HumansTogether® | Rising Above

Solving the Too Many Democrats to Debate Issue

January 9, 2019 admin Democrats, Media, Politics, Values No comments

I believe we need to think outside of the whole debate format box and move to a Democratic Candidates Forum or a limited series of live-event television specials called The Democrats Make Their Case. Such specials would:

The consistent branding and unified positive outlook of the Democratic candidates will stand in stark contrast to all Republicans.

Here is a potential example of the format.

· To begin, the host(s) introduce(s) pre-packaged films (different for each event) that lay-out the issues Americans face and promote the brand vision for solving them.

· Then, each candidate, chosen by random draw, is then given 5 minutes (or an equal amount of time based on the length of the program and the number of candidates) to make an opening statement.

· After each candidate has completed an opening statement, a host spins a wheel with ~30 numbers on it. The numbers correlate with a question and the journalist who submitted the question. That journalist selects one candidate to answer the question.

· Each candidate is given the same number of turns to speak. They may wait for their own question or respond to a question asked of another candidate or, by pressing a button, comment on what that candidate said or providing a different view. Candidates may also ask to respond if they feel another candidate has said something that needs to be rebutted. However, every time a candidate speaks, it counts as 1 turn.

· Enforcing the equal turn rule will enforce the brand unity between the candidates and give each an even chance to be evaluated by the audience.

· Optionally, there could be an app developed that will allow the hosts to moderate a home voting process that allows the audience to select the candidate who “won” the event. App users must identify their political party or ideology before voting.

This example, or something similar, would create a new level of excitement and allow the Democrats to demonstrate a level of sophistication that would bring something new to the race.

Resist and Remove

January 30, 2017 admin Politics, Republicans No comments

Here’s the message and the plan for resisting and removing Trump.

Trump is a proven liar. Nothing he or anyone in his administration says can be believed. It is safer to assume that what they say is a lie, a misinterpretation, delusional or slanted. The Trump Administration has zero credibility. Any media attempt to say that Trump is “normal” must be called out and resisted. Every single person in the media who interviews a Trump spokesperson or apologist should be required to ask at some point during the exchange, “Why should I believe you?”

Anyone who justifies his policies is supporting a liar and should be discounted as someone who supports lies.

Trump has promised to help the poor, white working class. He was lying. He is a corrupt conman whose policies especially hurt those who supported him (whether they realize it or not).

The fact that Democrats are losing to Republicans shows the degree to which people are scared and afraid and being manipulated by those fears.

The core Democratic/progressive message (to Trump voters) must be:

Trump is a proven liar who doesn’t care about the poor or middle class.
Democrats and progressives made a mistake by not acknowledging your fears and offering solutions—namely jobs.
Our jobs solution is real and based on high technology, green technology, infrastructure refurbishment, a living wage and free college.
Trump is destroying America. He and the Republicans are going to take healthcare coverage away, reduce social security, reduce Medicare, reduce Medicaid, put our troops in danger, and discriminate against people of color and Latinos. And Trump and his family will make a personal fortune as they destroy America.
The theme of the 2018 elections is: Elect Democrats, Impeach Trump, Save Our Country

Trump must go. We must mobilize to make this happen. We should not be afraid to leverage the legitimate fear that Trump is a dangerous, corrupt, delusional fascist, whose governance is driven by personal insecurities and narcissism.

Strategically, that means that every Republican who does not disown Trump by pledging to impeach him must be targeted for defeat.

We must repeat over and over: Trump is a liar. Trump is a crook. Trump is taking advantage of his base. Elect Democrats. Impeach Trump.

To campaign for the defeat of all Republican officeholders, progressives must hold large peaceful rallies all through the Red States. The theme of these rallies is “We love you.” We must kill red state voters with kindness, attention and respect. We must explain why they will be much better off rising up with love than being dragged down by hate.

These rallies will feature not only progressive political personalities, but also artists of all stripes and standings. The rallies will be progressive tent revival shows. The messages will be delivered through music, comedy and the careful pulling of universal human heartstrings.

They will be designed to evoke a red state version of “peace, love, and understanding” (and music). This will not be a redo of the 60’s counter-culture. Rather than openly supporting urban, sophisticated cultural tastes, the appeal must be to validate the red state cultural milieu, including evangelical religiosity, with an extra helping of respect and understanding. It’s about starting a dialog and reaching out, not about hitting them over the head. Condescension will not work.

This is difficult, as it is hard not to notice that much of what Trump supporters espouse is based on sometimes willful racism and ignorance. But just as we accept that the self-destructive behavior of many black urban youth is caused by the lack of resources, opportunity and lingering prejudice, we must accept that much of the ignorance of the Trump supporters is also caused by their historical circumstance.

Human to human contact is the goal of the rallies. Whether minds are changed or not, the rallies will make it clear that progressives are no longer talking only about “minorities,” and their concerns are being given due respect.

TRUMP. WTF

January 22, 2017 admin Media, Politics, Republicans No comments

President Trump. WTF. This flamboyant, amoral, narcissistic, ethically-challenged real estate developer came to national political prominence by promoting an obvious lie about Obama’s birth certificate. This cynical, strategic lie was done to get support from people who are uncomfortable with all of the recent demographic shifts toward diversity. (These people are commonly characterized as racists. But it’s more complicated.)

Somehow, Trump positioned himself as a man of the people who was going to fix all the inequities affecting a broad swatch of blue-collar voters. He blamed Muslims, Mexicans and other immigrants. He promised impossible things.

It worked. His voters saw him as a man who had achieved the American dream and whose success and celebrity meant that he knew how to bring their jobs back. So desperate to change the direction of their fortunes, they voted for a self-announced womanizer who didn’t always honor his business agreements.

During his inauguration, and in the two days since, he and his team have shown that they will do battle with the press to establish a “biased press” narrative to provide cover for their lies. (On today’s Meet the Press Kellyanne Conway called Press Secretary Spicer’s lies about the size of the inaugural crowd “alternative facts.”) The way the Trump Administration speaks reminds me of the description of the authoritarian leaders in the books I was assigned in high school: George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Aldous Huxley’s 1994.

But most glaringly, Trump’s rhetoric about helping the people hurt most by current economic trends doesn’t match the policy prescriptions of his newly appointed cabinet or the Republican Congress. Does no one realize that what Trump voters want, except for the crack down on immigrants, is the opposite of what the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress plan to deliver? Cuts to their health insurance, Social Security and Medicare are not what his supporters voted for.

As a progressive, I believe the way forward is to communicate why our values are better for Trump voters (minus the racists). We need to make sure that we don’t demonize Trump voters, but rather find ways to reach them with better ideas. One of the reasons they voted for Trump is that he addressed them directly and gave them respect. Yes, he spoke to their fears and anger, but he paid attention to them. Hillary did not successfully communicate that she cared about them.

Trump and the Republicans will do most of the work for us in causing Trump voters to pay attention to our message. It will become clear very early on that the White House and Congress are both incompetent and incapable of producing the promised results. So let’s keep pointing out Trump’s lies, even though they will be pretty obvious. But more importantly, let’s reach out with respect to Trump voters and help them recognize the value to their lives of what we propose for the future.

The 2014 Midterm Elections

November 10, 2014 admin Congress, Economics, Politics, Republicans, Values, Wealth No comments

The thing I hear most in relationship to this recent election is that voters “want something to get done.” The main issue seems to be entrenched dysfunction and non-cooperation between the parties. And certainly, it would be nice if both parties worked together to solve problems for the vast majority of the population.

But talking about the ability to “get things done” is ridiculous when not connected to what it is that should get done. The Republicans have obstructed pretty much everything Obama and the Dems put forward, including a lot of appointments, whether they have policy objections or not. The point, as McConnell articulated early on, was to oppose Obama at every turn. The good of the majority of Americans was beside the point. So I guess it’s natural that they ran on an “Obama bad; Washington is broken; we’ll get things done” platform. But what they really want to do—block the minimum wage, cut government benefits except to the wealthy, and return control of healthcare to insurance companies—is very unpopular and unhelpful to most and will continue to widen the dangerous disparity of wealth.

Here is my point: it’s not simply about “getting things done.” It’s about getting the right things done. That being the case, I have become a fan of gridlock, because the Republican-controlled House and Senate are unlikely to “do” anything beneficial.

All Humans Are Born the Same

July 9, 2014 admin Values No comments

Every once in while someone demonstrates the truth of what HumansTogether is about better than I can. And we’ve known it for a long time. This was grabbed from Facebook.

Post by Steven L. Sears.

I Don’t Want to Pay for Them

June 30, 2014 admin Economics, Politics, Republicans, Values, Wealth No comments

A couple of days ago I went into the drug store to pick up a prescription. As I walked through the aisle on my way to the pharmacy I overheard a woman, who I could not see, say: “It’s tough nowadays. I’m glad I have a job, but I hate that I have to pay for those who are too lazy to work.”

I interpreted this to mean: “My taxes are too high because of all the lazy people that they have to support.” Then I thought, “what a clear expression of a conservative or Republican point of view.”

To me, it says everything you need to know about what’s at the heart of a conservative belief system: selfishness and greed. Here are some variations on the how the belief system can be stated:
I’ve got mine, you get you own.
If you don’t have a job, you’re lazy.
Why should I help you?
It’s a dog eat dog world.
If you’re poor, it’s your own fault.
Government handouts make people lazy.
Why work when the government will pay you not to work?
Why punish the people who are successful?
I don’t want to pay for them.

The philosophy is based on fear—fear of them—the bad ones, the ones who don’t belong here, the lazy ones, the takers. It’s based on judging them to be less worthy, on making them underserving of compassion or kindness. Conservatism—with its emphasis on judging each person’s individual worthiness, its unwillingness to share, its lack of empathy and its fundamental disregard for the humanity of others—equals greed. Conservatism is a philosophy that justifies greed, sees wealth as virtuous, believes using wealth to gain power is just, and thinks government assistance promotes weakness.

This philosophy is not in the best interest of anybody, even the wealthy, because it inevitably leads to a society with unsustainable levels of wealth disparity—cancerous wealth—that has historically led to social unrest and violence.

Having said all of that, conservatives also have some beliefs that are good for society. Individual self-reliance and personal responsibility, which does not mean refusing assistance and support—benefits not only the individual but also the society as a whole, but only if these virtues are exercised in a positive, contributory way.

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

June 21, 2013 admin Consciousness, Evolution No comments

I attended a conference last weekend dedicated to the goal of creating an “immortal” version of a human being by transferring our “mind,” or possibly our brains as well, into an android by 2045. The conference was called GF2045. The GF stands for Global Future. The Russian who created the conference, Dmitry Itskov, did a good job of bringing together a lot of diverse people from the forefront of futurism, brain research, robotics and spirituality/religion, including Peter Diamandis, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurzweil, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Dr. Roger Penrose, and Dr. George Church, though some appeared via a canned video presentation.

It seems that there is still a wide variance of opinion about what constitutes the mind and what it means to be human? Age-old questions persist. Does consciousness arise from the biological mechanisms of the brain or does it simply reside there while the body is alive? Can we be human with a replacement body?

Some presented research showing that we should be able to repair damaged parts of the brain with replacement circuitry. Others thought that computers would soon be sophisticated enough to mimic human intelligence. Others saw it as a no-brainer (pun intended) that someday an individual’s consciousness could reside in something other than our original human birth bodies.

But nobody, in my opinion, got to the root of what it means to be human—what characteristics of consciousness we all share and what motivates us to make “progress.” Death was the problem that the conference was trying solve. The operative assumption was that we’d be better off if we could all live forever and that we had to take control over our own evolution to get there.

I’m not sure that should be our goal. Where we put our energy determines the results we will get. I’m of the opinion that we have much more pressing issues to solve than human mortality. How about we aspire to not killing each other before we try living forever.

The HumansTogether Focus

June 12, 2013 admin Communication, Economics, Global Ecosystem, Politics, Values No comments

All of us tend to focus primarily on our own lives and our immediate frame of reference. But most of us are missing the big picture.

We vigorously pursue of our own self-interest in what we believe is a dangerous, competitive world. We take detrimental divisions for granted: race, religion, nationality, class, location and political ideology. This results in clashes rather than commonality.

But despite the absolute uniqueness of each person, we are all human. Being part this remarkable species means that we are all much more alike than different, particularly when it comes to what each of us needs to be secure.

We all know that an infant plucked from its birth environment — say from the slums of Mumbai — and adopted by a family in Beverly Hills, will grow up with the frame of reference of its Beverly Hills family. Perhaps the child will even become a Republican and come to believe that the poor are to blame for their own situation. But wealth won’t save the child from the global effects of climate change or a focused explosion of global hate in the form of a nuclear terrorist attack on LA.

HumansTogether is dedicated to the notion that ideas can change the course of human history. The right of self-determination expressed by the American revolutionaries is an example of a big idea that, over time, created positive global change.

It’s time to focus on big ideas that are expressly global — on beliefs and values that can unite all people and help all humans advance. It’s time to focus on a common new vision of what human advancement should look like. This vision has to be part of our everyday sense of reality. Because unless we develop a common idea of what a positive future for humanity should be and develop a shared sense of responsibility for getting there, every human’s future may be dire.

The first step is coming up with a common goal for humanity and the second step is gaining majority agreement on that goal. Questions need to be raised and answered. What is the purpose of progress? Is there a limit to how wealthy a single individual should be allowed to be? What political system produces the greatest good for the greatest number? Is it time for a truly global set of governing principals?

The HumansTogether focus is on articulating and gaining agreement on a common vision of reality and a set of shared beliefs and values that can help make as many humans as possible free from hunger, fear and physical danger.

Competition by Itself Is Out of Balance

June 25, 2012 admin Economics, Evolution, Politics, Republicans, Values, Wealth One comment

The odds against human beings existing in the universe are astronomically large. An unbelievable number of factors had to remain in balance in order for humans to have evolved. The planet had to be in exactly the right position around the exact right size star. The right chemicals had to come together in the exact right amounts, at the exact right temperature to start the process of life.

The point is that there is a very narrow zone of equilibrium where all of the necessary forces and chemicals and sources of energy are balanced. Balance and equilibrium are key to the development of life and the continuance of ecological systems. Humans have evolved not just by outcompeting other species, but by cooperating with each other. Competition and cooperation need to be balanced.

This analogy also holds true for societies and politics. Currently, the Republicans represent a value system cannot produce the equilibrium required for societal stability and growth. They, along with free-market libertarians, believe that competition is sufficient; that each individual selfishly pursuing his or her own self-interest will produce a balanced and fair society. They seem to believe that wealth is synonymous with merit and that those who do not have a job or enough money to feed themselves, educate their children or pay for healthcare have only themselves to blame.

This sort of belief system is based a model of reality that acknowledges competition but doesn’t acknowledge the need for us all to cooperate. Therefore cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and programs that aid the poor is just because the cost of these losers is being borne by the meritorious winners. Why should they share? They work hard, they deserve. The poor do not.

That is why government should be small. Those that drive the economy don’t need the government. Just let these hard workers compete and let the winners win. The winners will employ others to help them. This is how society works—how the winners produce value for everyone. We need to compete to keep the wealthy corporations happy—giving them incentives to hire people in this state or that state. This is the expressed belief system of conservatives and it’s out of balance. Competition is all that is required.

But it is clear that competition by itself does not produce good results for society. It has led to very few very big winners and huge multitudes of losers. That is what the facts on the ground prove.

In this election we have one candidate who believes that the winners need more incentives to win and that the benefits the non-winners currently receive are a drag on the economy. We can’t afford cooperation and compassion. Cutting benefits for the non-winners will balance the budget and a balanced budget will free up capital up so winners will be able to compete even more successfully. This has not and will not work because it is profoundly out of balance. It will only create more wealth disparity. Romney must be defeated.

I suggest this simple slogan for Obama. Romney is only for the rich. I’m for everybody.

Water, Energy, Money, Blood

April 23, 2012 admin Economics, Energy, Politics, Values, Wealth No comments

Bless me my conscience; it has been seven months since my last post. In that time, we have witnessed the Republican presidential primary process deliver Mitt Romney—as clear an example of the top 1% as you can get.

We need to think about his success and the success of the 1% in general in a different way than Romney would like, or can even get his mind around. In the conservative worldview, which most of us accept without question, Romney is a winner. He played the game of wealth creation well, and is exactly what we all want to be like: rich (not stiff and awkward). Who doesn’t want to be rich?

In this prevailing worldview the accumulation of vast wealth is what all individuals seek. Along the way jobs will be created, investments will be made, and society will benefit. And this is true to a degree. But jobs are only a once-in-while by-product of wealth accumulation; many times the loss of jobs creates wealth for owners.

The unbounded creation of wealth for the top 1% is also sequestering resources that the rest of us need to be healthy. Imagine if one rich farmer had hundreds or thousands of times more water than the other farmers and there was a drought. This farmer sold the water, but if you couldn’t pay, oh well. I hope you don’t starve.

One person controlling all the precious water is a big problem. What would happen? Would the other farmers attack the rich farmer? Would they be justified in doing so? Would the government back the majority of desperate people and send troops to free the water, or be bought off by the rich farmer and send troops to keep the thirsty, starving mob at bay?

In this metaphor, water equals money. But both actually equal energy. No water, no energy for the growth of a crop. No money, no energy for the growth of the economy. By playing the game of individual wealth creation, which we all do, the winner’s jackpot is now detrimental to everyone else. The irrigation system of the economy is dry, not because there isn’t enough money, but because the flow is being restricted and tightly controlled. Money is flowing not to dehydrated everyday people but into the endless reservoirs of the 1%.

Never mind that people are dying or becoming homeless because they can’t pay their medical bills. In the system we’ve bought into Romney wins and we all lose. It’s perfectly fair that he get as much as he can. Concern for the losers is not part of the equation. But since money is the energy needed for growth, look for higher costs in blood when that energy is not forthcoming.

« Older Entries