Editor’s Note: GOOD’s parent company is a proud partner with Global Witness, sharing stories of their mission challenging abuses of power to protect human rights and secure the future of our planet.


Despite Chevron’s public comments in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, Global Witness finds that Chevron gives over four times more campaign funding to US politicians who fail to uphold racial justice and civil rights legislation.

As the United States faces a watershed moment in the country’s movement for racial justice, Chevron is aiming to portray itself as an ally to Black communities with public statements of solidarity in the struggle against systemic racism. However, Global Witness found that behind the scenes, the company funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars through its political action committee to politicians whose civil rights voting records earned “F” grades from the NAACP[1]. According to a Global Witness analysis, Chevron gave over 4 times more in political funding to candidates with “failing” civil rights grades than to politicians with “passing” grades, as scored by the civil rights organization’s 2019 Legislative Civil Rights Report Card for the 116th Congress.



In the aftermath of the brutal and highly visible police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota late May 2020, millions of people flooded the streets in major cities and small towns alike to vocally oppose longstanding police violence and racism. Corporations took to social media to publicly show their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Yet, while companies like Netflix, Citigroup, and Amazon voiced their support, the fossil fuel industry was largely silent, with just a few releasing statements in the days that followed. Chevron was the only major US oil company to do so.




It wasn’t the first statement on racial justice to come from Chevron. The oil major, which calls itself a “human energy company,” has previously spoken out on racial justice issues. The company has boasted commitments to diversity and inclusion, highlighted partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities, and cited efforts internally to improve diversity in their workforce, including among leadership. Following Floyd’s death, the company tweeted their solidarity and shared statements from top executives.

But behind the public persona, Chevron is propping up politicians who consistently work to oppose and dismantle policies that would further racial justice and equality. According to public campaign finance records[2] for the current election cycle spanning 2019 and 2020, Chevron has given at least $529,500 through its political action committee to US Congressmembers with failing civil rights grades, as scored by the NAACP. This compares to $124,000 given to politicians with passing grades.

Nearly half of Congress received a failing grade from the NAACP, largely falling on partisan lines. However, 80% of the members of Congress whom Chevron has contributed to have failing civil rights marks. Many elected officials with poor civil rights records are also key advocates for the oil and gas industry, and Chevron is notorious for its massive political spending to push pro-industry interests[3]. But it appears the company’s political spending also props up politicians who use their positions of power to further entrench racial injustice.

For example, Chevron has contributed to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who recently penned a disturbing New York Times op-ed calling to “Send In the Troops” in response to ongoing protests against police brutality and racism. His argument to deploy the military on protestors caused many to point out how Cotton’s call to arms would put Black residents at risk.

In response, Cotton defended his article and referred to the backlash as the newsroom’s “woke progressive mob.” The senator, who called for justice for George Floyd in a sparse resolution also opposing calls to defund police, received a dismal NAACP civil rights score of 7%. His poor civil rights voting record is largely due to judicial confirmations that risk dismantling civil rights law, such as the appointment to an appeals court of Steven Menashi, the author of a controversial 2010 academic article appearing to promote ethnonationalism.

Or look to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the former Republican Senate Majority Whip who maintains a tremendous amount of influence in the party. Chevron gave the maximum possible donation to Cornyn as limited by FEC guidelines[4]. In the aftermath of Floyd’s killing, the senator said it was a reminder that “we have a long way to go in the fight for equal justice under the law,” and recently joined a handful of his Republican colleagues in a working group on legislation to overhaul policing. But he then went on to reject the notion that systemic racism within policing and beyond exists in the United States, seeming unable to accept the notion of implicit racial bias.

The Texas senator, who earned a disgraceful 7% civil rights score, is also cozy with fossil fuel interests. He is the top recipient of oil and gas money across the board, and recently introduced a bill to gift oil and gas companies a government handout amid the coronavirus pandemic.




Then there’s Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) – all of whom received maximum contributions from Chevron and failing grades from the NAACP. They all make up part of a joint fundraising committee that includes a former conservative talk radio host with a well-documented history of racist and misogynistic comments.

McSally, who joined Senator Cotton in introducing the modest resolution calling for justice for Floyd, has also advanced hateful rhetoric. In 2018, she proposed, apparently in jest, a border wall between California and Arizona designed “to keep these dangerous criminals out of [the] state,” in a reference to California’s sanctuary city policies to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. At the same time, she has been criticized for putting Big Oil ahead of the public health of her constituents and hosts an overwhelmingly anti-environment voting record.

When asked by Global Witness about its funding of politicians with failing civil rights records, Chevron reiterated its support for diversity and inclusion in the workplace and said: “We support candidates based on a wide number of factors including their views towards the need for affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy. We engage with and support many elected officials who take positions on a wide range of issues. We are not always aligned with all of their views but it is important for us to be part of the dialogue and share our perspectives, including those on diversity and inclusion, with candidates.”

A pattern of hypocrisy

But Chevron’s spending doesn’t just go to politicians with poor racial justice records, they also give substantial amounts to outside groups. For instance, Chevron contributed $1.625M to the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), a super-PAC tied to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The SLF has pledged nearly $11M in advertising through state-based affiliates to support McConnell, who as Senate Majority Leader has arguably been the largest single roadblock to progress on racial justice through the legislative process in recent years.

Consider “The Voting Rights Advancement” Act of 2019, an effort to restore and build upon the landmark civil rights legislation of 1965 that tackled racial discrimination in voter suppression. The 2019 bill passed in the House of Representatives, but has been blocked by McConnell for the better part of the year. Just this week, Democrats renewed calls to allow a vote in honor of the recent passing of civil rights icon and champion of the Voting Rights Act, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). Yet McConnell has so far indicated no intention of doing so.

For all its lip service to racial justice and equality, Chevron’s backing doesn’t end with politicians who push hateful rhetoric and dismantle civil rights policies. In an analysis on corporate ties to police foundations, LittleSis found that Chevron holds a spot on the Houston Police Foundation board and previously partnered with the foundation to host a law enforcement conference in Houston. Police foundations, which partner with corporations to raise money that supplements police budgets, enable spending on technology and weaponry with little public oversight. Chevron’s ties to this police foundation show a willingness to ignore the calls of the Black Lives Matter movement to dismantle the systemic racism of policing even as they claim to support it.

The oil major also operates in insidious ways that directly oppose their proclamations of solidarity with marginalized populations. Just last month, E&E News revealed Chevron was likely behind a public relations scheme to convince journalists to push the message that environmentalists advance “radical” climate policies, such as the Green New Deal, that would hurt minority communities. The apparent slip-up listed Chevron’s name at the bottom of the press release, though Chevron has denied involvement in the campaign. The revelation, however, shows efforts to peddle a false narrative around environmental policies by stoking racial divides.

Time and again Chevron’s actions go against their proclamations. As many have ardently pointed out, including Drilled’s Amy Westervelt, Chevron’s #BlackLivesMatter statements ignore the charges of environmental racism perpetuated against communities of color where the company has polluted for generations.

In Richmond, California, where Chevron has presided since 1902, more than 80% of residents are people of color. Organizers from these communities have long fought for their health and safety, battling in the courts to try and hold Chevron to account for pollution violations and failed safety measures. Health conditions disproportionately impact Richmond residents, where children have roughly twice the rate of asthma as in neighboring areas and every community bordering Chevron’s facility is in the 99th centile for the respiratory illness. This is particularly alarming given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that is thought to be exacerbated by air pollution and pre-existing respiratory conditions, and which impacts Black and Brown lives disproportionately.

Chevron actively harms the movement for racial justice they claim to support – in their operations, their public relations and their political funding. Their donations finance politicians who perpetuate systemic racism in the United States by barring legislation that would advance racial justice, confirming judges opposed to civil rights laws, and pushing policies that disproportionately harm communities of color. Chevron publicly claims to be an ally to Black communities and the Black Lives Matter movement, yet in reality they are part of the system that upholds structural racism in the US.

This article originally appeared on Global Witness. You can read it here.

  • These seven simple phrases could be the secret to deepening trust and romance in your relationship
    A happy couple enjoys coffee togetherPhoto credit: Canva
    , , ,

    These seven simple phrases could be the secret to deepening trust and romance in your relationship

    If you want a more secure relationship a Harvard expert recommends using these seven phrases.

    Maintaining a deep sense of connection and trust in a long term relationship is often easier said than done. Even for couples who have been together for years, the daily grind can sometimes dull the spark of romance. However, Dr. Cortney Warren, a psychologist trained at Harvard Medical School, has identified a specific set of verbal habits that distinguish highly successful, trusting couples from those who struggle.

    Dr. Warren recently shared seven phrases that secure partners use every day to reinforce their commitment. These small shifts in language are designed to foster vulnerability, safety, and a sense of shared purpose.

    The first few phrases focus on the core of any partnership: the belief that your partner is on your side.

    @drcortneywarren

    Feeling that twinge of jealousy or insecurity in your relationship? It happens to all of us, but how you respond can make all the difference. Instead of immediately reacting, try this: pause and ask yourself: What does my reaction to this situation say about me? Is it about fear of being unloved? A belief that you’re “not enough”? Often, our strongest emotional reactions are more about our own insecurities than about our partner’s actions. Taking the time to reflect on your triggers, where they come from, and how you can strengthen your self-esteem can help you communicate with your partner in a healthier, more productive way. This clip is from my recent conversation with Shanenn Bryant on the Top Self Podcast. #SelfAwareness #EmotionalIntelligence #HealthyRelationships #JealousyTriggers #TopSelfPodcast #RelationshipAdvice

    ♬ original sound – DrCortneyWarren – DrCortneyWarren

    1. “I trust you.”

    Simple, to the point, and clear. This communicates that you know your partner and that you believe they have your best interest in heart, even if you get into an argument. It also allows them to feel safe making some decisions on both of your behalf.

    2. “You see me as I am.”

    This not only tells your partner that they know all there is to know about you without fear of hiding parts of yourself, but that you’re comfortable being vulnerable should a difficult subject come up. It communicates that you trust your partner will respond with compassion, not judgment, while implying that they can trust you to do the same in return.

    Dr. Cortney Warren, relationship advice, Harvard psychologist, building trust, healthy communication, romance tips, non-verbal cues, marriage success, intimacy, partnership
    A couple on a romantic date. Credit: Canva

    3. “We’ll get through this.”

    Arguments, fights, and conflicts happen in even the most solid relationships. However, saying this phrase reinforces that while things still need to be sorted out, there is no intention of breaking the relationship over the disagreement. It allows more open communication and reiterates that it is you and your partner against the problem, not each other.

    4. “Go have fun with your friends/Thanks for giving me space!”

    If your relationship is solid, time apart shouldn’t be a threat. Alone time is natural and, frankly, healthy. Respecting your partner’s independence in turn respects yours.

    Dr. Cortney Warren, relationship advice, Harvard psychologist, building trust, healthy communication, romance tips, non-verbal cues, marriage success, intimacy, partnership. Credit: Youtube

    5. “I miss you.”

    As a counterbalance to the previous phrase, “I miss you” isn’t an indicator of being too clingy unless you’re not offering your partner the trust to have space. It’s just a nice way of saying that you look forward to being together and builds upon that when you reunite, whether it’s after a long business trip or later in the evening after work.

    6. “Let’s make a plan!”

    A growing relationship means mutually planning and investing in each other’s futures to further turn “your plans” and “my plans” into “our plans.” This phrase relays to your partner that you want them around for the long haul.

    7. “Can we talk?”

    Communication issues are one of the primary reasons relationships fail. Asking this simple and direct question accompanied with the previous phrases as foundations in your relationship will allow trust for you to ask and be asked when something troubling occurs with either of you.

    While verbal communication is important in sustaining relationships, it’s good to incorporate non-verbal gestures of support, love, and trust, too.

    Now, pairing these loving wordless gestures that expertscounselors, and psychologists recommend with the previous seven phrases could help your relationship develop deeper connection and trust.

    1. Eye contact

    Seeing eye-to-eye literally helps you both see eye-to-eye better when discussing a difficult topic or when you want to express loving attention to your partner.

    2. Smile

    Smiling is a nonverbal cue to reiterate that your partner’s presence is welcomed and safe. It also reminds your partner that you’re both okay, too.

    3. Supportive touch

    Caressing a shoulder, a peck on the forehead, holding hands, or a tight hug—any of these and all of these are ways to provide comfort and reassurance along with your words. It could also be a way to indicate your interest in further intimacy.

    4. Mirroring

    Matching your partner’s posture and pose helps foster connection while also indicating you’re absorbing what they’re verbally communicating to you. So, when you adjust your posture to meet theirs when they’re discussing something important to them, they’ll know you think it’s important, too. On the other end, if you match their relaxed pose, they’ll in turn feel more relaxed, too.

    5. Enjoy quiet time together

    Being able to enjoy the silence in the same room bolsters feelings of safety and comfort. It shows that you and your partner don’t feel panicked or stressed about the other feeling bored, awkward, and you don’t cary the pressure of needing to be entertained/entertaining. Shared silence is precious in a relationship.

    6. Handwritten notes

    Okay, this might be a cheat technically, but written notes and letters can be left for your partner to find when they wake up after you have left for work early, on the kitchen table, or on a bathroom mirror as ways to express those previous seven phrases. For some people, written communication is much easier for them than speaking, too, so there’s that factor to consider.

    7. Acts of service

    This is a bit of a grab bag as what acts of service are depends on who you are in the relationship with. It could be making them coffee each morning the way they like it so they don’t have to. It could be doing a chore they hate doing. It could be cooking them their favorite food after finding out that they had a long day. These acts remind your partner that they’re known and safe with you.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Local governments provide proof that polarization is not inevitable
    Local officials get to participate in events such as ribbon cuttings, celebrating projects they may have helped make happen.Photo credit: NHLI/Eliot J. Schechter via Getty Images
    ,

    Local governments provide proof that polarization is not inevitable

    From potholes to parks, shared priorities are bringing people together where they live.

    When it comes to national politics, Americans are fiercely divided across a range of issues, including gun control, election security and vaccines. It’s not new for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds over issues, but things have reached a point where even the idea of compromising appears to be anathema, making it more difficult to solve thorny problems.

    But things are much less heated at the local level. A survey of more than 1,400 local officials by the Carnegie Corporation and CivicPulse found that local governments are “largely insulated from the harshest effects of polarization.” Communities with fewer than 50,000 residents proved especially resilient to partisan dysfunction.

    Why this difference? As a political scientist, I believe that lessons from the local level not only open a window onto how polarization works but also the dynamics and tools that can help reduce it.

    Problems are more concrete

    Local governments deal with concrete issues – sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.

    By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.

    When mayors come together, they often find they face common problems in their cities. Gathered here, from left, are Jerry Dyer of Fresno, Calif., John Ewing Jr. of Omaha, Neb., and David Holt of Oklahoma City. AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

    Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them – imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.

    These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.

    Local officials, however, live among the human beings they represent, whose complexity defies caricature. Living and interacting in the same communities leads to greater recognition of shared interests and values, according to the Carnegie/CivicPulse survey.

    Meaningful interaction with others, including partisans of the opposing party, reduces prejudice about them. Local government provides a natural space where identities overlap.

    People are complicated

    In national U.S. politics today, large groups of individuals are divided not only by party but a variety of other factors, including race, religion, geography and social networks. When these differences align with ideology, political disagreement can feel like an existential threat.

    Such differences are not always as pronounced at the local level. A neighbor who disagrees about property taxes could be the coach of your child’s soccer team. Your fellow school board member might share your concerns about curriculum but vote differently in presidential elections.

    Mayors can find themselves caught up in national debates, as did Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over the Trump administrationu2019s immigration enforcement policies in his city. AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

    These cross-cutting connections remind us that political opponents are not a monolithic enemy but complex individuals. When people discover they have commonalities outside of politics with others holding opposing views, polarization can decrease significantly.

    Finally, most local elections are technically nonpartisan. Keeping party labels off ballots allows voters to judge candidates as individuals and not merely as Republicans or Democrats.

    National implications

    None of this means local politics are utopian.

    Like water, polarization tends to run downhill, from the national level to local contests, particularly in major cities where candidates for mayor and other office are more likely to run as partisans. Local governments also see culture war debates, notably in the area of public school instruction.

    Nevertheless, the relative partisan calm of local governance suggests that polarization is not inevitable. It emerges from specific conditions that can be altered.

    Polarization might be reduced by creating more opportunities for cross-partisan collaboration around concrete problems. Philanthropists and even states might invest in local journalism that covers pragmatic governance rather than partisan conflict. More cities and counties could adopt changes in election law that would de-emphasize party labels where they add little information for voters.

    Aside from structural changes, individual Americans can strive to recognize that their neighbors are not the cardboard cutouts they might imagine when thinking about “the other side.” Instead, Americans can recognize that even political opponents are navigating similar landscapes of community, personal challenges and time constraints, with often similar desires to see their roads paved and their children well educated.

    The conditions shaping our interactions matter enormously. If conditions change, perhaps less partisan rancor will be the result.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • His memory resets every 30 seconds. A look inside his 1990 diary shows what he never forgot.
    An older man writes in his journalPhoto credit: Canva
    ,

    His memory resets every 30 seconds. A look inside his 1990 diary shows what he never forgot.

    He was a brilliant musician until a viral infection left him with a memory span of only 30 seconds.

    In 1985, the life of British musicologist Clive Wearing changed forever. After contracting herpesviral encephalitis, a rare virus that attacked the memory-forming regions of his brain, Wearing was left with what is considered the most extreme case of amnesia ever recorded. For four decades, his life has been lived in a loop lasting between seven and 30 seconds.

    Recently, a page from Wearing’s diary dated January 13, 1990, surfaced online via Diaries of Note, offering a haunting and beautiful look into a mind that cannot retain the past. The diary is filled with entries made just minutes apart, each one declaring that he has just woken up for the very first time.

    At 7:46 am, he wrote, “I am awake for the first time.” Just one minute later, at 7:47 am, he crossed that out and wrote again, “This illness has been like death till NOW. All senses work.” Because he cannot trust his own handwriting or remember writing the previous line, his diary is a chaotic map of scratched-out sentences and desperate attempts to grasp consciousness.

    A Rare Neurological Intersection

    Wearing’s condition is unique in the world of neurology because he suffers from both retrograde and anterograde amnesia simultaneously. According to Study.com, most patients only experience one form. Because he cannot retain any new information (anterograde) and has lost most of his past (retrograde), he lives in a perpetual state of confusion.

    Currently residing in an assisted living facility, Wearing understands his immediate surroundings but has no idea how he arrived there. Tragically, while he knows he has children, he cannot remember their names or faces. He knows he was a musician, yet he cannot recall ever playing or hearing a single piece of music—though, remarkably, his muscle memory remains intact, allowing him to play the piano and conduct with the same brilliance he possessed before the illness.

    The Bond That Defied Science

    While the virus destroyed his ability to form new memories, it failed to erase his connection to his wife, Deborah. Through decades of “restarting” his conscious mind, his first instinct upon seeing her is always one of pure joy and recognition.

    Deborah has documented their life in her memoir, Forever Today: A Memoir Of Love And Amnesia. She describes their relationship as a “story of a marriage, of a bond that runs deeper than conscious thought.” According to Historic Flix, she has worked closely with the Amnesia Association to help the NHS develop better rehabilitation protocols for those with severe brain injuries.

    In an interview with The Guardian, Deborah shared a perspective that challenges our traditional understanding of the human brain. She explained that even when her husband was in his most acute state, his love for her remained the one constant.

    “I realized that we are not just brain and processes. Clive had lost all that and yet he was still Clive,” she told the publication. “Even when he was at his worst… he still had that huge overwhelming love for me. That was what survived when everything else was taken away.”

    This article originally appeared two years ago.

Explore More Culture Stories

Culture

Local governments provide proof that polarization is not inevitable

Culture

How business students learn to make ethical decisions by studying a soup kitchen in one of America’s toughest neighborhoods

Culture

This Gen Zer just shared their budget on a full-time job, and millennials are losing it in pure rage

Culture

A daycare teacher lost her job after a dad caught her repeatedly lying about a show featuring cartoon vegetables