Category: General Commentary

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, General Commentary Tagged with , , , ,

One of the charities I support just sent me an email with the subject line, “Shel — Jack Abramoff needs you.”

I opened the e-mail, expecting to a sarcastic, ironic letter about how big money has infiltrated politics and sending money would help keep the likes of Abramoff—the deeply discredited lobbyist friend of GW Bush who served time for some of his activities—out of the political process. (He served less than two years of a four-year sentence.)

 

Silly me! this is what I got instead:

Last week, we launched our brand-new, hard-hitting anti-corruption news site, [name deleted to NOT give them publicity]. Former “superlobbyist” Jack Abramoff is a regular contributor, along with some of the best investigators in the country. Together they’re focused on exposing politicians and lobbyists who are auctioning off our democracy and our future. Just like the CIA hires ex-hackers to protect its mainframe, Jack will be using his insider knowledge to hold the worst offenders to account.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned—but this left a really bad taste in my mouth. I quite frankly don’t trust Abramoff to do a decent job here, and I don’t like the idea of hiring someone for a regular gig who was working steadily to undermine the political process for his own personal benefit, and even pitted some of his clients against each other without their knowledge.

Yes, he’s got “insider”knowledge about corruption. But what assurances do we have that he’s no longer corrupt?

Mind you, I’m willing, even eager, to be proven wrong. I’d love to see a year of Abramoff’s “hard-hitting reporting,” and read up on whether his personal lifestyle shows true reform. Certainly we’ve seen true turnarounds from the likes of John (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) Perkins, Philip (Inside the Company: CIA Diary) and John (In Search of Enemies) Stockwell. Will Abramoff rise to the occasion?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, General Commentary, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, People Helping People, Publishing, Uncategorized

This is a guest post by Edward Hasbrouck, author of The Practical Nomad, in a rebuttal to Amazon’s latest blow against independent bookstores: getting its customers to spy on them for price checks and then buy online. Remember: when big dogs attack, we are stronger in a circle than standing alone.

Here’s Edward now.
—Shel Horowitz

Amazon.com wants you to browse your local bookstore to find the books you want, then go to Amazon.com to see if you can get them cheaper online. Why not turn the tables? Go ahead and browse the reviews on Amazon.com to find books that might interest you—then order them from your local bookstore, where there are no shipping charges and you can pick books up at your convenience without having to wait at home for a delivery.

The links from both my own Web site (Hasbrouck.org) and my publisher’s site for my book series (PracticalNomad.com) go to Powells. if you sign up as a Powells.com “affiliate”, and include the appropriate code in your links, you also get a cut of sales referred from those links. Small, but royalties on book sales are also small, and every penny helps. It took some effort to get my publisher to link from their site to Powells.com for my books instead of Amazon.com (their default), but eventually they agreed.

You can also create direct links for a specific book from Indiebound/Booksense, a joint online marketing effort of local independent bookstores. If someone follows the link, they can find out what store has the book in stock nearby, or request that a copy be sent to a store near them for pickup. And as with Powell’s, you sign up with them as an affiliate to get a small referral commission.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, censorship, General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News Tagged with , , , ,

There’s dumb, and there’s dumber, and then there’s really dumb.

Sometimes, it takes an advanced degree to be really dumb. Like the lawyers who work for the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A. In their infinite wisdom, these lawyers apparently decided they own the phrase “eat more,” and went after EatMoreKale.com for trademark infringement.

Sorry, but this doesn’t wash. Coupling the words “eat” and “more” predates Chick-fil-A, I’m guessing, by about 1000 years. Chick-fil-A also deliberately misspells its slogan, which is actually appropriate for trademarking, because trademark law rewards unique spelling (yeah, trademark law is one reason for the dumbing down of our whole culture—but that’s a post for another day). Since its actual slogan is “EAT MOR CHIKIN,” the company might have a claim for “eat” followed by “mor” without the e at the end, all in caps.

But NOBODY except a very dumb lawyer can possibly confuse three cows on a white background, each holding a word of the thin, handlettered-looking misspelled Chick-fil-A slogan, with the thick black letters, bright green circle, and black background of EatMoreKale.com—any more than they’d confuse eating fast-food factory meat with kale.

Is it any wonder that people make so many lawyer jokes? Can somebody please tell the Chick-fil-A lawyers to get a life?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Diversity, Entrepreneurship, General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News, People Helping People, Socially Responsible Investing Tagged with , , , , , ,

The pundits have dubbed today “CyberMonday,” meaning we good little sheep are to go bravely forth over our modems and contribute to the global economy, from the comfort of our homes and offices.

Well, sorry, but I’m not playing. I did participate in Small Business Saturday, whose focus was on buying local. But I feel no need to glorify online commerce.

I’m actually a strong advocate of buying local when it’s practical. Local purchasing means money stays local. The people employed by locally owned stores spend their own money right here in my community. And the jobs I help create reduce unemployment right here where I live. And the culture of locally owned bookstores, artist venues, hardware stores and such makes my community a more desirable place to live. That’s the kind of abundance I wish to encourage.

Mind you, I’m not a purist. I do buy online. I do even buy from chain stores sometimes. I do see the occasional movie at the mall (though I see a far greater number at my local independent cinemas). But today, as millions rush to their workstations to undermine the lcoal economies, I can bloody well keep my wallet away from my computer. If I buy anything today, it will be at a local store.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Politics, poverty Tagged with , ,

There’s an awful lot of talk about how Obama has had plenty of time to fix the economy, and it’s his mess now.

While I am not a great fan of Obama, who has done too little, too slowly, on a myriad of issues, I think it’s time to put things in perspective:

Who led the banks run untrammeled and did nothing to stop the plunge into chaos until it was too late? George W. Bush (admittedly, with some help from the repeal of Glass-Stiegel under Clinton).

Who has now killed THREE jobs bills in a row with no meaningful alternative? Republicans in the Congress.

Who chopped so many taxes off the top end of the spectrum that the government can’t seem to fund anything? George W. Bush.

Who refuses to let their ultrawealthy friends pay even a tiny fraction more in taxes to cover the cost of job-creating major infrastructure upgrades? Republicans in the Congress—even though under Eisenhower and Nixon, people in the higher brackets paid considerably higher portions of their income in taxes than they do now.

Who took a huge surplus and turned it into a massive deficit, with the help of two illegal and immoral wars? George W. Bush.

I sure hope the public is paying attention come next November. The entire mission of the Republican Party agenda these days seems to be to sabotage the economy, stall any initiatives of Obama’s (even if they were originally proposed by Republicans) and bring government to a standstill.

It’s ugly, unethical, and I hope, unpopular next election. Throw the bums out!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Networking, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , ,

Last night, I opened an e-mail about the Occupy Wall Street protests from one of the people who send me progressive political mail.

To my amazement, it was forwarded from an old boss of mine (1979 and 1980)—someone I’d wanted to stay in touch with and had searched for online. And suddenly, there he was. I wrote to him last night, but he hasn’t written back yet.

I still remember the first time something like this happened: I was still on AOL, so this was 1994 or 1995—and in came an e-mail from an old high school buddy. We’ve been in contact ever since.

We all leave footprints all over Cyberspace. And those of us with somewhat uncommon names can connect again. I’ve done it dozens of times now.  Facebook makes it particularly easy for connections like old classmates, because you can actually search the alumni of your school. But Facebook is not the only game in town. Last year, I tracked down two high school friends through their own websites.

Who would you like to have back in your life again? Maybe they’re out there, waiting for you to reach out.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, General Commentary, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , ,

Allow me to deviate from this blog’s usual fare of sustainable energy, business ethics, reasons to oppose nuclear power, and progressive vs. conservative politics—today’s post is about mice. The four-legged kind.

We live in a very old farmhouse, built in 1743, surrounded by our neighbors’ corn and hayfields. There have always been lots of mice around, but until a few months ago, the cats and dog kept them to manageable proportions. However, between December and April, all three of our animal companions died. We’re looking to get another cat, maybe two, in the fall, but meanwhile, we’re petless.

So, a couple of months ago,we invested in two lightweight plastic no-hurt traps, baited them with peanut butter, and started hauling a series of mice back out to the field. And I noticed very quickly that different mice reacted very differently to the experience of being trapped, and then released. Microcosms of the human experience, in fact.

Here are a few of the characters we’ve encountered:

  1. Optimist: “Top of the morning to you, Sir, and if I had a hat, I’d tip it. Thanks for letting me into this beautiful green field with lots of goodies to eat.”
  2. Terrified: “It’s so dark and claustrophobic in here that I’m going to pee all over myself with fear.”
  3. Angry: “How dare you put me in a little box all night!”
  4. Klutz: “Darn it, I closed the door while I’m outside and the peanut butter is still inside.”
  5. Burglar: “Heh, heh, heh, more peanut butter! I’ll just tiptoe in so gently the trap doesn’t spring. I didn’t bring calling cards but, I’ll leave some poop to show I was here.”
  6. Escape Artist: “If I rattle this thing enough, I’m sure I can get the door open.” (We’ve learned that it’s a really good idea to stop what we’re doing instantly and carry the trap outside when we get this type.)

Finally, there was today’s mouse, with an attitude I have never before encountered—and ’twas he that inspired this post: “Hey! Im not done eating yet! I’m going back in the trap.” Perhaps I should call him “the climate-denying CEO.” 😉

How would you market to these different types of mice?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Green Business, Peace and War, Politics, poverty Tagged with , , , , ,

While the GOP lines up to see who can be more crazy and out-of-touch and unintelligent than their competitors, the Left is strangely quiet. Haven’t even heard rumblings of candidacy from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has set the bar for leftist challenges in the past two presidential elections.

And this is odd, because Obama has failed the Left, despite being elected on a platform—dare I say a mantra—of “change.”

Yes, he can claim a number of significant accomplishments—one blogger found Obama’s legislative accomplishment rate was an astonishing 96 percent—but on most of the issues that really matter, his record does not inspire:

WAR:

We’re still in Iraq, where five US soldiers lost their lives this week. And we’re way deeper in Afghanistan than we were, with about 100,000 troops on the ground. And we’ve deployed in Pakistan and Libya. The only real move toward peace was Obama’s recent speech on the Israel-Palestine conflict

HEALTHCARE:

All that energy into the pathetic and complicated Obamacare compromise! Not only was single-payer not “on the table,” but even the wimpy public option was taken off the table. What was left?  A gift to the insurance industry and not much else. I want a candidate who will propose a one-sentence health reform bill: “All US citizens and legal residents are eligible for Medicare from birth.” If we need to phase it in, start by moving eligibility to age 55, then 40, then 20, then zero over a period of years.

ENERGY/ECONOMY/ENVIRONMENT

I lump these three together because the solution integrates across the disciplines: A massive, Marshall-plan-style initiative to get OFF fossil and nuclear energy sources in ten to twenty years, replacing them with sources that are both clean and renewable (with special attention to deep conservation that reduces the need for energy by 50 percent or more). We’d use government loans to jumpstart the effort, bring the price of conversions down, and front the money for homeowners, tenants, farmers,  and business owners to get systems in place—with the loans repaid out of the energy savings. This would boost the economy, create hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs, get people out of poverty, put them back to work, remove our biggest reason for starting wars—and drastically reduce our carbon footprint, all at once!

The candidate who can articulate this vision, who can claim the unfinished mandate that Obama promised and didn’t deliver, has a pretty good shot at galvanizing the American people—if they can be convinced that these changes are actually possible.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

Even though I’ve been in favor of legalizing marijuana since the 1970s and have been in the environmental movement  just as long, it never occurred to me that the continuing prohibition on pot actually has negative consequences for the environment.

But this fascinating article shows a number of negative environmental effects from the prohibition, ranging from highly toxic pesticides used both by growers and by law enforcement authorities on down to greater energy usage because the plants are often grown indoors and therefore need artificial light. If I counted right, the article offers six environmental benefits of legalizing pot. Who would’ve thunk it?

What are the other arguments that convinced me decades ago that pot should be legal? Here are two different choices that list a few of the main reasons to legalize marijuana, in some depth (the first, and I think better-argued one, is from High Times, the second is from the advocacy group Norml. And here’s a brief list of 101 reasons to legalize pot, some a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, General Commentary, Publishing, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , ,

I just came across an article announcing that ICANN is going to be allowing domains to register with the suffix xxx—a “red light district” in cyberspace.

What do you think of this?

On my end, I’m all for it. As someone who has to balance a huge commitment to free speech with a personal disgust for in-your-face porn, I think this is great:

  • Get the pornographers OUT of the dotcom space where people hit them by accident (and maybe, just maybe, OUT of my e-mail inbox, where I really do NOT appreciate them)
  • Make it harder for minors to get in
  • Monetize only on the backs of those who voluntarily choose to subsidize this industry
  • Maybe stop hijacking visitors to non-xxx sites who really don’t want to see this crap?

I really can’t think of a down-side. Can you?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail