Author: Spocko

Values: Brand, Corporate & Bill O’Reilly’s

By Spocko

I was very pleased and gratified to see the Spocko Method being used on Bill O’Reilly this week. (Up to 70 so far!)

Now he announces he’s taking a vacation amid the sexual harassment scandal (My friend Jeff wondered where, “Thailand?”)

I was thrilled to hear its principles, and some of the specific language I created over a decade ago, being spoken by Anita Hill on Saturday’s Weekend Edition on NPR. (And no, it’s not plagiarism when she uses my language, so bite me wingnuts.)

“I think the message is clear from advertisers as well as from consumers – direct consumers of the media that this is not tolerable, that the advertisers and consumers understand that they have a vested interest in this. The realization from advertisers, of course, is that the ads being associated with the show is not good for their brand. It’s not good for their bottom line. And it also, perhaps, doesn’t reflect their own business values internally.” —

    Anita Hill, Brandeis University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies

Professor Anita Hill

I’ve been following the stories about this, and, believe it or not, reading the comments about it all week. I read them to understand what people who comment think about it and how they talk about it. What I’m pleased to see is that people on OUR side now understand what this action is and what it is not.

1) It is not a boycott
Even though the media keep trying to call it that, this is not about people calling up advertisers and saying, “I’m not going to buy your product or service unless you do X.” (My friend Sara Robinson said when my method is used it should be called being “Spockoed,” sadly it didn’t take. Sometimes you just can’t make fetch happen.)

2) This is about advertisers being alerted to what they are sponsoring, so they can choose what to do
As they get the whole picture, they can choose to leave or continue to sponsor the show. The key is to point out what they say internally about themselves, then they can decide. I would helpfully provide links to the appropriate sections on their own web page

3) This is about ALL of their stated values
What does their mission statement say? What do their HR guidelines say? If they are a public company, do they have corporate governance documents?Regulation that they are legally required to follow? Vendor ethics agreements? Core brand value statements? They can then answer the question: “Are we true to our values?  Is this what we want people to associate our brand with?”  Then, if what they are sponsoring doesn’t line up with their own stated values, they can decide to make a change.

4) The advertiser is not the enemy, they can be an ally

When I was first writing advertisers I realized I didn’t want to punish them for something they might not have even been aware of. This was because I knew the people who worked at these companies. They were my friends and colleagues. I also knew that threats from outside aren’t usually appreciated. (Even from a beloved character from Star Trek!)  So first I wanted to them to investigate themselves and then make a choice. Some chose to stay, that’s fine, it’s a free market! (For example, the Glenn Beck show never lost their gold advertisers.)

If advertisers chose to leave, they would then have multiple reasons to give if questioned why. Part of this process is making it easy for people inside to explain to others why they made a decision. Having them point to their own values, guidelines and rules makes it easier.

Values Smalues. What’s the Bottom Line?

I also knew that there are people inside companies who believed that while those stated values are nice on paper, the ultimate value is money. These people can only see how other values mattered if they can be shown they either increase the bottom line or, if not followed, would cost the company more money then breaking them can earn.

Part of the education process of the Spocko Method is to remind the company about how it talks to itself already, and what happens to morale and external perception when what they say doesn’t match what they do. The HR, PR and marketing people understand this. But in many companies you will find people who look only at the stock price, or quarterly earnings as representative of value. For them it takes what the financial people call a “material event” to get them to notice.

You will find that when companies talk to investors they bury bad numbers using multiple generally accepted account principle techniques. Big media companies don’t have to disclose details because they are so big.

 They might have a line item for hush money, but they won’t call it that on the books.  You won’t see the costs of: The private investigators digging up dirt on women or the people hired to plant the dirt in tabloids.

Last week on the Majority Report, Michael Brooks and Sam Seder commented on how Fox News corporate attacked O’Reilly’s sexual harassment survivors, the ones whose cases they weren’t able to seal with a financial settlement. Nasty stuff.

Fifth, the government is not violating O’Reilly’s 1st Amendment rights
I had to keep reminding people on our side that advertisers leaving the show is not a 1st Amendment issue.  A sponsor deciding to not buy ads was not the same as the government making a law. (Ironically broadcast talk radio actually DOES have government regulations on what hosts could say, like profanity, the right-wing Christianist group Focus on the Family used it against Howard Stern.)

Taking The Fight To the Next Level

I said at the beginning of the Trump era that this will be a great time for activists. And it is. Sometimes it takes a monster for the village to awaken.

Part of the Spocko Method involves figuring out the next level of the fight. My friends at Color of Change did amazing work convincing 81 advertisers to leave the Glenn Beck show back in 2009/2010, then the effort stalled. I spent three months researching News Corporation Institutional investors and contacting them to point out that hours of prime ad space were not generating revenue. I suggested they ask their contacts when the show would return to profitability. I also researched and contacted financial analysts who covered News Corp and suggested they ask how this loss of advertising revenue is going to impact the earnings of NewsCorp.

Then I asked the question of Rupert Murdoch that any normal financial analyst would ask of a public corporation during a financial conference call, when what was an asset had become a liability.

“I know that you don’t break out revenue numbers for Fox News beyond the top line, but with 81 advertisers leaving the Glenn Beck show following the Color of Change action, the show now seems limited to in-house ads and gold ads. Do you have a time frame for how long Fox will subsidize the show until it to starts to generate revenue in line with its ratings? “

I wonder if some intrepid analyst will ask the same this quarter?

I also contacted the business press and suggested they dig a little deeper into this story. If Beck wasn’t making money, who was subsidizing him? Was this coming out of News Corp’s revenue or Murdoch’s pocket? Was there a Roger Ailes slush fund? Also, how many advertisers have left?

I knew, from my previous experience, more advertisers leave that are willing to admit or I could confirm. This means a bunch of pissed off ad sales reps at Fox News weren’t making money on the Glenn Beck show. They were happy to leak and like a sieve they did. The New York Times reported that as of Sept. 21, 2010,  296 advertisers had asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck’s show.  

I still didn’t know exactly what that meant in millions of dollars, but it was more information to get to institutional investors. They would want to know “Who is paying for this money losing show and what are you doing to fix it?”
Here is a list of the top institutional investors in Newscorp

Coming next week, “What to do next with O’Reilly.”

Are you arguing about heathcare with a sockpuppet?

Sheri Lewis and Lamb Chop, a good sock puppet

I was out-of-town* away from electronic communications last week, when I got home I heard and read about the successes of all my various activist friends in the healthcare front. Good job folks!

Woman posing in front of future sockpuppet army

BTW, Homeland just included a storyline about sockpuppets. It was filled with lots of exposition about it and all the laws that were being broken–if it came from within the government. But these healthcare insurance sockpuppets aren’t coming from governments. They are coming from private companies, who keep their clients’ identities private.

These healthcare insurance companies spend millions to keep the spice money flowing. I know this not from my time traveling, but from listening to the actual financial conference calls of health insurance companies, reading the required reports of public drug companies and talking to insurance experts like my friend Wendell Potter. (I’m looking forward to his new non-profit, Tarbell, investigating this.)

There is public information that these healthcare insurance companies all got assurances from Republicans that they were going to get at least 18 months where nothing would impact their positive cash flow. This includes guarantees of no cuts in drug profits. And they got what they wanted.

The truth is out there, it’s just not tweeted.

Newly created sock puppets ready to decieve. Will they push healthcare insurance company propaganda, or climate change denial?

What this means is that healthcare insurance companies were allies in keeping the ACA going. Especially the parts that kept money flowing to them.

Now they will pivot to figuring out ways to “improve the ACA” and by improve I mean get rid of anything that costs them money. They will hire the usual paid protesters (aka lobbyists) to bring back lifetime caps and to kick people with pre-existing conditions out of the insurance pool. They will frame this as “relief” from the horrible regulations of Obamacare. They will claim it is bankrupting them so they have to leave states and exchanges (specifically the ones that aren’t subsidized.) Then, in the next quarterly conference call, they will tell investors the steady infusion of government cash will not stop and profits are steady.

The push to “fix” the parts of ACA that COSTS healthcare insurance companies money will happen out of the headlines and at super PAC fundraisers. Now that Trump, Ryan and the Freedom Cactus did us a favor by bringing the benefits of ACA to the surface, the healthcare insurance lobbyists will hire firms to push the parts of Obamacare they reluctantly accepted, like removal of lifetime caps and being forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions. They will also employ an army of sockpuppets.

Coming next. “Exposing Sockpuppets.”

Desert Cactus from *Anza Borrego  during super bloom.   Not to be confused  with the Freedom Cactus.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R) Questioned at Nebraskan Town Hall on Why She Voted YES to Allow Severe Mentally Ill to Get Guns   


By Spocko

Audio only

Politicians really don’t like town halls. Especially when their constituents are upset.

I watched three Town Halls in Nebraska this last week, all Republicans: US Senators Deb Fischer, Ben Sasse and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry.  I saw all three use multiple methods to control the message, the venue, the audience and the media.  I’ll describe them in another post, some are subtle, others are blatant.

 However, there are ways to get through to them in a Town Hall so your voice can be heard.  But people need to prepare, because politicians and their staff are paid professionals, especially good at dodging answers and managing messages.

Going to a town hall without this understanding is like being a first time car buyer going up against a long time seller.

I was advising my friends at Nebraskans Against Gun Violence about the
tricks, like only allowing one microphone, last minute meetings and ringing the crowd with armed police.

 To me the essential part of the event is to ensure the constituents are heard.  But to the politicians it’s to show the Appearance of being heard.  Because if they really heard the constituents who represent the voters, they would have to change their position.

Here is a case of a politician who, if she really listened to voters, should change her position. Instead she mouths a NRA taking point. But this constituent is prepared.

She did what our media should be doing, but aren’t. She points out the flaws in the Senator’s response. She asked a follow up. (Politicians hate this!)

I expect the politicians will adapt, they will next demand everyone submit all questions on a sheet of paper or make all town halls telephone only – where they control the audio.

In the meantime, enjoy this video of a woman, Angela Sorensen Thomas, questioning Sen Deb Fischer on her vote to allow mentally ill to buy guns.

Be sure to bookmark this for the first mentally ill person who kills someone because they could get a gun.

Oh wait, it already happened!
Despite Missouri mother’s plea, mentally ill daughter was sold a gun. She shot her father an hour later.

Transcript

Angela Sorensen Thomas questions Sen. Deb Fischer vote to allow the severe mentally ill to buy guns. at Holdrege City Auditorium
Town Hall on March 16, 2017

Angela Sorensen Thomas: AST
Senator Deb Fischer DF

Photos by Eric Gregory Lincoln Journal Star

Angela Sorensen Thomas:
Recently you voted for house joint bill resolution 40. That allows people who are so mentally unstable they need a guardian or representative to manage their bank accounts to buy deadly weapons.

I have a brother-in-law who was one of the 75,000 people in this category. And it terrifies me thinking about him getting a gun. He lives here in Nebraska. Fortunately for us he’s in a protected setting and it wouldn’t affect him now.

But 10 years ago it would’ve been deadly for him. Not necessarily that he’s a threat to anyone in this room, but he is a threat to himself. Can you explain to me why it’s so important for people who cannot manage their own funds, because of severe mental illness, to be able to obtain deadly weapons?

(Applause)

Deb Fischer:
This was a resolution that I happen to agree with the ACLU and other groups on, that it should be reversed. And it’s because of the instances where a person on social security would ask or turn over the management of their finances, they would not be able then to able to obtain a gun.

AST: Only if they had been adjudicated as severely mentally ill. ONLY under those circumstances.

DF: So I just say to you that I agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union and others who felt that this regulation, that was put out, was a violation.

AST: I look at this thinking, there is a policy, there is a procedure for people who might have been on that list. 75,000 people who wouldn’t be able to get a gun! What about the young woman…

DF: It did not give them due process.

AST: in Missouri whose mother BEGGED, BEGGED the gun store not to sell her daughter a gun because she was so severely mentally ill? She went to the gun store. She bought the gun. She WENT home and shot her father.

Now we don’t have a way to stop these people. Adam Lanza was the same situation. But now we can’t.

They had gone through their due process and had been determined to be so mentally incompetent they can’t handle their own finances. But now [they] can just go out and buy a gun.

DF: Thank you.

What is this bill about? They can’t balance a checkbook, but they can by an Ak-47? Madness! Background on bill from my friend Cliff Schecter.

 All 4 Nebraska reps voted for the bill.

NE U.S. Senate Sr Deb Fischer Republican
NE U.S. Senate Jr Ben Sasse Republican
NE U.S. House 1 Jeff Fortenberry Republican
NE U.S. House 3 Adrian Smith Republican  

I also have video of Nebraska Senator Fortenberry trying to explain away his vote to allow the mentally ill to buy guns.

Good news on the health insurance front! 

By Spocko

We hear so many tragic stories about people who will go bankrupt and/or die because of the repeal of the ACA that I thought Americans would want some good news about health care insurance.

12 happy health insurance men – and friend

Things are looking up! Especially for health insurance execs who make more than $500,000 a year!

(BTW, including that detail in the plan feels like something included just so it can get pulled out. “How did that get in there!? [They ask innocently] That’s crazy, of course we will remove it! We care about people*!” All the while keeping in the inclusion of the horrific detail: “61 days without insurance means your pre-existing condition status comes back.”

Unpresidented. The Media and How They’re Spun

By Spocko

I’m very excited about all the new activists that this election has inspired. I love looking at photos from the marches, hearing their stories and knowing about the in-person connections made. I look forward to hearing and reading about their future successes on social media.

I want to help these new activists by connecting them with experienced activists and experts I know who kick ass. We can learn from them.

When thinking about activist actions I always want to know, “What was done in the past that worked?

 What has to be done to make it work now? How do we go about doing that in our current environment?  

Video of aliens flying over a wall and attacking the White House by Dan Mcenroe

My friend Cliff Schecter is starting a new podcast called An Unpresidented Podcast, Bigly that will be addressing some of these issues, especially as it concerns the media. The GoFund me link is here.

“Many of us have lamented the lack of progressive media infrastructure. I’ve given my all to combating this by founding (and partially funding) an independent, progressive radio station in Washington DC and going on independent radio and tv. With the election of Donald Trump, I feel I must do more. So I’m starting this podcast to take our message to an even wider audience.”

During the Bush years Cliff was one of the people who got on the MSM and kicked GOP’s spokespersons’ asses. It is great fun to watch him do this here.  I would love to see more examples of that, not only with GOP shills but with our lame media. Remember what fun it was to watch Lauren Duca  knock the smirk off  Tucker Carlson’s face?

Cliff has been on the Majority Report with Sam Seder on Friday for years and he has helped me to make sense of the what and the why of what’s happening in the political world. I also am interested in the who and the how.

Cliff and I have mutual friends that we advise in the fight to reduce gun violence. Our friends at Nebraskans Against Gun Violence just had a success today in their continued vocal, actions against a pro-guns everywhere Republican Senator Bill Kintner. Today he announced his resignation. “Nebraska lawmaker quits after tweet about Women’s March protesters sparks outrage”

We have another mutual connection, some guy in a show that also has Star in the title, Mark Hamill.

  Hamill got to know Cliff after learning about his work reducing gun violence.  He then invited Cliff and his boys to the set of an upcoming Star Wars movie. (I’m not jealous or anything because I’m a Vulcan.)

So you got your Hollywood Celebrity acknowledging Cliff’s work against evil.  Sweet. Cliff was even able to get some stuff signed by Hamill for early donors for the podcast. Hamill even made some of his great voice work available (love him on The Flash!) Now Cliff might get some more — either in a contest or a super big donation — It depends on the demand. Personally I don’t care for any Star things with “Wars” in the title, but that’s me. Apparently from listening to Chris Hardwick  talk to Mr. Hamill on the Nerdist is that people like Hamill actually enjoy collect Star-things. )

I love new people getting involved in activism, but one of my frustrations is watching the “neutral” MSM and experts dismiss movement successes along the way. I want to help people learn how to counter it.  The good news is that social media is kicking the media’s ass in multiple ways: distribution, engagement and speed. But the MSM TV media still exists and is very important to people in power. 

As insightful media writer Matt Zoller Seitz said in The Vulture TV Podcast

“A television monster inhabits the White House and he continues to be financially entangled with the medium that gave birth to his Presidential candidacy.”

“He [Trump] is Television. “

 @mattzollerseitz On Donald Trump

Seitz uses a quote from Trump’s speech to the CIA.

“I get up this morning and I turn on one of the networks and they show an empty field. I say, ‘wait a minute I made a speech. The field was, it looked like a million, a million and a half people.” 

It’s important to note he didn’t say which one. He talks about what he saw  and how it didn’t jibe with his view of the world.   Trump wants MSM TV news to reflect back to him his reality.  He craves it. When the media don’t give him what he wants he can either revise his reality (HA!), or demand the people giving the information change.  One thing we can learn from this is that if you know what media your audience cares about, and consumes, you can focus on them.

We need to be better at getting our people on the TV with solid messages.  We still have a mewling “both sides do it” press. Waiting for the MSM journalists to stand up to him is going to take time. I’ve written before about how understanding how the MSM process works helps get your message across.

Over the years I’ve taught 100’s of very powerful and now famous people to talk to the media and to very specific audiences. I start by asking them “What do you actually, read, watch and listen to?” (vs what they think they are supposed to)  The answers have changed over the years from “The Journal, the local newspapers and the “trade rags.” to “My Twitter feed.” I then ask them to name actual publications or people that they look at vs. “all of them” This information is critical to know if you want to know how to reach them where they actual engage.

What people need to understand is that powerful people are much more excited to see their name mentioned favorably in the media they and their peers watch, read or respect. They will say, “I want to be in the Journal, above the fold” ( For you young people, being in the top half of a folded paper was like being in the 10 ten search results on Google.) This is why Trump dismisses Fox News as a slam dunk, it’s not a challenge.

Media venues that are seen as a “slam dunk” are taken for granted. (Note to progressive activists, you actually have a better chance doing well in a venue like Fox than on MSNBC.)

One thing that people don’t understand is how the MSM news and cable shows use surrogates to help them say what they feel they can’t. So, for example, producers showing their intent by using weak experts on a topic. That is why you didn’t see articulate, combative peace experts on the Sunday morning talk shows in the run up to the war. When they want to seem “fair and balanced” networks go to celebrities as experts to address an issue so they can later dismiss them. This is why Janeane Garofolo was on TV talking against the war in 2003.

The right understands this. That is why they created categories of “experts” from “think tanks” like the Heritage Foundation. Did you know that there are have 12 full time PR people pushing their views? They have a high end studio for guests and provide ongoing media training for their staff, book authors and experts. It has had a huge pay off. The Heritage Foundation people are now calling the shots in thousands of positions in the government. And when the right doesn’t have a single “celebrity” on their side they dismiss “celebrity” as non-important.

Sometimes you see someone from the left do really great and say, “Why can’t we have more of her on TV!”  It’s a good question. Because the odds are that if we loved her she won’t be asked back.  There a number of reasons this happens, and it can be explained and addressed. We can’t change the journalists quickly, but we can change who their guests.  To get “more of that” on TV we have to constantly be training and preparing people who are in position to speak.

These are just some of the issues I talked to Cliff about and he said he will cover on the podcast. I’m looking forward to hearing it.

In my century we don’t have the same need for money yours does. We also didn’t have nation states and billionaires funding the Klingons, Romulans and the “Providers.”  I don’t want to be a trall — and surrender. I don’t think you do either.

So I’m putting my Quatloos on the people who are going to fight now and the ones who have shown us how to effectively fight in the past.

GoFundMe UnPresidented Podcast link

Weaseling Out of Things Is A Core Trump Skill

by Spocko

The media still hasn’t figured out how to deal with Trump and his weaseling skills.

They are using the, “If a democrat did this…” model. That one was blown out of the water early. But Trump has even surpassed the “It’s Okay When You Are Republican” model. And they are light years away from the “If a regular person did this”…” model. Normal, Democratic, Republican and Decent people norms haven’t been applying to Trump.  The media hasn’t adapted, but we need to.

Now I could coach the press on how to bust him, but they are too busy trying to figure out how to stop being humiliated daily.

A white weasel standing up near a hole  in the brown, winter grass. Photo credit: Jana M. Cisar / USFWS weasel, winter coat weasel white weasel

It’s great to get damning info and evidence of corruption, but we must keep working up the chain of this scandal/story. We know that it will be dismissed, spun, handled, ignored and normalized.

Damn it Dems. Make news on what repealing ObamaCare means!

By Spocko

I know the D.C. Democrats are busy running around trying to find their next job and tickets to concerts but Christ on a crutch why isn’t anyone baiting Trump about his “repeal and replace” ObamaCare promise?

At least get some people out there who can tell us what a straight up repeal would mean and what’s going to happen next. Give us some scenarios like my hero Wendell Potter did here

Explain that what Americans faced before Obamacare will come rushing back, the insurance industry abuses, the crummy coverage, the out of control prices.  That’s what repeal is. “But, but the law!” Well tell us exactly what can’t be done and what CAN be done.

The problem is that the media lets Trump and his spokespeople off the hook time and time again for not having a plan and how they are making promises they can’t keep.

Why are the democrats giving him more time? He has had over a year to come up with a replacement plan. Stop cutting him slack damn it! Every day they delay lets him prepare and lets the industry help him to the soft landing they want.

 “But but he’s not even in office yet!” So what? Is he going to do in two weeks what he couldn’t do in 18 months? No. He’s going to ask for an extension and get it. Do we wait for the extension? Hell no! People need to stop moping around.

It’s not really that hard to get under Trump’s skin. And, for all I know there are a bunch of unemployed Clinton healthcare strategists planning a big push back to be unleashed Tuesday morning.  If so, great, I want a cookie if I predicted it. But I don’t see anything yet.

This week I’ve been listening to Sam Seder and Cliff Schecter talking about how Trump won’t be able to really repeal ObamaCare, how he’ll declare a win and kick the can down the road till 2019, 3 years away.  Any problems in the continuing system will be blamed on Obamacare.  He’ll blame Democrats for all the bad stuff still there and if he is forced to keep any good stuff, that’s because he negotiated a great deal with the industry.

Taking credit for other people’s success and avoiding blame: a perfect Trump “win.” And he’ll get away with it too because there are no “meddling kids” pushing him to overreact and tear off his mask.

On the other hand, the healthcare industry does have a strategy and a narrative. In this insightful piece last month from Joey Rettino he explains what they are doing.

Repeal Obamacare? GOP Should Be Careful What They Wish For

The PR shops will help Republicans convince the public they’ve repealed and replaced the law when all they will have done is tweak it to the satisfaction of a few lobbyists — in particular, lobbyists for the health-insurance industry. So much for draining the swamp.

We are already seeing this in the form of comments from KellyAnne Conway.

The reason Republican leaders have called in the PR pros is because of what they undoubtedly have been hearing from my former colleagues in the health insurance business: If they rush to repeal ObamaCare and think they can replace it with a plan based on those ideas, they’ll have a PR nightmare on their hands in no time flat. And it won’t help to postpone the replacement for a couple of years. The uncertainty created would lead insurers to abandon the ObamaCare exchanges well before two years had passed.

As that reality sinks in, party leaders will draft legislation that will be based on the insurance industry’s wish list and try to sell it as making good on their repeal-and-replace campaign promise. Among the items on that wish list: allowing insurers to once again charge people in their 40s, 50s and 60s far more than younger people for the exact same coverage, letting them once again take the status of an applicant’s health into consideration when pricing their policies and making it legal again for them to sell inadequate or even worthless coverage to gullible Americans.

This scenario makes sense to me, because the lobbyists and the Republicans are expected to act as they always act. But nobody seems to get that Trump can’t be counted on to play the same game. 

Everyone is assuming that he’ll listen to reason. They also don’t want to be the one who pushes him into doing something rash. So now people are helping him soften the blow–for various reasons ranging from noble: saving lives, the overall good of the people, to the more craven: their career or the bottom line.

Nobody wants to be the one who forces Trump to actually do what he promises because they know real people will die if that happens. I can’t tell you how many times I hear people say that “somebody” will stop him.

BTW, Trump was never a governor in a death penalty state. He has had no military service leadership where a mistake means people die.
Has Trump ever been personally responsible for people dying? What about people he liked dying?  Has he ever ordered people to their deaths? Ordering someone to kill “the enemy” or “bad dudes” is different than being responsible when the good guys die because of your actions. 

 Americans aren’t very good at “Imagine this terrible thing happening. Now do something about it so it doesn’t happen.” Remember, “Osama determined to strike…?” We are better at, “Holy CRAP! That terrible thing happened, why didn’t we do something? Never mind, we need to fix this, right now!”

Right now insurance industry lobbyists are trying to keep the “good stuff” (aka profits) from ACA while their PR people are trying to make Trump look like he’s doing what he promised. There are other groups that are helping to keep things running the same, they range from doctors worried about patients to Pharma worried about patents.

For this to work smoothly it requires Democrats to play along. And they will, because they hope the “good stuff for the people” won’t be taken away. The don’t want to use the leverage of people who will die as a negotiation tool (damn guilty conscience!).

Can someone please call Trump on his bullshit and describe what an actual “repeal without replace on day one”would mean? It would be a shitstorm of death and financial chaos.  Actual people would die.

Out of sight, out of your mind

Americans have a hard time connecting losses or wins to the person who caused them, especially when they happen months and years in the future.

Trump knows that people want a quick win. That’s why he’s taking credit for stuff that he didn’t do. If something fails. he will find a scapegoat.

You need to understand the mind of the man who wants to sit at the head the table. Trump wants to be the good guy, the hero. We are assuming he will betray the people who voted from him in favor of the health insurance industry like regular politicians.

That’s because it is set up that this fight is between Trump and “the government/AKA ObamaCare” but it can easily be shown to be a fight between Trump and the health insurance industry. Here’s how you could do it based on what is actually happening and the patterns we have seen.

Imagine if Trump found out that one of the top insurance company Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc or Centene Corp had their people going around telling investors that they “got Trump under control.” or “Don’t worry we will remain profitable”  Or maybe they are telling congress people they will get their way like they did with Obama because Donald Trump is a puppet and a joke.  And imagine these companies are all top donors to Hillary,

I think you can envision the mean tweet that would provoke from the Trump.
(And by mean tweet I’m thinking about his Boeing tweet that caused its stock to dive and scared the bejeebers out of the business community.)

Now I’m not saying that we make up stuff, we just need to show him what these insiders are actually telling people in private or in forums that aren’t on the TV for Trump to catch between tweets.

Trump will want to prove that he is the boss. We just need to show that those insurance companies backed the wrong horse and they are saying he won’t really do what he says. Add something personal from one of the CEOs and BOOM! Those are tweeting words!

To get Trump to see ObamaCare as the health insurance industry and not the government it needs to be personal. Did the Centene CEO, Michael F. Neidorff diss Trump at a Christmas party? Did Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini fail to grovel at Trump Tower after Hillary lost? Is there a story about Steven A. Kandarian, the CEO of MetLife calling DJT slow-witted while at a Harvard MBA wine and cheese party? Who knows? Odds are something exists.

Trump has enemies and allies. If you can’t get an enemy to speak up, get one of his allies to rat out an enemy.  The merger and consolidation business in health care insurance is big now. It would be a shame if one company faced the wrath of a Trump tweet,wouldn’t it?

Now if this all sounds too tin foil hatty, I assure you that there are multiple real stories out there that can be used to bait Trump in the healthcare area. The problem is that most people think that telling stories of Trump voters losing health care will touch him. Appealing to his empathy for poor uninsured won’t work.  You have to appeal to his winning/losing side with people he wants respect from.

We already know what the lobbyists have been saying behind the scenes. We already know how regular politicians react.  If Trump is baited in this area and he reacts the standard way politicians do, then we will use our standard methods. But we need to prepare for a different response.

I’m sure there are people out there who wonder, “Is it morally acceptable to push Trump into a corner where he will over react, endangering the lives of others?” I say it depends on who the others are. Trump is going to crush some group on the way to his “win” of repealing ObamaCare. I’d rather the group crushed be the health insurance industry executives–I hear they have great coverage.

How We Fight 

By Spocko

After watching Rogue One I said to the crowd of people in the lobby, “This movie has nothing to do with our current political system.” Because that would just be too easy.

One phrase from the movie actually seemed to fit our time, “Rebellions are built on hope.”

If there is one thing people need now, it’s hope. Here’s another scene about hope from Supergirl.

There is a great scene in Trading Places where the good guys win, and the bad guys are defeated. This shows the results of fighting back.

What makes this clip satisfying are four parts.

1) A comeuppance that REALLY hurts them. The Dukes lost status in the eyes of their peers, they lost all their monetary assets as well as their symbolic asset–their families’ inherited seat at the stock exchange. One brother loses his health with a heart attack.

2) The brothers turn on each other. Instead of figuring out how to game the system or keep their money, they attack each other. The Dukes could have had healing power of forgiveness and love of family, but that was also destroyed.

3) The rules set up by the Dukes were used against them. The Dukes created the rules to use against others and didn’t expect the rule to apply to themselves.

4) The people who defeated them profited. It was great to take down the Dukes AND profit.

Just defeating them would be great, but what a sweet deal it was to profit from the Dukes destruction. The question now is, will Valentine and Lewis become just like the Dukes? Hopefully not, because they have learned a lesson.

A lot of people talk about fighting back “The Chicago Way.” What people forget about that method is that when you go after someone powerful like Capone, he and his organization won’t sit back and let it happen.

Even when you think you are all clever by thinking you’ve ‘brought a gun to a knife fight,’ they bring a machine gun. (Me, I like to bring a phaser to a gunfight)

But if you believe in what you are doing you have to keep thinking, fighting and organizing.

Speaking of organizing, I’m tired of the “herding cats” metaphor, so I’ll bust it. You want a herd of cats? Bring 9 flavors of cat food to the location with multiple can opener sounds. Want them to go nuts? Catnip appetisers. There are very clever people out there organizing. The question now is, what do you do with that herd of cats?

If your first fight plan doesn’t work, for example the bad guys can’t get legitimately busted in an area they control, find an area they don’t, just like the Feds did with Capone on taxes. But you also need to know that they won’t just roll over with one punch.

Adult bullies have lots of tools. The right wing bully have no problem screaming foul at any action they don’t like and crying to authorities who actually do their job. The logic of ignoring over big crimes vs. little crimes is bizarre. “Sure I killed people, but nobody expects me to follow the law! But the good guys are supposed to follow the law!” Then, when it’s shown the law was followed, “Okay, he did it legally, but I was tricked, so it’s not fair!”

When the bad guys are out-maneuvered, like Capone is here in this clip, they go into denial, they demand justice. They present themselves as victims, but it’s yet another way to try and bend the system to their will.

We are looking at failures after losing, but what about our failures after winning? It’s great when you’ve won. It should also bring up questions: Who did you fight for? Was it worth it to stop the bad guy? Or will someone else worse take his place? And importantly, how do you build on a win?

In this case part of the win is to let the other lesser Capone-types know they aren’t safe. Then it’s changing laws to make it harder to game the system.

Part of winning is acknowledging the corrupting power of money, and setting up systems to monitor it that aren’t easily captured. This is all part of the fight. It’s not as exciting as epic battles, but it is crucial for future success.

I was hoping to get an invitation to a meeting with a bunch of power brokers explaining “The Spocko Way” but apparently my email invitation got intercepted by Russian hackers. I was going to tell them there are lots of good fights and fighters out there. Great battles are coming. We will win some.  We will also lose some. Activists who are taking on powerful interests need powerful friends during the losses and the wins.

I’m encouraged and excited by reading about re-energized activist groups and new ones. We need lots people to understand the system we are in now vs. previous systems.

We need to learn how to fight to make an impact. And we need to be reminded of the importance of persistence.  We can never stop fighting until the fight is done.

Who’s going to kick the right wing’s ass?
by Spocko

I had a discussion the other day with a woman who talked about her feelings about Hillary and the election. In the end she said some of the same things that I’ve heard before. “Wasn’t there something that would have preventing Trump from ever running?” and now, “Isn’t there something that won’t let him get into office?”

She also talked about how the media didn’t do their job BUT… Hillary has baggage, she’s isolated etc. etc.

I stopped her and said, “Look, I know Joe Conason, the guy who wrote the book “The Hunting of the President.” and there is a reason that you think these things about her. It started with $2 million dollars spent by Richard Mellon Scaife and others on the Arkansas project in the 80s and has gone on for decades.

When you dread how they will come after Hillary, it’s because they instilled that dread in you. Hillary acts the way she does because of the constant attacks in the past and the anticipated ones in the future. Those Scaife/Mellon people won. They were successful in their strategy. I know that because of what you have just said.”

Photo by Evan P. Cordes, Creative Commons licence

And then we talked about why doesn’t the left do that.

I talked about the difference between people wanting to use their time and money to do good for the world vs the people who just want to mess shit up, attack people and institutions.

People on the right think that George Soros is attacking them, but he really doesn’t. They are projecting.

Super rich people on the left have the idea that they should spend their millions on good things like clean water and stopping malaria, not actively working to take down the bullshit right-wing think tanks, media and pundits supporting the crazy demigods on the right.

They are more comfortable building up positive things than kicking the crap out of the people destroying our country. At the end of the day they feel better about themselves saying, “I helped bring clean water to 20 million people.” or “I helped good journalists do important work.” That’s great. We need more of that. But..

Are there some super rich lefties who just want to kick the right’s ass? There might be, but they aren’t doing anywhere near what the right does and they aren’t coordinated like the Koch’s and their donor network.

If there was a network of well funded ass kickers on the left they could work on multiple levels: attacking right wing funding, ideas, projects and institutions. They could attack on multiple fronts via multiple venues: in the media, in the courts and in the minds of the public.

I understand why it might be hard for big funders on the left to take on a right wing institutions or organizations. Pushing back on right wing craziness is like trying to mop up an active oil spill. If nobody is trying to slow the spill, the crude keeps coming. You can build walls to contain the oil and channels to divert it so it doesn’t pollute the groundwater, but it would all be easier if someone could stop it at the source.

But going after the source isn’t done much on the left. It might be because it requires an almost prosecutorial zeal to keep going.

I’ve looked at how the right wing funders maintain their war footing against people, ideas and institutions for decades. Many seem to have a personal animosity toward certain people or organizations. Who knows why they have this feeling? It’s just there. They have the means, motive and opportunity to do something about it, so they do. They might have an obvious logical reason or an obscure personal reason. A slight at a party. Someone laughing at them. Righteous anger. Misplaced anger. Mental illness. The reasons don’t have to make sense to others, just as long as they make sense to the funders.

If you are a rich funder you don’t need to get consensus and approval. Sure you might have advisers saying, “Don’t waste your time, money and energy on attacking. Spend it on solving the underlying problems!” To which the funder can say. “I’m giving money to solve what I see as the underlying problem! But I also want the satisfaction of crushing this person and group that makes me angry.”

A close friend or therapist might tell a rich funder, ‘You know, spending millions destroying the Clinton’s isn’t going to make your father love you.” But they aren’t going to hear that from someone who agrees with their agenda. They will find people with the skills to make their agenda happen.

“You hate the Clintons? Me too! I’m happy to help spend your money attacking them. I’ll just need 15 million to fund Breitbart, For an additional two million you can fund an O’Keefe “sting” I can guarantee it’ll embarrass someone or some group publicly.”

The thing is that there are plenty on the left who are angry and want to do something and would rather not take it out on family members who fell for a long-term con. They would be happy to see someone kicking right wing ass. There will also be a lot of people who will be concerned about methods or tactics. I don’t want to call them concern trolls, because I understand the desire to not become like the people they are going after.

But if we on the left are going to kick some ass and engage in attacks we can’t just use the model of the right. We have to be smarter.

I believe our funders and fighters can be smarter. Create strategic plans of actions that hit the right in behavior-altering ways. Deliver some short-term tactical, personal and media friendly wins. If they are successful, they will get more support.

It might also be hard to find the people who will fund activities that go after the right’s institutions in a way that hurts them. A lot of them are nice. But some are fighters.

I’ve found that when someone successfully puts the hurt on a right wing person or organization, even in some small manner, the right brings out the lawyers guns and money.  They go after whomever had the audacity to challenge them with the full force of every tool at their disposal in their multi-million dollar arsenal.   One of their tools is to attack the associations of whomever they feel is hurting them. They are hoping to tie some bad behavior to a known do-gooder sponsor, or politicians so they will be forced to disavow them. Especially it they did anything that doesn’t follow the standard that the good guys are supposed to use.

On the right, this is not a problem. “Yeah, we know that James O’Keefe lies, cheats and breaks the law. We got his back. We paid his fines, his legal fees and gave him a 2 million dollar budget to do more crap. So what? It’s our money. What are you going to do, sic a journalist on us? Oooh I’m so scared.”

Of course if the left does some serious damage to a right wing group the MSM hears the poor multi-million dollar institution that is a “vicitm” of this horrible unjustified attack. The MSM knows to go instantly go into “both sides do it” mode. They will balance on success on left against 40 years of attacks from the right. They also don’t want to be seen as biased. They don’t want anyone to think that they welcome someone doing what they should have done instead of sucking up to the institutions that feed them crap 24/7.

Another problems with going after organizations directly is that the right wing media base will crow “See, see? I told ya they were coming after us! It just took them 40 years. I told ya Soros was behind this! Alex Jones was right!” To which I say, so what?

If I was to talk to these super rich people I would tell them about my method of kicking the right wing media’s ass in the revenue stream. It had a long term strategic goal as well as visible, media friendly wins. It involved getting the group destroy themselves from the inside.To make them angry at each other over what they cared about, revenue. It involved get them to overreact and using their weight against them.  It took advantage of their overconfidence and their thinking they could do or say anything and not feel any consequences.
I would teach them we don’t have to sit back and take it. We can kick ass.

Anger can be very energizing, combining it with funders who want to kick ass with some specific goals can be a powerful force.

I sometimes think about that scene in Batman, who are the heroes we need now?

cross posted to Spocko’s Brain

It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you’d like to contribute, you can do so below or use the snail mail address at the top of the left column. Thank you!

Happy Hollandaise everyone.

cheers — digby

FAA Restricts Drones Flying Over Pipeline Protests

By Spocko

From the Drone Law Journal November 27, 2016

The FAA has imposed a 4-nautical mile Temporary Flight Restriction, (“TFR”), in airspace up to 3500 feet above sea level, over the Standing Rock Protest in North Dakota. The land in that area sits approximately 1600 feet above sea level, meaning about 1900 feet of the sky above the protest is off limits to any aircraft other than those permitted to fly — namely, aircraft in support of the law enforcement activities.

Neither the mainstream media, nor citizen journalists, nor activist hobbyists may fly in that area to document what law enforcement is doing.

Why is there a TFR over Standing Rock? — Peter Sachs, Esq.

This action will prevent the media or activists from showing shocking footage of water cannons used to spray protesters.

Forbes contributor John Goglia has pointed out that “keeping the media from documenting law enforcement actions is not part of the FAA’s mission. Nor is it a legal basis for issuing flight restrictions.” Yet that is exactly what they did in Ferguson and it appears they are doing the same here.

I reached out to the FAA for more specific information on why the TFR was issued, including whether it was issued because of the reports of drones being shot down. I also requested information on whether drone journalists could get permission to fly through the TFR and, if so, how. Lastly, I asked what the FAA was doing to investigate and prosecute the 8 or more instances of drones being shot down as the agency confirmed to me several months ago that shooting down drones was a felony.

– Flight Restrictions Over Standing Rock: Is The FAA Effectively Taking Sides In Pipeline Dispute? Forbes, John Goglia

Here was their response to the first two questions:

The Federal Aviation Administration carefully considers requests from law enforcement and other entities before establishing Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) in U.S. airspace. The TFR currently over the pipeline protest was approved to ensure the safety of aircraft in support of law enforcement and the safety of people on the ground.

The TFR includes provisions for media to operate aircraft – both traditional and unmanned – inside the TFR, provided that operators comply with the language of the Notice to Airmen. In the case of unmanned aircraft, operators must also comply with the requirements of Part 107 and coordinate beforehand with the FAA. We’ve had no requests from media who meet those requirements.

The first answer doesn’t really address the question. The FAA is saying “We were told it was unsafe by law enforcement and other entities, we believed them.”

Law enforcement has learned from the Ferguson flight restrictions to not say their intentions out loud. Now when they want to block the media drones they say it’s about safety, not limiting access, “We are worried all those drones will fall out of the sky and hurt the people on the ground. Drones might fly up and hit the law enforcement aircraft that are in the restricted zone.”

The second answer is very important. It’s saying the media CAN operate in the restricted flight zone, but they have to show they have certified training (Part 107) and they have to coordinate with the FAA.

What is Part 107? It’s a long list of requirements a remote operator must have. It’s fairly new (August 29, 2016) and it was put into place partly because of jackholes who were flying their drones around during emergencies getting in the way of fire fighters.

I don’t know how hard it is to get this certificate or if any of the media in place have them. But because the FAA says that no one has asked yet, that means ALL DRONES flying during the TFR are flying illegally.

If someone is not certified, but they operate anyway, they would be subject to “all applicable federal criminal and civil penalties.” BTW, it’s $1,100 for each incident.

Here’s the deal, law enforcement can’t arrest people for taking a photo, but they can arrest them for taking the photo from a drone in the TFR.

Law enforcement now has a new federal law to use to arrest people who break it.

Here is the FAA’s answer to drones being shot down:

Although the FAA is aware of anecdotal reports of drones being shot down, the agency has received only one official report. On Oct. 23, a drone was shot down with bean bags after allegedly being flown in a threatening manner near a law enforcement helicopter. That incident is still under investigation.

The agency also is investigating several incidents in which protestors have allegedly flown their drones in violation of the provisions of the TFR.

This is the ol’ “It was coming right at me!” trick used to justify shootings. Now, because there are no certified remote media drone operators, all drones seen are violating the FAA flight restrictions. This language will also be used to justify police shooting down drones.
http://www.spockosbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/14843645_1315084278504480_1203959275295080448_n.mp4

I’ve included a video above of one of the drones being shot at. This happened in October, before the TFR, but after the August 2016 rules were passed. I don’t know the background of the operator they might have a certificate. In which case they should file a complaint with the FAA about the police shooting at the drone.

The FAA mentions they have only seen one official report. Who filed it?

When the FAA says, “official reports” that usually means from law enforcement, and we know who usually wins in these cases. The good news is that at least in the case of the drone video, there is proof of the incident.

Passing laws that limit the media or just a media tool?

If we step back from this FAA announcement, I can see ways around it using a different tool, “Want a shot from a height? Put a GoPro on a helium balloon. It’s not an aircraft. Don’t have any helium? Attach a camera to a kite. No wind? Get a really long selfie stick.” But that’s my inner MacGyver talking

This is an important issue because of its use of the government, the FAA, to restrict the media’s use of a new tool. They are doing it using an accepted method to make it stick–safety.

When officials lie about what is “safe” when using drones in order to restrict the media, they need to be called on it. We know from the Ferguson transcript officials asked for the TFR just to block the media, they didn’t care about safety.

The other issue to bring up is the use of a certification and permission. One of the ways that the media is contained by government is the issue of credentials, or “press passes.” Making sure the media has drone certification allows the government to keep an eye on them. It’s not embedding, but it does allows the government some control over those given special access.

With all this talk about drones and regulations I don’t want to miss the point of WHY it is so important for people to see what is happening. If the media can’t do it, then we need to. The idea is that when people see what is happening they will be outraged and demand it stop.

While reading about the Birmingham campaign I was curious about who issued the orders to turn the hoses on children and bystanders. I was also wondered who had the authority to tell them to stop.

Obama is still the President. He has the video of what is happening. He has the authority to tell the locals to stop turning high-pressure water hoses on people. Why hasn’t he?