Category: Transparency vs. Secrecy

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, media-general, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

If you cringe when protestors describe the federal government as fascist, consider what happened today in Minneapolis, where a US citizen mom of a six-year-old was gunned down in cold blood by an ICE agent after she tried to escape when an agent ordered her (using the other f-word, according to some accounts) to get out of her car.

AP has about a dozen (somewhat repetitive) news stories about this. If you can stomach it, the BBC has the actual murder starting with an agent attempting to yank her car door open and continuing as she backs the car away and then is shot point-blank by a different agent.

Judging by this quote in the AP reports by Kristi Noem, “He’s been in situations like this before, and he certainly has been out there and followed his training today,” the feds know exactly who this terrorist murderer is. I hope Minnesota and/or Minneapolis law enforcement brings him to justice immediately.

I am APPALLED at everything the feds did in this totally avoidable and unacceptable assassination and the vile cover-up lies that they’ve been telling ever since—but I AM grateful for the mass public and local/state government outrage and their demand the ICE get the F out of the state. This is at least the fifth killing by immigration agents since T’s inauguration last year.

What has this great country of ours become?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Ethics: General, General Commentary, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

I’m still on Facebook—but I took it off my phone. I also removed Proton and Signal, as well as fingerprint logon from both my phone and computer. Any guesses about why?

Here’s the sad and scary reason: I can no longer trust my government.

The Constitution is supposed to protect US residents against unreasonable searches and seizures. It’s right there in the Fourth Amendment. But the current government is violating that every day. US citizens are being dragged out of cars, homes and workplaces. Immigrants who followed all the rules and have the right to be here are being torn from their families. And of course, those who are here without papers—the vast majority of whom have done nothing wrong and who in many cases have been productive and contributing members of our community for decades are being thrown into gulags under extremely cruel conditions.

All of this is immoral—but it’s happening. This man calls himself a Christian, but his actions show either total unfamiliarity or total nonalignment with the words of Christ. Christ was about welcoming the stranger, helping the needy, breaking down barriers across cultures. Just think about the Good Samaritan parable, embracing the goodness of a member of a despised ethnic group or the—“he who is without sin” invitation that bought an adulteress the ability to continue living.

I’m someone who has always had a low need for privacy and a high transparency level. I strongly suspected in the 1970s when my housemate worked for an anarchist newspaper and I was doing safe energy organizing that our phone was tapped. We were low on the totem pole, so they didn’t waste a good quality tap on us. Our phone made all sorts of noises that our friends’ phones didn’t. I had two responses: One was to be sure I didn’t discuss anything confidential over the phone, including who might be planning what activities. This was easy, because I wasn’t part of a terrorist cell and wasn’t doing anything that would be a problem if the government knew about it. But still, I was careful not to mention people’s names over the phone.

My second response was to tell them I knew:  Every once in a while, I’d say something like “Hey, government agents, you must be bored. Go get a pencil. I’m going to give you my recipe for three-minute chocolate mousse.” (The secret is to use ricotta cheese instead of eggs, by the way).

But times are different now. Instead of governing, our government is trying to crush dissent. And they have tools like AI-powered social media scraping that they haven’t had before. I have been a frequent public critic of Trump and Netanyahu, and an occasional public critic of some of Trump’s other friends, like Bolsonaro and Putin. While unlikely, it’s not beyond possibility that I’ve been put on some kind of extra-screening list, and that the government might try to get into my devices even without the judicial warrant they’re supposed to obtain. Low probability, but certainly not impossible.

And just as I didn’t name names over the phone fifty years ago, I no longer tag my comrades in Facebook or show recognizable faces when I’m writing about protests unless I’ve gotten permission.

I deeply resent that all this precaution feels necessary now. We are supposed to be a democracy. Yet, it was exactly this kind of outspoken public speech that led to several high-profile arrests of Muslim foreign students in the first few weeks of the Trump II administration—including Rumeysa Ozturk in my own state of Massachusetts. Yes, I was born here. Yes, I am White. But the thing about fascism is it starts with the most marginalized and spreads to the mainstream population. And even if it wasn’t spreading, it is not okay to yank people off the street and throw them in a hell-hole for exercising their First Amendment rights. Among other things, my phone-cleaning is an act of solidarity.

Meanwhile, the president of the United States has overseen the murder of at least 69 Venezuelan and Colombian civilians for no viable cause, in multiple attacks (as of November 7). He claims they are drug runners, but evidence points to most of them being fishermen. And even if they are running drugs, you deal with that by stopping and searching the ship and seizing it if it’s true, then making arrests and turning to the courts. Not by blowing them off the face of the Earth.

He has called for execution by hanging of six courageous US military veterans in Congress who made a video reminding soldiers that they are not under obligation to follow illegal orders (such as deploying against US civilians)—and in fact are obligated NOT to follow those orders, because the allegiance they swore is to the constitution, not to any thin-skinned power-mad multiple-felon would-be dictator.

He has pressured numerous companies to make settlements that have been labeled extortion or profiteering, illegally using the presidency for personal and family and corporate financial gain, in direct disregard of the Constitution.

And oh yes, he has used the Justice Department to go after his political enemies, rather than actual criminals, wasting millions of our tax dollars for personal vendettas.

At the moment, I’m halfway through a flight from Asia to New York. If they want to look at my social media, they will have to look a little harder, because my phone and computer will be off and I will not turn them on for an agent who doesn’t have proper authorization.

I recognize that this only makes things inconvenient for them. They could easily use their own device to check my social media. They could somewhat less easily impound my devices. I also recognize that the odds are highest that they will ask me where I went and what I purchased—then simply say, as usual, “welcome back,” and wave me through.

Hopefully, by the time you read this, I will have cleared immigration control without incident and be settling down to celebrate Thanksgiving with family. But if they do try to poke into my business, I will at least slow the machinery of oppression down a bit.

POSTSCRIPT: Compared with an hour-long wait in Saigon, the passport control line at JFK Airport was only ten minutes long, we were waved through without any questions, and I’ve reinstalled FB on my phone until the next time I leave the country.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

If you’ve been bewailing the presidential election and wondering how the country you love could have voted to elect this monster, this may help you feel better: Maybe we didn’t! A respected commentator makes a strong case that millions of votes in heavily Democratic areas of red and purple states were not counted.

Greg Palast came to my attention in the aftermath of the 2000 election–yeah, the one that gave George W. Bush the victory, and eight years as the worst president the US had had until 2017.

Palast, an investigative journalist with a strong background in forensic economics, made a compelling case that the outcome, hanging on a margin of just 537 votes in Florida following a partial recount that was stopped by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, may have had a lot more to do with the tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters (especially absentee voters) who were purged from the roles, often because of false reasons like their name matching or nearly matching that of some convicted felon. I remember the figure of 96,000, which was bad enough.

While I can’t find that stat right now, I found another article by Palast, from 2004, noting that 178,000 voters from heavily Black areas cast ballots that were disqualified for equally spurious reasons. It’s the one with the headline and picture about Roger Stone.

Well, what do you know! Palast is now making an equally compelling case that  “4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Election Assistance Commission data.”

He says a single Republican operative challenged the eligibility of 32,000 mostly Black voters  in her county, others challenged thousands of voters elsewhere in Georgia, and similar efforts in Wisconsin and around the country deprived those nearly 5 million people of their chance to vote. The Republicans claimed these people had moved, because they didn’t return a postcard that looked like junk mail–and in some parts of Georgia, only 1% returned the cards.

If Palast is accurate–and I believe he is–Harris would have won at least those two states, the popular vote, the Electoral College, and the presidency.  She might have even taken Texas, where a new requirement to add ID numbers raised the rejection rate on absentee ballots from just 1% to 12%. (This is the same link as the 4,776,706 voters link above.)

In order to read that post in Thom Hartmann’s Substack newsletter, I had to become a subscriber. There is a no-charge level. But if you’d rather not subscribe, Palast makes many of the same points in this video, which is freely accessible. (It’s  the same link as the “single Republican” link above.)

While this analysis makes me feel a bit better about US voters, it doesn’t talk about how to reclaim democracy. In the video, he notes that he told the Democrats what steps they needed to do to protect voters at risk of being barred from voting or having their ballots discarded, but they didn’t see a need for pre-emptive action. Perhaps if they see this new data, they could make a claim to some body like the International Court of Justice that the election was a cheat. And meanwhile, this information gives us yet more reasons to resist the coup through every nonviolent tactic we can.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Sexuality and Gender, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democracy itself is at stake in this election. If you choose not to vote, or you cast a vote for a 3rd-party candidate, you may never have the right to vote again. You’ve probably heard about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—but have you looked at the details? Fasten your seatbelts—this one’s scary! Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts, actually said it out loud: he’s attempting to conduct “the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be…There are parts of the plan that we will not share with the Left: the executive orders, the rules and regulations.”

But what they did commit to paper is bad enough: an approximately 900-page blueprint for a fascist takeover of the US including an agency-by-agency roadmap for the first six months of a second Trump administration. Project 2025, written with input from somewhere between 85 and 100 senior Trump advisors and endorsed by J.D. Vance in his foreword to the main author’s book, will attack our freedom in many directions. Here are five of the awful things they are planning to do:

  1. Viciously attack immigrants with massive deportations and detentions that would be far, far worse than the criminal cruelty of Trump’s first administration (this link outlines all the immigration points I summarize below)
  2. Attack women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and women’s equality—starting with banning abortion in all 50 states.
  3. Act as if the climate crisis doesn’t exist: wildly ramp up dirty energy sources like oil, coal and nuclear while destroying green energy programs. According to the Sierra Club, “Project 2025 is essentially a death sentence for federal climate and environmental protections.”
  4. Eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs—and further enable Trump’s long history of open and blatant racism, from the 1970s right up to his recent race-based attacks on Kamala Harris, to be just the outward face of seriously cruel policies..
  5. Eliminate the right to vote for millions of people, through obscenely difficult registration procedures, reduction of polling places in areas that vote Democratic, and even bringing armed thugs to polling places to discourage voters of color—and, from all appearances, try to maintain power indefinitely. Trump even publicly told a so-called Christian Nationalist audience (if you look at what Christ said, they’re not Christians), “You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

Because this article is a project of Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice, let’s look more closely at the horror of Project 2025’s immigration proposals. You can find equally horrifying parts attacking civil rights, social equity, women’s reproductive freedom, the environment, and even education itself. According to the Niskanen Center, a centrist think-tank, Project 2025 would demolish legal immigration and make the US less safe while inflicting significant damage to the US economy

Specific policies within Project 2025 are a fascist’s dream and a progressive’s nightmare. To list just some proposals, it would:

  •       Choke off many types of legal immigration (even for survivors of crimes)
  •       Cut off federally funded student loans from up to 10.7 million US students at schools that grant in-state tuition to DACA recipients and undocumented students
  •       Ban most immigration from 13 countries that refuse to receive deported nationals
  •       Repeal ALL Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations (putting about 700,000 long-term US residents at risk of deportation)
  •       Stop processing refugee immigration applications
  •       Eliminate work permits for many immigrants, denying them jobs and creating a burden on taxpayers
  •       Require immediate expulsion if Customs and Immigration Service denies an application, even for simple paperwork errors, and even for people with valid Green Cards
  •       Force state and local governments to provide driver’s license and other data to the feds—pretty much ending Sanctuary communities around the country
  •       Eliminate ALL privacy protection for those without documents, leading to risk of harassment by private vigilantes and deportation or incarceration by federal agencies
  •       Evict from public housing mixed-status families that include citizens or green card holders and people without documents

Immigration justice activists will also be badly hurt by non-immigration-related parts of both Project 2025 and Trump’s own hate-filled speeches such as how to handle dissent and dissenters.

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections…They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream…the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within…” 
—Donald Trump, speaking at a rally in Claremont, NH, November 11, 2023

Note that the “vermin” wording is one of several times Trump has plagiarized from Adolf Hitler. That’s not a coincidence.

If Trump gets back into the White House, many progressives might have to organize from inside the walls of prisons and detention centers. Proposals to stop dissent from those who lean Democrat and other supposed “enemies” include:

Another deeply worrisome batch of proposals would centralize government power in the White House and eliminate even the weak protections against corporate greed that now exist: Project 2025 aims to:

  •       Move control of the Federal Communications Commission (which regulates TV, radio, telephone, etc.) and other public protection agencies directly under the White House while eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce entirely
  •       Permanently eliminate career managers and replace them with political appointees loyal to Trump

Coupled with the recent Supreme Court Trump v. United States decision giving presidents they like unlimited powers to quash dissent, including even assassinating their enemies, we need to take these threats—and all the other threats wrapped up in Project 2025 and in Trump’s own words—VERY seriously.

And to those who voted “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary to protest Biden’s way-too-enabling response to Netanyahu’s massive crime in Gaza, let’s not forget that Trump has not only called for detaining/deporting Pro-Palestinian students and their allies but has told Israel to “finish the problem,” encouraging the Israelis to continue on the path toward genocide.

Sitting out this election or voting 3rd-party is not an option if you want to protect democracy and prevent fascism. Without ranked-choice voting, any vote other than for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump and his brand of fascism.  Is Harris perfect? Certainly not. But elections in a two-party, winner-take-all election are not about getting the perfect candidate. They are about who we’d rather be organizing against or trying to impact!

Although on a number of key issues–especially immigration justice and the war in Gaza–Harris is far from where we want her to be, we activists across the country will have a much better chance to extract concessions from a Harris-Walz administration than from the fascist alternative. As Abraham Josephine Riesman wrote in Slate, progressives do influence the Biden administration: “They have, at times, responded to pressure from their left wing in Congress (the so-called Squad and others), as well as pressure from unions and advocacy campaigns…”

National partners in the immigration justice movement (led by those most directly impacted) confirm that progressive organizing campaigns have led to recent wins (e.g. TPS for Haitian asylum seekers, legal paths and freedom from deportation for undocumented spouses and children of US citizens).  Currently the ACLU and immigration justice groups are suing the Biden administration for their new anti-asylum executive orders.  Under a Biden-Harris or a Harris-Walz administration, these suits and advocacy efforts can move forward.  We don’t know what repressive steps would be taken if MAGA were to win.

As we continue to fight to save lives in Gaza and on the US/Mexico border, we must be assured of the best environment possible to continue to influence legislators and the administration, speak up and speak out, and push the news media to take stands in favor of peace and justice.   With Biden and Harris, we have been able to push for better policies and we have had some wins.  We need to elect Harris and Walz so that radicals will not be hunted down as they were during the McCarthy era and so we can build our movements to be as large and inclusive as possible.  This is a long-term fight, and electing Harris and Walz is just the first step.

In fact, we urge you to vote for Democrats for every contested office this time so that Harris and Walz can get things done without getting blocked by Congress, state legislatures, governors, and judges at every turn.  The choice this time is clearer than it’s ever been.

 

Lifelong activist Shel Horowitz wrote this on behalf of Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice, which unanimously endorses it and ran an abridged version in its newsletter. An author, international speaker, TEDx Talker, and expert in turning business into a force for social justice and environmental healing, his award-winning 10th book is Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World. Download excerpts from the book at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com Shel acknowledges Holly Bishop and D. Dina Friedman, whose significant edits made this piece stronger.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, the United States of America marks the 248th anniversary of its founding. But this, year, I can’t celebrate.

But Monday, on its last day of the term, a bizarre Supreme Court decision essentially returned the country to monarchy. They put one person—the President—above the law, immune from prosecution even for extreme corruption and extreme violence, as long as they were acting in an official capacity.

In a stinging dissent joined by Brown and Kagan, Justice Sotomayor examined the consequences:

Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

As Heather Cox Richardson noted, this case is legally known as Trump. v. United States. How apt.

It’s worth reading the original accusations in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence that we mark today; many sound amazingly relevant, especially if Trump manages to gain power again.

Like our forbears of 1776, we are once again called to resist tyranny. But today, we know that nonviolent resistance is more effective and longer lasting than armed struggle. And we know more than 200 ways to be nonviolent activists. In the pre-Internet, pre-pandemic era. Gene Sharp identified 198 ways. Many more have been found in recent years. The challenges are figuring out what makes strategic sense against a corrupt Supreme Court, how to organize to prevent a Trump victory, and what to do if he does take power again.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Washington Post’s Robert Kagan outlined a dismal road to fascism if DT is somehow elected in 2024. Read his piece and then come back here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/30/trump-dictator-2024-election-robert-kagan/ 

DT is likely to win the nomination, yes. And should he win in November, a second DT presidency would be far, far worse than the train wreck of his 2017-2021 term. The one thing DT tends to be truthful about is his penchant for cruelty and vengeance. His own and his advisors’ statements have made it clear that they intend to destroy the surviving parts of US democracy, seek revenge on anyone they see as an enemy, and create an authoritarian state that would imprison or deport opponents.

But Kagan is forgetting something really important: Winning the nomination is not the same as winning the election.

MAGA Republicans will nominate him, but moderate Republicans, Independents, swing voters, and of course, Democrats will not support another DT presidency. Add to that the millions of new young voters since 2016, the interest groups DT continues to alienate, and those who remember the DT years for the chaos, the dysfunction, the sowing of hatred against people of color, LGBT folks, women, scientists, Muslims, and oh yes, the attempted coup. Those who value women’s reproductive rights, voting rights for urban Black voters, diversity, education, religions other than White Nationalism disguised as a warped form of Christianity, the US’s status as a world leader, a Supreme Court that values settled precedent, and even ethical capitalism can find no home in a Republican Party led by a self-admitted sexual predator, a serial liar with 30,573 documented falsehoods just during his four years in the White House, an open bigot, a man who faces 91 criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions and has already been found to have committed fraudulent business practices, a deadbeat who doesn’t pay his bills and has no loyalty to even his most loyal henchmen, a man who continuously used the presidency for his/his family’s financial gain, who even his own first Secretary of State called a moron.

It is true that Biden will be a hold-your-nose choice for many. I am not happy with his horrible immigration policies, his greenlighting of environmentally destructive fossil fuel projects, and his lack of ability to curb violence against civilians in other parts of the world. But we don’t have ranked-choice voting in the US, and until we do, a vote for a third-party or a choice not to vote is a vote for DT, for authoritarianism, and quite possibly for fascism. I think enough people will realize this truth that if voters are allowed to vote and votes are counted honestly, DT will not win.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Advertising, Business Ethics, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Customer Service as Marketing, General Commentary, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Mindset, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , ,

Heather Cox Richardson reported in her newsletter this morning about a government crackdown on hidden charges such as airline baggage fees:

An airline lobbyist testified at a federal hearing in March that changing the policy would create “confusion and frustration” and that there have been “very few complaints” about the extra costs for bags. The same lobbying group told the Department of Transportation that the government had no data to “demonstrate substantial harm” to passengers.

To put this quote in context, click the link above and scroll to the paragraph beginning “Falling prices for travel and for the foods usually on a Thanksgiving table are news the White House is celebrating.” Continue reading through “The authors say that the new organization will provide a conservative voice for democracy and that they hope to work with much more deeply established progressive voices.”

I can draw two opposing conclusions from this quote. Either…

  1. This clueless lobbyist is completely oblivious to public opinion and has never been introduced to the concept of evidence-based research,
    or
  2. This is a highly skilled strategic lobbyist attempting to deflect public anger and potential government regulation by pretending this massive problem doesn’t exist.

I have a clear sense of which I believe is true—but I’m not committing to it publicly because it might get me sued. You can draw your own inferences.

As it happened, I flew early Saturday morning from Boston to Minneapolis. And I observed that the airline officials were a bit panicky about getting all the carry-ons into the overhead bins. So much so that not only did we get offered a free upgrade to checked bag as we printed our boarding passes, they were making repeated announcements in the gate lobby and actually asking people as they boarded if they wanted one more chance to check their carry-on at no charge. And we were quite willing to take them up on it, sacrificing 15 minutes after the flight to avoid wheeling our bags all through the airport and lifting them above our heads to get them in and out of the overhead compartments.

I have seen this offer made repeatedly when I fly airlines that charge for stored baggage. What I draw from this is that plenty of people are angry about hidden charges and unwilling to pay the fees, so there are far more carry-on bags competing for space than in the days before baggage fees (especially since experienced travelers know that there will often be a free upgrade if the plane is crowded—and if it’s not crowded, there’s no problem using the overhead bin). Rather than expressing anger by not flying, customers simply boycott paid checked baggage—or, if their itinerary matches the traveler’s need, choose to fly airlines like Southwest and JetBlue that don’t charge for a checked bag or two. Millions of travelers are voting with their feet (or maybe their shoulder muscles).

My personal preference is to fly those carriers, but my higher priority is nonstop flights at reasonable times, so I sometimes fly the carriers that charge—and simply pack everything into my carry-on and leave home any items on the banned list. I once flew a no-frills airline that charged for everything they could to sit in its rock-hard, uncomfortable seats. As far as I’m concerned, a plane ticket should include such basics as getting a pre-assigned seat (except if nobody has one, as on Southwest). Flying that no-frills carrier felt like renting a car with no seat cushion and being charged extra for the steering wheel. I never flew them or any similar carrier again.

And years ago, in my own consulting and writing business, I switched from breaking out certain pieces that almost everyone wanted to including them. 

As an example, I used to charge for keeping an electronic copy of certain client projects on my hard drive. Now, I email their documents to them AND maintain a copy on my system. And if a client loses the file, I don’t charge to resend it.

How do YOU feel about hidden charges? Please leave a note in the comments about whether you prefer to know the full price for what you need or whether you prefer different pieces added on separately.

PS: The O in the headline is not a typo. It’s a different word than “Oh” and is often used in formal or ancient texts (including the Bible and the Qu’ran) to draw the attention of the person being addressed.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

No—but he may as well be. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were told that Soviet schools (especially during the Stalin years) were places of indoctrination, not learning. They were propaganda factories churning out children whose world view was all about how great our then-enemy (and again enemy, since it invaded Ukraine) was—who would grow up to be dupes, unquestioning of their country’s moral, economic, and military superiority, etc. The same was true—and this we know as fact—of the schools the Nazis ran.

Of course, US schools, and the schools of pretty much any country, have also served a propaganda function. Schools are designed to raise children who would be complicit in or even participate in such things as the US’s involvement in numerous imperialist wars. Those wars are attempts to prop up a deadly version of capitalism whose place in developing countries was to exploit the resources—and not to worry about how many of the locals were killed or brutalized in the process. And again, the US was not alone. Ask in India about the Brits, in Congo about the Belgians, in South Africa about the Dutch, in Armenia about the Turks, in First Nations in Canada and the US about the history of their relations with White-run governments.

These days in most of the US and in other democracies, a more nuanced version of history is taught. History usually recognizes the moments where a country went astray, looks at the reasons, and at least casually discusses the consequences.

But in Florida, starting this month, that is no longer true. Heather Cox Richardson devoted her newsletter this morning to exploring the white supremacist fantasy that Florida now calls history and requires its teachers to teach. And I call the Florida curriculum a total distortion of truth. Read her column! It’s crucial to understand what’s going on in the battle for our children’s minds and souls.

Of course, this rogue state under Ron DeSantis has had a problem with truth telling for a while. It has a nasty habit of censoring anything that makes someone—at least a conservative White, cis, hetero, and male someone with no disabilities—a little uncomfortable. This is the state where it’s illegal for a teacher to mention LGBT folks, let alone that we are normal and part of the diversity that makes our country great. (I identify as bisexual so I include myself in that community.) Where it’s illegal for a teacher to point out that systemic racism still exists in the US. Where book banning has taken more than 300 books out of classrooms and libraries. And where DeSantis forced curriculum and management changes at a well-known progressive college in the state system that resulted in another progressive college, an expensive private school near me, offering to accept students from there at the same low tuition cost they’d been paying (and several accepted).

Unfortunately, while its approach is extreme, Florida isn’t alone. Other states are passing similar laws in a foolish counterrevolution that will dull the ability of its students to think, to make ethical choices, and ultimately, to show leadership. In addition to the obvious consequences of attacking human rights of those other than conservative White, cis, hetero, and male, this regressive path, in my opinion, leads to intellectual stagnation and the US falling behind other countries in the quality of our science, invention, and achievement. So in both moral and practical terms, it’s a disaster.

Fight for our right as a nation to have a REAL education! Support teachers and librarians! And most importantly, vote the censors who would drum critical thinking out of our children and turn them into compliant automatons out of office!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business-general, Consumer Issues, Entrepreneurship, Ethics: General, General Commentary, Innovation, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Here’s the secret, buried in technobabble within this report written by an engineer at Google: the monopolists have already lost! You don’t have to understand all the jargon to get the point: Today’s chat universe is already out from under the grip of corporate control. And it isn’t going back into the box. The report compares Google with Open AI (a major for-profit competitor and the creator of ChatGPT) and with new open-source chat and AI (artificial intelligence) tools. The report concludes that the open source tools are faster, more nimble, and much faster to deploy and train, despite far less access to resources than projects at companies like Google and Microsoft:

Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params  [13 billion parameters] that we struggle with at $10M and 540B. And they are doing so in weeks, not months.

This has enormous ramifications in every aspect of society. Private profit will not be a driver toward centralization of control and limiting who can play. And that will drive enormous innovation, in ways that I at least can’t yet imagine,  let alone describe. Some of it will be monetizable, just as Red Hat monetized an open source operating system (Linux) and Google has monetized its no-charge search engine. But almost none of it will be controllable.

If you’re an investor, know that you can’t buy your way into control–but you can invest in promising developments that will leapfrog to higher good on the basis of freebie systems. And knowing that going in,  you’re much less likely to get burned. You won’t, for instance, make the enormous mistake that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did when it bought MySpace (at the time, the dominant proprietary social network), spending $580 million on something that became relatively worthless as soon as Facebook began to hit its stride; News Corp sold it just six years later, to Justin Timberlake, for a mere $35 million. That was a loss of more than half a billion dollars.

Let’s look at a few examples of how public intellectual property has impacted us in the past:

Where might it take us next? I’m not a futurist and I won’t get super-specific, but I do see a few general trends likely to arise from this:

  • Just as  TV and Internet have converged, so will AI and 3D printing: a combination that will revolutionize tangible goods  with innovations in design, manufacturing, and localization
  • AI could lead to the next miniaturization revolution, making it easier to do things like holographically project keyboards and maybe even monitors that make it possible to use watch-sized computers and phones a lot more easily
  • With the right protocols in place, AI could do a lot of basic research and interpretation of the data o that students could concentrate on learning concepts and following them down unexpected paths to create new concepts–OR, without those protocols, it could be used to reduce learning to something meaningless
  • In a perfect world–and we can help it become more perfect–AI can help us understand and solve our most pressing problems. It could turn us from linear to circular resource use, where every output becomes not waste, but something a different process could use. It could redistribute food, housing, and shelter (and other resources) so everyone has enough and no one has 5 million times too much, using only natural materials, generating zero waste, using zero net energy, and creating zero pollution.

Regardless of how it turns out, expect any sector you’re in–for example, agriculture, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, services, tech, creative arts, nonprofit, academia, government, military, or whatever–expect your world to turn upside down.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