Civil liberties organizations and activists are pushing back against new laws which criminalize protests and free speech related to pipeline projects.
In late March, a coalition of Native activists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of South Dakota filed suit against the State of South Dakota in an effort to repeal recently passed state laws aimed at curbing “rioters” during the upcoming construction of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. South Dakota Senate Bill 189 and SB 190 have created controversy due to the potential to prevent peaceful and legal protest of environmental projects.
Senate Bill 189, also known as the Riot Boosting Act, grants the state the authority to sue any individual or organization for what they call “riot-boosting,” or encouraging and/or participating in acts of force or violence. SB 190 sets up funding to pay for state, county, and local police to combat potential pipeline protesters. This means that any individual who is attending a protest or rally against the Keystone Pipeline (or other future pipeline) could become subject to civil or criminal penalties, whether they engage in violence or not. The plaintiffs in the suit argue that the language of the bill is vague and does not clearly define what type of conduct or speech is considered “riot-boosting” or encouraging a riot.
The Washington Times reports that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has stated that the legislation will help shut down protests of the Keystone XL Pipeline and prevent a battle between protesters and police as was seen during the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota in 2016. The Times notes that Noem believes protesters were funded by “out-of-state liberal donors, such as George Soros.” South Dakota State Sen. John Wiik said the introduction of the new laws “stems from what happened up at Cannonball, North Dakota.”
Plaintiffs on the lawsuit include the NDN Collective, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Sierra Club, Dakota Rural Action, Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and Nick Tilsen, President and CEO of the NDN Collective.
“Gov. Kristi Noem’s legislation is yet another way to promote Big Oil interests and prevent dissent by making protesters subject to legal action,” says Kim Pate, Vice President of NDN Collective.
The NDN Collective recently wrote that the broad language in SB 189 means that “anyone that contributes to a protest, whether through monetary donations, donations of supplies, or even through organizing a page on social media, can be held liable, and have civil and criminal penalties for supporting a protest that the state deems ‘violent‘.” Further, the law states that individuals or organizations can be held liable even if they are not on the ground in South Dakota. The NDN Collective also states that the law would allow TransCanada to redirect money seized from protesters and organization towards pipeline construction.
The ACLU of South Dakota has also condemned the new laws, stating, “We’re prepared to stand on the front lines and defend your right to peacefully protest and express your opinions freely.”
It’s hard to think of a more fundamental right than the right to determine what happens to one’s own body. Forcing someone to undergo medical treatment against their will violates this most basic of rights—the right to be free from physical assault. Yet even somelibertarians have jumped on the mandatory vaccination bandwagon, arguing that one person not taking every possible precaution against contracting a disease constitutes an assault against another. But this line of thinking requires some very tortured logic
What Rights?
To
begin with, nobody has a “right” to a germ-free environment outside of
their own property (and good luck establishing one there). Proponents of
vaccine mandates assert this “right” as if it is a long-standing social
or legal norm, but it is not. Human beings have been living among each
other for millennia, and there has never been a widely asserted right to
freedom from any and all pathogens at others’ expense.
There has,
historically, been a widely held and asserted expectation of quarantine
in the case of exceptionally dangerous illnesses. However, this is not
at all what the proponents of mandated vaccines are calling for.
Quarantine is simply the demand that those who are already infected with
a disease remain isolated in their homes or elsewhere until they are no
longer able to infect others.
This is profoundly different from what the pro-mandate crowd demands: that those who are not infected undergo a medical procedure to minimize their chances of becoming infected. This is a much more intrusive demand and a potentially dangerous one.
Seriously? Measles?
Furthermore, measles—the scariest thing the mandate pushers can come up with—is not even on the list of federally quarantinable diseases. And rightly so, as it hardly qualifies as an exceptionally dangerous disease in the developed world.
Long before the vaccine was available, the mortality rate had fallen to around 1 in 10,000 cases, and it was widely considered to be a benign childhood illness that nearly everyone contracted.
So
what has changed in the last few years? How is it that all of a sudden,
measles has gone from a disease not even worthy of mandatory quarantine
for the infected to one that has generated near-mass hysteria and
demands for the far more intrusive forced medical intervention against
those who are not infected?
What About Herd Immunity?
In 2016, then-Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson announced that he had reversed his position on vaccine mandates and now supported them. The reason? Someone told him about herd immunity:
…I’ve
come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that
would in fact be issued would not be effective. So … it’s dependent that
you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise,
not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.
Had Johnson looked just a little more deeply, he would have learned that the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity is not as solid as its proponents would have us believe. The idea was first put forward by A.W. Hedrich in 1933, based on his observation that
measles outbreaks were suppressed when 68 percent of children had
contracted the measles virus. This observation had nothing to do with
vaccination, as the measles vaccine had not even been developed yet.
This
is an important distinction for a few reasons. Perhaps most
importantly: While the immunity conferred by contracting measles lasts a
lifetime, that conferred by vaccination does not. What this means is
that a 90 percent vaccination rate does not equate to 90 percent of the population having immunity. As Dr. Russell Blaylock says:
It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.F
If
we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent
massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we
have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the
population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not
existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have
occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten
doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the
public into accepting vaccinations.
The larger point, though, is that even if the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity did hold
up to scrutiny, it would at best be a positive externality—not
something that anyone has the right to demand from others at gunpoint.
But What about Those Who Cannot Be Vaccinated?
Others have written more comprehensively on the fallacy of using
medically fragile people as an excuse for forcing everyone to be
vaccinated. So I’ll just say this: Nobody has an obligation to vaccinate
themselves or their children in order to protect the most medically
vulnerable among us.
My own daughter is intellectually disabled
and suffers from seizures. Much of the outside world is a dangerous and
scary place where she could easily be badly hurt or worse. Yet I would
never dream of using force to compel those around me to make the world
safe for my daughter. Keeping her safe is my job and my husband’s job—not everyone else’s.
I
doubt that those who promote this line of thinking have really thought
through the implications of what they are asking for: requiring everyone to
alter their lives and actions in order to accommodate the most
medically fragile, at all times and in all spaces. What they are
demanding has implications far beyond vaccines.
Adults Too?
And
if they really do believe that not being vaccinated constitutes a form
of aggression against others, then why confine their demands to
children?You do not have the right to force a medical procedure on another person.
Why
should you and I and the vast majority of all adults in the US be
exempt from the requirement to be completely up to date on all of the vaccines the CDC and its pharmaceuticalindustrycronies have
decided we should have? Are we not also committing aggression every day
we go out in public, exposing others to diseases we do not yet have but
might possibly contract?Of course, if disease transmission is really
what the proponents of vaccine mandates are worried about, then they
should also demand that those recently vaccinated with live-virus vaccines not be allowed in schools or any public spaces. And if they aren’t demanding this, then one has to wonder whether the transmission of disease really is their primary concern.
The
bottom line, though, has nothing to do with the science behind
vaccines, nor with herd immunity, nor competing claims about vaccine
safety and vaccine harm. Nor does it have to do with how serious
diseases like measles are or are not. It is simply this: You do not have
the right to force a medical procedure on another person.
This is
libertarian thinking 101. You are free to do whatever you wish with
what is yours—and other people are not yours. You do not own them, and
you do not get to make decisions over their bodies and their lives. You
may exclude them from your property if you wish, but you may not force
them to undergo medical (or non-medical) procedures against their will.
You don’t even have to be a libertarian to understand this. The right to
bodily integrity, to be free from assault, is the most fundamental of
all human rights. If it is not protected, then no other rights even
matter.
About the Author
Bretigne Shaffer was a journalist in Asia for many years. She is now a mom, independent writer, and author of “Urban Yogini: A Superhero Who Can’t Use Violence“, and the upcoming “Annabel Pickering and the Sky Pirates.” She blogs at On the Banks.
In recent years we’ve seen a number of credible scientific reports indicating that electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices is linked to the development of cancers, including brain and heart cancer. And as the world’s wireless network is upgraded to 5G, we may soon see a dramatic spike in cases of cancer, and people in high places are speaking out to warn the public.
Additionally, warnings about the safety of emerging 5G technology are everywhere, and even the California Brain Tumor Association issued a public warning. But, we’re already living in a world that has grown dependent on wireless and bluetooth technology, with an array of consumer products like Apple’s AirPods which act as wireless transmitters/receivers sitting right next to the brain, nestled among the most sensitive parts of the ear.
This is a recipe for a public health disaster, and to emphasize this, a group of 250 scientists from over 40 countries have signed a petition to the WHO and the UN to warn them about the documented dangers of radio wave radiation from WiFi, cell phones and bluetooth.
“Apple’s wireless AirPods, for example, ‘communicate with one another using a magnetic induction field, a variable magnetic field [one] sends through your brain to communicate with the other,’ explains Dr Joel Moskowitz.
Dr Moskowitz, a University of California, Berkeley community health professor who focuses on cell phone exposures, says there isn’t even research on what this could do to the brain yet, let alone regulations to limit the potential effects.” [Source]
The opening statement of the petition lists a litany of current technological products that are all linked to physiological disorders, disease and even cancer.
“We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).” [Source]
Read the full petition, here. And for more information on the potential harm of 5G and wireless technologies, please review the following links:
Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer forWakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.
For centuries bank deposits have come with a comforting guarantee. Depositors have always been able to quickly convert them at par into cash.
But this guarantee is slowly being eroded. Banks in Canada, Ireland, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden are closing full-service branches and adopting a less-staffed “cashless bank” model. In a cashless branch, customers can no longer deposit or withdraw cash over the counter.
The next step will be when banks remove their external ATM machines too. Once this happens, we’ll have entered a strange new world where bank deposits are permanently inconvertible.
But if we don’t want a world with cashless banks, here’s a potential solution. Maybe banks should be allowed to issue their own unique brand of banknotes. By doing so, bankers may have more of an incentive to promote cash availability.
Bankers have been steadily introducing cashless banks over the last few years in response to falling customer demand for cash. With fewer people wanting to withdraw or deposit cash, the cost of offering these services gets harder to justify to shareholders.
Some commentators worry that banks are not simply reacting to customer preferences but are taking an active role in reducing cash usage. In a recent opinion piece, Brett Scott accuses banks of nudging customers away from cash by re-designing the withdrawal and deposit processes to be less accommodating.
As Scott points out, banks have an incentive to move customers into cards and other digital channels because that way they can make more profit off of transactions and suck up more data. Furthermore, deposits compete with central bank-issued banknotes as a form of saving. Banks prefer that consumers lodge cash at the bank because deposits are a low-cost source of funding for banks.
That banks are sole distributors of a third-party product that they directly compete with represents a major conflict of interest. This arrangement is unfortunate given cash’s many benefits. To begin with, it makes for a great back-up payments system — unlike card-based systems, cash can’t crash. It is also used by many people for budgeting purposes. And finally, banknotes allow people to regulate how much personal information they must give up in transactions. I’ve talked about many of these advantages before.
Given that cash is important to society, but banks have a perverse incentive to prevent its circulation, what is the solution? Perhaps the answer is to get banks on side by allowing them to issue their own banknotes. If they have a direct financial stake in the fate of cash, then banks will be less conflicted in the role they play as society’s main distributors of coins and banknotes.
Ireland is an interesting case study. The Bank of Ireland is the largest private bank in both the Republic of Ireland (a separate country) and Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK). Oddly enough, even as the Bank of Ireland threatens to make most of its branches in the Republic of Ireland cash-free, the northern arm of the bank is rolling out new polymer banknotes in 2019.
Banks in Northern Ireland and Scotland enjoy a long tradition of issuing their own banknotes. Of the four note-issuing banks in Northern Ireland, the Bank of Ireland is the largest issuer followed by Ulster Bank, Danske, and First Trust. As of the end of 2018, the big four had issued £2.9 billion worth of banknotes. These banks aren’t obligated to provide Northern Ireland with cash. They print it because their customers want it.
The Bank of England, UK’s central bank, requires Northern Ireland’s private note issuers to “back” each pound they issue with at least 60 cents in Bank of England notes or coins. The other 40 cents in backing can be held in an interest-yielding account at the Bank of England.
Northern Ireland’s cash-issuing banks thus enjoy two advantages relative to banks that cannot issue cash. Since they needn’t pay any interest to their banknote customers, but enjoy interest on the backing assets held in their account at Bank of England, they earn a recurring flow of income on each note that they put into circulation. Secondly, the circulation of their particular brand of banknotes serves as a form of free advertisement. The more of its notes that a bank can get the public to use, the more visibility it steals from competitors.
Thus, the Bank of Ireland’s northern operations have an incentive to ensure that cash is always available to depositors. But the bank’s southern arm, which distributes euro banknotes, does not have the same incentive, since it doesn’t directly share in the financial advantages of promoting cash usage.
The benefits of issuing cash can be sizable. For instance, at the end of 2017 Ulster Bank has issued £803 million in banknotes. This accounts for 7% of the bank’s total £11,501 million in liabilities. Given that Ulster Bank currently pays as much as 0.85% on its other liabilities, including savings accounts, the ability to issue notes at 0% significantly reduces its funding costs. I doubt that Ulster Bank would want to sabotage this gift.
Critics will point out that allowing banks to issue cash comes at the expense of the tax payer. That’s true. All of the profits that the Bank of England earns are paid back to the state, and ultimately the taxpaying citizens. By directing a bit of interest to the Bank of Ireland and other private issuers, that leaves less for the state.
But notice that Bank of England strikes a careful balance. It only allows the Bank of Ireland, Ulster Bank, and other private issuers to keep 40% of their backing assets in an interest-yielding account, the other 60% being lodged in no-yield Bank of England banknotes. So the current Northern Irish arrangement illustrates how it is possible to accommodate both taxpayers, banks, and their customers.
Alternatively, banks could invest the 40% in a higher yielding loan portfolio. Although some people might have financial stability concerns, we know from Selgin and White’s explorations of free banking that private banknote systems can be quite sound.
Allowing private banks to issue banknotes may seem like a radical solution. But by fixing the dysfunctional relationship between banks and cash, this option may help prevent an equally radical scenario from emerging; a world with only cashless banks.
In the battle to gain an edge over competitors, companies spend millions of dollars to understand consumers through focus groups, surveys, and sophisticated analytics. But too often, because most people don’t really know what they want, these methods waste time and resources. There is a better way: educating consumers, rather than listening to them.
Consider, for example, three very different products: coffee, diamonds, and smartphones. Billions of people around the world have enjoyed coffee for over five centuries. But our understanding of the product has changed dramatically since Starbucks debuted in Seattle in 1971 and grew to a global powerhouse with more than 28,000 locations. Similarly, DeBeers took a luxury gemstone — diamonds — and created a broader market for it by associating it with romance and marriage. By 2013, diamond sales topped $70 billion, up from virtually nothing in 1932. The stones were the same, but consumers were taught that they had a new meaning — and value. Finally, in the case of smartphones, Steve Jobs famously argued against the traditional approach: “Some people say, ‘Give the customers what they want.’ But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do…People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”
To better understand how firms succeed by educating consumers, we studied the U.S. wine industry. Winemaking has remained largely unchanged for 7,000 years, but the United States wine industry has ballooned from just over $30 billion in 2002 to more than $60 billion today, making it the largest in the world. The number of U.S. wineries has grown by 50% to nearly 10,000 just in the past decade. Some have redefined great wine, gained the loyalty of passionate consumers, and command extraordinary prices.
How did these firms achieve the benefits often associated with disruptive innovation in an industry in which the technology has remained largely unchanged for millenniums? To explore this question, we have since 2010 immersed ourselves in the wine industry, focusing primarily on U.S. producers but also studying a few from Italy and France for whom the U.S. market is important. These ranged from small, boutique wineries to large multinational firms; some were established in the last 30 years, while others date back to the 14th century. We met with winemakers, vineyard workers, marketing executives, CEOs, critics, writers, importers, and we observed and interviewed consumers in their homes and at wine shops, multi-vendor events, bars, restaurants, and wineries. From 58 interviews, we produced more than 2,300 pages of transcripts, field notes, documents, and photos. We found that, like Starbucks, DeBeers and Apple, wine producers shape markets through vision and social influence. Here’s how they do it.
Step 1: Envision something extraordinary
Wine producers see customers as having limited expertise and demonstrating inconsistent, difficult-to-predict preferences. This is why, rather than seeking and responding to consumer input, they seek to influence tastes.
Christian Moueix, best known for producing France’s legendary Château Petrus from Pomerol, offers an example. Moueix purchased a vineyard in Napa Valley, where vintners make rich, lush, wines that are high in alcohol. Industry professionals call these wines fruit bombs, and the most popular sell for hundreds of dollars. But Moueix told us that he “hates” this style of wine, and he rejects many common California practices. Instead, he prefers an approach he developed in Bordeaux, which includes no role for consumer input. “I make what pleases me,” he explained.
We heard versions of this sentiment again and again. One American winemaker told us that consumers “don’t respect the product … don’t understand wine … don’t care.” Another executive said: “I’m not going to be asking the market what it wants because they don’t know what they want until I show them.”
Some producers even wear their lack of interest in profit as a badge . “We are not here to break even, we are here to break the rules, break records, and break through,” one California winery owner proudly proclaimed.
Instead of responding to consumers or chasing financial returns, winemakers pursue a vision, much like an artist imagines a work. Constrained only by the vineyard and history, they aim to make a personal contribution.
Step 2: Mobilize those with influence
Even as wine producers dismiss customer input and the pursuit of profit, they value the opinions of peers and influential media and critics, including Karen MacNeil, Jancis Robinson, The Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, Vinuous Media, and The Wine Advocate’sRobert Parker.
Critics typically score wine on a 0-to-20 or 0-to-100 scale and provide tasting notes; an additional point from Parker generates €2.80, or $3.00, of revenue per bottle, according to one analysis, while a difference of ten points can mean millions of euros for a large-scale producer, and a perfect score of 100 can support a three- or fourfold price increase.
Some producers engineer wines to earn high scores, but those that shape markets are more subtle. They aim to build influential relationships with industry movers and shakers, rather than to please them. They educate these experts in their histories, winemakers, and visions for the future and thus gain some control over the stories that reach the public. They provide the language needed to help people “discover the soul” of their wines.
One producer we interviewed invites sommeliers, journalists, and others to experience the harvest at his vineyards in France each fall. A small group of five to six guests stay at the elegant home of the owner. Accompanied by the winemaker, the guests stroll through the vineyards, taste wines from previous vintages, and discuss their experience over dinner. The event is designed to make them feel connected to the brand and then advocate for it.
Through these kinds of experiences, a consensus emerges about which wines are excellent, and which are extraordinary, and ultimately this is what defines the winners and the losers in the industry. Moueix’s Dominus Estate offers a case in point. When he released the first vintage of Dominus Estate in 1988, it was neither a Napa Valley fruit bomb nor a Moueix wine from Bordeaux, which prompted debate: Was it more French or more Californian? Was it really worth $40? Moueix explained his vision to critics and journalists, as a songwriter might explain the meaning of a lyric. He wanted the wine to express its terroir — the soil, the weather, the sunshine, the natural environment — of its legendary Yountville, California vineyard. He also favored dry farming (no irrigation), thinning the crop, and harvesting grapes early. Thus, Dominus Estate became understood as a unique blend of “Napa terroir, Bordeaux spirit.” Over time, critics began describing it as a new benchmark for the region, and high scores followed. Parker awarded the 2001 vintage 98 points. Three critics awarded the 2013 vintage a rare 100 points—perfection.
Step 3: Let consumers react and share
Consumers looking to buy a bottle of wine confront thousands of choices. In fact, many of the shoppers we spoke to described the experience as stressful; they were fearful of making a poor choice and looking ignorant or of missing an opportunity to make an evening more special. To navigate, they invariably turn to those experts that the wineries have worked so hard to influence.
Despite questions about the objectivity of wine scores, critics still drive the behavior of retail and hospitality buyers and consumers. One retailer conducted an experiment in which he stacked two California Chardonnays next to each other and posted their Wine Advocate scores and tasting notes below the bottles. The bottle with a score of 92 outsold the bottle with a score 84 ten to one. When the same wines were displayed with tasting notes only, sales were roughly even. As another example, Moueix sold every case available from the 2013 Dominus Estate vintage and bottles that remain on retail shelves bear price tags of $300 or more.
The chain reaction is clear. Vision flows from producer to critic. Retailers stock wines critics and other experts praise, and sommeliers add their newest discoveries to wine lists. Retailers and sommeliers then share their favorite wines with consumers, who share what they’ve bought and enjoyed with their friends and families. The most dedicated visit celebrated wineries, join wine clubs, learn more, and share what they have learned with others. From beginning to end, the process is an educational one.
Producers of wines deemed extraordinary define categories and set benchmarks. Consumers become fans and pay premium prices, despite the availability of literally thousands of excellent alternatives. This ensures the financial success of those firms, even as they reject consumer input and feign the pursuit of profit.
From learning to educating
As products become more complex and consumers feel more pressed for time, we believe that firms in all industries will increasingly succeed by having a unique vision, cultivating expert advocates through authentic connections, driving expert consensus, and allowing consumers to react and share. Firms that gain advantage through simply responding to customers are vulnerable to disruption. Those that shape markets using social influence and education can endure.
Gregory Carpenter is James Farley/Booz Allen Hamilton Professor of Marketing Strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. He is co-author of Resurgence: The Four Stages of Market-Focused Reinventionand co-hosts the school’s annual Marketing Leadership Summit, where thought leaders explore the future of marketing.
Ashlee Humphreys is Associate Professor of Integrated Marketing Communications at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media and Integrated Marketing Communications, and Associate Professor of Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management. She is author of Social Media: Enduring Principles.
How to Disagree with Someone More Powerful than You
Your boss proposes a new initiative you think won’t work. Your senior colleague outlines a project timeline you think is unrealistic. What do you say when you disagree with someone who has more power than you do? How do you decide whether it’s worth speaking up? And if you do, what exactly should you say?
What the Experts Say It’s a natural human reaction to shy away from disagreeing with a superior. “Our bodies specialize in survival, so we have a natural bias to avoid situations that might harm us,” says Joseph Grenny, the coauthor of Crucial Conversationsand the cofounder of VitalSmarts, a corporate training company. “The heart of the anxiety is that there will be negative implications,” adds Holly Weeks, the author of Failure to Communicate. We immediately think, “He’s not going to like me,” “She’s going to think I’m a pain,” or maybe even “I’ll get fired.” Although “it’s just plain easier to agree,” Weeks says that’s not always the right thing to do. Here’s how to disagree with someone more powerful than you.
Be realistic about the risks Most people tend to overplay the risks involved in speaking up. “Our natural bias is to start by imagining all the things that will go horribly wrong,” Grenny says. Yes, your counterpart might be surprised and a little upset at first. But chances are you’re not going to get fired or make a lifelong enemy. He suggests you first consider “the risks of not speaking up” — perhaps the project will be derailed or you’ll lose the team’s trust — then realistically weigh those against the potential consequences of taking action.
Decide whether to wait After this risk assessment, you may decide it’s best to hold off on voicing your opinion. Maybe “you haven’t finished thinking the problem through, the whole discussion was a surprise to you, or you want to get a clearer sense of what the group thinks,” says Weeks. “If you think other people are going to disagree too, you might want to gather your army first. People can contribute experience or information to your thinking — all the things that would make the disagreement stronger or more valid.” It’s also a good idea to delay the conversation if you’re in a meeting or other public space. Discussing the issue in private will make the powerful person feel less threatened.
Identify a shared goal Before you share your thoughts, think about what the powerful person cares about — it may be “the credibility of their team or getting a project done on time,” says Grenny. You’re more likely to be heard if you can connect your disagreement to a “higher purpose.” When you do speak up, don’t assume the link will be clear. You’ll want to state it overtly, contextualizing your statements so that you’re seen not as a disagreeable underling but as a colleague who’s trying to advance a shared goal. The discussion will then become “more like a chess game than a boxing match,” says Weeks.
Ask permission to disagree This step may sound overly deferential, but, according to Grenny, it’s a smart way to give the powerful person “psychological safety” and control. You can say something like, “I know we seem to be moving toward a first-quarter commitment here. I have reasons to think that won’t work. I’d like to lay out my reasoning. Would that be OK?” This gives the person a choice, “allowing them to verbally opt in,” says Grenny. And, assuming they say yes, it will make you feel more confident about voicing your disagreement.
Stay calm You might feel your heart racing or your face turning red, but do whatever you can to remain neutral in both your words and actions. When your body language communicates reluctance or anxiety, it undercuts the message, Weeks says. It sends “a mixed message, and your counterpart gets to choose what to read,” she explains. Deep breaths can help, as can speaking more slowly and deliberately. “When we feel panicky we tend to talk louder and faster. You don’t want to be mousey or talk in a whisper, but simply slowing the pace and talking in an even tone helps calm the other person down and does the same for you,” says Grenny. It also makes you seem confident, even if you aren’t.
Validate the original point After you’ve gotten permission, articulate the other person’s point of view. What is the idea, opinion, or proposal that you’re disagreeing with? Stating that clearly, possibly even better than your counterpart did, lays a strong foundation for the discussion. “You want your counterpart to say, ‘She understands.’ You don’t want to get in a fight about whether you get her point,” Weeks explains.
Don’t make judgments When you move on to expressing your concerns, watch your language carefully. Grenny says to avoid any “judgment words” such as “short-sighted,” “foolish,” or “hasty” that might set off your counterpart; one of his tips is to cut out all adjectives, since “they have the potential to be misinterpreted or taken personally.” Share only facts. For example, instead of saying, “I think that first-quarter deadline is naïve,” you can say, “We’ve tried four projects like this in the past, and we were able to do two in a similar time period, but those were special circumstances.” Weeks also recommends staying neutral and focused: “Lay off the players and be vivid about the problem. Try to make it an honest disagreement, a worthwhile advancement of thought.”
Stay humble Emphasize that you’re offering your opinion, not “gospel truth,” says Grenny. “It may be a well-informed, well-researched opinion, but it’s still an opinion, [so] talk tentatively and slightly understate your confidence.” Instead of saying something like, “If we set an end-of-quarter deadline, we’ll never make it,” say, “This is just my opinion, but I don’t see how we will make that deadline.” Weeks suggests adding a lot of “guiding phrases” like “I’m thinking aloud here.” This will leave room for dialogue. Having asserted your position (as a position, not as a fact), “demonstrate equal curiosity about other views,” says Grenny. Remind the person that this is your point of view, and then invite critique. Weeks suggests trying something like, “Tell me where I’m wrong with this.” Be genuinely open to hearing other opinions.
Acknowledge their authority Ultimately, the person in power is probably going to make the final decision, so acknowledge that. You might say, “I know you’ll make the call here. This is up to you.” That will not only show that you know your place but also remind them that they have choices, Grenny says. Don’t backtrack on your opinion or give false praise, though. “You want to show respect to the person while maintaining your own self-respect,” says Weeks.
Principles to Remember
Do:
Explain that you have a different opinion and ask if you can voice it.
Restate the original point of view or decision so it’s clear you understand it.
Speak slowly — talking in an even tone calms you and the other person down.
Don’t:
Assume that disagreeing is going to damage your relationship or career — the consequences are often less dramatic than we think.
State your opinions as facts; simply express your point of view and be open to dialogue.
Use judgment words, such as “hasty,” “foolish,” or “wrong,” that might upset or incite your counterpart.
Case Study #1: Show respect for the idea Victor Chiu, a business development manager at Centaria Properties, in Vancouver, was concerned that his boss, Patrick, was making a hasty decision. Weak Canadian oil prices had created favorable economic conditions for snatching up real estate, and there was a small plot of land with an operations warehouse in Alberta that Patrick thought the company should buy. At the time, Victor says, “Alberta’s economy was just starting to feel the pinch. Oil was at $45 a barrel and was still on its way down — without any signs of stabilization.” He was worried that the company would be overextended if it made the purchase, so he decided to speak up.
Victor looked his boss in the eye, spoke in a “smooth, casual tone,” and asked Patrick to keep an open mind about the proposal. He said, “I think it’s a great idea, but with oil just starting to slide and with no bottoming out in sight, bigger and better opportunities should present themselves in the near future.” He knew it was important to show respect for Patrick and his idea and to emphasize that he wanted the best for the company. He also made sure to propose a solution: “Let’s wait a bit to see if we can get a better deal, and then pull the trigger.”
“When you disagree with someone more powerful than you, you should always have a constructive reason to oppose. In my case, the reason was timing,” Victor says. Patrick didn’t take offense and was curious to hear more about Victor’s reasoning. Ultimately, they decided to hold off on making the investment.
Case Study #2: Make it about the company, not you Mike McRitchie, owner of the consultancy Critical Path Action, has had reason to disagree with people more powerful than he on several occasions.
In a previous job, as the director of operations for a small consulting business, he disagreed with how his boss, the owner of the company, wanted to handle a health insurance decision. The boss wanted to survey the staff about two different options, letting them make the final choice on which one to adopt. But “as leaders, this was a decision I felt we should be making rather than delegating it to the whole staff,” Mike explains. “I’m all for getting feedback, but when it comes time to make a tough call, it isn’t fair to put that responsibility on the staff’s shoulders.”
Mike decided to share his opinion, emphasizing his commitment to the firm and making sure that his body language was not “at all unsure or tentative.” His boss was shocked at first; Mike had a reputation for being reserved, so open disagreement was “out of character” for him. But his boss could see that “I cared for the company and our leaders and staff,” Mike says. “I had no personal agenda.”
The boss agreed to abandon the staff poll idea, and “he’s respected me to this day,” Mike adds. “If you make it about the company’s best interests, instead of about you, then you have the best opportunity to win.”
This post originally appeared on Harvard Business Review. This article is republished here with permission.
Feeling hungry? You may want to read the rest of this article before you head to your favorite fast food restaurant and order your usual chemical and prescription drug-ridden meal. Did you know you’re likely eating crushed beetles and or duck feathers with your fast food burger? Here are some of the most disgusting additives you’re eating when you hit the drive-thru:
Nothing helps mass-produce bread like ammonium sulfate. Unfortunately, nothing fertilizers soil or kills bugs like it either. Read more about ammonium sulfate and other nasty bread additives here: 5 Dangerous Additives Hidden In Packaged Bread
Chicken McNuggets are full of dimethylpolysiloxane, a silicone oil that is often used for making contact lenses and other medical items. Learn more about your beloved McNuggets here: The Chicken That Should Be Banned
Fast food restaurants use Cysteine-L, an amino acid synthesized from human hair or duck feathers, to flavor their meat and soften their breads and pastries.
This additive can be found in 18 McDonald’s menu items. It’s potentially lethal, but don’t worry, the FDA says it’s generally regarded as safe (GRAS). Learn more about TBHQ here: The Petroleum Byproduct You Are Most Likely Eating
5.) Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol is a chemical compound that can be found in anti-freeze, e-cigarettes, and that’s right! Fast food!
By testing feathers, researchers from Johns Hopkins University found some very interesting characteristics of factory-farm-raised poultry. And you thought the pink slime scandal was bad? Anti-depressants as well as other prescription drugs are added to chicken feed for fast food “poultry” items. That’s right, those McChicken sandwiches and McNuggets come from chickens that were raised on a steady diet of prescription, over-the-counter, and even banned drugs. Learn more about it here: 3 Dirty Chicken Facts Exposed
You’ll find this in almost any fried fast food menu item and also in silly putty, contact lenses, caulking, shampoo and conditioners, cosmetics, polishes, heat resistant tiles, and the list goes on… Learn more about Dimethylpolysiloxane by following this link.
This industrial sand is used in things like Wendy’s chili to keep it from clumping together. Mmm… industrial sand. Learn more about silicon dioxide HERE.
Cooking your own food has never sounded more appealing. If you think you can’t afford it, follow this link to learn how to grow your own organic produce. What’s that all you have is an apartment? Check out these tips for apartment gardening!
Typhus Epidemic Spreads Across Liberal Utopia of Los Angeles Due to Mountains of Trash, Growing Homeless Population
by Cristina LailaFebruary 1, 2019
A typhus epidemic is worsening in the liberal utopia of Los Angeles, California due to a growing homeless population and mountains of rat-infested trash.
Nothing says “progressive” more than a medieval infectious disease like typhus fever spreading through a city in the year 2019.
Typhus is mainly spreading across the homeless population through fleas that live on the rats that rummage in heaps of trash, however Liz Greenwood, the Deputy City Attorney who works at City Hall contracted the disease.
Symptoms of typhus include fever, headache and a rash. Untreated cases are fatal.
“It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck,” Greenwood told NBC 4. “Who gets typhus? It’s a medieval disease that’s caused by trash.”
Ms. Greenwood believes she contracted typhus from fleas that have infested her office at City Hall East.
“There are rats in City Hall and City Hall East,” Greenwood added. “There are enormous rats and their tails are as long as their bodies.”
2018 set the record for the number of typhus cases, reported NBC. 124 cases in Los Angeles County were reported, according to the California Department of Public Health.
In October, Mayor Garcetti promised to clean up the heaps of rat-infested trash piling up around Los Angeles to help combat the Typhus epidemic.
Even though the Mayor allocated millions of dollars to help clean up the LA, especially Skid Row, knows as “the Typhus Zone,” there are still mountains of trash everywhere and the infectious disease is worsening.
A statement from Mayor Garcetti’s office was given to NBC Los Angeles:
“Last fall we directed multiple City departments to begin a coordinated and comprehensive effort to improve cleanliness and protect public health in the Civic Center, including City Hall and City Hall East. In addition to increased trash collection and cleanings, aggressive action has been taken to address pests both in the buildings and in the surrounding outside areas — including abatement treatments and the filling of 60 rodent burrows and 114 tree wells. This work in busy and highly populated public buildings is executed carefully to protect workers and visitors, and the scheduling of extermination activities takes these factors into consideration.” — Vicki Curry, spokeswoman, city of Los Angeles
When people think of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), one of the things that come to mind is acupuncture and herbs. However, a study published in the African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines looked at the benefits of moxibustion and its potential to prevent cell death and decrease the likelihood of gastric dysplasia — a condition wherein lesions form in the gastric mucosa that will ultimately develop into cancer.
Researchers used in vivo tests to investigate how moxibustion protects the gastric mucosa from developing cancer. In the test, Sprague-Dawley rats were given a solution that contained N-methyl-N`-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) to induce gastric precancerous lesions, an indicator that the cells in the stomach are turning abnormal.
Aside from the control group, the experimental groups were divided to those that received drug treatment, those that received a “sham” moxibustion treatment, and those that received a standard moxibustion treatment. Rats in both moxibustion groups were treated for 15 minutes every other day for the duration of the study, which ran for 20 weeks. At the end of the study, the samples’ gastric mucosa were extracted and analyzed for any morphologic changes.
The researchers found that rats under standard moxibustion treatment had a decreased expression of lesions, which indicated that the treatment was able to suppress the development of gastric precancerous lesions. Moreover, it also inhibited B-cell lymphoma 2 (bcl-2), tumor protein P53, and cellular Myc (C-MYC), which are all associated with cell death and the production of cancer cells.
Fast facts on moxibustion
Moxibustion is a technique that uses heat to promote healing of the body. The process involves burning mugwort, a small herb that has been used in both Western medicine and TCM, at the acupuncture point to stimulate qi flow, strengthen the blood, and maintain overall health.
There are two forms of moxibustion — direct and indirect. In a direct moxibustion procedure, a small amount moxa (a dried mugwort stick) is burned above an acupuncture point and is left there until it burns out completely. While this form was the favorite of ancient practitioners, it may lead to some localized blisters in some cases. Indirect moxibustion involves burning the moxa at the acupuncture point and removing it just before it gets to the skin.
Patients who undergo moxibustion report a “pleasurable, heating sensation,” at no risk of pain. However, people with existing respiratory conditions should notify their health practitioner before the procedure as the smoke may hurt them.
Studies have pointed out that both acupuncture and moxibustion operate in a similar field, as they both make use of meridians and acupoints. In particular, moxibustion uses both the meridian system and the role of moxa and fire.
During a moxibustion procedure, the skin regions where the acupoints are located serve as “terminals” of the meridian system, where stimulation from the procedure is transferred into the body. This allows the body to recover from a diseased state or activate the self-recovering properties of the meridian. However, moxibustion is different from acupuncture, which cures a distinct set of diseases.
Moreover, in the book Elementary Medicine, it states that when a condition cannot be treated with medicine and acupuncture, it should be addressed by moxibustion, as it uses the unique properties of moxa and fire. The fire used in moxibustion is defined to be “hot and rapid” which allows moxibustion to remove the shadow in a soft body, with the Yang fire removing the Yin cold and phlegm quickly. This speed allows the fire to flood the channels, remove pain and numbness, and activate blood and qi.
Moxibustion also takes into consideration the types of materials that will be burned with the moxa, depending on the nature of the condition. Moxa is used for its pharmacological properties, as well as its availability.
Learn more about TCM and how it can further help you by heading to ChineseMedicine.news.
The magnetic North Pole is hurtling towards Siberia so quickly scientists have had to release new data a year ahead of schedule to keep navigation systems working properly
World Magnetic Model (WMM) gives compasses the means to navigate north
WMM provides a five year forecast of changes to the Earth’s magnetic field
The North Pole is moving so rapidly that current estimates weren’t accurate
Monday’s update showed the magnetic north is leaving the Canadian Arctic towards Siberia at a speed of around 34 miles (55km) per year
PUBLISHED: 15:32 EST, 4 February 2019 | UPDATED: 12:19 EST, 5 February 2019
Earth’s magnetic North Pole has been wildly shifting towards Russia so quickly that scientists have been forced to publish an update on its actual location a year early.
The World Magnetic Model (WMM) enables compasses to point north and is used in navigation systems. Its latest update revealed the North Magnetic Pole is wandering about 34 miles a year. It crossed the international dateline in 2017 and is leaving the Canadian Arctic on its way to Siberia.
This is causing a navigational nightmare for compasses in smartphones, boats and for airport navigators as well as in some consumer electronics, and WMM was forced to update a year early in order to keep it accurate.
Scroll down for video
Earth’s north magnetic pole has been drifting so fast in the last few decades that scientists say that past estimates are no longer accurate enough for precise navigation. The World Magnetic Model was updated on Monday, showing it is wandering about 34 miles (55 km) a year
WMM provides a five year forecast of changes to the Earth’s magnetic field. The US and UK tend to update the location of the North Magnetic Pole every five years in December, but this update came early because of the pole’s faster movement.
It had been hoped that the updated model could be released even earlier, last month, but it was held up by the recent shutdown in the US government, which oversees the project along with the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Turbulence in in the planet’s core, where the motion generates an electric field, has caused the field to change in systems described as ‘akin to weather’.
Airplanes and boats also rely on magnetic north, usually as backup navigation, said University of Colorado geophysicist Dr Arnaud Chulliat, lead author of the WMM.
The military depends on where magnetic north is for navigation and parachute drops, while NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and US Forest Service also use it. GPS is not affected because it’s satellite-based.
Airport runway names are also based on their direction toward magnetic north and their names change when the poles moved.
For example, the airport in Fairbanks, Alaska, renamed a runway 1L-19R to 2L-20R in 2009.
Since 1831 when it was first measured in the Canadian Arctic it has moved about 1400 miles (2300 km) towards Siberia.
The magnetic north pole is located at the white star and the individual lines in red and blue show the magentic field lines of Earth. These are used in navigation systems by boats and for airport navigators as well as in some consumer electronics
Its speed jumped from about 9 mph (15 kph) to 34 mph (55 kph) since 2000.
The reason is turbulence in Earth’s liquid outer core. There is a hot liquid ocean of iron and nickel in the planet’s core where the motion generates an electric field, said University of Maryland geophysicist Dr Daniel Lathrop.
Dr Lathrop, who who wasn’t part of the team monitoring the magnetic north pole said: ‘It has changes akin to weather. We might just call it magnetic weather.’
WHY ARE THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELDS MOVING?
The problem lies partly with the moving pole and partly with other shifts deep within the planet.
Liquid churning in Earth’s core generates most of the magnetic field, which varies over time as the deep flows change.
In 2016, for instance, part of the magnetic field temporarily accelerated deep under northern South America and the eastern Pacific Ocean. Satellites such as the European Space Agency’s Swarm mission tracked the shift.
The magnetic south pole is moving far slower than the north.
In general Earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker, leading scientists to say that it will eventually flip, where north and south pole changes polarity, like a bar magnet flipping over.
It has happened numerous times in Earth’s past, but not in the last 780,000 years.
‘It’s not a question of if it’s going to reverse, the question is when it’s going to reverse,’ Dr Lathrop said.
When it reverses, it won’t be like a coin flip, but take 1,000 or more years, experts said.
Dr Lathrop sees a flip coming sooner rather than later because of the weakened magnetic field and an area over the South Atlantic has already reversed beneath Earth’s surface.
That could bother some birds that use magnetic fields to navigate. And an overall weakening of the magnetic field isn’t good for people and especially satellites and astronauts.
The magnetic field shields Earth from some dangerous radiation, Dr Lathrop said.
Scientists in recent years have predicted that Earth’s magnetic field could be gearing up to ‘flip’ – a shift in which the magnetic south pole would become magnetic north, and vice versa. Earth’s magnetic field is illustrated above
WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO EARTH IF ITS POLES FLIPPED?
The Earth’s magnetic field is in a permanent state of change.
Magnetic north drifts around and every few hundred thousand years the polarity flips so a compass would point south instead of north.
The strength of the magnetic field also constantly changes and currently it is showing signs of significant weakening.
Life has existed on the Earth for billions of years, during which there have been many reversals.
There is no obvious correlation between animal extinctions and those reversals. Likewise, reversal patterns do not have any correlation with human development and evolution.
It appears that some animals, such as whales and some birds use Earth’s magnetic field for migration and direction finding.
Since geomagnetic reversal takes a number of thousands of years, they could well adapt to the changing magnetic environment or develop different methods of navigation.
Radiation at ground level would increase, however, with some estimates suggesting that overall exposure to cosmic radiation would double causing more deaths from cancer. ‘But only slightly,’ said Professor Richard Holme.
‘And much less than lying on the beach in Florida for a day. So if it happened, the protection method would probably be to wear a big floppy hat.’
The movement of the Earth’s magnetic poles are shown in this animation at 10-year intervals from 1970 to 2020. The red and blue lines sjpw the difference between magnetic north and true north depending on where you are standing. On the green line, a compass would point to true north. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
Electric grid collapse from severe solar storms is a major risk. As the magnetic field continues to weaken, scientists are highlighting the importance off-the grid energy systems using renewable energy sources to protect the Earth against a black out.
‘The very highly charged particles can have a deleterious effect on the satellites and astronauts,’ added Dr Mona Kessel, a Magnetosphere discipline scientist at Nasa.
In one area, there is evidence that a flip is already occurring. ‘The increasing strength of the South Atlantic anomaly, an area of weak field over Brazil, is already a problem,’ said Professor Richard Holme.
The Earth’s climate could also change. A recent Danish study has found that the earth’s weather has been significantly affected by the planet’s magnetic field.
They claimed that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
