Anne Zeiser's Blog

By Anne Zeiser, Founder of  Azure Media , 

Author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and  Digital Media

Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise" is a 900+ page document creating a roadmap for a new conservative world order.  I strongly suggest you read the entire document.  I believe it adds up to a dystopian future. Expect children dying of measles. Expect extreme weather events. Expect policing of our minds and bodies. Expect the loss of due process of law. Expect huge costs of goods, food, and gas. Expect a constant state of fear. 

It disregards the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, it mocks the hard-fought rights and freedoms of this country that our military has protected over decades, and it strips individuals of their rights and thwarts the will of the people.  It’s largely about about serving corporate and wealthy individuals’ greed and spewing anger and hate toward those deemed as “other” -- cloaked in “faith-based” doctrine.  It's hurtful to the very young, the old, the disabled, the poor, and the sick while espousing these “faith-based” policy solutions. (What Bible were the writers reading?)   The United States is a democratic republic, not a religious cult or an autocratic state.

In short, Project 2025 is a prescription for an authoritarian regime and widespread, unfettered corruption.  Here are a few examples -- with direct quotes from the document -- that demonstrate why: 

_____________________________________________________

1. Providing Unilateral Power to the Executive Branch 

“The Constitution gives the ‘executive Power’ to the President.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

Not only does this signal the expansion of power to the executive branch but also includes the potential dismissal of civil servants or overriding regulations without congressional input. 

Expanding executive powers risks undermining the balance of power among the three branches of government. By concentrating decision-making in the executive branch, it diminishes legislative and judicial oversight, leading toward authoritarian governance.  It takes power away from Congress, which provides an important check and balance. This eliminates the public will and "we the people" having a voice in our government through our elected officials. 

Also, it allows a power-hungry or financially incentivized presidents to set up alliances with other authoritarian governments like Iran, Russia, and North Korea or private entities and corporations for personal gain -- with no consequences. That’s how oligarchies are formed.   

The Founding Fathers were clear that we need THREE balanced branches of government to prevent abuses and protect us from infiltration from both domestic and foreign bad actors. 

_______________________________________________________

2A. Restricting or eliminating The Department of Education. 

“Proposals include restructuring or eliminating agencies such as the Department of Education.”

2B. Removing federal standard of education to states:

“Return power to the states on issues of education.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

Elimination of the Department of Education removes minimum standards for K-12 and higher education, including academic benchmarks and equal access initiatives. Without it, educational quality and curriculum could vary drastically by state, leading to inequities in the knowledge and skills students receive. It also reduces Federal funds for schools, particularly in low-income areas. Programs like Title I (for disadvantaged schools) and IDEA (for students with disabilities) rely on this funding. There would increased threat to Civil Rights Protections because the DOE enforces anti-discrimination laws to ensure equal access to education regardless of race, gender, disability, or socioeconomic status. Without this enforcement, schools could refuse services to marginalized students or foster discriminatory practices unchecked. Students with physical disabilities -- from hearing or sight loss or mobility limits and other learning differences, ADHD, autism, and dyslexia -- would be in jeopardy and need to pay for private schools to serve their needs. Federal programs that support students with disabilities, English language learners, and other vulnerable populations would vanish.  Federal aid and student loan programs like Pell Grants, which help millions afford higher education would be curbed or eliminated, preventing access to affordable college.  The DOE funds research into effective teaching strategies, curriculum innovation, and technology integration in schools. Eliminating this research would hinder progress in adapting education systems to modern challenges. 

Elimination of the DOE would increase the financial and administrative burden on states, which are already stretched to their limits. States would be forced to take on responsibilities previously handled by the federal government, such as funding, oversight, and standardization. Additionally, there would be an erosion of accountability because DOE oversight ensures that states and schools are accountable for the use of public funds and the outcomes of their educational systems. Without this oversight, corruption, inefficiencies, or neglect could flourish in state or local systems. Without the DOE, the inequity between states would sharpen, and states with better resources and governance could maintain stronger education systems, while others might severely underfund or mismanage schools. Wealthier states might manage, but poorer states would struggle, increasing inequities across the country. Students’ education — and opportunities — would increasingly depend on where they live. Finally, a decline in educational quality and accessibility nationwide would result in a less skilled workforce. This would hurt U.S. economic competitiveness, increase unemployment, and deepen income inequality.

Removing federal standards would allow states more leeway in setting educational curriculums, with fewer enforced protections for inclusive and science-based education. This will lead to disparities in education quality, with some states adopting ideologically driven curriculums (Florida has added Christian ideology, whitewashed American history, and banned books that mention slavery of gay characters), depriving students of equitable learning opportunities. To create an anti-"woke” environment, in fact, we will eliminate common core standards, and the quality of education will drop, and the U.S. will fall further behind the world.

__________________________________________________________

3A. Eliminating federal agencies 

“Proposals include restructuring or eliminating agencies (such as the Department of Education.”)

3B. Cutting back on the administrative state  

“Curtailing the administrative state is critical to restoring governance aligned with conservative principles.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

The plan recommends significant reductions or outright abolition of key federal agencies, particularly those focused on education, justice, environmental regulation, and elder services. Drafters and proponents of Project 2025 have publicly discussed goals to dismantle regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice, Social Security, Medicare, the CDC, and the  EPA (further below) by rolling back protections for justice, security, public health, and the environment in favor of deregulation to favor individuals and corporations. Weakened regulatory structures can lead to corporate overreach, environmental degradation, and harm to public welfare without recourse, impacting citizens’ trust in government protection. 

Eliminating or minimizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) would halt or severely hinder several critical functions, including civil rights protections of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, education, and voting, leaving vulnerable groups unprotected. Criminal prosecution to combat organized crime, terrorism, human trafficking, and large-scale drug trafficking would be disrupted and antitrust enforcement of the DOJ to prevent corporate monopolies and promote fair competition in the marketplace would end. Public corruption oversight by investigating misconduct by public officials at all levels of government would cease, risking unchecked abuse of power. Environmental enforcement and prosecution of environmental crimes, such as illegal pollution or wildlife trafficking, would stop and consumer protection efforts to hold companies accountable for fraud, false advertising, and financial crimes would weaken significantly. Finally, election security in the form of oversight and legal actions to ensure the integrity of federal elections would no longer occur. 

Trump is angry at the DOJ for a perceived witch hunt against him, but his retribution by restricting or eliminating it would erode public trust, diminish the rule of law, and weaken the nation’s ability to address systemic challenges.

Eliminating or curbing Social Security (SS) would have far-reaching and devastating effects, impacting individuals, families, and the broader economy. It would significantly increase poverty among seniors. Millions of retirees would lose their primary source of income, pushing them into poverty. Currently, Social Security lifts around 40% of elderly Americans out of poverty. Elderly individuals may be unable to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare. The strain on families would because without Social Security, the financial burden of supporting elderly parents or relatives would fall heavily on younger generations. This could create intergenerational financial strain, leading to reduced savings and investment for younger workers. 

Homelessness among elders would increase as Social Security enables seniors and disabled individuals to remain in their homes. Without it, many would lose housing, exacerbating homelessness among vulnerable populations. It would also lead to a rise in health crises because seniors and disabled individuals would lose access to healthcare and medications funded through SS payments. Poorer health outcomes, more frequent hospitalizations, and an increase in preventable deaths. Social Security provides critical income to disabled workers and families of deceased breadwinners. The loss of disability and survivor’s benefits means these individuals would face severe financial hardship, potentially leading to a higher dependency on already strained charity systems. Inequality would worsen because Social Security is a lifeline for lower-income workers who lack other retirement savings or pensions. Eliminating it would widen the wealth gap, leaving only the wealthy able to afford secure retirements. 

We’d see an increase in the elderly workforce because, without Social Security, many retirees would be forced to continue working far beyond the typical retirement age. This would displace younger workers, worsen unemployment, and strain workplace infrastructure. Older people would lose economic security as SS serves as a safety net for sudden life changes like unemployment, disability, or loss of a spouse. Its elimination would create financial chaos for countless families in crisis. Also, it would throw the country into economic instability because SS payments contribute significantly to consumer spending, especially in local economies. It would reduce purchasing power and could lead to widespread economic downturns, particularly in communities reliant on these payments.

People from newborns to 100+ will have no retirement plan, including those who have paid into the system for their entire careers. Our older generations could be homeless and hungry, and their children will need to take in their parents or let them suffer. 

Eliminating or cutting back on Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, would have far-reaching and devastating effects on healthcare access, financial security, and public health. A loss of healthcare coverage for seniors would impact 65+ million Americans, mainly seniors aged 65 and older, who rely on Medicare for their healthcare. These individuals would face a lack of affordable insurance, leading to potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses, limited access to care, and poorer health outcomes. It would lead to increased poverty among seniors because Medicare helps protect seniors from high medical costs, especially during retirement when many live on fixed incomes. Without Medicare, many older Americans would be pushed deeper into poverty due to the financial burden of paying for healthcare out-of-pocket. Like disruptions of Social Security, changing Medicare benefits would place extreme financial strain on families. Families would likely need to provide care for elderly members, draining personal finances or potentially forcing younger relatives to forgo savings or work. The economic stress could harm younger generations’ financial stability as well. 

Without Medicare, our health systems would be overburdened. Seniors would either go without care or flood emergency rooms, creating strain on hospitals and healthcare providers. This would increase wait times for everyone and lead to higher costs for hospitals and healthcare workers, reducing care quality. An increase in the number of uninsured Americans, who are less likely to seek early care, would lead to worse health outcomes and increased financial burdens on hospitals, which would still need to treat these patients. Without Medicare, there would be reduced access to necessary care. Many seniors would be unable to afford critical services like regular doctor visits, hospitalization, prescription medications, or preventive care (e.g., vaccinations). This would lead to worsening health conditions, untreated illnesses, and a general decline in the quality of life for the elderly population. 

All this would lead to worsening health inequities. Low-income and minority groups who rely on Medicare would experience more severe disruptions in healthcare coverage. These groups, who already face disparities in healthcare access, would bear a disproportionate burden in the absence of Medicare, further exacerbating health inequities. This would lead to lower life expectancy and declining public health, because seniors would be foregoing necessary medical treatments, leading to preventable health decline, and mortality rates among the elderly could increase. Reduced access to preventive care, timely treatment, and ongoing care management would negatively impact overall life expectancy and public health in the U.S. 

We’d see a rise in medical bankruptcies because seniors, who often have few financial resources due to their inability to pay medical bills, further destabilizing financial security for vulnerable populations. This would lead to increased healthcare costs for younger generations because, without Medicare and other insurance, the cost of treating seniors’ illnesses may ultimately shift to younger generations and taxpayers. Younger families, particularly those with children, would face higher taxes and insurance premiums as the system attempts to manage costs without Medicare’s support.  

The effects of eliminating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be devastating. We would lose the ability to contain pandemics, because the U.S. would lack centralized expertise and coordination for identifying, tracking, and containing infectious diseases. In fact, during his first administration in 2019, Trump all but eliminated our CDC surveillance and disease prevention presence in China (Asia and Africa are the top “ground zero” areas for pandemics), leaving us at a disadvantage when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. The CDC and other U.S. health agencies faced challenges in obtaining real-time on-the-ground information directly from China, and since we could no longer supply our early intelligence to the U.S., we had to rely on the World Health Organization to receive information. Therefore, the U.S. was slower in understanding and responding to the pandemic. And had a delayed global ability for coordination. 

The CDC also manages vaccine programs and vaccine protocols and without these immunization programs -- that have eradicated diseases like polio and significantly reduced others -- preventable illnesses would resurge. We will see polio back in the U.S., paralyzing and killing children. Polio causes irreversible paralysis in about 1 in 200 infections. Among those paralyzed, 5 to 10% die when respiratory muscles are affected. Without the MMR vaccine, measles outbreaks would take over the country because it is the most highly contagious preventable disease, requiring a vaccination rate of about 94% to acquire herd immunity. Measles is debilitating and deadly. Thirty percent of unvaccinated children get pneumonia, severe diarrhea, dehydration, and ear infections, resulting in hearing loss, or encephalitis of the brain. One to three out of 1000 children infected with measles will die due to complications in the U.S., and in regions with poor access to healthcare, the fatality rate is around 10%. The threat of measles will become a common part of families with young children’s lives. Other very dangerous and fully PREVENTABLE diseases will surge, including smallpox, which has a mortality rate of 30%; rabies which is nearly 100% fatal; tetanus with a 10 to 20% fatality rate; meningitis, with a fatality rate of 15% with treatment and 50% without treatment; yellow fever with a mortality rate of 50%; and influenza (the flu) with a high mortality rate in the very young and very old -- killing hundreds of thousands every year.

As a result, mortality rates will increase precipitously. Without guidance on chronic disease prevention or responses to emerging threats, life expectancy, and general health would decline. Our health standards would no longer be among those in the Western or developed world, and we would be somewhere closer to health outcomes in the developing world. Without the CDC, there will be a huge loss to the research and ongoing understanding of public health because critical data collection and analysis on health trends, disease outbreaks, and preventive care would stop, leaving policymakers without evidence-based insights. Our emergency preparedness would be very weak as our federal preparedness for bioterrorism, natural disasters, and outbreaks like COVID-19 or Ebola would collapse.  Healthcare costs will increase because of the uncontrolled spread of diseases that would overwhelm hospitals, increasing costs and reducing care quality.

_____________________________________________________________

4. Eliminate the EPA’s climate and environmental power.

“Climate policies under existing regulations impose undue burdens on the economy.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

This language signals intent to deregulate climate policies, allowing companies to operate without stringent environmental and public saftety  and health requirements. Removing environmental safeguards prioritizes corporate profit over public welfare. 

Eliminating or throttling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would result in unregulated pollution. Without the EPA, air and water pollution limits would disappear, and companies – from power plants to Monsanto could put mercury, lead, and other toxins into our waterways and air unfettered. Since the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, we have cleaned up many toxic zones, which have proven to be breeding zones for cancers and other danagerous health outcomes. Without these regulations in place, we’d see a spike again in health problems like respiratory diseases, cancers, and neurological issues. As a result, a health crisis could occur because of increased exposure to contaminants (e.g., lead, mercury, and pesticides) would lead to higher incidences of chronic illnesses and birth defects.

We’d also see a stalling of climate action. Federal climate change mitigation efforts, including clean energy programs and greenhouse gas regulations, would cease, accelerating environmental damage. Currently, climate damage is accelerating due to human-induced global warming. Global temperatures are rising at an average rate of 0.2 Celsius, or .36 Fahrenheit per decade with the last decade being the hottest on record, providing frequent and intense heat waves affecting human health, agriculture, and ecosystems. 

There’s been an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires (California, Australia),  droughts, and floods worldwide, which are accelerating exponentiallyy. The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing 279,000,000,000 tons of ice per year at the Atlantic Sheet has lost 2,720,000,000,000 tons of ice since 1992. Glaciers worldwide are retreating at accelerating rates therefore the rising sea levels -- currently rising at an average rate of 3.3 mm per year – are threatening coastal cities and islands. The sea levels have risen about 8 to 9 inches (or 21 to 23 cm) since 1880, with the rate increasing to about 3.3 mm per year since 1993. This is causing extreme coastal flooding, erosion, and damage to infrastructure, with major risks to low-lying cities and ecosystems. 

Additionally, ocean acidification has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution due to the absorption of excess CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This causes harm to marine life, particularly coral reefs and shellfish, impacting biodiversity, fisheries, and tourism. The global extinction rate of species is estimated to be 1,000 times the natural rate, exacerbated by climate change and habitat destruction. Species extinction, ecosystem degradation, and loss of essential ecosystem services like pollination have burgeoned. This affects agricultural and food security as well because crop yields are projected to decline globally by 3 to 7% per decade due to climate stressors like drought and shifts in precipitation patterns. We’ll see food scarcity and rising costs, particularly in vulnerable regions, exacerbating hunger and poverty. Without the EPA, these climate impacts will accelerate exponentially, affecting health, safety, real estate, prices, food supply, transportation, health, tourism, and much more.

Curbing or eliminating the EPA will create state-level disparities because environmental standards would vary wildly by state, with some lacking the resources or political will to regulate effectively. A health crisis -- espcially among children and the elderly -- could occur because of increased exposure to toxins and pollutants. Finally, there would be increased economic costs because poor environmental oversight would raise healthcare costs and harm industries reliant on clean resources (e.g., tourism, fishing, and agriculture).

___________________________________________________________

5A. Placing traditional or religious values into policymaking.

“Strengthen the role of traditional values in federal policymaking.”

5 B: Removing “woke” protections in the military and government.

“Eliminate protections against ‘woke policies’ in the military and government workforce.”

 

What this means & consequences for democracy:

“Traditional values” is a conservative speak for anti-“woke” policies, associated with efforts to suppress discussions of systemic inequalities, diversity, inclusion, and social justice. While some people may relish the idea of restricting LGBTQ+ rights or advancing legislation rooted in specific religious ideologies, they may not understand the dangers they pose to undermining the U.S.'s core principles of democracy, human rights, and societal progress.

These policies inherently suppress free speech and thought, and anti-“woke” policies often involve restrictions on educational curricula, public discussions, or corporate training programs that address systemic racism, sexism, or historical injustices. Limiting open dialogue and the ability to critique societal structures violates the First Amendment and stifles intellectual growth. It undermines the ability to grapple with complex social issues and can lead to widespread ignorance of history and ongoing inequalities.

These policies undermine diversity and inclusion targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including workplace training, school programs, and government policies aimed at reducing disparities. DEI initiatives promote fair access to opportunities, create innovation through diverse perspectives, and address the systemic barriers faced by marginalized groups. Dismantling these efforts exacerbates inequality, fosters workplace and societal discrimination, and stymies progress in addressing issues like gender pay gaps, racial disparities, and social mobility. 

These policies also invoke historical erasure, frequently calling for the removal or sanitization of historical content that highlights oppression, colonialism, slavery, or genocide (e.g., opposition to critical race theory or banning books addressing systemic racism). Erasing or diminishing the harsh realities of history prevents citizens from understanding how past injustices shape current inequities. Without this understanding, societal reconciliation and the ability to build a more equitable future are hindered. We have not let Germany forget what it did leading up to and during World War II. Nor should we forget or white wash what we have done to Native Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. 

By framing the world with “woke” versus “anti-woke” rhetoric, we are polarizing and creating social division, positioning social justice advocates as adversaries, and stoking a culture war over basic issues of fairness and equity. Dividing society into factions escalates tension and reduces the likelihood of meaningful dialogue and compromise. Polarization destabilizes social cohesion and trust in democratic institutions. Misinformation and fearmongering, which often underpins anti-“woke”  rhetoric, rely on exaggeration and misinformation to paint social justice efforts as radical or harmful. Spreading fear about “wokeness” distracts from real societal problems, creates unnecessary fear, and erodes trust in institutions striving for equity and fairness.

There are economic consequences of undermining companies, institutions, and communities that embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion that enjoy tangible economic benefits such as innovation, employee retention, and competitiveness. Anti-“woke” policies discourage such efforts. Policies that discourage DEI initiatives make the U.S. less attractive to global businesses, hinder the development of a diverse workforce, and limit economic opportunities for marginalized communities, harming long-term economic growth. Silencing marginal communities is never the route to a healthy democracy.

Anti-“woke” policies often target the rights and voices of historically marginalized groups, such as Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+, or immigrant communities. Silencing these communities not only perpetuates systemic inequalities but also delegitimizes their experiences and hinders their ability to advocate for fairness and justice, which are foundational to a functioning democracy.

Attacking diversity initiatives undermines equal opportunity and inclusivity, creating workplaces and public policies that favor the majority demographic while silencing minority concerns. As a country that has thrived because of the diversity of our immigrant roots and the valuable differences, this stance will ultimately weaken the U.S.’s global leadership position as it throttles our inherent core strength and advantage. Anti-"woke” policies conflict with global movements for human rights, equity, and social justice, positioning the U.S. as regressive on the world stage. Countries that limit social justice and inclusion undermine their reputation as leaders in democracy and human rights, reducing their influence in global affairs and risk diminished collaboration in areas like trade and climate change

_______________________________________________________________

6. Infusing faith into policy.

“Promote faith-based solutions as a cornerstone of public policy.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

This suggests that policies might prioritize religious organizations in delivering public services or shape laws around specific faith perspectives. However, promoting faith-based solutions as a cornerstone of public policy in the U.S. presents risks to democracy, equality, and the separation of church and state. 

First, this stance violates the spirit of the Constitutional separation of church and state, alienating citizens who do not share the same religious views. The U.S. Constitution mandates a clear separation between church and state, with the Establishment Clause prohibiting the government from promoting any religion. Promoting faith-based solutions in public policy may blur this line and could lead to the endorsement or favoritism of specific religions, making some citizens feel marginalized or excluded, especially in a diverse and pluralistic society.  This includes putting religious doctrine into education in the form of Creationist Science (which presents Bible-based explanations for the creation of man in the species presented as an alternative to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution).  

·      Currently in Florida, students are permitted to pray and engage in religious activities before, during, and after the school day;  they are allowed to form religious clubs, and the Florida Department of Education has established a policy to guide school districts in accommodating religious expression. The Florida House has passed a measure authorizing chaplains to provide services in school settings. Under the state; ‘s Civic Literacy Excellence Initiative, teacher training emphasizes Judeo-Christian roots and links U.S. laws to the 10 Commandments, and the state’s school voucher program has facilitated the establishment of religious schools, including those affiliated with churches

These examples from Florida are “Judeo-Christian” values being infused into our schools. But faith-based policy actually means introducing the doctrine of Buddhist, Muslim, or any cult claiming to be a religion to be taught or supported within your child’s schools. The Founding Fathers understood the critical need for the separation of church and state. Embedding one set of values into federal governance erodes the pluralistic foundation of democracy, marginalizing diverse cultural or social groups and infringing on individual liberties.

This stance reduces accessibility inclusivity because faith-based programs are often rooted in specific religious ideologies or practices. While some communities may find comfort in these programs, they can be alienating for those who do not share the same beliefs or for non-religious individuals. Policies that prioritize religious solutions may fail to address the needs of all citizens, particularly minorities, atheists, agnostics, or people with diverse spiritual beliefs. Bringing faith into policy also creates an environment of inequity. If religious organizations are given the power to influence policy decisions, there may be inequities in how services are delivered. For example, certain groups may be denied services or funding based on moral or doctrinal disagreements, such as LGBTQ+ individuals or people who don’t adhere to the predominant faith.

This approach also deemphasizes evidence-based approaches to knowledge and information. Public policy needs to be driven by data, research, and proven outcomes. Faith-based solutions may not always be grounded in scientific evidence, which could lead to ineffective policies that fail to address pressing social issues or that do not work as intended. Faith in our policy undermines social services and public health initiatives because policies based on religious principles could undermine critical public health or social service efforts that are essential for everyone, regardless of their faith. For instance, faith-based policies might reject evidence-based methods of combating diseases (like using contraception or addressing addiction) in favor of religious teachings that could jeopardize public health. Finally, it may reinforce authoritarian or dogmatic practices. By placing faith-based solutions at the heart of public policy, there’s a risk that religious dogma could be prioritized over rational governance. This can restrict freedom of thought and impose religious-based moral codes onto the entire population, making it harder for citizens to live in a pluralistic society with diverse beliefs.

__________________________________________________________

7. Banning and criminalizing abortion across the nation

“Criminalizing abortion in all states.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

The document’s approach aims to establish a nationwide abortion ban. This is not what conservatives nor Trump touted before the election. They said, “Leave it to the states.” Such involvement in state rule violates the Federalist principle, allowing states to set independent policies. It also strips bodily autonomy from women, a direct infringement on human rights and personal freedoms. 

Criminalizing abortion is dangerous for the U.S. because it undermines individual freedoms, endangers public health, exacerbates societal inequities, and threatens the nation’s legal and healthcare systems.  First, criminalizing abortion erodes individual rights, stripping individuals of the ability to make critical personal and medical decisions. It sets a precedent for government intrusion into personal freedoms, eroding privacy, and autonomy. Such precedents risk leading to broader restrictions on other healthcare and civil rights, such as access to contraception and other rights.

Banning abortions nationally will lead to increased maternal mortality and health risks because when abortion is criminalized, people often resort to unsafe methods or carry dangerous pregnancies to term. This will bring our health standards back to the developing world's, because unsafe abortions are the leading cause of maternal deaths globally. Pregnancies with medical complications that threaten the pregnant person’s health might not receive timely intervention due to fear of legal repercussions. This leads to preventable deaths and long-term health complications.

This will have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities because criminalizing abortion affects low-income individuals, people of color, and rural residents. Wealthier individuals can afford to travel for safe procedures, while others are forced to endure financial, physical, and emotional harm. Existing systemic inequities worsen, increasing cycles of poverty and reducing social mobility.  This will undermine our public health and international standing because it highlights a disregard for gender equality in public health.It devalues public health initiatives that prioritize comprehensive reproductive care. As a result, the U.S. risks being viewed as regressive by global peers, weakening its leadership in advancing human rights.

Banning abortion is a threat to healthcare access and trust because it forces healthcare providers to choose between offering necessary care and risking legal consequences. Physicians may hesitate or refuse to provide life-saving treatment out of fear of criminal prosecution. It creates a chilling effect on all reproductive healthcare, including miscarriage management and fertility treatments. Trust in the healthcare system erodes, potentially leading to poorer health outcomes across the board.

Criminalizing abortion will unnecessarily overburden the legal and criminal justice system, resulting in criminal investigations of miscarriages and suspected abortions.  Individuals can be wrongfully prosecuted, including for natural pregnancy loss. As a result, invaluable resources in law enforcement and the judicial system are diverted from other critical issues to police reproductive healthcare decisions.

There will be significant economic consequences as well, because denying abortion access forces many people to carry pregnancies they cannot afford, impacting their ability to work, pursue education, or achieve financial stability. The average cost of raising a child in the U.S. to the age of 18 is conservatively $233,000 for a middle-income, two-parent family. This figure is based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2015 and adjusted for inflation, which may bring it closer to $260,000. This includes costs for housing, food, childcare, education, transportation, healthcare, clothing, and entertainment. and miscellaneous. For a single-family household, this is far more financially onerous. Families may fall into poverty, and the economic burden increases on public assistance programs. The workforce may shrink as individuals, especially women, are forced out due to caregiving responsibilities.

Some of the states’ antiabortion laws are punitive and do not acknowledge the realities of everyday life. One in five women in the U.S. have experienced a completed or attempted rape during their lifetime. Eight-one percent experienced it before the age of 25 and almost half before the age of 18. According to Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), approximately 44% of sexual assault victims are under the age of 18, and many are of reproductive age (ages 10- through 19). Some 5% of rape victims become pregnant, which translates into 25,000 pregnancies annually in the U.S. caused by rape. In addition, one to three percent of all abortions in the U.S. occur when a woman’s life is at risk because of ectopic pregnancy, severe infections, or complications related to chronic health issues like heart disease or cancer.  Additionally, if abortions were not performed, these conditions would lead to infertility because of infection and scarring.  Some exmaples of anti-abortion laws in the U'S.:

·      Texas (SB 8 - 2021): Bans abortion after approximately 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they’re pregnant, with no exceptions for rape or incest. It also allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids or performs an abortion.

·      Alabama (Human Life Protection Act - 2019): Imposes a near-total abortion ban with exceptions only to prevent serious health risks or if the pregnancy is life-threatening, but no exceptions for rape or incest.

·      Missouri (HB 126 - 2019): Bans abortions at 8 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest and threatens criminal penalties for providers who violate the law.

__________________________________________________________

8. Allowing for easier elimination of civil servants or dismantling civil service. 

“Streamlining civil service regulations to allow easier terminations.”

What this means & consequences for democracy:

This measure is about allowing the new administration to target nonpartisan civil servants for their views, eroding the independence of government agencies, leading to politically motivated purges and reduced institutional integrity.

Streamlining the civil service and allowing easier terminations of government employees could become a threat to job security and accountability. Civil service protections are in place to ensure that government employees are not unduly influenced by political pressure and can carry out their duties independently and impartially. Removing these protections compromises job security and accountability, making it easier for political leaders to act on political motivations, rewarding loyalists or punishing critics -- undermining objectivity in government actions.

This could erode the current system of meritocracy, instead promoting individuals based on political alignment rather than merit or qualifications. The merit-based nature of the civil service is essential to ensure that decisions are made by individuals who are well-suited for their roles based on their abilities, qualifications, and experience. The erosion of this system reduces transparency and fairness, leading to cronyism and less effective governance.

The civil service is often composed of impartial individuals with specialized expertise and long-term experience in their fields. Their knowledge is critical for the functioning of government departments and institutions. Eliminating civil service employees could reduce expertise and institutional knowledge. Constant turnover may undermine continuity, weakening the effectiveness and long-term planning of government agencies and slowing the implementation of essential policies.

Erosion of civil service protections could lead to perceptions of a politicized or unstable bureaucracy, undermining public trust. When citizens perceive that government agencies are being influenced by political ideologies rather than working for the public good, it diminishes confidence in the integrity and reliability of the civil service. This distrust could lead to disengagement from civic processes and a general weakening of the social contract between the government and the public.

Finally, the loss of skilled and dedicated employees could hurt public services, ultimately affecting government efficiency and service quality. An ongoing and stable civil service workforce is vital to providing essential public services, from social services to environmental protection. If qualified individuals are removed due to political pressure or arbitrary decisions, the ability of government agencies to provide consistent, quality services can be severely compromised.

These are but a few examples of what's ahead with Project 2025. Read it,

Read newspapers. Think critically. Distinguish the difference between journalism and opinion. Understand the scientific method. Discern the difference between facts and propaganda. Take responsibility for the state of this world. Become an informed citizen. Think for yourself.

By Anne Zeiser,
Founder of  Azure Media 
Author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media

The current disinformation campaign that Critical Race Theory is being taught in K-12 schools is a manufactured wedge issue designed to obfuscate and hamstring open dialogue about race and equity.

Critical Race Theory is a specific, 40-year-old framework for legal analysis to examine how racism is embedded in America’s laws and institutions. An example from the ‘30s: banks set geographical boundaries to refuse mortgages to Black Americans. Today, single-family zoning laws prevent affordable housing in majority-white neighborhoods, furthering segregation. The legal framework of Critical Race Theory is seminal to the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which is why it is taught in law schools – not elementary schools.

Mobilized groups of citizens are now haranguing school districts nationwide, claiming that Critical Race Theory is or will be part of our public school districts’ curricula. They know it will not. They’re advancing a specious, fear-based multi-media propaganda campaign to brand any expression or examination of race, bias, or equity as venomous and attach the dog-whistle moniker of Critical Race Theory to it. The campaign’s mouthpiece is Christopher Rufo, a documentary filmmaker turned conservative activist, who revealed the intent of this documentary, social media, and publicity campaign in a March 15th tweet:

“We have successfully frozen their brand — 'critical race theory’— into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.”

The Heritage Foundation has used this propagandized blueprint, placing Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training, ethnic studies, and the free-speech debate on college campuses all under the Critical Race Theory brand umbrella. They are not. They’re a living expression of our representative democracy, protected by the Constitution.

The end-goal of this conflation of any race and equity topics with Critical Race Theory is to shut down the growing and powerful discussion about equity in America. Architects of this campaign see danger in open dialogue or deeper understanding about race because of its power to change how we think about systemic racist constructs and individual unconscious bias. They protect an archaic and unexamined version of our history that blindly exalts our forebears and conceals our authentic story — fearing a more current and broader perspective translates into a loss of power for them. They miss that equity is not a zero sum game.

Ironically, this campaign to curb free speech and introspection is forwarded in the name of patriotism. In fact, a genuine examination of our history and the effects of unequal laws and practices on individuals and groups vis a vis the Constitution is woven into the fabric of what makes us truly American. It’s not “toxic”; it’s the hallowed work of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These kind of branding efforts, disinformation media campaigns, and control of curricula in schools are not new in this country. Today’s Critical Race Theory media machine takes a page – if not a chapter – out of the 75+ year-old playbooks of Big Tobacco, anti-evolutionists, and Big Oil. All have challenged consensus science with bogus studies and marketing campaigns to sow doubt about proven scientific facts – the link between smoking and cancer; the effects of mutation on natural selection; and the heating of the planet from burning fossil fuels. Big Tobacco placed cigarettes in actors’ hands in ads and movies. Anti-evolutionists and Big Oil lobbied for state legislation to require the teaching of "creation science" or “alternative climate science” in public schools. Already, 25 states are debating legislation to limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism in the classroom. Eight have enacted these bans.Critical Race Theory sleight-of-hand to impede justice and progress.

Teaching bans still won’t stop the cultural awakening that has begun in this country. In the wake of George Floyd’s trial, much of white America has finally learned about The Tulsa Massacre and Juneteenth. There are countless such events that have been neatly excised from our historical, economic, social, and cultural self-understanding and teachings. They will emerge. They’re part of who we are just as much as the traditional accounts of the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, and the U.S.’s commanding role in the modern world.

We must fearlessly examine our race-, gender-, ethnicity-, sexual orientation-, and religious-based assumptions. Our top U.S. military leader, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley believes it’s our responsibility to learn from our past and contextualize people, politics, military operations, and our Constitution to inform our future. In his June 23, 2021 testimony to Congress at the U.S. Capitol, he said:

“On the issue of critical race theory, I do think it’s important for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read. The United States Military Academy is a university and it is important that we train and we understand. And I want to understand white rage – and I’m white. What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out. I want to maintain an open mind. I do want to analyze it. It’s important that we understand it. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians – they come from the American people. It’s important that leaders, now and in the future, understand it. I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with understanding, having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?”

This latest salvo to silence open discussions of race and equity with Boogeyman rebranding as Critical Race Theory is yet another sleight-of-hand to impede justice and progress.

By Anne Zeiser,
Founder of  Azure Media 
Founder of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media

All of us have a responsibility to understand the science behind COVID19 and in particular, the value of the available public health protocols: diagnostic testing, surveillance testing (contact tracing), mask wearing, social distancing, hand washing, isolating if infected, and quarantining if exposed. Following these proven public health measures is a matter of life and death. Already, this virus has killed nearly a quarter of a million people in the US (I’ve lost two friends to this virus and had four family members sick with it). 

Here is some of the undeniable math and facts of COVID19: 

1) COVID19 is a deadly virus. 

COVID19 is highly contagious. The R0 (R naught) is the epidemiological value of a disease’s replication rate in an uninfected population. (If the R0 is greater than 1.0, the infection increases exponentially and becomes an epidemic. Less than 1.0, the outbreak is more likely to peter out). 

The R0 value of COVID19 is close to 3.0 (significantly higher than MERS, and on par with SARS, which caused a global epidemic in 2003). That means an infected individual will spread COVID19 to about three people, each will spread to three more, and so on. Within several generations of spread, the outbreak becomes uncontainable. Once public health officials had this alarming R0 data in January 2020, they issued the clarion call for a possible pandemic. COVID19's high E0 is due to the virus’s airborne and sleuthy asymptomatic spread. Part of the virus's lethal profile is that many people have no or limited symptoms, and those who develop symptoms, don't until an average of six days after they're infected. These asymptomatic people are super spreaders. 

People who “feel fine,” yet are positive make COVID19 more dangerous than Ebola. Although Ebola kills about half of the people who contract it (about 50% mortality rate), it only spreads through bodily fluids and those who get it have such pronounced symptoms they’re easier to identify and isolate. While frightening and gruesome, Ebola results in significantly fewer total deaths — 11,300 worldwide since the first outbreak in 1976. A virus like COVID19 can kill a quarter million people in just over half a year because it can reach more people, even though it kills a smaller percentage of those infected (about 5% mortality rate). The mortality rate of the Spanish Flu of 1918 was 2.5% (half of COVID19’s), yet it killed almost 50 million people worldwide. A virus's low mortality rate per infection doesn't mean it's less deadly overall. Its exponential spread is a lethal weapon. 

Also, comparisons of COVID19 to the yearly flu are duplicitous and dangerous. Influenza has a much lower spreadability (R0 of about 1.3) and kills 35,000 people in the US yearly, while COVID19 already has killed 220,000 people in the US in just seven months. Coronavirus is 11+ times more deadly than the yearly flu. 

Epidemiologists, infectious disease specialists, and public health experts say that COVID19 is the most dangerous disease they’ve seen in their lifetimes. It’s clearly the greatest public health scourge of the past century. A healthy dose of fear, combined with fully understood and implemented scientific information and guidelines, are the most valuable public health tools available. 

2) The US is not consistently following public health guidelines. 

Our country's response to and public health behavior around COVID19 has been woefully inadequate, especially when considering the resources and know-how we possess. The US represents just 4.25% of the world’s population, yet we account for a shockingly disproportionate 20+% of the world’s deaths. We have higher death rates than many developing nations because we're not aggressively testing, consistently wearing masks, and uniformly social distancing in the face of an incurable deadly virus. Some of these basic proven public health behaviors like face covering, social distancing, and isolation/quarantine were used effectively to slow the spread of the Bubonic Plague. We're not acting as wisely and responsibly now as people did in the 14th century. 

Wear a mask. Stay apart. COVID19 is harbored in the respiratory system. That's why the virus's diagnostic test swabs your nasal passage. It is mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets or airborne aerosol particles carrying the virus, which easily spread when you breathe, speak, laugh, sneeze, or cough near someone else. It's aerosol transmission makes it more contagious than many other viruses. The further away you are from someone else, the more their respiratory droplets or particles are diffused in the air ➔ social distancing. The better the circulation of your environment, the faster they're diffused ➔ outdoors is safer than indoors. The more the respiration from your mouth and nose are covered, the more everyone's droplets and particles are blocked ➔ mask wearing. 

Many peer-reviewed studies prove the efficacy of masks. Your wearing a mask protects both you and me. N95 masks and FDA-approved KN95s protect the wearer from 95% to 90% because they're tight-fitting and filter most of those particles upon inhalation. Hospitals need them for their staff because they do a good job of keeping workers safe even when they're exposed to ongoing, high viral loads. Surgical masks are second best in preventing the spread. Cloth masks are reasonably effective. Bandanas are only somewhat effective. Many infectious disease specialists say if they had to choose between a mask and a vaccine, they’d choose a mask (Dr. Christina Brennan. Dr. David Ho says they're on par with a vaccine). 

Check out the studies and guidelines about masks and social distancing at the CDC, NIH, WHO, Johns Hopkins, American Medical Association, Infectious Disease Society, JAMA, Lancet and other credible sites with peer-reviewed information. As you research COVID19, learn about the scientific method -- the empirical process (to question, research, hypothesize, experiment, analyze, conclude, report) that explores observations and answers questions. It has accounted for almost every scientific and technical advance in human history. Understand how peer review has replicated and validated scientific research and built scientific facts for 350 years. Armed with in-depth scientific understanding and research you’re less likely to fall prey to opinion and disinformation campaigns about COVID19 that are rampant on social media. Masks and social distancing are about science (and public health best-practices that apply that science); they’re not about opinion, belief, or politics. Those are entirely separate purviews.

While ill-informed and selfish, not wearing a mask is not breaking the law in most places. CVS and Walmart have more power of enforcement in denying you entrance to their premises without a mask. As we head into a winter with more indoor confinement and proximity, it's likely there will be more local enforcement of mask-wearing and revised CDC mask-wearing and social distancing guidelines. Whether mandated or not, use common sense and follow the science and public health guidelines: wear a mask, social distance, wash your hands, limit social gatherings, isolate if sick or exposed. Simple. Proven. Humane.

Test for the virus. The more reliable and immediate the COVID19 data from widespread diagnostic and surveillance testing, the better we can plan. With accurate testing and mitigating behaviors, we can lower the virus's R0 and manage the pandemic until herd immunity is achieved from a vaccine. 

The R0 is lower in countries and regions that strictly follow the science for preventing COVID19's spread. In lockdown and with careful adherence to public health best-practices, populations have been able to achieve an R0 of below 1.0 – the difference between exponential spread and containment. With an R0 above 1.0, the virus is winning the evolutionary arms race of its spread; below 1.0, science and human will are winning. 

Last April — after Germany’s swift and uniform implementation of ongoing testing, masking, and social distancing measures — the Robert Koch Institute determined that Germany’s R0 had dipped to 0.7 from a high of almost 3.0. With this data, Chancellor Angela Merkel carefully relaxed lockdowns and reopened small businesses. South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, and much of Europe regularly test their citizens and use their regional COVID19 R0 factor to inform policy decisions for managing fluctuating virus infections. With adequate testing infrastructure, molecular testing results are provided within 24 hours. Today, Australia, China, Denmark, and Israel are still maintaining an R0 below the critical 1.0 value.

 

But with the limited money, infrastructure, consistency, and emphasis on testing in the US, we are still behind the curve of understanding and managing the virus’s spread. A twisted form of political protest denies the science of COVID19 by flouting masks, ignoring social distancing, and quashing contact tracing (Donald Trump refused to let the CDC contact trace the October 2020 super spreader events at the White House and subsequent rallies). As a result, 40 of the 50 states have R0 values above 1.0 and deaths continue to rack up. Donald Trump's statements that COVID19 “is disappearing” or is "rounding the turn" simply are not true. With the average R0 value in the US at 1.3, we continue to be in an exponential growth pattern of a full-on pandemic as a second or third wave approaches. (Sacramento and San Bernardino, California are noteworthy areas of the US where the R0 is still below 1.0). 

To calculate the R0, researchers need regular and comprehensive data about infection rates. The metric that determines whether we're doing enough testing (a more important metric than the total number of positive cases) is the positivity rate – the percentage of total diagnostic tests conducted that are positive. The World Health Organization indicates that when positivity is above 5%, the level of testing is not keeping up with levels of disease transmission. Higher positivity rates suggest the likelihood of more people with coronavirus in the community who haven’t been tested yet. Generally, the higher the positivity rate, the higher the R0 value. 

The US’s positivity rate is above that 5% threshold, at 6.25%. No surprise our R0 is above 1.0. We're simply not testing enough. India, Chile, Uganda, Russia, Zimbabwe, Japan, Serbia, Finland, Canada, Turkey, Nigeria, Taiwan, and El Salvador, are just a sampling of the 44 nations with better positivity testing rates than the US. Super COVID19 tester countries with a positivity rate below 1% are South Korea, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, and Fiji. They are consistently and aggressively testing and contact tracing to stay ahead of the virus. 

3) We're in this time of risk and uncertainty for the long haul, so follow the science. 

COVID19 likes a cold dry climate and a contained environment for spreading. That's the definition of this upcoming winter in much of the world. Indoor mask-wearing may be in the offing. Unfortunately, beating COVID19 will take much longer than we hope or most people tell us. Epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists predict we're in for a super spreader winter and another year of COVID19-constricted life.

 

Here’s why it may take that long. There are many “what ifs” yet to be determined for a COVID19 vaccine. While researchers are moving faster on vaccine development than with any other vaccine and several vaccine candidates look promising, there are huge logistical and practical hurdles to the world’s population achieving herd immunity. Things like: 

If we’re lucky enough to identify some vaccines that are safe and work, what is their efficacy? Based on that percentage of efficacy, what percentage of the population needs to vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold? (The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the higher the percentage of the population that needs inoculation. The most contagious of the widely known diseases is measles with an R0 of 15, so 95% of people need to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity).  Does the vaccine require one or two shots for efficacy? (If two, it may incur much more cost, effort, and time. Multiple shots require careful contact tracing of who's received the first vaccine to ensure the second dose is administered in the recommended time. Three of the current vaccine candidates require two doses). How long will immunity last? (The shorter that timeframe, the more likely new outbreaks will occur and the greater the need for more vaccinations). Does the vaccine need to be refrigerated? How many days after shipping does it need to be administered? (Cold temperature requirements limit the storage and shipping options for distribution, especially in rural areas, warm climates, and the developing world. This will require more money, personnel, and infrastructure. Pfizer's vaccine candidate needs to be stored at -94°F and Moderna's at -4°F). Who gets the limited supply of vaccines first and in what order? How long and what kind public-private partnerships will it take to manufacture enough vaccines and get everyone vaccinated?Will enough people take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity? (According to a Harris-STAT survey, 42% of Americans would not take the vaccine right away based on safety fears).  When is it safe to travel when only some populations have been vaccinated? How do you prove someone’s vaccinated in order to more safely open up schools, restaurants, courtrooms, movie theaters, airplanes, etc.? Who pays for all this, including in the poorest regions of the world? 

This list goes on. Altogether, this is Herculean. It will take time.

 

You might want to rail against this information. That’s understandable because you’re not hearing the truth much through the vitriol. But it's time to deal honestly with the facts of the most important issue at hand right now — an ongoing global pandemic. The truth is powerful. It can prepare us to hunker down for the slog ahead, as safely as possible. 

The good news, many of the best minds worldwide are working on developing an effective vaccine for COVID19. We have a better understanding of how the virus acts. Healthcare providers have more resources and are more knowledgeable about treatments for the very sick. But, it will be a long time before the world's population has been vaccinated and it's safe to go back to life as we knew it. We must exercise personal responsibility and do our part. Follow the science — wear masks, socially distance, wash hands, get tested, isolate if sick, quarantine if exposed — for as long as it takes. Don’t expect a jab in the arm for COVID19 in the next few months (but please get your flu shot to avoid the flu and minimize the confusion between the two illnesses). Do your best to keep each other safe and respect each other along the way.

By adhering to these public health best practices and aggressively conducting diagnostic and surveillance testing, we can limit and isolate pockets of infection. This can hold back transmission rates and save lives. Also we can boost the economy by avoiding national lockdowns and massive restrictive movements. More businesses and schools can stay open. It’s a win-win-win — improved physical, psychological, and financial health.

 

We’ve got to dig deep, pull together, and use the tools we have at hand. They are considerable: sound science and human will.

 

By Anne Zeiser,
Founder of  Azure Media 
Founder of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media

We all have a responsibility to understand the science behind COVID19 and in particular, the value of the available public health protocols: diagnostic testing, surveillance testing (contact tracing), mask wearing, social distancing, isolating if infected, and quarantining if exposed. Following these public health measures is a matter of life and death. This virus has already killed a quarter of a million people in the US in seven months (I’ve lost two friends to this virus and had four family members sick with it). 

Here are some of the undeniable facts and math of COVID19: 

1) COVID19 is a deadly virus. 

COVID19 is highly contagious. The R0 (R naught) is the epidemiological value of a disease’s replication rate in an uninfected population. (If the R0 is greater than 1.0, the infection increases exponentially and becomes an epidemic. Less than 1.0, the outbreak is more likely to peter out). 

The R0 value of COVID19 is close to 3.0 (significantly higher than MERS, and on par with SARS, which caused a global epidemic in 2003). That means an infected individual will spread COVID19 to about three people, who in turn each will spread to three more people, and so on. With several generations of spread, the outbreak becomes uncontainable. Armed with this alarming R0 data in January 2020, public health professionals issued the clarion call for a possible pandemic. COVID19's high E0 is due to the virus’s airborne and sleuthy asymptomatic spread. Part of COVID19's lethal profile is that many people have no or limited symptoms, and those who develop symptoms don't until an average of six days after they're infected. These asymptomatic people are super spreaders. 

People who “feel fine,” yet are positive make COVID19 much more dangerous than Ebola. While Ebola kills about half of the people who contract it (about 50% mortality rate), it spreads through bodily fluids and those who get it have such pronounced symptoms they’re easier to identify and isolate. While frightening and gruesome, Ebola results in significantly fewer total deaths -- 11,300 worldwide since the first outbreak in 1976. A virus like COVID19 is much more dangerous because it can reach more people, even though it kills a smaller percentage of those infected (about 5% mortality rate). The mortality rate of the Spanish Flu of 1918 was 2.5% (half of COVID19’s), yet it killed almost 50 million people worldwide. A virus's low mortality rate per infection doesn't mean it's less deadly overall. Its exponential spread is a lethal weapon. Also, comparisons of COVID19 to the yearly flu are duplicitous and dangerous. Influenza has a much lower spreadability (R0 of about 1.3) and kills 35,000 people in the US yearly, while COVID19 already has killed 220,000 people in the US in just seven months. Coronavirus is 11+ times more deadly than the yearly flu. 

Epidemiologists, infectious disease specialists, and public health experts say that COVID19 is the most dangerous disease they’ve seen in their lifetimes. It’s clearly the greatest public health scourge of the past century. A healthy dose of fear, combined with fully understood and implemented scientific information and guidelines, are the most valuable public health tools available. 

2) The US is not consistently following public health guidelines. 

Our country's response to and public health behavior around COVID19 has been woefully inadequate, especially when considering the resources and know-how we possess. The US represents just 4.25% of the world’s population, yet we account for a shockingly disproportionate 20+% of the world’s deaths. We have higher death rates than many developing nations because we're not aggressively testing, consistently wearing masks, and uniformly social distancing in the face of an incurable deadly virus. Some of these basic proven public health behaviors like face covering, social distancing, and isolation/quarantine were used effectively to slow the spread of the Bubonic Plague. We're not acting as wisely and responsibly now as people did in the 14th century. 

Wear a mask. Stay apart. COVID19 is harbored in the respiratory system. That's why the diagnostic test swabs your nasal passage. It is mainly transmitted through airborne respiratory droplets carrying the virus, which easily spread when you breathe, speak, laugh, sneeze, or cough near someone else. It's much more contagious than a virus spread through bodily fluids. The further away you are from someone else, the more their respiratory droplets are diffused in the air = social distancing. The better the circulation of your environment, the faster they're diffused = outdoors is safer than indoors. The more the respiration from your mouth and nose are covered, the more everyone's droplets are blocked = mask wearing. 

Many peer-reviewed studies prove the efficacy of masks. Your wearing a mask protects both you and me. N95 masks and FDA-approved KN95s protect the wearer from 95% to 90% because they're tight-fitting and filter most of those particles upon inhalation. Hospitals need them for their staff because they do a good job of keeping workers safe even when they're exposed to ongoing, high viral loads. Surgical masks are second best in preventing the spread. Cloth masks are reasonably effective. Bandanas are only somewhat effective. Many infectious disease specialists say if they had to choose between a mask and a vaccine, they’d choose a mask (Dr. Christina Brennan. Dr. David Ho says they're on par). 

Check out the studies and guidelines about masks and social distancing at the CDC, NIH, Johns Hopkins, American Medical Association, Infectious Disease Society, JAMA, Lancet and other credible sites with peer-reviewed information. As you research COVID19, learn about the scientific method. It’s accounted for almost every scientific and technical advance in human history. Understand the peer-review process and how it builds scientific facts through replicable research and scientific consensus. Armed with in-depth scientific understanding and research you’re less likely to fall prey to opinion and disinformation campaigns that are rampant on social media. Masks and social distancing are about science (and public health best-practices to apply that science); they’re not about opinion, belief, or politics. Those are entirely separate purviews.

While ill-informed and selfish, not wearing a mask is not breaking the law in most places. CVS and Walmart have more power of enforcement in denying you entrance to their premises without a mask.  As we head into a winter with more indoor confinement and proximity, it's likely there will be more local enforcement of mask-wearing and revised CDC mask-wearing and social distancing guidelines. Whether mandated or not, use common sense and follow the science and public health guidelines: wear a mask, social distance, limit social gatherings, isolate if sick or exposed. Simple. Proven. Humane.

Test for the virus. The more reliable the COVID19 data from widespread diagnostic and surveillance testing, the better we can plan. With accurate testing and mitigating behaviors, we can lower the virus's R0 and manage the pandemic until herd immunity is achieved from a vaccine. 

The R0 is lower in countries and regions that strictly follow the science for preventing COVID19's spread. In lockdown or with careful adherence to public health best-practices, populations have been able to achieve an R0 of below 1.0 – the difference between exponential spread and containment. With an R0 above 1.0, the virus is winning the evolutionary arms race of its spread; below 1.0, science and human will are winning. 

Last April — after Germany’s swift and uniform implementation of ongoing testing, masking, and social distancing measures -- the Robert Koch Institute determined that Germany’s R0 had dipped to 0.7 from a high of almost 3.0. With this data, Chancellor Angela Merkel carefully relaxed lockdowns and reopened small businesses. South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, and much of Europe regularly test their citizens and use their regional COVID19 R0 factor to inform policy decisions for managing the fluctuating virus infections. Today, Australia, China, Denmark, and Israel are still maintaining an R0 below the critical 1.0 value.

 

But with the limited money, infrastructure, consistency, and emphasis on testing in the US, we are still behind the curve of understanding and managing the virus’s spread. Because flouting masks, ignoring social distancing, and quashing contact tracing (Donald Trump refused to let the CDC contact trace the superspreader events at the White House and subsequent rallies) have taken on a twisted form of political protest, 40 of the 50 states have R0 values above 1.0. Donald Trump's statements that COVID19 “is disappearing” or is "rounding the turn" are not true. With the average R0 value in the US at 1.3, we continue to be in an exponential growth pattern of a full-on pandemic as a second or third wave approaches. (Sacramento and San Bernardino, California are noteworthy areas of the US where the R0 is still below 1.0). 

To calculate the R0, researchers need regular and comprehensive data about infection rates. The metric that determines whether we're doing enough testing (which is more important than the total number of positive cases) is the positivity rate – the percentage of total diagnostic tests conducted that are positive. The World Health Organization indicates that when positivity is above 5%, the level of testing is not keeping up with levels of disease transmission. Higher positivity rates suggest the likelihood of more people with coronavirus in the community who haven’t been tested yet. Generally, the higher the positivity rate the higher the R0 value. 

The US’s positivity rate is above that 5% threshold, at 6.25%. No surprise our R0 is above 1.0. We're simply not testing enough. India, Chile, Uganda, Russia, Zimbabwe, Japan, Serbia, Finland, Canada, Turkey, Nigeria, Taiwan, and El Salvador, are just a sampling of the 44 nations with better positivity testing rates than the US. Super COVID19 tester countries with a positivity rate below 1% are South Korea, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, and Fiji. They are consistently and aggressively testing and contact tracing to stay ahead of the virus. 

3) We're in this time of risk and uncertainty for the long haul, so follow the science. 

COVID19 likes a cold dry climate and a contained environment for spreading. That's the definition of this upcoming winter in much of the world. Indoor mask-wearing may be in the offing. Unfortunately, beating COVID19 will take much longer than we hope or most people tell us. Epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists predict we're in for a superspreader winter and another year of COVID19-constricted life.

 

Here’s why it may take that long. There are many “what ifs” yet to be determined for a COVID19 vaccine. While researchers are moving faster on vaccine development than with any other vaccine and several look promising, there are huge practical hurdles to the world’s population achieving herd immunity. Things like: 

If we’re lucky enough to identify some vaccines that are safe and work, what is their efficacy? Based on that percentage of efficacy, what percentage of the population needs to vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold? (The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the higher the percentage of the population that needs inoculation. The most contagious of the widely known diseases is measles, with an R0 of 15. To achieve herd immunity, 95% of people need to be vaccinated).  Does the vaccine require one or two shots for efficacy? (If two, it may incur twice as much cost, effort, and time). How long will immunity last? (The shorter the time, the more likely new outbreaks will occur and the greater the need for more vaccinations). Does the vaccine need to be refrigerated? (This hugely affects warm climates and the developing world, requiring more money, personnel, and infrastructure). Who gets the limited supply of vaccines first and in what order? How long will it take to manufacture enough vaccines and get everyone vaccinated?Will enough people take the vaccine to achieve herd immunity? (Current polls show 33% of Americans would not take the vaccine based on safety fears).  When is it safe to travel when only some populations have been vaccinated? How do you prove someone’s vaccinated in order to more safely open up schools, restaurants, courtrooms, movie theaters, airplanes, etc.? Who pays for all this? 

This list goes on. Altogether, this is Herculean. It will take time.

 

You might want to rail against this information. That’s understandable because you’re not hearing the truth much through the vitriol. But it's time to deal honestly with the facts of the most important issue at hand right now -- an ongoing global pandemic. The truth is powerful. It can prepare us to hunker down for the slog ahead, as safely as possible. 

The good news, many of the best minds worldwide are working on developing a vaccine for COVID19. We have a better understanding of how the virus acts. Healthcare providers are more prepared and knowledgeable about treatments for the very sick. But it will be a long time until the world's population has been vaccinated and it's safe to go back to life as we knew it. We must pledge to do our part. Follow the science -- wear your masks, socially distance, get tested if sick or exposed, quarantine and isolate -- for as long as it takes. Don’t expect a jab in the arm for COVID19 in the next few months (but please get your flu shot to avoid the flu and minimize the confusion between the two illnesses). Do your best to keep each other safe and respect each other along the way.

By adhering to these public health best practices along with aggressive diagnostic and surveillance testing, pockets of infection can be isolated. We can hold back infection and death rates. Also we can boost the economy. More businesses and schools can be opened up. It’s a win-win-win — improved physical, psychological, and financial health.

 

We’ve got to dig deep, pull together, and use the tools we have at hand. They are considerable: sound science and human will.

 

By Anne Zeiser,
Founder of  Azure Media 
Founder of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media

This year’s $5 million a pop Super Bowl spots delivered the requisite ads about cars, snacks, franchise movies, and beer en masse using the reliable devices of humor, celebrities, and CGI graphics. But a new mandate for Super Bowl ads has emerged in these tempestuous times –– ads with a social message.
While most spots played it safe, the brands and organizations that took the PR risk and dedicated the considerable funds to go socially conscious, went big and went high. Three of those social issue spots were clear standouts with strong narrative arcs, each underscoring relevant social themes.
Our Home-Our Planet
Budweiser’s “Wind Never Felt Better” combines three essential ingredients for this savory spot. First, Bob Dylan’s ‘60s protest classic, “Blowin’ In the Wind” proves emotionally gripping, ageless, and by the ad’s conclusion, a perfect fit for the overall message.  The anthem provides an entrée to the next key ingredient, Bud’s lovable animals.  The spot opens with a tight shot of the Budweiser Dalmatian traveling in a vehicle, languishing as the wind flaps his lips and ears.  It channels the trope of the funny dog-in-car ad, but as the camera zooms back we see the pup is atop an eight-in-hand Clydesdale-pulled beer wagon traversing a field (of barley). The viewer is already satisfied by seeing this display of equine power and beauty and the camera gives us what we want, training on the horses for a while. Finally, the camera pulls back again to reveal the third ingredient, unexpected wind turbines in the background of this heartfelt landscape.  At that moment, the music’s lyrics reach us at yet another level. The spot resolves to the messages, “Wind Never Felt Better” and “Now Brewed With Wind Power for a Better Tomorrow,” as the harmonica ends the song with a flourish. Simply brilliant. This one-minute film has the horsepower to remind us of our responsibility to Mother Earth and the need to combat climate change by using renewable energy.    Those Who Look Different Are Able
The “We All Win” spot for Microsoft’s Xbox adaptable videogame controller starts with quick shots of kids introducing themselves. Just kids, it seems. Then it profiles nine-and-half-year-old Owen, whose father tells us he has a rare genetic disorder, Escobar Syndrome. Owen’s already undergone 33 surgeries and has visible physical limitations. In his own words Owen tells us who he is through common kid measures – how old he is, that he loves his friends and family, and that his passion is video gaming (repeats twice). Owen’s clearly not about his condition or any perceived disability; he’s about what he can do. And he brings his already introduced friends into the mix as we witness their animated video game session. Some of Owen’s friends are missing arms or hands, yet are able to play Xbox with the adaptive controller. Owen explains, “What I like about the Adaptable Controller, is now everyone can play.” Tears well up in Owen’s dad’s eyes, “He’s not different when he plays.” At a time when video gaming needs an image boost more than ever, Microsoft’s Xbox Adaptive Controller short story wins the game of placing gaming in a new light, demonstrating how accessible technology can make us all able-bodied. 
Facts Must Prevail  
“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the Washington Post’s Super Bowl installment of its ongoing multi-platform campaign (of the same name) about how facts beget enlightenment. The Jeff Bezos-owned stalwart of the Fourth Estate has taken the White House’s “fake news” assault on journalism, head on. Who more credible and honorable (among actors) to voice this spot than the inimitable, Tom Hanks? The simple, but powerful words and symbolic graphics of this one-minute social documentary show us how facts and the pursuit of truth underpin our grand American experiment:
When we go off to war. (Omaha Beach in WWII)When we exercise our rights. (Selma Alabama Civil Rights protest)When we soar to our greatest heights. (U.S. flag planted on the moon)When we mourn and pray. (Casket lying in state in the Capitol rotunda)When are neighbors are at risk. (Firefighters fighting wildfires)When our nation is threatened. (Oklahoma City federal building bombing blast)There’s someone to gather the facts. (Police in riot gear)To bring you the story. (Various reporters in action from many media outlets)No matter the cost. (Journalist profiles: Austin Tice, captured in 2012; Marie Colvin, killed 2012; Jamal Khashoggi, killed 2018)Because…Knowing empowers us. Knowing helps us decide. Knowing keeps us free. THE WASHINGTON POST- Democracy Dies in Darkness

This spot makes us tingle with pride about our democratic and journalistic legacy and feel steely resolve to use facts to stamp out the darkness of ignorance.
Other spots in Super Bowl LIII hit socially conscious notes, but these three were the most powerful. They were noticed and felt, trending on many online platforms and spawning considerable commentary and debate.  In an immediate Twitter post about the Washington Post spot, Donald Trump, Jr. opined about the mainstream media, “how about report the news and not their leftist BS for a change.” Scorching across social media, this comment made the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” spot’s very point. 
_________________________________________________________________Anne Zeiser is a critically acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She’s stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded Azure Media, which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. She’s the author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media, from Focal Press’ American Film Market® Presents book series.Follow Anne Zeiser on Twitter at @AzureMedia

COURTESY PICKABAY









By Anne Zeiser
Founder of Azure Media 
Author of   Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media


The semantics of climate change have evolved from global warming to climate change over the last 25 years, but have focused on the science. This week, Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the historic Paris Climate Agreement, in which 194 countries pledged to step up their commitment to cutting carbon emissions. In his announcement, Trump reframed the discussion away from the science of fossil fuel’s effect on the environment toward economics:

“The Paris climate accord disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production.”

Trump’s always planned on pulling out of the Paris accord because he’s a self-proclaimed America Firster; he’s cozy with the petroleum industry; and he thinks whatever Obama did is inherently bad. He chose an economic argument because he thought his background as a businessman would bestow unquestioned credibility upon him. Plus, his fake science and conspiracy theories might no longer fly.But Trump’s economic argument for why it’s OK to sully the Earth and jeopardize our future is just as specious as his climate science reasoning, fixing him as the “laughing stock” of the world. Once again, Trump’s hubris has backfired: the science and environmental reality of climate change won’t go away; his fact-free economic reasoning is easily shredded; and pulling out of the Paris Agreement is wildly unpopular. The accord is supported by almost 70 percent of Americans, every major global economy, and scores of major U.S. and multinational corporations.Trump’s alienated himself and the U.S. from most of the world by making a morally bereft and financially short-sighted decision about climate. But he’s made a fool of himself by making assertions about climate change based on Bad Science and Bad Economics, which simply don’t add up to sound arguments.Bad ScienceTrump has a legacy of misunderstanding and spewing bad science about climate change. He ignores decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies on global warming that predicted the climate change that’s happened. And he dismisses the current science on the state of the planet and future effects. Like fossil fuel advocates who push out misinformation andpeople who don’t understand climate science (Trump is both), Trump confuses weather and climate to try to disprove climate science:

Of course, weather is the short-term natural variations in temperature, clouds, precipitation, humidity and wind in a region and climate is the long-term average of those characteristics in a region. Meteorologists summarize it as, “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.” So, a snowstorm in the southern U.S. is a normal weather fluctuation and doesn’t disprove the growing trend of climate change. Trump regularly misstates the scientific facts, here suggesting the ice isn’t melting in the Arctic and Antarctic:Ironically, the vast oil reserves beneath the Arctic are now drillable because global warming has melted the Arctic ice enough to reach them. In the many decades Big Oil was denying global warming, it was secretly preparing Arctic operations to reap huge profits from it. In 2012, Exxon Mobil’s former CEO, and current Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson forged a symbiotic relationship with Vladimir Putin to commence those operations. Trump’s stance on climate is reflected by his cabinet picks of four fossil fuel supporters from Texas and Oklahoma. It also may explain his bromance with Putin. Perhaps Trump’s shift in his anti-climate change argument from science to economics hints at his true agenda – personal economics.In his Paris Agreement speech, Trump misstates the science again to suggest the global pledges wouldn’t have a significant effect:

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.” 

The MIT scientists who published the April 2016 study Trump cited, actually reported that global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s huge when the overall goal is two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. When in doubt, Trump throws out inexplicable conspiracy theories, which appeal to the irrational. Here he blames the hoax of climate change on China:All this adds up to Trump’s penchant for science fiction ― fueled by his lack of understanding of the scientific process and his unfettered pursuit of political and personal gain.Bad EconomicsTrump’s financial and jobs arguments aren’t any better. In his Rose Garden climate accord speech he relies on hyperbole, saying the Paris climate accord imposes “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the U.S.If that were so, why would the U.S.’s economic leaders – from tech, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Adobe; manufacturing and infrastructure, GE, Johnson Controls, Ingersoll Rand; consumer products, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Tiffany, Levi Strauss, Mars, The Gap; financial services, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, The Hartford; automobile, Tesla, General Motors; and even fossil fuels, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and BP – all support the Paris Climate Agreement? None of these companies wants to be “hamstrung” or penalized.In fact, 25 big companies placed full-page ads in major U.S. media outlets to urge Trump to stay in the pact. In their plea to stay in, they cite key economic reasons that obliterate Trump’s claims: Strengthening Competitiveness : By requiring action by developed and developing countries alike, the agreement ensures a more balanced global effort, reducing the risk of competitive imbalances for U.S. companies. Creating Jobs, Markets and Growth : By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures. Reducing Business Risks : By strengthening global action over time, the agreement will reduce future climate impacts, including damage to business facilities and operations, declining agricultural productivity and water supplies, and disruption of global supply chains.To make his assertions, Trump cherrypicks proof points without presenting the full picture. He says, “Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord ... could cost Americans as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.” Referring to fossil fuel-associated industries, he further calls out his poster child, the obsolete coal industry, yet ignores the economics of the burgeoning renewables energy industry.His math is simply inaccurate. According to a new report by the U. S. Department of Energy, solar power alone currently employs almost twice as many in the U.S. as coal, natural gas, and oil and petroleum combined. Adding wind and nuclear, clean energy outpaces traditional fossil energy jobs by almost three-fold. Advanced energy – seven business sectors committed to clean energy – employs 3.3 million in the U.S., while coal mining employs about 86,000.

Courtesy Forbes
Advanced energy is one of the most vibrant global industries, generating $1.4 trillion in global revenue last year, “nearly twice the size of the airline industry, equal to apparel, and close to global spending on media, from newspapers to movies to video games,” according to Navigant research. And it’s growing twice as fast as the overall economy (7 percent vs. 3.1 percent). An International Renewable Energy Agency report predicts that global renewable energy will nearly triple employment by 2030 to 24 million jobs. If unfounded dire economic predictions aren’t enough, Trump heightens fear or anger towards perceived enemies. He suggests that China and India aren’t being held to the same standards as we are:

“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants but they can. According to this agreement, India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”

Context matters. China and India are behind the rest of the developed world in having access to cleaner technologies, but are working at lowering their emissions at breakneck speed. To catch up, China’s now building a new green power infrastructure as big as the U.S.’s entire electric grid. China’s also pledged $3.1 billion in aid to the U.N. Green Climate Fund to help climate-vulnerable countries (now, the U.S. won’t honor most of its $3 billion pledge). China’s already shown exceptional climate and clean energy global leadership and is poised to fill the big void that Trump created by pulling the U.S. out of the accord. India plans to source 40 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030, passing Japan as the third largest solar market behind China and the U.S. Finally, Trump resorts to blatant scare tactics. He says the U.S. “will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts.” Two of the country’s biggest providers of electricity to industries and consumers, National Grid and Schneider Electric, support the Paris Climate Agreement. They understand that using combined energy sources during the transition will prevent against blackouts. All this adds up to fuzzy math and “Trumped up” economics fueled by Trump’s fear of innovation and his patent disregard of the future. It’s as if he’s advocating for the long-term future of the manual typewriter while the personal computer is flourishing and demonstrating its promise. During his Paris climate accord announcement, Trump asks, “At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?” If not at previous inflection points, surely it was the moment Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. France’s President, Emmanuel Macron captured the world’s sentiment with his slogan, “Make The Planet Great Again!”

Statement on the US' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreements. #parisagreementhttps://t.co/T4XOjWZW0Q— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2017

_________________________________________________________________Anne Zeiser is a critically acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She’s stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded Azure Media, which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. She’s the author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media, from Focal Press’ American Film Market® Presents book series.Follow Anne Zeiser on Twitter at @AzureMedia

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post

Boston Women's March/Courtesy Anne ZeiserBy Anne Zeiser
Founder of Azure Media 
Author of   Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media


The Women’s March on January 21, 2017 – the day after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration – was momentous. Not only for the moment it represented, but also for the movement it’s unleashing. Young people are feeling their agency. Creatives are producing social commentary. Journalists are reestablishing their craft. And democracy is galvanizing populist support.



While it’s harder to get people to show up at events than to donate money, they turned out in droves for the Women’s March. At least 500,000 marchers peacefully protested in Washington D.C., for the "protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country"[3]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march/story?id=44884784. Some 400 sister marches popped up in every major city and minor burg in the U.S., garnering 1.3 million participants. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/womens-march-on-washington-a-sea-of-pink-hatted-protesters-vow-to-resist-donald-trump/2017/01/21/ae4def62-dfdf-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.0d78ed7218fe&wpisrc=nl_most-draw14&wpmm=1Hundreds more sprung up in Paris, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Antarctica. In all, there were 672 separate marches worldwide, firing up 2 million activists.
By way of historical comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C., the Women’s March on Washington was the largest combined protest in the U.S. and the second largest in D.C., second to the 2013 March for Life to protest abortion, which attracted 650,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)The 1963 March on Washington, the historic civil rights rally on the Mall where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speechdrew 250,000 people; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedomfrom 1965 to 1971 there were a series of anti-Vietnam marches, the largest being the 1969 Vietnam Moratorium, which attracted 600,000 over the course of a week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam; and the 1995 Million Man March for black rights drew between 400,000 (National Park Service) to 837,000 (Boston University/ABC research). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March.
But activism alone doesn’t automatically translate into change. Change happens from long-term organized actions that strategically exert pressure at critical pivot points. Strong movements operate from from the bottom up and the top down. Your actions matter because grassroots movements influence leaders and power brokers to make bold moves and break with party lines.  The drumbeat must be unrelenting and sustained – for as long as it takes. Therefore, everyone who marched and everyone who marched in spirit must act in some meaningful way on an ongoing basis. You can contribute to real change by acting and participating in myriad ways. You can: volunteer, donate money, lobby elected officials, raise money, protest, contact the media, write articles, make art, spread the word. Here are five practical means to translate your energy and activism into change:

1.     Find a Group or Cause to Champion – Connect to an organization or a cause you care deeply about and stick with it. Don’t spread yourself too thin with too many causes, but rather commit to fewer things over the long haul. Whether you choose a larger organization like Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Center for Accountability, or Climate Reality or a local educational or health group, make a concerted effort to contribute in some way every week. Over time it will be a fulfilling part of your life, rather than a task.
2.     Talk to Your Elected Officials – Elected officials represent you. You must make your opinions heard throughout officials’ terms, not just on Election Day. Your town, city, and state websites have your local officials’ contacts and the National Priorities Project https://www.nationalpriorities.org/take-action/contact-your-representative/has them for your Congressional representatives. Go to your officials’ offices hours. Call, e-mail, and write them to let them know how you feel about the issues of the day. Flood their phone banks and their mailboxes. Organize your own petition via Care2.com http://www.thepetitionsite.com/create-a-petition.html/?src=google_sem&campaign=create_a_petition_us_c_brand:petition sites:b:ctrl:&s_kwcid=google_sem&gclid=CjwKEAiA8JbEBRCz2szzhqrx7H8SJAC6FjXXm1_IwWjL_vn9kuuwPApbHBUgvb__qidk-X77kcVQnxoCh7nw_wcBor sign onto organized petitions by CREDO Action, https://credoaction.com/ MoveOn.org, http://front.moveon.org/ or Change.org, https://www.change.org/m/demand-action-from-president-elect-donald-trump. Sign petitions, tag the links with hashtags, and share them widely on your digital platforms – Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat, blog, vlog, podcast, and website.
3.     Get Involved in Public Service – Be active in the political process. Run for office or support candidates who represent your ideology. You can start locally on school committees or in state legislatures. Virginia, New Jersey, and North Carolina have key state-level elections this year. There are 38 governors’ races in 2017 and 2018 that may affect gerrymandered districts https://secure.democraticgovernors.org/stand-against-republican-gerrymandering?utm_medium=ads+&utm_campaign=endgerrymandering&utm_source=fb_lp_dlal&geo=na(recarving the borders of a district to ensure a party or candidate wins). The mid-term Congressional elections in 2018 are critical to the complexion of Congress. Because the Electoral College is likely to remain in the 2020 presidential election the best way to elect a president who represents your values may be to work in a sister battleground state such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Maine, or New Hampshire to swing those electoral votes.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2016-battleground-state-exit-poll-results-analysis/story?id=43368489
4.     Register to Vote/Get Out the Vote – Voting is the most powerful tool of democracy, yet it’s the most overlooked. If everyone eligible had voted last fall, we might have had a different outcome today. Ensure everyone you know who’s a citizen of 18 years or older is registered. Many people don’t register because they don’t know how. Work with your town hall and state to spread the word on how to register. Help voters sign up in inner cities, on farms, and on college campuses. Check out Rock the Vote’s efforts to increase voter registration and http://www.rockthevote.com/get-involved/nvrd/the League of Women’s Voters http://lwv.org/  initiatives to make registration easier and stop voter suppression. During elections, encourage people in your sphere of influence to exercise their franchise. Drive those that need help to vote or volunteer at your local polling place.

5.     Support Journalism and Freedom of the Press – The days of believing fake news are dead. Sound journalism – supported by verified facts – is central to an informed citizenry. That’s why freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  To develop a discerning eye, read various news sites, watch news programs, and subscribe to a newspaper or publication. Note the difference in how media outlets report on the same issue. Understand the difference between reporting and opinion (public affair programs and op-eds). Watch documentaries on many subjects. PBShas some of the best. http://www.pbs.org/video/Cultivate and share your trusted news sources widely on social and digital media.  Hold social media sites and news outlets responsible for fact checking.  Support #Truth and #Journalism and denounce #FakeNews and #AltFacts.

There’s much that you can do, but these five avenues will focus your energy in ways that matter. If you want to keep following the Women’s March thread, its organizers have outlined “10 Actions for the First100 Days” of Trump in office. They offer 10 doable, actions with easy-to-follow steps like socializing and sending postcards to elected officials.  There’s no dearth of means to sustain the momentum and make a measurable difference. Add your ideas, organizations, and links in the comments below.
But don’t wait to be led by others to be a change agent.  

“If something needs fixing, then lace up your shoes and do some organizing.” -- President Barack Obama

This story also appeared in the Huffington Post_____________________________________________________________________
Anne Zeiser is a critically-acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She’s stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded Azure Media, which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. She’s the author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media from Focal Press’ American Film Market® Presents book series. Chapter 29, “Media-fueled Social Impact” outlines how to create social change movements using the media.

Follow Anne Zeiser on Twitter @AzureMedia

Sesame Street





By Anne Zeiser
Founder of Azure Media 
Author of   Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media

Anyone who’s been in business or managed teams of people knows you can’t have two people running the same show. Accountability must lie with one person. Because ego always creates conflict with two co-heads, President-elect Trump’s recent top posts has created a two-headed monster.


Trump’s appointment of Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee Chairman, as his chief of staff is the politically expedient decision for the top White House position, appeasing the Republican leadership.  Priebus is a GOP insider with close ties to House Speaker, Paul Ryan. Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, the recent chairman of the Trump campaign and former chairman of the conservative Breitbart News, as his chief strategist and senior counselor is a cagey positioning of who Trump really trusts and wanted. But Bannon won’t fly in Washington as chief of staff because the alt-right lightning rod has been the architect of many of Trump’s most polarizing nationalistic and racist messaging during the campaign. The murky title of “strategist” gives him the president’s ear without anyone knowing how much he owns it.
How do I know whether Priebus or Bannon is Trump’s true consigliere? Journalists and public relations professionals know that the person listed first in a press release signals who’s the most important.  That’s Bannon in this case, despite Priebus snagging the top chief of staff title.
What Trump has tried to do with these dual appointments is to give both the ultraconservative voters and more moderate GOP leadership someone to look to in a position of power as “their guy.” But this two-headed moster is a critical mistake. Instead of sticking to his business know-how by placing one person in charge, Trump’s dual leadership posts is a prescription for internal civil war in his administration.

It will end with Trump figuratively lopping of one of the monster’s heads by uttering his hallmark statement to one of them, “You’re fired.” 
This updated story also appeared on LinkedIn Pulse.
_____________________________________________________________________

Anne Zeiser is a critically-acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She's stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded  Azure Media , which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. With media partners from PBS and the BBC to Miramax and Sikelia Productions, Zeiser has successfully launched and marketed film studios and media organizations, feature and documentary films, television series and specials, mobile games and apps, and online video and media communities. She's the author of  Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media  from Focal Press' American Film Market® Presents book series. You can follow her at the book’s  Web site  or on Twitter @azuremedia.

TomWang112


By Anne Zeiser
Founder of Azure Media 
Author of   Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media


My son’s middle school pre-election vote was prescient. Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 7%. “Could this actually happen in real life?,” asked my 12- year-old. “Yes it could.” For more than a year, I have predicted that this outcome was likely. Ask my friends and family about the heated discussions at cookouts and holiday get-togethers. Most dismissed my theory that Trump would win because of the hidden, growing trend he represented and pandered to. I suspected the polls wouldn’t fully reveal this partially underground phenomenon. 
Now that it has come to pass, what to say to a kid who heard Trump’s “build a wall” statement in real time and called him on it vehemently? A kid who formed his own opinion of who was the better candidate, landing firmly on Hillary Clinton. So, when Trump became the President-elect, what could he learn from the loss of his chosen candidate?



These are my suggested takeaways:

1. Life isn’t fair. It never has been and it never will be. The sooner and the more deeply you learn this, the better-equipped you will be to handle life. “So what?” if a kid stole your ball, the teacher blamed you for something you didn’t do, a colleague presented your idea as his, or your candidate didn’t win? The takeaway: Decide how you are you going to handle it. Are you going to blame your current circumstances on external forces?  Are you going to dwell on the fact that it’s unjust? Or, are you going to translate that ire into resolve to do something about it… starting now? 

2. Find the good in people. Are all of Trump’s supporters, bigots, misogynists, and haters? Probably not. But they’re all scared. They’re afraid of losing something precious — their economic or social standing. We know how swiftly fear brings out the worst in people. We saw the rise of fear in Nazi Europe and we saw FDR brilliantly allay it when the Great Depression descended upon this country. The takeaway: Work hard to understand what people are afraid of. Is it fear of lost jobs, diminished quality of life, or “otherness?” Once fear’s understood, you can combat it – by demonstrating how rising tides raise all boats or how we all share a common human experience. 

3. Understand that you have power.  Whether you’re a 12- or 87-year-old; a business owner or unemployed; a white male or a member of a disenfranchised group; you are powerful, especially in this country. You have rights. You have a voice. You have platforms. You have agency.  The takeaway: Every person’s actions matter. The greatest movements began with one person who inspired others to stand up for good. What you do in your life – no matter how seemingly insignificant – has a ripple effect on the people around you, and so on, and so on. Gather up your power and feel its strength.

4. Identify clearly what needs fixing. While there’s a lot to do to make the world a better place and it’s great to feel passionate about many things, you can’t fuel real change without identifying concrete problems and solutions.  What will ensure all Americans have equal rights under the law? How do we give everyone an opportunity to prosper? What measures will protect our planet from climate change? The takeaway: Find your cause(s) and identify the various ways to improve it. Some solutions involve top-down institutional or policy change. Others use bottom-up grassroots public pressure. Most use both. What elements of those solutions can you truly advance?  

5. Create a practical action plan.  Actions affect change. Your actions should be proportional to the concern you feel. If you think the long-standing future of the country is at stake, then make a long-standing commitment to getting involved. Progress requires hard, protracted work. You can sign a petition or post on social media, but will armchair activism be enough? The takeaway: Evaluate the most effective ways you can make a difference. Are you a strong writer or a tech guru? Can you lend your skills to like-minded people or groups? Perhaps you will shape your career to positively impact this world. Will you run for office? Invent something useful? Advocate for the needy?

In seeking lessons around the outcome of the recent election for my 12-year-old – a person old enough to understand what’s going on in the world, but not old enough to fully feel his agency in changing it – I learned a lot. Proof positive that parenting often teaches us more than we teach our children.  In that spirit I share what I hoped my son would learn during this exceptional time – a time that’s raw, but rife with opportunity.
This updated story also appeared in the HuffingtonPost.
_____________________________________________________________________
Anne Zeiser is a critically-acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She's stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded  Azure Media , which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. With media partners from PBS and the BBC to Miramax and Sikelia Productions, Zeiser has successfully launched and marketed film studios and media organizations, feature and documentary films, television series and specials, mobile games and apps, and online video and media communities. She's the author of  Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media  from Focal Press' American Film Market® Presents book series. You can follow her at the book’s  Web site  or on Twitter @azuremedia.

iStock/photoshop Anne Zeiser







By Anne Zeiser
Founder of Azure Media 
Author of  Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media








Four years ago, I felt compelled to write a withering post about the U.S. Olympic team's uniform, designed by Ralph Lauren. Tonight, during the opening ceremonies in Rio, we'll see the seminal U.S. designer's next iteration in its full glory.
But the big reveal may play a lot like a rerun of London. As expected, the team uniform is patriotically red, white, and blue. And it's still nautical preppy, because that's what Lauren iWhat's different? The designer has traded in the double-breasted blue blazer for single breasted. The whole outfit looks too tight (or maybe that's the new "athletic cut"?).  And the boat shoes are, well....red, white and blue. To reinforce its patriotism, Ralph Lauren (or the U.S. Olympic Committee) decided not to make Team USA's uniforms in China anymore, and went with "Made in America." 
  @FradkinOleg/TwitterSocial media is mocking the uniform with fervor. Early squawks note that the shirt’s white, blue and red stripes – revealed above the blazer – resemble the Russian flagIn light of the current presidential election, placing any more energy on the uniforms feels misspent. So, instead of writing a new, long post, here's my Huffington Post review of Team USA's uniform of four years ago, "Ponies and Stripes Forever: The Olympics’ Shameless Polo Product Placement." 
Everything that I wrote about the former Olympic uniforms still applies, but because of the current context, the political allusions are more amusing. 
This updated story also appeared in the Huffington Post.
_____________________________________________________________________
Anne Zeiser is a critically-acclaimed transmedia and social impact producer and media strategist. She's stewarded films and iconic series for PBS, produced news for CBS, managed national brands for marketing firms, and founded Azure Media , which develops transmedia projects on air, online, and on the go that fuel social impact in communities, in schools, and in capitals. With media partners from PBS and the BBC to Miramax and Sikelia Productions, Zeiser has successfully launched and marketed film studios and media organizations, feature and documentary films, television series and specials, mobile games and apps, and online video and media communities. She's the author of Transmedia Marketing: From Film and TV to Games and Digital Media from Focal Press' American Film Market® Presents book series. You can follow her at the book’s Web site or on Twitter @azuremedia.