Clinton: Blogging the Bloggers

The Clinton Global Initiative has gone out of its way to accommodate bloggers, and many are here. This may be due to the influence of Salon's Peter Daou, who has been hired by the campaign of Senator Clinton to reach out to the blogger ranks. In any case, my fellow blog-writers bring their own unique take to the proceedings, so I thought I'd share a smattering with onPhilanthropy readers.

David Johnson from Seeing the Forest, who created a special CGI blog:

I overheard a cynic, "This is more about publicity for the people involved, things that could be done in a press release."

Maybe so, but I think being on a stage with a former President is a motivator that makes things happen. Sure Branson might get a good press release, or Wal Mart builds its brand, but I suspect that there is a strong personal motivation to get that Clinton handshake photo for the wall.

So here's an idea for a great way readers of this blog can better motivate people and get things done: First: get elected President of the United States of America. Second: Serve two terms. Then: ask people to do good things.

Mahablog's take on Desmond Tutu's grace and charm was spot-on:

The Archbishop Desmond Tutu radiates more sweet, selfless joy than his little body could possibly contain. No religion in the world promotes death and murder, he said. Instead, all of the world’s religions promote compassion, justice, love, caring. It is unfortunate that people misuse religion for bad purposes, like a knife intended to cut bread might be used to hurt someone.

It’s a mistake to associate the terrorism of the Middle East with Islam, the Archbishop said. If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, it’s called Muslims terrorism; but when a Christian man blew up a building in Oklahoma, no one called it Christian terrorism. Likewise, terrorism in Northern Ireland, or the Holocaust, was not called Christian terrorism.

Jude Nagurney Camwell's words about trading on celebrity in the cause of human rights:

Trading in on your celebrity or cashing in on your business influence is ethically neutral in and of itself. Most people would probably see it as "bad" if someone uses their influence for matters of greed or pure self-interest. What do most of us see as the right thing to do? A person might use their corporate influence in a way that sheer profiteers would consider crazy because there's no pocket value in it. A celebrity might "throw his weight around" in the service of human rights, and he might be inspiring and followed - or he might be called a "Hollywood busybody" by careless naysayers. In a discussion today at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting, it was clear that two particular men have cast aside the possibility of worrying too much about any of those public perceptions while they are in the service of their fellow men and women's human rights. They are hoping that other world citizens will join them.