The often-cynical newt Gingrich, rumored to be considering a run for President, had some shocking and radical things to say about the First Amendment recently, as reported in the conservative Manchester (NH Union-Leader

Gingrich cited last month’s ejection of six Muslim scholars from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior, which included reports they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.

“Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists,” Gingrich said. “And the crew of the U.S. airplane should have been invited to the White House and congratulated for being correct in the protection of citizens.”

First of all, I’ve heard a rather different account of that incident from the horse’s mouth and I totally dismiss the idea that they sat in the same seats as the September 11th hijackers.

Second, their apparent “crime” was to engage in prayer during one of the mandatory five times per day that Islam requires, and to do so in the airport lounge rather than at a mosque.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect dissent. If you only protect the speech you agree with, Newt, you may as well not have the First Amendment. This is a fundamental building block of the American democracy, it’s what has made us special in the world of nations and imitated by many emerging democracies over the last two centuries.

Time for a little lesson from Pastor Martin Niemoller, who wrote the famous poem that begins
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

(Full poem, with variations and commentary, at Wikipedia)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

The Justice Department this week agreed to ease its tough legal tactics against scandal-tainted corporations, requiring prosecutors to get approval from Washington before seeking confidential information between firms and their lawyers.

Hmmmm. Seems like the Bush Administration is once again drawing back and letting the foxes stand guard at the chicken coop.

Now, I confess–I haven’t looked into this in detail, checked a couple of news stories–the above from the insurance industry’s point of view, and Democracy Now’s, which I heard on the radio but can’t locate in the archives. Perhaps the government has been going overboard on this. But I am skeptical.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

For the past 15 months, I’ve been doing “Principled Profit: The Good Business Radio Show” on a local community radio station.

I am a very experienced radio guest as well as a host, and I also have done a fair bit of public speaking to live audiences. But last night’s show was the first without a guest, and let me tell you–it was hard!

With a guest, I can easily fill my hour. and in front of a live audience, I can talk and talk. But last night, with no one in front of me, I realized how much I rely on audience feedback when I’m speaking.

15 minutes into the show, I started to panic and worry that I’d run out of things to say. I put on my first song to give myself some thinking time (and the audience a break from my voice) and when the song was over, I was fine. I normally play three songs during my show, and did so last night as well.

The show actually went very well–but I was completely drained afterwards. And my throat was tired.

And I have a lot more respect for radio personalities who are their entire show. It’s tough! I grew up listening to people like Lynn Samuels and Steve Post on Pacifica’s WBAI-FM (New York). They could carry a solo monologue for two or three hours, with just a few music breaks. All I can do is tip my hat and say, Wow!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

One of the things investigative journalists learn very quickly is “follow the money.” And that can mean both a direct trail of funding as well as who stands to benefit from policy changes a particular group is recommending.

Given the naked self-interest of certain large corporations in the watering down of the Sarbanes-Oxley–or at least what they perceive to be their self-interest–it’s not a big surprise that the group advocating to weaken that bill turns out to be funded by the very people who see themselves as benefiting by pulling back the watchdogs.

The Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which argues that U.S. markets are suffering under overzealous enforcement and unwieldy rules, said it received $500,000 in financial support from the C.V. Starr Foundation. The charity has longstanding ties to Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, the former American International Group chief who was ousted from his post last year and is contesting civil charges filed by the New York attorney general.

Two committee members, Wilbur L. Ross Jr., a private investor, and Citadel Investment Group manager Kenneth C. Griffin, contributed “a few hundred thousand dollars” more, Ross said in an interview. The panel was formed this year with support from Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former chairman of the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs.

The email version (thanks, Nancy Smith, for sending it) connects a few more dots:

The
report was funded by the Starr Foundation, which is controlled by Former AIG
Insurance chief Maurice Greenberg. Greenberg was forced to resign last year
after then-NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer revealed major accounting
manipulations and misrepresentations at his insurance company.

The irony is, as I point out repeatedly in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, that high standards of ethics are actually good for the business bottom line.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Apparently some students got the wording of their two essay questions some days before they were supposed to. However, it was an open exam, with 90 minutes to compelte the test an time during a 36-hour period.

I am both amused and saddened by some of the comments made on Jeff Bercovici’s blog about it.

This unfortunately is the future of journalism, the creme de la creme.

Meanwhile, William Powers takes the media to task for its endless reporting on itself, at the expense perhaps of more urgent news. And also wonders if the ability to comment publicly is such a good thing.

Well, there, I disagree with him. I think the much larger voice of public comment than the few letters that see print is a very positive thing.

Both of these stories courtesy of my occasional look at Romesnko, the journalism blog.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Most American investors think that socially responsible mutual funds contribute to better corporate behavior, according to a new major investor survey conducted by Calvert [https://www.calvert.com]. Knowing that a company is rated higher in terms of their social performance would make 71 percent of Americans more likely to invest in that company and 77 percent would purchase more of their products and services.

Going through email that was not a priority when it arrived, I found the above tidbit in David Batstone’s WAG newsletter (from last April, I confess).

Those are remarkable statistics. Over 2/3 use social responsibility as an investment screen, and over 3/4 as a factor in making a purchase.

So why do we still have so much unresponsive, focused-only-on-financial-bottom-line, and downright nasty corporate behavior? Because people don’t realize that good corporate behavior is a direct path to better profitability. If you’d like to educate a corporate friend on this, I recommend my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First–it outlines exactly how and why companies succeed better by doing the right thing.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

(I am sending this letter by postal mail, with copies to my own Congressman and Senators). If enough people write similar letters, maybe they’ll actually do some of this stuff)

Dear Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid:

It is thrilling to be able to write to both of you congratulating you on the Democrats’ election victories and on your new positions in majority leadership.

The Democrats have been given a window to make real change. I’m writing to ask that we not squander it. It is time for meaningful change on order of FDR’s First 100 Days–before the window slams shut and the American people once again have the sad image of a spineless do-nothing Congress, only this time with the Democrats in charge.

The biggest issue facing the US is foreign policy. President Bush managed to squander a huge international reservoir of good will toward the US in the aftermath of 911, along with the entire Clinton budget surplus, and the Democrats must work to rebuild our standing not as a rogue state but as a leader among nations in the campaign for world peace and prosperity. Specifically…

  • Get us out of Iraq NOW! That troubled country will face a civil war regardless of how long we stay. The longer we stay, the longer and more bloody that war is likely to be. As in Vietnam, let’s get out and let them get it over with. Less blood will be shed than by staying. The only possibility I see for avoiding civil war is to divide the country among Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish factions—but that strategy hasn’t worked well elsewhere in the world (e.g., India/Pakistan, Serbia/Albania, Ireland/Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine). Demand from the Bush administration an immediate timetable for phased withdrawal within 90 days.
  • Bring North Korea and Iran to the bargaining table. Use diplomacy to avoid additional wars.
  • Play a peacemaker role in the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon conflict–through which, if real progress can be made, it might actually influence Iraq toward peace.
  • Change the dynamics of the US role in Latin America. Right now, we’re seen as “the neighborhood bully.” It is time to form working coalitions with the promising new governments in that region, to identify and work toward mutual objectives.

    Another “elephant in the room” is energy policy. It is time for a Marshall Plan-style campaign for true energy independence, based on renewable and nonpolluting technologies such as solar, wind, and small-scale hydro. We need to see our rooftops as an energy (and possibly food) resource, and the government needs to put programs into place to make these systems affordable to those who can’t come up with the large capital investment necessary to eliminate oil dependence and reduce carbon emissions/global warming in the long run. These could even be loans paid back directly out of energy savings. Large-scale involvement would bring down the price, make it affordable to every homeowner, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil and uranium, reduce CO2 buildup and thus global warming. I live in a 1743 New England farmhouse and even in this somewhat challenging environment, solar systems provide nearly all our hot water and a portion of our electricity.

    A third major concern is fair elections. For starters every American needs to know that if they are registered to vote, they will be allowed to vote, and that their vote will be counted accurately. This requires a Federal law mandating voter-verifiable paper ballots, hand-counted in open and supervised public session. But beyond this basic and fundamental right, we need to be looking at other electoral reforms. Top of my list is Instant Runoff, which would take 3rd parties out of the role of “spoiler” and into the same kind of meaningful force and alternate voice that they provide in other democracies around the world.

    Fourth, the role of Congress. In the last few years, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibilities to the American people. Highly dubious, extremist Presidential appointments are approved with little debate. Massive bills are shoved at members at the last minute, with no time for adequate review. And the Legislative branch has been largely afraid to challenge the continuous power-grabs on the part of the Executive branch. The American people elected you to be part of the checks and balances, and I trust you will help your colleagues rise to their responsibility.

    And finally, there’s the question of what to do about the many high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration. Rep. Pelosi, I understand why you would not want to engage in the divisive and all-consuming process of impeachment–but at the same time, we should not give these people a free ride for the serious crimes they have committed–for establishing a culture of greed, corruption, abuse of power, negation of the Legislative branch, corporate favoritism, unnecessary and unjustified curtailment of liberty, an international role as a pariah who has created space for terrorists that never existed before…and the unnecessary death and injury of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a move that only strengthened the hand of our terrorist enemies. Perhaps the appropriate response is something like South Africa’s Commission on truth and Reconciliation, that holds the perpetrators accountable but does not divide the country.

    In short, there’s a big agenda, you have the support of the American people, and that support can be strengthened by an assertive program of action. I wish you the best of luck.

    Sincerely,

    Shel Horowitz

    cc: Hon. Richard Neal, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry

  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) has in the last couple of months taken several steps to build ethics consciousness among its members.

    This, of course, is something I applaud. It’s quite necessary, as word-of-mouth marketers include those who have (in the past) paid people to act as shills without disclosing their relationship.

    I put a link up to WOMMA’s overall code of ethics some time back. Now, the group has released draft standards for marketers communicating with bloggers. (All of its ethics programs can be accessed from a single link–which, commendably, is a main link from the home page.

    This is good. And Dell Computer has already become the first major company to sign on to WOMMA’s Ethics Adoption Toolkit.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    As it happens, tonight is the final run of a play that I’m in, about the courage of one Christian scholar, Johannes Reuchlin, who defends Jewish holy books from the German Catholic church’s attempt–with the aid of a converted former Jew, Johannes Pfefferkorn–to confiscate and destroy them.

    The play is called “Burning Words,” by Peter Wortsman. It’s based on real events, and the main characters show up in a Google search.

    The author has been present for the entire three-show run, doing talkbacks after the show.

    Last night, he spoke movingly of the play’s relevance for our time. He cited fundamentalist zealots of several major religions who have gotten into positions of power, and who have tried to foist equally crazy schemes on the rest of us, including the destruction of ancient and irreplaceable iconic art (such as the Taliban’s wanton despoliation of an ancient Buddhist monument in Afghanistan).

    I’m proud to be a little part of this small effort to bring free speech and freedom of worship issues to the foreground.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    Fascinating article in the New York Times about changing zoning trends regarding parking in urban cores, and especially near transit stations.

    Although condominiums without parking are common in Manhattan and the downtowns of a few other East Coast cities, they are the exception to the rule in most of the country. In fact, almost all local governments require developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for each unit — and to fold the cost of the space into the housing price.

    The exact regulations, which are intended to prevent clogged streets and provide sufficient parking, vary by city. Houston’s code requires a minimum of 1.33 parking spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a three-bedroom. Downtown Los Angeles mandates 2.25 parking spaces per unit, regardless of size.

    Today, city planners around the country are trying to change or eliminate these standards, opting to promote mass transit and find a way to lower housing costs.

    As a New York city native who used to draw my proposed extensions to the subway system in my spare time, I’ve always been a strong advocate of public transit (and of bicycle commuting), and one of my only regrets about moving to our wonderful house in the country is that a car is essential to get anywhere. Neither mass transit nor bike is a realistic commuting option with the steep hills, narrow shoulders, and high vehicle speeds along our road, though in special circumstances I do bike to get someplace once in a while. And of course, I work from home but I still have to drive my son to school. And my wife and I ill sometimes go through many hoops in order to coordinate our schedules so we only need to take one car to get places.

    Many cities are well set up for public transit. Even in car-crazy L.A., I’ve found it easy to get around on buses and trains. And in New York, Boston, or Washington, I’ve usually found it actually easier to get around on transit than by car–although Washington’s case is peculiar, where extending the Metro resulted in an ugly pattern of car-centered retail development, and accompanying gridlock, along the suburban rail corridors. In most of Europe, of course, transit is the expectation and private car commuting is an option exercised by only a small fraction. Even very small cities, such as Rostock, Germany, have a well-developed and much-used public transit network.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail