More than anything else, this is a piece about hope: about the power of each of us to have impact in our own lives, in the lives of those around us, in our communities, and to our ecosystem and the entire planet.
Sign by Nancy Hodge Green, used at Seabrook by Shel Horowitz, 1977. Photo by Shel Horowitz
Two case studies from my own life:
How a Single Demonstration Redirected US Energy Away from a Super-Toxic and Dangerous Future to a Much Saner Alternative
At age 20, I was one of 1414 protestors arrested as we occupied the construction site of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. At that time, the US government was envisioning 1000 nuclear power plants around the country. They never got past about a tenth of that, and I’m convinced that the ripples from that demonstration have a lot to do with why. On the 40th anniversary, I wrote a five-part blog series about what happened and my take on why. That link will take you to part one, with jumps to each succeeding part at the bottom. It’s really important reading for activists, authors, business innovators, educators, and others who want to change the world.
How Changing What I Eat Led Me to a Writing and Marketing Career I don’t know the exact date, but I think some time last week marked 50 years since I stopped eating meat. I know that I threw a party to mark my conversion and planned to stop eating meat as of that late August date, but I’d actually stopped several days earlier. I’m grateful for several things about that transition:
1) that after almost four years as an activist it was the first major step I consciously took toward living lighter on the earth, changing my lifestyle to match by beliefs;
2) that it was the first time I was really thinking long-term and strategically: I came home from a fishing trip at age 12 and announced I was turning vegetarian. My mom immediately responded that vegetarianism would stunt my growth. I was already a runty kid, small and weak for my age, and we didn’t have the Internet to check easily—so I promised her that I’d wait—and promised myself that I would remember and honor my promise to go off meat once I’d reached that milestone);
3) that I actually was capable of remembering and fulfilling a promise made four years earlier
4) that the whole world of food alternatives began to open up to me with this transition. Although Yoshi had been part of my life for about five years and thus I had some exposure to Japanese food, we had very little money and seldom ate out, and my mom’s cooking was tilted heavily toward kid-pleasing macaroni casseroles and meat loaves. She was into whole wheat and brown rice, so we were a step ahead. But I knew nothing about the flavor and nutrition and cooking techniques of Indian, Thai, Turkish, Mexican, Ethiopian, Vegamerican, Szechuan, Arabic… I’d never made bread, or yogurt, or sprouts, or pretty much anything from scratch other than salad dressing. The deeper my explorations, the more exciting eating became.
5) that I would arrive two months later for my first term at Antioch College with a new identity and lifestyle, and would not have to remake myself later in the eyes of my peers: something that deepened once I did arrive on campus and (with 600 miles between me and the stairwell where I was raped by a stranger several years earlier) almost immediately got in touch with my bisexuality and became active in the school’s flourishing LGBT community—which in turn led me to be involved in campus theater, campus radio, my first public speaking, my first time running an organization, an extended and public dialogue with the town’s mostly-progressive but homophobic newspaper that gave me a window into the power of the press (and thus my career as a writer and marketer), and more.
Lessons for Organizers, Change Agents, and Business Visionaries
In other words, there’s truth in the parable about a single butterfly’s wings changing the climate on a different continent. Our actions ripple out and ripple out and ripple out again, and we never know the full consequences of those actions when we undertake them. I had no idea when I stopped eating meat how far that would reverberate and how much it would shape me. I had no idea when I took the training ahead of the Seabrook occupation that we would leave a national movement in our wake whose effects are still felt almost 50 years later. Did Gandhi, Steve Jobs, Mary Kay, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Edison, Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web), Mother Teresa, or Nelson Mandela know at the beginning of their careers what impact they’d have? I very much doubt it.
[Editor’s Note: I’ve been a fan of Bob Burg since discovering his “Winning WITHOUT Intimidation newsletter, about the power of being nice even when the other person isn’t, sometime in the mid’90s. He’s also known for “Endless Referrals” (how to network the right way)and the series of Go-Giver books. While he has discontinued that wonderful publication, he now offers a daily dose of inspiration called “Daily Impact,” which you can subscribe to by visiting https://burg.com/ , scrolling, and waiting for the pop-up subscription box. Being a fan for so long, I was delighted that Bob endorsed my most recent book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World. The rest of this post was taken from that newsletter and used with his graceful permission.
Bob Burg: The Surprising Benefits of This Powerful Trait
Notable: Named by Harvard Business Review as one of the decade’s top 100 most successful CEOs, Mr. Allison and BB&T refused to participate in the subprime lending calamity leading up to the 2007 financial meltdown, choosing to write only conventional mortgages. He stated that the decision, as opposed to the majority of his banking colleagues, was actually an easy one for him to make. Why? Because subprime mortgages were contrary to the principles upon which he and his bank stood, i.e., “making their profit through providing value to their clients.” And when the cards came crashing down, his bank was left standing, both in great reputation and immense profitability.
After a brief but brilliant explanation regarding how one cannot act with integrity if one’s values are either contradictory or not aligned with reality, Mr. Allison made what I felt was another profound point…
Important: “Many people view integrity as some form of duty. Integrity is not a duty. It is a means to improve the probability of being successful and happy.”
A powerful statement because…
Key Point: If one displays integrity *only* out of obligation to others, he or she cannot be truly happy. It’s only when one lives with integrity because it is congruent with their own values and how they wish to relate to the world that it can lead to happiness and personal fulfillment.
The *additional* benefit to living with integrity is that others respect you; they trust you more…and they are more likely to want to be in relationship with you (both personally and professionally).
Yes, living with integrity certainly makes you more *valuable* to those whose lives you touch and influence.
It affects *you,* however, on a much deeper level.
Because, when it comes right down to it…
End Result: It allows you to genuinely feel good about yourself and live with a sense of joy, peace of mind, and happiness.
And isn’t that how you want to feel and to live?
Today’s Exercise: Discuss the above premise (that integrity is about internal *self*-benefits first and external benefits second) with different groups of people: your team members, entrepreneurs, friends, your children, etc. See where the agreement and disagreement might be. Could make for some interesting conversations and deep-level thinking.
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.
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!
El Greco’s painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.
There is a part of me that hopes the Republican Party nominates DeSantis, because when he loses the general election by a huge margin, it will be a repudiation of the entire loathsome cloak of hatred that DT and RDS both stand for. No one will be able to make a case that it was merely a rejection of DT’s criminal activity, egomania, lack of loyalty to those who stood by him, and/or incompetence.
I like to think–and maybe it’s a delusion–that the vast majority of US voters want no truck with either of these men’s open racism, homophobia/transphobia, self-defined “Christian” nationalism, xenophobia, attacks on women’s reproductive rights, love of guns more than the right not to be randomly shot, and all the rest of it.
If I were to flag every passage of Jesus living His life and preaching His truth in direct opposition to the intolerance, violence, and small-mindedness of these “Christians,” this post would go on for many pages. But the elevator-pitch version is simply this: If you call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, you must be willing to accept and even celebrate values like peace, nonviolence, diversity, equality, respect for the natural environment, fair treatment of “the stranger” (immigrants, those of different races or ethnicities or gender orientation), and improving the lot of the poor and the ostracized.
And as an immigration justice, social justice, and environmental activist who has read the Gospels more than once even though I’m not a Christian, I welcome His allyship.
Raise the cost to politicians of doing the wrong thing
Heighten awareness both of the issue and that the issue has a constituency of people who care about it enough to take time out of their day
Build momentum toward change, even systemic change (she notes Erica Chenoweth’s research that shows that a government will crumble if just 3-1/2 percent of the population engages in nonviolent resistance)
Help participants feel less isolated
Inspire others to show up, especially if you carry signs about why you’re marching
Provide cathartic release: what she calls “a national scream”
Create opportunities to get involved with organizations working on causes that matter to you
Offers a voice to oppressed and powerless groups that would risk to much if they were actively protesting
Allow even very small numbers to bear witness (I personally have conducted some one-person protests, so this resonates deeply with me)
Facilitate ways to harness your skills, beliefs, and connections to make bigger and more lasting change
It’s a great list, but it’s only the beginning. Here are ten more that I came up with very quickly. I’d love you to add to the list as well:
1) Sometimes, demonstrations and protests actually change things. A few among many examples:
• The 1963 civil rights March on Washington (the “I Have a Dream” march, which my late mother attended)
• 1977’s occupation of the Seabrook nuclear plant construction site, which birthed the modern US safe energy movement. I participated, and I wrote extensively about HOW this action changed the world (that link takes you to part 1 of a 5-part series I wrote about it, and each one links to the next installment at the end)
• Arab Spring brought down multiple repressive governments within just a few months
• The Save the Mountain movement I co-founded resulted in thirteen months of continuous public opposition to a development project–and succeeded! I expected to win, but even I thought it would take five years.
2) Not only do protests show the demonstrators we are not alone, but it emboldens sympathizers who have not taken action before to do so.
3) We don’t always know the effects of our actions in influencing others until afterwards–but later we may have found that we created a shift in public opinion and in willingness to take action.
4) Demonstrations offer chances to learn about not-very-visible parts of your own community–some disenfranchised and needing to tell their stories, others doing great work but out of the limelight.
5) Protests reinforce the idea that powerful, well-thought-out nonviolent action can create sustained change.
6) Sometimes, amazing performers and speakers participate. I have heard John Lennon and Yoko Ono Lennon (several times), Paul Winter, Stevie Wonder, Holly Near, Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary, Orleans, Jackson Browne, and many others. I learned news and ideas from speakers that changed my way of thinking. In fact, at my very first peace demonstration on October 15, 1969, 12-year-old me heard a speaker say that the Vietnam war was undeclared. When I discovered he was correct, it changed my whole way of looking at the world and turned me into an activist–because everything I’d been led to believe about the US system of checks and balances came crashing down around me.
7) Participation is empowering! You know you’re working for peace, justice, a green planet, etc.–and you feel ready to take on the world.
8 ) You get to enjoy the creativity of signs, puppet shows, songs and chants, etc. that spotlight the issue of the day.
9) It’s a way to build your personal community. If you’ve been doing this a while, you get to catch up with your friends. If you’re new to protesting, you can make new friends.
10) More often than not, participating in a protest is actually fun.
While Emily wrote her list back in 2019, it’s all still not only true but relevant. A few things have changed, though–some good, some bad:
Dozens of new ways of protesting were invented or popularized during the pandemic, adding to more than 200 we already had
Repressive right-wing governments have been forced from power in countries such as the US and Brazil–but took or consolidated power in Israel, Hungary, Turkey, and India
Putin has started a criminal and brutal war against Ukraine
In the US, the ultra-right has taken over the Supreme Court and several state legislatures, catalyzing a whole new generation of activists–and in election after election, progressives are winning big in places they weren’t expected to
Black Lives Matter and reproductive rights protests reached critical mass
Do you notice anything unusual about the front page of yesterday’s Daily Hampshire Gazette (my local paper, covering Hampshire County, Massachusetts and neighboring areas)?
Take a moment to click on the picture (to enlarge it) and make your guess, then scroll down to discover what I saw.
Here it is” Of the four stories on the front page, 100% represent a positive report on a people’s struggle for a better world, either concerning environmental or social justice issues. Two of the stories are about a movement to ban plastic bags, one reports on local Juneteenth events held the previous day, and one chronicles an attempt to establish a state holiday honoring Indigenous people.
As a lifelong activist who got my start at age 12, and the parent of two people in their thirties who each took their first steps toward activism at age 6 (five years apart) and have remained active into adulthood, I’m proud of what’s happening one town away from me. I’ve said for many years that you are never too young or too old to be an activist. I had two friends, Rose “Arky” Markham and Frances Crowe, who were still activists on their 100th birthdays (three years apart). And proud of my local newspaper for giving oxygen to important movements, especially when kids take leadership. Too often, kid activists are pushed aside and told that their voices, their actions, don’t matter. Listen to the voices of both age and youth. they both have a lot to share.
Bothsidesim, as you might have guessed, is the mainstream media’s tendency to pretend that reporting objectively requires covering “both sides” with equal weight. But here are a few problems with that approach:
Often, there are many more than two sides. Bothsidesism pushes other voices and more nuanced analysis to the margins, just as the two-party system that drives most US politics. Not everything can be separated into either/or, black/white, environmentally friendly/environmentally harmful. A great example would be US Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s, where Justices would frequently write concurring opinions that raised issues and perspectives outside the “official” opinion (this is less true of the current court, which disposes of many cases in the “shadow docket“).
When there are just two sides, one side may be well-reasoned and make a compelling case, while the other puts forth “alternative facts“–in other words, lies–to build a case based on demagoguery or deceit. (The link goes to an NBC clip of then presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway, 2 minutes in, introducing the term in an interview early in the term of the 45th US president–and the interviewer, Chuck Todd, calling her out immediately.)
Bothsidesim turns any contest of ideas into a “horse race” where the issues get swept aside in favor of who appears to be the better debater.
The current “debate” over DT’s federal indictment in the document-hiding case shows what happens when bothsidesim runs amok–and this is NOT about Republican vs. Democrat. While some media fall all over themselves to cry, “both sides did this,” quoting hyperpartisan pols like Ted Cruz, there is a lot of similarity between the approaches of Republican former VP Mike Pence and Democratic former VP (now president) Joe Biden, and basically none between either of them and DT.
DT falsely claimed all the documents had already been turned in and stalled so long that the government sent in the FBI to retrieve them. Also, DT’s document trove reportedly includes important military secrets, and DT showed these to people who were not authorized to see them–potentially putting our country and its military at risk.
The astute historian Heather Cox Richardson provides an equally current example thousands of miles outside the US. She quotes Timothy Snyder, a Yale scholar of authoritarianism on the recent Russian attack on Ukraine’s Nova Kakhovka Dam:
Snyder warned journalists not to “bothsides” the story by offering equal time to both sides. “What Russian spokespersons have said has almost always been untrue, whereas what Ukrainian spokespersons have said has largely been reliable. The juxtaposition suggests a false equality,” he wrote. “The story doesn’t start at the moment the dam explodes. For the last fifteen months Russia has been killing Ukrainian civilians and destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, whereas Ukraine has been trying to protect its people and the structures that keep them alive.” “Objectivity does not mean treating an event as a coin flip between two public statements,” he said. “It demands thinking about the objects and the settings that readers require for understanding amidst uncertainty.”
Let’s hope that becomes the mantra for journalists everywhere.
We all know how dangerous a drug overdose is. A particular drug maybe terrific in the right quantities for healing and illness, but too much can be fatal.
But did you know the same thing can be true for overused words?
I just read an email promoting a workshop with a product naming expert. The writer used the word “moniker” 9 times in a 372-word promo. For me, the first use (in the name of the workshop) was absolutely appropriate. The second felt like an interruption, and each subsequent use felt more intrusive, especially when the word appeared in four out of five consecutive bullets. Maybe this writer was trying to make a point by hammering us with this somewhat unusual word. But to me, the message was “I am so thrilled with this word that I’m going to just keep getting you over the head with it.” Well it wasn’t fatal, it was definitely an overdose. It lowered my respect for this writer and built up my resistance to the word.
I hope it doesn’t cause me to think less of the next writer who uses the word once, appropriately–because of the bad association this one writer created.
And the word is so specific that Thesaurus.com only lists eight synonyms, including equally odd ones like “appellation” and “sobriquet” along with some actually usable ones like “tag” and “label.” But “name” has 43 choices, with several others at “names” and “naming.”
In fairness, most of the words that turned up would not be the right word in this promo. If I’d written the piece, I might have relied heavily on the unobtrusive “name” and “product name,” with occasional sprinkles of “brand” and “label,” maybe even “tag” or”term.” Yeah, and I might use “moniker”–but only once. “Sobriquet” would not make it into my draft.
This was an extreme example because of the concentration in such a small space. But even if I am reading a book of several hundred pages, unusual words will annoy me if they are repeated too often. It is much better to use the common word, in this case name, or perhaps product name, than to make the reader feel like they are walking on sharp objects barefoot. You don’t want to bleed them to death, after all.
But don’t make the opposite mistake of using a different highly self-conscious word every time you need a synonym. That is almost as intrusive. Use words that flow naturally and sound like human speech.
So, when you are reading over your drafts, look for repetitions that call too much attention to themselves and not enough to what they are talking about. It takes 30 seconds with the thesaurus in your word processor or on the web to find good substitutes. And save the words that call attention to themselves for the times you really want to call attention to something in your text. Use those words with grace, power, and subtlety.
Today, along with feeling gratitude for those millions of people over the US’s history who served in the military to defend democratic ideals, I’m feeling troubled that so much of the world still sees war as a way to solve problems.
War only creates problems. It doesn’t solve them. But when someone else starts an aggressive war, are there other choices?
The war in Ukraine has been going on for about 15 months, since Putin’s invasion. Some people say it’s been going on since 2014, when he annexed the Crimea. Putin certainly had other choices–but once he invaded, did Ukraine?
Yesterday, I came across two very different perspectives that both feel to me like they have validity, even though they contradict each other.
A withdrawal of US support from Ukraine at this point would not lead to peace; it would lead to the most horrifying climax of the war. Russia would simply deliver its final brutal blow to Ukraine, pummeling it to the point where it would no longer exist as a separate nation…
Regardless how we got here, our only choice at this point is to either support Ukraine or to not. While the United States should do everything possible to support a negotiated settlement, our goal should also be a negotiated settlement in which Ukraine still has a chance to exist.
But she recognizes the need to address the root causes:
The best way to solve conflicts is to prevent them from occurring to begin with, and if I had had the choice, I would have made very different foreign policy decisions related to Russia over the last 40 years. We must set an entirely new and different trajectory of military involvement in the world, one in which we are not the world’s policeman but rather the world’s collaborator in creating a world in which war is no more.
Zunes however further cautioned against intervention. “Before we start talking about fighting dictatorships, we should stop propping up dictators”, he advised, highlighting the fact that 57% of the world’s dictatorships receive arms from the US. Instead, he appealed to the success of nonviolent methods.
Meanwhile, one of the other team members arguing against militarized intervention pointed out that the US’s claim that it’s a democracy is a lot weaker than it was:
Closing the debate, Peter Galbraith argued that we must use the effectiveness test when determining whether to fight for democracy. “Yes, there are times we should fight and we have fought successfully,” he proclaimed, but “the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate why it is not feasible to fight for democracy outside the West.” He criticised the Reagan administration’s embracing of Pinochet, under which Bolton served at the time.
Galbraith further argued that both an independent judiciary and political parties accepting election results are essential features of a successful democracy – neither of which the US possesses. He claimed that the Supreme Court has “become more partisan, more extreme right wing, more an instrument of the Republican Party” since 2000. This is referencing George W Bush’s electoral victory in Florida, where a divisive landmark Supreme Court ruling stopped the recount of votes. If the count hadn’t been stopped, Bush’s opponent Al Gore could potentially have won…
Galbraith concluded: “Rather than looking for authoritarian dragons to slay far from home, America should be fighting to save our democracy at home.”
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.
TED Talks were once available only to attenders at the organization’s pricy conferences. But then they decided to open up the content, online, at no charge. This was so successful that TED Talks (and later, TEDx Talks all around the world) became integrated into the wider culture, democratizing the spread of world-changing ideas.
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.
