Effort to tell advertisers to drop Fox

An effort to tell advertisers to drop Fox News is gathering steam.

“Tell advertisers to drop their sponsorship of Fox ‘News,’ which has degenerated into hate-speech and propaganda that has incited violence,” reads the People for the American Way website in a new post.

An online form reads: “Dear Fox Advertiser,

“I agree with Tides Foundation CEO Drummond Pike:

“Businesses that pay to broadcast commercials on Fox News are subsidizing Glenn Beck’s television show by continuing to pump money into the network. It has become clear that the only way to stop supporting Beck is to stop supporting Fox News.

“I respectfully request that you bring this matter of your company’s sponsorship of hate speech leading to violence to the attention of your fellow directors as soon as possible. I believe no responsible company should advertise on Fox News due to its recent and on-going deplorable conduct.”

Pike’s full letter to Fox advertisers reads: “For hours every day on radio and television, Beck pits American against American, telling his audience that our country is under attack by a demonic Nazi-like regime seeking to destroy all that is great about America while insisting it’s up to his viewers to resist and revolt.”

Media Matters also is part of the campaign.

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website SierraCulture.com. Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

63 thoughts on “Effort to tell advertisers to drop Fox”

  1. BTW, speaking of nonviolent political extremism, in a column in The Union this weekend, George Rebane outdoes himself again: He implies that we could become another Weimar government of Germany with hyper-inflation. “Today our ‘reparations’ are the debts we must pay to our foreign lenders, entitled citizens, and retired public service employees.” Another problem that marked the Weimar Republic was political extremism (like his). LOL.

  2. Beck has long been engaged in anti-semitic, revisionist propaganda…so much so that he has been slapped around by the anti-defamation league-not exactly a bastion of liberalism. When they asked Beck to put the brakes on his foaming and hate rant, he accused them of “jumping into bed with George Soros”…the most preposterous set of paranoid facts ever broadcast by him…and that’s saying something. He concluded this fantasy with assuring his audience that he really doesn’t “like child porn”…wink wink. In the parlance of mental health advocates, Beck has become a “danger to himself and others.” Most notably to those who have and are committing crimes and acts on behalf of this nut job. Fox news, he and this country, need a rest already. Put a sock in it and move on. Kate Hancock

    1. I agree with every word but a boycott is not gonna matter. Program has NEVER made money to offset salary paid to Beck. Same for Mr H. Millions donated to Right Wing.

      FIXED NOISE is nothing more than right wing propaganda (well done) for the two top owners of FOX NEWS, neither of which is AMERICAN (Australia and Saudi Arabia, if memory serves).

      Only a FOX even watches the garbage…but I forget sometimes that major share of viewers are from SOUTHERN RED STATES with low education, low information voters.

  3. Jeff,

    Couple of thoughts:

    1) Should our side start a similar campaign against MSNBC?

    2) Isn’t George referring to reckless fiscal policy, which I am pretty sure you would agree was the big problem for the Wiemar Republic.

    And here is a question to ponder as we consider the wisdom of Mr. Benanke’s latest attempts to “save” our economy: IF some foreign nation perfected some printing presses and dumped almost a TRILLION of counterfeit $100 bills into our economy would we consider that an act of war?

    And as a bonus question, we might want to just wrestle with the basic question why we have counterfeiting laws in the first place.

    John

  4. Let’s get our facts straight Kate . . .
    ADL Chief Praised Glenn Beck Weeks Before Condemning Him
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/adl-chief-praised-glenn-beck_n_782911.html

    Beck might have gone overboard this week, but there is much to be concerned about George Soros.

    While we are at it, should we start boycotting GE (owners of MSNBC). Boycotts are stupid and usually backfire.

    And who funds Media Matters — George Soros . . Maybe the propaganda machine is on the left; not the right.

  5. John,
    1. It’s a free country. BTW, who’s the equivalent of Beck on MSNBC?
    2. George chose an extreme example because he is an extremist. Extremists are part of the problem, not the solution, just as they were in the Weimar republic.
    As for the bonus question, you once again reinforce the party of “no” discussion. Where’s the solution?

      1. John,
        I figured you’d bring her up, but I’ve never heard Rachel talk with the tone that Glenn does. Also, don’t fall into the same trap as some of the local “wingnuts.” I’m middle of the road, always have been. I’m just tired of extremism. Even Todd Juvinall is having a hard time proving I’m a “liberal” in his blog “poll.” I’m a “liberal,” but only by 9 votes to 7. LOL.

      2. Jeff,

        Rachael does tend to be nastier, but these two give a pretty good perspective of left and right if we are going to use those terms.

        If you don’t see Beck on the rights and Maddow on the left then one could question whether you are in the middle.

        John

      3. John,
        Of course I see her on the left and him on the right, but I’m sure you’re joking about who’s nastier. His rhetoric, and the fallout from it, is well documented. Remarks like that are what get people like Bruce angry, and he would be justified to call you out on it.

      4. Jeff,

        Glad to hear that you are still in the middle 🙂

        My point was that “nasty” is often in the eye of the beholder. Rachael is very good at taking apart certain conservatives and so we see her as being nasty. Beck does the same with some liberals and it is natural for them to think the same about him.

        Personally, I think it is good for both of them to be on the air so we can see what both sides are saying and would not support a boycott of either network.

        John

        PS: Just so you know that hypocrisy exists on both sides, this clip is fun: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/move-over-olby-rachel-maddow-also-a-giant-hypocrite-when-it-comes-to-raising-money-for-democrats-106905163.html

      5. I can’t watch Maddow any longer than I can watch Beck. They use similar rhetorical devices and are equally delusional about what and how the other is thinking.

        What used to be the greatest of the Sunday talking head shows, Meet The Press, now has Maddow on the panel discussion sometimes and I find myself having to endure her snark. “Fair and Balanced” would have Rachel and Glenn on face to face; when they’re both closer to being has-beens, it might even happen.

  6. Credible and well-known economist Paul Krugman has warned that dis-inflation, or prices falling drastically, is what we should look out for, as this would signal the economy falling in the state of depression, which thus far policies carried out by the Obama Administration and Congress have aimed to keep us from, resulting in an end to the recession, at least technically, and some growth albeit a very slow rate. Can’t understand why Ackerman at The Union, keeps hanging on with Rebane’s unpaid columns unless the connection to CABRO is what keeps it going. Rebane has his blog for his followers, where he can give opinions on any and everything for the edification of those interested and sympathetic, which is not the case for on-line comments on Rebane columns in The Union, which are largely negative.

  7. Pat,
    Good point. No counterpoint to George Rebane. CABPRO supporters (B&C, for example) also are advertisers in The Union, no doubt about that. But journalistic credibility also is an issue. You need to present both sides. And you need a long-term growth strategy for your newspaper, not a “stop gap” one.

  8. We need a convenient and current list of advertisers to do this right. I remember that Safeway said Viva La Huelga and a certain farmer workers’ leader, Caesar Chavez, would never win. Grape boycott, back in the 60’s and even the 70’s?

    BTW, isn’t the core of capitalism to vote by buying the best products, the ones that bring you the most satisfaction? Boycotting is merely the opposite side of the same coin.

  9. One question: Goldline, Becks sponsor: Since “the dollar” is persona non grata in your paranoid weimar republic fantasy scheme, what exact monetary exchange are you ACCEPTING for your “gold product” these days? Survival seeds? Saudi money? The Peso? Exactly…logic fails these people. By the way, when the world does end as we know it, John…we still won’t be eating gold. Its not tasty. Get a grip people. Rebane…et al…Kate Hancock

    1. Kate,

      I don’t think Federal Reserve Notes taste any better that gold:)

      I did notice that you avoided my question: Are counterfeiters good for the economy? IF you think it does not matter, then it is you who has the “dollar fantasy.” If we want to continue to have sound money, then it needs to be, well sound.

      We have laws against counterfeiting to protect the value of our currency.

      John

  10. On the FOX news advertiser boycott: I recall seeing a list published at one time. I really don’t watch FOX anyway, but was interested to see which companies contributed financially. Most were not any I regularly buy from; I do remember Healthy Choice being one, but my boycott wouldn’t mean much, perhaps a loss of a penny or two of profit per year, but when I do buy the occasional frozen dinner (for something quick to eat when coming home late after a long trip and too tired to shop and cook) I don’t buy that brand. Don’t really worry if conservatives boycott MSNBC. Fact is, if liberals and conservatives engage in a boycott war, liberals would be winners as there are a lot more of them, and they spend their money instead of just investing it to get more.

  11. You guys don’t make any sense . . .

    If Fox is so bad, why is David Axelrod on it Sunday? (Chris Wallace show).

    And frankly, by your actions you are suggesting there should be no diversity of opinion. Think about it. Is that what you really want?

      1. I think it is wrong for some individuals to attempt to force their views on abortion on the entire country, using whatever they can get out of the court system. I have now doubt that if the TPP were to successfully steamroller their way into all offices and judgeships, that is exactly what would happen.

      2. Douglas,

        No, the steamrolling happened back in 1973 when the views of some were forced on the entire country: Glad to have you on the right side of the Roe v. Wade decision.

        John

        PS: For those of you in the middle I hope you realize that just reversing Roe is a major compromise for those who desire a human life amendment to the US Constitution: Are you will to compromise?

      3. “a human life amendment” willing to compromise?

        “let’s see, I’m only going to chop off one of your arms, not both, are you willing to compromise?”

        We do have laws against suicide. If we add a human life amendment, then we will have to disband the military. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to compromise your “human life amendment.”

        Likewise every death penalty goes, unless you are willing to compromise your human life amendment.

        I can play word games just as well as you, so don’t twist mine and I won’t twist yours., too much….

    1. John, no one is forcing women to have abortions.

      If women don’t want to have an abortion they don’t have to. No one forced anything on those choosing not to have an abortion, those restriction abortion forced their view on those who would choose to have one.

      1. Steve and John,

        I have come to accept that having SCOTUS decide abortion was a huge mistake. There are regions of this country where another person’s choice (a woman in this instance, but it could be a minority or a poor person as well) is culturally believed to not be theirs.

        I have zero worries that a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body will ever change in California. And I no longer care what happens in Kansas. I would prefer that women who care about their autonomy vote with their feet and leave Kansas, rather that telling the people who are acculturated to ruling over others’ personal behavior how they have to change.

        I feel the same about Afghanistan. I would much prefer providing funding for women to leave that tortured country so they can stop wearing burqas, rather than trying to bomb it carefully into submission.

        If you’re going bomb a country into submission, then either nuke the place so that nothing is left, or don’t bother.

        Saving the world by example rather than force is the only way. SCOTUS’ Roe v. Wade decision was by force, and it has divided this country unnecessarily. IMHO.

        Michael A.

      2. Man, I’m sorry Michael but I think this is why we have a federal government, and individual rights; because some women who are not able to travel from Wichita to the next closest state that would allow choice, probably Illinois, deserve individual choice and rights as well.

        The world you describe, with people organizing themselves geographically by ideology, is kind of impractical and dangerous, in my humble opinion, for modern America.

      3. Steve,

        So the days of sovereign states is over?

        Are we can to have to remove the 9th and 10th Amendments by further Amendment or can the Supreme Court just take care of getting rid of those pesky left-overs from the original America?

        John

      4. Steve,

        I hear what you’re saying, and in theory I agree with you. But I am looking at a bigger picture.

        I think the 20th century on planet Earth was about Big Ideas and exporting those ideas across national boundaries. Ideas like Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Militarism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Communism, Communalism, Commercialism, and everything in between.

        It was a great mashup of ideas, and a heck of lot of blood was spilt during this experiment. Heck, we almost destroyed the planet’s ability to provide a habitat for human beings as a result: we were just one crazy person away from a nuclear holocaust for decades.

        And now things have eased. We are taking a breather. There is a retrenchment of ideas. Regions all around the world are reverting to tribalism. In the long stretch of human history, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I think more focus on local control, and regionalism over nationalism, might be an OK interim step toward the Next Big Thing.

        Please don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that Roe v. Wade is consistent with the US Constitution.

        I also believe that Dred Scott was an abomination, but disagree that the Civil War was the best way to overturn it. If the various emerging regions of the US had been allowed to handle their economies as they saw fit–with non-slave blocs of states punishing the slave states economically–I think that emancipation would have happened just as soon, and Reconstruction would have actually lasted into the end of the 1800s and beyond. And the civil rights movement of the 1960s would have been completely unnecessary, the Great Migration of the 20s and 30s night not have occurred because the lynchings of that time would have never existed, and the growth of this country would have been much more “relaxed.”

        I am not talking about constitutional policy, I am talking strategy.

        Michael A.

      5. John, the original constitution was never about ceding individual rights to the states

        The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        That would imply to me that rights not specifically granted the federal government are retained by the people, including the right to choose medical care….reside with the people, meaning the individual people.

        The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        An astute reader of these two amendments could easily ask, “aren’t these contradictory?”

        Well that’s probably because when the Tenth Amendment was approved, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. That changed. We fought a war to change that. 600,000 people died to change that.

        Each state had its own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Many states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment.

        The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn’t a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law.

        For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant in some areas, is not relevant to this discussion, unless of course we want to do that thing all over again.

      6. Steve,

        The tension between the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments is exactly what we are talking about here. That the 14th (!!) was used to stop the presidential vote counting in Florida in 2000 just goes to show how much road we still have to travel before our federal system on the ground actually matches the intent.

        Again, my point is that a civil war where 600K people lost there lives, in the first modern war where destroying cities and civilians was integral to the plan, did more harm than good. It took almost 100 years before the 14th Amendment actually meant something in the southern United States.

        I am willing to let Kansas be Kansas for a while longer. I have no doubt that, even across the entire planet, freedom of choice-democracy-human rights will reign supreme in all social and economic systems in the future.

        The movement toward those goals is inexorable.

        Michael A.

      7. I am tempted to just sit back and let Michael do the heavy lifting because he is doing a great job!

        But perhaps two thoughts are in order:

        1) Steve if you want to go the way you have outline, then you still have to find that right to abortion somewhere in the Constitution. Roe will fall someday soon because everyone knows it is really not there and then we will have what Michael has outlined.

        2) The other question you must then deal with is where does it stop? Does the Federal government tell all the states how they must define marriage? How about campaign finance laws? You might not like the federal standard on that these days.

        And what if they change their mind like they did with separate but equal: First it was good and now it is bad.

        I could go on but I think you get the picture.

        John

      8. Traveling to the moon and dropping the atomic bomb were not in the Constitution. Not a darn thing about modern medicine either, pity. So bury it all?

        Stone aged logic for a stone aged political movement.

      9. Dishonoring the sacrifice of the 600,000 by denying the 14th would be an insane and unnecessary step backwards. History is what it is; we did lose 600,000, we did struggle over the tension between the 9th, 10th, and 14th, and for that matter the modern definition of the commerce clause.

        We do not cover new road by going back, unless we are lost. I am not willing to give up the rights we, as a nation, fought and died for in the 14th amendment.

        I am not afraid of the tension. I take direction form these words by Martin Luther King jr., “But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

        Bring on the tension…..

      10. John, I think the point I was making was that the state, federal or state, never had the right to restrict abortion. It is an individual right protected by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments (primarily 9 and 14).

        I do not need to find a right to abortion, because the state never had a right to restrict it in the first place.

      11. Steve,

        So you are saying two interesting things:

        1) If we don’t need a right enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government to tell us what to do, then they can regulate anything and everything.

        2) So a little tension between three amendments is a good thing, but tension among the fifty states is a bad thing: You will have to explain that tension to me. 🙂

      12. I agree with Steve that gov’t, as outlined in the US Constitution, never had the ability to create a statuary foundation to regulate abortion. But they did it anyway, along with a whole lot of other things that came out of the Puritan ethic.

        So be it.

        All I am talking about is the best way to move forward. I guess I agree with John that allowing some states to have more restrictive laws about abortion than others is OK. Oh, and guess what, that is what is already happening. I’m not sure that this is such a bad thing for now. I do know that political polarization about the subject of abortion is a very bad thing.

        When I was a very young man, my girlfriend and I agreed to an abortion because we were not at all capable of raising a child at that time. It was a horrible dilemma and it changed my life in many ways. I still believe in a woman’s right to choose, but abortion should always be a last resort, and helping young people understand and deal with the consequences of their actions is paramount.

      13. Sorry John, I am saying the exact opposite of what you say I am; the state can only regulate if that power is enumerated in the Constitution, or there is a legitimate state police power associated; the US and the states never had a right to restrict abortion, it was a right reserved to the individual either under the 9th amendment or the 14th amendment.

      14. Steve,

        Not much time this morning for obvious reasons, but I do have to now ask one question: Under this thinking are you saying that the states have no right to regulate theft or murder? Remember, Roe basically says there is no right-to-life in the US Constitution.

        John

        PS: Michael this issue is tough because there are always at least three people involved: I appreciate your furthering this discussion. You will be in our prayers today.

      15. John–I understand that you don’t have much time today–you are preaching the gospel–but no I am not saying that states have no right to regulate theft or murder–that falls under the legitimate police powers.

        I think you are just being contrarian now. If you have studied Roe you know that “there is no right-to-life in the US Constitution” was not the basis of the balancing test.

  12. This blog is about boycotting Fox.

    The more I think about about, the more I get worried about your responses.

    Effectively most of you, by your responses, say you do not believe in diversity of opinion.

    If I don’t believe in someone’s right to say something, I should find a way to boycott them.

    That is extreme. And scary.

    Should we all be of one thought? Your thought? Progressive thought?

    Jeff talked about extremism above; but many of you are coming off as extremists on the other side.

    Note the one link I posted came from the Huffington Post; at least I am willing to read all sides, even if I lean right. Many of you are suggesting we should not have the right side. That is what George Soros suggests by funding Media Matters.

    So do many of you want the right shut down? Is that what you are asking for? That’s what a boycott suggests.

  13. Chris, John…I’m amazed that you both lack the capability to see that very few people here buy your line of BS, and they never will. Your arguments are specious at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.You’re only echoing back and forth to each other. It really is pretty pathetic, but have at it. You must either see us as fools and sheep or you can only see everyone else at your own level of dishonesty and/or ignorance.

  14. By the way Chris, I posted the link so people could see it, I am generally not a supporter of boycotts.

    However, I am a supporter of the Tides Foundation. And lets not forget why Drummond Pike is speaking out.

    Drummond was specifically targeted for criticism by Glenn Beck; the criticism was particularly vitriolic, persistent and not factually based; the criticism led to a Beck viewer deciding to attack the offices of the Tides Foundation with the intent to murder their staff and specifically Drummond Pike; and the attack was thwarted by an accidental traffic stop that led to a shootout in Oakland.

    Drummond decided that he needed to speak out to warn people about the violent unintended consequences of specific personal attacks on Fox News by Glenn Beck, and asked Mr. Beck, in a nationally distributed editorial, to cease and desist. Mr. Beck refused.

    I applaud Drummond Pike for standing up to this type of attack by a bully with a huge pulpit.

    This is not a boycott to deny Fox the ability to broadcast, or to deny the network its right to a point of view, it is a boycott to stop Glen Beck from targeting specific individuals.

  15. Steve, for you to imply that just because someone made the choice to irrationally act upon something about George Soros and the Tides Foundation, is like saying any one of us would be responsible if someone reading this article made the choice to react criminally. No one can predict the mind of the unstable. Are you saying we should have no political attacks and/or debates? That is your implication.

    The Tides accepted millions from George Soros and should not be surprised it is getting the scrutiny. Soros, by his own words, is one scary dude and deserves some scrutiny. How can you be supportive of someone who likes to manipulate currencies? Or for that matter, manipulate the media.

    Didn’t I just read that advertising in the Wall Street Journal, another Murdoch property, is up substantially. One of the few newspapers with increasing circulation. Those boycotts are really working.

    You wonder why there is a Tea Party? They see the Left trying to stifle debate, and then over-react on the right. You brought it on.

    And Dave, thanks. Right on.

  16. Chris, I am not supporting censorship. I said it is entirely within Drummond Pike’s rights in a free society, that supports freedom of speech, to call a boycott.

    I never implied we should not have vigorous political debate.

    Are you saying all people who work for or manage hedge funds, like Mr. Soros, are evil? That does not seem very capitalistic to me. Are you some kind of socialist?

    I find it ironic that you are so quick to attack a capitalist that chooses to use his money to support Progressive causes. Isn’t it everyone’s right o spend their money however they choose?

    It is also entirely within Glenn Beck’s rights to lie, misrepresent people’s views, claim they are un-American and socialists, call the President a communist, and use terms of endearment about people who would threaten others like “progressive hunter”.

    There is a big difference between punishing a network for harboring hatred by boycotting the businesses that advertise there, and seeking to censor speech.

    If Fox News wants to keep Beck, let them. But if people want to punish them, they have a right to do that as well.

  17. Let’s not forget that in addition to Beck’s obsession with Soros as a “puppet master” (old Nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric) and his stupid campaign and reckless incitement to violence against Tides (with his incessant references to being himself a progressive “hunter”), Fox can also take credit for Bill O’Reilly’s constant references to “Doctor Tiller the Baby Killer” in the year before Tiller’s murder by a Fox fan.

    How anyone can equate this vile and reckless rhetoric with some of the silly stuff on MSNBC is beyond my comprehension.

    Going after Fox’s advertisers makes perfect sense to me, and of course anyone is free to do the same with MSNBC if they are sufficiently seized with that “false equivalence.” That’s the miracle of the market at work.

    What makes all of this insane violent rhetoric even more vile is that Beck admitted in an interview with Forbes that he “could give a flying crap about the political process:”

    ‘Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. He gets $13 million a year from print (books plus the ten-issue-a-year magazine Fusion). Radio brings in $10 million. Digital (including a newsletter, the ad-supported Glennbeck.com and merchandise) pulls in $4 million. Speaking and events are good for $3 million and television for $2 million.’

  18. Welllll, here is an easy one to boycott…Roni Deutch. Probably be in prison pretty soon and unavailable!

    Steve F. – Thanks for the link.

  19. I completely agree about Sacramento’s Roni Deutch. She used to be a staple on Thom Hartmann’s radio program. After she was indicted, I wrote to him and warned him about her and expressed the hope that none of his listener’s had been scammed by her.

  20. I think these kinds of advertisers boycotts are tilting at windmills. And they will become increasingly worthless as content moves onto the internet and advertising continues its current process of upheaval.

    Better to have content that competes directly with Beck’s message, and takes him to the mat mano-a-mano.

    Why is the progressive message to so hard to turn into a political jackhammer? Because by its very nature it’s nuanced and complicated. Madow tries, but she is still too smart-alecky for her own good.

    Find a Professor Progressive to match Professor Beck, and you will have your answer.

  21. It’s not a matter of facts presented. It’s a matter of emotionalism. For all the intellectual put downs of “feelings”, this is exactly what it all boils down to.

    At the risk of making myself vulnerable …… I post this as a means to change. It starts with each individual and goes forward.

    This will be 20 minutes of time well spent.

  22. Sharon:

    This is among the best TED Talks I’ve seen. Thanks for posting it, and it was 20 minutes well-spent.

    The first thing that struck me in watching her was the sense of joy Dr. Brown projects, and she indirectly explains that later in the talk by pointing out that you can’t selectively numb negative feelings (the positive ones must then get numbed too). Clearly, she has done the hard work of freeing (through acceptance) the negative ones and thus unleashed the positive ones as well.

    I believe Brene Brown would love one of my heroes, the Buddhist psychologist Tara Brach, whose deep work can be summed up in a phrase she often uses, “we suffer from the trance of unworthiness.”

    One of the most profound truths about this sense of unworthiness is that — while it feels entirely personal, as shame does — it is nearly a universal malady, existential you might say.

    Tara Brach has written a book called “Radical Acceptance,” in which she describes her own personal journey to a realization very much like Dr. Brown’s own reluctant understanding.

    This is such a rich and deep subject, it is hard to do justice to it in a brief post, or even in an excellent short TED talk.

    Thanks for posting it.

    1. By the way, I also liked the way Dr. Brown showed how fear is at the root of the need for certainty, which is where the whole conversation ties back to politics, I believe.

      It seems to me that the primary thing all fundamentalisms — whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish — have in common is an intolerance for uncertainty. It’s not surprising that fear is at the root of that. We saw how fear was used as a political tool by the recent, most fundamentalist administration in our history.

      It may be necessary for each of us to do our own hard personal work in facing these fears before we can even decode modern politics. (Now that’s a discouraging thought).

      Like they used to say in the sixties, “the personal is political.”

      1. Oh yeah, and speaking of using fear as a political/commercial tool (and to bring the conversation back to the original topic), I offer you the following two words by way of example: Glenn Beck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s