Category: General Commentary

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Branding, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Innovation, language, Media Ethics, media-general, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , ,

Ever since Biden withdrew, reporters have been kvetching that they have a hard time finding out Kamala Harris’s policy positions. This is a very dubious claim, considering she has a website, she gave a broad outline of several polices in a much-viewed speech at the Democratic Convention and regularly repeats those themes in many speeches around the country.

But I’m not here to chastise lazy journalists but to give them another great place to find her policy statements:

Kamala Harris gave a truly remarkable interview to three very tough questioners at the National Association of Black Journalists. It is so rare to see a forum of this type where the journos actually let the interviewee answer at length and with depth.

And Kamala was really impressive—not just because she gave smart and detailed answers, not just because she continues to make every appearance about uplifting everyday people—but because she takes a holistic view that has not been obvious to me in the sound-bite journalism that all-too-often passes for news. This interview makes it clear that she understands root causes, unintended consequences, and the interrelatedness of multiple issues (intersectionality, in other words).

In a campaign where one candidate makes a fetish of putting others down, vowing retribution against perceived enemies, lying his way through life, and never taking responsibility for his criminal actions or dangerous policies, where everything is only about how he personally will benefit, it’s refreshing to discover that his opponent is a deeply systemic thinker who has crafted action plans that will help ordinary people while she continues to undo the damage that Trump inflicted on this country. Biden has made good progress on undoing that damage, but we still have a long way to go. I am convinced that Harris will carry that water for us.

I was especially moved by her answers on Gaza, on the race-baiting of Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian community, and on making progress on the US’s massive problem of gun violence. But the whole thing is so worth watching that I posted it not just to my Facebook feed but also LinkedIn and several of my Facebook groups.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Ethics: General, General Commentary, Gratitude, language, Mindset, People Helping People, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

A friend sent a link to this short motivational video on ten sentences we need to hear at least once. I enjoyed. I especially liked #8, motivation doesn’t last—but neither does bathing so we do it every day. #4 is also good; I might rephrase it with the bumper sticker statement, “Don’t postpone joy.”

But I have issues with his word choice in #10, “Comfort is the enemy of achievement.” He’s right in some cases. Inherited wealth is often a barrier to achievement. So is walling yourself off from the things that cause discomfort. However, comfort has many shades of meaning.

I’m pretty sure he means that people need to get out of their smug, self-righteous bubbles, be willing to experience—and do something about—the suffering of others. But it will be interpreted by too many as “put on that hairshirt, dammit, you have no right to pleasure while others suffer.”

And THAT, I strongly disagree with.

Comfort, in some of its other meanings besides that smug self-superiority, is not a sin. Actually, I believe it’s a crucial element of our success in the world. We need to be able to both give and receive it.

To those who would deny the right of pleasure, I give you Emma Goldman’s famous quote, often paraphrased as “If I can’t dance I don’t want to be in your revolution”—here’s the original: “I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy.” 

Comfort, as a verb, also refers to the mitzvah (in the sense of “good deed,” rather than “commandment”) of extending a hand, an ear, a hug to those who are grieving loss, ailing, in pain. I am sure Mr McKinney would not deny that comfort to others. That kind of comfort is an antidote to bitterness—and bitterness is a cancer interfering with any healing journey, whether self-healing, comforting others, or changing the world for the better.

As I’m using the word, comfort is an attribute like gratitude. It enables us to function better, make more change in the world, and keep our sanity.

It is NOT a self-built wall to shield us from the things that should make us uncomfortable. I do not agree with the right-wing legislators who think that they can isolate their “comfortable” kids from such realities as race-based inequality by making it illegal to teach those unpleasant realities—but when introducing that level of discomfort, we need to provide the emotional and tactical support to let those kids not just handle it but figure out something they can do to make it better.

So learn to be comfortable, but not complicit. Find pleasure in the things you do, including your social change. Keep good company and do those things with friends at least some of the time.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Environmenl, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, media-general, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Along with every other decent human being, I deplore political violence. And as much as I despise his politics AND his character, I wish Donald Trump a speedy recovery from the wound inflicted by a would-be assassin with an assault rifle.

BUT that doesn’t mean we need to stop campaigning. It doesn’t mean we should fail to make the most of the opportunity that this criminal’s attack on another criminal creates. And it certainly doesn’t mean we should slink off with our tails between our legs because the MAGAs tell us “this is not the time!” It’s never the time, according to them.

And it absolutely doesn’t mean we should roll over play dead, and abandon hope just because Biden had a bad night in the recent debate or just because Trump may get sympathy votes for getting shot. Trump (who is only 3-1/2 years younger, by the way) had a bad night too, if you filter against fact-checking. He spewed blustery nonsense for 90 minutes, nearly all of it either blatantly false or totalitarian fantasy.

Here’s what we should be saying at every possible chance:

It’s time for the United States of America to stand behind the value of not getting shot by a random psycho at a school, a movie theater, a supermarket, a religious service, a concert, or anywhere else. And Trump cannot lead that effort. After all, he:

By contrast, President Biden issued a powerful Executive Order promoting gun safety and managed against the odds to gain passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which he calls “the most significant bipartisan gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years.  The Act provides communities with new tools to combat gun violence, including enhanced gun background checks for individuals under age 21, funding for extreme risk protection orders and other crisis interventions, and increased mental health resources to help children impacted by gun violence heal from the resulting grief and trauma.” If Biden chooses to step down, the Democrat who will challenge Trump in November is also likely to favor sensible gun laws. The Democratic Party as a whole has been advocating common-sense gun safety for many years.

Finally, let’s remember three very important things:

First, just because the MAGA crazies have taken over the Republican Party doesn’t mean they’ve taken over the minds of mainstream Republicans. We see this in the typical 20 percent that Nikki Haley continued to draw even after she suspended her campaign! And I’ve also seen it in my conversations with many Republicans who tell me they don’t like Trump’s character, his lack of understanding of the issues, his massive narcissism, his open racism, his lack of a moral compass, etc. His support is weak even in his own party, in other words. Many could easily defect—as more than 100 prominent Republican have publicly pledged—to RFK, Jr., to the Democrats, to a Republican write-in, to to the Libertarians, or simply leave that space blank on their ballots.

Second, the Republican positions on many issues are wildly out of step with mainstream views. They oppose women’s reproductive freedom, LGBT rights, immigration (even legal immigration), voting rights, rights to protest against repressive governments, environmental protection, labor rights, and more. Both the Republican platform and the truly sinister Project 2025 (written largely by people who worked in Trump’s administration) embrace these extremist proposals—as do, apparently, a majority of the Supreme Court, which recently gutted environmental protection, declared Trump immune from prosecution for “official” acts, and of course, a year ago, overturned Rowe v. Wade—becoming the first Supreme Court to remove a constitutional right. And if that weren’t enough, Trump himself has alienated and insulted many large constituencies—veterans, people with disabilities, women, Palestinians, Muslims, Latin Americans, to name a few—and, starting January 6, 2021, thrown even some of his most loyal supporters like former Attorney General William Barr and former Vice President Mike Pence under the bus.

And third, Trump is not an attractive candidate to swing voters. He is now a 34-count convicted criminal and was found in civil court to have committed sex crimes. His rambling, off-topic speeches and compulsive lying could be evidence of serious mental decline. And of course, both men have a track record. Trump got little done besides his economy-crushing tax cut, while Biden, for all his flaws, has made huge progress on the economy, on recovering from the pandemic, on the environment, and on the US’s position as a world leader. On every issue where Biden has been bad (especially Gaza), Trump is demonstrably worse for progressives.

So let’s get out there and mobilize people to vote Democratic—including spreading the word about the huge negative impact of Trump’s proposals to people who don’t always vote for Democrats. Despite its problems, we still have a democracy worth saving!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, General Commentary, language, Media Ethics, media-general, Mindset, Politics, privacy, Psychology, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , , , ,

Trigger Warning: This post discusses my history as a survivor of separate instances of rape and sexual coercion.

 

Did Trump cheat on his wife with Stormy Daniels? Yes. Was it an affair? No. Does this matter? Absolutely, and I’ll explain why.

My venerable paper copy of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged defines affair in this context as “an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration.” Dictionary.com copies all the Random House definitions verbatim (it’s definition #6). Microsoft Word’s dictionary calls it “a sexual relationship between two people, one or both of whom are married to or in a long-term relationship with someone else.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “a sexual relationship, especially a secret one.”

Note that all three definitions include “relationship” and the first says it has to be “intense” and “amorous.”

Daniels’ evening with Trump was not a relationship, and the amorousness went in only one direction. They had met casually and he’d asked her to have dinner with him. She says she accepted because her PR agent said it might be career-building and she did not have sex on her mind. Neither did he appear to at first, until she came back from the bathroom and found him on the bed, down to his undies. At best, it was a first date. At worst, it could be considered sexually harassing behavior.

It was not rape. Unlike the myriad of his other accusers, she never claimed that she didn’t consent. She consistently says that she was reluctant, was not enthusiastic, and felt so ashamed afterward that she was shaking as she got dressed again.

I would consider this interaction a coercive sexual encounter, if for no other reason than because of the power dynamics. One party is a rich and famous man in his late 50s, of towering (and intimidating) physical stature, with a bodyguard on the other side of the door. The other, a woman in her 20s and not overly familiar with the centers of power, is known only in a socially marginalized (though extremely popular) industry that has low credibility with mainstream media and mainstream morality.

He has all the power. And if she still has any illusions that he might help her career, she’s going to get on that bed even if she doesn’t really want to. For her, it was transactional; for him, it may have been notching a conquest or some kind of boost to his fragile ego. I can only speculate on his reasons, because despite the massive evidence, he denies the incident ever took place. 

I survived a rape, grabbed off the street by a stranger and dragged to a stairwell at age 10 or 11 (yes, it happens to boys—more of us than you probably think). I also survived a coercive sexual encounter at age 18 with a creepy 53-year-old man who’d made no secret of his desire to get into my pants. Like Stormy’s encounter with Trump, it was not rape because I was not in a position to withhold consent. And like that notorious encounter, it made me feel like total crap.

I had also, at that point, had a months-long actual affair with a man ten years older than me and several consensual one-nighters.

It’s not hard to tell the difference among these four types of encounters. The affair was mutual. It was delightful. It was a relationship. The consensual one-nighters were fun but did not lead to an ongoing relationship. For some of them, I wished it had continued—but that wasn’t the other person’s agenda.

The coerced encounter was not fun. It was unpleasant but in that moment I saw it as unavoidable. I have far more resources and communication skills these days and would handle it differently now, almost forty years later. While it was disgusting, it didn’t create long-term trauma. But the rape was traumatic, with consequences that lasted many decades and are not completely done yet. I couldn’t even bring myself to tell anyone for several years, and I never told my parents. It remains, after more than 50 years, the worst day of my life.

Neither being raped nor being coerced into sex is anything I would ever characterize as an affair. There is no relationship. There is not even any mutuality.

With this lens, with this history, you can understand why it has upset me since Daniels first went public that so many people who should know better, including many journalists, use the wrong term. Just the first results page from an Ecosia.org (tree-planting search engine) search for “stormy daniels affair” brought hits from the New York Times, BBC, NPR, NBC’s Chicago affiliate, and CNN. Now, with the trial verdict, it’s back in the news and I’m finally ready to call out these journalists. They are making it sound like love was involved, that these were two people who cared about it each other. But they didn’t.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Entrepreneurship, General Commentary, language, Mindset, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Bob Burg devoted his Daily Impact newsletter this morning to endorsing a concept he found in Robert Greene’s book, The Daily Laws: 366 Meditations on Power, Seduction, Mastery, Strategy, and Human Nature: “Always stick to what makes you weird, odd, strange, different. That’s your source of power.”

I love the idea of embracing your weirdness—and I’ve basically lived it since my teen years. But I want to add three corollaries:

  1. Present your weirdness in ways that foster, rather than cut off, communication. So, in my case, living in a socially conservative farm community, I’ve chosen not to wear skirts even though I find them very comfortable—because I want my neighbors to understand that while I’m different from them in many ways, we still inhabit the same neighborhood and have more in common than they might think. I made different, more outrageous, choices in other places I lived in. Marrying and having kids, recognizing that my decisions impact other people, was another encouragement to dial it back. But I still publicly label myself as a “marketing heretic,” still post unpopular views in public places, still invite people of all viewpoints to engage with me (as long as they do so civilly). And I can proudly point to many examples where my activism has made the world a better place, both within the business community and in the wider world.
  2. Listen and engage when your weirdness starts to set up barriers. Let people express their discomfort. Strive to uncover their deeper feelings. Find points of agreement and build the discussion out from there.
  3. Bring your weirdness to the table but BE at the table! Participate actively in your community. I spent 9 years on my town’s Long-Range Plan Implementation Committee and have attended almost every Town Meeting for more than 25 years. In the 17 years before that, I was actively involved in the government and social infrastructure of the small city where I was living, both through board service and community organizing and through electoral work. I believe that service de-demonized the way several members of our town Planning Board perceived me. I went from newcomer/troublemaker who had organized the movement that blocked a big, totally inappropriate mountainside housing development to a person whose input was valued and seen as vested in keeping the character of the town.

How do you bring your nonconformity into your work, how do you make it a strength, and how do you engage with people who might feel threatened by it?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, General Commentary, language, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

While using my Android phone to dictate a comment to a Facebook post about Passover, I said “whole wheat matza.” The phone rendered it as “whole wheat monsters.” 

I thought that was hilarious until I tried it a second time and got “whole wheat matcha.” Then I was reminded of the many times that I have tried to use an expression rooted in the Jewish tradition and gotten extreme weirdness. Challah, the bread eaten on the Sabbath, became Holla or Color when I tried just now. I’ve gotten others in the past. Todah rabah (thank you in Hebrew) showed up today as tada rava and sometimes as something even stranger, while mazel tov (literally, good luck, but usually translated as congratulations) usually turns into muscle tough. 

But I also note that the same problem exists using phrases from other languages. If I say something in Spanish, for example, I usually have to retype it. Given how much Google knows about AI, I would expect that after more than a decade of Android use, it would anticipate some of my words correctly.

I wonder if any Jews or Latines work on the programming team—and how Google might correct for cultural bias in its dictation software.. 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Entrepreneurship, General Commentary, Innovation, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Guest post from Bob Burg—may it inspire your success in 2024. I first discovered Bob through a newsletter he used to do called Winning Without Intimidation, some time in the 1990s–which was all about getting your desired outcome through kindness, compassion, and empathy. I still use many of those teachings.

Bob Burg, speaker and author on success through kindness and compassion
Bob Burg, speaker and author on success through kindness and compassion

He published this in his current newsletter, Daily Impact, on December 29. I just love the frame that only one partner has to think of an interaction as a collaboration to achieve dramatic success, even if the other party sees an adversary. What a wonderful abundance frame—and so applicable to entrepreneurs! You can subscribe at Burg.com (scroll down to just above the footer). Used with Bob’s permission.

—Shel

 

Use This Concept, Which Is So Much More Productive Than Competition…

By Bob Burg

It ranks right up there with my all-time favorite quotes:

“I never saw the opposing pitcher as my adversary, but rather as my ‘partner’ in hitting home runs.” ~Sadaharu Oh (868 Home Runs)

This statement is perhaps the ultimate in collaboration.

And the Japanese professional baseball legend knows what he’s talking about. He remains the all-time leading home run hitter in the world…ever!

“But,” you might ask, “certainly the pitcher isn’t wanting to collaborate on this. The pitcher wants to strike the batter out, right?”

Indeed! Which leads to a very important truth…

Key Point: There are times when both parties don’t even need to be in on the collaboration in order for it to occur.

As long as at least one of the parties involved — whether we’re talking about an interpersonal conflict, a business negotiation, or a home run — has the proper attitude, they will approach the situation from a frame of collaboration, which is really nothing less than a frame of love.

And love conquers all.

You could even say that…it’s the ultimate home run.

Today’s Exercise: Recall a time when you witnessed collaboration, even though only one person *at first* seemed to be “in on it.” Based on the attitude of the first person, did the second person seem to naturally become more involved?

Now think about how *you* can set a frame of collaboration, even when the other person isn’t quite in on it…yet.

Best regards,

BobFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Advertising, Business Ethics, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Customer Service as Marketing, General Commentary, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Mindset, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , ,

Heather Cox Richardson reported in her newsletter this morning about a government crackdown on hidden charges such as airline baggage fees:

An airline lobbyist testified at a federal hearing in March that changing the policy would create “confusion and frustration” and that there have been “very few complaints” about the extra costs for bags. The same lobbying group told the Department of Transportation that the government had no data to “demonstrate substantial harm” to passengers.

To put this quote in context, click the link above and scroll to the paragraph beginning “Falling prices for travel and for the foods usually on a Thanksgiving table are news the White House is celebrating.” Continue reading through “The authors say that the new organization will provide a conservative voice for democracy and that they hope to work with much more deeply established progressive voices.”

I can draw two opposing conclusions from this quote. Either…

  1. This clueless lobbyist is completely oblivious to public opinion and has never been introduced to the concept of evidence-based research,
    or
  2. This is a highly skilled strategic lobbyist attempting to deflect public anger and potential government regulation by pretending this massive problem doesn’t exist.

I have a clear sense of which I believe is true—but I’m not committing to it publicly because it might get me sued. You can draw your own inferences.

As it happened, I flew early Saturday morning from Boston to Minneapolis. And I observed that the airline officials were a bit panicky about getting all the carry-ons into the overhead bins. So much so that not only did we get offered a free upgrade to checked bag as we printed our boarding passes, they were making repeated announcements in the gate lobby and actually asking people as they boarded if they wanted one more chance to check their carry-on at no charge. And we were quite willing to take them up on it, sacrificing 15 minutes after the flight to avoid wheeling our bags all through the airport and lifting them above our heads to get them in and out of the overhead compartments.

I have seen this offer made repeatedly when I fly airlines that charge for stored baggage. What I draw from this is that plenty of people are angry about hidden charges and unwilling to pay the fees, so there are far more carry-on bags competing for space than in the days before baggage fees (especially since experienced travelers know that there will often be a free upgrade if the plane is crowded—and if it’s not crowded, there’s no problem using the overhead bin). Rather than expressing anger by not flying, customers simply boycott paid checked baggage—or, if their itinerary matches the traveler’s need, choose to fly airlines like Southwest and JetBlue that don’t charge for a checked bag or two. Millions of travelers are voting with their feet (or maybe their shoulder muscles).

My personal preference is to fly those carriers, but my higher priority is nonstop flights at reasonable times, so I sometimes fly the carriers that charge—and simply pack everything into my carry-on and leave home any items on the banned list. I once flew a no-frills airline that charged for everything they could to sit in its rock-hard, uncomfortable seats. As far as I’m concerned, a plane ticket should include such basics as getting a pre-assigned seat (except if nobody has one, as on Southwest). Flying that no-frills carrier felt like renting a car with no seat cushion and being charged extra for the steering wheel. I never flew them or any similar carrier again.

And years ago, in my own consulting and writing business, I switched from breaking out certain pieces that almost everyone wanted to including them. 

As an example, I used to charge for keeping an electronic copy of certain client projects on my hard drive. Now, I email their documents to them AND maintain a copy on my system. And if a client loses the file, I don’t charge to resend it.

How do YOU feel about hidden charges? Please leave a note in the comments about whether you prefer to know the full price for what you need or whether you prefer different pieces added on separately.

PS: The O in the headline is not a typo. It’s a different word than “Oh” and is often used in formal or ancient texts (including the Bible and the Qu’ran) to draw the attention of the person being addressed.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business-general, Consumer Issues, Entrepreneurship, Ethics: General, General Commentary, Innovation, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Here’s the secret, buried in technobabble within this report written by an engineer at Google: the monopolists have already lost! You don’t have to understand all the jargon to get the point: Today’s chat universe is already out from under the grip of corporate control. And it isn’t going back into the box. The report compares Google with Open AI (a major for-profit competitor and the creator of ChatGPT) and with new open-source chat and AI (artificial intelligence) tools. The report concludes that the open source tools are faster, more nimble, and much faster to deploy and train, despite far less access to resources than projects at companies like Google and Microsoft:

Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params  [13 billion parameters] that we struggle with at $10M and 540B. And they are doing so in weeks, not months.

This has enormous ramifications in every aspect of society. Private profit will not be a driver toward centralization of control and limiting who can play. And that will drive enormous innovation, in ways that I at least can’t yet imagine,  let alone describe. Some of it will be monetizable, just as Red Hat monetized an open source operating system (Linux) and Google has monetized its no-charge search engine. But almost none of it will be controllable.

If you’re an investor, know that you can’t buy your way into control–but you can invest in promising developments that will leapfrog to higher good on the basis of freebie systems. And knowing that going in,  you’re much less likely to get burned. You won’t, for instance, make the enormous mistake that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did when it bought MySpace (at the time, the dominant proprietary social network), spending $580 million on something that became relatively worthless as soon as Facebook began to hit its stride; News Corp sold it just six years later, to Justin Timberlake, for a mere $35 million. That was a loss of more than half a billion dollars.

Let’s look at a few examples of how public intellectual property has impacted us in the past:

Where might it take us next? I’m not a futurist and I won’t get super-specific, but I do see a few general trends likely to arise from this:

  • Just as  TV and Internet have converged, so will AI and 3D printing: a combination that will revolutionize tangible goods  with innovations in design, manufacturing, and localization
  • AI could lead to the next miniaturization revolution, making it easier to do things like holographically project keyboards and maybe even monitors that make it possible to use watch-sized computers and phones a lot more easily
  • With the right protocols in place, AI could do a lot of basic research and interpretation of the data o that students could concentrate on learning concepts and following them down unexpected paths to create new concepts–OR, without those protocols, it could be used to reduce learning to something meaningless
  • In a perfect world–and we can help it become more perfect–AI can help us understand and solve our most pressing problems. It could turn us from linear to circular resource use, where every output becomes not waste, but something a different process could use. It could redistribute food, housing, and shelter (and other resources) so everyone has enough and no one has 5 million times too much, using only natural materials, generating zero waste, using zero net energy, and creating zero pollution.

Regardless of how it turns out, expect any sector you’re in–for example, agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, services, tech, creative arts, nonprofit, academia, government, military, or whatever–expect your world to turn upside down.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

Ramadan started Wednesday. Passover starts next Wednesday. Easter weekend begins two days after Passover. And today, the Wednesday halfway between the starts of these sacred Muslim and Jewish celebrations, we mourn. Again.

As a Jew, I’ll be celebrating Passover Seders next week with family and friends. Part of the Seder is a song called “Dayenu,” which means “It would have been enough for us.” The song thanks God for many miracles involving the exodus from Egypt and the journey across the desert.

Many Jews also add a second text: “Lo Dayenu”: It is NOT Enough for Us.” In the modern Midrashic tradition, lots of people have written their own versions. I like this “Lo Dayenu,” by Joy Stember.

Social Justice "Lo Dayenu" Seder reading by Joy Stember
Social Justice “Lo Dayenu” Seder reading by Joy Stember

With the six deaths in Nashville yesterday, the grisly total of people in the US killed in school mass shootings from Columbine in 1999 through yesterday has grown again. It reached 554 10 months ago. 554 children and adults who died for no reason other than a broken political process that gets in the way of even the most basic protection from gun violence. While they are quick to offer another round of “thoughts and prayers,” they offer no action. It is easier to get an assault rifle than a license to cut hair.

Interestingly, many of the guns-uber-alles crowd are the same people who suddenly discover that life is sacred after all, as long as it’s a life inside a pregnant woman (a position that happens to violate several religious traditions that consider the life of the mother more important than the life of an unborn fetus). But apparently, once these kids are born, they’re no longer important.

Here’s a basic human decency rule I’d love to see taught in every classroom, reinforced in every workplace and community gathering: Freedom TO take an action stops when it interferes with another person’s freedom FROM harm. By my logic, the freedom to own or use an assault rifle–a weapon of mass destruction–is overridden by the freedom from being randomly shot.

And here are a few “Lo Dayenu” verses I just wrote:

If we could block killers from having access to assault rifles,
But allow them to enter schools, cultural venues, places of worship, and public spaces with other murder weapons,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we could have international peace meetings and far-reaching agreements,
But still “solve” international disputes with war,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we address the violence of mass shootings,
But not address the violence of poverty and starvation, or of rape and beatings,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we reach the ability of people around the world to live in harmony with each other,

But fail to curb violence against the planet,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

Please feel welcome to add other verses in the comments.

May whatever holidays you celebrate be joyous, despite the troubled world we share. And may we come together with both our Dayenus of gratitude and our Lo Dayenus of work that we still need to do.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail