Category: language

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

Guest Post by Dan Miller of 48days.com

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

—Shel Horowitz, editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this serves you well,

Dan Miller

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

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

Paths of apology and Forgiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

Guest Post by Robert Hubbell

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts.

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

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

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

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

Talk to you tomorrow!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.
 As someone who has studied marketing, I recognize in this analysis many instances of subliminal/hypnotic brain manipulation of the sort described in dozens of books including such classics as The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard (1957) and Subliminal Seduction by Wilson Bryan Key (1974)–not to mention the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Tack this onto two months of prepping his followers to repudiate the election results as a “steal,” and it is a recipe for rebellion.
 
Here is the first paragraph from the analysis. I urge you to read the entire article, but at least the section entitled “II. The Movie Shown at the Ellipse”

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

Thank you for your service as an Impeachment Manager. The American people are rooting for your success. This man needs to be banned from ever holding office again.
Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
Window broken in Capitol riot January 6, 2021. Photo by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

 

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

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

Chris Brogan noted in this morning’s newsletter:

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

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, language, Politics, Psychology, Uncategorized Tagged with , ,
Noah Webster dictionary frontispiece and title page, 1828
Noah Webster dictionary frontispiece and title page, 1828

Now that more than half a year since Merriam-Webster (as in Webster’s dictionary) released this list of its most searched words for 2019, I thought it might be fun to revisit it. I wrote most of this in response to a reporter query last December on what this list says about our society. The parts in italics are written in July, 2020, with the benefit of hindsight.

THEY: The Word of the Year is enormous recognition for the rapidly growing nonbinary community. I too have a child who now uses they/them/their, and so do many of their friends. This is a choice I might have made for myself in my 20s (and might still make in the future). A friend remarked to me recently that our generation (I’m turning 63 next week)(that was in December; next December will be my “Paul McCartney birthday”) worked to eliminate gender roles, while Millennials work to eliminate the concept of gender itself.

QUID PRO QUO: Asking for a favor in return for another favor. The search popularity of this phrase indicates that people want to understand what’s really true. For a public figure to be caught flat-out asking the president of another country, using the language, “a favor,” and then claiming there is no quid pro quo makes people wonder what this public figure has to gain from such an obvious lie–and what does it mean for a president to call on a foreign power to investigate his likely opponent. It also brings up questions about why foreign policy is being weaponized for personal political gain, threatening to deny already-approved aid an ally that is under attack by a neighboring superpower. We have an administration that tries to weaponize just about anything, refuses to work with Democrats in any meaningful way, and has spent the entire first half of 2020 sewing division and stupidity in everything from how to contain a virus pandemic to how to treat immigrants and refugees.

IMPEACH: Since this [impeachment of a president] was only used three times previously since the founding of the Republic, voters–especially those age 35 and under who probably don’t remember the last time–want to know exactly what it means, when it may be invoked, what the consequences are, and perhaps what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it into the Constitution. The high level of interest shows that we are not nearly as apathetic and apolitical as the media would portray us. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, as was the current president; Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. What we’ve proven in 2020 is that there is, unfortunately, no requirement that the Senate discharge its duties properly. With minds already made up for acquittal, Senate Republicans other than Mitt Romney refused to hear evidence or call willing witnesses and ignored the copious violations of law, ethics, and the Constitution by the most corrupt and least qualified person ever to hold the office. I hope many of these Senators are defeated in November.

CRAWDAD is a bit of an outlier in that it has nothing to do with politics. It does show that even in our device-oriented world, a book can still make an impact on the way we talk, and that English is such a rich language in part because it borrows so liberally from other tongues.

EGREGIOUS: Although the Merriam-Webster (M-W) example cited is about the Boeing 737 Max scandal, a lot of this word’s popularity also has to do with the political situation. Searching “egregious trump” brings up  2,470,000  hits on Google, while “egregious boeing max” returns only 178,000.

CLEMENCY: Essentially a form of pardon. This year’s use of the word is particularly interesting because the Tennessee case cited on M-W’s page of a woman who murdered her abuser being granted clemency contrasts so sharply with the recent Kentucky governor’s grant of clemency for more than 400 felons on his last day in office, including one convicted of child rape and another whose murder victim was beheaded and stuffed into an oil drum–and another whose family held a campaign fundraiser for that governor.

THE is an example that craziness can gain entry to the list. Adding the word “the” to an official university name is just a marketing stunt that should have been ignored. But it does revisit many interesting issues about rebranding, going back at least as far as 1972, when Standard Oil’s US division gave up the warm and cuddly Esso for the cold, corporate Exxon, but the Canadian branch kept Esso.

SNITTY is an apt description for much of what passes for public discourse these days, including on social media. While I’m not personally a fan of Barr, I enjoyed his use of this term as cited on M-W’s page.

TERGIVERSATION is new to me. George Will actually apologized for using such an obscure word in describing the hypocrisy of Senator Lindsey Graham, once a strong critic of Trump and now one of his staunchest defenders. It has been fascinating to see George Will, an apologist for Republican presidents back to the Nixon-Ford era, become ever-more-clear that this one is not fit for office. Even Fox News gave huge play to Will’s late-May call to remove not just Trump but his “congressional enablers.”

CAMP: Ahh, a relief from politics that might hearken back to they/them/their as nonbinary pronouns. This has been around in the gay subculture for decades; I encountered it in the early 1970s. As conservatives try to double down on “traditional” family structures, expressions of camp creep ever-more-frequently into the wider culture, and society as a whole is a lot more accepting of male fashionistas (as an example). If you want a wonderful example of how gay male camp can take a court-jester role and use humor to attack the current administration, watch a few Randy Rainbow videos. They’re great fun.  A recent one, “Bunker Boy”, is one of my favorites, and also one of the recent ones. You can find many of them at this search results page.

EXCULPATE: Now we’re back to the heart of the matter: the question several of these words and phrase raise about corruption in the conduct of senior government officials. Mueller said the report did not exculpate, and the quid pro quo demand makes it clear that the behavior hasn’t changed, either. Of course people will want to know whether their president was exculpated, and what that means.

Taken as a totality, these words show a keen interest in the legal challenges to the Trump administration. When we note that justice and feminism were the top words of the administration’s first two years, and we look at the enormous growth in protest movements immediately following the 2016 election (engaging millions of people who had not been active before, or had not been active in decades) 2018 and 2019 elections as well as the surge in popularity of presidential candidates who would have been considered fringe-left not that long ago, we see that these lookup spikes tell an important story about a growing and powerful movement for deep social change. We see that despite a rightward, authoritarian trend in governments around the world, there’s a strong undercurrent for social justice, and that includes bringing a cruel and corrupt president to justice. And while the centrist Biden came away the winner in the Dems’ nomination process, he has shown himself far more willing than I would have expected to embrace many elements of the progressive agenda, and to build real coalitions with progressive leaders including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Innovation, language, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,
interracial couple in US flag regalia
interracial couple in US flag regalia

As the United States of America marks its 244th birthday today, it’s a good time to look at the state of this nation.

The US was the first modern constitutional democracy, just shy of 26 years earlier than second-place Norway. That’s a terrific achievement that makes many Americans proud–including me. But the founders of this country were White, male property owners, some of whom saw human beings as part of their property. And the democracy they created was an unequal one that gave voting rights only to White, male property owners. It took all the way until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend that franchise all the way down to Black women in all parts of the segregated South.

Americans think of ourselves as a “can-do” people. Over the course of its history, the US has often been in the vanguard, with the rest of the world playing catch-up later. The US was especially good at technology, pioneering innovations ranging from the interchangeable parts that made mass production possible to the amazing moon missions that took less than seven years from JFK’s speech at Rice University to Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind” as he became the first person ever to set foot on the lunar surface, to enormous leadership in green energy from the 1970s into the 1990s.

And Americans often see ourselves as the greatest country in the world. In many ways,  that image is correct. We have amazing natural and scenic resources, a wide diversity of people, cultures, ecosystems, and more. We are very resilient, even scrappy at times. We have a democracy that has not only lasted but expanded. We’ve birthed may popular movements for justice and liberation, and experiments in new ways to form community, that went around the world.

As one example, it’s hard to imagine the LGBT movement globally without the strength of that movement in the US starting in 1969 with Stonewall. Stonewall didn’t magically spring up out of nowhere. Little-known homosexual-rights advocacy groups like the Mattachine Society (for men) and Daughters of Bilitis (for women) had been around since the 1950s. The Gray Panthers, founded in Philadelphia, took on agism. Disability activists pushed through the Americans with Disabilities Act.

But we also lead in many areas where leading isn’t a good thing. 73 percent of US homicides involve a firearm, and per capita firearms ownership is more than twice the number of #2 Yemen. The US is the only country to have more guns than people. We have the highest healthcare costs in the world but far from the best outcomes. And of course, new cases of Coronavirus are raging in the US, while Europe and Asia have done a much better job on control.

And despite the perception of American exceptionalism–that we’re a beacon to the rest of the world–there are many areas where the US is far, far below “the best in the world.” This could be a much longer list, but here are a few examples:

The US has enabled an enormous transfer of wealth from middle-class and working-class people to the 1 Percent. People of color have faced numerous additional institutional barriers to participating in that wealth.

The US has also been a hotbed of hatred, where for centuries, people have been attacked and often killed for their real or perceived skin color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other factors. The FBI’s most recent statistics, for 2018, document 7,120 hate crime incidents (this list taken verbatim from the site):

  • 59.5 percent stemmed from a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias.
  • 18.6 percent were motivated by religious bias.
  • 16.9 percent resulted from sexual-orientation bias.
  • 2.2 percent stemmed from gender-identity bias.
  • 2.1 percent resulted from bias against disabilities.
  • 0.7 percent (58 offenses) were prompted by gender bias.

My guess is that these terrible statistics don’t even count police murders of people of color.

What is the Real America?

Technically, America is much more than the US. It’s everything from the northern tip of Alaska to the southern tip of Argentina–and Americans live anywhere within. But right now, I’m just talking about the US.

And the answer is…all of the above, and more. Our diversity is part of our resilience and our strength. But our education (in school and out, and that includes social media) tends to sharpen our existing divisions and make it hard to find people who disagree with us–let alone have those meaningful, structured conversations that explore how we can work together with people who are not like us.

And it hasn’t helped that the current president has repeatedly and publicly embraced racism,  misogyny, ableism, and difference, while promoting suppression of real news and science, monolithic social mores that ignore or (sometimes even physically) attack different perspectives, and dictatorships in other countries. A president who has put children in cages, essentially closed the borders to legitimate asylum seekers (long before COVID), slashed the safety net, appointed a likely child abuser to the Supreme Court, and made a mockery of our cherished democracy.

This Moment: A Time for Action

Many things are changing in our society this year:

  • The pandemic has changed the way we interact–and created a ridiculous ideologically based divide between those who take precautions and those who don’t
  • Anger around police mistreatment has created a mass movement
  • COVID has shown that our entire society can pivot, that all those “impossible”changes around issues from climate change to racism are actually less drastic than what we’ve already changed

In short, the cauldron is bubbling. What emerges depends on what we put in–but this could be a time to Make America Great, finally.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,

Buried in the registration form for the first post-lockdown rally to re-elect you-know-who:

“By attending the rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to Covid-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors or volunteers liable for any illness or injury.”

Juneteenth (Emancipation Day) celebration, Richmond, Virginia, 1905. Courtesy, wikipedia.
Juneteenth (Emancipation Day) celebration, Richmond, Virginia, 1905. Courtesy, wikipedia.

So typical of the hypocrite-in-chief. The man who first denounced the virus as a hoax, then fueled anti-Asian racism, and most recently caused a quantity of precious test kit swabs to be thrown away because he refused to put on a mask to tour the plant. The man whose bungling of our public emergency started with the dismantling of long-standing resources to fight pandemics and continued through the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.

(Aside: the cowards who ran the factory let him come in anyway. They should have said, “No mask? Then no tour.” Perhaps they were afraid of being ridiculed in a nasty tweet. Or of losing a federal contract. The former, which was quite likely, would put them in a prestigious club of people and organizations important enough to be publicly scorned by the country’s most incompetent president. The latter would have been a juicy lawsuit, and meanwhile, New England’s governors would have been falling all over themselves to grab those suddenly available supplies.)

The man who also refused to take the necessary actions months ago that would have contained the virus impact, as countries from Vietnam to New Zealand did, along with countries more comparable to the US, like Germany and South Korea.

Say one thing, do another is a hallmark of this man. That Tulsa rally is an example.  Yes, we see his occasional (and usually, too-little, too-late) condemnation of racism. But we also see this event scheduled on Juneteenth, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tulsa had been the site of the most successful black neighborhood in the United States, until white racist mobs burned it down and killed hundreds of people on May 31 and June 1, 1921. And of course, we now the long history of his racist actions and comments, going all the way back to his vendetta against the Central Park Five and the housing discrimination he and his father were repeatedly sued over by the US Justice Department.

If it were either Juneteenth or Tulsa, it could conceivably have been a coincidence. But to have the kick-off event for the revived in-person re-election campaign held on that day, in that city, could not be a coincidence. It’s a dog-whistle to the racists, no doubt schemed up by one of DT’s senior advisors (I don’t think the man himself is educated enough to know about Tulsa, and it wouldn’t shock me if he hadn’t known what Juneteenth is.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, People Helping People, Politics, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Like many on the Left, I was disappointed that a whole slew of brilliant progressives with the skills to be president failed to get traction. And I was dismayed by the Biden campaign’s sneak-attack success at undermining Elizabeth Warren’s chances just before Super-Tuesday, with the very public withdrawals and endorsements by Klobuchar and Buttigeig. If we had Ranked-Choice Voting and other long-overdue electoral reforms in place, this would not have been a problem.  (Note: that second post is something I wrote back in 2007, outlining seven important reforms. At that time, Ranked-Choice was usually referred to as Instant Runoff.) But it left a lot of us feeling angry and left out.

With the withdrawal of Bernie and Elizabeth and their eventual endorsement of Biden in the weeks following, things shifted from who do we want as our ally to who do we want as our adversary? This is a very important distinction, brought to my attention by Erica Chenowith, who is known for her work showing that nonviolent struggle by just 3.5% of the population is enough to bring down a government. We will make more progress in a Biden administration than the current administration. We have already pushed Biden’s rhetoric well to the left and have given him the space to make the recent statements condemning DT’s racism.

Effigy of "the Donald," photographed by Shel Horowitz at the Climate March, April 2017, Washington, DC
Effigy of “the Donald,” photographed by Shel Horowitz at the Climate March, April 2017, Washington, DC

I already voted, on super Tuesday. But if I lived in a state that was yet to have its primary, I would absolutely vote for Sanders in order to increase that leverage from the left. But that’s all it will do. Sanders will not be the nominee. That dream is over! While giving more strength to the Sanders coalition, we have to recognize that in November, barring some kind of miracle or catastrophe, Biden’s name will be on the ballot. And the more out of control DT gets, the more he tilts actively toward fascism as he has been doing with increasing strength ever since the impeachment failed, the more urgent it is to make the margin of victory so big that DT cannot steal it this time (the 2016 results will be under a cloud forever).

We need to fight for every vote in swing states even if that means having recounts. To delegitimize the current administration in every way possible.

The absence of DT’s actual name in this post is deliberate. It is one small way we reduce his legitimacy, and his bragging rights.

I was on an Indivisible NoHo call with our progressive Central/Western Massachusetts congressman, Jim McGovern, this week. He noted that Biden was not his first choice, or even his fourth choice. That’s true for me as well. I think of the 22 original candidates, I had him at about 17. But we lost that one. Again!

Yes, Sanders would have made a fine and successful nominee that I could have supported with a lot more enthusiasm. He was my second choice, after Warren. Yes, absolutely vote Sanders in the primary but recognize that Sanders will not be the nominee and this is about giving strength to the left to negotiate with Biden.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail