Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, General Commentary, language, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,
Parkland HS activists including David Hogg, left, and Emma Gonzales, in tank top
Parkland HS activists including David Hogg, left, and Emma Gonzales, in tank top. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Editor’s note: This was written back in February. I don’t know why I never hit Publish. Unfortunately, even the Parkland activists—as amazing and powerful as they are—even the mass rallies they organized, even the wide public outcry—has not ended the violence even at schools yet, though they’ve already made more progress than anyone has ever done on this issue. In Arizona alone, there were 17 shooting threats (not actual shootings) just between Valentine’s Day and March 10th. I hope their activism sparks a massive rejection in November of guns-uber-alles politicians. 

Meanwhile, just in the past week, we’ve seen a merchant of hatred, the always-despicable Milo Yiannopoulos, call for “vigilantes” to attack journalists. Yiannopoulos was forced to backpedal, but this is getting even uglier. The crazies will take this stuff seriously. We’ve also seen consistent, repeated attacks against the press by the current occupant of the Oval Office. And we’ve seen a mass shooting inside a newspaper newsroom in Maryland. Everything Kropotkin says below about people who make death threats against child activists is true of those who attack journalists, too, and thus this post is more relevant than ever. Remember: when dictators take over, they start restricting the press.

Guest Post By Pyotr Kropotkin

In the wake of the horrible (and so could-have-been-avoided) shooting at  Marjory  Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, several of the surviving students have spoken out. In this short time, they’ve shown themselves as articulate spokespeople for common sense, and they are changing the conversation around the right to own any type of weapon versus the right to personal and public safety.

But despite the incredible trauma they’ve been through, quite a few people don’t think they should be speaking out. Some are even making death threats against these kids!

If you are making death threats against people just because you disagree with them, here are some of the things we know about you:

  1. Somewhere along the way, you lost your compassion, lost your heart
  2. You don’t understand the difference between freedom to and freedom from—that your freedom to shoot an assault rifle ends when it impinges on others’ freedom from attack
  3. You are mentally or emotionally unbalanced and should not have access to firearms, because you’ve made a death threat against an innocent child who has done you no harm
  4. You should be the subject of immediate criminal investigation, for threatening the life of another
  5. You don’t love the Constitution—the 2nd Amendment is fine for you, but not the 1st Amendment, which protects the rights of free speech, free assembly, worship, and petitioning the government to redress grievances
  6. You probably believe that an armed presence is a deterrent to violence—even though an armed deputy was outside Stoneman High, and even though the majority of people at Fort Hood the day of that massacre were armed
  7. You might also believe that there’s some crazy government conspiracy to take away your guns so they can take away the rest of your freedom—even though even an assault rifle is no protection against tanks and howitzers
  8. You like to feel powerful, and you think your assault rifles and your threats make you powerful (they don’t—they make you the equivalent of a two-year-old at playtime)
  9. You’re a bully who thinks the way to succeed is by throwing your weight around and scaring other people
  10. You probably have not experienced enough love in your life—and I feel sorry for you.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,
Marchers at a rally for racial justice and immigrant rights, Holyoke, MA. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
Marchers at a rally for racial justice and immigrant rights, Holyoke, MA. Photo by Shel Horowitz.

For more than a year and a half, the current administration has been mired in constant scandals of corruption/self-dealing, incompetence, vindictiveness, attacks on his opponents and on minorities, attacks on the environment, bullying, broken promises, well more than 2000 lies from the man himself, and even broken treaties…the list, unfortunately, goes on and on and on. The sorry chronicle started well before his inauguration and continues through the present.

Perhaps you didn’t think it could get worse But in the past six weeks, this vile administration has reached a new low. The decision to wrench 1995 helpless children from the arms of their loving parents and put them in cages is not only inexcusable on moral and humanitarian grounds, it’s also a long-term disaster for the safety and security of the United States. Yes, it puts every American at risk.

Here’s a quick description of the legal issues and a good list of organizations fighting this outrage that need our help.

Let’s look at both the moral and practical reasons why this must stop.

 

The Moral Issues

Many figures in this administration have been long-time champions of self-described “family values.” In other words, they say they are in favor of keeping families together, as long as those families are heterosexual. They talk earnestly about the importance of having a child grow up in a home with both parents. Yet, when mothers take their children and flee gang violence, domestic abuse, and other genuine evils, the US incarcerates them at the border and takes their children away. The parents treated like violent criminals. Their children put in cages.

Attorney General Sessions quotes one verse in the Bible to justify this barbarism: a verse that was used in the 19th century to justify the worst aspects of slavery.

Last I checked, the Attorney General is one of the people charged to protect the separation of church and state (as well as freedom of speech AND assembly) enshrined in the First Amendment. But even granting that the Bible can be a moral compass for a sitting Attorney General, Mr. Sessions’s interpretation is highly selective. Consider a few of the other things the Bible says. I’ve posted a whole bunch of them at the end of this blog post—but first, let’s talk about the practical impact.

 

The Practical Case

As taxpayers and citizens, we should be deeply concerned about what’s being done in our names. The consequences to the US could be deep, severe, and very negative. A few examples:

This policy creates an entire class of enemies—creates potential terrorists

Deliberately adding trauma creates maladjusted human beings: PTSD and other diseases. Any child ripped away from his or her family and put in a cage is going to be hostile to the government that did this. Family members will also be hostile. Taken to the extreme, you create something that looks entirely too much like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where hurts lead to rage, rage leads to violence, and violence leads to even more abrogation of rights. Once this cycle of violence gets established, it’s really hard to break (though, of course, lots of people are trying, including my colleague Andrea Ayvazian. Do we really want to create a whole new class of enemies who will feel justified in attacking US-related sites around the world? Hasn’t the US been fighting terrorism as its major foreign policy stance since 2001? This policy could create a whole new generation of terrorists.

Also, do we really want to attempt to repair avoidable psychological damage that prevents people from functioning effectively and finding gainful employment? Many of these folks will end up in the US eventually. By making it harder to function, we turn them into social burdens. Our tax dollars will have to cover the survival mechanisms for those not resilient enough to recover on their own.

It’s fiscally unsound and wrecking the economy

Jailing immigrants seeking asylum is expensive, with taxpayer costs of up to $585 per family per night. It is far cheaper to provide humane living conditions, assist in finding job and housing, and create a new and grateful productive class of future citizens.

Also, the many industries that rely on immigrant labor are at risk. Agriculture has been particularly hard hit, with crops rotting in the fields because workers are not available to harvest them. If we want food to eat, we have to stop terrorizing immigrant farmworkers.

It puts the US in violation of international law as well as our own constitution

The path the US is taking is in gross violation of various human rights charters, UN regulations, and our own constitutional requirements for due process. Imagine the consequences to business, for instance, if organizations in other firms because the US is guilty of crimes against humanity. It has happened to other countries and it could happen to us. There should be a massive outcry from business about the risks of this policy.

It positions the US as an unworthy partner for joint projects with other governments and businesses

The US has become a rogue state, blowing away trust on a host of issues, from the Paris Accord to the G7 Agreement. Now, other governments may face pressure from their own constituents not to do business with abusive governments, just as economically and organizationally isolating South Africa forced that country to get rid of apartheid.

A Few More Bible Quotes Mr. Sessions May Want to Study

On the importance of family:

8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
—1 Timothy 5:8
3 Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. 
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. 
5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.
—Psalm 127:3-5
15 She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. 
16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. 
17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
—Proverbs 31:15-17

On immigrants’ place in society

21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
—Exodus 22:21
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
—Matthew 25:35
32 but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler
—Job 31:32
35 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.
—Leviticus 25:35

On justice in the face of oppression

Numerous quotes—see https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=oppressed&t=niv&c=all and https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=justice%2C+justice&t=niv&c=all

On human dignity

Numerous quotes at https://www.openbible.info/topics/human_dignity

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Branding, Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Democracy, General Commentary, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Psychology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Guest post by Tamsen Webster

M&Ms, with blue ones
M&Ms, with blue ones

Back in 1995, I cast a vote that had long-lasting consequences. We all did.

I’m speaking, of course, of the vote to add the color blue to M&Ms. Looking back, I realize now that it was the Brexit of candy votes.

But let me back up. For most of my childhood, M&Ms were as colorfully bland and reassuring as a 1970s kitchen.

Just dark brown, tan, orange, yellow and green. No red. Those caused cancer.

But by the time the 90s rolled around, America was in full 70s rejection mode, and M&Ms decided it was time to add a new color to the fabled mix.

And we got to vote on what it would be: pink, purple, or blue.

It wasn’t much of a decision, really: pink or purple clearly didn’t “go” with the rest of that harvest goal palette. I mean, really.

And so blue won in a landslide.

But the day they made that announcement, they told us something they hadn’t told us before: this “new color” was going to… replace… TAN.

And all of a sudden, this silly little vote had real consequences (as far as candy colors go, at least). And I didn’t like those consequences.

And I really didn’t like that I didn’t know about this whole “sacrificial tan” thing ahead of time.

I have no idea what the real reason was for M&M’s leadership to sacrifice tan. But whatever the reason, apparently it was a decision they made BEFORE they announced the results of the vote… and likely before they even decided to have a vote at all… because they had already decided to get rid of tan.

And yes, one of the truths of leadership is that sometimes there are these binary either/or choices we have to make in order to make a successful change. Opening a new office here means not opening one there. Hiring this person means not hiring that one.

But binary choices aren’t the problem. The real problem is when a binary choice isn’t presented as one. When we don’t give people full information about the change they’re about to make.

Why? Because we — all of us — are not rational decision makers, we are rationalizing decision makers.

We make decisions based on how we feel in the moment… and then we go back and think about them.

Which means, no matter how good you may make a decision feel in the moment, once people start really thinking about it, those once-happy, once-accepting people… aren’t.

Because they’ll feel manipulated, not led. And every time they do, they’ll be just a little less willing to trust the next change you put in front of them.

Do it enough? And you’ve lost your ability to lead change entirely.

So what can we do?

In the case of M&Ms, one single line might have made the difference between me happily eating blue M&Ms and my carrying the torch for tan all these years…

Here it is: “We’ve decided it’s time to replace tan…but, now you can help us decide what color we add next.” It’s a small addition, but a critical one, because it shows both sides of the choice. And we can only fully embrace change when we fully understand it.

So, if you’re a leader or manager, don’t shy away from the truth. Tell it. And where possible, give people real options to choose from. I know the “real options” part isn’t always possible — that’s back to the hard truths of leadership.

But even telling people that helps them better understand a change, because they’ll better understand where you’re coming from. Either way, the change will be more successful as a result.

So do it for that. Or do it for them.

Or just do it for tan.

#teamtan

 

Tamsen Webber is Founder and Chief Idea Whisperer, Find the Red Thread
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, General Commentary, language, media-general, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , , ,

My mom told me often that I taught myself to read at age 3 by sounding out stuff on cereal boxes, mayonnaise jars, etc. And to this day, I read packaging, ads, tracts…whatever is lying around. She also told me that I was extremely frustrated that I couldn’t get a New York Public Library (NYPL) card until I could write my name, which took another two years after I learned to read. She had to take books out for me on her card. I have no memory of either of these things. But I do remember that I was reading fluently by the beginning of first grade. At age 60, I’m still grateful to my first grade teacher, who sat me in the back of the room with a 4th grade geography textbook while she inflicted Sally, Dick, and Jane on the rest of the class (and I still love geography).

A child reading. Photo by Julia Freeman-Woolpert, freeimages.com
A child reading. Photo by Julia Freeman-Woolpert, freeimages.com

Much later, I met my wife, novelist and poet D. Dina Friedman, at a poetry reading in Greenwich Village

I was skeptical of Mom’s claims about me until we discovered when my son was 2 and some months that he could tell words like wax, fax, and max apart, visually, because my daughter had sat him down and taught him. He was not an early reader but obviously could have been if it had been a priority. He was (and still is at 25) focused on music. We started reading to our kids when they were infants. My daughter, gluten-free/vegetarian gourmet food blogger Alana Horowitz Friedman and her husband are both avid readers, too.

Mom was like that too. Once they lifted the old limit of eight books at a time, she would go to the local NYPL branch every two weeks with a SHOPPING CART, fill it with books, and wheel it the mile back to our house. She had a long commute to Manhattan via express bus and that’s where she did much of her reading.

I’m still a voracious reader. Books have opened up my mind to such incredible richness of thought and emotion. Much of my thinking on everything from nonviolent social change to green business success comes from processing and extrapolating on what I read to come up with something new. The world is a much more interesting place to me because of writers like Dave Dellinger, Gandhi, and Gene Sharp’s writings about nonviolence, and Amory Lovins, Janine Benyus, and William McDonough on the green business side.

But a few years ago, I realized that while I made time in my busy life for nonfiction, I didn’t do enough pleasure reading. I started making sure I read at least five minutes a day of a book that had nothing to do with work.

Of course, five minutes was nowhere near enough if I was into a good book. I found all sorts of nooks and crannies in my day to read. And then I decided to get a lot more exercise. Much of that is on an indoor stationary bicycle: a perfect place to read! Typically, I start my first shift of the day with a poem, then ten minutes of nonfiction and ten minutes of fiction or memoir. If I’m biking 20 minutes, that’s my whole shift. If (more typically) I’m doing 30 minutes, I often spend the remaining 10 checking Facebook from my phone, because I have to make time in my life for social media, too.

With most of it on the exercise bike, I’m actually reading more than 80 books a year!

Some vast number of people never read another book after college. They’re cheating themselves. Make time in your own life for this great pleasure!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Green Business, Green Marketing, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Social-good products like this solar-powered LED lamp make a difference AND a profit
Social-good products like this solar-powered LED lamp make a difference AND a profit

Too often, businesses think of sustainability as a “have to” instead of a “delighted to.” Let’s change that attitude! Here are three among many reasons why business leaders should be thrilled to embrace deep sustainability:

  1. The powerful business case. More and more stakeholders are demanding that the companies they patronize address wider environmental and social issues; those who fail to do this are starting to lose market share. Not only that, but going green the RIGHT way can substantially lower costs of energy, raw materials, and other goods while building in customer loyalty and tolerance for higher prices. To say it another way, greening your company can significantly up profitability! Companies in the Fortune 500 figured this out some years ago. Pretty much all of them have sustainability departments (under various names) and have made huge progress in the past decade. Of course, we still have a long way to go. But many smaller companies are resistant. Because they see expenses, not income streams, they dig in with their old, inefficient ways. But certainly, the low-hanging fruit–taking the steps with quick payback–increases profitability directly, by raising income and lowering costs.
  2. The ability to market sustainable goods, services, and processes to three different types of consumer: the Deep Green, who makes purchasing decisions contingent on social responsibility; the Lazy Green, who will do the right thing if it’s convenient; and the Nongreen, who is indifferent or even hostile to a sustainability agenda, but who will happily buy green products and services if they are positioned as superior (more comfortable, more durable, less toxic, etc.). Of course, these three kinds of customers need three different sets of marketing messages–something many green companies don’t understand, and thus leave a lot of money on the table.
  3. The power of business to go beyond sustainability—to regenerativity. To actually make things better: identify/create/market *profitable* offerings that turn hunger and poverty into abundance, war into peace, and catastrophic climate change into planetary balance. Lifting people out of poverty (and creating new markets), ending war, solving climate change as ways to make money: how cool is that?

I’ve spent the last several years studying this trend and have written an award-winning book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, that shows how in detail. It’s been endorsed by over 50 business and environmental leaders, including Seth Godin and Chicken Soup for the Soul’s Jack Canfield. You can learn more at the Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World page at GoingBeyondSustainability.com (I think it’s by far the best of my 10 books, several of which have won awards or been translated and republished in other countries).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Arts & Entertainment, Diversity, language, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

When gallery owner Richard Michelson asked Jules Feiffer if he wanted a retrospective for his 89th birthday, the brilliant artist replied, “I am doing the best work I’ve ever done and want this exhibit to be new and explosive, with figures sprawling and flying everywhere, and focused on dance…It only took 89 years to figure out how to do this stuff!”

Jules Feiffer, 89, at Michelson Gallery, April 13, 2018
Jules Feiffer, 89, at Michelson Gallery, April 13, 2018

That wonderful and extensive show is now on display at R. Michelson Gallery in Northampton, Massachusetts. We went in to peruse it, and Rich’s wife Jennifer told us that Feiffer was about to do a Q&A. Of course we went upstairs, chatted a bit with Jules and his Phantom Tollbooth collaborator Norton Juster (who lives locally), and settled in to listen.

Jules has a quick and acerbic wit and a strong sense of social justice. Someone asked him what the best response was to the current situation in national politics and he instantly responded with a primal scream. I asked him how he was able to capture the 3-dimensional, flowing art of dance so well in static two-dimensional pictures and he talked about capturing the illusion, that everything was an illusion.

His new work is indeed brilliant. While it descends directly from his famous Village Voice cartoons of he 1960s and 70s, it really is what he told Rich. It has so much vibrancy, often very sophisticated and detailed captioning, and the figures really come alive—especially those using colored inks, which he’s begun to use here and there (though most of the show was black-and-white).

Jules is the latest in a long line of inspirational role models for growing older. I’ve profiled some of them here: Arky Markham, centenarian and activist; Bob Luitweiler, founder of the international homestay organization Servas, for instance I’ve been fortunate to know many others, including Pete Seeger and Chicago Seven/Eight defendant Dave Dellinger—with whom I became friends as a teenaged college student when he was 60, and whom I consider one of my personal mentors—as well as Gray Panther founder Maggie Kuhn; I met her when I was working for the Gray Panthers as a VISTA Volunteer, at the group’s national conference.

These are the kinds of people I want to emulate as I (hopefully) reach well past my current age of 61. When I was a teen activist, I often heard that I was too young to change the world. Now, I’m beginning to hear people tell me I’m too old to do the work I do. But I remind them that Grandma Moses started painting in her 70s and enjoyed a 20-plus-year run as a painter. Today, for example, I’m going networking at a sustainability fair, then attending a peace and tax fairness rally, then hiking a mountain, and probably going out to hear some live music or theater in the evening. You’re only as old as you feel.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Read this brief article. Then come back and let’s talk about it. This tab will still be open in your browser.

I found it a fascinating yet quick deep-dive into the liberal versus conservative mindset. Sharing this article on Facebook (where I happened to see it), Nathan Mackenzie Brown, founder of Really American  commented,

A must read if you care about politics. FYI, it’s also very short.

My take away from this is, if you are liberal, don’t fear monger, even about Trump.

The authors’ central point is that when we feel personally secure, we tilt more liberal, and when we feel, threatened we lurch rightward. Not exactly rocket science, I know. But what they bring to the table is the idea that if we address the security concerns, the political tilt is actually reversible.

This is something that DT innately understands—the power of fear. He built his base by demonizing various Others. My capitalized O is intentional; I’m talking about whole groups and classes of people (Mexicans, Muslims, the press, etc..

It’s very rare to run a successful US national campaign rooted in fear. Reagan (“morning in America”) and Obama (“hope” and “change”) both won on optimism. Laughable as it seemed at the time and even more so in retrospect, Bush II ran as a “compassionate conservative.” Even Nixon ran on his “secret plan to end the war.”

But DT mixed a very pessimistic worldview, based largely in “they’re out to get us” with a soaringly optimistic slogan (MAGA). His opponent was a centrist with close ties to the groups DT was calling out.

Hillary Clinton also failed to consistently express strong political views, and tried to harness competing slogans at cross purposes: the wimpy and ineffectual “I’m with her” and the arrogant “it’s her turn”/”it’s our turn” both reinforcing the perception that she was an in-group, establishment figure out of touch with the public, while “stronger together” was somewhat optimistic but not really rooted in vision, and seemed a reaction to DT’s divisiveness.

George Lakoff and others have written that conservative politics are often rooted in an authoritarian-father mindset, while liberals are the products of permissive-parenting thinking. I have a number of issues with Lakoff’s approach, though I see much truth in it.

Left and Right come together at both the Libertarian (Freedom) and Authoritarian (Control) ends of the spectrum
Left and Right come together at libertarian AND authoritarian (copyright 2018, Shel Horowitz, all rights reserved)

But let me add one of my own long-held theories: Beyond the Left-Right axis, we have to look at another set of operating principles: where someone stands on freedom vs. control. So at the top end of this graphic (which is copyright 2018 by Shel Horowitz, as is the entire post—please contact me if you’d like to reprint), progressive environmentalists and Tea Partiers concerned about wasteful government spending join together in the Green Scissors coalition.

At the bottom end, I don’t see a lot of difference between communists and fascists other than their idea of who should control the means of production. They are both totally willing to rough up or even (historically) mass-murder their opponents, seize or maintain power by force of arms, and crush dissent. Was Hitler really so different from Stalin?

Let’s get some good discussion going on this. Comment below.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Branding, Copywriting, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Psychology Tagged with , , , ,

Guest post from former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. This originally ran in his email newsletter. I’m including all his original links and reprinting with his permission. I especially love this quote: “if you are a useless lout who has done nothing good for The People, but you still aspire to public office, then negative ads really are your only alternative.”

It’s worth noting not only how badly negative ads position our perception of politics (“ah, they’re all crooks,” etc.)—but also the growth of some promising alternatives to the negativity. One great example is ranked choice voting. Experts including Voter Choice Massachusetts explain that ranked choice (also called instant runoff) provides incentives NOT to use negative ads.

—Shel Horowitz

Former Florida representative Alan Grayson
Former Florida representative Alan Grayson

My son is doing a science experiment on politics and negative advertising.  And the results are in.  But first, a few words on negative ads.

They are pervasive.  Back in 2012, virtually every dollar that the national parties spent on Congressional campaigns was spent on negative advertising.  (Expenditures for and against candidates are reported to the FEC separately, so you can look it up.)  It’s gotten a little better since then, but more than 90% of party and PAC advertising remains negative.
Belief in negative advertising is also pervasive.  I can’t think of a single political leader or political consultant who would tell you that “positives” are more effective than “negatives.”  We had an interesting example of this a few months ago.  When GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell tried to elevate Luther Strange above Roy Moore and Mo Brooks in the Alabama Senate GOP Primary, he didn’t say anything good about Strange (apparently, a hopeless task).  Instead, McConnell dumped $7 million of party money going negative on Moore and Brooks, which backfired when Moore got the GOP nomination.  (And the rest . . . is history.)
Which proves that if you are a useless lout who has done nothing good for The People, but you still aspire to public office, then negative ads really are your only alternative.
So anyway, my son Stone, a 7th grader, came up with the idea that for his science project, he would try to measure the effectiveness of positive and negative ads.  (He really came up with this himself.  Smart kid.)
He created four positive ad posters for candidate Johnson, with suitable imagery:
JOHNSON FOR CLEAN AIR AND WATER!
JOHNSON STANDS FOR EQUALITY!
JOHNSON WILL IMPROVE EDUCATION!
JOHNSON WILL RAISE YOUR SALARY!
Each ended with the tag line “Vote for Johnson.”
Then he came up with four negative ad posters for Johnson’s opponent, Smith.  They read this way:
JOHNSON IS A CROOK!
JOHNSON WILL RUIN THE ECONOMY!
JOHNSON WILL RAISE TAXES!
And the inevitable:
JOHNSON IS A COMMIE!  (featuring a picture of Marx, Lenin and Mao).
Each ended with the tag line “Vote for Smith.”
So the 7th graders saw the posters, and voted as follows:
Johnson 19
Smith 12
When my son told me the results, I felt an enormous sense of relief.  I really wanted Johnson to win, and not just because he’s a Commie.  No, I wanted Johnson to win because his positive ads are an effort to convey to the voters the enormous power that we all have.  What power?  The power to make the world a better place, by making better rules for everyone.
That’s why I do it, anyway.
You can look at these results and feel a renewed faith in humanity.  Or if not all humanity, at least seventh-graders.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
“I’ve got The Power.”
 – Snap!, “I’ve got The Power” (1990).
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Entrepreneurship, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Innovation, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Technology, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Under the guise of protecting small business from frivolous lawsuits, the House of Representatives just gutted the Americans With Disabilities Act—a major piece of civil rights legislation signed by George H.W. Bush. I have to say, I’m on a LOT of small business discussion boards, and I haven’t heard any business owners screaming about hardship. Small businesses in pre-ADA buildings are exempt unless they do major renovations.

Kangaroo electric wheelchair car—One way to rethink transportation for wheelchair users
One way to rethink transportation for wheelchair users

It’s up to us to make sure the Senate doesn’t follow along. Contact your Senators and let them know this is a vote where you will hold them accountable. And if your Rep was one who voted Aye, give them a piece of your mind too.

Of course, we’ll be tempted to argue on the basis of compassion. But remember who we’re dealing with here. These people have a long history of NOT acting out of compassion, often of doing the opposite. So compassion arguments “ain’t gonna cut it.” We have to get to them on the things they will listen to: costs to taxpayers, personal hardship to them, and of course, voting and campaigning for and donating to their opponents.

For 15 years, I’ve been making the dollars-and-sense business case for going green and building social entrepreneurship into business, which means I have some experience discussing issues with people who are predisposed to oppose my position. So let me offer some talking points I think they’ll actually listen to:

  1. Don’t Waste My Tax Dollars: How dare you make it harder for productive citizens to work, just because they have disabilities. If you think I want my tax dollars squandered on welfare payments to people who could have had a job until you made it impossible to get to work, you’d better think again.
  2. Don’t Hurt the Economy by Hurting Disabled People: For new construction, it’s really easy to design in ADA compliance from the ground up. By allowing builders to take shortcuts because you took away the teeth of this legislation, you’re encouraging them to stop designing in ramps and wider doorways, setting aside parking, making elevators disabled-friendly, etc have you noticed how many people with disabilities who in pre-ADA days had to sit home and be a burden have gone on to start job-creating companies making our economy better (like the personal-transportation vehicle for wheelchair users in the photo—designed by a wheelchair-using Texas woman)? There’s even an organization of disabled business owners that was named one of President George H.W. Bush’s 1000 Points of Light. Do you really want the blame for squashing that on your shoulders?
  3. Protect Our Veterans: Do you realize that veterans have much higher disability rates than the general population (due to war wounds), and that many have a hard time finding work and frequently start their own businesses? Thus, many of these job creators are veterans.You are hurting the people who served our country and defended our freedom.
  4. Pointless Government Meddling: The ADA has been around since 1990. Most public buildings are already accessible. This is bringing in the government to break a system that’s working just fine right now, and that has enabled millions of people to be productive members of society. And if buildings are allowed to come online without meeting current ADA code, it will be expensive to retrofit them later, when (not if) this weakening of the law is repealed.
  5. Personal Inconvenience to the Senator (this one takes a wee bit of research): I noticed that [name a family member of theirs with a disability] uses a wheelchair [cane, walker, seeing-eye dog, whatever]. Do you really want to be called away from important Senate business every time [name]has to go to the bank? How do you think I’m going to feel as a [business owner, manager, productive employee supporting my family] if I have to leave work to help my Aunt Mary do things she could have done for herself until you put obstacles in her way? And what’s going to happen to you, 20 years from now, when you may not be able-bodied yourself?
  6. Vote No or You’ll Organize to Defeat the Senator During the Next Election: Don’t just pledge to vote for your Senator’s opponent. Say you’ll be willing to campaign and fundraise for someone who understands that disability rights are important. If you’ve voted, donated, or  volunteered for your Senator in the past, be sure to let them know.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Arts & Entertainment, censorship, Customer Service as Marketing, Democracy, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda, Publishing, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The Post” lives up to the hype. It takes a very cerebral story and builds it into high drama, spurred by strong performances from Meryl Streep as publisher Katharine Graham) and Tom Hanks (editor Ben Bradlee).Trailers for "The Post are widely available

The overall message, about the power of the free press, and the need for the press to defend its Fist Amendment freedom, despite the whims of a paranoid and dictatorial president (Nixon, in this case—a different example today).

It tracks Daniel Ellsberg’s smuggling out massive quantities of classified documents from the Rand Corporation, where he worked, and releasing them first to the New York Times, and then to the Washington Post. The movie also dramatizes the frenetic effort throughout the newsroom to absorb the information and turn it into stories on very tight deadlines, not even knowing if the presses would run, while the Times suffered under the first pre-publication censorship of journalism in the history of the United States. Known as “The Pentagon Papers,” these documents proved that US high officials knew by the early 1960s that the war was unwinnable, and that presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all lied to the American people about it.

And it covers the legal battle: the government’s attempt to shut them down and the papers going all the way to the Supreme Court to secure their rights. The timing of these events happened to threaten The Post’s long-awaited IPO, which adds to the drama and the sense of what’s at stake for Graham, Bradlee, and their journalists.

BTW, just as the movie gives lessons on how to survive a paranoid, media-hating president facing serious doubts about his honesty, the Nixon link above focuses on some very interesting parallels between his presidency and that of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. However, let’s remember the differences. Nixon had a very impressive record on the environment—I describe him as the president with America’s second-most environmentalist track record (behind Obama but ahead of both Jimmy Carter and Teddy Roosevelt) also, despite the Vietnam war, did much to break down the barriers between the US and both the Soviet Union and China.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail