Category: Talking to the Other Side

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Mindset, Peace and War, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thrilled to read that the left-center national Jewish organization JStreet polled Jewish voters and discovered some amazing transformations in Tuesday’s elections in the US: 72% of Jewish voters supported Democratic congressional candidates; 76% disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance; democracy and the economy were the leading electoral concerns; 76% support sanctions against violent West Bank settlers; and most amazingly of all, 66% believe AIPAC’s campaign spending against candidates who criticize Israel increases antisemitism in the United States—and 80% believe Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank increase antisemitism in the United States.

These are the actual subheads on their results press release, except that I added the phrase “and most amazingly of all” and combined their last two points. AIPAC is the acronym for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby.

The group also raised $13 mm for its candidates. And 98 percent of the ~200 candidates JStreet endorsed won or appear to be headed toward victory!

This is a dramatic shift in the way mainstream Jews view Israel—AND a complete rejection of Trump’s attempts to drive wedges between the Jewish community and other constituencies—as well as a refutation of the despicable argument that any attack on Israel’s policies is antisemitism (especially if that false criticism provides cover for suppressing the speech of Arabs and Muslims).

The credit for that shift is partly the abject horror with which many Jews view Netanyahu’s policies. But it also represents decades of work within the Jewish community: progressive Jewish organizations like New Jewish Agenda in the 1980s and Jewish Voice for Peace in our own day—whose protests have been extremely visible since the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas—Jewish-Palestinian partnership organizations like Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (an intercultural village), Combatants for Peace (joint appearances by speakers who fought on opposite sides), West-Eastern Divan Orchestra (a bicultural youth orchestra), and Standing Together (a solidarity organization), to name a few among many. And this in turn meant that groups like JStreet were not seen as too far to the left, because there were a lot of Jews and Jewish organizations well to their left.

Disclosure: I was an active core member of the Western Massachusetts New Jewish Agenda chapter and of the intercultural Middle East Peace Group and have donated to several of the organizations listed above. And when I was involved with Agenda, which was early to call for a two-state solution, the mainstream Jewish community was openly hostile to us. Now, there are many Jewish and mixed organizations who want to go farther, and many synagogues have had speakers from some of these groups.

 

What this means:

Jews and lawmakers in the US finally have cover to take positions that would have been anathema a decade ago. Israel’s repressive warmongers and racists in government can no longer count on the support of US Jews and the lawmakers of any religion who want to keep that constituency happy. And the new Congress is likely to be a lot less sympathetic to funding Israel’s attempt to dehumanize and destabilize Arab and Muslim communities—not just in Palestine, where the military has stood by while ultra-right Jewish settlers have forced Palestinians from their homes and communities, interfered with the olive harvest, and committed acts of violence—but in Lebanon and elsewhere. It also means T’s dream to wipe out or expel 2 million Gazans and turn Gaza into a fancy beach resort for wealthy people from the US isn’t going anywhere.

So, over the next couple of years, we can expect a significant realignment. Many prominent members of the US Congress have been openly supportive of Israel’s openly racist government—not just in their rhetoric but in their massive funding. Many of those folks felt they had to do this because Jewish voters are a significant constituency that votes in high numbers, and supporting Jewish causes means kowtowing to AIPAC. We who’ve been saying for decades that AIPAC has no authority to speak for the entire Jewish people now have solid evidence that US Jews are willing to be harshly critical of Israel, and those who do will not be ostracized. It might even mean a reluctance to participate in asinine foreign policy blunders of the sort that got us into an unnecessary, completely avoidable, and damaging war with Iran. That war, and both the human and economic consequences, are a big part of the Republicans’ losses this week.

And from my canvassing and door-knocking in the 2024 campaign, I can say with certainty that some people who would have voted for Harris chose not to over the Biden administration’s refusal to hold Israel accountable for the Gaza war. Would it have been enough to prevent T’ second term? We’ll never know?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Diversity, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Take a Moment to Celebrate! We Saved the Soul of the US
Wow, just wow! Thank you, US voters. Thank you to the thousands of organizers and democracy cheerleaders who have worked their butts off for a year or more to make this happen.
This blue tsunami isn’t just about salvaging the wreckage of an economy that had been the world’s best at the end of Biden’s term. Yes, people are hurting from higher prices, job losses, and stagnant wages. Yes, T has throttled the economy for the people while skimming a lot off the top. But this goes far deeper. T’s own niece Mary put it this way:
“Some Democrats who shall not at the moment be named would have you believe that this election was about affordability. I am not saying it was not also about affordability, but to say that this almost incomprehensible election was only about one thing, in this case the economy, is to miss the point entirely. This election was, I believe, about the soul of America, about who we are and who we refuse to allow ourselves to become. It was a tipping point. It was a massive rebuke. It was a wholesale repudiation of every single thing Donald, the Trump regime, and the Republican Party stand for.” (emphasis added)
I agree. This was an epic battle to save the very soul of our nation. And this repudiation was based in a lot of organizing over a long time. To quote Heather Cox Richardson,
The historic nature of this election cannot be overstated. It is a rejection of Trump, who insisted voters should imagine he was on the ballot. But more than that, it is a rejection of the Republican ideology that has driven American politics since the 1980s: the idea that some people are better than others and have the right to rule…

Trump and appointees like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have purged the government of minorities and women and undermined the health and well-being of nonwhite Americans, immigrants, and women. But rather than benefiting regular Americans, those policies have hurt them. And administration leaders have been quite open about their intention of using the government to loot the country for themselves and their cronies.

In their determination to stop Trump and MAGA, Americans came together across the artificial lines that Republicans have exploited for more than a generation to stand against what the nation’s founders would have called tyranny. The rural areas that have made up the backbone of MAGA support joined more Democratic urban areas to elect Democrats. The racial, gender, and cultural divisions Republicans have exploited to stay in power have collapsed in the face of a rising oligarchy.

Even billionaire Elon Musk’s investment of close to half a billion dollars in Republicans in the midterms could not overcome voters’ frustration with a government that works only for the very wealthy. People across the country, organized in No Kings rallies, along overpasses, in webcasts, and in everything from political clubs to knitting communities, have come together to stand against the extraordinary corruption of the Trump regime, to oppose Trump’s rejection of constitutional limits in favor of autocratic power to declare tariffs and start wars, to demand the government address the needs of Americans, and to insist on the rule of law.

WHY We Won—and Where
As I see it, all that organizing, those millions of people showing up for No Kings rallies, those thousands who stood holding banners at busy intersections and on highway overpasses, those tens of thousands of community members who gave support to their immigrant neighbors in a hundred different ways when their cities were invaded by our own government, those who wrote letters to the editor or took the microphone at a street demo or knocked on doors and wrote postcards to get out the vote—all of that gave a neighbor’s face to the resistance—and gave strength to those who hadn’t felt comfortable resisting publicly to at least get out and vote. It was an effective counter to the narrative in the mainstream media that we were powerless.
It proved that no matter how hopeless and powerless we might feel, there’s always something we can do.
Yes, we lost a few races that we were counting on. But we gained so much more, and we gained a lot of it in places like Texas, Iowa, Kansas—which hadn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in 94 years—and the Carolinas. And we got the happy proof that T’s gerrymanders backfired, as did the racist/misogynistic campaigns of people like Mike Rogers and Vivek Ramaswami backfired big time. Who would have ever predicted that a Mississippi US Senate seat would be essentially a draw (no winner called as of this writing)? Who would have predicted the huge margins of victory for the candidates who faced those onslaughts? (El Sayed was up over Rogers by 7 points, while Amy Acton beat Ramaswami by nearly 8.)
Immediate Shifts Need to Happen
But our work isn’t done! The next steps are to:
  1. Make sure that the Democrats understand that they need to exercise the mandate they just got in the firm repudiation of trumpism to make sure a power-mad would-be dictator can never grab so much power, use the office for personal wealth, and trample so many human rights ever again. Among other things, we need to hold the perpetrators responsible, clean out the incompetents in the Cabinet, and find some way to hold T legally and financially responsible for the abuse of taxpayer dollars, the open bribery and corruption, the destruction of government property without permission, and all the rest of it.
  2. Build the floor back up to support all those who’ve suffered so egregiously under the current regime. We need to undo all the harm created by ICE, DOGE, and the gutting of agencies like OSHA, EPA, and even the DOJ that he turned into his personal vindictiveness machine. We need well-paying jobs that can support a family, housing that people can afford, protections from harassment, energy improvements that lower carbon footprint AND utility/fuel bills at the same time…
  3. Rebuild the shattered alliances with our allies around the world, and put an immediate stop to the enablement of dictators and thugs like Putin, Netanyahu, Bukele, and the rest.
For that reason, I support finding a much stronger Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader than Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. While I respect them both and think they’re well-intentioned, Jeffries, 56, is very much in the tradition of those a generation older who’ve been afraid to take true progressive stands—and unwilling to match action to their rhetoric. And Schumer, 75, is not only part of that older generation that has supported the Democratic Party’s turn away from its labor roots toward its corporate funders, but has been a leader in that effort.
It’s not a coincidence that the pro-Netanyahu organizations (including AIPAC, which has been a consistent apologist for Netanyahu’s worst extremism) have donated $1,1495,512 to Jeffries and $411,980 to Schumer. Jeffries also gets money from a mortgage banking  association and private equity/investment management megafirm Blackstone. Schumer’s top 5 corporate contributors include managed care and pharma companies, Nasdaq (the stock market for new companies and especially tech), and a multi-player game company. This cycle, Jeffries also raised $12.7 million from unspecified individual donors out of $17mm total, while Schumer raised “only” $680k from individuals out of a total $1.2mm.
The Bigger Picture, The Longer Struggle
Getting out from under the thumbs of the oligarchs and major donors is part of a larger process that might include:
  • Embracing the issues of class, identity, environment—but in ways that speak to inclusiveness for ALL and that don’t burn bridges with cultural centrists, that elevate people across all classes, colors, genders, ages, etc. The party has some great models for this, among them Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Yes, I know, Bernie’s actually not in the Democratic Party—but there’s a fair chance he could have won the 2016 election if the party hadn’t put not just a finger but an entire fist on the scale—because his campaign energized a lot of folks who don’t always participate, because the people were so desperate for change that many defected from Bernie to T, and because HRC ran an entitled, elitist, warmongering campaign that didn’t make space for working-class folks and progressives—and I say this as someone who knocked on doors for her.
  • Building—and beginning to carry out—an economic platform that sees housing and healthcare as basic human rights, sets the minimum wage high enough to live on, subsidizes college and public transit, and provides a good safety net for those unable to work—funded by measures such as a millionaires’ tax, cutting fat from the military budget, and ending government subsidies for industries that cause more harm than good. Maybe a slogan like “If [name of country] can afford guaranteed housing, health care, and education, surely we can too.”
  • Transforming our energy and resource use patterns to slash our carbon footprint, provide full employment, and lower our costs (all of which is possible at the same time if approached systemically)—and maybe even cut the work week to 30 hours so there are enough jobs to go around.

In short, we are at a transformational moment. The potential for sweeping change to benefit ordinary people is greater than it’s been since FDR. If we can seize this moment, turn the Democratic Party into a force that benefits the whole society, and finally banish hunger, poverty, homelessness, all types of othering, environmental destruction, and even war and catastrophic climaechange to “the dustbin of history,” we can build a permanent, lasting society that works for the good of all of us (including the nonhumans).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

There’s a long list of basic psychology principles that the guy in the White House doesn’t seem to understand. For starters,

  • He values feigned loyalty and obsesquiousness more than real friendship, and he never seems to have loyalty to anyone else—not even his wives and kids—with the possible exception of his abusive late father. He thinks some dictators, including the murderous Vladimir, are his friends and doesn’t notice how they play on his need for flattery to accomplish an agenda diametrically opposed to our country’s interests (I write as a US citizen).
  • He thinks he has the right to desecrate and destroy public property.
  • He thinks he can establish his greatness by slapping his name—or the name of our continent (which he doesn’t even seem to understand is NOT the name of our country)—on landmarks he had nothing to do with.
  • He squanders our tax dollars on these personal vanity projects, on the illegal war, and on the persecution of immigrants and his perceived enemies—even when he says it will all be privately paid for or funded by another government, as he claimed for his ballroom and the border wall, to name two prominent examples.
  • He also not only accepts but actively solicits payments that sure look like bribes or blackmail attempts: from media, from universities, from nonprofits, from billionaires, from corporations and foreign leaders with business before the government, etc.
  • And he thinks the laws—he’s violated dozens of them—don’t apply to him because he’s president (which, unfortunately, the Republican majorities in Congress and on SCOTUS have perpetuated by refusing to hold him in check).

But the one I want to talk about today is his perverse idea that attempting to censor or punish the press makes the problem the press is reporting on go away. This crazy mindset has been one of his hallmarks since his first presidential campaign.

This kind of “thinking” is more dangerous than it seems on the surface. By surrounding himself only with people who will give him bad advice to advance their own agendas but never criticize him and by blasting attacks on those who question anything he does, he takes away the guardrails on his actions. He is an impulsive person who not only acts without thinking things through, over and over again, but has somehow internalized a belief that he knows more than the experts on any question, no matter how far outside of his actual knowledge base.

In his first term, he had Cabinet members who could help him navigate at least some of the shoals. Those guardrails don’t exist in his second administration, with a Cabinet composed largely of incompetents, grifters, or both, and unofficial advisors or former advisors who’ve wielded real and destructive power, which, interestingly enough, often ends up benefiting those advisors directly (talking about you, Mssrs Musk and Kushner).

And that has led the US into a downward spiral. This president who said he would not start wars invaded Venezuela in a coup after killing civilians in multiple attacks on their boats. He listened to another of his thug-dictator friends and started the unwinnable war in Iran that no previous US president would touch, leaving an enemy in a far stronger position and the US far weaker than before the war. He has torched decades-long alliances for capricious reasons—even making repeated threats against other nations’ sovereignty—leaving the rest of the world to understand that the US can’t be trusted and they’d better make their way in the world without allying with us. His changing-all-the-time tarrifs and his squandering tax dollars in a war against his own residents (in the name of immigration policy) have wrecked the economy and alienated many in his own base.

It will take decades to undo the damage, hold the perps responsible, and build trusted relationships again

Please remember all of this when you vote on or before November 3rd (and if voting before, please vote in person, as he has ordered the post office to sabotage mail-in voting). The best way out of this morass is to provide unassailable majorities of Democrats in both houses of Congress. Believe me, I know the Dems are far from perfect. We need to get out of the hole we’ve dug ourselves where we have to vote for a lesser evil rather than a greater good. All the way back in 2007, I endorsed a whole package of voting reforms that I’d love to see, including a parliamentary system and ranked-choice voting (known at that time as instant-runoff), which would combine to give us a lot more choices. I’d add a few more to that list today, but I’ll let it stand as my thinking at the time. But in the current framework, the only way to get the Republicans out is to get the Democrats in.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Responding to something I posted on Facebook saying the US “has signed a colonialist and exploitative agreement with Venezuela on oil rights (an unsurprising outcome after the US coup against that country some months back),” someone responded, “Yeah, let’s have China control Venezuelan oil.”

This is how I answered:

I’ve got a better idea. How about we let VENEZUELA control Venezuelan oil. And while we’re at it, support the democratic elements in Venezuelan politics (who are not a part of the new T-backed government). And simultaneously with that, let’s get serious already, 40 years behind when we should have, about switching to fully renewable green energy. We have the technology. We know the benefits. And we sure as heck have the sun, wind, and water.

I didn’t get into the weeds about the Venezuelan pro-democracy movement. It’s enough to know it exists and has been heavily repressed by the last several Venezuelan presidents.

But this isn’t the whole story. The comment from this other person reflects a mindset that I find disturbing. If you follow the thinking implicit in that post, it says that the US should control all the important resources in the world.

Historically, most economic or political empires (and in the last 500+ years, especially the US and our European allies) have been exploiters and colonializers of resources that should be under the control of the Indigenous people whose land they’re on—and when our control is questioned, we go to war. Every modern war, and many ancient ones going back at least to Biblical times, is based on wanting resources someone else claims or protecting resources someone else wants. The ethnic and religious cloaks these struggles might be wrapped in don’t change that underlying reality.

In 2026, we are even seeing our own president blowing up decades long alliances that have kept a fragile peace in Europe and North America, because he wants the resources of places like Venezuela, Canada, and Greenland. But in 2026, we are old enough to know better. Diplomacy-based peace and stability are hard to obtain and easy to lose. But the past 80 years have shown they are indeed possible and can spread to other corners of the world—not by force, but by the power of example.

It will take decades to undo the damage T has inflicted, to create better safeguards against authoritarianism here in the US, and to rebuild the shattered trust of the US around the world. It’s difficult—but it’s doable.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, Gratitude, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Guest Post by Robert Middleton

Everything we do enters the world.
Not just the big things.
Not just the speeches, votes, donations, protests, books, projects, or public stands.

The small things enter too.
The tone of voice.
The withheld insult.
The patient answer.
The refusal to humiliate.
The decision not to pass along poison.

The moment when we could have added darkness, and did not.
The moment we accepted someone.
The moment we loved.
The moment we reached out in helpfulness and eased a burden, even in a small way.

Nothing disappears.
Every act becomes part of the moral weather someone else has to live in.

This is why decency is not weakness.
Decency is restraint with a spine.

It is the choice to remain human when the world gives you endless reasons to become hard, cynical, cruel, clever, or numb.

And that choice matters more than we think.
Because cruelty spreads.
Contempt spreads.
Fear spreads.
Stupidity spreads.

One person lowers the temperature of a room (or a country), and everyone feels it.
One person makes meanness acceptable, and others begin to copy it.

But the reverse is also true…
Sometimes truer.
Clarity spreads.
Kindness spreads.
Courage spreads.
Calm spreads.

One person refuses to lie, and reality becomes a little easier to see.
One person refuses to mock the vulnerable, and dignity has a place to stand.
One person refuses to give up on goodness, and someone else remembers they do not have to give up either.

We are contagious beings.
What we practice, we transmit.
So the question is not only, “What do I believe?”
The question is:
What am I spreading?

Am I spreading fear, blame, resentment, contempt, despair?
Or am I spreading steadiness, honesty, mercy, courage, and light?

There is no neutral life.
Even silence has weight.
Even avoidance teaches something.
Even doing nothing can shape the world.
So if we are going to affect the world anyway, we might as well take responsibility for the impact we have.

We might as well become people who make things saner instead of crazier.
People who tell the truth without becoming vicious.
People who stand firm without becoming hateful.
People who stay awake without becoming bitter.

People who protect what is decent because decency is one of the last lines between civilization and collapse.

And here is the strongest argument I know:
At the end of the day, and at the end of a life, we will not be able to hide behind our opinions.

We will not be saved by being right.
We will not be measured by how loudly we condemned the darkness.
We will be measured by what we became while facing it.

Did we become smaller, meaner, more frightened, more cruel?
Or did we become clearer, kinder, braver, and more useful?

That is the real test.
Not whether the world was dark.
The world has always had darkness in it.

The question is whether we added to the dark,
Or brought a little more light.

Cheers, Robert

[Editor’s note: Robert originally published this in his email newsletter on May 10 and has now published it on Medium as well.]

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, language, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , ,

This post started on Facebook, as a response to replies to this article by an Israeli expat living in the US who’s an expert on genocide, which I posted on April 22. There’s a spirited discussion going on at that post, which you can read by clicking on this sentence. Be sure to read the replies to the comments, and the replies to the replies—and to make sure that you’re viewing either “all comments” or “newest” and not “most relevant,” which will block some of the responses.

What follows is a response to Richard, who defends Zionism as providing a safe haven for Jews in a world that never had one before, a place where Jews can seek refuge from the pogroms of their particular generation—and to Robert, the person he was responding to, who posted that trauma often begets trauma, unless there is a deliberate effort to “alchemize” it into something positive, and who criticizes Zionism as “designed by colonialist and brutally implemented, and is now more ruthless than ever.” It’s posted there as a reply to Robert

This post is a substantial expansion of what I wrote—with considerable updating here but not in the original response, including several links to back up my claims:

Robert, Zionism had two impulses: One was protection against antisemitic violence, as Richard so eloquently describes in his response to you. The other was the one we progressives were hoodwinked into believing: that this was the chance to create a utopia, a place where women and men were equal, a place to recover a desert “land with no people for a people with no land”—(as I was told at the yeshivas [Jewish day schools] I attended as an elementary school student and again in the meetings of the Jewish Student Union at my secular city-wide high school), a semi-socialist endeavor based on cooperation.

It’s a bit hard to find, but the movie, “Israelism,” has an excellent analysis of how that idealism didn’t match the reality on the ground. Something I don’t remember if the movie addresses is the way the land itself was colonized. In my childhood, we were always sending money to the Jewish National Fund to plant trees in Israel. But just as we didn’t know about the Palestinians forced into exile, we also didn’t know that JNF was ripping out native species to plant non-native pine forests that have not been kind to the ecosystem—and of course, the Israeli government frequently bulldozes Palestinian olive trees in retaliation for perceived injuries, while Israel also often narrows the land of the local Palestnians so the settlers end up harvesting stolen oil.

The racist plans of Golda and Ben-Gurion [Perplexity.ai search for “statements against arabs from David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir made before 1967”, conducted April 24, 2026) were not in the open, and neither was the reality that, ahem, this was NOT “a land with no people.” It was a land whose people had largely been kicked out in 1948. So you had the yin and the yang, protection from evil and creation of good. But the creation of good was largely built on a lie and certainly doesn’t match the cruelty of today’s Israeli government agains tthe people their parents and grandparents threw off their land. Yes, Palestinians within the Green Line can vote and even have representation in the Knesset. But they have been actively discriminated against the whole time, just as Blacks in the US have been. Housing and job opportunities are not equal. Open racism is common.

Richard, I’ve been to Israel twice, in 1986 and again in 2014. Both times, Dina and I have sat and talked with Palestinians—and on the first trip, we interviewed several leaders of different organizations within the Israeli peace movement. We stayed part of the time with a Palestinian family in the Galilee, part of the time with my right-wing settler relatives, and even in an Arab-owned hotel in East Jerusalem. And we visited the ultrareligious Yiddish-speaking branch of my family that had fled to Israel to escape the Holocaust. On the first trip, we stayed in a traditional kibbutz, and on the second trip, a kibbutz for people in the Transcendental Meditation world. My right-wing Orthodox sister made Aliyah [moved to Israel] with her husband and three of their four grown children, who have all had kids born in Israel.

So I have sat down and broken bread with people on all sides of the spectrum—including a man who was ten years old in 1948 when the soldiers told his family they’d be back in their homes in two weeks. That was not a planned encounter; he was conducting a one-person Occupy movement at the one surviving building (the Orthodox church) in his childhood village WITHIN the Green Line, which the Israelis had bulldozed and turned into a national park that he now had to pay to enter.

That interview was conducted in Hebrew and translated for us by our host, a Dutch Holocaust refugee. He and his fellow refugee wife were two of the three Jews in a Druze village (the third was an elderly woman we didn’t get to meet, the last of her line, whose family managed to stay during the Babylonian Exile of 70 A.D. when the Jews were thrown out of present-day Israel). He also took us around to meet a bunch of his neighbors. And this couple were also the custodians of the actual carob tree that sustained Shimon Bar Yochai when he was hiding out from the Romans in a cave, 2000 years ago.

To me, if Zionsm is to remain viable, it MUST “alchemize” into something far more humane—something that would bring reality to the Koolaid we collectively swallowed as the utopian vision that didn’t exist was spooned out to us through a wall of lies, false promises, and exceptionalism. In its current form, not only is it attacking others, it also makes Jews LESS safe around the world. This is in part because conservative elements of the Jewish community insist on conflating antizionism with antisemitism—a conflation that I utterly resist and abhor. This division within the Jewish community is not new. It goes back at least as far as the founding of modern Israel in 1948.

But most Jews who get interviewed on national newscasts—politicians and college presidents, assorted right-wing pundits—claim that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, and punish anti-Zionists (Palestinians especially, but also groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace). At the same time, the current US government has weaponized false claims of antisemitism to extort money from universities and attempt to control college curricula and suppress student activities—while, ironically, waving a banner of free expression.

These actions from the government and from right-leaning Jewish officials give the real enemies of Jews something to cling to and organize around, and creates a climate where hate crimes against Jews are somehow seen as forgivable because those who attack Jews just because they’re Jews can claim that Jews themselves have said that Jews must support the Israeli government’s vicious actions. We Jews are stereotyped as suppoters of an evil empire, and thus fair game for whatever mayhem comes our way. Thus, they claim they’re just opposing the racist and brutal incarnation of Zionism as conducted by the Netanyahu government.

Netanyahu has given advocates of peace and human rights real things to worry about (e.g., the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and looking the other way when Israeli settlers attack Palestinian civilians in the West Bank or within the Green Line)—never mind that a huge percentage of Jews both in Israel (which has had a massive peace movement for decades, though it had to rebuild after the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7, 2023) and in the Diaspora.

It’s important to note that many of these right-wing ideologues spouting this nonsense identify as so-called Christian Nationalists (not Christian at all, if you read Christ’s teachings, as I have). And many have a public history of antisemitism themselves. Here are some of the president’s anti-Jewish remarks and actions. And here are more of them (slight overlap) along with notes on antisemitism from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., FBI Director Kash Patel, and several other appointees.

I condemn the violence on all sides, including the violence of lies that demonize either people.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Innovation, localism/locavore, Mindset, Networking, Politics, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

One of the strongest local economy advocates I know is Michael Schuman, who publishes the Main Street Journal. Today, he took on the US president’s attempts to strongarm voters and rig the election. And then he noted that David Plouffe, a key advisor in Obama’s successful “out of nowhere”run for the presidency in 2008, has said that demographically, he can’t win.

Schuman says the way to defeat Plouffee’s defeatism is to get half a million Democrats to move to states where T narrowly squeaked by in 2024. North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana all went GOP by less than 150,000 votes. These states are contiguous with each other—so, if that shift happened, we’d have an entire new liberal REGION bordering progressive Minnesota on the east and with only a thin strip of the Idaho Panhandle separating it from progressive Washington to the northwest. And it’s worth remembering that as recently as 1979, George McGovern—probably still the most progressive major-party presidential candidate in my lifetime—was the more conservative senator from South Dakota.

I agree that Plouffe is wrong. And so are all those pundits who keep howling at us that the Dems need to move way to the right.

But I’m not convinced that Michael Schuman’s solution is the way to get there. First, it’s going to be very hard to find those half million people willing to start their lives over for a hope of shifting their new state blue. Second, it’s going to be even harder to coordinate that effort so that just enough people land in the right districts in each of the swingable states. Third, there’s no guarantee it will work. Republicans would get wind of it and work much harder to get their base out or to recruit new residents of their own.

Fourth, and most importantly, a new culture doesn’t easily impose itself on an already established culture. I am a New York City native living in a rural area, on a working dairy farm in Massachusetts. My neighbors have 600 cows. New YorkCity values and lifestyles won’t work here. You want to build quality relationships with your neighbors, and that doesn’t happen by storming in, taking over, and stomping on the opinions and values of your neighbors. I seasoned for 17 years in a small college town and learned to be “bicultural” before I made the big move to the farm. If the existing communities feel disrespected, there will be no progress.

Here’s what I suggest instead: The Dems could finally figure out how to talk about real issues that working people care about without negating the social equity and environmental justice pieces. They need a lot more candidates like AOC, Bernie, and Mamdani, who’ve shown that we can move mountains if we organize where people are, and we don’t need to sacrifice the justice agenda to do it.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, language, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 From today’s NY Times email newsletter, “The Morning”:

President Trump does not seem interested in de-escalating anything in Minneapolis. This week, he said that one justification for the shooting of Renee Good might have been that she had been “disrespectful” to officers. Being disrespectful is a form of speech, though — one protected by the Constitution.

With Trump, it’s always a clue that if he accuses someone of bad behavior, he is doing/has done it himself. This is on the same day that news broke about Trump giving the finger and two F-bombs to a Ford employee who called him out as a “pedophile protector”—which the Times mentioned in that same newsletter. The link above is to The Guardian, because the Times uses paywalls.

But Trump showing the emotional maturity of a two-year-old yesterday is just the latest in a lifetime flinging insults at individuals, groups, and whole countries. This is what he said about racism in 1989  (followed by the response decades later by a Black commentator whose offer to Trump to tour Baltimore after Trump disparaged that city was declined). 1989 was also the year he ran a full-page ad in all four of NYC’s daily newspapers calling for the death penalty for five Black youths falsely convicted of rape and later exonerated.

And ever since he rode that golden escalator to announce his candidacy in 2015, it’s been a nonstop barrage. He mocked a reporter’s physical disability. He called Africa, Haaiti, and El Salvador “shithole countries” and called for increased immigration from Norway (a White-predominant country) in 2018 and—just a month ago, on December 9, 2025—not only admitted the comment (which he’d denied at the time) but bragged about it and added Somalia to the list. For years, his racism led him to deny that Obama was born in the US. If that lie were true, Obama would have been ineligible to serve as President. He repeatedly attacks and insults his opponents—Biden and Harris, of course—but even former loyalists that he drove away, including then-Vice President Mike Pence and one of his biggest loyalists in Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene. And his history of insulting and objectifying women—individuals as well as women as a class—is just as bad as his racism and ableism.

Worst of all, the vile xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric of his first campaign and term has not just increased. It has morphed into something truly evil: a war against immigrants that empowers a poorly trained, poorly vetted goon squad army of ICE and CBP agents to rain terror down on immigrant neighborhoods, whose residents are snatched from cars, homes, workplaces, and even their immigration court hearings—with zero due process and extreme violence—and sent to far-away gulags in the US and in countries where these victims have no connection. The conservative Cato Institute lists a multipronged attack on immigrants and citizens, from revoking legal status of people who came here legally to multiple attacks on the Constitution and due process. This is unlike anything in US history. It’s even more extreme than the detention of Japanese immigrants and descendants during World War II—for which the US has apologized and made reparations. Many US citizens have been caught in these sweeps and illegally detained. And much of what ICE is doing is a wildly illegal expansion of the powers they are chartered with. They are not supposed to take a police role other than in matters of illegal immigration (as I document in the Appendix, below). And they are not supposed to shoot people. Yet, Time Magazine reports today that  “Immigration agents have fired at or into civilian vehicles in at least 13 instances since July.” That would include the two people shot since the murder of Renee Nicole Good last week, in Portland, Oregon. At least four of those were fatal. Add to that the 32 people who died in ICE custody in the past year.

Trump’s hypocrisy takes many other forms, too. Examples:

  1. He’s praising protesters in the streets of Tehran even as he decries them in any state that voted for Kamala Harris.
  2. Killing more than 100 Venezuelan sailors (95 as of November when this article was written), then invading the country and kidnapping its (admittedly thuggish) leader on the pretext of interdicting drugs, but pardoning the biggest drug dealer of them all, former President Hernandez of Honduras. Of course, we all know and he hasn’t tried to hide that it’s really about the oil.
  3. Claiming to be a law-and-order president but inciting the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol and then pardoning even those rioters who physically attacked police officers.

Please let your Representative and two Senators in the US Congress know that you find this unacceptable and you want them to withhold funding from ICE until it starts obeying all relevant laws on search and seizure, delineation of responsibility, due process, and use of force. If they balk at that, defund the agency at least until Minnesota is allowed to fully participate in the investigation of Good’s murder—and then keep pressing for more accountability. And please share this post widely.

 

Appendix: Perplexity.AI Report on what ICE is and is Not Allowed to Do

I asked Perplexity, the AI engine I tend to use for serious research and factchecking, “In what situations is US Immigration and Customs Enforcement allowed or not allowed to act as local police do?” Because both AI and traditional search engines may or may not return the same results for the same search, and because AI results are not written by a human and therefore not subject to copyright, I’m copying the entire answer. Drawing on ten different sources including the BBC, the Massachusetts state government website, and the ACLU, it is quite illuminating:

 is a federal civil immigration agency, not a general police force, so it can enforce federal immigration and certain federal criminal laws but cannot simply “act like” local police enforcing state or local law. Its actions are further limited by the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and by how much local police choose or are allowed (under state law) to cooperate.?

What ICE is allowed to do

  • Enforce federal immigration law. ICE can stop, detain, and arrest people it has probable cause to believe are removable (deportable) from the U.S., and can place them in immigration detention and initiate deportation cases.?

  • Enforce certain federal crimes. ICE can investigate and bring cases involving immigration-related crimes like human trafficking, document fraud, and smuggling under federal criminal statutes.?

  • Make public?space arrests with probable cause. In public places, ICE may arrest someone if agents have probable cause the person is removable and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained; they may also execute valid arrest warrants in public.?

  • Enter homes with judicial warrants or consent. ICE may enter a private home only with the occupant’s voluntary consent or a judicial warrant signed by a judge; an internal ICE “administrative” warrant alone does not authorize entry into a private residence.?

  • Conduct raids and surveillance within legal limits. ICE can conduct operations at homes, workplaces, and in communities and can use data collection and digital surveillance tools, subject to constitutional limits on searches and seizures.?

  • Request help from local law enforcement. ICE can ask local agencies to notify them when someone is being released or to hold a person briefly through “detainers,” and can enter formal agreements (287(g)) that deputize some local officers to perform limited immigration functions.?

What ICE is not allowed to do

  • Cannot enforce state or local non?immigration laws. ICE does not have authority to enforce purely state or local offenses (like routine traffic violations or most state criminal laws) unless a separate federal authority applies.?

  • Cannot enter homes using only an ICE form. An ICE administrative warrant (Form I?200/I?205) does not let agents force their way into a private home; without consent or a judicial warrant, they must stay outside or in common/public areas.?

  • Cannot force local police to act as immigration officers. Local agencies cannot be compelled to carry out civil immigration enforcement; they decide whether to cooperate, and many jurisdictions legally limit that cooperation.?

  • Cannot use detainers as binding orders. ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory orders; local agencies may violate state law or the Constitution if they hold someone past their release time without proper legal authority.?

  • Must comply with the Constitution. ICE arrests, searches, and detention are constrained by the Fourth Amendment and due process requirements, just like other law enforcement; unconstitutional stops, searches, or holds can lead to liability.?

How ICE differs from local police

  • Scope of authority. Local police are generalists enforcing broad state and local criminal laws within a limited geographic area, while ICE has a narrow subject?matter focus (immigration and related federal crimes) but nationwide reach.?

  • Civil versus criminal. Much of what ICE does is civil (removal/deportation) rather than criminal prosecution, so ICE can detain someone for immigration violations even when no crime is charged, which is different from typical local policing.?

  • Limits on cooperating with ICE. Many cities and states have “sanctuary” or similar policies that allow cooperation on serious criminal matters but forbid or restrict participation in routine civil immigration enforcement.?

When ICE and local police can overlap

  • Joint operations on crime. Local police may work with ICE when investigating federal crimes (for example, human trafficking or gang cases) where immigration issues also arise.?

  • 287(g) agreements. Under 287(g) “jail?enforcement” agreements, certain local jail officers are trained and authorized to perform specific immigration tasks (like issuing charging documents or detainers) under ICE supervision, but they still must follow constitutional and state?law limits.?

  • Information sharing and notifications. Where allowed by state and local law, police may share booking information or give ICE notice of a person’s release, even if they cannot legally hold the person longer just because ICE asked.?

Situations where ICE is more restricted than local police

  • Protected or sensitive areas (policy?based). For years, ICE policies limited enforcement in places like schools, hospitals, and churches, though recent DHS actions have rescinded some of those “sensitive location” protections; policy can be more restrictive than what the Constitution alone requires.?

  • Entering private spaces. Local police with state?court warrants for state crimes may enter a home to arrest a suspect; ICE, by contrast, often relies on administrative warrants that do not permit entering a home without consent, so ICE’s ability to mimic a home arrest by local police is more limited.?

If you want, a follow?up can focus specifically on how these rules work in Massachusetts and what they mean for day?to?day interactions with ICE.

 
 
 
 

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, Gratitude, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Innovation, language, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, media-general, Mindset, People Helping People, poverty, propaganda, Psychology, Publishing, Science, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Technology Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

“We have built the safest civilisation in human history while convincing ourselves that we live in the most dangerous. Billions of people experienced measurable improvements in health, safety, and material conditions in 2025. That progress didn’t make the news. But it happened anyway, one vaccine, one school meal, one kilowatt-hour at a time.”
—Angus Hervey, Fix the News

From Fix the News, one of several good-news publications I receive—and one that skews toward science-based progress. This one does start with a depressing summary of the news we’ve all heard—but then moves into a long series of victories that most of us didn’t even now about. It pauses to excoriate mass media for amplifying the negative and superficial (e.g., celebrities) while ignoring unsexy but vital stories such as the amazing ocean treaties and the actual elimination of rampant fatal diseases, country by country. And then it finishes with another long list of victories for humanity and the other creatures we share this amazing planet with.

You won’t be sorry to spend ten minutes with this. https://fixthenews.com/p/the-telemetry?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4861955&post_id=182468358&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=sl4r&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business Ethics, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Marie Antoinette, the arrogant, out-of-touch 18th-century Queen of France, reportedly responded when hearing that French citizens were starving and demanding bread, “Let them eat cake.” (That’s what I’d been told my entire life—but I found out while looking for a source to cite that the quote is an urban legend.)

Even though she probably didn’t say it, “Let them eat cake” remains THE metaphor for out-of-touch, clueless autocrats.

One such is our would-be king, who can find unlimited money to unleash his goon squads on the defenseless (including at least 170 US citizens as of 6 weeks ago), prosecute his political enemies without cause, put on an expensive but pathetic military parade, literally carve his name into public buildings and propose putting his image on National Parks passes, chase after every little thing his minions see as promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (and what’s wrong with those goals anyway?) to the point of changing from a vision-disability-friendly font to a hard-to-read one on government documents, scrub websites and even museum exhibits of mentions of heroes of color or who are female while eliminating free National Parks admission on Black-related holidays MLK Day and Juneteenth, tear down a big chunk of the People’s House (the East Wing of the White House) without permits, build a useless and expensive ballroom, also without permits, spend a fortune to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War and to change such things as military bases and national parks back to their former White Supremacist names.

And let’s not forget his proposed $20 billion bailout of his ally in Argentina. Or the biggest boondoggle, $2 trillion in tax cuts for super-wealthy corporations, who, not coincidentally, have funded/are funding his campaign, inauguration, and ballroom. Other corporations and institutions—law firms, universities, and media companies, especially—paid large amounts that sure look like bribes after being harangued by the administration for not sufficiently condemning their own DEI initiatives and other specious grounds.

Many of them could have easily won in court, but—gee, what a surprise—paid these huge settlements while they had business before the federal government: universities trying to get back far larger sums in federal grants, media companies facing mergers, and big law firms so scared of this president that they donated millions of dollars in pro bono services to his pet causes (even though they then lost business to other firms who stood fast). Shame on all these capitulators who chose short-term gains over long-term reputation, throwing away their integrity to try to pacify a bully who will only come back for more!

Yesterday, this vain and ostentatious man proposed a US replica of the Parisian Arc de Triomphe near Arlington Cemetery, identifying it as “the number one priority” of his domestic policy chief, Vince Haley. Let them eat cake!

Yet, there’s no money to keep ACA premiums from doubling or worse, none for SNAP, none for USAID (likely killing up to three million people each year around the world, according to Oxfam)—nothing for the programs that help real people who aren’t wealthy in the US or around the world.

After wrecking the economy with his tariffs, his decimation of the workforce through his immigration policies, and his misdirected economic priorities, he dismisses affordability as a “Democratic hoax.” He tells the suffering public to buy fewer toys for their kids. This from a man who has never known a day of hunger or been unable to afford something in his life. A man born to privilege, but not to love. An openly corrupt man who has used the presidency for personal and family gain (and to help his obscenely wealthy corporate benefactors, billionaires, and convicted criminal friends) in ways we have never before seen or even dreamed of in the US.

But he is losing his luster, even among his base. Middle-class and working-class people, from farmers to plumbers, are hurt and upset by the economic mess. People who believe in human decency are appalled by the clear violations of due process, the violent attacks on non-criminal immigrants and those who stand up for them, the snatching up of immigrants who followed all the regulations and were taken at court hearings to get asylum, and the unilateral cancelation of many citizenship finalizations—in short, the climate of fear and intimidation.

Seven million people came out in public to protest these abuses on the most recent No Kings Day. Each of those probably represents many others who couldn’t get time off work, who worry that they would be picked up by ICE, who have physical limitations that made a public demonstration a poor choice, etc.

According to researchers Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, if 3.5 percent of a country’s population withdraws consent from the government and nonviolently refuseds to cooperate, the government tends to fall. As of this summer, the US population stood at 347,275,807. 3.5 percent of that is 12,154,653. If each No Kings participant represents just ONE additional supporter who didn’t show up, that’s 14 million—well above the 3.5 percent threshold. So we have the power to stop the slide to authoritarianism, to reclaim our government from the thugs and crooks, and to build something far better than we had before.

What will be your first step on this road to victory? Who will you work with to carry it out?Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail