Author: Shel Horowitz—Green/Ethical Business Expert

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Innovation, language, Psychology Tagged with , , , ,

Guest Post by Dan Miller of 48days.com

Editor’s Note: Not only do I love the message about overcoming others’ fears, but I love that Dan was inspired to write this by a visit to the zoo. I’ve been saying for many years that we can find ideas anywhere. I even have a big research folder for a book I haven’t yet gotten around to writing, “How to Find Your Next 10,000 Ideas.”

—Shel Horowitz, editor

Not too long ago, when I was at the Nashville Zoo with my granddaughters, we watched as the zookeeper offered to let small children hold an ostrich egg.

These amazing eggs are approximately twenty four times the size of a chicken egg and weigh about three pounds. But rather than embracing a once- in-a-lifetime experience, almost without exception the parental caution was—”Now, don’t drop that egg.”

Just what do you suppose was at the top of every little child’s mind as they carefully took that big egg into their arms? Were they marveling at the size, wondering how long it would take to hatch, imagining using that egg as a volleyball, or basking in the educational enrichment of the moment?

No, I suspect that the thought foremost in their minds was—”If I drop this egg I’m in big trouble.” I doubt that the teaching experience went much beyond the fear of dropping that egg.

Fear masks our ability to see the positive. If you’re focused on not dropping the egg you:

1. Will not try for the promotion now. “I’ll just hang on to what I have.”

2. Will not start a business in this economy. “It’s too risky.”

3. Will not buy a house. “If I ever get behind on payments the bank could foreclose.”

4. Will never love deeply. “What if I’m not loved in return?”

Most parents have never held an ostrich egg. They base their experience on knowing chicken eggs are fragile and break with the tap of a spoon.

Most people don’t know that an ostrich egg has a thick shell that requires a hammer or drill to crack.

Maybe the people holding you back have experienced too much pain, shortage and despair. They may be watching too much news on TV.

But don’t let their fear deprive you of a once-in-a-lifetime thrill.

Go ahead, take that trip, write that book, open that ice cream shop or buy that little house you’ve been wanting.

Live your life driven more by curiosity and passion than by fear.

And if you drop the egg, call twenty of your friends and enjoy an incredible omelet.

I hope this serves you well,

Dan Miller

This is an excerpt (used with permission) from Dan Miller’s book 48 Days To the Work and Life You Love. You can find out more at https://www.48days.com 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Open letter to the government of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts

Context: Residents of a tiny one-block street called Warfield Place have been fighting to preserve a line of beautiful cherry trees planted several decades ago. The city (pop. 28,726) has claimed  that the street needed to be redone and these trees are at the end of their useful life, while residents said the trees could easily survive for a few more years–and that many other streets with more traffic and worse infrastructure conditions deserved higher priority. Both sides have brought in arborists who support their positions. The residents recently brought in support from national leaders in the Buddhist community, and ordained the trees as Buddhist priests. Neighbors were actively negotiating with the city, as well as seeking help in the courts. Thursday morning, the city brought in heavy equipment and a large police presence and destroyed the trees.

For the numerous stories chronicling the controversy over the past several months, visit http://gazettenet.com and use the search tool at the top to look for “warfield place cherry trees” (nonsubscribers get five free articles per month). See more pictures of the trees in bloom taken by Shel Horowtiz (author of this open letter and owner of this blog) and protest signs at (20+) Facebook

A Warfield Place cherry tree in bloom, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
A Warfield Place cherry tree--close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
A Warfield Place cherry tree–close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
It was shocking to read in yesterday morning’s Daily Hampshire Gazette that the sacred cherry trees the community has fought so hard to preserve that it actually ordained them as Buddhist priests–the trees that hundreds of local residents and many others from farther afield, including several of national stature, signed petitions and joined protests and wrote letters to the editor to save–were torn down with no warning, even while the city was aware that a judge was considering a restraining order, and even while the city and the residents of the street were still negotiating.
The trees were murdered at 9:00 a.m. and the restraining order that would have prevented their untimely death was given at noon.
Why the rush? Why the need to act unilaterally when many people were willing to work out a solution that made sense for all parties: the city, the residents, and of course, the trees?
This is the legacy of Public Works Director Donna LaScaleia and Mayor David Narkewicz. All the considerable good work of the 10-year Narkewicz administration will not sustain its former reputation for progressive policies and fostering democracy. When people remember this adinistration, they will not remember how it stood against racism and for inclusion, how it was a champion of addressing climate change. Their memories will be rooted in this horrible and utterly avoidable incident.
It was an attack not only on these beloved trees, but an attack on democracy–on the ability of people to feel they have influence over their own lives, and their ability to have their concerns listened to, and, hopefully, acted on.
And it was also an attack on separation of powers in government; the city was aware that a judge was considering the injunction that was eventually granted (too late), but couldn’t be bothered to let that process play out.
And of course, removing living trees goes against the Narkewicz administration’s long-stated goals of mitigating climate change locally. Trees are far and away our most effective weapons against climate catastrophe.
I think what may have happened was a felt need to be right at all costs–not to admit that there could have been one of several other ways forward that would have had far more positive outcomes, such as:
  • Harnessing the neighbors’ considerable energy into a working committee that would actively participate WITH the Department of Public Works Director to develop solutions that worked for the city and the residents. Even if the ultimate outcome were the same, the residents would have owned it.
  • Moving Warfield Place off the calendar for a few more years until the trees died naturally, while adding plantings of newer trees so when that day came, the street would have a decent tree-canopy-in-process.
  • Redirecting the construction funds to a city block whose need for repair was undisputed.
This need to be right, to save face, culminated in an extreme wrong. The city engaged in a “process” that not only disenfranchised the Warfield Street residents, ending in a hostile unilateral action–it undermined Northampton’s reputation as a citadel of democracy, a place that values its citizens’ public discourse and involvement. This violation of residents’ real concerns makes it harder for the next administration to get people to even trust–let alone become involved in–city government. And the city has even created a construct where it faces accusations of a hate crime–even though Mayor Narkewicz spent so much of his decade as mayor creating a wonderful climate of acceptance and even embrace of diversity.
It’s very sad. It’s irreversible–the trees are gone, democracy was seriously weakened, and the city’s reputation is in tatters–and it was completely avoidable. I expected better of Northampton and am deeply disappointed.
While we can’t bring the trees back, and this action has done potentially permanent harm to Northampton’s civic virtue, it is still possible to atone. I ask in all seriousness: How, specifically, will the city make restitution? How will this administration restore confidence in the city? How will the city offset the negative climate impacts of the tree destruction? And how will the city make the residents and neighbors of Warfield Place whole again? It won’t be easy, especially this close to the end of this administration, but it has to be done, and done very soon. What exactly is the plan?
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Ethics: General, General Commentary, Gratitude, Innovation, language, People Helping People, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,
Here’s a true incident from my teenage college years. I made a mild request to a group of people and one of my dorm-mates lit into me about how I was always so selfish and didn’t care about other people. It hurt like hell to hear this–but I reflected on it and decided that he had a point. So I changed my behavior. Decades later, I saw him at a reunion and thanked him. He had no memory of the incident, but to me it was a key turning point.

Paths of apology and Forgiveness

Criticism usually has a grain of truth (or sometimes a bushel)–so start by expressing thanks, even if it’s delivered nastily. Especially, then, because listening and appreciating is the only way you’re going to get into a positive outcome with someone who’s hostile. Listen, let them get their feelings out, acknowledge their feelings, meaningfully apologize for your action if that’s appropriate. And even if you don’t feel a need to apologize for the behavior or policy, apologize for upsetting them or making them feel unvalued. Don’t try to explain or justify your action yet. Just listen.And whatever you do, don’t say, “I’m sorry, but…”–that’s not an apology. Keep an ear out for the opportunity to take a specific step that will help, and offer, out loud, to take that step. That might just be informing them ahead the next time, or it might be completely undoing an action. You have to decide how much of the criticism is justified and figure out what the real issue is (which may not be the expressed issue).
Once the other person is done venting and you’ve apologized or de-escalated, you might (but might not) want to ask, “would you like to know why I did it that way? Maybe we could think together about how I could do it differently next time so both of our needs get met.” With this, you make them a partner in your growth, and you increase the likelihood of finding a viable solution for both of you, building a relationship of cooperation, not hostility. But you’re really asking. if they decline, drop it. They don’t want to be your partner in potentially changing their behavior, or maybe they are just tired of doing the work of educating others on an issue that is a sore spot for them.
Abundance thinking applies not just to stuff or lifestyle, but to relationships. This is a strategy to create abundance by welcoming even the nay-sayers. Not only do you get to build a relationship, you discover flaws in your thinking, planning, and action that you might not have seen and can now work around. Who knows–maybe your critics will even become your friends or your business partners.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, language, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Jews, who were forced away from Israel/Palestine more than 2000 years ago, have the “right of return” automatically. They can come and instantly claim Israeli citizenship, and the government helps them resettle–even offering intensive Hebrew language instruction. But Palestinians, who were only forced off their land in 1948, have no such right–even though some of those people are still alive and no one is more than four generations into the exile. Meanwhile, in many parts of the country, Palestinians can’t get building permits from Israeli authorities. “But they still need places to live. They still have children.” So they build illegally, and when Israel wants to up the repression, the government bulldozes these houses.

That inequity made CNN political commentator and journalist Peter Beinart (latest book: The Crisis of Zionism) very uncomfortable. As he struggled with the ethics of this inequality, he began learning more. Beinart is Jewish, has lived in South Africa, Israel, and the US,  and is very aware of the ethical teachings in classical Judaism about treating the stranger well, doing good deeds, being a good guest when you travel to others’ lands, and treating people fairly.

Over 200 people gathered on Zoom June 8, 2021 to hear Beinart discuss the prospects for peace and justice in the Middle East in a program for Critical Connections entitled “Palestinian Rights, Jewish Responsibility.” At least five rabbis were in the room, as were large contingents from both the mainstream and progressive Jewish communities. A number of Muslims were in the audience, as well.

Originally a supporter of two separate states, Beinart now sees that as impossible because of the ways the Israeli government has carved up the West Bank into “Bantustans” with Jewish settlements separating once-contiguous Palestinian areas. Instead, he has joined many Palestinian thinkers in calling for a single multiethnic state, sharing power, with parallel more-or-less autonomous governments for internal governance within each community, and offering equality for all.

Both Israelis and Palestinians would be safer with this model–just as South Africa is safer for whites as well as blacks, and Northern Ireland is safer for both Protestants and Catholics, he says. Once the dominant group gives up its total control and need to dominate, the oppressed group starts to get less hostile because the repression has eased off.

He says the late Israeli writer Amos Oz is wrong in calling for a “divorce” between Israeli and Palestinian society. “The marriage will not be easy. But it is essential.” And just as activists in the US have begun to make land acknowledgements to the indigenous people who had the land before Europeans, “acknowledgments and apologies [for past wrongs] have great healing power.”

Beinart took many tough questions, particularly from mainstream Jews worried about the security of Israeli Jews under that scenario.

  • On antisemitism from the Left: “We cannot deny that some on the Left are antisemitic–especially in recent weeks [during the exchange of bombs and rockets between Israel and Gaza]. All the Palestinian intellectuals and activists I know condemned those acts. But virtually all Palestinians will be anti-Zionist,” because Israel has dispossessed their families. It didn’t help that major Israeli statesmen made incendiary remarks. Abba Eban, for example, claimed that a return to the 1948-67 frontiers would be “Auschwitz borders.” Beinart made this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism several times, and pointed out that the Palestinian statesman Edward Said was on record as appreciating the impetus behind Zionism–though not its effects on his people. Beinart also stood unequivocally against antisemitism from any source: “If Jews are being dehumanized, as Jews, we should speak up.”
  • On whether either side had a right to call the other fascist: He did not feel that Palestinians should see Jews as Nazis. But he also recognizes that there is a massive power imbalance and had strong criticism for those Jews who see Palestinians as akin to the Nazis: “If you see Palestinians as Nazis, you erase the moral responsibility of power. You frame it as survival, but the issue is denial of basic rights.
  • On how to negotiate in good faith: Both sides have made offers, but their offers were unacceptable to the other side. NNo matter how many offers have been tendered, they haven’t been able to reach common ground for a meaningful agreement so far.
  • On the safety of Israeli Jews in a single multicultural state and the danger of falling into Lebanon-style permanent civil unrest: Growing up in South Africa, he noted there was great fear among whites about what would happen when apartheid ended and blacks took power. South Africa is only about 10 percent white, while Israel/Palestine would be much more Jewish. Jews, he said, have enough economic privilege and enough political and social organization to protect their interests. He also noted several important differences between Israel/Palestine and Lebanon: Lebanon had a weak economy, a weak government with weak restraints on executive power, low literacy, and multiple invaders (Israel and Syria).Israel/Palestine is in a much stronger position. It has much higher per capita income and literacy levels, including among Palestinians, which according to political science research is correlated with democratic stability. For Jews, it also has strong judicial, parliamentary and media institutions that check executive power—those are a foundation upon to build in a state that offers equality to Palestinians
  • On whether comparisons between Israel and South Africa’s apartheid-era regime are apt. He noted that Israelis and Palestinians have vastly different experiences on a whole range of situations, from border checkpoints to land claims to obtaining various types of permits–and that numerous Israeli groups have described the occupation as apartheid. I didn’t hear him directly take a position–but he did say, “Self-determination does not mean the right for a given ethnic, religious or racial group to have a state that grants it rights that are denied to people of other ethnic, religious or racial groups in that same state.”
    . And “to be stateless is to be under the power of a government but” not to have the rights afforded citizens, or to have any agency in dealing with state power.
  • On why American Jews need to get involved and not see the conflict as an internal matter that only concerns Israeli Jews: US Jews have skin in the game because our government has a long history of supporting and funding even very extreme Israeli government positions.
  • On how to end anti-Jewish terrorism: “You have to show that nonviolence can work. When you respond by criminalizing BDS [boycott-divestment-sanctions] and calling it antisemitic, you doom nonviolence. [PLO President Mahmoud] Abbas has cooperated on security for 15 years. When you continue building [Jewish West Bank] settlements [despite that cooperation], you strengthen Hamas.” He also praised organizations such as Encounter, that provide opportunities for Jews and Palestinians to meet in structured formats, in a society that makes meaningful contact quite difficult, noting that “Israeli media doesn’t do a good job of presenting the reality of Palestinian existence. He does see hope in social media connections, and described a Clubhouse room that attracted many perspectives and was going 24/7 during the Gaza conflict: “Many of the Israelis were exposed to the Palestinian perspective, some for the first time.” This is a bilateral problem, though; he expressed concern about an “antinormalization” movement among Palestinians..

Author’s note: I have done my best to render material within quote marks as accurately as I can, but they are from handwritten notes–and while accurate in substance and meaning, may vary from his exact words. Also, I’ve grouped comments that were thematically related; this article does not attempt to put Beinart’s remarks in the sequence they were presented.

To read or subscribe to Beinart’s blog, visit peterbeinart.substack.com

Shel Horowitz is Editor of Peace and Politics Magazine and a peace activist for over 40 years. His latest book is Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Consumer Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Democracy, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, General Commentary, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Green Marketing, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, Politics, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

A lead story in my local paper covers a proposed ordinance banning plastic in local businesses, with special attention to food businesses, in the small city of Northampton, MA (a big restaurant destination).

The sponsoring City Councilor is someone I know, and I wrote her this note:

Thanks for your good work on the plastics ordinance. As you know, I’ve been a green guy for 50 years, write books and give talks on greening business. One of my talks is called “Making Green Sexy.” Thus, the concerns I have with the plastics bill you’re championing are not about the intent. I would like to see potential problems addressed before it becomes law–so we avoid a debacle like the one we just had over the Main Street improvements (which I loved) and their sad, swift demise).

My big concern is that “recyclable” food containers aren’t recyclable, because paper and cardboard with food waste is not recyclable. We already know we’re not supposed to recycle pizza boxes. Any food waste in paper for recycling could cause the whole batch (potentially thousands of pounds) to be landfilled. It would make more sense to 1) require compostable, and 2) provide city composting stations in several neighborhoods as well as multiple ones downtown. It makes no sense to require compostable and do nothing to encourage composting. Many people will eat their food while still downtown and won’t be bothered to bring their compostable containers to their home compost pile or may not have access to composting at home.

Second, on the straw issue [banning plastic drinking straws]. Why not simply make an exemption for people with motor disabilities in their arms or mouth. For most businesses, a box of 100 plastic straws would probably last months.

Please share this note with your committee at today’s meeting.

We see over and over again that good intentions, not thought through, create more problems than they solve. The Main Street issue involved the city making its extremely wide Main Street much friendlier to bicyclists, pedestrians, and patrons of restaurant outdoor dining areas (which, in the pandemic, have increased in number tremendously)—but failing to get buy-in from (or even consult with) affected business owners, who agitated successfully, and the mayor removed all the improvements. This was sad, as a better situation returned to a worse one, wasting significant money in the process.

In my mind, the lesson was to think things through before acting.

I got this response, which shows that the councilors are indeed thinking about these issues:

Hi Shel- thanks for your support and counsel! Straws for those with disabilities are exempt. We are requiring reusable or compostable and are working on composting services and bulk buying.

Which then says to me that they’ve got a marketing challenge. The general public doesn’t know about this exemption. They also had a marketing challenge with the Main Street improvements. Getting affected parties to participate in decisions that affect them is always a good strategy. Putting in improvements only to discover that vested interests will fight them is not. The trick is to win over those vested interests before they dig in their heels.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

Guest Post by Robert Hubbell

[Note from Shel: I discovered Robert Hubbell’s 5-times-per week newsletter last fall and immediately became a devotee. Coming from a center-left, pro-Democratic Party perspective, he’s a retired lawyer, a great researcher, and one of the most perceptive political analysts I’ve encountered anywhere. This is the March 29, 2021 edition of his newsletter, in full (reprinted with his permission). Unfortunately, when I copied from the email and pasted, I lost all his formatting and hyperlinks (I added the links I felt were crucial back in, but not his italics). I’ve emphasized a few parts in bold type. If you’d like to subscribe, please visit https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001-oTDvYSKv8YU5Zx86Gk74yggRFimBmzfub5KIYj1SYTKlGBz-UVnt3Vykchgti1ORm6drUerMqIT9IV7eCyEaYd8O66yVspRSOt4DcB_kaY%3D ]

 

As Georgia Republicans do their best to disenfranchise the state’s Black citizens, the Georgia Film Commission invites the entertainment industry to come to Georgia with the friendly slogan, “Let’s make movies, Y’all.” The friendly tone of the Film Commission’s invitation is belied by the state’s criminalization of an act of mercy: handing water to voters standing in unconscionably long lines. It is belied by provisions in the Republican voter suppression bill to reduce the number of early voting days in Georgia. Nor is it friendly, “Y’all,” to limit the number of drop boxes in counties with large populations of Black voters. And it is downright mean-spirited to impose registration requirements for absentee ballots that will impose hardships on poor and elderly voters. Perhaps the Georgia Film Commission should consider modifying its slogan: “Let’s make movies, Y’all—as long as you don’t want Black members of your film crews to be able to vote on equal terms with white crew members.”

Georgia Republicans have re-instituted the Jim Crow era because they believe no one will care. Let’s prove them wrong. Major entertainment companies continue to reward the voter suppression policies of Georgia’s Republicans by accepting the financial inducements to produce films and television shows in Georgia while the GOP voter-suppression bill denies equal protection of laws to its citizens. American consumers should let those companies know how they feel about entertainment content that is produced under the reincarnation of the Jim Crow era. Per the Georgia Film Commission’s page, “Now Filming In Georgia,” the following major companies have multiple productions currently filming in Georgia:

Amazon Emergency
Amazon I Want You Back
Amazon My Best Friend’s Exorcism
CW Black Lightning S4
CW Legacies S3
CW Naomi
CW Power Puff Girls
Disney + Anchor Point
Disney + Jersey
Disney + Just Beyond S1
Disney + She Hulk
Netflix Cobra Kai S4
Netflix First Kill
Netflix Raising Dion S2
Netflix Sweet Magnolias S2

Consider these actions: If you are a fan of an actor in one of these productions, let them know on social media how you feel (so they can tell their producers). If you subscribe to any of the above services (Amazon, CW, Disney+, or Netflix), consider ways of expressing your displeasure over their support of voter-suppression fueled economy created by the Georgia GOP. Tell your friends how they can identify which shows are being produced in Georgia so they can post and share that information on social media. The link is here: Now Filming In Georgia.

An effort is already underway for entertainment companies to pressure Georgia to change its laws. Campaigns to boycott Coca-Cola and the Georgia entertainment industry have already been reported in the media. See NBCNews, “Calls for economic boycott grow after Georgia adopts voter restrictions.” And pressure will mount for Major League Baseball to move the 2021 All-Star Game away from Atlanta. See NJ.com, “MLB players want to discuss possibly moving the All-Star Game after Georgia passes controversial voting laws.”

I receive dozens of emails a month from readers asking, “What can I do now to make a difference?” Here’s a way to make a difference: Join millions of other Americans in telling major corporations that they should not remain silent in the face of efforts by Georgia Republicans to roll back the gains of the last fifty years. Republicans in Georgia currently believe they can have the best of both worlds: A one-party system that remains in power by disenfranchising Black voters and a robust economy fueled by entertainment and sports dollars funded by hundreds of millions of Americans who oppose those policies. Let’s prove Georgia Republicans wrong: They can’t have it all.

Is the Georgia Voter Bill Really that Bad? Yes, It Is.

Republicans in Georgia and commentators in the media have begun a charm offensive that tells Democrats, “Relax! The bill actually expands voter access and increases election integrity.” For example, one reader sent a note saying that on PBS’ News Hour, “David Brooks opined that Georgia’s voting restrictions were theatre and would not have a significant effect. Strangely, neither Judy Woodruff nor Jonathan Capehart disputed this.” Another reader who wants to make sure I don’t get out over my skis on this issue sent a link to an op-ed by Michael Goodwin in The New York Post, “The scare-Crow tactics of Democrats Goodwin.” I appreciate the caution from readers who are helping me in my effort to be an honest broker of information (recognizing, of course, that I do have a political point of view).

Let’s examine the facts. First, despite the barrels of ink spilled over this issue, few commentators refer to the actual language of the bill. The text of the bill is here if you want to fact check me (or others): Senate Bill 202 (as passed). The text of the bill proved difficult to find—because it was passed with haste and stealth. For a bill that Governor Kemp is proclaiming as a major expansion of voter rights, it was sprung on Democrats as a surprise. A two-page Senate bill was amended to a 98-page bill one hour before the committee hearing on the bill. It is barely possible to read the bill in an hour, much less comment on it during a legislative hearing. See Georgia Public Broadcasting “Georgia House Committee Hears Newer, Bigger Voting Omnibus You Haven’t Seen Yet.” If the bill improves voter access and election integrity, why did Republicans keep it a secret until the last minute (literally)? Legislation by ambush suggests a nefarious purpose.

We need not look far to find that nefarious purpose. The bill strips the independently elected Secretary of State of his position as a voting member of the State Elections Board—a position that the Secretary of State has held for fifty years. (Senate Bill 202 at p. 8). It also allows the Republican-controlled state legislators to fire (and replace) local election officials by demanding a “performance review” of local officials who fail to adhere to as-yet-defined performance expectations of GOP legislators. (S.B. 202 at pp. 20-22). What happened in 2020 that prompted Georgia Republicans to hastily change procedures that have been in place for half a century? We all know the answer, so let’s not pretend otherwise: Georgia’s Secretary of State refused to concede to Trump’s corrupt request that he “find” 11,780 votes—the exact number that Trump needed to win in Georgia.

In evaluating the intent and effect of the bill, we need not set aside all common sense and logic. Trump and the GOP failed to overturn a free and fair election that Biden won, and this is their revenge. There is simply no other explanation for the sudden effort to subordinate the previously independent Secretary of State and local election officials to the whims of the GOP-controlled legislature. Notice that Michael Goodwin’s essay in The New York Post fails to mention these nakedly partisan provisions of the bill. They are embarrassed by these provisions—as they should be.

One of the cynical tactics of Georgia Republicans is to include provisions that sound reasonable on their face but that operate to benefit white voters in small counties while disenfranchising Black voters in large counties. To understand how this cynical scheme works, we need to know a little about Georgia’s electoral structure. Elections are run at the county level. Georgia has 159 counties, many of which are tiny from an electoral perspective, and a handful of which are huge. See “Georgia Votes | County Viewer.” Forty-eight of those 159 counties have 10,000 registered voters or fewer. Fulton County, where Atlanta is (mostly) located, has 834,000 registered voters. With that in mind, let’s examine some of the provisions of the bill that allegedly “expand” voter access.

The law mandates that each county provide at least one ballot drop-box. Sounds good, right? But it also limits the ability of counties to deploy additional drop boxes. Under the S.B. 202, counties may “add only one dropbox for every 100,000 active registered voters.” (S.B. 202 at p. 47). Thus, the 48 counties with less than 10,000 voters each receive one dropbox. Fulton County, with 834,000 registered voters, can deploy only 8 drop boxes—one dropbox for every 100,000 voters. That is a wild disparity and is manifestly unfair. But here is where it becomes manifestly racist: The two counties with the largest population of voters—Fulton and Dekalb—also have the largest populations of Black voters. For example, Fulton County has the largest non-white population in Georgia at 595,000. The Demographic Statistical Atlas of the United States – Statistical Atlas. Thus, in counties with large populations of Black voters, there is one dropbox for every 100,000 voters, while in small counties of white voters (ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 voters), there is one dropbox. But to hear Governor Brian Kemp tell it, that provision “expands” voter access. In practice, it does the opposite by making it more difficult for Black voters to use drop boxes.

Another provision touted by the bill’s promoters is that it “requires” early voting for at least a week before an election, with such voting taking place on at least two Saturdays. County clerks have the “option” to include two Sundays of early voting. Sounds great, right? Wrong! The provision actually cuts short the advance voting for run-off elections (like those of Senators Warnock and Ossoff). Prior law mandated three weeks of early voting in run-offs. (See S.B. 202 at 60), and NPR, “Georgia Governor Signs Election Law Limiting Mail Voting.

So, why do GOP legislators claim that reducing early voting from three weeks to one week in run-offs “expands voting access”? Because they make a “finding” in the bill that, “More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday and many counties offered only a single day of weekend voting.” (S.B. 202 at 4.) Hmm. . . that does sound like the bill expands early voting. But wait! The smallest 100 counties in Georgia have voter populations that range from 1,100 to 21,000. In such small counties, multiple weekend voting days are (may be?) unnecessary. But in Counties with large voter populations and large Black populations (e.g. Fulton with 834,000 voters), limiting early voting in run-offs to one week ensures long lines and making Sunday voting “optional” allows GOP election officials the opportunity to undermine a tradition of Black churches for voting on Sunday.

And what about the seemingly innocuous requirement that voters provide a driver’s license number when applying for a mail ballot? Sounds like a wise election security measure, right? Wrong, again! Georgia (and 30 other states) use signature matching for absentee ballots. Mr. Goodwin in his NYPost op-ed claims that signature matching is “unreliable” but fails to identify a single instance of fraud related to signature matching on mail ballots. So, why is signature matching “unreliable”? Because it is a Republican talking point. There was no fraud relating to mail ballots in Georgia in 2020.

If there was no fraud, why change? Because it is more difficult to register for absentee voting if you have to provide a copy of an I.D. If you have a driver’s license or other approved I.D., you can provide your I.D. number. But if you don’t have a driver’s license or other I.D. number, then you must send an electronic COPY of other identification. How many voters in Georgia don’t have a driver’s license or other specified I.D? Fair Fight Action estimates that 230,777 Georgia voters do not have the approved form of I.D. See The Hill, “Georgia’s GOP-led Senate passes bill requiring ID for absentee voting.” If you are poor, elderly, or don’t have a computer, sending an electronic copy of an I.D. may be the difference between being able to vote or not. Again, the requirement sounds reasonable, but the effect makes it harder to vote for the poor and elderly without access to a computer.

Here is another provision of the bill that bears discussion: Any voter may lodge an unlimited (!) number of challenges to the right of other voters to vote!! The local board of registrars must “immediately consider” the challenge and rule promptly. Hmm. What could go wrong with that? Oh, I know! What if a single individual intent on creating chaos challenges thousands of voters in Fulton County just because voters in other states have a similar name? Under S.B. 202, the local board of registrars will be overwhelmed with election challenges in the weeks before an election. This provision is essentially white vigilantism on steroids.

Finally, S.B. 202 limits early voting hours to the period from 9 AM to 5 PM—times when working voters won’t be able to take advantage of early voting! (S.B. 202 at p. 59) Fulton County had previously allowed early voting from 7 AM to 7 PM. See FultonCounty.gov, “Early Voting Locations.” Despite a shortening of hours that will make it more difficult for working people to vote, Governor Brian Kemp wants you to believe the GOP has “expanded” access to the polls. Don’t believe a word he says.

Concluding Thoughts.

I have gone on much too long, but the amount of disinformation being circulated by GOP talking heads—and promoted by the right-wing media—is overwhelming. Do not believe it. S.B. 202 is Trump’s revenge on Black voters in Georgia for electing Joe Biden. This travesty must be stopped.

Let me close by recommending that you read Professor Heather Cox Richardson’s essay on this subject, March 26, 2021 – Letters from an American. Professor Richardson is always superb, but her essay on S.B. 202 is exceptionally fine. Her essay begins:

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed his state’s new voter suppression law last night in a carefully staged photo op. As journalist Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer pointed out, Kemp sat at a polished table, with six white men around him, under a painting of the Callaway Plantation on which more than 100 Black people had been enslaved. As the men bore witness to the signing, Representative Park Cannon, a Black female lawmaker, was arrested and dragged away from the governor’s office.

We must send an unequivocal message to Georgia Republicans that they cannot simultaneously resurrect the Jim Crow era and enjoy the economic benefits of a diverse and open economy. Tell a friend.

Talk to you tomorrow!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Innovation, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

If you’re wondering how social entrepreneurship works at a marquis company, try this New York Times interview with Patagonia’s recent CEO, Rose Marcario.

I’ve cited Patagonia many times as an example of a company that gets a lot of things right. Social responsibility is part of its DNA and has been from the very beginning. I was very intersted to learn about some of the initiatives under Marcario’s leadership, and particularly the open embrace of political activism.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican senators,


Before you vote not to convict, please consider a few things:

  1. If you are worried about a primary challenge from Trump supporters, put those worries aside. If you vote to acquit, you will face a challenge from at least one person who believes in the Constitution. It might be in the primary, it might be in the general election, and it might be both. If you are worried about death threats if you vote to acquit, that is one of the strongest reasons not only to convict but to make sure that those identified as committing violent acts on January 6th are swiftly brought to justice and serving long prison terms. Appeasement of bullies didn’t work with Hitler, didn’t work with Trump, and won’t work with a bunch of white nationalist hoodlums. Giving in will only embolden them and make it less safe for you as you try to do your job in a climate of increasing street violence by heavily armed thugs.
    Noose erected by rioters at the Capitol. January 6, 2021
    A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.
  2. It is in your self-interest to make sure as many as possible are identified, arrested, and convicted. Potential future rioters must know ahead of time that they will face major consequences for threatening the lives and safety of our elected representatives and for vandalizing our public spaces. And for those of you considering a run for president in 2024, you don’t want to face him again i the primaries.
  3. If you are one of those who voted to impeach or convict President Clinton for not keeping his pants zipped and lying about it, recognize that what the 45th president did was far, far worse. He even tried to turn House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s desperate plea for help during the insurrection into  “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” I don’t justify Clinton’s conduct. I only ask you to look at why you were willing to throw one president out of office for something that only affected himself, his family, and Ms Lewinsky but are not willing to hold accountable another who is entire presidency was mired in corruption, ending in clear incitement to overthrow our system of government.
  4. If there were pipe bombs planted in advance of the January 6th insurrection, doesn’t that only provide more evidence to the Impeachment Managers’ argument that the incitement didn’t start on January 6th? It started well before the election.
  5. This is your last chance to have history cast you in a positive light. Do you want to be remembered for understanding that your country, your republic, is more important to you than being loyal to a man who has been loyal to no one, even willing to throw fiercely loyal Vice President Pence and Attorney General Barr to the wolves because he saw even them as so insufficiently loyal that Pence’s personal safety was not a matter of concern? Or do you want to be remembered as such a coward that you put your chances of re-election–which will be no sure thing even if you vote to acquit, as I’ve noted above–ahead of your oath of office?

The choice is yours. History is watching. Do the right thing. Vote to convict.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,
Dear (in alphabetical order) Representatives Castro, Cicilline, Dean, DeGette, Lieu, Plaskett, Neguse, Raskin, and Swalwell
 
In the weeks since the coup attempt at the Capitol, I was unaware of the 2-minute video shown at Trump’s rally until yesterday. The article in Just Security (link is near the bottom of this post) analyzes this video in detail. Please read the analysis before watching the video–you will notice a lot more as you view the film, including many images that flash by too quickly for the casual viewer to notice, but they still do their work on the viewers’ brains.

The analysis clearly demonstrates that 1] the Trump agenda for January 6 was to incite an insurrection, 2] this was planned ahead of time, and 3] Trump was actively involved in making this movie and choosing to show it at the rally. And this might be the item that convinces more Republicans to convict.

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.

 As someone who has studied marketing, I recognize in this analysis many instances of subliminal/hypnotic brain manipulation of the sort described in dozens of books including such classics as The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard (1957) and Subliminal Seduction by Wilson Bryan Key (1974)–not to mention the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Tack this onto two months of prepping his followers to repudiate the election results as a “steal,” and it is a recipe for rebellion.
 
Here is the first paragraph from the analysis. I urge you to read the entire article, but at least the section entitled “II. The Movie Shown at the Ellipse”

On January 6, Trump supporters gathered at a rally at Washington DC’s Ellipse Park, regaled by various figures from Trump world, including Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani. Directly following Giuliani’s speech, the organizers played a video. To a scholar of fascist propaganda, well-versed in the history of the National Socialist’s pioneering use of videos in political propaganda, it was clear, watching it, what dangers it portended. In it, we see themes and tactics that history warns pose a violent threat to liberal democracy. Given the aims of fascist propaganda – to incite and mobilize – the events that followed were predictable.

Thank you for your service as an Impeachment Manager. The American people are rooting for your success. This man needs to be banned from ever holding office again.

Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

 

 
 
Sincerely,
Shel Horowitz
Marketing consultant to social entrepreneurs, speaker, and award-winning author of eight marketing books
Transformpreneur at Going Beyond Sustainability

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Business Ethics, Business-general, Corporate Social Responsibility, Entrepreneurship, Environment, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice

Chris Brogan noted in this morning’s newsletter:

For decades, the rule has been “no politics nor religion in business.” That’s gone. If you say nothing or try to stay neutral, you’re voting. If a company takes money and does business with an organization a person doesn’t support, this might be grounds to do business elsewhere.
He’s absolutely right. If you don’t declare your values, the world assumes you support the status quo. And when the status quo is untenable, that choice is not good for business.
Here’s how to get out of that rut.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail