Tag: Democracy

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Science Tagged with , , , , ,

HOORAY! The Massachusetts State Senate Transportation and Utilities Committee released its version of the energy bill WITHOUT a loathsome and undemocratic nuclear protection repeal that was in the House version. Our opponents say by opposing the repeal, we’re trying to ban nuclear power. But while banning nuclear power would be a smart thing to do, there’s nothing in the relevant law (Chapter 503 of the 1982 Massachusetts laws) that bans nuclear power, as long as it meets the very reasonable conditions in the law (I list them a bit later).

We’ve been battling the repealers for more than a year and a half. Huge thanks to my own Senator Jo Comerford, along with next-district-over Senator Paul Mark in the Berkshires and Hilltowns and Julian Cyr on the Cape. The three of them led the effort to keep this horrible provision out of the bill.

Thanks also to Senator Michael Barrett of Lexington and Concord (yes, THAT Lexington and Concord—how appropriate as we are weeks away from the 250th anniversary of the birth of the US), who chaired the committee, wrote the bill, and as recently as a few weeks ago was still saying he supported the repeal. Being able to change your mind as you learn the facts is an important skill, and not all legislators or members of the Executive Branch have it.

And of course, big thanks to my dozen tireless colleagues in Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy—and in the leadership and ranks of the many other organizations who joined this effort, among them the Sierra Club, Indivisible-MA, and Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility. And the dozen or so other orgs I don’t have space to name. But I WILL name Clamshell Alliance, which I represent on the coalition along with two other members. Clam has contacted every Massachusetts resident on its list.

The work is not done yet, though. This victory has to become permanent. We have to make sure the repeal is NOT added back in during conference committee, because the House version includes it. And if it does go forward with the repeal, we’ll need to blanket the legislature and let them know this has to be a deal breaker and MUST be amended out, or else they should vote no on the overall bill.

If you vote in Massachusetts, please convey to the members of the Conference Committee (AND to your own State Senator and Representative) that repealing 503 is unacceptable. Here are the committee members:

Contact all six of them—today!

Sen. Michael Barrett: 617-722-1572 / Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov (Room 312-B)
Sen. Cynthia Creem: 617-722-1639 / Cynthia.Creem@masenate.gov (Room 312-A)
Sen. Bruce Tarr: 617-722-1600 / Bruce.Tarr@masenate.gov (Room 308)
Rep. Mark Cusack: 617-722-2030 / Mark.Cusack@mahouse.gov (Room 43)
Rep. Bradley Jones: 617-722-2100 / Bradley.Jones@mahouse.gov (Room 124)
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz: 617-722-2990 / Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov (Room 243) 

The bill our opponents want to repeal was passed by 67% of voters in every county back in 1982. It requires a permanent waste storage facility, an emergency evacuation plan, and voter and legislative approval. Here are the relevant sections of the law (click here to read the entire law): 

Section 3. No new nuclear power plant shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed nuclear power plant have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that there exists an operating, federally-licensed facility for the timely and economical permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes generated by the proposed nuclear power plant;
(ii) that an adequate emergency preparedness plan for the proposed nuclear power plant has been developed, approved, and implemented by the Commonwealth;
(iii) that effective emission standards applicable to the proposed nuclear power plant have been promulgated by the Commonwealth to protect the public against health and safety hazards of radioactive air pollutants traceable to nuclear power plants within the Commonwealth;
(iv) that there exists a demonstrated, federally-approved technology or means for the timely and economical decommissioning, dismantling, and disposal of the proposed nuclear power plant; and
(v) that the proposed nuclear power plant offers the optimal means of meeting energy needs from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation.
 
Section 4. No facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes shall be constructed or operated within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) construction and operation of the proposed waste facility have been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that the particular technology or means to be utilized at the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available technologies or means from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use ACTS, 1982. – Chap. 503. planning, and avoiding potential social and economic dislocation; and (ii) that the site of the proposed waste facility is superior to all other available sites from the combined standpoints of overall cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, land-use planning, and avoiding potential social and environmental dislocation.
 
Section 5. The Commonwealth shall not enter into any compact or agreement with any other state or states concerning the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes within the Commonwealth unless:
(a) the compact or agreement has been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon in a state-wide general election; and
(b) the General Court has found, and has so certified by resolution duly adopted by majority vote of the members of each House:
(i) that construction and operation within the Commonwealth of any facility for the disposal or storage of low-level radioactive wastes pursuant to the proposed compact or agreement shall be subject to the conditions of Section 4 of this Act; and
(ii) that the responsibilities and commitments of the Commonwealth under the proposed compact or agreement are no greater than those of any other party thereto.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how I answered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, Green Business, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Innovation, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Mindset, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The first thing I do when I get online each morning is read a few things:

  • Poems of the day from Rattle, The Academy of American Poets, and Second Coming.
  • Heather Cox Richardson and Robert Hubble for analysis of the craziness in the US government right now and how people are fighting back.
  • Seth Godin for his deep insight, creative thinking, and common sense in the business and learning worlds, and news roundups from among The Guardian, New York Times, and/or Associated Press. (Disclosure: I donate to The Guardian and Associated Press)
  • Bob Burg, with his daily sermon on succeeding by treating people right, is often on the list.

Today, Godin opened my eyes to a completely new understanding of economics with one sentence:

The price variation in any market reflects not what the market will bear, but what the people in that market can bear to charge.

Brilliant. And I don’t think I’ve come across this anywhere else. It changes everything, doesn’t it?

He backs up his thesis with examples as different as the pricing of luxury handbags and concert tickets. He discusses how rock musicians who allow promoters to scale tickets out of the range of affordability for most of their fans pay a price in loyalty. And he talks about how that particular dynamic came out of outsourcing concert pricing to third party vendors like Ticketmaster who don’t really give a flying f about the fans as long as they can find enough who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars when they could just as easily spend $10 on a movie in the theater or nothing to watch it at home.

I’ve made those choices many times. I paid $6 in 1972, as a 15-year-old without a lot of cash, to see the Rolling Stones in Madison Square Garden. That’s only $46.24 in today’s money. Most of the time, if a concert or theater ticket is more than $100, I will choose a different form of entertainment. I think I have made four exceptions: The Who, my all-time favorite rock band that I had never seen in concert; tickets for touring Broadway productions of “Hamilton” and “Wicked”; also an actual Broadway show, but I’m not sure which one it was.

The three that I remember were actually worth the money and I didn’t regret spending it. But if I had spent that much for some of the mediocre concerts I’ve seen by top acts, I would have been furious, feeling totally ripped off. I saw many of them as either a concert reviewer or an usher, and thus didn’t pay to be ripped off. But it was frustrating even to give up an evening for something that wasn’t worth it and was charging a lot, even though I wasn’t paying. it was an insult to the fans.

But concerts are by definition discretionary purchases. Let’s look at price elasticity in other contexts that Seth didn’t mention—such as necessities.

Many have jumped in price far beyond inflation. Housing is one of them. But housing is something we have to have. Other societies consider housing a basic right. There is no homelessness problem in Cuba. Medical care and higher education, two other sets of services that have shot up in price here in the US, are also provided to everyone there. But they have an authoritarian government and they have deep poverty.

When I visited in 2019, the biggest complaint that I heard, and I heard it from almost everyone I met, is the inability of wages to keep up with the cost of living. Most workers make about $20 US a month. Doctors make $60 or $70. Our guide told us that the only reason his wife is able to afford to be a doctor is because he makes far more than the typical Cuban income from his clients’ tips. Sometimes, it is about trade-offs.

But sometimes, it’s not. Europe proves that decent, democratic governments can afford to treat healthcare as a right and keep higher education extremely affordable as well (housing, not so much). And they’ve also made huge progress in greening the economy.

China also has an authoritarian government. But the streets of its cities are crowded with relatively inexpensive electric cars (which is to say, still totally out of reach for most Chinese—but enough can afford them that massive traffic jams are common). This transition was quite conspicuous between my first trip to China in 2016 and my return in 2024. I rode in several of them and was impressed with how well they seem to be designed. Those stubborn trade-offs with their moral dilemmas.

Yet, for the past year, we have an authoritarian government in the US. The ugliness of its actions and policies would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

But unlike Cuba and China, the benefits are not accruing to ordinary people. This government is about benefiting billionaires and openly, blatantly lining its leader’s and his friends’ pockets while collecting undeserved and insincere tributes from those who understand that they can flatter their way to what they want, even if they want things that are absolutely at odds with the interests of us ordinary people.

Seth’s thesis is not the whole picture, though. It’s a both-and, not an either-or. Price sensitivity is certainly an issue in purchase decisions—but so is sensitivity to what your market could pay without feeling exploited and ripped off. In my own business, I’ve kept my pricing far lower than most, because that makes me affordable to the solopreneurs and microbusinesses I enjoy serving. I don’t want to live in the corporate world enough to charge too much for my preferred clients, and those huge corporations have in-house people who do what I do. I also recognize that money is one means to an end, and there are others—such as what I referred to earlier: volunteering or reviewing instead of buying tickets

It is also quite possible to make a good profit serving the bottom economic tier. I recommend two great books on this: The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits by C.K. Prahalad (out of print; that’s a link to a used copy) and Business Solution to Poverty by Paul Polak and Mal Warwick. That link takes you to bookshop.org, where your purchase supports the independent bookstore of your choice instead of lining the pockets of an oligarch who has aided and abetted the authoritarian government that has taken over the US.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

I woke up this morning thinking I would celebrate the US’s 249th birthday by celebrating real patriotism. But first, I opened my email while taking a walk—and saw that former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich had already written most of what I’d say.

I just want to add two more things:

  1. Nonviolent resistance, in any of its more than 346 forms (a list that keeps growing), is patriotic.
  2. Bullies win by convincing their opponents that they are powerless. Not only are we not powerless, citizen action has toppled many ruthless dictatorships. Researchers Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan say that if just 3.5% of the population withdraws consent, the government is likely to fall—and that nonviolent dissent is more effective than armed struggle.

Happy birthday, USA! Let’s celebrate by doing one thing today to impede the fascist trend we face. This post is one of at least two that I’m doing, along with taping a radio interview this afternoon calling attention to a very undemocratic piece of legislation our governor is trying to push through. Please tell us your pro-democracy action in the comments.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Business Ethics, censorship, Corporate Social Responsibility, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics-International, language, Marketing Trends/News, Peace and War, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Unilever acquired B&J’s, the agreement guaranteed the ice cream company the right to an independent Board empowered to continue B&J’s decades of social and environmental activism as they see fit. But apparently, Unilever, one of the largest consumer packaged goods (CPG) conglomerates in the world, disagrees with the Board’s repeated attempts to support the people of Palestine, a situation much more dire now after more than a year of constant Israeli attacks that have killed more than 43,000 Palestinians and injured and/or made homeless hundreds of thousands more, including thousands who’ve had their replacement homes or shelters destroyed and had to flee multiple times.

Most of the time, Unilever is one of the better corporate citizens. It’s done a lot of good in the business world for environmental and human rights efforts. Many of its business units, beginning with Ben & Jerry’s in 2012, are certified B Corporations (a business structure that allows environmental and social good to be factored in alongside profitability)–and the parent company has been undertaking a Herculean effort (ongoing since 2015) to get the entire corporation B-corp certified.

But now, Unilever is censoring the B&J’s Board and threatening to dissolve the Board and sue individual Board members. And, once again, B&J’s is suing the parent company over censorship around Gaza.

Israel’s position is unusual because it is treated differently than other governments, in two different ways. Some people grant Israel special status because of its history, and some use that history to condemn it and even question its existence. Here are some of the reasons why Israel-Palestine conflict is treated differently than elsewhere:

 

The Pro-Israel Reasons Why Israel is Treated Differently

  • European and US guilt in the aftermath of World War II, when it became obvious that millions of Jews, Roma, lesbians and gays, people with disabilities, and political opponents of the Nazi dictatorship could have been saved by other nations and were instead murdered in Germany and the lands it occupied.
  • Extremely effective pro-Israel lobbying that has demonized Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians (overlapping groups, but not interchangeable) both within the Jewish community and in the wider culture. I recommend the film “Israelism” as the quickest way to gain understanding of how this has worked. This has been so effectively percolated into the culture that any attack on the Israeli government—even in its current super-brutal iteration—is labeled antisemitism.
  • The industrialized world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels from the Arab lands—and the widely-held view within the US government that Israel is our foreign-policy surrogate and enforcement agent in the Middle East (one of the most important strategic regions in the world: a crossroads of trade since ancient times and a place where political, energy, and military control conveys enormous influence over Europe, Africa, and western Asia).

 

The Reasons Why Others Condemn Israel

  • In the larger population, this role as US surrogate gets translated into accepting at face value the common belief that Israel is a bulwark of Western democracy in a region lacking in democracies. And that, in turn, causes conflict with those who criticize Israel’s appalling record of violence and subjugation in the Gaza war. The democracy meme is partially true. If you are a white Jewish citizen of Israel, you have rights under a democracy—but those rights are limited for your Israeli Arab neighbors and do not exist for your Palestinian neighbors in East Jerusalem and just outside Israel’s borders.
  • Pretty much every Israeli and Palestinian has experienced direct harm: the loss of loved ones, the destruction of and/or eviction from property, denial of human rights. For 76 years, Israel has oppressed Palestinians, dating back to independence in 1948—and Arab nations have repeatedly waged wars and nongovernmental attacks against Israel. More recently, Israel has initiated several wars. On my second trip to Israel and Palestine ten years ago, I listened to a man who had been only 11 years old when the Israelis told his family not to take a lot of their possessions because they would be back in a few weeks (scroll down in the linked article to the section on Bar-Am). He’s one of many whose story I’ve heard over the years that describe the oppression, loss, and bitterness —as the many Israeli Jews who’ve recounted their own losses through terrorism have also experienced. The gruesome toll affects people on both sides.
  • The denial of rights to ethnic and religious minorities within Israel and to majorities in the Palestinian Territories, the violence done to these populations, and the forced resettlement have all combined to make Israel a pariah in the eyes of many.

Unfortunately, what should be anger directed at the government of Israel is often misdirected into attacks on Jews. And it doesn’t help that so many people who should know better equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

Mind you—antisemitism is real and it is not OK. But there’s a big difference between “Israel, stop bombing civilians, stop denying food access, stop destroying hospitals, stop killing journalists,” etc. and saying that the heinous Hamas attack of October 7, 2023 was justified or that the Jews as a people should be destroyed. Those latter constructs are antisemitic. The former are legitimate criticisms of a government gone amok.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the head of the rabbinic human rights organization T’ruah, has a helpful article on how to tell the difference.

But legitimate criticism of violent and discriminatory Israeli policies and actions, even those before October 7, cannot justify what Hamas did. There is NO justification for kidnapping, killing and raping innocents because they happen to be Jewish and living in Israel—just as there is NO justification for killing and torturing innocents because they happen to be Palestinian, Arab, and/or Muslim. And there is also no justification for treating Israel far more harshly in the diplomatic arena than other countries brutalizing occupied populations. If it’s wrong when Israel does it, it’s also wrong when other countries do it. Not to make that clear is another form of antisemitism.

 

And How Does This Relate to Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s

What Unilever is doing to Ben & Jerry’s is just a less intense version of the censorship and repression on college campuses last spring when Palestinians and their allies demanded justice and peace. What it says is “we espouse values of multiculturalism but we don’t actually believe it. In fact, we believe in demolishing entire populations based on ethnicity, religion, or other factors that we say shouldn’t matter. And we will bring repression down upon the shoulders of those who defend the groups we want to marginalize.”

To make real change, we have to make space for dissenting voices, especially from marginalized populations. That gets stripped away when criticism of Israel’s malignant actions are blocked. If you agree, click to tell Unilever to stop stomping on dissent at Ben & Jerry’s. You’re welcome to copy and modify my message:

As a proud Jew and an activist for 55 years who’s worked on peace, Middle East, the right to dissent, environmental, business as a social change agent, and immigration justice among other issues, I take strong issue with Unilever’s unilateral abrogation of Ben & Jerry’s right to protest genocidal policies in Gaza. With the Board’s independence written into the acquisition agreement, the umbrella entity of Unilever is not obligated to agree with their position and nor does that position have to be thought of as representing the whole corporation—but you are obligated to let them express it. Palestinian rights are compatible with Jewish rights, and the world needs to stop accepting the argument that criticism of Israel’s government is antimsemitism.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,

…They claim the Dems are undemocratic because Kamala didn’t become the presidential nominee through primaries? What hypocrites!

Here’s what to tell MAGA folks when they start kvetching that Biden got 14 million votes in the primaries while Kamala got none:

  1. 81 MILLION people (almost 6 times as many as Biden’s primary votes) voted for Kamala Harris when she ran for Vice President in 2020 (and that same 14 million who voted for Biden this year also voted for her again in the Democratic primaries)—and the entire electorate will get to vote on this very shortly.
  2. She has Biden’s (and both Obamas’ and both Clintons’) strong endorsement as well as pretty much every major non-MAGA politician from AOC and Bernie on the left to Liz Cheney, her father the former VP, and conservative columnist George Will along with a bunch of former Trump senior staffers on the right—precisely BECAUSE Trump presents an existential threat to democracy.
  3. She got endorsements from practically every delegate pledged to Biden once he withdrew.
  4. The whole idea of HAVING a VP is to have a mechanism in place if the president can’t continue. Listing them in reverse chronological order, LBJ, Harry Truman, Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt,  Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, and John Tyler all became president without ANYONE voting them into that office. They were sitting VPs when the president died. If people feel that Kamala’s nomination was unfairly undemocratic, they have the option not to vote for her on November 5.
  5. MAGA people are opening quite the can of worms by bringing up undemocratic attitudes. Because THEIR guy is super-vulnerable on this. Not only has Trump openly stated he wants to be a dictator but his speeches are jam-packed with attacks on minority groups, calls for retribution against his enemies, endorsements of other dictators including Orban, Xi, Putin, and Kim among others, not to mention endorsing the savage but fictional cannibal Hannibal Lecter. Project 2025, which Trump falsely claims to know nothing about, is a roadmap for overthrowing democracy—created with help from more than 140 past and  present Trump employees and naming Trump numerous times. And that is just one of his tens of thousands of documented lies (30,573 just during his time as president, 162 in a single recent so-called press conference that did not take actual on-the-fly questions and did not subject him to being in the same room with his hand-picked panel). Agenda 47, which Trump does endorse and which the GOP has adopted as this year’s platform, sounds an awful lot like a simplified, less detailed Project 2025.
  6. And Trump not only has an extremely undemocratic record in his four years as president, a lot of the guardrails that kept him at least somewhat in check have been taken away—starting with the loony Supreme Court decision that found a president can not be held accountable for any action that was taken in his role as president.
  7. Finally, do we even need to mention that sore loser Trump is the ONLY US president who refused to hand over power peacefully at the end of his term, who incited a riot in a vain (and in-vain) attempt to incite a coup, who filed roughly 60 lawsuits to overturn the will of the people, many of which were tossed out by judges he had appointed? And, of course, he’s the only US president to be charged with 94 felonies and to be found guilty of 34 of them in the one trial that has taken place so far, not to mention held liable for $454 MM in the aftermath of just one of many suits against him for slanders and credible allegations of abusing women.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,
  • If you have a socially or environmentally conscious business…
  • If you are an activist on any issue…
  • If you work in any way to better the lives of disempowered people—whether the disempowerment is social, cultural, medical, geographical, or any other cause…

Please read this next paragraph VERY carefully. It’s from today’s Letters from an American by Heather Cox Richardson (emphasis added):

How religion and authoritarianism have come together in modern America was on display Thursday, when right-wing activist Jack Posobiec opened this weekend’s conference of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) outside Washington, D.C., with the words: “Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here.” He held up a cross necklace and continued: “After we burn that swamp to the ground, we will establish the new American republic on its ashes, and our first order of business will be righteous retribution for those who betrayed America.”

This is a major Washington conference of influencers. Take it seriously! That is one of many ways fascism rears its ugly and dangerous head. Trump actually quoting Hitler, repeatedly, without attributing him is another. A series of Supreme Court decisions and new repressive state laws add more heads to this horrible Hydra.

The good news is they can’t do this without our help. Staying home on Election Day helps the wannabe fascists. And since most parts of the US don’t have ranked-choice voting yet, so does voting for a third-party candidate in the general election. Oh, and showing up helps our cause and hurts theirs. Show up to lobby your Members of Congress and your state and local elected officials. Show up in the streets to participate in protests against harmful policies or support demonstrations for those you favor. And show up to vote!

If, as I do, you disagree enough with Biden’s policies that you have a hard time voting for him, show that in the primary. Show up to vote and don’t vote for him. Either leave the president line blank or vote for an alternate candidate. My Primary is March 4 and I will either vote for Dean Phillips, who is slightly left of Biden, or write in Green Party candidate Cornell West.

But I recognize that Biden, barring some major development like a major health crisis, will be the nominee. And even though I live in a reliably Blue state, I recognize that his likely opponent will contest the results if they are anything less than an overwhelming victory for Biden.

And let’s not forget that Trump has promised to be even worse on immigration—and on many issues—than he was during his time as President.

I want that margin to be as big as possible, so come November, I will cast my vote for democracy and against fascism, despite Biden’s betrayal of his campaign promises on issues that include unnecessarily harsh positions on immigration and his relentless support of the brutal regime in Israel and its devastation of Gaza, despite his energy policy that doesn’t do nearly enough to curb fossil fuel and embraces the false narrative that nuclear power is part of the climate solution (I’ve written a book on this; nuclear is a problem, not a solution), and despite many other reservations.

Remember the prophetic words of anti-Nazi Pastor Martin Niemöller

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And speak out! Speak out for the socialists, the trade unionists, and the Jews. Speak out for Arabs and Muslims, for immigrants from anywhere, for people in the LGBTQ community, for those with disabilities, for those who Trump has threatened with retribution that includes rounding up and detaining opponents.

Speak out. For democracy. For decency. Speak out, ultimately, for yourself.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Environment, Innovation, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

George Lakey, nonviolent theorist, author, and activist, speaks on “How We Win, 2018

I listened to a great 2018 talk, “How We Win,” by one of my many mentors, nonviolence theorist George Lakey (that’s the first chunk. You’ll see a link on that page to Part 2.). How We Win is also the name of his latest book at the time.

Lakey sees the increasing polarization of modern US society as a forge: a way of generating the heat necessary to create lasting social change (toward freedom and equality or toward authoritarianism—“the forge doesn’t care”).

This is not a new trend. The Scandinavian countries had their huge social revolution of the 1930s in times of great polarization (something he chronicled in his earlier book, Viking Economics). The trick is to harness that energy and channel it toward gaining mass support. He walks his talk, too; in the summer and fall of 2020, he led or co-led numerous workshops on what to do if the Trumpists tried to seize power after losing the election, training thousands of people.

He charges us to express our best concepts—not just what’s wrong with the system but the vision to make it better—in ways that feel like common sense to working-class people who want the system to work for them, too. After all, most of us actually do want a system that promotes equal access, a fair economy, and real democracy. We have to show them that our vision “has a spot for you,” even if that “you” finds the movement’s tactics disruptive and uncomfortable.

But he says progressives have largely lost that vision since the 1970s; we need to get it back. If we can get the diverse movements working together to confront their common opponents, we foster an intersectional “movement of movements” capable of creating real change—as the Scandinavians did then, with farmers, unionists, and students joining together to drive the moneyed elite from power. He warns us that polarization will get worse, because economic inequality is built so strongly into the culture. He says that we should consider organizing campaigns as “training for [nonviolent] combat.”

And we should expect those campaigns to take a while. Campaigns are well-planned (but adaptable) and sustained over time. It might take years, but you can win. One-offs (like the Women’s March at Trump’s inauguration) don’t typically accomplish change on their own. Traffic disruptions don’t make change; they just piss potential allies off. Disrupting banking operations is much more strategic because the bank is the perpetrator of the evil. How is the specific goal of the campaign advanced by this action? If it doesn’t advance the cause, don’t do it. A campaign he was involved with moved $5 million into credit unions and cooperative enterprises in one campaign that started in a living room and grew to encompass 13 states.

Oppression is only one lens we can look at things through—there are many others (he didn’t elaborate). The elite seeks to divide us (by color, gender, values, etc.)—but canny organizers look for the cracks in those divisions, and expand them. And stays optimistic, not getting stuck in “can’t be done” but figuring out how to do it.

Campaigns often start small. We can build our skills when the stakes are lower and make our mistakes then. Later, as the big challenges arise, we know how to handle them. You can lose a lot of battles and still win the campaign (eventually). And any tactic will be greeted with “this will never work” skepticism. But “Anyone who is arguing for impossibility” should remember the Mississippi Summer volunteers. When news got out of the abduction of Goodman, Schwerner, and Cheney, Lakey (a trainer of volunteers for trhat movement) expected most of the next volunteer wave to abandon their commitments—but nearly all of them stayed, mentored by Black SNCC activists who had been living with the overt racism for decades.

The best-known antidote to terror is social solidarity. Get close to people. Organize campaigns not just with those who share your goals but those who are “willing to be human with you.” Make your peace with the personal risk, face it head-on. We risk by driving on the highway, we risk by NOT meaningfully addressing climate change. Accepting the possibility that you might die in service of the common good is liberating (and it’s not the worst way to die).

SNCC survived in the Deep South without guns; they would not have survived with them. Erica Chenoweth shows us that nonviolent movements have twice the success rate of violent ones.

Framing is crucial. The Movement for Black Lives put out a mission statement that was so well framed, even American Friends Service Committee signed on [I think it might be this one].

If you want innovation, conflict helps to get you there. Yet, conflict resolution is a crucial skill, and it’s expanded enormously in recent decadesWe need those tools and people who will jump into the fray (to use them). But if our tools are too highly structured, you need to add interventions in informal settings.

Lakey expects surveillance and isn’t worried about it: “I think it’s a wonderful thing. We take that as pride: we are so important that they put staff time and energy into knowing what we’re up to—so we’re making a difference. Gandhi told India, if you gave up fear of them, the British would be gone. If people spread fears about Trump, invoice him for the hours because you’re doing his work.”Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail