Category: Transparency vs. Secrecy

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican Senators:

The man who was President at the time incited a seditious mob that tried to have you captured and possibly killed, just a few weeks ago. Yet 45 of you just voted to ignore this and act as if this was okay.

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.

Four years ago, you told us you would hold this man’s worst instincts in check. Instead, you’ve appeased and enabled almost every whim. What has that brought us? Here are 10 of hundreds of low points:

Frankly, you have everything to gain and little to lose by voting to convict. Several of you would like to run for that seat in 2024–and once you convict, you can ban him from holding public office in the future. You can’t win if he is in the race as a third-party candidate, and you also can’t gain that office if he is the nominee.

What few restraints we saw against this man’s megalomania came when the public resisted. Like most bullies, he will stand down if challenged–but gather strength and power if encouraged.

Yet you cower in your virtual basement as you cowered in the physical basement on January 6. You give in to your own fear. Fear of what? That he’ll badmouth you? He has zero loyaty. Sure, he’ll badmouth you. He’s been badmouthing anyone he sees as crossing him all along, even long-time allies from Bill Barr to Governor Kemp. He even wants to stiff Rudi, as he’s stiffed so many small businesses in his long and dishonorable career. So what? If 80-year-old Dr. Fauci can take the heat, so can you–especially now that he’s lost his platforms on social media.

Are you worried about being primaried? Let me tell you a couple of things:

  1. You are far more at risk of losing a general election to a Democrat who can call you to account for your four years of enablement and appeasement than you are at risk of losing a primary challenge by an ultra-right fringe candidate whose credibility you can easily undermine. Just ask your former colleagues in “safely Republican” Georgia.
  2. Despite his baseless campaign to overturn the results, there’s nothing dishonorable about losing an election. Thousands of former legislators have found excellent positions with major corporate or institutional employers, or started their own successful businesses (often consulting or lobbying businesses). Yes, you’ll lose your Medicare-for-all-style healthcare that only Members of Congress get to enjoy–but you can lobby your former colleagues to finally join the rest of the world in treating healthcare as a right.

This could be your last chance to show that even if you came late to the party, ultimately you were willing to honor your Oath of Office. That the Constitution and the idea of a democratic republic are ultimately more important to you than fealty to a would-be authoritarian dictator who has coddled our enemies, attacked our allies, and repeatedly attempted to shred anything in the Constitution he doesn’t like that day. Vote your princples, not your fears!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, localism/locavore, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy

By Shel Horowitz

“When someone shows you who they a­re, believe them the first time.”

–Maya Angelou

 

Despite his 20,000+ lies while in office, I believe Trump when he says he won’t cede power peacefully (at least not voluntarily). He flouts conventions and precedents constantly, has done what he can to turn the presidency into both an authoritarian dictatorship and a personal wealth spigot for him, his family, his businesses, and his cronies, and has no idea how to look beyond his own narrow self-interest to nurture the good of the country.

But here’s the thing about bullies: they crumble when they face serious organized opposition. Even Trump, for all his bluster, has about-faced many times when his crazy anti-democratic stuff met resistance.

We have hundreds of already-organized groups in this country with combined membership well into the tens of millions (including 21 listed below). If they join together to create massive public opposition and concerted action, they will be unstoppable and the Trump attempt to stay in power after he loses will fail.

What would that look like? We’ll revisit that before we’re done. But first, some context:

 

Nonviolent Resistance Can Stop Coups and Bring Down Governments

Trump doesn’t study history and doesn’t read his briefings—so he doesn’t realize that resistance can go a whole lot deeper than he has ever experienced. Concerted nonviolent action has brought down some pretty repressive governments—including the Communist governments of Eastern Europe and military dictatorships in Latin America, as well as the dictators of Egypt and Tunisia during the Arab Spring a few years ago. And it has reversed many coup attempts—including Germany, in 1920. And even the Nazis frequently scaled back the repression in the face of concerted nonviolent resistance.

The late Gene Sharp documented 198 separate methods of nonviolent resistance—and that was before the Internet added many more and COVID forced new creativity as it became unsafe to gather in large crowds.

Another researcher, Erica Chenoweth, discovered that when just 3.5 percent of the population actively participate in nonviolent resistance, that’s enough of a tipping point to bring down governments. She also found that more than twice as many nonviolent campaigns as violent campaigns led to political change (53% of the time, versus 26% for violent protests.

Trump has shown us who he is, over and over again.[1] Trump seems to think no laws apply to the president and has been rewarded by a Senate unwilling to set limits or consequences.

Worse yet, Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have hijacked the judiciary—creating a massive long-term threat not just to environmental and human rights initiatives, but to the freedom of activists in every movement. We’ve seen protestors isolated far from the action, new laws that turn certain kinds of political action into felonies, and court decisions that reverse crucial civil rights legislation while opening the floodgates of the 2010 Citizens United decision even wider, in 2018, to “dark money” corruption of politics.

McConnell has made it very clear that his refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland had nothing to do with letting the American people choose and everything to do with stacking the court. And they’ve stacked the entire judiciary by refusing to confirm many Obama nominees while ramming through 218 Trump appointees to lifetime appointments on federal District, Appellate, and Supreme Court courts who will threaten our freedom for generations.

This is why they are rushing through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court; Trump feels that a Court with three of his Justices is more likely to confirm his self-coronation, while McConnell understands that he is sentencing the country to decades more under a conservative Court that has been repealing so much of the progress we’ve made—a court far out of step with the majority of Americans. On October 5, Justices Thomas and Alito even floated the idea of reversing the right to same-sex marriage.

And Trump may be right. With three Trump picks and three long-serving conservatives out of nine Justices, the court could find a way to allow him to serve another term even after losing. It was a less conservative court in 2000 that ordered (5 to 4) a halt to the Florida recount and made George W. Bush our first unelected full-term president since Rutherford B. Hayes took office in 1877.

And that’s why doing our best to block this nomination is one of two strategies to prevent an authoritarian coup (the other happens after the election).

 

Step 1: Raising a Ruckus about the Supreme Court Seat

Let’s face facts: if the Republicans really want to ram this nomination through, they can (and if history tells us anything, they probably will). But if we make the costs high enough, they may choose not to—or they may shove her onto the court only to find to consequences they hadn’t planned on.

For instance, if the Republicans see that ignoring their own 2016 precedent and getting Barrett on the court will mean they drop five Senate seats, several of the 22 Republican Senators up for re-election could defect—especially if they’re among the nine Senators that Indivisible’s Payback Project has targeted to vote out of office. If getting Barrett on the Court angers enough people, it could even create an emboldened new Democratic Senate supermajority.

If the three Trump appointees are forced by massive public pressure to recuse themselves from any decisions involving the 2020 election, Senators may wonder if it’s worth the risk of a Democratic Congress raising the number of Justices to 15, giving President Joe Biden six Supreme Court seats to counterbalance this ethics travesty that started with the Garland refusal and continued with the disgraceful confirmation of Kavanaugh.

And if the inevitable suits and countersuits (or a bunch of Senators unable to work because of COVID) hold up any swearing-in until after the inauguration, Barrett (who has less than three years’ experience as a judge) won’t have a chance to repay Trump’s favor by finding a way to keep him in office.

In any case, it’s our duty to protect our increasingly fragile republic by doing what we can.

We have at least two arguments to build opposition:

  1. The process is blatantly unfair and completely opposite McConnell’s own precedent, and there isn’t time to conduct thorough hearings before the election; and
  2. The more we learn about this nominee the more we see that she is not qualified and out of the mainstream of American judicial thought.

 

The Process

As a constitutional lawyer, Obama should never have allowed the McConnell tactic to succeed; he could have said, “if, by X date, you haven’t held a hearing, I will take that as consent.” But he failed to stand up to this power play, and that’s now the precedent.

And this precedent gives us moral leverage to oppose this nominee named far closer to the election, as long as we maintain nonviolent discipline. Use their own words from 2016 to hold them to a higher standard—do it publicly, on their social media pages, and privately, with emails, phone calls, and postal mail. You can find those quotes at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nnuQNpD4vPB4hjcpGDf_h-dYd0iVgR41DzJUs1frEQQ/edit .

 

The Nominee

Barrett has less than three years’ experience as a judge. And eight months of that time, the courts have been closed. She has no experience as a trial lawyer, either. That she is a popular law school professor doesn’t qualify her for this seat.

More concerning, we’re beginning to learn about her extremism. She has been a paid speaker at least twice for the Alliance Defending Freedom, labeled by southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. She is not just a member but a “handmaid” of the fringe group (1800 members) People of Praise, which claims women must be subservient to their husbands in all things. She served on the board of one of its schools and lived in one of their group houses for a while. She did not disclose this membership in the paperwork for either her current Court of Appeals seat or for the Supreme Court, and the group scrubbed her name off its website. An AP article describes the group as “hierarchical, authoritarian and controlling, where men dominate their wives, leaders dictate members’ life choices and those who leave are shunned.”

Another thing she failed to disclose: she and her husband signed a newspaper ad in 2006 newspaper advertisement seeking to end “the barbaric legacy of Roe vs Wade” and claiming that many abortions were done “for social reasons.” According to Forbes, the organization behind the ad calls for criminalizing discarding of unused frozen embryos when attempting in vitro fertilization.

Remember, even Richard Nixon had to abandon two of his hard-right choices. We really need to make some noise about these extreme positions.

 

Time to Take Action!

Already, 150 civic groups have spoken out against this nomination, as have 41 faith groups. Even a Catholic group came out against the nomination in a strongly-worded statement that says,

Years of decisions by Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred, as we are instructed to do by Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Francis.

The next Justice who fills the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg must advocate for the equally sacred issues that Pope Francis calls all people of good faith to defend: the vulnerable, those in poverty, and immigrants. Until an appointee is presented who can meet this call, as Justice Ginsburg did, the Senate must not consider filling the vacancy.

To move forward with the nomination of Judge Barrett weeks before a Presidential election is an assault on our democratic system. The people and their next chosen President must decide on the next Supreme Court Justice. Catholic voters will not accept a partisan power grab by President Trump, Senator McConnell, and his Republican colleagues.

But none of that is not enough; it’s time go out into the streets with massive peaceful protest. Let’s form an activist coalition of many groups, including large national organizations like MoveOn, The Movement for Black Lives/Black Lives Matter, National Organization for Women, NAACP, Feminist Majority, CAIR (a Muslim rights organization), JStreet (a progressive Jewish organization), Natural Resources Defense Council (environmental), Sierra Club, ACLU, democracy activism groups like Common Cause, People For the American Way, Indivisible, Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, Represent Us, Extinction Rebellion, 350.org, Code Pink, and the many others who signed that opposition letter—and of course including the Democratic Party, Progressive Democrats of America, etc.: a mix of center-left and openly progressive organizations.

That coalition should have a public presence outside the in-state and DC homes and offices of every Republican Senator who said in 2016 that it was too close to the election and the seat should be held for the winner. And that presence needs to be especially strong and vocal for those whose seats are up this year (including Graham, McConnell, and Collins, among others). With social distancing making small numbers spread over more space, a handful of people at a time is enough to have impact.

That coalition needs to actively lobby every Senator, getting the Democrats to resist and making the political consequences clear to Republicans (with stats on the combined organizational membership in their state). To reach out to the media daily. And to deluge the Republican Senators up for re-election with hundreds of phone calls (to their Washington offices and to every district office), emails, social media tweets, and in-person meeting requests to let them know that they cannot play fast and loose with our democracy, and that there will be consequences if they try. If their tax status permits, to publicly donate large sums of money to the Democratic opponents.

None of us can do this alone. But if these organizations recruited volunteers in a coordinated effort, they’d have plenty. It’s also a visibility opportunity for the participating groups.

More importantly, this coalition will be in place and functioning when we get to Step Two, Safeugarding Democracy. So if you are a member or financial supporter of any of these organizations or any that signed those condemnations of the nomination, tell their CEOs and boards to get moving with a massive coalition to protect America’s democracy.

 

Step 2: How We Can Safeguard Democracy After the Election

Trump has many ways to try to steal the election. In broad categories, they include 1) excluding or intimidating likely Democratic voters (like the 94,000 prevented from voting in Florida in 2000 and 16.7 million at risk this year, according to election fraud expert Greg Palast), 2) judicial and legislative intervention after-the-fact, and 3) simply refusing to give up power, figuring that the armed thugs willing to defend him will be enough.

I’m not that worried about the third category. After insulting them over and over again, Trump probably can’t rely on the military to maintain his power—and the militia groups, while scary, probably can’t do it by themselves. They would need tens of thousands of highly organized and disciplined troops willing to attack their fellow citizens, subvert the constitution, and put their own lives and liberty at risk.

Thousands of government employees charged with carrying out the day-today tasks of governance, many of whom have been resisting him internally since 2017, would withdraw cooperation.  If Biden establishes a shadow government, he can run the country from some other building than the White House. We’ve learned a lot these past few months about how to work remotely.

Biden has also noted last July that “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”­­

It’s the other two categories that concern me. Denying likely-Democratic voters the chance to vote, or invalidating their ballots, has been a Republican tactic since at least 2000, and was used to swing Florida that year and Ohio four years later, resulting in the eight-year unelected presidency of George W. Bush. And arcane laws exist that could hand Trump another four years even if Biden wins. For example, Republican legislators might try to appoint Electoral College electors who don’t represent the party that won their state (although, as the article points out, that strategy isn’t likely to work).

Here’s how resistance might play out, led and coordinated by that same coalition of activist groups we discussed in Part 1:

  1. Those protests in front of Republican lawmakers’ homes and offices expanded to every collaborating member of Congress, judge, or Justice, every state legislator or governor who tries to subvert the election.
  2. The organizations call for a complete and comprehensive withdrawal of consent to this government’s legitimacy. Enough bureaucrats, government building security screeners, custodial staff, and air traffic controllers stop working, enough people (and their businesses) stop paying federal taxes, and enough members of the armed forces leave their posts that the federal government comes to a screeching halt. The same can be done at the state level for states that are enabling the coup. And withdrawal of cooperation is especially delightful because it’s hard to combat with reprisals, and thus appealing to non-activists who don’t want to risk their safety or their freedom.
  3. Those organizations schedule the less risk-averse to mobilize in the streets, to shut down DC’s grand boulevards, to surround the White House perimeter fence with an ongoing presence—and to replace any who are arrested with another wave. Just as in the Civil Rights movement, filling the jails helps immobilize the government, and eventually, they will have no place left to put the new detainees.
  4. They call on the UN to delegitimize the rogue government internationally. Trump doesn’t get to meet with foreign dignitaries, who seek out meetings with Biden instead. The US temporarily loses its votes at the UN until democracy is restored, as Peter Beinart suggested in a New York Times Op-Ed. Overtures by US diplomats are ignored. International troops arrive to keep the peace.
  5. Biden and Harris find a Supreme Court Justice to administer the Oath of Office in a televised public ceremony and begin setting up the shadow Cabinet and taking control of the bureaucracy (there is no Constitutional requirement that the Chief Justice is the one who administers it). Trump is marginalized until he can be arrested for treason (and tax fraud, emoluments violations, and all the rest of it).

In the few months remaining before all this might boil over, it’s time for each of us to get ready—starting with the easy and obvious steps that any of us can take:

  • Sign this petition calling on all those pro-democracy groups to organize a coalition to block the Barrett nomination and protect democracy after the election
  • Personally contact any organizations you belong to or donate to and ask them to join the coalition. Write letters, make phone calls, send Tweets
  • Contact your own two Senators and Representative in Congress. Ask for meetings with them and bring a delegation that includes two or three very knowledgeable people as well as supporters who can get loud if that becomes necessary. Ideally, this group should have members from different organized communities and ethnic or subculture groups within the district.
    If your Senators are Democrats or independents, ask that they do whatever they can to block a vote on the Barrett nomination until after January 20. If they are Republicans, tell them you demand the same courtesy to the American people that they demanded in 2016, and make it clear that if they vote to confirm, you will not only vote against them but urge others to do so.

And think about whether you’re prepared for deeper steps that could have personal consequences, such as jail, physical injury, seizure of your property:

The most important thing is mindset. People will tell you there’s nothing you can do to stop fascism—but they’re wrong. For millennia, people have organized successfully for justice, for peace, for the environment, for the space to be themselves. I personally started the movement that saved a mountain while the “experts” moaned, “there’s nothing we can do!” Those who believe they can win increase their chances of winning.

 

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

 

[1] Trump has actively sabotaged hundreds of progressive or liberal policies implemented over the past several decades (Trump’s environmental record alone would be reason to get him out of office). He is increasingly open in his racism, his attacks on women, people with disabilities, Muslims, Arabs, veterans, and so many others (even his own former Cabinet members). He is brazen in his financial corruption, his ignorance of his office, and his rudeness to our allies while cozying up to brutal dictators around the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Branding, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Greenwashing, language, localism/locavore, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Nostalgiawashing: pretending that you represent the “good old days” of small-town, small-business artisanship while actually running a large, highly mechanized operation.

Although I just invented the term (zero relevant hits on Google), nostalgiawashing’s been a thing for decades. Think about Jack Daniels or Pepperidge Farm. Or nostalgia-driven experience-based companies like Cracker Barrell and even Disney. (Disney is a bit schizophrenic on this, because it markets both nostalgia (for example, Main Street, USA) and its opposite, which I’ll call “tomorrowism” (for example, Epcot). All these companies try to bring us back to a simpler era, when nearly all the figures of authority were straight, white, middle-aged, able-bodied Christian men, and when the upper class could mostly avoid contact with the “masses yearning to breathe free”: immigrants and locally-born alike in the lower classes. Of course, that era never actually existed!

I’m not going on the warpath to eliminate nostalgia-based marketing, even when I think it’s deceptive enough to be called nostalgiawashing. But at least don”t insult our intelligence with it!

This is inspired by a mailing that did insult my intelligence. It was a card that offered “warm winter wishes” on the outside and then offered me a discount on replacement windows and “one of my favorite holiday recipes” (included on a separate index card). I have been a customer, getting replacement patio doors from them a few years ago, so I’ll give them credit for at least keeping in contact. Here’s why it didn’t work:Four-piece mailing from the window company

  • The envelope used a very nice handwriting font, but a return address sticker without a name, just an address…a first-class presort stamp and a sprayed-on barcode. It wasn’t difficult to figure out that this was bulk mail, though I thought it was from a charity.
  • The card is in a different handwriting font, even though it purports to be from the same person who addressed it. And they even positioned the text so it slants up the page–but uniformly on every line??? Come on, people, do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
  • I understand why the recipe card, on what pretends to be an old-fashioned index card, uses yet a third handwriting font–because, of course, the manager’s “Aunt Amy” wrote it. But at the end of the second side (not shown), it has a copyright notice in the name of the company. And the recipe itself is something I personally found disgusting. I can’t imagine wanting to make a dessert out of a whole sleeve of saltines, and Heath bar bits.

Of course, I don’t happen to be in the market for new windows anyway. Even if the mailer had been brilliant, I don’t need what they’re selling. But if they were a client of mine, I would have not only used a completely different approach, but recognized that not a lot of previous customers necessarily need four more windows right now and provided incentives for referrals.

 

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, privacy, Shel's Personal Life, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , ,

A lot of people tend to get upset when they see an article about governments spying on their citizens. For instance, this article in Common Dreams, ‘Highly Disturbing’ Pentagon Document Shows US Military Surveilling Groups Protesting Family Separation.

Surveillance cameras. Photo by Pawe? Zdziarski [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)]
Surveillance cameras. Photo by Pawe? Zdziarski [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)]

But this is not exactly a surprise. Government spying on activists has been a thing since at least the 1920s, and the more we develop tech tools, the easier it is to spy. This article cites a spy report that sure looks to me like the Attending/Interested numbers were simply copied off a Facebook event page.

But don’t let Big Brother scare you off activism. Privacy is an illusion. If you have a bank account, credit card, driver’s license, medical record, or even a salaried job, you gave up your privacy long ago. These days, even walking down the street puts you on “candid camera.”

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protest intrusions on our privacy. But we have to live our lives as if we’re under constant surveillance–because we probably are.

In the 1970s, I was suspicious enough that my phone was tapped that every once in a while, I’d say things like, “FBI agents, get your pencils. I’m going to give you my recipe for three-minute chocolate mousse.” And then I’d tell them to melt chocolate chips, mix it into ricotta cheese, add cinnamon and cocoa powder, vanilla extract, and maybe a bit of rum.

To me, this was a really empowering way to handle it. It said that I was aware of the possibility that someone was listening, and that I wasn’t disclosing any sensitive information–not that I even had any–so they ay as well not bother to listen. And it brought a little humor to my day, and hopefully, to theirs.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, Politics, Psychology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , ,

$2.5 billion is a lot of money even for a self-styled billionaire like the current occupant of the White House. That’s how much he convinced various departments at Deutsche Bank to lend him, according to an NPR Fresh Air interview with David Enrich, New York Times finance editor and author of the forthcoming book, Dark Towers: The Inside Story Of The World’s Most Destructive Bank. The article reveals quite a bit of the psychology of these bankers, as well as of DT himself.

Climate marchers in front of Trump Hotel, Washington DC 4-29-17 (Clamshell Alliance's spiritual heirs)
Climate marchers in front of Trump Hotel, Washington DC 4-29-17 (Clamshell Alliance’s spiritual heirs)

It’s even more remarkable because “Don the Con” is not a good credit risk. Even before the New York Times revealed that he squandered and lost $1.17 billion just in the ten years from 1985-94, the banking industry was well aware of DT’s long history of failing to pay back large loans (and his other habit of failing to pay his subcontractors). Yet, DT burned Deutsche Bank several times. When the sourced documents finally go public, things are going to get VERY interesting.

This is one very good argument against siloed businesses, by the way. If these people had only talked to each other, they’d have been at far less risk for the subsequent loans.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Innovation, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Go watch this short clip from futurist Jamais Cascio in a Fast Company forum. It’s only 2 minutes and 22 seconds (once you get past the ad). Here’s an excerpt:

If you want to find out how to use a new emerging tool, don’t ask the people who invent it, because they have a very narrow view of what it’s supposed to be used for. The people who are hacking it–the people who use it for crime, who use it to have sex, who use it to do something fun or different–those are the people who are going to find out the little interesting variations.

This kind of thinking has been noticeably absent until fairly recently. Look at the early coverage of the Internet of Things, for instance. It’s all pretty rah-rah, this is great, and nobody was wondering about what to do if someone hacked your refrigerator and set all the food to spoil.

Yet we so often see unintended consequences, not only in the ability of evildoers to exploit those weaknesses, but also in not thinking through all the ramifications of a new technology. For instance, those who developed fossil fuels never thought about health effects from pollution, or catastrophic climate effects from increasing CO2 levels, or about how a society built around the idea of mass private vehicle ownership and a network of roads that go everywhere would be different (better in some ways, worse in others). The people who developed the very exciting 3D printing world probably didn’t think about the consequences of being able to build weapons that don’t show up on X-ray scans, using a device you can have in your own home. People running massive charity programs may not have considered the impact of subsidizing goods on the local, indigenous producers who are essential to a thriving local economy.

This is a good time to remind ourselves of the Precautionary Principle (scroll to page 10 when you open the link): if there’s a chance that major harm will come from an action, choose not to perform that action.

Europe has widely adopted the Precautionary Principle; the US has been lagging behind even under more forward-thinking administrations, and the current administration is actively hostile to the environment.

With an even more reactionary, pro-pollution president about to take over in Brazil, one who has pledged to turn over the Amazon rainforest to industry regardless of the consequences,

Brazil's magnificent Amazon rainforest (courtesy NPR)
Brazil’s lush, multispecies rainforest sequesters enormous amounts of carbon–and is at risk of being bulldozed for short-term private gain (courtesy NPR)

the Precautionary Principle (which Brazil followed for about the past 15 years) is about to be thrown out. The consequences, though, aren’t limited to Brazil. The above link documents the extreme negative effects this will have on the climate issue worldwide.

One difference with the unintended consequences Jamais Cascio discusses: the consequences won’t be unintended. They are deliberate. This new leader simply doesn’t care. And he’s not likely to listen to activists in the US or even governments in the EU. But he will have to listen if the people of Brazil turn out in huge and constant demonstrations demanding climate justice and rainforest preservation. I wish them luck; we’ll all need it.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

Let’s start with the last few days:

Now, a little history recap:

Two years ago, possibly the most corrupt, venal, and dishonest presidential candidate ever nominated by a major party managed to come up with an apparent majority in the Electoral College.

Forbes leads 13mm Google results on DT bullying (screenshot)
Forbes leads 13 million Google results on DT bullying (screenshot)

Why do I say “:apparent majority”? We knew immediately, in November, 2016, that a lot of funny business went on; Green Party candidate Jill Stein filed for a recount in three key states (we still don’t know why key elements within the Democratic Party supported the Republican efforts to block these recounts, only one of which was carried out). We know now that at least one foreign government was actively interfering in the election. To me, this means the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania is not there legitimately.

Immediately on taking office, this man began actively suppressing human rights, starting with the first Muslim entry ban; I’m proud that I was one of hundreds of thousands of protestors who fought that attempt, which we overturned).

The past 21 months have been a barrage of broken promises, broken treaties and international agreements…sabotaging the environment, education, and the safety net…diverting billions in tax breaks to those who are already among the wealthiest people and corporations in history, while slashing funds to human services…inciting violence against his opponents…attacking people of color, women, disabled people, the press, his critics, and others…tearing immigrant children from their families and imprisoning them, and failing to keep good records of what kids they stole from whom…threatening the citizenship of children born in the US…appointing a proven liar and probable multiple sexual predator to the Supreme Court…blaming others every time something goes wrong (which is frequent)…appointing corrupt Cabinet members who snack at the public trough while making no pretense of actually carrying out their departmental mandates–it’s far too long a list to fully document here; it would go on for hundreds of pages. I am more ashamed of this administration than of any previous one. Being an American is embarrassing these days.

It is time for this disgraceful man to leave office–preferably in handcuffs. It is time for his enablers in Congress to step down and apologize to the American people. It is well-past time. We have at least two paths to get him out: impeachment and the 25th Amendment *removal for incompetence).Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, localism/locavore, People Helping People, Politics, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Multilingual polling place sign, courtesy of USDOJ
Multilingual polling place sign, courtesy of USDOJ

Here in Western Massachusetts, four adjacent State House of Representatives seats and an overlapping State Senate seat have no incumbent. So we are challenged by a loss of continuity and institutional memory–but blessed by a plethora of great candidates in both local and state races. In some of these races, I could support as many as three candidates  and it’s very tough to make a choice. But since we unfortunately don’t have Ranked Choice Voting, which allows you to pick a second and third choice, etc., we have to support someone.

I’ve spent a lot of time over the past several months attending candidate forums and house parties, reading about the candidates in the newspaper and on social media, and, having individual meetings, calls, and correspondence with some of them. So I feel I’m making informed decisions, and I’d like to share my choices with you–and why I picked these folks. For the two candidates in my own local districts, I’m including links to their websites and/or Facebook campaign pages.

The Democratic primary is September 4, just one day after Labor Day. If you’re registered to vote, please mark your calendar and exercise your rights on that day.

First, the races where I get to vote, and then the neighboring ones.
State Senate (to replace Stan Rosenberg, who resigned): Jo Comerford (write-in). Of the original six candidates, four remain, three of whom I know personally. I feel any of those three would do a good job, and probably so would the fourth. But Jo is a cut above. She has the perfect resume for a State Senator in a district full of activists. I first met her when she began running the American Friends Service Committee office in Northampton, after Frances Crowe (who started the local branch in her basement back in the 1960s) finally retired. From there, she took over from the late Greg Speeter as director of the National Priorities Project, the organization that shows cities and towns dollar for dollar what they send to the military, and how they might use that money at home instead. NPP has been a resource to academics and activists for decades, and I’m so proud that they’re based here in the Valley (along with several other wonderful national organizations). Her next job was at the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, which gave her direct experience with the issues people in our area face around hunger and poverty, as well as highly relevant experience working with local farmers. Then she went to MoveOn, where she was a national campaign director for four years, stepping down only to run for this seat. Jo is humble and clearly in the race as a way to serve. She’s also highly organized, has mobilized a veritable army of volunteers, and brought in a bunch of awesome endorsements (including progressive commentator and former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who has personal connections with Northampton). Her other endorsements include Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz, former State Rep. Ellen Story, former Congressman John Olver, as well a whole host of peace and justice, environmental, and labor groups. While election officials are supposed to count votes for Jo Comerford, Northampton, it’s best if you write in Joanne Comerford, 186 Federal Street, Northampton. Visit Jo Comerford’s campaign Facebook page for more information.

State House (to replace retiring John Scibak in Hadley, South Hadley, Easthampton, part of Granby): Marie McCourt. I see Marie first off as grounded in the experience of marginalized people who learn to make the system work through painful trial and error. Between her own disabilities and her son’s special needs, she has had to be an advocate her entire adult life. I also see her as very willing to listen, to be thoughtful, to look at an issue from many sides. And I see her as a passionate representative of her constituents; she is in the race to be of service. Of the three candidates, Marie appears to have the strongest grasp of the different personalities and issues in the four communities–because she has gone out and listened to people in all of them. Marie is a protege of both long-time State Reps Ellen Story (who has endorsed her) and John Scibak (who is not publicly endorsing anyone), and received the strongest candidate endorsement I can ever remember the Daily Hampshire Gazette giving any candidate in the 36+ years I’ve been reading the paper. I didn’t know Marie before Scibak announced his retirement, but I have met with her in-depth several times, hosted a house party with her, and been part of her strategy group. That’s how impressed I am with her. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mccourt4rep/

State-Wide races:
Governor (to run against Charlie Baker in the November general election): Bob Massie. Massie impressed me when I met him while he was running for statewide office many years ago, and he impresses me still. He has a terrific record on the environment, personal experience with the challenges of our health system (and also experience of the European single-payer model), and as strong a commitment to social and environmental justice issues as any gubernatorial candidate I can remember, similar to Robert Reich (who ran for governor several years ago) . He is more openly progressive and considerably more charismatic than his opponent, and I think he has a better chance of beating Baker, who is surprisingly popular. But if Gonzales is the nominee, I will have no problem supporting him in November.

Lieutenant Governor (to run against Karen Polito on a slate with the primary winner for governor in the November general election): Quentin Palfrey. Again, two fine candidates with good politics and good grasp of policy, and I will happily support the primary winner in November. My only exposure to Jimmy Tingle was at the Democratic Convention in June, while I’ve heard Palfrey two other times: once at a meeting of an activist group in Northampton, and once at an a rally against the White House policies on separating families of immigrants. To me, it’s very important that he shows up to progressive events and sees us as integral to the Democratic Party, and he knows the state extends past Route 128 and even I-495. I know he’s been out here in western Massachusetts several other times during the campaign, while I’m only aware of one Tingle appearance in the area. It also helps that I see myself in complete agreement with everything I read on Palfrey’s policy page.

Secretary of State (running against incumbent Democrat William Galvin): Josh Zakim. This is a very clear choice. The incumbent, first elected in 1994, has been good about holding corporate interests accountable to consumers, but otherwise has kept a very low profile. He is wishy-washy on  a number of electoral reforms that would open up the process, while Zakim, currently a Boston City Councilor, unashamedly embraces them.

US Congress, Massachusetts 2nd District: no primary. Supporting incumbent Jim McGovern in the general election. McGovern’s been great on defending SNAP and other hunger programs, standing for meaningful action on climate change, and opposing the racist, anti-consumer white House agenda at every turn. He comes to the western part of the state frequently and maintains a district office in Northampton. I consider him one of the best people in the entire Congress and am proud to be in his district.

Adjoining districts:
To replace the late Rep. Peter Kocot (Northampton/Hatfield): Lindsay Sabadosa. Lindsay is a progressive activist who has had a high profile in the Valley, organizing the local chapter of the Women’s March and active in numerous progressive activities. She also knows her way around the Statehouse and has built progressive issue-oriented coalitions. Her opponent, who ran Kokot’s district office, seems quite decent but doesn’t seem to bring the passion and energy. I also worry that some of the people in her camp are openly hostile to a progressive agenda.

To replace retiring Rep. Solomon Goldstein-Rose (Amherst, Pelham, part of Granby): Mindy Domb. Two good candidates for this seat. I give the edge to Domb on the basis of her passion and the level of support I see in the community. When Goldstein-Rose bowed out of the race, he endorsed Domb.

To replace retiring Rep. Steve Kulik (western Hilltowns and Deerfield/Sunderland): I see three good candidates. While I have not followed this one as closely as the others, I dealt with Nataie Blais when she worked for Congressman McGovern and found her very professional. She also has Kulik’s endorsement. Thus, she edges out Francia Wisnewski and Kate Albright-Hanna for my support in this eight-way(!) race.

US Congress, Massachusetts 1st District: Tahirah Amatul-Wadud (running against incumbent Democrat Richie Neal for a seat that includes all of Hampden and Berkshire Counties and big chunks of Hampshire and Franklin). Tahirah is a fresh face in local politics, whom I met shortly after the DT inauguration and quickly became friends with. I’ve been advising her campaign and I’m very much in favor of her candidacy. I used to live in Neal’s district. He seldom came to any of the other counties besides his base in Hampden County, did little on most issues, and only got me to vote for him once–because he’d voted no on the Iraq war. It is the only vote of courage I can remember him taking. Tahirah has been getting to know the geographically vast district and its very diverse voters, listening hard to people’s concerns, doing her research, speaking with issue experts…and to me, that leadership is worth sacrificing Neal’s power through seniority, as one of the longer-serving MOCs

In November, Massachusetts voters also have three ballot questions. I recommend voting Yes on Questions 2 and 3–but after much research (and confusion) I’ve changed my mind on Question 1 and plan to vote no:

  • Question 1 has a laudible goal of redcuce the burden on overworked nurses, and I had been a strong supporter of Question 1–until I started educating myself. However, the bill–yes, I’ve read it–is very poorly drafted. Specifically, the definition of what constitutes a finable incident is alarmingly vague. While the intent of the bill is laudable, it is so poorly written that I am convinced it will do more harm than good. It could result in community hospitals like Northampton’s Cooley Dickinson (my nearest hospital) being forced to close. Reluctantly, I am now a no vote.
  • Question 2 will take the first steps to get Massachusetts, at least, out from under the thumb of big corporate money in politics and give our state at least a little bit of protection from the horrible Citizens United US Supreme Court decision of several years ago that allowed dark money in politics, pretty much without restriction–and puts the wheels in motion to create a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. Please vote Yes!
  • Question 3 protects against an attack on the rights of transgender people. A yes vote maintains the present protective law, while a no vote removes protections from a class of people who have done nothing criminal. Please vote Yes!

Some progressives have wondered, as a life-long grassroots activist, why I’m getting so involved in electoral politics. Because we need to do both. In 1975, I put a sign in my yard that said “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.” But like Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, my position has evolved. I was only 18 and didn’t see the use of a system that had little use for me as a youth, that under both LBJ (Democrat) and Nixon (Republican) was sending people just slightly older than me to fight and die in the far-away jungles of Vietnam, was despoiling the earth, and was not responsive (in my opinion at the time) to citizen needs.

But by 1983, I was of a different mind. I began to follow local politics closely that year, and since that time have been involved in many local, state, and national campaigns. I even ran for local office three times and managed a successful campaign to get a progressive insurgent on the City Council. He beat the three-term incumbent conservative by seven votes! I still do the grassroots work and see it as important. I go into electoral politics with my eyes open, knowing that no candidate will be the savior, that the pressures on elected officials to side with the powerful are immense, and increase the more you go up the ladder from municipal to county to in-state region to state to national region to president. But I also see good people all the way along the ladder. I think Obama and Carter and Kennedy were good people. They had plenty of flaws, but they had heart.

And if we have learned nothing from the horrible policies and horrible statements emanating from Washington the past two years, we know now without any doubt that our votes make a difference, that staying home or voting third-party in a swing state is not an option under the current electoral system, and that we could have beaten back this nightmare if more people had understood what was at stake.

So, Massachusetts residents, get out there and vote on September 4. So, all US citizens, get out there again to vote on November 6.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Advertising, Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, General Commentary, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

In Part 1 of this post, I shared a video of a dolphin rescuing a dog, asked whether you thought it was real or fake, and then told you my answer, with seven reasons why. If you missed it, please click on this paragraph to read it.

Why This Matters: A Metaphor for Something Much Deeper

Why am I going on about this? Why does it matter? Isn’t it just some people having fun making a feel-good film?

Answer: I do marketing and strategic profitability consulting for green and social change organizations, as well as for authors and publishers–and I’m also a lifelong activist. This combination of activism and marketing gives me another set of lenses to filter things, as well as a magnificent toolkit to make the world better. My activism also brings a strong sense of ethics into the marketing side.

Both as a marketer and an activist, I pay careful attention to how we motivate people to take action–to the psychology of messaging, One category for this post is psychology; click on that category to get posts going back many years. I worry deeply about our tendency as a society to crowd out facts with emotions. (I also worry about another tendency, to crowd out emotions with facts, but that’s a different post.)

And this is an example of crowding out facts with emotion. While this particular instance is innocuous as far as I can tell, we see examples of overreach on both the left and right, and they work to push us apart from each other, talk at each other instead of seeking common ground, and push real solutions farther and farther out of reach.

My inbox is full of scare-tactic emails from progressive, environmental, or Democratic Party organizations. Because I’m in the biz and understand what they’re doing, I leave most of them unopened. I just searched my unread emails for subject lines that contain the word “Breaking” and came with hundreds, including this one from a group called Win Without War:

Subject: Breaking: Trump ordered tanks in D.C.

From this subject line, you’d expect some horror story about peaceful protestors facing American military might. It could happen. It has happened in the past–for example, the 1970 Kent State massacre that left four Vietnam War protesters dead and nine more injured by Ohio National Guard  soldiers’ bullets. (The shootings at Jackson State College in Mississippi 11 days later were committed by police, not soldiers.) And protestors in countries with totalitarian governments have often faced tanks; if you want to see courage, watch the video of a man stopping tanks with only a flag, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989–WOW!)

An unarmed man with a small flag stops four Chinese tanks in Tiannanmen Square, Beijing,
An unarmed man with a small flag stops four Chinese tanks in Tiannanmen Square, Beijing,

It’s a clear attempt to generate hysteria, to have people perceiving tanks in the streets with their guns pointed at dissenters.

Only in the body of the email do we find out what’s really going on:

Shel —

Last night, the Washington Post broke the story that Donald Trump has ordered a giant military parade with tanks, guns, and troops taking over the streets of our nation’s capital. [1] This is the kind of parade that dictators around the world use to intimidate their enemies and, more importantly, their own citizens.

This is what authoritarian dictatorships look like.

But Trump can’t change the fact that we still live in a democracy — which means Washington, D.C.’s local government gets to have a say before Donald Trump’s tanks roll down its streets.

Note the use of mail merge software to appear personal. Does that really fool anybody anymore? But OK, even when you know it’s a mail merge, it still generates at least a small warm fuzzy.

More importantly, note that the actual content is totally different from the expectation in the headline. We can argue the foolishness of Trump wanting a military parade (I think it’s foolish, and an expensive attempt to stroke his ego)–but in no way is this the same as attacking demonstrators in the streets of Washington, DC.

The right wing is at least as bad. I don’t subscribe to their e-blasts, but I found this juicy example (with an introduction and then a rebuttal by the site hosting this post) in about ten seconds of searching.

And then there are DT’s own Tweets, news conferences, and speeches, both during the campaign and since he took the oath to uphold the constitution as President of the United States (an oath he has been in violation of every single day of his term). They are full of lies, misrepresentations, name-calling, bullying, and fear-mongering. They are hate speech. I will not give them legitimacy by quoting them here; they’re easy enough to find.

As a country, we are better than this..

How You Can “Vaccinate” Yourself Against Sensationalist Fear-mongering

Before sharing any news story or meme, run through a series of questions to help you identify if it’s real.And if it passes that test, pop on rumor-checking site Snopes and check its status. For that matter, go through a similar questions for advertising claims.

The questions will vary by the situation. Here are a few to get you started:

  • Does the post link to documentation? Are most of the linked sites reputable? If they advance a specific agenda, does the post disclose this? (Note that THIS post links to several reputable sites, including NPR, New York Times, history.com, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google, CNN, Snopes, and my own goingbeyondsustainability.com and greenandprofitable.com. Yes, I am aware of the issues in using Wikipedia or Youtube as the only source. I am also aware that Google gives them a tremendous amount of “link juice” because on the whole, they are considered authoritative. For both those citations, I had plenty of documentation from major news sites.) Strong documentation linking to known and respected sources is a sign to take the post seriously.
  • Does the post name-drop without specifics? See how the Win Without War letter mentions the Washington Post but leaves out the link? Remember that ancient email hoax citing longtime NPR reporter Nina Totenberg? Name-dropping to buy unsusbstantiated respect is not a good sign.
  • Are the language and tone calm and rational, or screaming and sensationalist or even salacious?
  • Is the post attributed? Can you easily contact the creator?
  • And last but far from least, the most important question: Who benefits from the post’s point of view ? What are their relationships to the post’s creator? (Hello, Russian trollbots!). Don’t just follow the money. Follow the power dynamics, too.

I could go on but you get the idea. Please share your reactions in the comments.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Consumer Issues, Environment, media-general, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Do you have seven minutes to watch a sweet film about a dolphin rescuing a dog who is swept off a boat in shark territory? (If you don’t, you can skip some great dolphin footage and start 2 minutes, 20 seconds in, as the dog goes over the stern, and cut off at 4:45, after the animals have made their sweet farewells. Surely, you have 2 minutes and 25 seconds you can spare. And feel free to turn off the sound. It’s just music, and repetitious music at that.) Makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, right? Personally, I love videos about interspecies friendship, and I’ve seen a bunch of them over many years.

Screenshot from the video of a dolphin rescuing a dog.
Screenshot from the video of a dolphin rescuing a dog.

Now: do you think this is an actual event, a recreated actual event, or fiction? Why? Please share your thoughts in the comments before reading further. Then scroll down and continue to see my answer–and my reasons.

 

 

Now read my take on it:

I’m pretty sure it’s fiction. And I’m concerned that there’s no text with this film, and no credits at the end–in other words, no accountability. I have no objection to filming heartwarming works of fiction. I love that sort of thing, from Frank Capra’s “You Can’t Take it With You” to “Fried Green Tomatoes” to “Life Is Beautiful” and “Jude”. But all of these are clearly marketed as story, not fact.

In my opinion, this film is specifically designed to make most viewers believe this was a real event.

And I have trouble with that. I feel its “story-ness” should be disclosed, and we should also know who produced the film. I’ll tell you why in a moment, but first, here’s how I reached my conclusion.

Why You Can’t Necessarily Trust Your Eyes

Because I’m trained in journalism and have worked for decades in marketing, I ask hard questions about what is and isn’t real, what people’s motivations or agendas are, and how to filter information based on what’s really going on versus what the speaker or writer or photographer or filmmaker is trying to get you to think is going on.

If you watch any crime movies from the 1930s through 1950s, there’s a pretty good chance that the detective will turn to the suspect and shout, “photos don’t lie!” But here’s the thing: THAT is a lie. Photos can lie in what they choose to include or not. A famous example: the close-ups of a statue of Saddam Hussein being felled by a jubilant (and apparently huge) Baghdad crowd were discredited by wide-angle shots showing only a couple of hundred people, many of them US soldiers rather than locals. The close-ups were propaganda, not truth, even though the photos themselves were real and unretouched. And even in the 1950s–for that matter, even in the 1850s–there was a whole industry around photo alteration. This was true in film as well; ever hear the expression “left on the cutting room floor”? The technologies of photo editing and film editing go back to the earliest days of photography and filmmaking.

In today’s digital world, tools like Photoshop and video editors have transformed those doable but difficult tasks into something incredibly easy, and only an expert will be able to tell. So in this era, we can never trust that a picture or a movie is accurate unless we were there when it was shot. Thus, unfortunately, we need to bring a certain amount of critical analysis when we view any video, any photograph.

And through this lens (pun intended, I confess), when I watch this video, I immediately discard any idea that we’re watching real-time true-story footage.

Why?

7 Reasons Why I Think It’s a Fake

  1. It’s waaaay too slick. This is professionally shot and carefully edited, by a skilled camera operator using high-resolution equipment, tripods, and lighting to produce footage as good technically as anything coming out of Hollywood. In real life, this would have been shot on a cell phone, held in a hand that shook at least a little. It’s on a moving boat, after all.
  2. Much of the footage is underwater or behind the boat the dog was riding, yet no other boats are visible.
  3. When the dog slips off the deck into the water, no people are around. If anyone were filming an actual event, we’d see some kind of rescue attempt, and we certainly would not see the boat blithely continuing away, stranding the pet. At least the crew of the videography boat would get involved.
  4. It’s just too convenient that cameras happened to focus on all the key places. And yes, that’s a plural. There was one camera focused on the boat deck and later on the swimming dog, and at least one other one focused underwater at the dolphin and shark.
  5. If the shark were really close enough to attack the dog, it would have gone after the dolphin too. Giant sharks don’t care much about “collateral damage.”
  6. It strains credulity that the boat would be waiting, unmoving, in still water, just when the dolphin deposits the dog on the tailgate, considering there are plenty of waves in the dolphin-carries-dog footage.
  7. I’m suspicious of the site it’s on, something called TopBuzz, which I’ve never heard of. I didn’t notice at first when I clicked the link from a Facebook message that it had a monstrously complex tracking URL, too. Uh-oh! I’ve stripped those tracking codes out of the URL as here. To its credit, it doesn’t try to get me to watch all sorts of salacious videos, and a search for complaints brought up only questions about its relationships with content creators, not viewers. And I checked for viruses after having the page open for several hours while writing this, and it came up clean.

I’m also skeptical that this is a later recreation of a true event, although I’d grant that maybe a 10 percent chance. Why? Because much of the footage “documented” events with no witnesses. Unless one of the human crew is fluent in either dog or dolphin language, neither party could have told the story. And the dog might not even know about the shark threat. Certainly the humans in the boat that drove away would have no idea. Since we don’t know who produced this or how to get in touch with them, we have no way of knowing.

In Part 2 of this post, I talk about the deeper reasons why this matters, the implications for our democracy, and some guidance on protecting yourself against being hooked by false messages.  Click this paragraph to read it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail