Now is President Obama’s chance: with the much-scorned Larry Summers stepping away from US financial policy, there’s room to appoint an economist with a deeper understanding of the causes and cures for our economic woes. If I were Obama, my first choice would be former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich. My second choice would be Nobel Prize winner and New York times columnist Paul Krugman. And my third choice would be someone from completely outside government: the earth-centered economist Hazel Henderson, author of many influential books from the recent Ethical Markets to the long-ago Creating Alternative Futures.

Summers’ Departure Could Create Space for Real Reform is a post from: Principled Profit

Considering their enormous and deep understanding of marketing during the campaign, it’s hard to understand why the Obama administration is so bad at marketing itself as a governing force. Obama’s advisors need to take some lessons from George W. Bush. He was a terrible president, but he was extremely skilled at marketing himself and his accomplishments—and all my years observing politics, I’ve never before seen a team that was as good at staying on message. Better even than Reagan, if you ask me.

With just over a month left before the election, it’s time for the Democrats to go deep and hard on their marketing: to create a message that will resonate with the American people and cut the floor out from under the Republicans.

If I were running the national Democratic Senate and House campaign committees, I’d do it like this:
You voted for “Yes We Can”—But the Republicans Gave You “No We Won’t”

Two years ago, you, the American people, voted for change. You said it was long past time to focus the economy on Main Street…to get out of the illegal and unwinnable Iraq war…to begin once again to stop behaving like a “rogue state” and take our place among nations as the most powerful and inspirational democracy in the world…to once and for all rein in runaway corporate power and massive environmental devastation.

We’ve done a lot in the short time we’ve had to reverse the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. Here’s a list of 91 different things the Obama administration has accomplished.

But most of those 91 accomplishments didn’t require approval by Congress. The Republicans have decided, as a bloc, to vote against almost anything we propose—even if they proposed it first. If it comes from the Democrats, they vote no, end of story. How much more progress would we have made without their tantrumy-two-year-old behavior? How much better shape would the economy and our carbon footprint be in—if, for instance, the Green Jobs package hadn’t been so watered down?

You didn’t vote for “No We Won’t” in 2008. You voted for “Yes We Can! Vote Democratic and get the change you wanted all along.

How the Democrats Could STILL Win in November is a post from: Principled Profit

While I am not particularly a fan of this presidency, and it’s easy to dwell on all that is NOT being done or being done wrong, it is good to have http://obamaachievements.com/ a solid list of 400 achievements, compiled by a Twitterer names Shoq, to look on and remember how much better things are than they would have been if the election had gone the other way. I was particularly gratified to click on the environmental/energy category and see a very long list. Especially as I’ve been quite critical of some of his non-progress on those issues.

People need to look at this list when thinking about what party they’ll support in November.

Obama’s Long List of Accomplishments (#blogboost ) is a post from: Principled Profit

Came across this article, “Why Are The Feds Banning E-Readers?” by Pat Archbold, on National Catholic Register:

Sometimes the federal government does something so laughably moronic, that one has to stop and ask the question “Are they really that dumb or is something else going on?”

Here is the setup. Recently a number of universities around the country decided to take a look at using some modern technology in the classroom in an effort to save money. These universities took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks. As you know, many people now use e-readers like the Kindle or the Nook as a replacement for traditional printed books. There are many reasons for this including cost, environmental impact, and convenience. Further, anyone who has gone to college understands the high cost of textbooks and would likely support any way to reduce this large expense.

Here is the pathetic punchline. For conducting this experiment with the Kindle, Obama’s Department of Justice threatened legal action against the universities. The ridiculous contention of the Obama administration is that the Kindle and e-readers violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. Why? Because the blind can’t easily use them.

Now the first thing that would pop into the minds of anybody with a third grade education and that does not work for the government is this simple question. If e-readers discriminate against the blind, do not traditional textbooks discriminate equally? The obvious answer is yes.

The obvious solution, in my mind, is to require the universities to offer a suitable alternative for blind and visually impaired users—NOT to prohibit the devices entirely. E-book texts are easily converted to voice, so the only issue is giving those who don’t see a way to navigate into the right e-book.

But his article, and the comments it drew, amazed me with their various “evil conspiracy” theories. Yes, there were some that argued rationally about the legitimate difficulties blind users have with these devices (and pointing out that they have much more difficulty with a printed book). But there were also a number of comments speculating that this is a way for the Obama administration to control dissent and silence conservative voices.

My question to them: what have you been smoking?

Here’s Archbold:

I posit another and perhaps more nefarious reason. I think that the federal government is adamantly opposed to the use of e-readers as an alternative to textbooks for fear of loss of control. This loss of control is not so much at the university level but at much younger levels. The universities just happened to be the first ones to try.

Here’s one of the comments, from “Frank”:

A great deal of control over curriculum nationwide is exerted through textbook control. Education is critical to progressives. Remember, those who control education, control the culture. (Now , think of Obama’s childhood development, i.e. Indonesian grade school;, contact with Frank Mitchell Davis during high school years;, professors at Occidental College and Columbia University;, Alinsky acolytes in Chicago; social/political training in Hyde Park, Chicago South Side; Chicago political cauldron. Put it all together, what else can you expect but what we have experienced since January 20, 2009?)

To me, the ruling that e-readers are out of compliance with ADA—and I speak as a disability advocate who served on my city’s official Disability Awareness committee for six years—is nothing more than the typical heavy-handed over-response of large government entities. No malfeasance, just bureaucratic inability to see past a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s the same mentality that, here in Massachusetts under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, allows developers to ram through inappropriate and out-of-character housing projects that violate local zoning, in the name of increasing the ratio of affordable housing. Affordable housing is a worthy goal, and I spent about ten years doing a lot of volunteer work to address that issue—but 40B is a cannon shot fired against a mosquito: the wrong tool, with lots of unintended and undesirable consequences.

The same mentality that thinks every road improvement—even our local bikeway—has to include over-widening, over-straightening, and often removing trees, stone walls, and other vital features.

Big governments are slow and clumsy creatures with limited intelligence, even when they’re headed by very smart people. Over time, we as a society will realize that conditions vary in different locations, and one size really fits no one at all, only breeds resentment.

Progressives can make common cause with the Right on this issue: local control is the preferred alternative whenever practical.

Government Thugs…Or Right-Wing Crazies 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

Right-wing bloviators spewing bile and calling it “news” have been a fixture on the political scene for quite a few years now. And they’ve had influence far beyond the numbers of “true believers.”

While it’s hard to understand why anyone would pay attention to these mouthy masters of misrepresentation (take that, Spiro Agnew!), we see their influence in the raucous but marginal Tea Party gatherings, in the intransigence of the “Party of NO” in moving any policy agenda forward, and in such incidents as the forcing out of the amazing Van Jones as Obama’s Green Jobs advisor and the defunding of a national community organizing group based on the actions of a couple of idiots (even though most of those approached in the sting refused to go along)–by that logic, we could have defunded Congress centuries ago.

So it’s with gladness that I report that as soon as it became obvious that the widely circulated video of black official Shirley Sherrod making what sounded out of context to be racist remarks–and which forced her unwilling resignation–turned out to be just the opposite–a story of how she overcame her internal racism and did the right thing to help a white family–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack made a public apology and offered her a job again.

The hatemongers lose this round. Now…how aobut revisiting the Van Jones incident.

One Small Victory Against Ulgtraright Hatemongering 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

This letter, except for the first paragraph (which I added), was just sent out by the Nuclear Information and Resource Center. You can also call your Rep at 202-224-3121. Note that this page is keyed to me. Scroll down about a half a screen and then click “if you are not Shel”–before you fill in the petition, especially if you’re modifying the text.

If you’re not familiar with the many problems with nuclear power, do a search in this blog on “nuclear”

Dear Representative,

Nuclear power is NOT Green, has serious environmental and security problems, and should not be supported. If we learn nothing else from the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico–we should know not to put our faith in dangerous technologies when people think they can figure out a fix AFTER something goes wrong.

I have learned that the House Appropriations Committee may take up the FY 2011 energy and water funding bill next week.

I understand the Department of Energy is seeking additional funding for new nuclear reactor loans in this bill: a whopping $36 Billion increase for construction of new reactors, That’s taxpayer money that would go to some of the wealthiest companies in the world, companies like Electricite de France, Areva, NRG Energy, Toshiba, General Electric, and the like.

As you may know, these loan “guarantees” are actually taxpayer loans from the Federal Financing Bank. This is not the time to shell out billions more taxpayer dollars for the benefit of one special interest industry.

Please act to ensure that NO new loan “guarantee” authority for nuclear reactors is provided in the FY 2011 energy funding bill. Please tell your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee that they should vote no on new nuclear power loans.

Thank you,

URGENT: Tell your Rep TODAY! No nuclear loan guarantees is a post from: Principled Profit

On June 1, I wrote an op-ed expressing the hope that President Obama would use the Gulf spill disaster as a platform to launch a major push toward sustainability (you didn’t read it here because I submitted it first to the New York Times and then to Newsweek, neither of which published it). Last night’s Oval Office speech was definitely a step in the right direction.

Here’s my article on the speech I’d hoped to hear, followed by the relevant portion of what he actually said:

MY ARTICLE:
The Energy Speech Obama Needs to Make—But Won’t

If ever there was a “teachable moment” around energy, the devastation spewing out of BP’s Deepwater Horizon into the Gulf of Mexico is it. The disaster provides an opportunity to move away from unproven technologies whose failure can be catastrophic.

President Obama hinted at this with his recent speech on the Gulf:

More than anything else, this economic and environmental tragedy— and it’s a tragedy—underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment, it will create a new, homegrown, American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs.

We’ve talked about doing this for decades, and we’ve made significant strides over the last year when it comes to investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would finally jumpstart a permanent transition to a clean energy economy, and there is currently a plan in the Senate—a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans—that would achieve the same goal.

If nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it’s time to move forward on this legislation. It’s time to accelerate the competition with countries like China, who have already realized the future lies in renewable energy. And it’s time to seize that future ourselves. So I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.

This is good, as far as it goes. But unfortunately, cautious soul that he is, President Obama seems incapable of taking this conversation to the much deeper level we need. Here’s the speech I’ve been hoping to hear for over a month:

“Fellow Americans—and fellow citizens of the world. My heart is heavy as I look out over the Gulf of Mexico and watch the cancer of toxic oil slowly wash up on the beaches of our Gulf States. We have had a tragedy…a catastrophe.

“Only too recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked their own devastation on the shores of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.

“And now, just as those communities in the Gulf region were slowly returning to normalcy, their world is once again turned upside down.

“But unlike the disaster of 2005, this calamity was not a force of nature. This catastrophe was caused by human arrogance and the human actions. Untested technologies that were never guaranteed to work at depths of a mile or more…and unproven recovery plans in the event something went wrong…combined to wreak havoc.

“This kind of human hubris, to build first and figure out how to deal with it later, has marred progress far too often. Remember the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic? The nearly catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry, and Enrico Fermi—and Chernobyl? The series of coal mining disasters that have robbed families of their loved ones and breadwinners? And yes, the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

“This crisis blackens our sky and our water. But even as the spilled oil brings literal darkness, there’s one bright spot: the certainty that we must find a different way to power our great factories and offices, our snug homes, and our amazing transportation system. We have the technical knowledge to implement a rapid transition toward safe, renewable, nonpolluting technologies. But until now, we haven’t had the will.

“Following World War II, Europe was a shambles. Buildings had been bombed, infrastructure destroyed, and populations were displaced. Into the void came a beacon of hope: The Marshall Plan—a partnership with Europe to rebuild the devastated continent, even our recent enemies.

“Today, we must once more rise to the challenge. We must turn away from highly centralized, highly dangerous energy collection and generation systems—vulnerable to accidents, terrorists, and to being held hostage by the institutions that control those energy resources.

“Just as we rebuilt Europe, we can create a Marshall-Plan-style push toward true sustainability based on solar, wind, small-scale (non-disruptive) hydro, geothermal, conservation, and other technologies that generate power where it is needed, using methods that don’t pollute, that reduce our carbon footprint, and that can succeed or fail without risking catastrophic systemic and ecological collapse.

“John F. Kennedy brought us to the moon in less than ten years. In the next ten years, we will surpass even that fantastic achievement. Government prime-the-pump investments will create economies of scale and slash prices. Grants, tax incentives and pubic-private partnerships like rent-to-own solar systems and deep-energy retrofits will vastly, rapidly reduce our dependence on polluting, carbon-emitting fossil fuels—by 66 to 90 percent—remove the threat of catastrophic nuclear accidents that could dwarf the spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska. And we will do this while creating tens of thousands of new jobs, and without sacrificing the American way of life. In fact, we will bring the poor out of poverty, at home and around the world.

“For the good of America, for the good of the world, and for the good of each and every one of us, our children, our grandchildren, and the generations yet to be born…I ask you to join with me on charting, once and for all, a sustainable future. Thank you.”

What the President Actually Said Last Night
The president’s remarks were a significant move forward from the mild and infirm rhetoric of two weeks earlier (you can see a video of the whole 17-minute speech here). This is the section of the June 15 speech relating to alternative energy, and I’ve bolded the parts that most echo my draft speech:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future.

The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development -– and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

This is more than I actually expected from Obama. Is it enough? Of course not. Is it a huge step in the right direction? You betcha.

And now it’s up to us, the American people, to make sure he keeps his word on this, and to give him the political support he will need to push these measures through a divided Congress and not be whittled away to practically nothing the way health reform was. And to do so in ways that close the door to technologies we don’t want to see developed. Getting us off fossil fuels doesn’t mean using dirty wood-fired biomass plants, and it doesn’t mean nuclear—a technology potentially far more catastrophic than deep-water offshore oil drilling. It means solar, wind, small-scale (on-intrusive) hydro, geothermal, and of course, conservation.

Let’s get it done!

We’re Making Progress: Obama’s Latest Energy/Gulf Speech 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