Category: Demographics/Psychographics

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

Trying to make sense of these complex issues isn’t easy. It’s something most progressive Jews struggle with constantly. This is very much a personal piece, based on grappling with this situation since I was a small child. I don’t claim that this post speaks for anyone other than myself.

To complicate things, the words “zionism” and “antisemitism” have wildly different meanings to different people. I define zionism as the tenet that Jews, like other ethnic and cultural groups around the world, have the right to a homeland of our own.

The version of zionism I was raised with was an idealistic extrapolation of this principle that embraced the social experiments in Israel, such as intentional communities (notably the kibbutz and the moshav), women’s equality extending even to compulsary military service, and the commitment to agriculture and reforestation that would “make the desert bloom” as it had in biblical times. This happy, upbeat vision even had a soundtrack: happy, upbeat Israeli songs in Modern Hebrew such as “Tzena, Tzena,” popularized here in the US by the politically progressive quartet The Weavers in 1951.

But it was also rooted in the shameful slogan, “a land with no people for a people with no land”: a racist lie that ignored the thousands of years of Palestinian history dating back at least as far as the Old Testament battles with the Philistines, a lie that was used to justify the Naqba (also spelled Nakba)—the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians from what is now Israel—and the continuing oppression of Palestinians both within the Green Line that marked Israel’s 1948 borders and in the West Bank and Gaza, which are still majority-Palestinian but have been under Israel’s control since the 1967 war.

Another myth underpinning the idealistic version of zionism is the idea that Israel, the lone democracy and only non-Muslim country in the region, was our democratic outpost, the only place championing human rights in a region that was openly hostile to Jews and to Israel: the little David surrounded by heavily armed Arab Goliaths who wanted to drive Israel into the sea.

The human rights champion part would be great if it were true. But Israel’s society is stratified. In 1986, when we first visited, there was still a clear prejudice in favor of Jews of Eastern European origin or born in Israel or Palestine; Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal were second-class citizens, third class for those from Turkey, Iran, and the Arab countries, fourth class for those from Africa—and the non-Jewish Arab populations, whether Muslim, Christian, or Druze, were at the very bottom.

The first two classes had integrated by the time we returned in 2014, but the rest of the stratification remained. Discrimination against Arabs and Palestinians remains rampant. From roadside checkpoints to destruction of their villages and orchards, long imprisonments, and more, Israel has fomented oppressive conditions for the populations under its heel.

This certainly didn’t start under Netanyahu, but he has made it much worse, culminating in the genocide of the Gaza war and its continuing aftermath.

Another strain of zionism is the post-Holocaust push for a Jewish homeland so there would always be a refuge for Jews, historically marginalized, ostracized, expelled, and murdered for more than a thousand years—a way of giving teeth to the “Never again” slogan that sprouted as the truth of those awful years started to come out. It was that experience that gave wings to the dream of a Jewish state.

The movie “Israelism” is a really good analysis of how we Jews in the US were raised to believe we were doing good for the world in our zionism—how good a job the propagandists for Israel did at inculcating these messages and beliefs across US Jewish society—even as our heroes from David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weitzmann to Golda Meir secretly embraced ethnic cleansing and driving the Palestinians out.

*                                   *                                   *

Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. It’s an odd choice of word, because Arabs are also Semitic peoples. For progressive Jews, it is something completely separate from criticism of Israel or sympathy to the Palestinian cause. I claim a right to criticize Israel, just as I criticize the government of my own country (especially in its brutal and disgusting current incarnation). In fact, I’ve criticized and protested against every US president since Nixon, who was elected when I was eleven—yes, even Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. They all did things I thought were wrong, and I wasn’t shy about writing letters or showing up for—or even organizing—demonstrations or lobbying my elected officials to change those policies.

But in the right-wing Jewish world, any criticism of the Israeli government, even the current genocidal one that by comparison makes even the horribly cruel Stephen Miller look relatively tame, is labeled antisemitism. Ditto any endorsement of the Palestinian cause. Somehow, these people can’t envision a world that has room for both Jewish and Palestinian homelands.

These would-be censors have gone so far as to add a rider to a military spending bill protecting Israel from boycotts. This passed the US House last September but, thankfully, as far as I can tell, has not been taken up in the Senate. We’ve also seen the punishment of pro-Palestinian students such as Lebanese Mahmoud Khalil and Turkish Rumeysa Ozturk, imprisoned and deported (Khalil) or threatened with deportation (Ozturk) over their criticism of Israel.

This ridiculous conflation of opposing the Israeli government with hating Jews goes back decades. In the 80s, I was in a group called New Jewish Agenda that advocated a two-state solution. For this, we were ostracized and marginalized within the mainstream Jewish community. We did not get speaking opportunities at synagogues. I am amazed to watch Jewish Voice for Peace emerge from similar marginalization in recent years to become the main US Jewish voice for Palestinian rights. I’ve been thrilled to see integrated Israeli-Palestinian peace groups such as Combatants for Peace and Standing Together get those synagogue speaking opportunities in the last 20 years or so.

And yet that right-wing narrative is so embedded in mainstream Jewish institutions that I know many people who are in pretty much basic agreement with me on so many other issues but can’t overcome their own Islamophobia or anti-Arab bias. They still see any criticism of Israel, especially from non-Jews, as antisemitism. They call NYC Mayor Sohran Mamdani, who constantly makes pro-Jewish statements and has Jewish advisors, an antisemite even as they paint their signs for the next No Kings march—because Mamdani has accurately called out the Netanyahu government’s war crimes, protection of anti-Arab extremists, and oppression of its own Palestinian population.

In fact, this post was inspired by a conversation on Facebook that started with me praising Mamdani for his comment in response to having higher poll ratings than Netanyahu among NYC Jews: “My focus is on delivering for each and every New Yorker, and I’m proud to be the mayor of the city with the largest Jewish population in the country” and pointing out that he has made many pro-Jewish statements in his time campaigning for and serving as Mayor.

That generated two comments from this camp. “I am not at all impressed with him. His stance on Israel and Jews is dangerous and deplorable.” and, in response, “I agree. Look, he’s entitled to his opinion about the Middle East. But keep it to yourself, Zohran. Your job is to make NYC a more liveable city. Focus on that and you’ll get great support. Stop talking about Bibi (who I dislike, too, but for different reasons).”

My immediate response was:

I have actively looked into a bunch of accusations that claim Mamdani is antisemitic. If I could find any, I’d immediately stop supporting him. However, what I find each time are the ACCUSATIONS of antisemitism rather than any actual speech or action that is against Jews. He has been loud and consistent in condemning Netanyahu and Israel’s present government, yes. But that’s not antisemitism. It is condemning genocidal, brutal attacks on Palestinians and Lebanese and claiming to do so in the name of all Jews. Well, I am Jewish and I condemn Netanyahu and his genocide. Just as I speak out as a citizen of the US against the brutal policies of this government and its insistence that the government only has to represent right-wing so-called able-bodied, cis, straight, mostly male Christian Nationalists—who are not Christian, if you read Christ’s words—so I speak out against what is happening in my name over there.
What’s even worse is the way right-wing Jews insist on conflating criticism of Israeli policies with hating Jews. IMHO, that leads directly to more antisemitism, because the haters say, “look, the Jews are telling us that all Jews support Israel’s government and that government represents all Jews. THAT leads to wildly negative outcomes. Ignorant people will ingest that sick messaging and then commit pogroms—just as ignorant people in the US right have attacked immigrants, trans people, and others who got on this administration’s bad side.
This post is a longer response.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, language, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , ,

This post started on Facebook, as a response to replies to this article by an Israeli expat living in the US who’s an expert on genocide, which I posted on April 22. There’s a spirited discussion going on at that post, which you can read by clicking on this sentence. Be sure to read the replies to the comments, and the replies to the replies—and to make sure that you’re viewing either “all comments” or “newest” and not “most relevant,” which will block some of the responses.

What follows is a response to Richard, who defends Zionism as providing a safe haven for Jews in a world that never had one before, a place where Jews can seek refuge from the pogroms of their particular generation—and to Robert, the person he was responding to, who posted that trauma often begets trauma, unless there is a deliberate effort to “alchemize” it into something positive, and who criticizes Zionism as “designed by colonialist and brutally implemented, and is now more ruthless than ever.” It’s posted there as a reply to Robert

This post is a substantial expansion of what I wrote—with considerable updating here but not in the original response, including several links to back up my claims:

Robert, Zionism had two impulses: One was protection against antisemitic violence, as Richard so eloquently describes in his response to you. The other was the one we progressives were hoodwinked into believing: that this was the chance to create a utopia, a place where women and men were equal, a place to recover a desert “land with no people for a people with no land”—(as I was told at the yeshivas [Jewish day schools] I attended as an elementary school student and again in the meetings of the Jewish Student Union at my secular city-wide high school), a semi-socialist endeavor based on cooperation.

It’s a bit hard to find, but the movie, “Israelism,” has an excellent analysis of how that idealism didn’t match the reality on the ground. Something I don’t remember if the movie addresses is the way the land itself was colonized. In my childhood, we were always sending money to the Jewish National Fund to plant trees in Israel. But just as we didn’t know about the Palestinians forced into exile, we also didn’t know that JNF was ripping out native species to plant non-native pine forests that have not been kind to the ecosystem—and of course, the Israeli government frequently bulldozes Palestinian olive trees in retaliation for perceived injuries, while Israel also often narrows the land of the local Palestnians so the settlers end up harvesting stolen oil.

The racist plans of Golda and Ben-Gurion [Perplexity.ai search for “statements against arabs from David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir made before 1967”, conducted April 24, 2026) were not in the open, and neither was the reality that, ahem, this was NOT “a land with no people.” It was a land whose people had largely been kicked out in 1948. So you had the yin and the yang, protection from evil and creation of good. But the creation of good was largely built on a lie and certainly doesn’t match the cruelty of today’s Israeli government agains tthe people their parents and grandparents threw off their land. Yes, Palestinians within the Green Line can vote and even have representation in the Knesset. But they have been actively discriminated against the whole time, just as Blacks in the US have been. Housing and job opportunities are not equal. Open racism is common.

Richard, I’ve been to Israel twice, in 1986 and again in 2014. Both times, Dina and I have sat and talked with Palestinians—and on the first trip, we interviewed several leaders of different organizations within the Israeli peace movement. We stayed part of the time with a Palestinian family in the Galilee, part of the time with my right-wing settler relatives, and even in an Arab-owned hotel in East Jerusalem. And we visited the ultrareligious Yiddish-speaking branch of my family that had fled to Israel to escape the Holocaust. On the first trip, we stayed in a traditional kibbutz, and on the second trip, a kibbutz for people in the Transcendental Meditation world. My right-wing Orthodox sister made Aliyah [moved to Israel] with her husband and three of their four grown children, who have all had kids born in Israel.

So I have sat down and broken bread with people on all sides of the spectrum—including a man who was ten years old in 1948 when the soldiers told his family they’d be back in their homes in two weeks. That was not a planned encounter; he was conducting a one-person Occupy movement at the one surviving building (the Orthodox church) in his childhood village WITHIN the Green Line, which the Israelis had bulldozed and turned into a national park that he now had to pay to enter.

That interview was conducted in Hebrew and translated for us by our host, a Dutch Holocaust refugee. He and his fellow refugee wife were two of the three Jews in a Druze village (the third was an elderly woman we didn’t get to meet, the last of her line, whose family managed to stay during the Babylonian Exile of 70 A.D. when the Jews were thrown out of present-day Israel). He also took us around to meet a bunch of his neighbors. And this couple were also the custodians of the actual carob tree that sustained Shimon Bar Yochai when he was hiding out from the Romans in a cave, 2000 years ago.

To me, if Zionsm is to remain viable, it MUST “alchemize” into something far more humane—something that would bring reality to the Koolaid we collectively swallowed as the utopian vision that didn’t exist was spooned out to us through a wall of lies, false promises, and exceptionalism. In its current form, not only is it attacking others, it also makes Jews LESS safe around the world. This is in part because conservative elements of the Jewish community insist on conflating antizionism with antisemitism—a conflation that I utterly resist and abhor. This division within the Jewish community is not new. It goes back at least as far as the founding of modern Israel in 1948.

But most Jews who get interviewed on national newscasts—politicians and college presidents, assorted right-wing pundits—claim that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, and punish anti-Zionists (Palestinians especially, but also groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace). At the same time, the current US government has weaponized false claims of antisemitism to extort money from universities and attempt to control college curricula and suppress student activities—while, ironically, waving a banner of free expression.

These actions from the government and from right-leaning Jewish officials give the real enemies of Jews something to cling to and organize around, and creates a climate where hate crimes against Jews are somehow seen as forgivable because those who attack Jews just because they’re Jews can claim that Jews themselves have said that Jews must support the Israeli government’s vicious actions. We Jews are stereotyped as suppoters of an evil empire, and thus fair game for whatever mayhem comes our way. Thus, they claim they’re just opposing the racist and brutal incarnation of Zionism as conducted by the Netanyahu government.

Netanyahu has given advocates of peace and human rights real things to worry about (e.g., the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and looking the other way when Israeli settlers attack Palestinian civilians in the West Bank or within the Green Line)—never mind that a huge percentage of Jews both in Israel (which has had a massive peace movement for decades, though it had to rebuild after the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7, 2023) and in the Diaspora.

It’s important to note that many of these right-wing ideologues spouting this nonsense identify as so-called Christian Nationalists (not Christian at all, if you read Christ’s teachings, as I have). And many have a public history of antisemitism themselves. Here are some of the president’s anti-Jewish remarks and actions. And here are more of them (slight overlap) along with notes on antisemitism from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., FBI Director Kash Patel, and several other appointees.

I condemn the violence on all sides, including the violence of lies that demonize either people.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business-general, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Entrepreneurship, Frugality/Frugal Fun, Green Business, Green Marketing, Innovation, language, Mindset, Psychology, Publishing, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

Sixteen years after it was published, I’m reading Seth Godin’s book, Linchpin. I read his blog daily and have read several of his books. I also have a copy of an even earlier one, Purple Cow, on my to-read table.

His thesis is that workers should make themselves indispensable—not as prima donnas who nobody can work with, but as innovators who add far more value than they’re paid for because they take joy in it. And that managers should be eager to hire those folks and give them leeway and support to bring their A-game creativity, rather than crushing their souls in a rigid corporate culture.

One of Seth’s mantras has always been “ship your product.” Get it done, send it out into the world, and then tweak it. That’s what Apple and Microsoft both do (as we millions of unwilling beta testers can attest). That’s what Walt Whitman did, with his nine(!) different editions of Leaves of Grass, each time adding poems, changing the typeface, using a different author picture. And that’s what I’ve done with two series of marketing books, each of which started as a small self-published book, went to a major publisher, and then to a smaller publisher. So six of my ten books are actually series, with each new title more comprehensive, more up-to-date. I could easily write a fourth in each series, as a lot has changed since the most recent ones came out.

All well and good. BUT I take issue with Seth’s statement, “the only purpose of starting is to finish.”

I understand why he says this. He says many times in this book that real artists finish projects. His audience for that remark is the dreamers who doodle something amazing but never build it, never test it in the real world, never refine, iterate, or ship. To him, those folks are no better than the corporate cogs. But I do finish projects, when finishing the project makes sense. Thus, for me, starting a project is a way of exploring whether it’s worth completing.

As noted, I’ve written ten books. But I’ve probably written at least a dozen proposals or at least outlines for books I never wrote, not to mention dozens of unfinished blog posts, etc. I’m not a bad person because I didn’t finish those projects. In the 1990s, I wrote proposals like How to Find Your Next 10,000 Ideas and Sunshine on Your Shoulders (an ordinary person’s guide to renewable energy). The idea book was originally aimed at writers and called How to Find Your Next 10,000 Article Ideas.

Then I realized it would also be useful to clergy writing sermons, teachers doing lesson plans, and of course, inventors (among many others). I didn’t want to publish that one myself and I think I did send it around—with a sample chapter on finding ideas in classified ads, so maybe it’s just as well that I had no takers. The chapter would have been obsolete within a few years—and now, you could just ask an AI engine and get back hundreds of ideas per minute.

For the sunshine book, I realized that even though I’d already been doing marketing copywriting for green businesses and nonprofits for more than a decade (and by now,  for more than four decades), I didn’t have the technical knowledge and there was no way to keep up because that world was evolving almost daily. It would have been obsolete before it even went to press. But I had to write the outline to figure that out. Starting and not finishing the proposal was the right choice,  because the proposal made it clear that I didn’t want to put in enough effort to become expert in a sector that was and still is changing constantly.

Around 2003, I started revising my 1995 book on having fun cheaply. I completely overhauled and rewrote a couple of chapters, mostly adding information about Internet resources for things like travel planning. Then it hit me that it had taken me eight years of hard work to sell through a small print run of 2000 copies. I did a lot of things right, had major press coverage from the Christian Science Monitor to Redbook, did tons of radio interviews—but this book had only a very small market, because frugalists don’t like to spend money on books. I asked myself why I was putting so much effort into a book I already knew would be a flop, and I stopped working on the rewrite.

Abandoning all of those incomplete projects were each smart business decisions.

In 2020, during the pandemic, I came up with a great idea for a book: Leveraging the Great Pivot: How the Post-Pandemic Era Could Be Different, and Better: Long-Term Post-COVID Opportunities for Racial Justice, Economic Advancement, and Environmental Healing. This would have been a huge, sweeping book that had the potential to alter society for the better—IF I could successfully leverage it and get it in front of major influencers.

Again, this wasn’t one I would publish myself. I wrote a strong proposal that included about 90 people I’d try to interview (some famous, some not); annotated competitive title analysis with sales ranks; a summary of the marketing strategy including a named charity partner I’d worked with before, and more. I had the proposal pretty close to finished but never completed it. I suspect that once the first COVID vaccines were announced, I realized that taking one to two years to write the book and the publisher then taking at least another year to publish meant that the book  would be written for a world that no longer existed by the time it came out. And I wasn’t ambitious enough to rush it into production, especially because I recognized that rushing would mean a book of lower quality, that I’d be less proud of, and would be less effective in fostering the creation of that new world.

Instead, I suggested to one of my book shepherding clients that she put her full-length book project on hold until working at offices was a thing again, and instead spend three months to write and publish an ebook on thriving during the crisis. This was quite different from the book I’d have written and was not going to create any moment to completely reinvent the world—but helping her through it satisfied my need to make some difference in that crazy time.

Side question: How might Seth write it differently in today’s AI age? While we’ve evolved from the days where many people had no goal other than to be a replaceable but steadily employed cog in a factory, how do we re-evolve when machines can do almost everything we do, and do it much faster and less expensively (but, so far, not as well). He is a futurist who’s been aware of AI for a long time, and who both uses AI extensively and has a lot of criticisms of it—so maybe it wouldn’t be any different. But maybe it would be completely different.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Innovation, localism/locavore, Mindset, Networking, Politics, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

One of the strongest local economy advocates I know is Michael Schuman, who publishes the Main Street Journal. Today, he took on the US president’s attempts to strongarm voters and rig the election. And then he noted that David Plouffe, a key advisor in Obama’s successful “out of nowhere”run for the presidency in 2008, has said that demographically, he can’t win.

Schuman says the way to defeat Plouffee’s defeatism is to get half a million Democrats to move to states where T narrowly squeaked by in 2024. North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana all went GOP by less than 150,000 votes. These states are contiguous with each other—so, if that shift happened, we’d have an entire new liberal REGION bordering progressive Minnesota on the east and with only a thin strip of the Idaho Panhandle separating it from progressive Washington to the northwest. And it’s worth remembering that as recently as 1979, George McGovern—probably still the most progressive major-party presidential candidate in my lifetime—was the more conservative senator from South Dakota.

I agree that Plouffe is wrong. And so are all those pundits who keep howling at us that the Dems need to move way to the right.

But I’m not convinced that Michael Schuman’s solution is the way to get there. First, it’s going to be very hard to find those half million people willing to start their lives over for a hope of shifting their new state blue. Second, it’s going to be even harder to coordinate that effort so that just enough people land in the right districts in each of the swingable states. Third, there’s no guarantee it will work. Republicans would get wind of it and work much harder to get their base out or to recruit new residents of their own.

Fourth, and most importantly, a new culture doesn’t easily impose itself on an already established culture. I am a New York City native living in a rural area, on a working dairy farm in Massachusetts. My neighbors have 600 cows. New YorkCity values and lifestyles won’t work here. You want to build quality relationships with your neighbors, and that doesn’t happen by storming in, taking over, and stomping on the opinions and values of your neighbors. I seasoned for 17 years in a small college town and learned to be “bicultural” before I made the big move to the farm. If the existing communities feel disrespected, there will be no progress.

Here’s what I suggest instead: The Dems could finally figure out how to talk about real issues that working people care about without negating the social equity and environmental justice pieces. They need a lot more candidates like AOC, Bernie, and Mamdani, who’ve shown that we can move mountains if we organize where people are, and we don’t need to sacrifice the justice agenda to do it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, language, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 From today’s NY Times email newsletter, “The Morning”:

President Trump does not seem interested in de-escalating anything in Minneapolis. This week, he said that one justification for the shooting of Renee Good might have been that she had been “disrespectful” to officers. Being disrespectful is a form of speech, though — one protected by the Constitution.

With Trump, it’s always a clue that if he accuses someone of bad behavior, he is doing/has done it himself. This is on the same day that news broke about Trump giving the finger and two F-bombs to a Ford employee who called him out as a “pedophile protector”—which the Times mentioned in that same newsletter. The link above is to The Guardian, because the Times uses paywalls.

But Trump showing the emotional maturity of a two-year-old yesterday is just the latest in a lifetime flinging insults at individuals, groups, and whole countries. This is what he said about racism in 1989  (followed by the response decades later by a Black commentator whose offer to Trump to tour Baltimore after Trump disparaged that city was declined). 1989 was also the year he ran a full-page ad in all four of NYC’s daily newspapers calling for the death penalty for five Black youths falsely convicted of rape and later exonerated.

And ever since he rode that golden escalator to announce his candidacy in 2015, it’s been a nonstop barrage. He mocked a reporter’s physical disability. He called Africa, Haaiti, and El Salvador “shithole countries” and called for increased immigration from Norway (a White-predominant country) in 2018 and—just a month ago, on December 9, 2025—not only admitted the comment (which he’d denied at the time) but bragged about it and added Somalia to the list. For years, his racism led him to deny that Obama was born in the US. If that lie were true, Obama would have been ineligible to serve as President. He repeatedly attacks and insults his opponents—Biden and Harris, of course—but even former loyalists that he drove away, including then-Vice President Mike Pence and one of his biggest loyalists in Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene. And his history of insulting and objectifying women—individuals as well as women as a class—is just as bad as his racism and ableism.

Worst of all, the vile xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric of his first campaign and term has not just increased. It has morphed into something truly evil: a war against immigrants that empowers a poorly trained, poorly vetted goon squad army of ICE and CBP agents to rain terror down on immigrant neighborhoods, whose residents are snatched from cars, homes, workplaces, and even their immigration court hearings—with zero due process and extreme violence—and sent to far-away gulags in the US and in countries where these victims have no connection. The conservative Cato Institute lists a multipronged attack on immigrants and citizens, from revoking legal status of people who came here legally to multiple attacks on the Constitution and due process. This is unlike anything in US history. It’s even more extreme than the detention of Japanese immigrants and descendants during World War II—for which the US has apologized and made reparations. Many US citizens have been caught in these sweeps and illegally detained. And much of what ICE is doing is a wildly illegal expansion of the powers they are chartered with. They are not supposed to take a police role other than in matters of illegal immigration (as I document in the Appendix, below). And they are not supposed to shoot people. Yet, Time Magazine reports today that  “Immigration agents have fired at or into civilian vehicles in at least 13 instances since July.” That would include the two people shot since the murder of Renee Nicole Good last week, in Portland, Oregon. At least four of those were fatal. Add to that the 32 people who died in ICE custody in the past year.

Trump’s hypocrisy takes many other forms, too. Examples:

  1. He’s praising protesters in the streets of Tehran even as he decries them in any state that voted for Kamala Harris.
  2. Killing more than 100 Venezuelan sailors (95 as of November when this article was written), then invading the country and kidnapping its (admittedly thuggish) leader on the pretext of interdicting drugs, but pardoning the biggest drug dealer of them all, former President Hernandez of Honduras. Of course, we all know and he hasn’t tried to hide that it’s really about the oil.
  3. Claiming to be a law-and-order president but inciting the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol and then pardoning even those rioters who physically attacked police officers.

Please let your Representative and two Senators in the US Congress know that you find this unacceptable and you want them to withhold funding from ICE until it starts obeying all relevant laws on search and seizure, delineation of responsibility, due process, and use of force. If they balk at that, defund the agency at least until Minnesota is allowed to fully participate in the investigation of Good’s murder—and then keep pressing for more accountability. And please share this post widely.

 

Appendix: Perplexity.AI Report on what ICE is and is Not Allowed to Do

I asked Perplexity, the AI engine I tend to use for serious research and factchecking, “In what situations is US Immigration and Customs Enforcement allowed or not allowed to act as local police do?” Because both AI and traditional search engines may or may not return the same results for the same search, and because AI results are not written by a human and therefore not subject to copyright, I’m copying the entire answer. Drawing on ten different sources including the BBC, the Massachusetts state government website, and the ACLU, it is quite illuminating:

 is a federal civil immigration agency, not a general police force, so it can enforce federal immigration and certain federal criminal laws but cannot simply “act like” local police enforcing state or local law. Its actions are further limited by the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and by how much local police choose or are allowed (under state law) to cooperate.?

What ICE is allowed to do

  • Enforce federal immigration law. ICE can stop, detain, and arrest people it has probable cause to believe are removable (deportable) from the U.S., and can place them in immigration detention and initiate deportation cases.?

  • Enforce certain federal crimes. ICE can investigate and bring cases involving immigration-related crimes like human trafficking, document fraud, and smuggling under federal criminal statutes.?

  • Make public?space arrests with probable cause. In public places, ICE may arrest someone if agents have probable cause the person is removable and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained; they may also execute valid arrest warrants in public.?

  • Enter homes with judicial warrants or consent. ICE may enter a private home only with the occupant’s voluntary consent or a judicial warrant signed by a judge; an internal ICE “administrative” warrant alone does not authorize entry into a private residence.?

  • Conduct raids and surveillance within legal limits. ICE can conduct operations at homes, workplaces, and in communities and can use data collection and digital surveillance tools, subject to constitutional limits on searches and seizures.?

  • Request help from local law enforcement. ICE can ask local agencies to notify them when someone is being released or to hold a person briefly through “detainers,” and can enter formal agreements (287(g)) that deputize some local officers to perform limited immigration functions.?

What ICE is not allowed to do

  • Cannot enforce state or local non?immigration laws. ICE does not have authority to enforce purely state or local offenses (like routine traffic violations or most state criminal laws) unless a separate federal authority applies.?

  • Cannot enter homes using only an ICE form. An ICE administrative warrant (Form I?200/I?205) does not let agents force their way into a private home; without consent or a judicial warrant, they must stay outside or in common/public areas.?

  • Cannot force local police to act as immigration officers. Local agencies cannot be compelled to carry out civil immigration enforcement; they decide whether to cooperate, and many jurisdictions legally limit that cooperation.?

  • Cannot use detainers as binding orders. ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory orders; local agencies may violate state law or the Constitution if they hold someone past their release time without proper legal authority.?

  • Must comply with the Constitution. ICE arrests, searches, and detention are constrained by the Fourth Amendment and due process requirements, just like other law enforcement; unconstitutional stops, searches, or holds can lead to liability.?

How ICE differs from local police

  • Scope of authority. Local police are generalists enforcing broad state and local criminal laws within a limited geographic area, while ICE has a narrow subject?matter focus (immigration and related federal crimes) but nationwide reach.?

  • Civil versus criminal. Much of what ICE does is civil (removal/deportation) rather than criminal prosecution, so ICE can detain someone for immigration violations even when no crime is charged, which is different from typical local policing.?

  • Limits on cooperating with ICE. Many cities and states have “sanctuary” or similar policies that allow cooperation on serious criminal matters but forbid or restrict participation in routine civil immigration enforcement.?

When ICE and local police can overlap

  • Joint operations on crime. Local police may work with ICE when investigating federal crimes (for example, human trafficking or gang cases) where immigration issues also arise.?

  • 287(g) agreements. Under 287(g) “jail?enforcement” agreements, certain local jail officers are trained and authorized to perform specific immigration tasks (like issuing charging documents or detainers) under ICE supervision, but they still must follow constitutional and state?law limits.?

  • Information sharing and notifications. Where allowed by state and local law, police may share booking information or give ICE notice of a person’s release, even if they cannot legally hold the person longer just because ICE asked.?

Situations where ICE is more restricted than local police

  • Protected or sensitive areas (policy?based). For years, ICE policies limited enforcement in places like schools, hospitals, and churches, though recent DHS actions have rescinded some of those “sensitive location” protections; policy can be more restrictive than what the Constitution alone requires.?

  • Entering private spaces. Local police with state?court warrants for state crimes may enter a home to arrest a suspect; ICE, by contrast, often relies on administrative warrants that do not permit entering a home without consent, so ICE’s ability to mimic a home arrest by local police is more limited.?

If you want, a follow?up can focus specifically on how these rules work in Massachusetts and what they mean for day?to?day interactions with ICE.

 
 
 
 

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, Gratitude, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Innovation, language, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, media-general, Mindset, People Helping People, poverty, propaganda, Psychology, Publishing, Science, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Technology Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“We have built the safest civilisation in human history while convincing ourselves that we live in the most dangerous. Billions of people experienced measurable improvements in health, safety, and material conditions in 2025. That progress didn’t make the news. But it happened anyway, one vaccine, one school meal, one kilowatt-hour at a time.”
—Angus Hervey, Fix the News

From Fix the News, one of several good-news publications I receive—and one that skews toward science-based progress. This one does start with a depressing summary of the news we’ve all heard—but then moves into a long series of victories that most of us didn’t even now about. It pauses to excoriate mass media for amplifying the negative and superficial (e.g., celebrities) while ignoring unsexy but vital stories such as the amazing ocean treaties and the actual elimination of rampant fatal diseases, country by country. And then it finishes with another long list of victories for humanity and the other creatures we share this amazing planet with.

You won’t be sorry to spend ten minutes with this. https://fixthenews.com/p/the-telemetry?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4861955&post_id=182468358&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=sl4r&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I was not expecting to be totally blown away by a politician’s victory speech on Election Night. But I was moved to tears several times.

Whether you like his politics or not, you have to acknowledge his oratorical skills—both in the crafting of this speech and in the delivery, where he comes across to me as humble, inclusive, and committed. And if speaking is any part of your communications (which it should be), there are a lot of lessons in this speech.

The politician is Zohran Mamdani, just elected as the first Muslim mayor of New York City—a municipality with more population than 38 of the 50 US states.

You can view it at https://www.c-span.org/program/campaign-2025/zohran-mamdani-election-night-victory-speech/668370 (including the sweet family moment at the very end) and read the full transcript at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/nyregion/mamdani-speech-transcript.html (I had to set up a free account to see it).

He hits high notes immediately, quoting Eugene Victor Debs, “I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity.” Debs ran for president as an open socialist—from his prison cell. Then Mamdani hits us with this powerful and poetic paragraph centering his working-class base:

Fingers bruised from lifting boxes on the warehouse floor, palms calloused from delivery bike handlebars, knuckles scarred with kitchen burns: These are not hands that have been allowed to hold power. And yet, over the last 12 months, you have dared to reach for something greater.

Next, a hat tip to his opponent, who he wishes “only the best in private life.”

Then came the only thing I would have edited out: “But let tonight be the final time I utter his name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.” His deeper meaning is ambiguous, but it could be seen as holding some resentment, not wanting to even speak the opponent’s name again. I would have skipped the first clause and jumped to “We have turned the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.” When I listened, I misheard the word “utter” as “honor,” and that may color my negativity toward the bit about not speaking his name.

But he pivots immediately to his mandate for change, for making the city affordable, and for including marginalized populations:

Thank you to those so often forgotten by the politics of our city, who made this movement their own. I speak of Yemeni bodega owners and Mexican abuelas. Senegalese taxi drivers and Uzbek nurses. Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties. Yes, aunties.

He then tells stories of a few people he met during the campaign: a man who has to commute two hours each way because he can’t afford to live in the city, another who can’t afford to take a day off, and a woman who says she’d lost her love for her city.

His inclusiveness and focus on the glowing future expand to his enormous volunteer network:

This victory is for all of them. And it’s for all of you, the more than 100,000 volunteers who built this campaign into an unstoppable force. Because of you, we will make this city one that working people can love and live in again. With every door knocked, every petition signature earned, and every hard-earned conversation, you eroded the cynicism that has come to define our politics… To my campaign team, who believed when no one else did and who took an electoral project and turned it into so much more: I will never be able to express the depth of my gratitude. You can sleep now.

Then he acknowledges just how ambitious his goals are:

Central to that vision will be the most ambitious agenda to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that this city has seen since the days of Fiorello La Guardia: an agenda that will freeze the rents for more than two million rent-stabilized tenants, make buses fast and free, and deliver universal child care across our city.

Years from now, may our only regret be that this day took so long to come. This new age will be one of relentless improvement. We will hire thousands more teachers. We will cut waste from a bloated bureaucracy. We will work tirelessly to make lights shine again in the hallways of NYCHA developments where they have long flickered.

Safety and justice will go hand in hand as we work with police officers to reduce crime and create a Department of Community Safety that tackles the mental health crisis and homelessness crises head on. Excellence will become the expectation across government, not the exception. In this new age we make for ourselves, we will refuse to allow those who traffic in division and hate to pit us against one another.

From there, he segues directly into something even more ambitious: confronting a hostile federal government and the bigots who enable it—those who want to sow division and hatred, while he calls for unity and invokes, one after another, Jews and Muslims (two other groups who are often at odds on certain issues)—leading first with the community that he is not a member of, but that I am:

In this moment of political darkness, New York will be the light. Here, we believe in standing up for those we love, whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many Black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom still waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with their back against the wall. Your struggle is ours, too.

And we will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism. Where the more than one million Muslims know that they belong — not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power.

No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election. This new age will be defined by a competence and a compassion that have too long been placed at odds with one another. We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.

This next bit could sound like bravado—I’d love to hear some specifics on HOW he will meet those high expectations—but to me, it comes across instead as another call for unity and actual bravery: being willing to stand up and be counted—and looking ahead to what future would-be dictators we will need to organize against:

They want the people to fight amongst ourselves so that we remain distracted from the work of remaking a long-broken system. We refuse to let them dictate the rules of the game anymore. They can play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Together, we will usher in a generation of change. And if we embrace this brave new course, rather than fleeing from it, we can respond to oligarchy and authoritarianism with the strength it fears, not the appeasement it craves.

After all, if anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him. And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.

This is not only how we stop Trump; it’s how we stop the next one. So, Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up…

So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us. When we enter City Hall in 58 days, expectations will be high. We will meet them. A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.

If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme, and let us build a shining city for all. And we must chart a new path, as bold as the one we have already traveled. After all, the conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate…

He goes on to poke a bit of fun at himself, listing several characteristics that would have been thought of as liabilities—then proclaiming, “I refuse to apologize for any of this.”

And he concludes with inspiration: another strong call for hope:

Let the words we’ve spoken together, the dreams we’ve dreamt together, become the agenda we deliver together. New York, this power, it’s yours. This city belongs to you.

Again, I suggest that you watch the speech, take notes on what you feel did and didn’t work, and think about what you can bring to your own presentations.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, media-general, Mindset, Peace and War, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“When they go low, we go high.”
—Michelle Obama

This week, two prominent Democrats gave opposite but equally crazy advice?

Thom Hartmann says we should open up the bag of Republican dirty tricks and start using them. And in what he calls a “daring” maneuver, Carville tells us in a New York times op-ed to “roll over and play dead.”

The above Carville link is for subscribers. I don’t have a sharing link.

Carville’s “plan” was properly shredded by Gil Duran of FrameLab, who says what I would have said:  Carville is ignoring the moral issue that real people are getting hurt. Democrats have to frame themselves as the opposition, loudly and clearly; silence is complicity. And principled resistance is what creates change (more on that in the What to Do section, below)

But let ME take on Hartmann, who usually talks sense. The moral arguments are obvious, but let’s talk about the impact in practice. And then we’ll talk about what to do instead.

  1. This makes us no better than them. If we use the same slimy methods, voters will just say “Tweedledum and Tweedledumber” and stay home—as millions of Biden voters did this past November. Just as we don’t accept violent terrorism to redress wrongs, so we should not accept disenfranchising others And if you think the so-called “stop the steal” movement that tried to steal back the 2020 election was bad, imagine if they actually had cause!
  2. Republican-lite has never worked for the Dems. Republican-lite gave us the impasse under Biden when Manchin and Sinema blocked progress over and over. A generation ago, Republican-lite brought us Newt Gingrich and his “Contract with America” (which progressives dubbed “Contract ON America,” in the hitman sense).
  3. For decades, Republicans have been “the party of  no”—and that includes “no, you can’t vote.” Denying others voting rights, even those we disagree with, would make Democrats also the party of “no, you can’t vote.” Democrats were that party in the segregated South during my childhood, and we all know by now what a huge mistake that was. Ironically, the Republicans are still criticizing the Dems for these old sins, even though, as Greg Palast notes, they themselves have taken voter suppression to new levels. But Harris had the chance to call out Republican voter suppression well in advance of the election, and according to Palast, her failure to push on this was why she lost.

In the 2024 election, failing to speak directly and meaningfully to the working class—coming across as yet another Republican-lite—led to the perception that Harris was an elitist who was beholden to corporate funders and was not in tune with white working-class people, despite policy platforms (that got little coverage) that were much more favorable to workers. Being too timid not only to beat a continuous drum calling out her opponent’s slide toward open fascism AND his cognitive decline but to mobilize an army of respected surrogates and send them into swing states to bring that message home over and over and over was a huge mistake. The country should have been flooded with messages about the harm that her opponent would do, his history of crime, and his repeated failures of competence.

Mind y0u, I think Harris also did a lot of things right, despite the truncated campaign. The focus on joy was brilliant. The promise to undo the damage of Dobbs (the Supreme Court decision that overturned Rowe v. Wade) was given full weight. The promise to be a president for all in the US, not just the Blue states, inspired many.

What to Do to Change This for Next Tuime

  1. We win more when we play bigger. I think the things that hurt the Harris campaign the most other than voter suppression of Democrats in Red states was her unwillingness to play big on certain issues. Being way too weak on Gaza almost certainly cost her Michigan—and was the reason multiple New Hampshire voters told me (when I knocked on their doors this fall) they weren’t voting for either presidential candidate. It would have been so easy for her to give a slot to Ruwa Romman, Palestinian-American legislator from Georgia, whose unity speech had been vetted by the Harris team. Flip-flopping her former correct opposition to fracking and barely mentioning climate change cost her many environmentalist votes. And she seldom addressed the elephant in the room of Republicans denying Democrats and poor people and people of color and people who didn’t want to catch a contagious disease the right to vote.
  2. We also win when we’re much more visible. There’s been a ton of grassroots organizing going on since the election—but with a few exceptions such as the Democratic legislators’ protest in front of the Treasury, it’s not showing up in the media, people don’t encounter it on their way to work, and non-activists don’t know it’s happening—because it’s been on Zoom rooms and inside houses of worship and college classrooms, and not out on the streets. This is a both-and. Do the organizing, do the lobbying, do the important but quiet stuff—but also get out there by the thousands and be seen! In my teen years, I went to a peace demonstration almost every weekend, many times boarding a charter bus from NYC to Washington to participate. Tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, over and over again helped to bring that horrible war in Vietnam to a close. A few years earlier, the 1963 March on Washington and other massive demonstrations, plus people in the streets openly defying segregation, helped move a proud civil rights agenda forward into law, and gave LBJ the spine to back up those laws with enforcement. Even small actions can make a difference. Just 2000 people at Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977 changed the course of US energy away from nuclear and toward renewables, when 1411 of us got arrested and held for up to two weeks. The sustained months of action at Standing Rock, opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline, started with just 200 people.
  3. The Dems have to combine Bernie’s anger and speaking truth to power, Kamela’s and Tim’s focus on joy, and AOC’s youthful energy and super-personable outreach that works equally well face-to-face or on video. (Note: the above link takes you to the links to all of my Facebook posts that mention her or share her work. It is open to the public; you should be able to view the videos and read the quotes even if you’re not on Facebook. If you want to pick one, go for the interview by Bernie, posted December 3, 2024.)
  4. As Bernie has done for years, they must focus on the class issue—not to the exclusion of its current constituencies, but intersectionally, inclusively. They have to recognize that the struggle for rights is the struggle for rights—whether those rights are denied for race, religion, gender, sexuality, economic position, class , age, ability, or any other category. This message has to be presented in ways that make all of these constituencies feel seen, heard, and valued: when one group gains, it “lifts all boats” and “makes the pie higher” for everyone; when one makes progress, it doesn’t take away from the others.
  5. Dems have to go to the Red states and Red audiences. Dems have to emulate Pete Buttigieg and get interviewed by MAGA media outlets like Fox—and do so as articulately and persuasively as he does. They have to reclaim populism and get in front of voters who wrongly saw the billionaire convicted-felon and serial-liar Republican candidate as populist.
  6. Democratic politicians have to be more outspoken. They need to cite real human tragedies resulting from these cruel policies and open hatreds by real people who’ve been hurt, name them, and tell their stories on the floor of the Senate and the House and at their Town Hall meetings back in their home districts. And they need to give copies in advance to the media and engage their base to pressure those media to show up and cover these statements.
  7. All of us need to widen our resistance tactics. In the pre-Internet, pre-COVID era, nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp listed 198 nonviolent social change tactics. Many more have been added since, including this list of 100 mostly digital nonviolent tactics. 21 more showed up when I searched for “nonviolent resistance techniques during covid.” And remember: governments typically fall when just 3.5 percent of the population stops complying and withdraws consent, according to research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan.

So join a group, get out there and make some of what the late civil rights icon and long-time Congressman John Lewis called “good trouble.”Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

If you’ve been bewailing the presidential election and wondering how the country you love could have voted to elect this monster, this may help you feel better: Maybe we didn’t! A respected commentator makes a strong case that millions of votes in heavily Democratic areas of red and purple states were not counted.

Greg Palast came to my attention in the aftermath of the 2000 election–yeah, the one that gave George W. Bush the victory, and eight years as the worst president the US had had until 2017.

Palast, an investigative journalist with a strong background in forensic economics, made a compelling case that the outcome, hanging on a margin of just 537 votes in Florida following a partial recount that was stopped by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, may have had a lot more to do with the tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters (especially absentee voters) who were purged from the roles, often because of false reasons like their name matching or nearly matching that of some convicted felon. I remember the figure of 96,000, which was bad enough.

While I can’t find that stat right now, I found another article by Palast, from 2004, noting that 178,000 voters from heavily Black areas cast ballots that were disqualified for equally spurious reasons. It’s the one with the headline and picture about Roger Stone.

Well, what do you know! Palast is now making an equally compelling case that  “4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Election Assistance Commission data.”

He says a single Republican operative challenged the eligibility of 32,000 mostly Black voters  in her county, others challenged thousands of voters elsewhere in Georgia, and similar efforts in Wisconsin and around the country deprived those nearly 5 million people of their chance to vote. The Republicans claimed these people had moved, because they didn’t return a postcard that looked like junk mail–and in some parts of Georgia, only 1% returned the cards.

If Palast is accurate–and I believe he is–Harris would have won at least those two states, the popular vote, the Electoral College, and the presidency.  She might have even taken Texas, where a new requirement to add ID numbers raised the rejection rate on absentee ballots from just 1% to 12%. (This is the same link as the 4,776,706 voters link above.)

In order to read that post in Thom Hartmann’s Substack newsletter, I had to become a subscriber. There is a no-charge level. But if you’d rather not subscribe, Palast makes many of the same points in this video, which is freely accessible. (It’s  the same link as the “single Republican” link above.)

While this analysis makes me feel a bit better about US voters, it doesn’t talk about how to reclaim democracy. In the video, he notes that he told the Democrats what steps they needed to do to protect voters at risk of being barred from voting or having their ballots discarded, but they didn’t see a need for pre-emptive action. Perhaps if they see this new data, they could make a claim to some body like the International Court of Justice that the election was a cheat. And meanwhile, this information gives us yet more reasons to resist the coup through every nonviolent tactic we can.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, Innovation, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

Welcome to 2025, a year that’s only two weeks old and already fraught. This is a
challenging time. Business leaders who believe business can make the world better for
the planet and its residents will face intense scrutiny and pressure to fold our tents. But
if we stand firm, if we continue to act on our sense of ethics, our decency, and our
knowledge that environmental and social responsibility is a business success strategy,
we will eventually prevail!

My heart goes out to readers and their loved ones who have been directly impacted by
the dozens of recent massive climate events such as the floods in the US Southeast,
Libya, and Uganda, earthquakes in China and Vanuatu, fires in California, cyclones in
Mozambique and Sri Lanka, volcanic eruption in the Philippines…and by human-caused
disasters, including the brutal wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the massive migrations from
areas that are no longer safe, and more.

Speaking of human-caused disasters—here in the US, starting on January 20, we face
an openly authoritarian, openly bigoted, and openly corrupt administration that brags
about how it will undo our progress on environmental and social issues and attacks
personal freedom. This new government plans to act not as a force for the greater good,
but to enrich kleptocrats and make life miserable for “enemies” within.

And many senior executives are pushing hard to enable that undercutting within their
own organizations. Companies are shredding DEI programs, universities are struggling
to come up with something equitable to replace welcoming admissions policies deemed
illegal by a partisan Supreme Court, and both social and mainstream media are
adopting policies that kowtow to authoritarians, from eliminating fact-checks and
enabling hate speech to suppressing criticism of the new regime. And alas, similar
governments already exist in Hungary, North Korea, Russia, and elsewhere.

But there’s plenty of good news, too:

  • Several countries, including Brazil, Chile, and
    Columbia, have tossed out right-wing dictators.
  • Others including Germany and France turned back far-right candidates and slates.
  • In the US, many left-of-center candidates and ballot initiatives won even in states that went for Trump.
  • Under-the-radar organizing by progressive grassroots organizations is massive.
    And these groups are finally working together. I went to one national Zoom meeting that
    had 140,000 registrants, 100,000 attenders, and the active participation of at least five
    national grassroots groups. Individually and collectively, they’re crafting and launching
    to best create nonviolent strategies to resist Trump policies and nominees.
  • These organizing efforts marked its first victory in November with the almost immediate collapse of Matt Gaetz’s nomination for Attorney General, which culminated in the release of the US House ethics report on his long list of transgressions.

And that’s just the beginning. Visit this page from Nonviolence News for a torrent of more good news, most of which I hadn’t even known about until their newsletter crossed my desk. I don’t see
everything on their list as good news, but the vast majority certainly is.

So instead of drowning in doom and gloom, get active, get involved, get excited. Remember, as Nerissa Nields put it in her song, “Tyrants Always Fall” (written during the earlier Trump administration), “There are more of us than there are of them.” And become an even more effective agent of change!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail