Search This Blog

Why Resisting The Demonization Of Islam Is Key To Bringing The Messiah

Islamic scholar Sheikh Imran Hosein released this short videotape about the election. It is in my view an eloquent statement about what's at stake for all of us today, as we choose between lies and truth, war and peace, good and evil. 

Here is the video. Below it are some highlights, but it's worth watching the short clip to hear the ring of truth in his words.

"I felt that the American people were the most brainwashed on the face of was as plain as daylight that the media in the US, the establishment in the US, TV, radio, newspapers, government agencies, were all demonizing one candidate, doing every single thing they could possibly do to make him look bad, so that public opinion would turn against him.  
"The other candidate, who I considered to be the candidate of war, because those who control power in the US, Britain, France, Germany and NATO, are, in my opinion, lusting for war with Russia and China, because Russia and China are not prepared to bend their knees in submission. 
"These people have an arrogance unprecedented in history. They want to rule the whole world. Everybody must bend down, bow down and submit to them. But Russia said no. The Russian knee will not bend to you. And China said no. The knee of China will not bend to you. War would have been nuclear war, you don't need a Ph.D. to know that." 
"The results of the election in the US indicate that a large number of people in the US are still capable of thinking....they rejected the brainwashing from the media and this is wonderful news. And we now have a result, which first of all, most important of all, has now delayed nuclear war."  
"We don't know for how long this window of sunlight will remain open. We don't know whether they will do to Trump what they did to John Kennedy, to so many others, the airplane falls out of the sky and that's the end of that story." 
"But while this window of sunlight remains, there is hope now that Britain will also refuse to submit to brainwashing. And so to France and Germany, Belgium. And so there must be panic now, panic in the hearts of those who are oppressors.""At this time when we have this window of sunlight, all those who are resisting oppression should also resist the demonization of Islam." 
"I speak as an Islamic scholar, I have been in the field...almost 75 years of age...fairly well recognized around the world, and I speak for Islam. To say that we are a religion like Christianity, like Judaism, authentic Christianity, authentic Judaism, we have zero tolerance for oppression." 
"Unfortunately they have installed governments all over the world of Islam who are in their pockets, the pockets of the oppressors but not the people. And so my response to the election in the US is that we now have a little time, let's use this little time, we don't know how long it will last."
"Let's use this little time to reach out to each other, and come together, in one community of people, across the borders of religion, even those who don't have a religious faith, but who are in opposition to the oppressor, let us come together in friendship and in alliance against a common enemy."

The common enemy the Sheikh speaks of is obviously not a person or nation but rather the organized effort by some to subjugate and control everybody else. While most of us, including me, cannot claim to understand what is going on, the propaganda surrounding the election made it more than obvious. And so does the otherwise inexplicable attempt to silence an investigation into the horrifying scandal known as "pizzagate," which came to light at the same time.

As the Sheikh noted, Donald Trump was elected. Many of us think this was a complete miracle, from beginning to end, especially when you consider the machine that was and is so highly organized to discredit him.

We learned this week, in the Torah reading, about Isaac digging three wells in the land of King Abimelech. The first two were taken away from him, but not the third. The commentary in the Bible said this symbolizes the three Holy Temples of the Jewish people. The first two were destroyed because of strife. But the third will stand, as the age of the Moshiach (Messiah) ushers in an age of enlightenment, when there is no more strife -- when war becomes a thing of the past.

As it says in Isaiah 2:4, in the future God Himself will settle the issues of dispute among the nations and war as a phenomenon will end:
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. - Isaiah 2:4
We can bring the Messiah by refusing to contribute to conditions that create war, namely, any attempt to deny other people their inalienable right to freedom and self-determination through explicit or implicit means of control, exploitation and abuse.

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once gave a speech, "The Chance for Peace" (1953) where he spoke of the horrors of war:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
In that speech, President Eisenhower articulated 5 principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy: 
"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs. 
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice. 
Second: No nation’s security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations. 
Third: Any nation’s right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable
Fourth: Any nation’s attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. 
And fifth: A nation’s hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations." 
Interesting how President Eisenhower and Sheikh Imran Hosein are saying basically the same thing.


All opinions my own.

Narratives Lie

As Jews our freedom begins with taking on the yoke of God. I am free because I serve Him, and only Him. God tells me to obey the law of the land - "the law of the kingdom is law":
"DINA DE-MALKHUTA DINA (Aram. דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא), the halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law." - Source: The Jewish Talmudic scholar ("Amora") Samuel of Nehardea/Samuel bar Abba, cited in the Talmud at Ned. 28a; Git. 10b; BK 113a; BB 54b and 55a; source Jewish Virtual Library
Of course the fact that Jews have to make this point brings up an entire discussion about the theology of civil law for observant people, e.g. if you bind yourself to a certain religion how can you then submit to non-religious law?

In contemporary culture, where we are frequently exposed to acts of radical Islamic terror, the point comes up as a reflexive reaction that blames the Qur'an (and its associated body of law, Sharia) for such acts.

But that narrative is a lie. It is narrative-making that has created the "Muslim bogeyman." According to a report released eight years ago from Britain's intelligence service, the MI5, titled "Behavioural Science Unit Operational Briefing Note: Understanding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism in the UK," the report dispels some common myths about radical Islamic terror.

Most notably, radical Islamic terrorists are actually not particularly knowledgeable or religious. Just the opposite, being religious actually serves as a barrier to the commission of terrorism:
"Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation."
It is of course possible to find numerous examples of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. But that doesn't make such violence inherently religious in nature--any more than sick acts of violence committed by others citing theological grounds.

Looking at the numbers, Muslims are overwhelmingly ignored as a massive body of victims of terror. In 2011, the U.S. Counterterrorism Center reported that "in cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

Radical Islamic terrorism is politically, not religiously motivated.

The West, and the United States in particular, has actively created the popular stereotype of the crazed Muslim terrorist.

Under President Bush, the United States actively engaged in Muslim "fear-mongering" for political ends. As history professor Juan Cole put it:
"Even while denying he has anything against Muslims, Bush is creating this “Islamic Fascist” bogeyman, which mostly is a figment of his fevered imagination, or is woefully imprecise as a way of describing the phenomenon, or lacks any real political power, or could be dealt with by containment and decisiveness (remember the Soviet Union), or turns out to be some goatherds on the side of a hill in southern Lebanon." 
This agenda was furthered under both Democrats and Republicans:  Hillary Clinton freely admitted weaponizing Muslims to pursue a U.S. foreign policy agenda. And as The Guardian Notes, the U.S. under President Obama actively fueled the rise of ISIS as a way of overthrowing the government of Syria. (See the widely cited Department of Defense source document released in 2012 and posted by Judicial Watch).

As far as the perceived looming threat of Sharia, the reality is that it is no more a conflict for Muslims living in secular society than Jewish law is for Jews.
"Many American Muslims, like other religious communities who rely on scriptures and religious principles to guide their life, look upon Sharia as a personal system of morality and identity. The vast majority of American Muslims see no conflict between their religious obligations and values and the U.S. legal system." - Interfaith Alliance Frequently Asked Questions document endorsed by 23 organizations including the Islamic Networks Group, the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Public Affairs Council
In fact, Jews and Muslims helped found the United States (and have always suffered from what can politely be termed "ambivalence" from the mainstream) along with Christians.

From a legal perspective, the Founding Fathers drew on Islam as they formulated the Constitution, just as they were inspired by Judaism and obviously by Christianity.

So there you have it: Muslims aren't bad.

But false narratives--like the one used by the White House to sell Americans the Iran deal--always are.


All opinions my own.

What Happens When We Know?

The need to know "what really happened" is fundamental to being human.
  • It is biological, it is survival, we become aware of danger and want to know how to stay away.
  • It is social, the social contract, we have one with one another and when it's violated those who abuse the rest must be held accountable.
  • It is the need for meaning: We need to make sense of what we see in this world, sort out the good and the bad, and perform our highest function. This is to contribute in some way toward making the world better, or at least--as my great-grandfather, may he rest in peace, used to say--"don't make the world worse."
Sometimes a tragedy never comes to light. Its victims are hidden, or silenced and the world does not become aware of the injustice.

Other times, a case is declared "solved," someone is even convicted of a crime, and justice appears to have been done. Yet as we well know, the wrong person may be made to pay while the perpetrator gets away with it. This in fact may be worse than not knowing at all, because the task is to untangle the lie--which may already be socially accepted--and start all over again, from scratch.

All the time, information is incomplete, necessarily so, because we simply cannot know everything.

But no matter how limited the clues, people will string together what they think they do know. This is how we achieve closure and move forward, salving the existential anxiety that comes from being aware of a problem but not quite aware of where it's coming from or how to fix it.

Finally, there are times when we absolutely know a thing, because we all saw it happen together. But although we may have witnessed the happening, we don't know what it means. We know what we saw, but we don't understand the circumstances or the context.

As human beings, who communicate with one another through stories, it is important to know not just the facts of a matter but what they meant to the people involved.

Let us assume that, once in a while, we do achieve a perfect state of knowing. What then? What do we do with all the information?

It is something we don't like to think about. Because when we find out the truth, it's ugly more often than not. Which means that our sense of order is shattered.

That's why you sometimes see that people faint, or scream, or erupt in sudden violence, when they can't avoid a terrible truth. We would much rather live in denial, just block it all out and go on, than really allow ourselves to see.

Truth cannot be escaped anymore, though. We are living in a different time now--the age of ubiquitous Internet connections, the age of ubiquitous connection to social media, the age of information-sharing, crowdsourcing and transparency.

Our information is out there. Our smartphones, our computers, and, increasingly, our cars, homes, and other everyday materials we use are all wired to the grid. Our currency is connected. Our shopping habits are monitored. Paper is gone and in its place is a series of electronic moments, easily recorded. Cameras pervade our world.

The capacity of machines to analyze our behavior individually and track it collectively is only growing by the day. Where before it may have been possible for someone to leave no footprints behind, today such an ability is rare.

And so the result is that we will soon know more than any of us ever thought was possible. Some of it will no doubt enlighten us and help us end the horrors of poverty, of human slavery, of illness, of homelessness and ill health.

But a lot of it will be information that traumatizes us. We will, in fact, learn a lot of things that were previously hidden, the capacity of human beings to portray themselves well on the one hand while secretly engaging in terrible acts on the other.

It may seem that the transition from darkness to light (ignorance to knowledge) will be linear, but I suspect that it will more likely be chaotic.

That is why, as we move toward greater and greater awareness, it is crucial that we stay grounded. That we insist on a system of law and order. That we enforce independent mechanisms to ensure the integrity of those we trust to carry out justice.

All throughout history, the world has witnessed various prophets of doom and gloom. But I do not believe it has to go this way. We can choose enlightenment, peace and mutual prosperity, through mutual cooperation, instead.

Our social contract depends on truth, and the fair administration of justice.

All opinions my own.

The Truth Has A Way Of Not Going Away

Traditionally the way I get hired for jobs is that people want to somehow game the system through branding. They think I know something magical, because I've studied it, and they want to "push" some sort of message.

The first thing to know is that I haven't served as a brand manager, ever in my life. I didn't work at Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble or Target. True I have studied brands, and branding for more than fifteen years and true I am published on the subject and I worked at a brand research think-tank as well as a brand consultancy that focused mainly on B2B brands. I've taught on the subject too.

The truth however is that I am a government communicator. And in the end, that's the professional experience I bring to bear at work. I understand how the federal government bureaucracy operates, specifically in the realm of communication but also when it comes to IT, contracting and project management. Over time, my experience in these areas matters a lot more than the fantasy my employers have when I walk in the door.

Also, the truth is that my employers tend to want to do things pretty much the same way they always did them, even though they tell themselves they want to change by hiring me. It's always a temporary salve, because communication at the end of the day is a reflection of corporate culture. And as we learn from the organizational development textbooks, culture is a deep iceberg.

Consultants earn a lot of money by telling people what they want to hear. In particular people like the fact that consultants come in and tell the truth. There is always a truthful report sitting on a shelf somewhere, that the organization paid lots and lots of money for.

At work just like in my blog I have a reputation for being very direct. I will tell you the truth as I see it. More often than not, I don't have all the facts but my assessment of the situation is fairly accurate.

I feel like the organizations that have welcomed me most appreciate this capacity and willingness to take the risk and say what needs to be said.

Over time I have learned to express myself in ways that are less confrontational yet still faithful to my observations of the world as I see it. And have also learned that just because there is some truth out there to be told, doesn't mean that others have to listen to it, or even want to hear it.

In the end the truth has a way of emerging when people are ready. I tend to be the one to say things before others really want to hear it.

It is painful for me to be rejected when I first speak out. But this is the reality of my existence.


All opinions my own.

10 Characteristics of Mob Thinking on Social Media

It never ceases to fascinate me how certain topics go viral on social media whereas others do not.

Just like with branding, it is of course possible to artificially induce a "high" on a certain topic, at least for a time. But in the end a craze has to have enduring value on its own merits.

As most of us know, here are some of the kinds of topics that tend to attract a lot of interest: amazing talent; brands, shopping and coupons; celebrity news; cooking or decorating; family-related/relationship-oriented issues; heartwarming stories; holiday-themed updates; information of a specialized nature; opinion, well- or humorously articulated; shocking information; social awareness or activism; tragedy; unity of diverse people; violence caught on video; and of course, weird news.

Less well-understood is the way groups think collectively on social media. In other words, how does social media act to create a collective consciousness among members who interact around shared interest in a topic?

This collective consciousness, also known as "mob thinking" or "hive thinking," has certain observable characteristics that tend to repeat regardless of the issue at hand.
  1. Story: Complex, even convoluted story with seemingly no beginning and no end yet simple to understand and compelling to the average person by the nature of its subject matter--usually negative--such as abuse, exploitation, etc.
  2. Articles of Faith: The group's story is really a cause, which creates a community of those who believe in what it stands for, at all levels of the spectrum, from mild-mannered to extremely engaged--and sometimes even "over the edge." The cause itself is axiomatic, but the evidence upon which the group decides to form its beliefs is subject to extensive debate.
  3. Leaders: The group has unelected leaders, or spokespeople, whom others believe in and follow, who represent the beliefs of the group confidently and in a concise, engaging manner
  4. Researchers: The group has a researcher or group of researchers, loosely affiliated or not. affiliated at all. The role of researcher favors those with highly advanced computer research skills to seek out and store data in an accessible way, as well as those articulate enough to explain what the research means and/or to present it graphically.
  5. Martyrs: The group has someone who has lost their lives, or something very important to them in life, by virtue of suffering for the cause (perhaps unwillingly).
  6. Common Enemy: The group is united to advance a cause but also to beat back an enemy that does not wish them to succeed, because they benefit from maintaining that which the group opposes. That enemy may be a person, a group of people, or simply a constellation of ideas or values that are disfavored. The more tangible the evidence that the enemy causes harm, and the more resistance the group receives from the outside world, the more they are likely to become entrenched in their views.
  7. Projected Self-Image: People join the "mob" based on an idealized image of themselves, not based on their activities in "real life."
  8. Shared Characteristics: The people who join may be wildly diverse, but they also share certain values, beliefs, or personality tendencies that make it possible to interact in a way that is instantly recognizable and appreciated.
  9. The Spectrum: Though they may share certain personality characteristics (such as the desire to be heroic), members of the group will always represent a wide spectrum, from the rational to the "unhinged."
  10. Always On: The conversation happens in fits and starts but nonstop, and you can join it as many hours a day as you wish, and enter and leave it at will.
  11. Familiarity of Strangers: Although members of the group do not know one another in real life, they derive comfort from the anonymous fellowship of believers.Most group member are anonymous, although some feel comfortable naming themselves. Anonymous identities are an opportunity to express a belief or emotion strongly held.
  12. Respect: The members of the group value one another. There is an ethic of respect among the group simply by virtue of joining it, or even lurking around it and reading what it produces.
  13. Intelligent Skepticism: While anyone can put forth a theory online, the conversational nature of the environment tends to weed out illogical or unproven statements, when then "die on the vine."
  14. Evidence and Pseudo-Evidence: At the end of the day, all social media "mob thinking" prides itself on having arrived at some form of truth. However, it is also true that groups have limited access to information and therefore must piece together circumstantial evidence. Additionally, due to the fact that social media is fragmented and favors brevity, accurate information may be presented in a distorted or out-of-context manner that advances an agenda rather than the cause of truth. Complicating matters is an information environment where the beliefs of the group will inevitably fall under ideological attack by others who seek only to dissuade them. In response, some members will dig in their heels and insist that they are "right," while others will call out inaccuracies, distortions, and areas of confusion in an attempt to keep the group on track.
  15. Mainstreaming: Over time, the more convinced the group is that a certain belief system is true, and the more people join this "movement, the more likely they can convince others that the "unbelievable" actually "makes sense." If the body of believers reaches critical mass, their ideas, once reviled, become the "conventional wisdom."
Psychologically speaking, it is a hallmark of maturity to be able to stop and think critically, as well as to reflect on your motives, before you actually make a life-changing decision. Similarly, in the context of organizational dynamics, healthy groups don't act rashly. They stop to take stock before making any major moves.

On social media, it's great to be able to express yourself, and explore your ideas and values. But it is also a hallmark of maturity to pause and think critically about what you're "liking," sharing, and generally spending your time on. While the virtual world may seem somewhat "unreal," at the end of the day it is populated by real people: you, me, neighborhood, nation, world.


All opinions my own.

10 Most Relevant Trends On Brand-Building For The Future (Brief)

My thoughts in response to a question posed on Quora.
  1. Social responsibility
  2. Building via social media
  3. Co-creating the brand with your audience
  4. Protecting the trademark
  5. Disintermediating retail
  6. Entrepreneurship from home
  7. Small business communities of interest helping one another with the brand
  8. Integrating personal politics with buying behavior
  9. Using your brand as a vote for a cause
  10. Domestic manufacturing, nationalism, protectionism 
All opinions my own.

One Day You're In, The Next Day You're Out

I've been thinking about Kellyanne Conway, and why she openly confronted President-Elect Trump over hiring Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Not quietly, and not just once, but multiple times.

It's like, she hasn't even been hired yet. Is she trying to get herself fired?

Because I may not know very much about the world, but here is one thing I do know. Your job, when you're working for someone, is not only the job itself but also to have their back. You don't have to agree with what they do, and you can tell them so in private -- in fact I would argue that's it's your sacred duty to do so.

But it's absolutely unheard of to break ranks like she did, in public, and expect to continue working for the person or the team.

Even if she had a strategic reason, even if her motives were to support him, it was wrong to contradict his message to the world.

So it may very well be that while Conway was "in" for a period of time, her social media outburst and interview on television regarding the Romney issue render her "out."

What we learn is that even the most desirable, hire-able person -- or "personal brand" -- can drop to the bottom of the ocean floor. Can lose all or most of their reputation equity instantly.

It's a pretty frightening prospect. King Solomon said, in Proverbs (22:1), "A good name is more desirable than great riches."

So you have to be careful how you behave. Even if you're the best at what you do.

If you look at Kanye West, he offers another perfect example. It had long been rumored that his private behavior was out of control, and for a long time he got away with it -- he was cushioned by his music, his fashion business, his friends and even his affiliation with the Kardashians.

But then he had an onstage rant one time too many, and whether rightly or wrongly, he was handcuffed and taken in for psychiatric evaluation. His reputation, because of his behavior, is damaged if not shattered.

Who you affiliate with affects your personal brand, as well. As we all know everybody thought Hillary Clinton would win the Presidential election, and frankly if you admitted to being a Trump supporter it was a risk to your professional career, your friendships, and your family connections. I know this because I took a significant hit on all three of the above.

Even more significantly than that, people who openly supported Trump were at risk of being targeted for physical violence.

But what happens if the pendulum shifts, and Hillary Clinton and/or her Foundation are convicted of a crime? Who will be on the "out" then?

For a lot of people in D.C., it's a very scary thought.


All opinions my own.

Don't Rock The Boat

I may have shared this previously but a colleague (in government) once warned me that "they only hire people they can control."

At the time I was so much more naive than I am now, and I'll be honest, the words went into my head but they didn't really register.

My thought as she spoke was something like, Maybe she is telling me the truth, but that sounds absolutely crazy.

As it turned out this friend had a lot to share after many years of civil service. In her weary brilliance, cynicism and relentless positivity despite all the obstacles thrown her way she was one of the gems. But I meet fewer and fewer people like her.

One thing she said sticks out in my mind, and this was around the time the Obama administration was starting up. She said that we were looking at the "invasion of the pod people," and when I looked at her like "what are you talking about?" as I did not know who the "pod people were" she said, "The Stepford Wives, you know?"

I didn't. I really didn't.

But there was no mistaking the peppy, glassy-eyed stare of the new political appointees. Again, I was younger and much more inexperienced and I didn't know what I was looking at. From my vantage point, we were looking at the incoming "most transparent Administration in American history" and I couldn't have been happier as I waved that Executive Order around.

Smart people, with-it people, dedicated people, public affairs-savvy people, social media people. I had a vague feeling that something was kind of off, but I couldn't really nail down what it was. And frankly--given that new media techniques were so slow to be accepted at my agency--I was hoping they'd usher in a whole new era of communication best practices.

I am embarrassed to say that we started our social media accounts rather informally, although it was true we had provided reams and reams of research to back up their importance and worthiness.

As time went on there were some other oddities. For example when it came to internal communication I was told that "there are a few people who know what's going on" and that the internal communicators were not among that group.

In visiting or talking to my colleagues I would hear sometimes that "things have become politicized" but I did not know what that meant.

I kept my mouth shut, kept it shut, but from my little corner of the world it was clear that the civil servants were working extremely hard, as they say, "to protect the politicals from themselves," from the effects of their own ignorance or desire to engage in workarounds or even simple recklessness.

There's nothing new here. This is how the tension between political and civil works. Another colleague told me about a hilarious TV show from Britain called "Yes, Prime Minister" and I watched a few clips and doubled over.

It could have been transplanted, word for accented word, from the U.S.

But there is a bigger question here, a more troubling one.

When do we rock the boat? When don't we?

Often leaders ask about employee engagement. They want to know how to motivate people, how to get them to speak up, how to harness the innovation they already have in the office.

My reaction most times is to be pretty much incredulous at these types of questions. Because when you look around the typical office environment it is very much like the typical school. Highly regimented, highly hierarchical, deeply stovepiped and conflict-averse, and perhaps most importantly for the question of employee engagement--the nail that sticks out gets hammered.

When I talked with someone about the seeming hush that had fallen over free communication under the Obama Administration, they said it was no different under President Bush (I and II). Except that President Obama was more sophisticated about controlling the message: Bush just didn't say anything.

I look back to something Vice President Al Gore did, within his role in the Clinton Administration, which was to set up the National Partnership for Reinventing Government and the associated Hammer Awards. Whatever you think of either politician, there is no question among civil servants about the importance of this effort. Decades later, you will see in agencies across D.C. Hammer Awards proudly displayed for the achievements civil servants made in cutting costs and increasing efficient service to the public.

Alongside those operational achievements was a tremendous emphasis on communication. NPR pulled in civil servants from across the federal government, on details paid by the home agencies, to pool their efforts and get the common word out.

NPR is how the Federal Communicators Network--which I used to co-chair and am still a proud member of--got launched out of the White House 20 years ago. It still offers free best practice training and networking today.

In today's tumultuous political times, in an economy that feels unstable, in a social environment where shouting is more often heard than a polite exchange of differing views, it's easy to feel discouraged about the prospects of rocking the boat.

But NPR was successful. And although it did not last beyond the Clinton Administration, it proved that shaking things up, for the betterment of all, is always worth the time and effort.


All opinions my own.

Time For An Amazing Uplifting Song - Enjoy