Category: Politics

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, language, Politics, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,

My local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette of Northampton, Massachusetts, ran an AP  story about the foundering Mitt Romney campaign under the headline,”Slipping in polls, Romney tries to seem caring.” (The link may not work if you’re not a subscriber, but here’s a link to the same story with a slightly different headline, on the AP website.)

Two things I’d like to explore about this, and not what you think. I’m really not going to discuss the content of Mitt Romney’s campaign at the moment, though I could certainly “take him to the woodshed” about a lot of his messaging (I might do that next time). Today, I want to look at the linguistics of this headline: specifically, the use of “tries” and  “seems.” I’ll use comedian Stephen Colbert’s framework of “truthiness” as a lens.

Trying is different from doing. It’s one of those words I’m working hard (notice I didn’t say “trying”) to excise from my vocabulary, and from the materials I create for my marketing clients. Trying, rather than doing, predisposes toward failure: “well, I tried.”

Language influences us in ways we’re only just starting to imagine. If your language includes a dozen words for cooperative problem solving, but none for war, how does that shape foreign policy?

In Spanish, there are two distinct verbs that translate into English as “to be”/”is”: Ser (to be in a permanent state) and estar (to be in a temporary condition or location). If you’re describing a permanent condition, you use ser. Examples: “I am a mother” or “I am a father” or “the mountain exists.” Gender takes ser, because until recent decades, that was seen as permanent.

Estar is for conditions that could change: “I feel tired” [right now]; “I am at the cafe”; “the food is on the table”; “she’s pregnant.”

Oddly enough, your profession, even though it could change, takes ser: “soy escritor”—”I am a writer.” What does it say about the class ladder of a society that sees a job title as permanent?

In English, we don’t have the ser/estar distinction.  Thus, I chose to write above, “I feel tired” because I don’t want to ascribe permanence to that kind of negative thought—even as an example in a blog post and not as a statement of reality—by using “I am.”

So, that the writer perceives that Romney is only trying, and not accomplishing, is very telling.

And then there’s the other trigger word in that headline, “seems.” Which brings us to Stephen Colbert’s elegant concept of “truthiness”—stating something that you wish were  true as if it’s fact  (something many senior George W. Bush administration officials as well as quite a few pundits—especially but not always on Fox News).

Romney’s attempt to “seem caring” is a great example of truthiness; the real Romney, behind closed doors, wrote off 47 percent of the American public.

Of course, in fairness, it wasn’t the Romney campaign that said he’s trying to seem caring; it wasn’t even the Associated Press, whose headline was “Slipping in polls, Romney assures voters ‘I care.'” The “tries” was inserted by a headline writer at the Gazette. But I think that person actually nailed a few central problems with the Romney campaign. He appears incredibly clueless in his interactions with ordinary people…he can’t decide where he stands on many issues, or on his past accomplishments…and these two together combine to present an image and aura of inauthenticity. Someone who “seems” to go for “truthiness,” rather than a man willing to stand on the facts of his record or his positions.

(For more on the life choices that stem from your word choices, I strongly recommend this interview with Donna Fisher, which is available without charge through the end of the week, and then will go behind a firewall. I have no affiliation with Donna or that teleseminar series—but I have listened to it four times, and it’s very rare that I listen to a call more than once. The relevant section starts about 13 minutes in.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, Politics Tagged with , , ,

A court here in Massachusetts decided the state should pay the bill for a sex-change operation for a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, calling it a “serious medical need.” I’m a strong supporter of transgender people’s rights, and I think it might be totally appropriate to let her have the surgery. But I’m sorry, the taxpayers should not foot the bill. At least not until we have a single-payer healthcare system where the government pays all health care expenses.

As a Massachusetts resident, I am very much looking forward to consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren sending Senator Scott Brown packing in November. I usually disagree with him on issue after issue. But when he calls this “an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars,” I think he’s absolutely right.

I don’t think the state should be paying for this surgery for anyone. If someone can’t afford it, there ought to be some foundation money out there someplace.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Energy & Sustainability, Ethics-International, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

An AP story on the Republican Convention in today’s paper puts it this way:

Mitt Romney conceded Sunday that fresh controversy over rape and abortion is harming his party and he accused Democrats of trying to exploit it for political gain.

“It really is sad, isn’t it, with all the issues that America faces, for the Obama campaign to continue to stoop to such a low level,” said Romney, struggling to sharpen the presidential election focus instead on a weak economy and 8.3 percent national unemployment.

Let me see if I get this straight:

  1. Mitt Romney has spent the entire campaign trying to distance himself from the moderate stances on social issues he embraced as recently as 2008, embracing a hard-right radical ideology that would attack women and gays, increase economic disparity, and stack the Supreme Court with more radical-right ideologues.
  2. Mitt Romney chose as his running mate Paul Ryan, whose budget proposals are akin to a hit-man attack on the poor, and whose environmental record makes me worry a great deal about the future of the planet (Paul Ryan gets a miserable 3% rating from the League of Conservation Voters)—and who co-authored extreme anti-choice legislation with none other than the notorious Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, yes, the same one who made the ridiculous remark about pregnancy being nearly impossible in cases of “legitimate rape.”
  3. Mitt Romney is content to stand behind a Republican party platform that contains a full-blown assault on women’s reproductive rights.
  4. As an example of taking the high road, I suppose, Romney made a joke that essentially endorsed the discredited birther movement that claims Obama was not born in the US, just last week. Talk about focusing on the important issues!

And please, finally, let’s not forget that the Republicans have no legitimate claim to run on economic issues. Not only did George W. Bush turn the largest surplus in history—that he inherited from Bill Clinton, who built a remarkable ecnomic recovery after the disaster of the Reagan-Bush years—into a raging deficit, not only did the economy crumple under years of deregulation and defanging the watchdogs, but the Republicans have sabotaged Obama’s recovery efforts over and over again, with the expressly stated goal of making him a one-term president. Even so, housing starts are up, private-sector jobs are up, and the stock market is waaaay up.

And let’s not forget Romney has made it quite clear he will be the president of the 1%. Those of us in the 99% will not find a friend in Romney-Ryanomics.

Joseph Welch asked Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” He’s often misquoted as asking “have you no shame, sir?” That second question is the one I pose today to Mitt Romney.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Energy & Sustainability, People Helping People, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

Los Angeles Unified School District, a massive consumer of single-use plastic, has banned Styrofoam under student activist pressure—the first district in the nation to do so. And the school district superintendent, John Deasy, will put the topic on the agenda of a district superintendent’s conference.

This is great news—but I have to question why the district switched to compostable disposable trays. It’s certainly more ecological, and probably cheaper, to buy a commercial dishwasher and switch to not only reusable trays, but reusable dishes as well. I would think the materials savings would cover the costs of the machine and the employees to run it, as well as create some needed employment.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

GOP VP pick Paul Ryan’s attacks on the poor and the middle class are well-known. His opposition to women’s rights and gay rights includes cosponsoring a bill that would force women to carry a baby to term even in cases of rape or incest , and is not a big surprise. He gets an actual zero from NARAL, after all.

But even I didn’t know that he scored a truly dismal three percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters—meaning he has voted the wrong way on almost every significant piece of environmental legislation. Or that he has investments in oil and extractive mining companies that would benefit under his tax plan. His wife’s father owns and operates four of the companies, and the Ryans have ownership percentages up to 10 percent, according to Newsweek.

He has made it clear he will be a friend to oil and coal, and an enemy to renewables and conservation. He is also a climate change denier, which means the US government would fall even farther behind the rest of the world in dealing with catastrophic climate change.

Right-wingers used to try to insult environmentalists by calling us “tree-huggers.” Personally, I think that’s a badge of honor. But let’s spread it widely that Paul Ryan is a tree-hater, and that a vote for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan is a vote AGAINST the Earth.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Business, Green Marketing, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

I’m a long-time fan of Van Jones, and one of the things I love is that he can frame things in ways that those on the other side of the political continuum can relate to.

Too often, the left frames things in its own language (often couched in liberal guilt)—and the right dismisses us as silly and naive. Listen to minutes 30 to 35 of this speech to see how Van Jones puts the argument for going green into an issue of individual economic liberty, and turns the don’t-subsidize-solar argument into a compelling Tea-Party-friendly argument for ending oil subsidies (why doesn’t he talk aobut nuclear, which would not exist as an industry without subsidies?)

Later in the talk, he discusses solar and wind as farmer power, cowboy power, etc. And demonstrates that organic farming is traditional, and that we should return to our roots after a century of “poison-based agriculture.” And calls not for subsidy for green initiatives, but for green as entrepreneurship, enterprise, and job creation—arguments that both liberals and conservatives should relate to.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Green Business, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Kafka must be having a good laugh over this.

LEED certification for US government buildings has been a huge success story:

Since 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA)’s 91 LEED-certified and 219 pending buildings, totaling over 14 million certified square feet of space, can take credit for:

  • Lowering emissions by 20 percent
  • 20 percent lower energy intensity
  • Switching 16% of overall energy use to renewables
  • 14% reduction in water use since 2007

In and out of government, both the business case and the planetary case for LEED are clear:

In the last twelve years, LEED has aided the development of better products, better designs, better engineering, and better buildings. LEED has now grown into the most widely used high-performance building rating system in the world.  Today more than 12,300 commercial projects and over 20,000 residential units have achieved LEED certification.  An additional 1.6 million square feet of space is certified every day.

The business case for LEED is unassailable.  It saves U.S. businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars every year.  Furthermore, an organization’s participation in the voluntary LEED process demonstrates leadership, innovation, conservation stewardship and social responsibility, while providing a competitive advantage. All of these are reasons why small businesses, Fortune 100 companies, homeowners, governments and non-governmental organizations are using LEED to save money and save resources every day.

Now the latest idiocy in Congress is to try to force the GSA to abandon the well-respected LEED rating system. Why? To protect the interests of toxic chemical manufacturers whose products can’t qualify for LEED certification.

Earth to Congress: getting rid of toxics is part of  how you get green buildings. Duh!

If you think Congress should allow the GSA to continue using LEED in its building design criteria, here’s a petition you can sign. It’ll be turned in Tuesday, so go and sign it now before you get distracted.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Politics Tagged with , ,

I was out of the country and missed this important news: it is now illegal to conduct fracking in the state of Vermont.

Fracking—a highly toxic method of extracting natural gas by filling rocks with poisonous chemicals and blowing them apart—has been linked to severe water pollution, among other problems.

This continues Vermont’s record of progressive legislation that includes forcing the owners of Vermont Yankee to abide by the end of its original licensing term (unfortunately overridden by a federal judge who, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, wildly overreached his authority) and providing universal health care.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

It is less than six months until the US elections for President, House of Representatives,and one-third of the Senate.

A year ago, seeing the level of hate and vitriol against Obama from the ultra-right, and the paralysis of government, I was pretty convinced that the Republicans would win easily. Now, however, I think Obama will prevail, at least if the votes are counted accurately and the voters are allowed to vote (both of them BIG ifs, in the wake of anti-vote legislation and the near-unanimous adoption of vote-counting techniques that are entirely too easy to rig, as we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004).

What’s changed?

  • The other candidates have been making very cogent arguments against Romney; the Republicans have given Obama plenty of ammunition.
  • Romney himself is the most clueless major-party US presidential candidate I can remember, constantly putting his foot in his mouth, constantly shifting positions, and failing to convince pretty much anybody of his sincerity, his integrity, his ability to relate to common people, or even his basic competence. It’s almost as if he were coached by Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin.
  • The Occupy (a/k/a 99%) movement has focused long-overdue attention on class issues, while Romney has cheerfully embraced his fellow one-percenters.
  • The Republican Party as a whole, with Romney’s open support, has made it clear that their tent is not big enough to hold unemployed people, Latinos, women’s reproductive rights supporters, gays and lesbians, or students—or even moderate Republicans (just ask Senator Richard Lugar). Obama has opened his arms to these constituencies. If the Democrats can get all those folks to show up and vote, they win.
  • It is painfully obvious that Washington’s political gridlock is the Republican Party’s doing. They’ve been dubbed “the party of no” for good reason. People are sick and tired of the constant obstructionism and of the specifically stated goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Our top political priority is to deny President Obama a second term.” Not exactly an appropriate priority for a country still struggling with a deep recession, two major and several minor wars, crises in healthcare and education, and all the rest.
  • Nobody likes a bunch of name-calling whining bullies. Instead of proposing actual solutions to our country’s problems, the Republicans have race-baited, religion-baited, called him a socialist (for goodness sake—Richard Nixon has a more progressive record!) and a Muslim, and all the rest of the ridiculous Big Lie nonsense.
  • While Obama’s accomplishments are smaller in number and far more centrist than they need to be, he can point to some real strides: The economy is better, Osama Bin Laden is neutralized, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell s justifiably buried, two terrific Supreme Court Justices have been appointed (we need one more to replace one of the four on the extreme right), and something vaguely resembling healthcare reform actually got passed, where every other president since FDR failed.
  • The right cannot attack Obama on the places he’s most vulnerable: personal liberty, an absurd faith in nuclear power, failure to keep his promises on renewable energy, and an inability to get us out of all these wars—because Obama’s positions on all these issues pretty much are the Republican positions.
  • And finally, even if they totally forgot to do the necessary organizing to pass his agenda, Obama’s campaign knows a whole lot about social media and community organizing. This provided the edge in 2008, and could do so again if the Dems can convince young voters especially that they haven’t sold them out, and that the kind of change they voted for in ’08 may be difficult to achieve, but it would be impossible under Romney.

Still, the Democrats cannot and should not take victory for granted, and they have to make sure to pick up seats in Congress as well.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Politics, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

I haven’t had as many chances as I’d hoped to be proud of President Barack Obama in his 3+ years in office. But yesterday was a day I could be very proud of him; as you certainly know by now, he is the first US president to acknowledge that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to marry. Obama has been ambivalent on the issue (and quite a few others) for many years, so a clear, unequivocal, uncompromising position is rare. Perhaps is voice is stronger because of his own history; the union of his parents would have been illegal in many parts of the country for years after his birth.

This should not be rocket science. Same-sex marriage has been legal in several other parts of the world (and even a few US states, including my own home of Massachusetts) for several years, and the sky has not fallen.

Still, when I attended my first few same-sex weddings back in the late 1970s, I didn’t think I’d live to see such unions acknowledged by any government. In less than 30 years, it’s become an inevitability. I remember President Bush reluctantly endorsing civil unions, even as he condemned gay marriage, and thinking that this was enormous progress. But a full endorsement is much better. And while it still seems odd to read or hear phrases like “her wife” or “his husband,” it’s a good kind of strange.

And yet, just a day earlier, the Neanderthals soundly thrashed same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

Here’s the bit I don’t understand from the so-called “family values” crowd: how is the ability of two people to marry—and with it, to visit each other in the hospital, to file a joint tax return, to attend parent-teacher conferences—in any way an attack on the institutions of marriage and family? As far as I can determine, these rights make the idea of marriage and family stronger. Marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be a partnership of equals that strengthens the family unit and builds family values. Living just outside the town that the National Enquirer dubbed “Lesbianville, USA,” I’ve seen this strength in the many same-sex couples I know with children, who were parents alongside my wife and me as our kids went through day care and then school. I can’t wrap myself around the argument that it destroys families.

I’ve tried to understand the position, but I just can’t grasp it. When two people of the same sex declare their love and commitment, they build a family just as real as any straight couple. And when a heterosexual or same-sex marriage falls apart, it’s tough on both partners as well as on children and friends. I just can’t grasp how allowing two men or two women to mary has any impact on relationships between a man and a woman.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail