Today marks the 47th anniversary of the March on Washington, and of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Right-wing extremists Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will dishonor King’s memory by having a rally on the same site, opposed to all the values King held dear.

I’m okay with that, actually. I’d never go, other than to hold a counterprotest sign—but I believe strongly in the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. As did King, by the way.

I think Beck and Palin are despicable. I also think they have every right to hold their gathering of the lunatic fringe. And I’m aware that I’ve taken plenty of stands over my career for which others would paint me as “lunatic fringe.” Some of them are now mainstream, such as aiming for zero waste, repurposing rooftop space into food and energy collectors, and getting the heck off fossil and nuclear power sources—but they sure weren’t 30 or 40 years ago. I would not have granted then, and don’t grant now, the right of others to tell me how to think, and I don’t claim that same privilege against others whom I disagree with. The right to try to convince them, certainly—but NEVER to dictate what is or is not acceptable thought.

I remember holding a lone protest in front of the local courthouse when the U.S. bombed Lybia. The first day, I got a lot of middle fingers and angry shouts. By the second day, a few people had joined me. On the third day, with a larger crowd, we were getting mostly thumbs ups and supportive honks. It was hard, on that first day. But I remembered my favorite Abraham Lincoln quote, “It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest.” Taking an unpopular position didn’t take the burden off me to take a stand.

And some of my positions are still out of the mainstream—so far. One such is that a Muslim group has every right to practice that other First Amendment right, freedom of worship—even two blocks from Ground Zero. As Keith Olbermann pointed out recently, there’s already been an Islamic center coexisting in that neighborhood since before the World Trade Center was even built. But even if there weren’t, this country was founded on the principle that people can peaceably assemble, worship the God of our choice (or no God, if we choose), and say what we want to say even if it makes others unhappy. That’s what made us the shining light of Democracy for the world, the example that so many other nations wanted to follow. Those are American values that I hold dear. And I predict that they will once again return to the mainstream of an America that seems to have forgotten its proud heritage.

It means the right to build an Islamic Center—a gathering place for peaceful worship and community activities—on an abandoned site a few blocks from Ground Zero, and it means that Beck and Palin are appropriately permitted for their disgusting festival of intolerance. The appropriate reaction is boycott or counterprotest, not an attempt to silence those we disagree with.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Glenn Beck, and the “Ground Zero Mosque” #blogboost is a post from: Principled Profit

The Senate can’t pass a jobs bill or a carbon cap bill, but had no trouble finding $60 billion for war.

All I can say to the Senate is, shame on you people! You’ve got your priorities all wrong.

And I can also say to Progressives that we need to reclaim the discourse in this country. If we don’t create pressure for change, we get the same old same old, even from the administration that was elected on a platform of change. Let’s get out there and make some noise.

US Senate Priorities are All Wrong is a post from: Principled Profit

Rarely do I open up my morning paper and see even one positive story among the day’s major news. Today—though I already knew about two of them from other sources—there were three:

1. The Wall Street Reform Bill has passed both houses of Congress. Is it everything I want? Of course not. Is it more than I expected from this stalemated Congress? You betcha.

2. BP finally seems to have capped the torrent of oil from Deepwater Horizon. A lot of wait-and-see before claiming victory, but at least for the moment, no oil is pouring out.

3. Overwhelmingly Catholic Argentina passed same-sex marriage rights legislation, striking a major blow for equality and human rights. The bill, according to NPR’s All Things Considered last night, has the support of an astonishing 70 percent of the population. Major demonstrations helped sway the legislators.

A very good news day, all in all.

Footnote: My local paper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, ran all these stories in today’s first section. But its news pages are only open to paid subscribers, so I’ve linked to other sources.

Wall Street Reform + Oil Cap + Gay Marriage is a post from: Principled Profit

Africa (South Africa, in particular) gave us the Sullivan Principles, which outlined investment strategies to move toward ending apartheid. At the time (1977), I thought it was way too little, way too late, but I came to appreciate that for its time, it was revolutionary: perhaps the first declaration by corporate America that they had a clear role to play in improving conditions around the world. And this was not so long after the US has been involved in such disgusting maneuvers as (to ame just two among dozens of equally awful examples) overthrowing the democratically elected governments of Mossadeq in Iran (1953, in the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and Arbenz in Guatemala (1954), on behalf of United Fruit)—actions that have had horrific consequences down to the present day in Iran and through at least 1996 in Guatemala.

Now, Ron Robins, of Investing for the Soul, postulates that Africa is on the brink of an explosion in socially responsible investing. It’s a very interesting article, and among his points are these:

Worldwide, SRI now accounts for 1 of every 9 dollars invested. However, even though Africa was a pioneer in this field (not just with the Sullivan Principles but also the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s first-in-the-world SRI index), it has lagged—but rapid growth appears to be imminent.

Go and read it.

Is SRI in Africa About to Come of Age? is a post from: Principled Profit

A self-styled “Don Quixote,” Juan Del Rio ran for County Board of Supervisors in a conservative district near San Diego. These are his reflections just before the election (he lost, but the Democrats cumulatively got enough votes to force a November vote).

Guest blog by Juan Del Rio

May 28, 2010

Dear friends and supporters,
There’s a great write-up about my campaign on the front page of today’s La Prensa (Click here to read it). Daniel Muñoz compares me to Don Quixote – he even says I look the part! I’ll take that as a complement. These days, as I watch the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico unfolding, exacerbated by the deceit and greed of multi-national corporations and the failure of our government to protect us and our planet, before, during and after this man-made catastrophe, I think we will need an army of thousands of Quixotes to fix the mess we’re in.

As we move into the final week of my first foray into politics as a candidate, I have my doubts about “fixing the mess” via our election process. This experience has given me a more realistic perspective about how our democracy works, a new respect for those few who go into the electoral battle for the right reasons and a heightened disgust for the deceitful machinations used to manipulate the outcome of our elections. Here are some of the lessons I’ve reluctantly learned over the past few months:

Lesson #1: Elections have little to do with qualifications to perform the job. 

One might think that the job of running our county would require someone well-versed in urban planning and social services, who understands and cares about the present and future ramifications of decisions on human beings and the environment, and who has the proven ability to quickly size up a situation and to propose fair and viable solutions. But that’s not what wins elections. In order to win an election, a candidate must have money, time, connections, charisma and public speaking skills. Actual experience, qualifications and genuine concern are helpful but not essential.

During the course of my career in public service, I have been appalled by the pervasive incompetence of most of our elected officials. Government is supposed to exist to serve the people, but decisions are more often made based on what will advance an official’s political career than what’s the best solution. I understand now why so many unqualified people occupy public office. A campaign should be a job interview where voters get to evaluate which candidate is best qualified to perform the task, but that’s not how it works – see Lessons #2 -4.

Lesson #2: Campaigns cost gobs of money and how you get that money may be limited by the law, but not the true spirit of fairness.

There are only two ways to get the funding you need for a campaign – put in your own money or beg other people for contributions. If you are a working-class person who is running for office because you think you might be able to do a better job than the lying, scheming, arrogant slimeball who is currently in office, the first thing you need to do is to find people willing to give you the money to finance your campaign. Unless they share your altruistic motives, you’ll be hard-press to convince anyone to invest in wistful windmill chasing. That’s why I strongly support Prop 15, which would be the first step toward public campaign financing.

Needless to say, since I am campaigning to represent the needs of the poor (including unemployed and under-employed workers), I haven’t raised much money. I’m painfully aware that my supporters’ $5 contributions are a stretch for them and their faith in me keeps me going, but it won’t cover the cost of yard signs, or mailers, or much else. You might have noticed that there is no candidate statement for Juan del Rio in the Sample Ballot – that’s because it costs $1,310 to have your statement listed (in addition to the $1,430 filing fee). That was my first tip that the odds are decidedly stacked against a candidate who has an intimate understanding of what life is like for the majority of citizens. If you have a few dollars to invest in this campaign, it would really help in these final days. Please send your check to Juan del Rio for Supervisor 2010, 6675 Linda Vista Rd. #2, San Diego, CA 92111 (include your occupation and employer if your check is $100 or more!)

Lesson #3: Campaigning is a full-time job.
If you are a working person who needs to work a full-time job to pay the bills (or like myself, a person holding down two jobs just to make ends meet) you probably shouldn’t even consider running for office. I haven’t had the luxury of time to walk precincts, and to make things worse, many interviews and events are scheduled during the 9-to-5 workday, so participation means the loss of a day’s pay. I can’t help but wonder if these things are planned this way to cull the working class from public life. In any case, I now appreciate the personal sacrifice candidates and their families make to run for office. I think I’ve come a long way in my public speaking skills and I really enjoy talking to voters, especially when I have a conversation with Spanish speakers who are delighted to talk with a bilingual candidate. I can see where this would be much easier if I was retired or wasn’t trying to keep up 2 jobs.

Lesson #4: Anything goes – except, it seems, honesty.
Judging by some of the trickery going on with Ron Roberts, you’d think elections were all about winning and keeping the people in power who will preserve the status quo. Every day I get another slate mailer in my mailbox that makes me furious. These are designed to look like they come from the Democratic Party. They have titles that say “Voter Information Guide for Democrats” and “Democrat Election Guide”. They have almost all Democratic Party candidates featured, so it’s easy to think that the mailer is coming from the Democratic Party. One even said: “OFFICIALLY Featuring Every Statewide Candidate and Proposition Endorsed by the CA DEMOCRATIC PARTY”! The catch is that the Supervisor’s race is NOT a “Statewide” race, and it’s not even a partisan race. So the fact that these mailers all have Ron Roberts listed as the candidate for Board of Supervisors, implying that he is: 1. a Democrat and 2. endorsed by the Democratic party, is as close to outright fraud as you can possibly get without getting arrested. Unless a voter is actively involved in politics, they probably won’t realize that they are being deliberately misled. That’s what money buys you in politics. But what does it say about Ron Roberts, that he has to resort to such fraudulent, deceitful practices?

Remember all that stuff they taught in civics class about how even a poor kid can grow up to be president… that a democracy is a government of the people, by the people, for the people… that we have a say in our government… As I said, this has been a very enlightening experience and I think Mr. Muñoz nailed it; I do feel a bit like Don Quixote! If you live in District 4, you can vote for this windmill-tilter of San Diego – Juan del Rio.

Warm regards,
Juan del Rio

A Progressive “Windmill-Tilter” Candidate Reflects on Election Realities: Juan Del Rio is a post from: Principled Profit

MarketWatch is not normally known as a hotbed of progressive thought. Yet that’s where this scathing critique of Obama from his left side appeared, under the title, “How Obama is Failing Investors” by Paul B. Farrell. It was published on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, and still very much worth reading.

Here’s a little taste:

You are failing us. Many people now question voting for you, and your ‘fat-cat bankers’ are destroying capitalism and democracy.

A year ago, millions of Americans — investors, taxpayers, consumers, voters — came together, uplifted by the “audacity of hope,” inspired by a vision of “change we can believe in,” heartened by “bold and specific ideas about how to fix our ailing economy and strengthen the middle class, make health care affordable for all, achieve energy independence and keep America safe in a dangerous world.”

“Yes, we can” was the rallying cheer. You were the game-changer after the Bush-Cheney fiasco. What happened?

A Progressive Critique of Obama, From the Financial Sector is a post from: Principled Profit

The convergence of social media and progressive causes is very exciting to me; I see enormous potential to leverage social media for social change. Even as far back as 2000, I used social media as an essential building block of a successful local activist campaign (in fact, I discuss this in my latest book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet,co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson).

I think one of the huge mistakes Obama made was to let go of the massive organizing via social media during the campaign—a piece of the campaign that may well have given him the edge both in the primaries and in the general election, and certainly a big part of mobilizing the youth vote. Actively using those tools in two-way communication would have helped energize his base, counterweighted the Tea Baggers, and provided momentum to implement the deep change he was elected to provide. In the months between the election and inauguration, Obama put out a groundbreaking initiative to get input from us. But that fizzled quickly, and I for one never got a sense that anyone was actually reading the feedback.

Yet it’s so clear that social media can be a force for social change! We’ve seen it in so many parts of the public discourse!

Although they are brilliant organizers, Obama, Axelrod, and the rest of his team missed this opportunity. They saw social media as a very effective way to reach new audiences, but not a way to build organizations focused on real change…and not as a method of communication from the people to the honchos.

Not too late to change this! If they build out their own networks, really listen to feedback, and piggyback on people with large viral followings (such as Rachel Maddow), this could still be a major influencing factor in maintaining Democratic control in the 2010 elections.

Social Media: A Tool for Social Change is a post from: Principled Profit

You’d think, by 2010, with some 50 years of bad experience, that the question of nuclear power’s suitability would have been settled long ago. You’d think that anyone with a lick of sense would have figured out that nuclear power brings with it enormous risks to…

Obama’s Nuclear Plant Pre-Bailout: His Dumbest Move Yet? is a post from: Principled Profit

For the last 28 years, I’ve lived in or just outside Northampton, Massachusetts. About ten years ago, Northampton established the position of City Poet Laureate, with a two-year term. Until two years ago, the post was mostly ceremonial. The official poet would occasionally show up and read a poem to mark some event or other, but kept a low profile.

Then Lesléa Newman was chosen for the post. She used her entire two years to work as a catalyst to bring poetry to the people–and the people to poetry. She organized event after event, and brought formidable community organizing skills into the task of making poetry relevant to every generation.

Among her accomplishments:

The list could go on and on. Newman has been a dynamo and an inspiration. Perhaps this is not surprising from a woman whose 57 published books (!) have included such groundbreaking material as Heather Has Two Mommies (possibly the first lesbian-friendly children’s book to get wide circulation, Letter to Harvey Milk, and one of the first novels about bulemia.

In the United State, we tend to be uncomfortable with intellectuals. People who pride themselves on their lack of knowledge of the world around them actually do grow up to be President (GW Bush) and run for Vice President (Palin). When we do elect a leader who’s an intellectual, like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, it’s because they disguise it well, and we see pictures of them doing “man of the people” activities like chowing down burgers at McDonald’s (Clinton) or taking his kids to the bumper cars at a fair (Obama). I think the last prominent US leader who was not afraid to show himself as an intellectual may have been Franklin Roosevelt.

Other countries treasure their artists, and especially their dissident artists. The first president of free Senegal was the poet Leopold Senghor; in the Czech Republic, it was the playwright Václav Havel. In the United States, yes, we’ve had a number of Presidents who’d written books before taking the office, including both JFK and Nixon as well as Obama (and his former opponent Hillary Clinton)–but these people were already in public life when they wrote their books. Outside of the movies, which gave us Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and even former Carmel, California mayor Clint Eastwood, it’s hard to think of major US policy makers who really came up out of the arts.

We’ve had plenty of dissident artists, some of them even pretty famous (Bob Dylan, Pete Seeger, Ani DiFranco). But while art can shape people’s movements, as protest folk and protest rock helped to solidify protests against segregation, the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons, it doesn’t seem to shape policy. And in many cases, we find that the dissidents who achieve fame are quieter about their dissent, at least until they’ve already achieved fame (classic example: John Lennon, who did become quite visible in the peace movement after moving to New York). Not too many people stop to analyze the working-class-hero lyrics of Bruce Springsteen and find the progressive values underneath, because it’s cloaked in something that looks superficially like a right-wing version of patriotism. But get down-and-dirty with the lyrics of “Born in the USA”, and you’ll see it’s about a Vietnam vet who went into the army because he grew up in a depressed town, couldn’t find work, and got into trouble–and then after his hitch still can’t find a job.

Hey, Bruce, ever thought about running for office?

Poetry as an Organizing Tool? Oh , Yeah! is a post from: Principled Profit

Last night I saw a video that shocked me: A spliced-together out-of-context montage from Barack Obama’s speeches and media appearances to create the illusion that he is a radical Muslim extremist (and disparaging Islam generally in terms that would be quite familiar to the Jews who were victimized by similar descriptions throughout history.

I will not dignify this filth with a link. Nor will I call, as some of my liberal friends might, for it to be taken down, all copies destroyed, etc. In the marketplace of ideas, I like to think the good ideas will win, eventually. It may take 100 years, as the abolition of slavery did. But you don’t convince people by telling them they can’t talk. Telling them you’re not going to listen and not going to provide a forum where others can listen, that’s your prerogative.

It was sent to me by one of my uncles, who happens to be extremely right wing and very active in Israel- and Jewish-oriented causes. I want to share my response to him:

As a Jew, as a member of a culture that has been discriminated against throughout history, that has been demonized by bigots from the Pharaohs to the Nazis, I am deeply distressed to see you sending around something that demonizes other people because of their culture and their faith–and that mixes together quotes out of context to try to create something that isn’t there: Obama’s supposed Muslim faith.

You and I disagree deeply on politics, but we’ve always treated each other’s views with respect. Watching this video, I don’t feel respected. I feel threatened, I feel that the psychological warfare it trains on Muslims could just as easily be turned against Jews.

It feels like a leaf from the Goebbels playbook. It is the Big Lie Technique to the second power: once, the lie that Obama is Muslim, and second, the lie that all Muslims want the destruction of our culture. And quite frankly, it makes me ill.

Obama, as we all know, is a Christian who happens to be well-versed in Islamic culture. I have seen or heard many of the speeches snipped into this video, and in context they are very different. And let’s be clear: this is not “an actual video of the President speaking” but rather a composite of tiny sound bites cut into tiny pieces, isolated from the surrounding words that illuminate their meaning, to make Obama look like a threat.

Believe me, I have plenty of disagreements with Obama. But one area where I think he’s been good is in reaching out around the world who want to end violence, expressing our unity as human beings.

And the mainstream Islamic culture he is praising is not the culture of terrorist extremists, any more than the anti-Semitic bigot Father Coughlin represented today’s mainstream Christianity.

I have heard many other Christians (yes, he is a Christian) praising Judaism for its contributions to civilization, including presidents. I don’t see his acknowledgment of Islam’s contributions to be any different from that.

I do not buy that the big tent is a problem. Fanaticism and fundamentalism, of every religion, is a problem–anything that fosters hatred of those who are different. I see this video montage as hateful, racist propaganda that tries to depict both Obama and Muslims as other, as demons, as intolerable–a path that ultimately leads to genocide, as we saw in Hitler’s Germany when it was applied to us. As unacceptable as Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ deep distortion of Judaism. Have you never visited a church or a mosque while traveling? I have visited both. What is the problem with Obama visiting a mosque?

I am sure you’re familiar with the famous quote by Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I am speaking out, with all due respect, not only because I want someone to speak out if they come for me, but also because my conscience would not treat me well if I remained silent. And because I care about you.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, did not have access to Youtube. He didn’t have Twitter and Facebook. He didn’t have blogs. All he had were radio, newspapers, and posters.

With our modern tools, the power to spread a message, for good or evil, is unparalleled. Every one of us can disseminate information across many channels, propelling English housewife Susan Boyle to international superstardom, helping elect Obama President, or spreading hatred and divisiveness as reprehensible as messages spread by the Nazis 70 years ago. A few clicks, and the message is on its way to a few dozen friends…or tens of thousands of associates on social media.

The media-savvy, politically sophisticated hatemongers who put this video together must have Goebbels beaming up from his particular circle of Hell, or at least jealous that he didn’t have these media.

We can use these tools to spread a joke. We can use them to organize for peace and justice. And we can use them to resist attempts to spread hate, as I hope I’m doing here. Love is stronger than hate. Let’s empower others and use these amazing tools the make the world a better place.

A New Low in Anti-Obama/Anti-Muslim Propaganda? is a post from: Principled Profit