Category: Social and Economic Justice

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Energy & Sustainability, People Helping People, poverty, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , ,

At a recent conference, Jane Goodall said,

We are repeatedly told to ‘think globally, act locally’ but it should be the other way around. If you think globally first, you’ll get depressed. But if you think about what you can do locally, if you take action with friends and find that you’re making a difference, that’ll give you more hope and make you to take more action.

I love the idea of acting locally and have done it (and written and spoken about it) for decades. My biggest success in 50 years as an activist was a local campaign that saved a threatened mountain. Your chances of winning are often higher, it’s easy to reach those most affected, and you can parley your success into much greater influence on the future direction of your community. And yes, it can be empowering.

BUT…we also have to do the long, hard work on the big-picture stuff. It took 100 years of hard organizing to end legalized slavery for non-criminals in the US (and by the way, the exemption for convicted criminals has been used shamefully in too many instances). It took decades to get national civil rights legislation, the right of women and people of color to vote, the right of same-sex couples to marry…pretty much anything worth fighting for. And sometimes, even large-scale victories happen surprisingly quickly. As an example, the safe energy movement took only five or six years to make nuclear power unbuildable.

And those local victories can inspire the national and international work–which often gets done most effectively at the local level, by existing organizations and coalitions.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Entrepreneurship, Environment, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Mindset, Politics, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , ,

I love this post from the Changemaker Institute, How to Change The World By Meeting People Where They Care. I love it because it approaches social change through a marketing lens. It starts by revisiting the famous Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court Case of 1967, which struck down longstanding bans on marrying across the color line. Pointing out how Richard and Mildred Loving got people to care, the post goes on to ask how to get people to care about what you’re doing–and answers with a business-oriented focus on outcomes of your social change action, which you arrive at through these questions (quoting directly from the post):

  • What does it take to get an investor to believe in your business and invest in your mission?
  • What does it take to get customers to believe in your product or service and invest in it?
  • What does it take to get your employees to believe in your company’s mission and invest time and energy in supporting it?
  • What does it take to get people to support your vision for a better world? [end of quote]
Seet spot and 3 words posters in Shel's office, where he sees them every day
Shel’s inspirational posters describing his “sweet spot” institutional mission and his 2020 and 2021 sets of three words to inspire his year

This intersection is so important to me that on the wall behind my computer monitor, where I see it many times a day, I have a poster that reminds me, “I help businesses find their unique sweet spot where profitability meets environmental and social progress.” It’s important enough that I’ve written four books making the profitability case for business to deeply embrace social change and planetary healing, and have also written about the success lessons activists can take from business. It’s the basis for much of my consulting and speaking.

To take it a step further: I see getting out of the silo, rubbing shoulders with people who are not like you and examining different ideas from different industries or different sectors of the same industry as crucial is testing your own ideas, sharpening them enough to really get inside someone’s head and cause enough discomfort with the status quo to embrace the brighter future you propose. Whether you’re marketing a business or a movement, that’s a pretty important thing to do.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, General Commentary, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

One of the graphs in the Leonhardt article shows that tax rates for the top 0.01 percent of earners are approaching the rate foe the bottom 90 percent.
One of the graphs in the Leonhardt article shows that tax rates for the top 0.01 percent of earners are approaching the rate foe the bottom 90 percent.

For most of us in the US who are neither super-wealthy nor desperately poor, our largest financial asset is our home. And we pay annual taxes on the worth of that asset–called property tax. Here in Massachusetts, we also pay annual excise taxes on our cars and certain other kinds of property.  David Leonhardt of the New York Times explains this eloquently in today’s This Morning newsletter, with lots of charts and graphs to make the data more understandable. I strongly recommend this article.

But while those whose multiple lavish mansions represent only a tiny fraction of their financial worth also pay property taxes, most of their wealth is not taxed except that portion that arrives new each year (income).

Let’s not forget that when Dwight Eisenhower was president, the top federal marginal tax rate on income was astonishingly higher than it is now: 91 percent at the top end, until it was lowered during Lyndon Johnson’s first full year to 77 percent. It’s been lowered again several times, and now stands at 37 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. President Biden has proposed a slight increase, to 39.6 percent.

The effective rate is much  lower, though. Only the amount of income above the threshold for that rate (currently $628,301) is taxed at that rate. Each portion of income is taxed at the bracket for that level. So if you file singly and make $700,000 (and I don’t come anywhere near that), only $71,699 is taxed at 37 percent. The first $9950 is taxed at just 10 percent, the next $30,575 is taxed at 12 percent, and so on. This is why it is often an advantage to file jointly with your spouse–because more of your money is taxed at the lower rates. In the above example, $19,900 would be taxed at the 10 percent level, versus $99,000 if you split the income evenly and each filed separately.

Having dropped the tax rate on the wealthiest income earners by about 60 percent, the government has been considerably less aggressive about making up the difference. The One Percent used to pay heavily in the year  they acquired the money–but now that they’re paying much less, an asset tax could help fund the things we really want government to do: Clean up the planet, educate and protect all its citizenry, provide services and a leg up for the disempowered, and make sure no one is crushed by the ever-growing costs of basic survival. In other words, Build Back Better and the Green New Deal. Both of these will create massive numbers of new jobs, clean up the planet, and leave the average person with more money in their bank account.

Doing these things costs money. And that money comes from taxes and fees. 16 European countries with high standards of living and high quality of life have marginal tax rates between 45-56 percent. But look what they get for their money!

So Let’s Get It Done in the US, Already!

In our country, we are facing an absurd situation where two Democratic Senators representing less than three percent of the total population are holding America hostage. They say we can’t afford these investments, but they also shoot down all attempts to institute mechanisms to pay for them. And an even more absurd situation where most laws can only pass with a supermajority and virtually all Republican Senators refuse to vote for anything that the Democrats support. So much for the vaunted bipartisanship Senator Manchin in particular keeps insisting on. But the American people strongly support these investments.

It’s time to turn that support into action. First, write your Senators. You can find their addresses here. Use the appropriate sample letter (or letters, if you have one Senator in each party) from the three below as a model, but take three minutes to make it uniquely your own (especially the first sentence and the last three sentences), so it doesn’t look like a form letter. Better yet, write yur own, from scratch. If you live out-of-state, don’t lobby Manchin or Sinema directly. That will be counterproductive. Instead, reach out to friends, family members, people who are in the same organizations you participate in who do live in those states. If you are a business owner, start with “As a business owner and constituent in…”

Second, get involved. Do some phone banking or text banking or postcard writing. Show up when organizations like Fairvote, Movement Voter Project, Common Cause, voting rights divisions of NAACP and ACLU, and environmental groups hold rallies, lobbying days, meetings, and presentations. Personally contact your own friends and family. write letters to the editor for publication in your local newspaper. Be an election protection volunteer.

If you live in West Virginia or Arizona

Dear Senator,

As a constituent in [your town and state], I am deeply concerned at your role in blocking an agenda that most Americans support. 48 of your fellow Senate Democrats have shown incredible willingness to compromise with your demands–but you keep moving the goalposts. It is well past time for you to find a way to support these necessary Build Back Better, Green New Deal, and Voting Rights bills that will get the job done, give the Democrats something to brag about in next year’s crucial elections, and improve lives for all residents of our wonderful state. You will have another feather in your cap if you can bring these bills into law, even if it means getting them out from under the filibuster. But you will lose local support if you keep blocking the progress we so desperately need. I am eager to vote for a Senator who has put the needs of constituents ahead of narrow corporate and special interests. Please BE that Senator.

Sincerely,

[Your name and postal/email addresses]

If You Have One or Two Republican Senators

Dear Senator,

As a constituent in [your town and state], I am deeply concerned at your role in blocking an agenda that most Americans support. President Biden came to you in a spirit of bipartisanship. Senators Manchin and Sinema came to you in a spirit of bipartisanship. 48 of your fellow Senators have shown incredible willingness to compromise with your demands–but you keep moving the goalposts. We citizens of [your state] did not elect you to be an obstacle to programs that we desperately need, just because it wasn’t the Republicans who proposed them. It is well past time for you to find a way to support necessary infrastructure that goes beyond roads and bridges, address the carbon crisis with job-creating green initiatives, and ensure that every citizen has the right to vote and have that vote counted. Please, let’s see you be a Senator who represents the entire state, not just narrow special interests and conspiracy theorists. You will lose local support if you keep blocking the progress we so desperately need. I will use my volunteer hours and my campaign contributions dollars  to vote for a Senator or candidate who has put the needs of constituents ahead of narrow corporate and special interests. Please BE that Senator.

Sincerely,

[Your name and postal/email addresses]

If You Have One or Two Democratic Senators

Dear Senator,

As a constituent in [your town and state], I am deeply concerned at the lack of progress on an agenda that most Americans support: upgrading necessary infrastructure that goes beyond roads and bridges, addressing the carbon crisis with job-creating green initiatives, and ensuring that every citizen has the right to vote and have that vote counted. I appreciate that you and 47 of your fellow Senators have shown incredible willingness to compromise–but Senators Manchin and Sinema keep moving the goalposts farther backward and the Republicans are not even interested. We citizens of [your state] are counting on YOU to move those goal posts forward again, to convince those obstructionist Senators that they need to represent the entire state, not just narrow special interests and conspiracy theorists. If you can get them to stop blocking the progress our nation so desperately needs, I will eagerly use my volunteer hours and my campaign contributions dollars to support you as a Senator or candidate who has convinced the holdouts to put the needs of constituents ahead of narrow corporate and special interests. Please BE that Senator.

Sincerely,

[Your name and postal/email addresses]Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Environment, Innovation, People Helping People, Politics, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Joel Makower, Executive Director of GreenBiz.com, posted a thoughtful article about creating systemic change–and actively requested the wisdom of the collective mind. And Gil Friend of Natural Logic devoted an hour and a half to an open discussion of the same topic (It will probably be called “Living Between Worlds #2.5 and it isn’t posted yet as I write this the day the conversation took place).

This is not a coincidence; Gil sent the link to Joel’s article around before the call to everyone who registered for it.

I found the article provocative enough that I posted this comment (and the Living Between Worlds open discussion was so fascinating that I plan to listen again once the video is available):

 

Good piece, Joel. You’ll be glad to know Gil Friend @gfriend kept his promise to discuss this topic in the monthly “Living Between Worlds” brain trust Zoom.

I come at systemic change through a lifetime of weaving together my two “split personalities” as both a marketer specializing in green and social change companies/products/services and as an environmental, social justice, and peace activist whose credits include starting the movement that saved a threatened local mountain.

Through the nonviolent social change lens of people like George Lakey and Erica Chenoweth, I look at institutional structures: how they prop up the system, create major barriers to change, and ultimately fail because they fail to change–and where they are weak and shaky and vulnerable. Sometimes they collapse with surprising speed (think about the Arab Spring a decade ago, or the government of Afghanistan just in the last ten days. Sometimes, it takes decades. The Quakers targeted slavery for about a century before it was illegalized.

But the marketer in me says systemic change is far more likely to succeed if the effort was made to change popular opinion first. The US civil rights movement created the opinion shift that made civil rights legislation not only possible but enforceable. Opposition to the Vietnam war was strong enough that LBJ felt a need to withdraw from his re-election campaign, years before the troops finally came home. And when we did Save the Mountain here in Western Massachusetts 21 years ago, our first task was to change the “this is terrible, but there’s nothing we can do” mentality. Once we shifted that, the victory was very quick.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Open letter to the government of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts

Context: Residents of a tiny one-block street called Warfield Place have been fighting to preserve a line of beautiful cherry trees planted several decades ago. The city (pop. 28,726) has claimed  that the street needed to be redone and these trees are at the end of their useful life, while residents said the trees could easily survive for a few more years–and that many other streets with more traffic and worse infrastructure conditions deserved higher priority. Both sides have brought in arborists who support their positions. The residents recently brought in support from national leaders in the Buddhist community, and ordained the trees as Buddhist priests. Neighbors were actively negotiating with the city, as well as seeking help in the courts. Thursday morning, the city brought in heavy equipment and a large police presence and destroyed the trees.

For the numerous stories chronicling the controversy over the past several months, visit http://gazettenet.com and use the search tool at the top to look for “warfield place cherry trees” (nonsubscribers get five free articles per month). See more pictures of the trees in bloom taken by Shel Horowtiz (author of this open letter and owner of this blog) and protest signs at (20+) Facebook

A Warfield Place cherry tree in bloom, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.

A Warfield Place cherry tree--close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
A Warfield Place cherry tree–close-up of flower, May 2, 2021. Photo by Shel Horowitz.

It was shocking to read in yesterday morning’s Daily Hampshire Gazette that the sacred cherry trees the community has fought so hard to preserve that it actually ordained them as Buddhist priests–the trees that hundreds of local residents and many others from farther afield, including several of national stature, signed petitions and joined protests and wrote letters to the editor to save–were torn down with no warning, even while the city was aware that a judge was considering a restraining order, and even while the city and the residents of the street were still negotiating.
The trees were murdered at 9:00 a.m. and the restraining order that would have prevented their untimely death was given at noon.
Why the rush? Why the need to act unilaterally when many people were willing to work out a solution that made sense for all parties: the city, the residents, and of course, the trees?
This is the legacy of Public Works Director Donna LaScaleia and Mayor David Narkewicz. All the considerable good work of the 10-year Narkewicz administration will not sustain its former reputation for progressive policies and fostering democracy. When people remember this adinistration, they will not remember how it stood against racism and for inclusion, how it was a champion of addressing climate change. Their memories will be rooted in this horrible and utterly avoidable incident.
It was an attack not only on these beloved trees, but an attack on democracy–on the ability of people to feel they have influence over their own lives, and their ability to have their concerns listened to, and, hopefully, acted on.
And it was also an attack on separation of powers in government; the city was aware that a judge was considering the injunction that was eventually granted (too late), but couldn’t be bothered to let that process play out.
And of course, removing living trees goes against the Narkewicz administration’s long-stated goals of mitigating climate change locally. Trees are far and away our most effective weapons against climate catastrophe.
I think what may have happened was a felt need to be right at all costs–not to admit that there could have been one of several other ways forward that would have had far more positive outcomes, such as:
  • Harnessing the neighbors’ considerable energy into a working committee that would actively participate WITH the Department of Public Works Director to develop solutions that worked for the city and the residents. Even if the ultimate outcome were the same, the residents would have owned it.
  • Moving Warfield Place off the calendar for a few more years until the trees died naturally, while adding plantings of newer trees so when that day came, the street would have a decent tree-canopy-in-process.
  • Redirecting the construction funds to a city block whose need for repair was undisputed.
This need to be right, to save face, culminated in an extreme wrong. The city engaged in a “process” that not only disenfranchised the Warfield Street residents, ending in a hostile unilateral action–it undermined Northampton’s reputation as a citadel of democracy, a place that values its citizens’ public discourse and involvement. This violation of residents’ real concerns makes it harder for the next administration to get people to even trust–let alone become involved in–city government. And the city has even created a construct where it faces accusations of a hate crime–even though Mayor Narkewicz spent so much of his decade as mayor creating a wonderful climate of acceptance and even embrace of diversity.
It’s very sad. It’s irreversible–the trees are gone, democracy was seriously weakened, and the city’s reputation is in tatters–and it was completely avoidable. I expected better of Northampton and am deeply disappointed.
While we can’t bring the trees back, and this action has done potentially permanent harm to Northampton’s civic virtue, it is still possible to atone. I ask in all seriousness: How, specifically, will the city make restitution? How will this administration restore confidence in the city? How will the city offset the negative climate impacts of the tree destruction? And how will the city make the residents and neighbors of Warfield Place whole again? It won’t be easy, especially this close to the end of this administration, but it has to be done, and done very soon. What exactly is the plan?

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 Activism, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Innovation, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , ,

If you’re wondering how social entrepreneurship works at a marquis company, try this New York Times interview with Patagonia’s recent CEO, Rose Marcario.

I’ve cited Patagonia many times as an example of a company that gets a lot of things right. Social responsibility is part of its DNA and has been from the very beginning. I was very intersted to learn about some of the initiatives under Marcario’s leadership, and particularly the open embrace of political activism.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 Activism, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, General Commentary, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,

Wall Street bull statue
Creator: Sam Valadi
Credit: ZUMAPRESS.com/Newscom
Copyright: via ZUMA Wire

A friend–my ex-boss, in fact–sent me this article on how 30 billionaires had vastly increased their wealth during the pandemic.

I wrote back:

While this is a good tool for generating outrage, it’s not where I will put my own energy. First, because I think one of the mistakes the Left makes is to try to divide ourselves to the super-rich and make them targets. Much more productive IMHO to work with them, make them allies, to fund necessary research and actions (as several of these people are cited as doing).

Second, to work for a tax structure that helps redistribute toward those in need. Harness the class anger toward this, rather than generating enmity toward people who we make less likely to do the right thing by shaming them and having demonstrations at their offices. Guilt and shame are lousy motivators. Let’s find ways to honor their virtue rather than shame their success.

On that second point, it would not be hard to find one-percenters who would join and be a public face for that movement. Many multimillionaires and even a few billionaires have come out for income equality, offered to pay higher taxes, donated much of their fortunes, subsidized social change movements. Do the names Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or George Soros ring any bells?

I have a relatively modest 5-figure income, but I travel in circles where a lot of people have seven- or eight-figure annual incomes. My life is full of abundance and blessings, and I don’t begrudge them their wealth. I do begrudge those who push for corporate welfare policies that penalize the poor while adding unnecessary zeroes at the end of their own already large bank balances–people whose goal in life seems to be transferring as much wealth as possible from the poor to the super-rich. And I don’t believe those few people, powerful though they are, represent the majority of the one percent.

In fact, I believe that smart corporations recognize that labor and consumers are partners in their success who deserve to share in the wealth they help create. They embrace social responsibility, partner actively with neighborhood groups, and grow their businesses by finding ways to serve.

But there’s an element on the left that sees wealth as inherently evil, and the wealthy as always the enemy.

I remember when a philanthropist and peace activist I know lost her house in a fire. Some of the public comments on the news stories were not only not compassionate, they were downright vicious: how dare she accumulate wealth and live in a mansion?

Well, sorry, but making her the enemy is just plain stupid. She’s an activist and philanthropist who chooses to use her money for good. And even if she were totally selfish, she still wouldn’t be the enemy. Rich or poor, we all want dignity and respect. And when we pigeonhole her as an enemy, what we do is alienate not just her but others in her cohort. So non-activist wealthy people who might have funded our causes are instead pushed into the arms of those who proclaim respect for the wealthy. If their politics are not strong, they may even choose to fund causes that actively defend their privilege.

WordPress is not letting me link properly, so here are the sources:

  • Billionaires who got richer during the pandemic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/12/01/american-billionaires-that-got-richer-during-covid/43205617/
  • Public face: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/what-billionaires-said-about-wealth-inequality-and-capitalism-in-2019.html
  • Donated: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr
  • Income inequality: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr
  • Corporate welfare: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188
  • Penalize the poor https://talkpoverty.org/2014/10/07/punished-for-being-poor/ . For a specific discussion of the subsidy wealtheir people get from low-paid immigrant labor, https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/underpaid-immigrants-help-poor-subsidize-the-rich/article_2f1d8094-9700-5f8b-8d38-562fd75a7657.html
                                                                                                                          • Donated their fortunes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail