It’s a sad story, if you look at it with the premise that a candidate is trying to get enough votes to be president. But that’s so 2000 and late thinking.
If your goal is to talk about the GOP horse race, and who will eventually win, it can show how badly the campaign is run or how unpopular the candidate is.
But this GOP Presidential race is different. Last Friday Sam Seder and Charlie Pierce explained why. They talked about how every GOP candidate now has a “Pet Politician,” and because of that they will stay in the race for a lot longer than before. (Link to Majority Report Audio)
Being the first in your yacht club to have a presidential candidate shows human votes are not as important as in the past. It’s about pushing the Billionaire Message. Some billionaires even have more than one PP! (“Collect all 12! Show ’em to your friends!)
Today it’s really about the candidate satisfying their lead billionaire.
So the question is, does this current story satisfy Foster Friess? He’s the billionaire paying for Sanatorum
(Aside, Friess made his billions in mutual funds, but it always amuses me to think he made his money from an ice cream stand.)
You can often tell what message the billionaire wants to hear. The tip off is when the candidate continues to go on about something that there really isn’t a huge voting constituency for. (“Estate taxes about 10 million must to be removed!”)
The campaign consultants come in and try to figure out, “How can I appeal to the buyer (Friess) and the voter?” In the past there might have been more of an overlap, but now they can mostly focus on the buyer. Sure, throw a few bones to the voters, but that’s just to keep the candidate relevant.
Charlie and Sam joked that the candidate knows they will be a loser, but they run for the potential cushy jobs and future speaking fees. (Which, btw, is just another form of dark money used by the corporations/rich individuals to pay off past work and lay the groundwork for future influence.)
The interesting stuff about the candidates the media covers are where they are different, the novel things they say. (Product differentiation!)
But conservative billionaires often have the same views on things: No regulation, no taxes and the upward flow of money–to them.
What Pisses off the Lead Billionaire?
I don’t know if we can do anything about “billionaire messages” beyond pointing them out. But one thing Sam and Charlie brought up was what happens when candidates start using a populist type messages, thinking that they are supposed to get votes.
This pisses the billionaires off. I like things that piss off billionaires. It brought me great joy to make Rupert Murdoch sputter.
But why bother? Because the Billionaire Message is usually bad for the majority of Americans. Also, since it is consistent to conservative candidates, you can hit more than one elephant with the same stone. (Metaphor only, please don’t throw stones at elephants.)
So the key would be to find when a regular America voter message conflicts with a billionaire message. Everyone gives lip service to caring about the voter, but they keep coming down on the side of the billionaire, which is often not the side of the people.
I ask myself: “What idea or comment would lead Scott Walker into the Koch Brother’s woodshed?” Is it also something that the America public likes? How do we help the media ask candidates questions that push the hot buttons of billionaires?
Example: If your lead billionaire expects candidates to think of Israel first at all times, what question would you ask the candidate that normal America would expect, but a Presidential Pet would be forced to answer differently to please the billionaire? The questions vary but all would make Americans happy but the billionaires’ blood boil.
When we hit upon these questions, we keep bringing it up. When the lead billionaire sees the offending quote in his ironed newspaper he gives the “Ned Beatty Network speech” to the candidate. The candidate will atone. You will know because if they slip and say something for the people later they will “walk the comments back” and “clarify” their intention.
Again, you ask, “Why push the split on the GOP voters with the billionaires?” Because, voters actually like the results of the regulations the billionaires hate.
Everyone wants safe air, food and water. When we don’t get them, we go to the government for help, or to lawyers to force people to act or the offender to pay.
People like services that their taxes give them.
We love our first responders, working infrastructure, and plowed streets.
He hate it when people trick us, take our money and kick us out of our houses because of their lies.
We want to see rich crooks go to jail. When we see that someone has a different justice system than the rest of us there is great anger.
All of these attacks on the billionaires’ standard message sets the stage for someone who DOES side with the people. Someone who does need votes, and not just money.
That is real differentiation that even a few in the media might notice.
Fox and Kelly will be shoring up, or breaking up, a narrative that the Duggars are trying to control. Just the fact that Kelly was chosen means part of a narrative is already in place.
I know, I know. “Why should I give a fig about these people and this interview?” I think this interview and the narrative line will be important because it will show what’s acceptable on certain issues for GOP Presidential candidates. Why Kelly? Because it’s been pointed out that Kelly has been given the latitude to ask a few sane questions.
She might give candidates permission to move to the left on the issue of female abuse victims. (Yes, they will need permission.) What I don’t think we will see are challenges to a powerful version of Christianity. She might address female agency, but won’t attack the religion. The position most likely will be, “These flawed human vessels tried hard to be good but failed, they are only human. They need forgiveness for their sins.
It will be Roger Ailes who will make the decision on how hard to hit the Duggars and what to focus on. But first he has to answer these questions three:
1) How important are the Duggars to the conservative movement now?
2) How important are they to GOPs electoral success?
3) How important is the powerful version of Christianity the Duggar’s represent?
As of today the Duggars have lost most of their power and won’t play much of a role in the GOP’s electoral success. However, their version of Christianity is still a big deal, so she will tiptoe around that almost entirely, with the exception of a few easily answered question.
The other question that Ailes and the Fox producers ask themselves is:
In this story, who do our Fox News viewers relate to? Is it Jim Bob, Michelle, Josh or various unnamed Duggar daughters? What do they think about the actions of that person? Will Kelly’s questions, and the subjects’ answers leave them satisfied? My guesses on the thinking of Fox viewers are in quotes:
Jim Bob (“He failed as a protector/father. He should take responsibility for his failures. I would never let anyone hurt MY girls like he let Josh!” )
They will want to see him as a horrible failure. I think he will take the brunt of the heat and he will “accept responsibility.” What is interesting is that the world will see Kelly’s “wimmin libber” type questioning as normal, so any condescension or cockiness on his part will look especially bad. Defensiveness will look like he is hiding even more.
Michelle. (“It’s hard being a parent with kids! You try raising 19 kids! She was clearly out of the loop. Cut her some slack!”
She will wring her hands a lot in contrition and talk about how she failed Jim Bob, Josh and the whole family. Female Fox viewers who never experienced any abuse will feel sorry for her. They will heap more blame on Jim Bob. Any viewers who experienced abuse will be furious, ‘She KNEW! She ALWAYS KNEW! She’s the worse because she didn’t protect the most vulnerable.” )
Josh (“I remember being a horny teen, especially when my sisters had friends over for a sleep over, but but ick! Those are little kids, that’s sick. I would never do something like that. Hopefully he has been cured, maybe he deserves a second chance. But I’d never let him be around my kids.”
Nobody will admit to identifying with Josh, but they might allow him the old, “The Power of Christ cured him, we can forgive him.” line that Christians on the right use as their get out of Hell Free card.)
Daughters, If the viewers are men, “I can’t imagine what those poor kids went though. Their dad and mom should have protected them.”
If the viewers are women they CAN imagine what they went through. “Both parents are guilty. Even if Mom and Dad claim they didn’t know right away, they are messed up, they didn’t listen to the girls. Not enough people listen to girls.”
A number of them will acknowledge that something is messed up with the Duggar’s version of Christianity. But it is mostly with just that version, their version of Christianity is better.”
Kelly will voice her concern for the daughters. The issue will be: What is the correct amount of concern for the Duggar daughters that needs to be addressed? This is where you will see Kelly support women and probably attack the parents. That is the “politically correct thing” to do, but will she give the religion a pass? I think so, because the religion can not be blamed.
The parents have failed, they are flawed humans, and you never go after Christianity, even the version of Christianity the Duggars practiced. Because if you do, then you are siding with the terrorists.
Faith, Family and Community, Good for Life, Bad for TV When I read the Duggar stories I feel some emotions I’m not proud of, but they are there. One is my judgmentalness (Is that even an emotion?) Not just of the Duggar family-but of the people who watched the show and liked it.
I also feel my own anger at these men who want to control everything. And I want to punish them, make them pay. It pleases me when I see that they actually have been paying a financial price, because losing revenue is the key marker of failure in America.
But I also feel my own sadness and shame for knowing I’m more focused on the anger and punishment of certain men and their enablers than of offering an alternative–either in programming, or in life.
I don’t think it would make good TV, but it would be nice to see some stories about people who have faith, family and community in their lives that reflect progressive values. I know they exist and there are more than 20 of them, but who’s counting?
Marketplace Notices The Big Mo in Fight for $15 Movement
by Spocko
Good news everybody! The MSM have noticed the fight to raise the minimum wage and they think it’s working!
“I almost feel that the minimum wage movement is sort of where gay marriage was 8 months ago. There is just… there just feels to be this momentum.”
–Leigh Gallagher, Fortune on Marketplace. May 22, 2015 (audio link to segment. Full episode link)
I have friends in the Fight for $15 movement. I know how hard they have worked on multiple fronts. So when the popular business media acknowledges its momentum–that deserves some serious kudos. The acknowledgement of the Big Mo came not only on the super popular radio show Marketplace, which is:
“…the most widely heard program on business and the economy – radio or television, commercial or public broadcasting – in the country.”
Lots of people made that momentum that she is seeing and feeling. Take a bow folks.
On the show the two guests were talking about the minimum wage. One guest, Sudeep Reddy, from the Wall Street Journal needed to bring up possible gloom and doom from the movement, but even then he thinks it will be “only around the edges.”
Gallagher also talked about the innovations that LA is doing with the minimum wage, like publishing a list of employers with more than 100 employees on Medicaid. She notes that:
“The thing that hasn’t been talked about is how much employers have been relying on taxpayer money for public help for people who are not making a living wage.”
I almost had to laugh when I heard that. I’ve heard it talked about, but I run in dirty hippie circles. (Nice visual, eh?)
I’m glad she made that last comment because it represents a mind-shift taking place.
Corporations have figured out how to shift costs to the public without paying into the same public system for a long time.
Think about how much has shifted when the idea that that corporations should pay for the services they use, instead funneling the profits to a small group of people, seems radical. And health care for employees is just part of the shift, they also use roads, water, sewage, infrastructure, a court system, police and fire. They should pay for these, it’s pretty amazing PR work that they have convinced people they shouldn’t.
Soon you will be hearing the screaming of victim hood when these lists come out. They will bitch about having to report at all, talk about how they will go broke if they have to pay a living wage to everyone. They will also probably suddenly be very concerned about employee privacy.
They will compare themselves to small businesses, as if they had the same resources, “Small business don’t have to do this!!! Why are you picking on us for our success!”
They will threaten to move to Texas, China or some other third world country that does the crappy jobs with employees who don’t demand things like health care. Or who think safety regulations are for wimps. (“Texas welcomes your explosives business within our city limits.” )
Instead of raising the wages they will fire everyone who was on medicaid, just so they aren’t on the list again. “It’s not our fault the workers can’t manage their money, we were doing them a favor by hiring them! Not anymore, THIS is the thanks we get? Public humiliation and forced to pay more money to fewer people who might not manage their money well either!”
They will say it’s our fault, “Ya happy now Liberals, see what you made me do!? I had to fire the very people you wanted to help!”
Of course the real cost savings could be in outsourcing their own jobs, but that won’t happen. Yes, the Board of Director folks could find someone to do their jobs for less, but the real benefit the CEO whiners provide to their shareholders is their professional whining about regulations and committeemen to lobbying politicians for more tax breaks. Lobbying is where they want to do all their work, it has the best ROI.
But enough about my predicting gloomy futures! This comment and the work that inspired it is good news! Sure it was buried on a Friday before a Memorial Day weekend, but it’s there and it calls for some acknowledgement, optimism and celebration!
Hydro One is firing a Sunshine List* employee involved in the vulgar incident with CityNews reporter Shauna Hunt at Sunday’s Toronto FC game. – The Hamilton Spectator
Please watch this short video. I want to talk about the people in it and the responses and consequences that followed its release.
In the video a dudebro says “F*** her right in the pussy” while CityNews reporter Shauna Hunt is interviewing some fans following a football match. She stops the interview to address the comment to the crowd of men.
At first I thought the person fired for the vulgar comment was the person who said it. But he’s not. That comment came from the guy with the goatee, pseudo-mohawk, black jacket with red trim with a cigarette in his hand. He says it to the guy being interviewed, then slips away. That guy, circled in black, was not the one fired. (Although he might have been since the story ran last week.)
When the reporter has finally had enough of this, she stops the interview and wades into the crowd. Because pseudo-mohawk guy disappeared she engages the dudebro in the red shirt. He admits that a group of them were waiting to do this, because “Where else are you going to do it?”
When she asks, “You would humiliate me on live television?” Red shirt says, “Not you.” He implies that he wouldn’t have said it to HER (as opposed to other nameless women who might not call him on it.) That’s because he’s face to face and has enough residual brain cells to realize he’s not anonymous and starts backing away from supporting an offensive comment.
After his blurry eyes spot the cameraman he asks, “Are you actually filming this?” He goes from, it’s all a goof to, “Holy crap, this could get me in trouble! What am I supposed to do again!? Oh yeah, condemn the practice, make an exception of the person I’m talking dirt about, try and prove I’m not really a jerk.”
Of course when he condemns the practice it’s in a perfunctory, sarcastic tone that conveys, “I am just saying this because I’ve been busted, but I’m not really sorry.”
The third person, the guy in the yellow Fly Emirates shirt, is Shawn Simoes. He defends the phrase as a joke. “it’s f***ing hilarious” and tells Hunt “You’re lucky there’s not a vibrator in your ear like in England.” He is the one who was fired.
Why did Shawn Simoes get fired but not the red shirt guy, who also defended the use of the phrase, or Mr. Black Jacket, faux hawk guy who actually said it? I don’t have all the information on these people, but here is some more behind the scenes details about this clip.
What Good Is a Social Media Related Firing If The Real Culprit Walks?
Social media and video gives us a newer, broader way to interact with the rest of the world. Some people use it hoping to modify others’ behavior and/or to hold people accountable for their words and actions. Other times it’s used as a blunt object to harass or punish people with mob justice.
If you want to use social media to change behavior it helps to know what you actually can change vs. what you hope you can change. It also helps to know who you are appealing too.
I’ve written about how to use social media as a weapon, and taught people how to use it to defund right-wing media. It has resulted in the loss of 100’s of millions of dollars in revenue for some media distribution companies. Because of its use people have been laid off, failed to have their contracts renewed and been outright fired. Lawsuits have been filed, tears shed, people lives and careers have been impacted (both negatively and positively).
Now we are seeing how social media and video are being used to drive accountability for certain actions or remarks in the general public. Politicians and people in power have had to deal with this for decades, and know some of the tricks to evade, retract, “walk back” deny or contextualize their comments or actions. Normal people haven’t learned those skills yet.
Social media can be mis-used and/or used against you. You don’t have to be famous first. It’s important to understand this. This is why I have always tried to give people a chance to clarify what they have said or done before unleashing the the emails of awareness, the birds of twitter or the dogs of war.
Not everyone will do that, but it helps when it comes time to defend your own actions when you are working to leverage some video, audio or text. Plus, you can avoid comparisons to James O’Keefe’s dishonest editing.
Why was Red Shirt given a pass? Maybe because in this video Red Shirt pulls back his support, but Yellow Shirt keeps digging. Here’s the deal, Yellow Shirt is not a trained company representative, but he is an adult. He works for a company making more than 100K a year*. They have a clearly written code of conduct. He has been there for more than 6 months, so he should be aware of it.
Someone knew that when the video when public, all the employers would need to respond. Some comments would have been a “career limiting move” (as they used to say in Silicon Valley) but for some it appears it wasn’t. I don’t know if whomever did the follow up on Yellow Shirt, also found out about Black Jacket’s and Red Shirt’s employment or allegiances. Maybe they were self employed, maybe their employers didn’t care, maybe they weren’t found. But Yellow Shirt’s employers were found and did respond, big time.
Some people worry that an employer having this much power over what someone says outside of a work environment is a problem. I hear that, it is a concern for me too, but if someone wants to start setting expectations for social norms regarding sexist verbal harassment it makes sense to look for who has the authority and power to enforce them.
In other times a code of conduct that someone would listen to, internalize or be concerned about breaking, might come from a church, community or family.
If Yellow Shirt’s family gave him grief for his comment on TV we might never see it. What if the leaders of his church objected? Would they issue a statement? “Today we have excommunicated Mr. Yellow Shirt for failing to abide by our tenets of respect for other genders.”
Businesses and brands today are forces as powerful as religion and culture, in some ways more powerful. If you understand this, you can use this. That is why when I was contacting advertisers about the violent rhetoric on right wing radio I always looked at their code of conduct or vendor relationship agreements before I wrote my letters.
It’s hard for a company to say yes to violent sexist rhetoric when 50 percent of their staff and customers are women. It’s also hard, but not impossible, to ignore what they say to their vendors and employees about their expectations of how they interact with others. You just need to remind them of these facts and place the evidence of the transgressions in their view.
I knew the radio hosts didn’t care what someone outside their target audience said, they only cared what people whose opinion they believed mattered, and those who paid the bills. The people paying the bills had power.
After watching the video and reading the article I, gasp, read the comments. It was a mix of replies I’ve seen before. Some identified with the guy who was fired, others focused on free speech, saw the the phrase as humor, or wondered if the punishment fit the crime.
At the time I didn’t see too many women dropping in to engage the defending commenters.
I often read and hear about the desire to hold people accountability for their words and actions. This need for justice (or fairness) runs deep for many people. Telling people, “Life ain’t fair.” is a nice STFU to people, but it fails to address the question, “Okay, Mr. Cynical Pants, what can we do to make life less unfair?”
It is tremendously frustrating, and sometimes rage inducing, when people aren’t held responsible for their illegal, destructive, harmful or morally repugnant actions. So when we see someone actually paying the price for something repugnant like this many cheer. Others ask, “Is this response fair? What about the others who participated or did worse and weren’t punished?”
Of the three men in this video, who do you think will change their behavior in the future? Will it also change their attitude? What about the men watching in person at the event? What about the dudebros, waiting at future live events to interrupt a newscaster? Dudebros at home watching on YouTube? What will they learn? Will they go back to “Ba Ba Booey, Howard Stern Rules!” or some new catch phrase?
“But Spocko,” you say, “You can’t change drunk dudebro’s sexist, obnoxious attitudes! I don’t like what they say but, Free Speech! Don’t waste your time mud wrestling with a pig, they won’t change and they like it. You are overreacting, it’s comedy. Stop being uptight and politically correct, remember Lenny Bruce!”
My reply is, “Thank you for your comments. Now I’d like you to stop and ask yourself, ‘If you put yourself in the position of the female reporter–who is also aware of all the issues that you brought up–what would you do?’
To do this requires full-senses empathy. It also requires you to think of solutions. And I don’t mean straw-women answers. Too often I see people throw up their hands when it’s solution time, “That’s censorship!” Or, “Just ignore them and they will go away.”
Something can be and should be done. The actions that came out of this video are a start. If that answer makes you nervous, explore why. Maybe you are justified or maybe you are going down a slope that is not really a slippery slope. Maybe you are buying into a straw-woman path, I know that I’ve gotten into that mode in the past, and I needed to educate myself and people on my side that the Spocko Method was NOT censorship.
Send Your Message to the Right People
In the above video there are multiple people who say, agree with and defend the vulgar, sexist comment. But, as of now, it appears that only one will feel the consequences for his comment. But it’s more than just that one.
Think aboutthe impact Yellow Shirt’s firing will have on the employees and management at Hydro One.
Top executives sent a message to the rest of the company, “We are serious about this, it’s important.” I can imagine both relief and fear for employees (and managers.) “Finally! Now my male manger will get what’s not okay and I’ll be heard when I point out obnoxious sexism.” Or, “Oh, crap, I can get fired over this? Am I doing it? I better change my behavior or hide it.”
Now think about the impact Shauna Hunt’s actions, management support and the subsequent stories will have on the other employees at her company.
The broadcasters know you can’t stop jerks from being jerks so they develop coping mechanisms like delays, fewer live events, and even limiting female broadcasters from live reporting where a crowd might gather. But promoting this story and running it shows they at least understand there is a problem.
Some believe that violent sexist rhetoric is not that big of a deal, especially compared to other problems. Others think that there really isn’t anything that will make any difference. Others fear it will get out of control and lead to censorship and backlash. I get that, I really do.
But one attitude about accountability for sexist, violent rhetoric that we can change is ours. There are things we can do, and we can make a difference. It starts with not ignoring it when we see or hear it.
Today I heard good news from my friends at Color of Change. The fundraising platforms, Indiegogo, has taken down all the fundraisers in support of Michael Slager. (Disclosure, I’ve been an adviser of Color of Change.)
They, along with others, had already convinced Gofundme to remove this kind of fundraiser. Now Color of Change has asked the CEO of Indiegogo to change their policy, and to remove these kinds of fundraisers immediately.
Social media is great for informing business of how their products or services are being used or misused. (Here was a San Francisco Chronicle story Joe Garofoli wrote about how we used social media to inform advertisers of brand-damaging right wing talk, Rush Limbaugh ad fight shows power of social media.)
This CoC campaign is a smart use of social media power. It not only addressed the instant news issue, but extended thanks to the business after they acted and suggested they make policy changes so their tools can’t be used in this brand-damaging fashion in the future.
Most companies won’t come out and say they believe in racism. They will dance around the issue trying to say how they are “neutral” in order to keep all options open to make money. But when you point out the clear disconnect between what they say about themselves and how their product/brand is being used, they often make changes to be “more aligned with their own values.”
These kind of campaigns give companies an opportunity to change and an excuse why they are changing. One of the things I’ve found is that sometimes people in businesses need examples from others on how to act and how to talk about what they are doing and why.
These “opportunity and excuse” steps are important because they help with the goal of positive change and getting people on your side.
Telling Indiegogo “I’m not going to use your product because you let people create campaigns for Michael Slager.” as in a boycott, throws down the gantlet on your end and throws up the walls on the other. Some boycotts are hard to measure, especially if the people doing the boycotting have never used the product before. It is also quite possible there could be more people who start using the product because they are allowing the campaign to go up and stay up.
That is why I try to be clear that the Spocko Method is not a boycott. It educates and alerts people in companies how their product or brand is being used or misused and suggests that the company decide if that is in line with their values, so they can choose.
Social media efforts have been used to do some amazing things. It has also been used to harass, threaten and destroy people’s reputations and their lives.
When social media is used as a straight-forward weapon, it opens the door to misunderstandings and blow-back stories. Truly vile people LOVE stories where innocents were victims so they can put themselves in the same category.
As many of your know, I’m a big fan of super hero stories and movies. The character Peter Parker had a powerful personal experience that made him understand what happens when he misused his personal power. Uncle Ben explaining that, “With great power comes great responsibility.” isn’t just a motto to Spiderman, it defines him and explains his actions.
Tony Stark sees the personal impact of his powerful tools and is challenged to be and do more with them by Professor Ho Yinsen in a cave in Afghanistan.
Encouraging, convincing and thanking people for doing the right thing takes time and intelligence. A quick, angry tweet might feel good for 2 seconds, but using social media power in a responsible fashion can lead to a longer good change.
I just watched this video and was kind of stunned. I watched it once, incredulously with my mouth open, thinking it was some kind of found footage for a new zombie film. (The fighting seemed a bit like a scene from the new Daredevil show on Netflix.)
After I read the story I plugged in my headphones, went full screen in HD and rewatched the video. I know this video could be a starting point for all kinds of discussions, opinions and arguments. “Boy I’ll bet heads at Fox will explode! Christian Persecution, but Cops! Law breakers, but White!”
Nah, I don’t think so, Fox hosts will disassociate themselves from the Christians in a heartbeat. They can look at the tape and pronounce that “See? Whites who break the law get treated the same as blacks. AND a white person is dead for not doing as the cops told him.”
I did a bunch of thought experiments after watching like: “What if you replaced Christian with Muslim? Would that change how the police act? Black performers with white? How would the media cover that story?”
The thing is that we don’t have to do thought experiments, we have actual data and actual video.
Videos like this will be dragged out as “balance” to combat accusations of racism and religious bias. “See? Cops are tough on white Christians too!”
Popular videos get used to make a point. They stick in people’s head. They can crowd out other older videos because we, and the media, crave novelty.
When I watch videos like this I often consider who I identify with and why. That is not always the default process of many Americans.
But when there is a video where it is easier for people to put themselves in the shoes of another person, it can be used to help others see a problem they might not have seen otherwise.
I can’t easily imagine being a black man in America today interacting with cops. But I can imagine being part of a White Christian performing group and I know how my interactions with cops have been. What if my interaction was more like in this video? Of course the quick disclaimer is, “Well, I would never do _________ like they did, I would…” yes, but then again what if you did all the right things and were still tazed, sprayed and shot? Because that is the reality for many if we look at the data and not just at the available viral videos.
Then the question becomes less about my behavior and more about the behavior of the police and the systems’ attitude about their job.
I would also need to put myself in the shoes of the police. Maybe they are doing the exact thing they are trained to do. But maybe the training is wrong, maybe the attitude is wrong.
As we see more and more video from body cams on police it might be easier to identify with them. But that is not a total solution. We also will need to see videos from bystanders and from the point of view of the people the police are focusing on.
Empathy is a powerful the tool for change. People in power know this, that is why they seek your empathy.
Why Politicians Are Protected From “Good Guys With Guns” at NRA Conventions by Spocko
The NRA convention speeches are happening live as I write this.
I’m watching Bobby Jindal speaking now how proud he is of the pro-gun laws he has passed. Like passing a bill that allows people to carry guns in their cars to the workplace, even when the employers don’t like it.
Then he attacks “Hollywood and the liberal elites” for going after small businesses in Indiana. Nice pivot Bobby.
Digby’s piece in Salon today mentioned how the guns at the NRA gun show will have no firing pins, but that at the Hall where the speakers like Jindal are they will let people carry guns. I’m pretty sure if you dug into the protocols and process for that venue, regular attendees with guns would not be allowed. I know because I have looked into those events in the past.
Four years ago I looked into how a hotel next to a gun convention and at CPAC actually handled security for politicians. Here’s the story, “Glock Block, No Civilian Guns at CPAC” (BTW, I’m proud of that headline.)
What I found is that for all the rhetoric about 2nd Amendment rights the politicians are spouting, the people in charge of security at events at the hotels and convention centers they are speaking at actively ignore them. And I’m totally glad they do. I just wish they would talk about that to the media.
There is really no downside for the pro-gun politicians to talk about wanting guns everywhere because of the protections they expect at the venues they choose.
But the media are discouraged from talking about this. I had some great ideas on how to point this out, it would have made a nice viral video. It might also have landed me in jail. But I was seriously discouraged by hotel staff and security people from attempting it and even writing about it.
I wondered what the response would be from the people who run security at CPAC if attendees wanted to bring their firearms to the event, either with a legal concealed carried gun or a open carried gun.
I called the the person in charge of CPAC at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel who referred me to the person in charge of security. Instead of hearing from him, the next day I got a phone call from the District of Columbia police: Homeland Security Bureau, Special Operations Division, Special Events Branch. The nice officer from MPDC-HSB-SOD-SEB wanted me to know that attendees should not bring their guns to CPAC.
He explained that the only people who could legally have firearms at CPAC were active law enforcement and military in performance of their duties or retired officers who met the standards of HR218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Even then, if the hotel wanted to, they could ask for no firearms to be allowed on the property (as the Marriott did when they had a hotel hosting NRA members near the last NRA convention in North Carolina.)
If I reported on this NRA event I’m betting I would find the same situation. Talk about guns everywhere in public, but in private there is an active use of strict controls. If I demanded that they address their hypocrisy and allow guns into their events, the people that I would be hurting wouldn’t be those politicians, but other people who don’t have a massive security system in place.
The other interesting thing is how the guns everywhere crowd acknowledge their hypocrisy of restrictions that are in place.
Do they actively defy restrictions at the NRA convention and create a nice viral video for the media to cover? No.
Do they petition their politicians to tell the NRA venue to let them in with their guns? No.
I actually asked a guns rights’ activist these questions. He had easy answers. When a venue was denying them access with their guns he said he, “respected the rights of the private property owner.” Boom. No problem.
When asked about petitioning their politicians to put their lives where their mouths were when speaking at a venue, he accepted the authority of the politicians’ security detail. “They know best.” Of course he acknowledged there are some “wackos” with guns out there that the security people are worried about–not him of course.
Here’s the thing, I don’t want pointing out their hypocrisy to lead to venues weakening their security. I want people to acknowledge there are times and places where this security is appropriate. It becomes a common ground of safety that we can all build on.
I get no pleasure from “I told you so’s” after a gun tragedy. What I want is fewer gun tragedies. What I want is for politicians who make it easier for those tragedies to happen to acknowledge the protection they would deny others.
Maybe someday I’ll make that viral video. Of course I might not be able to see it right away unless they have WiFi in jail. Now back to the event, Ben Carson is speaking and he’s just bound to say something just CRAZY!
Fundraisers for Officer Slager Go Live, Go Down, Pop Up Again
by Spocko
I was going to write a post wondering who sets up and donates to the Officer Michael Thomas Slager Fundraising effort, which is now de rigueur for police shootings and bigoted business owners, when I found out that the GoFundMe site that was set up was shut down by GoFundMe as a violation of its terms and conditions.
Crowdfunding service GoFundMe removed a page Wednesday dedicated to raising money for fired South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, the website confirmed in a press release. Slager, a member of the force in North Charleston, was charged with murder Tuesday for the fatal shooting of black motorist Walter Scott and then dismissed.
[snip]
“After review by our team, the campaign set up for Officer Slager was removed from GoFundMe due to a violation of our terms and conditions,” GoFundMe Public Relations Manager Kelsea Little told ThinkProgress. Little declined to say which terms were violated due to GoFundMe’s privacy policy.
The organizer has since set up a new fundraising page for Slager on rival crowdfunding site IndieGogo, as well as allied Facebook and Twitter profiles. The IndieGoGo page had raised $60 by 3 p.m. EDT out of a $5,000 goal.
At first I thought that the existence of the video would make a difference in the fund raising for Slager, but then I read the reasons they give for setting it up, “It’s about being innocent until proven guilty.” That’s smart.
It’s very important for the fundraisers to make it clear who is the real victim. Also, some people need an excuse to cover their support of racism, bad policing and out of control individual police officers. On the other hand, some people relish the chance to express their real opinions. Often they make the comment right in the donor page.
I see this new trend like buying a bumper sticker you know will piss off people you don’t like.
Things like this are going to start up after an event like this, yes it disgusts you, but it’s not your money so what do you do? You can’t boycott them they aren’t getting your money anyway. You offer people a way to do the opposite.
Example, following the Indiana Pizza Owners getting $842,000, friends of mine set up a fund to help LGBT youth. They have raised $125,000 so far.
There is much disgust and consternation in the LGBT community over a viral fundraiser effort, that has as of this writing, earned $842,387. Many have lamented, “If only our cause could raise that much money that fast.”
I say, yes, we can.
So I looked and saw that Cyndi Lauper’s True Colors Fund has set April 29 as the first national #40toNoneDay to end #LGBT youth homelessness! And I thought, would it not be totally awesome if we equality supporters (and pizza lovers) could match that #MemoriesPizza “charity” by April 29? Can we match their amount and help homeless youth get off the street, learn life skills and get an education and jobs?
This fundraiser will close April 28th at midnight. For information on this campaign and No Hate Pizza Parties , go to pizza4equality.org
The media love X vs. Y stories, they need them for the drama. It gives just another knife twist into the “a nation divided” stories.
You can seethe at jerks for acting like jerks, or figure out a way to help real victims of bigotry. And then the media will pick up that story for their new X vs. Y piece, until the next video makes their ears prick up and their mouth water.
Why Rand Paul’s Anti-tax Libertarian-ish Ideas Excite Some Men
By Spocko
I can barely wait for the Rand Paul announcement for President. It’s perfect timing. I know he will be talking about his views on taxes. It would be interesting if someone dug into where some of the craziness comes from.
Tax time makes right wingers crazy. Especially men. The thing is, even though I’m only half human male, I get freaked out around tax time too. I wonder how much of this is traditional guy stuff? Or white guy stuff?
You know the lines you hear from rich male jerks? “Money is just a way of keeping score.” and “He who dies with the most toys wins.” There is still a part of me that buys that and it takes a Vulcalean effort to look at it rationally.
At this time of year in the male money world of “Keeping score” guys ask themselves, “What have I accomplished?”
First, there is the “I never get enough.”feeling.That’s because it’s always a moving goal post. Then I focus on what is “taken away.” (Never on what I got in services, always what is taken.) This focus on what is taken diminishes my self image, which I correlate with self worth. When I calculate my “net worth” on paper I can see that if I keep more, I’m “worth” more. Simple equations are seductive.
I don’t gratefully pay for services I got last year because, like Oscar movies premiering in January, I forget about them and nobody reminds me. I see no services, only taxes. So I take things like firefighters, clean air and water for granted.
Intellectually I know that my “worth” as a human being is not really measured by the numbers on a page, I’m more than that, but during this accounting time it’s my focus.
When poor conservative white guys vote with rich conservation white guys on something like the estate tax (Which doesn’t kick in until estates are in the multiple millions) it seems bizarre to us. But the mindset the rich men tap into with the poor men is the same:
“You are ‘reduced’ as a man when you pay taxes.”
(And we know what organ they are thinking about when they think of something being reduced.)
So the announcement of Rand Paul for President and his anti-tax Libertarian-ish views are perfect during this time of year:
“Vote for me and your penis will never be small again!”
These ideas are like boner pills for some guys. I understand why they work, but I’m not buying.
This is the most straight-forward and powerful video I’ve seen in awhile.
It’s from a hearing on shipping fracking wastewater to a well in Sioux County Nebraska.
The lack of slickness helps. The crappy camerawork adds to the authenticity. I’d like my friends at various non-profits and activists to watch this to see what was done right.
The speaker knew his audience. Not only the commissioners, but the people in the room and in the community. He was not an outsider. He looked like them, dressed like them and talked like them.
He addressed the concerns of both sides before his demo
He made a powerful visual case with common items people knew
He made an emotional appeal and had an intellectual back up. This is for the people who say they only decide based on “facts,” to rationalize their emotional decision.
So many great things in one short video, and I’m glad that Bold Nebraska used it to get people to sign their petition, Don’t Frak our Water.
After I watched the video, I read some comments at Reddit and in the YouTube section. I searched Google News to see how the story got picked up by the local and national media.
The old line, “They are playing chess while we play checkers.” comes to mind. But since my 7 year old nephew destroys me at chess, “The horsie moves in an L Uncle Spocko!” and I haven’t played checkers for 23 years, instead I’ll say,
“They are writing a long form TV show, while we are writing a weekly episodic drama, with stand alone episodes, with no character or season arcs.”
The take away? Even a kick ass viral video with popular support can be deflected because of how corporations use the media’s own methods and journalist’s own self identification to dilute powerful actions and videos.
I recently was advising a friend about a damning piece of email from a public official. I implored her to think 3 steps ahead of the announcement before sending it out to the media.
MSM attempt to tell the back story of viral media but often in the process activists are discredited. Companies know this, that is why they have all their very serious experts, lawyers and economists lined up for the press.
The press can say they are telling “both sides” but really they are making sure that the company under attack gets a second or third bite at the messaging apple.
I told my friend the importance of getting the last word in on a story. “Be sure to ask to comment on the response of the official!” I implored her with my human emotion. Meanwhile my Vulcan background envisioned and prepped for the next scene.
What was also interesting was how Greg Awtry, the publisher of the closest big paper, the Star-Herald, responded. He knows his audience too, instead of attacking the oil and gas corporations for rigging the game or pressuring the governor to pack the Nebraska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission with oil men, he blames government. Yes, the procedural tricks to keep the hearings off the record, and not subject to popular control are ‘government,’ but it takes some smart lobbyists to get those laws passed in the first place.
But at least he can say he was outraged. This is western Nebraska and the “get government out of my face,” is strong. He can’t acknowledge the role of government in protecting people, even when they are the best bet to stop the corporate destruction of the people’s water supply.
What I’m looking forward to is just how this viral video can be used beyond the first pop, beyond the media’s “on the other hand” stories.
Right now the lobbyists are circling the money wagons to explain to the politicians why they should ignore the public and can’t stop this anyway.
