Progressive Portal Store
  • New Store: Flags & More
  • Old Store: Stickers • Buttons
  • Blog
  • Contact

​The Effective Progressive: We Interrupt This Calamity for Some Good News

2/13/2017

12 Comments

 

​Table of Contents (Blog Posts) → Click Here

(Darker type = link to more information)​​

Picture
Update, 8:15 p.m. PST:

The first high official in the new administration has been forced to resign. CNN reports that Michael Flynn, national security adviser, is out. Flynn reportedly undercut U.S. policy in a meeting with the Russian Ambassador while Barack Obama was still president; he then is said to have lied to the White House about what he discussed in that meeting; intelligence officials allegedly advised the White House that Russia would be able to blackmail Flynn; Flynn was previously fired from the Obama administration for insubordination; and now he is gone from the current administration.



Don’t Panic clip art
As I write these words, more bad news has just emanated from Washington, D.C. It doesn’t really matter which bad news, for present purposes; suffice it to say, friends are hitting the panic button, once again.
 
We’ve had some nasty defeats, to be sure, and more lie ahead. But let’s be careful not to react to each setback as if we’ve lost the whole conflict.
 
White House operatives are moving rapidly on a wide range of issues. There a couple of reasons why they need to. First, they hope overwhelming flood of bad news will demoralize us. Second, they need to move fast because they have a narrow winder of time before they get shut down again and again by a growing, visible, vocal, and widespread opposition that is still getting organized. Third, the rapid-fire release of outrageous statements and action is a method to control the national conversation.
 
Let’s start reframing it right now, by focusing on some significant good developments of the past several days.


Immigration Ban Pushback
 
The first action taken by the new White House that has immediately affected people’s lives is the executive order that attempted to prohibit certain persons from coming to the United States — the so-called “immigration ban” (actually a confused hodge-podge that even the administration seems to be struggling to understand). Two states, Washington and Minnesota, sued, and a federal judge (an appointee of G.W. Bush) suspended implementation of the order. That ruling was later unanimously upheld by a three-judge appeals panel, also including a G.W. Bush appointee.
 
Whatever the results in court, the executive order has sparked an unprecedented, monumental opposition movement that incorporates almost all sectors of society other than the inner circle of the White House. Consider:

  • Briefs opposing the order were filed in court by more than 125 of the nation’s largest companies. Considering that the current occupant of the White House is a narcissistic sociopath who sees every opponent as an enemy, the level of political risk these companies were willing to take is huge. Among the businesses filing court statements against the White House action are Adobe, AirBnB, Amazon, Apple, Coursera, DocuSign, eBay, Evernote, Expedia, Google, HP, Indiegogo, Intel, Levi Strauss, LinkedIn, Lyft, Meetup, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Pandora, PayPal, Salesforce, SpaceX, Square, Squarespace, Tesla, Twitter, Uber, Wikimedia Foundation, Yelp, Zendesk, Zinga, and dozens more.
  • Several usually conservative companies put their reputations (and big ad dollars) on the line in another way: In SuperBowl ads defending immigration to the U.S. A powerful ad from a lumber company (whose owner voted for Trump) is worth watching all the way through to the surprise ending. (The Fox network didn’t let the entire ad air, but it’s embedded here.) Budweiser aired a spot depicting how the company’s founder was shunned as an immigrant who wasn’t “wanted here.” Coca-Cola, AirBnB, Kia, and Tiffany are among companies promoting immigration, diversity, equality, and environmentalism in their ads. (For a bit of levity, note the hair-product company whose ad said, “America, we’re in for at least four years of awful hair.”) →
Immigration protest directional sign at San Francisco International Airport.Actual sign supplied by San Francisco Airport officials.
  • In the lawsuit, Washington and Minnesota were supported by filings from former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, among other former national security and intelligence officials. President Obama and Secretary Clinton both endorsed the protests against the ban; Chelsea Clinton participated in a protest against it. Former administrations, especially the immediate predecessor, especially the immediate predecessor after just two weeks, just don’t do that. Well, now they do. Also in opposition: several hundred current State Department officers, as well as 16 states, including two that went Republican in the Presidential election.
  • Initial rulings by federal judges (including an appointee of George W. Bush) have gone against the executive order. According to an ACLU lawyer who won the initial decision, speaking on the nationwide conference call I joined, demonstrations at airports across the country had a huge effect: He said it was as if the demonstrators were in the courtroom with him, and the judge knew it.
  • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said if the courts throw out the executive order, Congress isn’t likely to step in. No kidding: At least 20 Republican Senators (and a couple dozen Republican House members) have criticized the order. (A document tracking elected officials’ stances on the measure is online.)
 
Other News of Resistance
 
These are all signs of a political uprising unprecedented in the U.S. in modern times, and perhaps ever:

Since January 30, I have been on three nationwide organizing calls (each with more than 1,000 participants) on opposing the White House agenda. I’ve attended face-to-face meetings with hundreds of participants. Whenever the question was asked, approximately half of the participants indicated they had never been politically active before, including many middle-aged attendees. In one such call, leaders noted that the ACLU’s membership has more than doubled since the inauguration. I haven’t seen anything like this, not even in the activist heyday of the 1960s and 1970s.

After a group of former Congressional staff members published a little online document (“Indivisible”) explaining how the Tea Party was successful in lobbying Congress and how those tactics could be adapted today, interest mushroomed. The former staffers created an organization, and local groups sprang up by the thousands all across the country (and worldwide, in fact). These are citizens, many new to political organizing, who are studying how to get results from their legislators, and if necessary replace them in the next election.

Perhaps prompted by the Indivisible movement, perhaps spontaneously, town halls held by legislators even in the most conservative parts of the country are erupting as angry voters demand answers. The video on this CNN page (under three minutes) shows several fascinating clips.
​
The proposal for a wall on the southern border of the U.S. has run into massive opposition, including among Congressional Republicans. And the proposal to pay for it by imposing a 20% tariff on imports from Mexico (which amounts to U.S. consumers footing the bill in the form of higher-priced imports) is raising alarm bells among farm groups; in Nebraska and Iowa, for example, a trade war would be devastating, as Mexico imports a large share of the U.S. corn crop. As one commodities broker notes, this “would be hitting back at America’s heartland,” where a large part of the Republican vote is based.

The media have awakened, calling out the Administration’s falsehoods and extensively covering the opposition. (Most of the links in this blog post are from mainstream sources.) There’s the Associated Press directive to identify the self-described “alt-right” as a white-supremacist movement. The New York Times after careful consideration decided to use the word “lie” in headlines to describe the president’s falsehood. Unlikely sources like lifestyle magazines GQ, Vanity Fair, and Teen Vogue are doing investigative journalism and holding the White House’s feet to the fire.

After starting his administration with the highest unfavorability ratings in decades and facing worldwide protest by perhaps 4.5 million (including some lifelong Republicans) on his second day in office, the president has continued to lose ground among the public. The Los Angeles Times reports: “Gallup has tracked every American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, and before Trump, none hit 50% disapproval for months, sometimes years. Trump has fallen below all but the lowest points for President Obama and into territory plumbed by Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.”


All of this has sparked unprecedented pushback, even from within the government. Alarmed officials within the White House are leaking stories to the press, and a resistance movement is developing within the federal government. Distrusting the administration’s judgment, fearing it is compromised by Russia, and doubting its ability to keep secrets, the National Security Agency is withholding information from the White House, according to various reports citing former and present intelligence officials.

At the state level, attorneys general are coordinating their fight against the current administration, sharing resources and divvying up duties, according to an in-depth piece about New York’s A.G.  In early January, California’s legislature hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to defend the state on a range of issues.
​
The Presidency isn’t as powerful as its current occupant wishes, and probably not as powerful as he thinks. It will not be a simple matter to roll back climate-protection efforts according to articles in the New York Times (weak federal powers and coal isn’t coming back), the Washington Post (cities and states are leading the charge), and Science. California, which by itself is the world’s fifth-largest economy, will continue to press forward, and has been seen on many other issues, the sheer economic, political, and cultural power of the state is such that many others will come along. (Manufacturers, for example, often find it less expensive to make separate cars and equipment to meet California rules than to simply adopt the California standards across their entire product lines).


Support this blog — help make it possible for us to continue sharing tips for progressive activism, securing your data against government snooping, etc.


12 Comments
Laura Carravallah
2/13/2017 05:06:58 pm

What do you think of this paper?

http://sacramentodispatch.com

Reply
Steve Freedkin
2/13/2017 05:08:01 pm

Interesting you should ask, Laura. Just earlier today, a friend posted an article from that site claiming that the White House had turned down a request for emergency Federal assistance to help with the impacts of flooding. I did a quick Google search on that topic and found it reported *nowhere* else. Then, I started reading that Web site and found all kinds of bizarre stories that don't appear anywhere else. Now, late afternoon the same day, that site apparently has been hacked; attempts to visit it are redirected to a nonexistent Web address.

When I did a Google search on "trump turns down california flooding aid" (without quotation marks), the first story that came up was from the hoax-debunking Web site Snopes.com, and sure enough, the story is a hoax, as is the "Sacramento Dispatch" itself; there is no such paper, just a fake-news Web site. http://www.snopes.com/trump-federal-aid-california/

Here is another way to check out whether Web sites are legitimate. A group of programmers has created a plug-in for the Google Chrome browser that uses artificial intelligence to determine whether a site is likely legitimate or fake news. So far in my tests, it has been 100% correct. I wouldn't use it as a sole source of that assessment, but if it rates a site as likely fake, I would not rely on that site.

Generally, any "amazing," "breaking," "bombshell," or wow-inspiring news will be reported by sources you know and trust. If it's not, it is highly likely to be fake news.

One other thing to watch out for: The date when an article was posted. I've seen articles circulating that are actually old news, and without that context are misleading; I've made this mistake myself, and am thankful that friends (including you) have caught me at it. If I ever post something that is misleading or outdated, please let me know and I'll delete it promptly.

It's hard to tell these days what's true from what's not; so much is true that seems crazy. We need to be extra careful not to inadvertently collude in the White House's effort to destroy the concept of actual, true facts.

Reply
John Coveney
2/13/2017 08:22:51 pm

Thank you Steve for your upbeat stories. I'm convinced that we won't impeach Trump unless "Real Republicans" step up to say enough as well. Even if impeached we'll still have Pence but such a shock to the administration would create a chastened presidency easier to end in 2020

I'm a bit tired of reading the same perspectives. Where do our allie republicans get their news, commentary? I get David Brooks in the NYTimes and David Frum in the Atlantic, but where are the others, not of the punditocracy, that at see as well a threat to our nation that must be stood up to?

What do those people's Facebook feed look like? You don't have to be a liberal to smell BS

Reply
Steve Freedkin link
2/13/2017 08:39:39 pm

Great question, John. I will ask around; I have a few Republican friends and family members (economically conservative, socially moderate/liberal). The Facebook page of one such Republican contains only sports and travel posts, but I'll ask him what shows up in his news feed from his friends. Maybe others can do likewise.

Reply
Ian R.
2/13/2017 08:41:26 pm

[Reacting to the resignation of Michael Flynn.]

Nope, it's a fall guy.

Reply
Steve Freedkin
2/13/2017 08:56:22 pm

Ian, I don't think it's as calculated or simple as you make out. This is a huge p.r. disaster for the administration, and it's going to massively complicate getting the rest of their appointments through the Senate. They would not have planned it this way.

Reply
Ian R.
2/13/2017 08:56:43 pm

I'm not suggesting they planned it.

I'm suggesting they got caught. They sent Flynn to tee-up the Russians for a deal — sanctions for oil rights. 

The Bannon view of the world consists of a few strong-men leaders sharing spoils. Putin, Trump, maybe Assad, etc. … sharing the oil.

Jeff Akeley
2/13/2017 08:58:00 pm

I think that all of these interpretations are plausible. Me, I am just smiling quietly to myself with the hookers and minstrels.

Michael Davis
2/13/2017 09:31:46 pm

In terms of the reporting of news, I found it interesting that the Wall Street Journal and some other mainstream news, the emphasis on the current potential disaster In Oroville has been on who needs to evacuate and I assume they might get into the who's and why's later on in their reporting. However, Breitbart is playing the blame card to attract readers with a twist (they actually are reporting that the environmental community (the Friends of the River, the Sierra Club and the South Yuba Citizens League) tried to protect us from this happening, but the powers that be kept the infrastructure spending from happening.) This news slant of the so called "alt right (often fake) news is much more a case of bad timing than bringing up gun control right after a mass shooting, but in this case, at least they are praising us tree huggers for knowing what can happen when we don't listen to the real scientists/architects. Somehow, I am not sure that they are reading anything-even their own newspapers with enough common sense to learn that fact based reality is a good basis for policy.

Reply
Lisa Randleman
3/7/2017 07:01:37 am

Hi Steve, I'm overwhelmed by all the "news" and I'm having difficulty determining which news organizations are legitimate and which are simply "fake." Is there a list you could provide of the good and the bad? I have used "Snopes" in the past, but assume that these days, they simply can't keep up with it all. Thank you!

Reply
Steve Freedkin link
3/25/2017 09:16:56 am

Thanks for the question, Lisa. This is an ongoing issue.

I address this somewhat the Jan. 26 blog entry, and in the comments I explain how to verify or debunk a particular kind of (mis)information going around.

Snopes.com is actually pretty good at keeping up; recently, I found they had fact-checked a new meme going around the same day it started. (It referred to a current event, so we knew it couldn't have started earlier than that day.)

I was asked recently about Politico, and about how to tell whether a site with a similar name is real or fake news. Politico.com is a mainstream news site with credible professional journalists. Politi.co is just another address for the same site; if you visit Politi.co you are taken to politico.com. HOWEVER, Politicususa is a left-leaning, unreliable source. Generally trustworthy lefty sources include https://www.democracynow.org/ and http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show.

Two general procedures for determining the reliability of news stories or memes as well as newsy-looking sites:

• Visit news.google.com and search for a key phrase related to the meme. If it's newsworthy and real, you'll find it reported on sources you know and can trust. If it appears *only* on sites with odd-sounding names, it is likely exaggerated or outright false.

• If you have the Google Chrome browser, you can install a nifty little plugin that uses artificial intelligence to rate sites real or fake. Visit http://chrome.google.com/webstore and search for "Fake News Detector AI" to find it. When you click its little brain icon at the upper right of the browser, a window pops down rating the site you're on as real or fake. In my testing, it has been fairly accurate for news sites. It isn't so good at recognizing non-news sites, though (it rates Amazon.com product pages as "fake news," for example). And, sadly, it rates *this* blog as "fake." But for news-ish sites, it has been pretty good. I'd use it as only one metric, and still do other research, but over time it can help you get a better sense of sites to trust and not to trust.

Good luck!

Reply
Lisa Randleman
3/25/2017 09:23:49 am

Thanks so much Steve! I appreciate this, and will pass it on!!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    The Effective Progressive blog

    … is authored by Steve Freedkin. Steve has been a social-change activist most of his life, focused on effective techniques for getting results. Among successes in campaigns he’s helped lead are canceling a proposed nuclear power plant; canceling a nuclear plant already under construction; establishing energy-efficiency standards and recycling programs; saving urban outdoor space; and getting enforcement against air polluters.

    Archives

    March 2020
    September 2018
    August 2018
    December 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Support this blog — help make it possible for us to continue sharing tips for progressive activism, securing your data against government snooping, etc. 

Thanks for your support!  •  Store Home Page


Hours

always open online

Voice Mail

510-595-4626

Contact Page (best way to reach us)