or who saved a newspaper clipping and then two years later, contacted me—and became clients. In some cases, there may have been 100 or more contacts; in some cases, only one, but with a big time delay.

    No hard-and-fast rules, in other words–which is one more reason to…

  • Always put your best foot forward
  • Provide useful information AND conversation, not just sell-sell-sell
  • Assume that people are watching and judging you, so make a positive impression
  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Spend 12 minutes listening to the best commentary I’ve heard on the healthcare mess, from MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann.

    He is the only other person I’ve heard advocating my viewpoint: that since compromise isn’t working anyway, since the right-wing nutters will call you a socialist no matter what you do, you may as well fight for what we really need, and then in the next elections call down the progressive forces to sweep out the GOP and BlueDog intransigents, along with the ever-more-loathsome Joe Lieberman. Letting the bill go down in flames and then bringing it back as a campaign tool is a far more sensible strategy to me than chipping and chipping away at the reforms until there’s nothing left other than total capitulation to the insurance industry. This bill embodies everything wrong about the legislative process: the influence of big lobbying and big campaign money, the people shut out from the beginning, even Sanders being forced to abandon the single-payer vote on a parliamentary procedure trick.

    Like Olbermann, and like Howard Dean, if I were in the Senate, I’d be voting no until there are some crumbs in here for ordinary Americans. First Obama and Baucus rejected single-payer—what we really want and NEED—in favor of the very limited “public option.” Then they traded that away for extension of Medicare. Then they traded THAT away…for what? For the unreliable promise of a possible (not definite) yes vote from Lieberman!

    Progressive Senators like Sanders and a few others need to tell Obama and Ried tht this bill is not one they can vote for. Let the bill grind to a halt! We can play this kind of hardball as well. When there’s nothing to vote for, it’s time to vote no.

    I’ll be urging my own Senators to do so later today. Not in a petition but in a personal letter. When I’ve done the letter, I’ll post it here, and I give open permission to copy it in whole or in part to contact your own Senators.

    I’m also going to ask MSNBC for a transcript of Olbermann’s remarks, and permission to post it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    This is an approximate verbatim transcript of the phone call I just ended.

    Me: “Hello, this is Shel, how may I make your day special?”
    Her: “I’m from and I wanted to let you know that our sales manager will be in your area on Thursday and would like to make an appointment.”
    Me: What does your company do?”
    Her: “We have a free credit card terminal for you.”
    Me: “I’m happy with my current merchant account provider and I already own my own terminal.”
    Her: “Our system includes a digital receipt system where you don’t need paper receipts. What would be a good time on Thursday to meet with her?”
    Me: “I need to see information before I set up any appointments. Can you send me something and I’ll call you back if I’m interested?”
    Her: “Well, it’s on a laptop, you have to see it.”
    Me: “Can’t you e-mail it?”
    Her: “You can go on our website–”
    Me (interrupting): Wait a minute. You call me up out of the blue and try to sell me something. You want to waste my time with an appointment. And you’re going to make ME do the work to research you, you won’t even send me information?”
    Her: (no response)

    At that point I hung up. I wonder who would actually buy from this idiotic process.

    Let’s get one thing perfectly clear. These people think they are marketing, but this is not marketing. Marketing is about building relationships, providing or adding value, solving problems. This boiler room telepressurer (I will not dignify her by calling her a telemarketer because she’s not marketing; she’s confronting people who don’t want her message) is doing one of that.

    I’ve written six books and hundreds of articles about how to market effectively. People like this give the whole industry a bad name, and then we have to work that much harder to overcome prejudice against us.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    My friend Denise O’Berry is running a contest for the best advice to new entrepreneurs. I don’t have much use for the prize (a year of blog hosting at Network Solutions–I’m happy hosting my own blog), but it felt like a fun and seasonal thing to do. Here’s what I posted:

    1. Be as helpful and friendly to others as possible, and be well-networked (both online and off)–cultivate relationships from an attitude of how you can be of service, and people will help you. Introduce people who need to know each other.

    2. Do outstanding work. Stuff that people will want to brag about. Turn it in on time or early, and on or under budget–and then suggest the next thing they need and you can help with that maybe they haven’t thought of on their own.

    3. Stay true to both your ethics and your values. Do not cross the line to take on projects you shouldn’t. Keep honesty, integrity, and quality front and center.

    4. Keep expenses down while starting out. And keep good records.

    5. Make sure people understand what you do and how you can help–but do it without being salesy. Show that you know your stuff by answering questions, writing articles (and later, books), speaking,etc.–not by going on and on about how great you are.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I love the concept of EcoStiletto.com that you can be super-Green and also super-fashionable. The site name, of course, is taken from stiletto heels.

    I will not win any prizes from the fashionistas myself (and it’s really ironic that I’m writing about fashion today), but I’m delighted to see sites springing up that reinforce this duality: Green doesn’t have to be ugly. Of course, it’s really not new; I live just outside a town that has for several years had a hemp clothing store as well as an Eileen Fisher natural cotton boutique. You could even make a case that Gandhi started the trend when he refused to wear anything but homespun cloth from local natural fibers, even when meeting with heads of state.

    Looking at the EcoStiletto site, I’m not sure the reality has quite caught up with the concept–but give it a year or two. I can remember when recycled paper looked like it had been used to wipe up a spill and felt like sandpaper. I’m sure the day will come when truly fashionable clothing is widely available form organic and fairly-traded ingredients and processed naturally.

    Anyway, it reinforces the idea that my forthcoming book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson), is appearing at the right time. 😉

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    It started our first Chanukah in our “new” home–the 1743 Colonial farmhouse we bought in 1998. For the first chunk of my kids’ lives, we lived close to the center of town, a dense and fairly urban residential neighborhood. Then we moved to this ancient and wonderful home on a working dairy farm (my hard-working neighbors have 400 cows).

    We lit the candles and each put our menorah in a different window. And then one of the kids asked, “Can anybody see our candles from the state highway?”

    Our house is a block back and up a hill. At that time, there was only an open pasture between us and the main road. We piled into the car and made a circuit. Our house was visible, but it was pretty hard to tell there were candles in the window.

    But once we were out there with our coats on, someone got the bright idea to walk around the house and look at all four menorahs, singing “Oh Chanukah, Oh Chanukah.”

    Since then, we’ve walked around the house, singing, eight nights a year: four humans who live here, one dog, and whoever happens to be visit and is not too infirm. Sometimes it’s been so icy we needed ski poles. Sometimes we have our whole Chavurah (circle of friends) each with a menorah and there are dozens or hundreds of candles, depending on how far into the holiday we are (you add a candle each night). Sometimes it’s been sleeting.

    Last night, the first night of Chanukah this year, was clear and cold. The constellations were incredibly clear, and one planet hung just over the mountain behind our house. I had left my glasses inside, because it was cold enough that I wore the hat I’d bought in Russia that I can’t wear if it’s above 20 degrees F, and wrapped a scarf around my face—and I knew the glasses would steam up. And yet, the stars were still fabulous.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    I wanted to share my response in a LinkedIn discussion around ethics (I don’t know if that link will work if you’re not a member of the group). It started when someone asked participants to list a few ethics books they’d found helpful. I posted several titles, culled from the archives of my Positive Power of Principled Profit newsletter, where I review one book per month on ethics, Green business, or service (scroll down).

    One of the group members, Professor Allan Elder, wrote back with a long comment; here’s a piece of it:

    The concern I have with all the books you recommend is they espouse a certain set of behaviors without explaining the reasoning behind them. For the casual reader (which is nearly all), this leads to prescription without understanding.

    This is my response:

    It’s true that my list focuses heavily on books that talk more about the behavior than the philosophy behind them. A book like The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid is based on a simple economic construct: there is money to be made helping the world’s poorest improve their lives. Yet several of the authors I mention would, I’m quite sure, be very comfortable showing their roots in Kant and John Stuart Mill.

    I don’t see this as a problem; I actually see it as a strength. Self-interest can motivate positive changes in behavior, and thus in society, that more abstract thinking cannot. Those who would never voluntarily expose themselves to deep philosophical thinking start to create changes in the culture–and those who find their curiosity engaged will go deeper.

    A practical example from my own life: as a teenager, I got involved with food co-ops, not because I had any particular consciousness at that time about the problems caused by our society’s choices in food policy, but because I was a starving student and it was a way to get good cheap food. But from that beginning based purely in narrow self-interest, I grew to understand some of the very complex web of policy, philosophy, and culture that have caused our food system to be the way it is. Thirty-five years later, I can talk about food issues on a much deeper level–but I still recruit people to eat better by engaging in their own self-interest: better health, better taste, etc. If they seem open to it, I start bringing in issues like the positive impact of supporting the local economy (which can then, in turn, open the door to a larger discussion of ethics issues).

    In short, I think the literature has ample place for books rooted in either the philosophical or the practical, because different people will be drawn to the different schemes, and either one is a starting point for understanding the other 🙂

    Of course philosophers pay attention to practical matters first, only they use a fancy word: “Praxis.” I didn’t mention that in my response.

    What do YOU think?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail