What’s the Rush? The Attack on Women and Obamacare

You’ve undoubtedly heard that Rush Limbaugh, the outspoken conservative Republican radio announcer, has been in the news lately because of something he said. Now, that’s his business: to be in the news for saying things. But this time, his comments about Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke have caused him to lose, as of this writing, 42 sponsors, including AOL, JCPenney and Capital One.

In case you’ve been in a dungeon and locked away from all media contact (or you simply haven’t been following the news!), here’s a quick rundown of the story.

A Bit of History
On Feb. 16, 2012, the House of Representatives held an oversight hearing to discuss the mandate in President Obama’s healthcare plan requiring religious institutions (and others) to provide women with health insurance that included birth control. Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called as witnesses five conservative men: an Orthodox rabbi, Lutheran and Baptist clergy, a Roman Catholic bishop and the president of Catholic University of America. They all opposed – on the grounds of religious freedom – the idea that religious institutions opposing birth control must provide their employees with the option to secure such coverage. The Democrats invited one witness – Sandra Fluke – to provide a women’s perspective, but she was not allowed to speak because Issa said she was not a “religious expert.” Democratic committee members walked out and later decided to hold their own hearing.

On Feb. 23, Fluke was the only person to testify at a Democratic hearing. She told the story of a classmate at Georgetown, a Jesuit institution, who lost an ovary because her insurance wouldn’t cover the cost of contraceptives that would have stopped the growth of cysts. Fluke said the cost of contraceptives can reach more than $3,000 during the three years a student is in law school. Fluke is also quoted as saying, “I’m an American woman who uses contraceptives.”

By Feb. 27, the conservative blogosphere had picked up the story, which was being retold as “Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control,” according to a headline from cnsnews.com, which uses the tag line “The Right News. Right Now.”

On Feb. 29, Limbaugh attacked Fluke on his show for asking the government to “subsidize birth control.” Here’s part of what he said: “What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.” He added that paying for contraceptives would be just another example of “welfare entitlements.”

By March 1, people on both sides of the issue had started speaking out, but Limbaugh did not back down. Instead, he said Fluke was “having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk. ... So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you femi-Nazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is: We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” Yikes!

On March 2, those supporting Fluke included President Obama, who called her on the telephone to offer his encouragement, and the president of Georgetown University, John J. DeGioia, who called the comments by Limbaugh and his supporters “misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of Sandra Fluke.” Michael Steel, speaking on behalf of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Boehner thought Limbaugh’s words were “inappropriate” (not “wrong,” mind you). It’s curious that Boehner – a leading Congressional Republican – would not speak for himself but rather used a surrogate. Several of Limbaugh’s sponsors announced that they were pulling their support from his show.

On March 3, Limbaugh, in a rare public apology, said: “My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.” More sponsors jumped ship. And Republican presidential candidates weighed in on the controversy, criticizing Limbaugh’s words but, again, not his argument. For example, Rick Santorum said Limbaugh was being “absurd. But that’s, you know, an entertainer can be absurd.” Mitt Romney said, “It’s not the language I would have used.” Newt Gingrich said he was glad Limbaugh apologized but he also disagreed with Fluke’s position. Only Ron Paul said he thought Limbaugh’s apology was not sincere: “He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about.”

On March 5, Fluke appeared on the TV show “The View” and said she didn’t think Limbaugh was sincere in his apology. Limbaugh apologized again but framed his apology this way: “I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations. It’s what we’ve come to expect from them, but it’s way beneath me.”

Framing the Issues
“Framing” is a concept that means the words we choose help shape the messages we want people to receive. For example, the words “third-trimester abortion” may conjure up a certain image in your mind while the words “partial-birth abortion” certainly would conjure up another. “Gun control” may make you shiver, but “gun safety” may make you nod in approval.

George Lakoff, UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, argues that we use the metaphor of “the family” when speaking about our country. For example, we use terms like founding fathers, sending our sons and daughters to war, and Uncle Sam. Lakoff says there are two basic ways of looking at this family/country of ours: the “strict father frame” and the “nurturing parent frame.”

Under the strict father frame, we assume the world is a dangerous and difficult place. Thus, we need a strict father to teach us right from wrong through punishment. Once our children leave home, they are on their own and don’t need “meddling” from us. We rank god above man, man above nature (and women), adults above children, America above other countries, and Western culture above non-Western cultures. Our overriding guideline is “moral strength.”

Translated into political terms, this means we may oppose government-mandated healthcare because we believe in “limited government” and that the government should not “meddle” into our personal lives. We may oppose any restrictions on gun ownership because “strong fathers” need guns to protect us from the “criminals who have guns.” We may oppose prenatal care because we assume “moral mothers” would be able to provide their own prenatal care, or if they can’t, they would at least abstain from having sex and babies. We may oppose abortions because we assume only two types of “immoral” women seek abortions: unmarried teens who get pregnant through lust and carelessness, or women pursuing careers who selfishly put themselves ahead of their (existing or potential) families. And we may oppose any new taxes on the wealthy because we assume “good citizens” have earned their wealth through hard work.

Under the nurturing parent frame, we assume the world can be made a better place. We assume parents nurture their children through empathy and responsibility, and that parents must “protect” their children. Important values include cooperation, fulfillment, two-way communication, happiness and fairness. Our overriding guideline is a variation of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.”

Translated into political terms, this means we may believe in such things as consumer protection, worker protection and environmental protection. We may support government-mandated healthcare because we believe it is our responsibility to take care of everyone, including those who cannot afford to take care of themselves (e.g., children, the poor, the elderly, people with disabilities). We may approve gun control because we believe guns cause more harm than good (especially when they are in the presence of children). We may approve prenatal care because we believe the government must provide for the basic needs of its citizens – and healthier mothers and children lead to a healthier society. We may support all women’s right to use birth control or to choose an abortion because we believe they are worthy of our help. And we may approve additional taxes for the wealthiest among us because we believe that taxes are the dues we pay to be an American, to live in a democratic society that provides us with opportunities for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Attack on Women
Many Democrats and some Republicans and independents see the attack on Fluke as part of a larger attack on women – especially women’s reproductive rights. Many statehouses and Congress have been discussing legislation to nearly eliminate all types of birth control and to make certain types of care, such as getting abortions, much more difficult. Our very own Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced a bill that would have allowed ANY employer to deny employees birth control coverage (but not coverage for Viagra, by the way) for ANY religious reasons they could come up with. So if your boss assumes that all young women sleep around and thus are morally unsound, he could eliminate birth control as an option in his company’s health care plan.

Attacks on Planned Parenthood have gotten louder as the presidential election nears. For example, former presidential candidate and Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry signed legislation that goes into effect this month to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in his state. The result will be to sabotage the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which provides cancer screenings, wellness care and other medical services – including contraception – for more than 130,000 low-income women each year. Staunch anti-abortion groups, such as Life Dynamics and its president, Texan Mark Crutcher, have tried to tie Planned Parenthood to efforts to “kill black babies” rather than provide health care to black women and others.

To me, the attacks on “religious freedom” seem to be code words for attacks on women’s rights for all sorts of medical care. Certainly contraception is not just a “women’s issue.” How many teenage boys (or males of any age, for that matter) hope they will hit the parental jackpot every time they have sex? Avoiding sexually transmitted diseases is important to both partners. Helping women detect and treat breast or ovarian cancer should be important to anyone who has a mother, a sister, a wife or a daughter – not just to the woman herself.

The Attack on Obamacare
First, let me address the term “Obamacare.” It is meant to be a disparaging remark about all things bad about Obama’s healthcare proposal. Specifically, many people object to the idea that “the government” is “forcing” people to have health care. If I were Obama’s campaign strategist, I would have urged him to embrace the term, arguing that yes, he DOES “care” about people’s welfare and that he has made their “care” one of his most important accomplishments.

The most-important aspect of Obama’s healthcare plan to me is that my son can continue under my health insurance plan until he reaches 26; he is 24 now and still looking for a “real” job with benefits. About 1.2 million young adults are affected by this part of the healthcare bill. The law closes the “doughnut hole” for seniors, which is the difference between the cost of prescription drugs and what seniors receive in Medicare benefits. (This benefit should be important to anyone with parents or grandparents.) According to a government website: “Beginning August 1, 2012, additional women’s preventive services that will be covered with no cost sharing in new health plans include well-woman visits, gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling, domestic violence screening, contraception and contraceptive counseling, HPV DNA testing, STI counseling, and HIV screening and counseling.” (This is the provision that sparked the House oversight hearings in the first place.) These and other provisions in the healthcare bill are clear examples of the government as “nurturing parent.”

What’s Next?
Listen closely to the debates in Washington, at the local level and in the media as we approach the 2012 presidential election. How are people framing the discussion of what our country should be like and which issues should be the most important for us to address? For example, when talking about the economy and jobs, are people speaking about “no new taxes” as the best means to spur the economy or “taxing the wealthiest 1 percent” to “pay their fair share”? When talking about healthcare, are people talking about “religious freedom” and “government meddling” or “women’s health” and “attacks on women”? When talking about global warming, are people talking about government regulations (e.g., whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built) as “killing jobs” or “creating jobs”?

Become wise consumers of information. Be prepared to vote. And most importantly, vote if you are eligible in November. Don’t assume someone else will make the right decisions for you.

Being on the Wrong Side of History: Denying the Climate Crisis Is Real

We study history while in school, but sometimes we forget that we are living through history right now. I wonder what historians will write in 2021 about how politicians responded in spring 2011 to the global climate crisis. Let’s take a peek at what that chapter might include.

A Little History

In summer 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Democrats in 2010 tried to pass legislation that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions, but the bills died as a result of Republican filibusters. So President Obama followed up on the Supreme Court ruling and authorized the EPA to use its regulatory authority to control greenhouse gas emissions, starting in January 2011.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 34-19 on a bill to permanently block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Every Republican on the committee plus three Democrats – Reps. Mike Ross (Ark.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and John Barrow (Ga.) – supported the bill. The full House of Representatives is expected the vote on the bill before the Easter recess. And the Senate is considering parallel legislation now, as well.

The House bill, by the way, is titled “H.R. 910: The Energy Tax Prevention Act.” Proponents are framing the bill as a “tax” that would “prevent” the economy from recovering.

Not so coincidentally, all of the representatives who voted for the bill have received thousands of dollars in donations from the billionaire Koch (pronounced “coke”) brothers, who own the largest privately owned company in the United States. According to www.sourcewatch.org, Koch Industries’ operations “include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products. The company operates crude gathering systems and pipelines across North America. One subsidiary processes 800,000 barrels of crude oil daily in its three refineries.”

Follow the Money

Why do I single out the Kochs? Because the climate-change-denial campaign has a lot to do with “following the money.” Who benefits from legislation that would allow unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists have proved affects global warming? Is it the people who suffer from asthma caused by air pollution, or is it the residents of “cancer alley” in Louisiana who suffer higher than “normal” levels of cancer? No, it’s the oil, gas and coal industries – and the people who support them – that believe they have much to lose in the short term from stricter regulations of air pollution. In the long term, however, it’s in the industries’ best interests to retrofit their businesses and invest big time in clean energies necessary for the future of human life as we have known it.

For more information about the Kochs, check Jane Mayer’s piece in The New Yorker magazine: “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” .

For the Koch Industries side of the story, check here.

Impact of H.R. 910

Back to my story. According to Ashley Braun’s post at DeSmogblog.com, H.R. 910, if passed, would be:

· “Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and six others) in connection with climate change.

· “Repealing previous EPA actions and rules on climate, overturning the EPA's science-based endangerment finding stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten public health and therefore are ‘air pollutants’ which must be regulated.

· “Prohibiting Clean Air Act standards for improving vehicle fuel efficiency after 2016.

· “Preventing the EPA from allowing ambitious states, such as California, to set tougher vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases.”

Framing the Issue

On the FOXNews.com website, conservative pundit Phil Kerpen opines that senators who vote against a Senate version of the House bill would have to explain to their constituents “why they want to outsource our energy and economic future to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA – especially at a time when the economy remains weak and EPA regulations threaten to destroy millions of more American jobs. If the Senate refuses to stop the EPA, the biggest winners will be our global competitors like China and India.”

Democrats, on the other hand, are framing the bills as a threat to human health and welfare and as an affront to science.

House Democrats offered three amendments to H.R. 910 that, as Braun wrote, were “designed to get Republicans on the record on climate science.” The amendments called on Congress to agree that:

1. Climate change is occurring – amendment offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

2. Climate change is caused largely by humans – amendment offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)

3. Climate change endangers human health and welfare – amendment offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)

In contrast to FOXNews.com, Lucy Madison wrote on the CBSNews.com website that “The global scientific community is largely unified in the belief that the climate is warming as a result of human actions, among them the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.” Madison quoted Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) as saying that “the Republicans’ rejection of Waxman’s amendment showed ‘what it means to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of science.’”

While some Republican legislators are still publicly arguing that “the science is not settled” and that the climate crisis is not real, others are taking the more cautious approach by arguing that the issue isn’t about science; it’s about whether the EPA should have the authority to do what Congress should be doing.

House Republicans and Democrats finally agreed upon a weaker “sense of Congress” amendment proposed by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) that says there is “scientific concern over warming of the climate system.” Concern – but not proof. Waxman, understandably, is upset with this “better lame than nothing” amendment.

John M. Broder reported in the New York Times that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Republican Minority Leader, has attached an amendment to a small-business bill currently being considered in the Senate that has almost identical wording to that in H.R. 910. In his article, Broder quoted portions of a statement McConnell released to the press: “[Democrats] are attempting to do through regulation what they couldn’t do through legislation – regardless of whether the American people want it or not. … This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job.”

Broder added that “A vote on the McConnell amendment will be a test of anti-E.P.A. sentiment in the Senate, where a bill similar to the House measure has the support of most Republicans and one Democrat, Joe Manchin III, of West Virginia.” The major industry in West Virginia, by the way, is coal mining.

How Will the Chapter End?

So as historians write the chapter about what our politicians did in spring 2011 regarding the EPA, what will they say “we,” the people, did? Did we sit back and let history unfold? Or did we contact our legislators, demanding that they vote to support the EPA, improve vehicle fuel efficiency and allow states to pass their own stronger environmental laws?

What will history say YOU did?

If you want to send an e-mail to Florida’s two U.S. senators and the U.S. representative from our district, complete the contact forms available at these sites:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Rep. Steve Sutherland II (R-Fla.)

You simply fill in the forms, include your message, and hit "send." You can send three messages in less than 10 minutes.

So the end of the story is up to you. You can either be the difference, or you can be indifferent. The choice is yours.

Storytelling: How to Make a Difference in the Global Climate Crisis

It’s hard to wrap your arms around a problem as massive as the global climate crisis. Although it threatens our very existence, it can be hard to see. A melting iceberg here, a receding glacier there ... but our lives continue, for the most part, exactly as they have for years.

We get up in the morning in our warm houses, take refreshing showers from a seemingly endless source, wear recently purchased clothing made somewhere in Southeast Asia, eat food packaged for our convenience, connect to our charged cell phones and plugged-in computers, drive – usually by ourselves – to wherever we need to be, toss aside a no-longer-useful Starbucks cup ... all with no thought as to the “cost” of what we have just done.

How do we, as PR professionals, address a topic so huge, so important, and yet so abstract and intangible as the climate crisis? Through stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28hedin.html

Take this story, “An Almanac of Extreme Weather,” which appeared as a Nov. 27 op-ed in the New York Times. It was written by Jack Hedin, a Minnesota farmer:

"THE news from this Midwestern farm is not good. The past four years of heavy rains and flash flooding here in southern Minnesota have left me worried about the future of agriculture in America’s grain belt. For some time computer models of climate change have been predicting just these kinds of weather patterns, but seeing them unfold on our farm has been harrowing nonetheless.

"My family and I produce vegetables, hay and grain on 250 acres in one of the richest agricultural areas in the world. While our farm is not large by modern standards, its roots are deep in this region; my great-grandfather homesteaded about 80 miles from here in the late 1800s.

"He passed on a keen sensitivity to climate. His memoirs, self-published in the wake of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, describe tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather. But even he would be surprised by the erratic weather we have experienced in the last decade.

"In August 2007, a series of storms produced a breathtaking 23 inches of rain in 36 hours. The flooding that followed essentially erased our farm from the map. Fields were swamped under churning waters, which in places left a foot or more of debris and silt in their wake. Cornstalks were wrapped around bridge railings 10 feet above normal stream levels. We found butternut squashes from our farm two miles downstream, stranded in sapling branches five feet above the ground. A hillside of mature trees collapsed and slid hundreds of feet into a field below."

Hedin continues his story, adding details about how seven years of unusual rainfall have ruined his farm. He adds: “Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an existential threat to my way of life. A family farm like ours may simply not be able to adjust quickly enough to such unendingly volatile weather.” Powerful stuff.

Scientists warn us not to confuse “weather” with “climate.” Weather changes all of the time, from season to season. But the climate? Well, regular variations are the norm. However, many scientists are noticing patterns or conditions that are ripe for creating unusual weather events – heavier rains or more severe droughts, floods or fires, hurricanes or dust storms.

I’m not a scientist, and I can’t feed you the facts to support my experiences. But I know that the climate has changed drastically since I was a child. Late August in Minnesota used to be HOT! Every year on my birthday – Aug. 26 – I would spend the entire day at the Minnesota State Fair, never needing a jacket. On the other hand, Minnesota winters were COLD, with snow often blanketing the ground several feet thick. The lakes were frozen solid, making ice fishing ... and lake golf ... seasonal sports. Whereas Floridians brace for hurricanes, Minnesotans prepared themselves for tornadoes.

When I speak with my family in Minnesota these days, they tell me of unusually warm winters with little snow cover, which is so necessary for crops to grow in the spring and summer. My August birthday often is chilly. Parts of the Upper Midwest have been hit recently with unusual tornadoes in the fall (typically, the “second tornado season” hits further south, but the tornado window seems to be expanding). One Friday this fall, the temperature was in the 60s in Minneapolis and St. Paul. And then the next day, the temperature dropped rapidly as a foot of snow clogged the city streets.

In my neighborhood here in Tallahassee, plants seem to be blooming earlier in the spring, only to be damaged by a late frost. The allergy season seems to be expanding as the blooming time expands. Last year was our warmest summer in Florida ... and our coldest winter. That match-up isn’t supposed to happen. I know all of this is anecdotal, but as PR practitioners, we know that one of our research tools is observation. So this is the story of what I’m seeing.

Scientists tend to be reluctant to tell stories, choosing, instead, to focus on facts. Maybe it’s our job as PR practitioners to find the stories to help complete the picture of the impact of the global climate crisis.

Why I Choose to "Do 10 for 10-10-10"

When I was in my early 20s and newly married, having children was the last thing I wanted. Fast-forward to my late 30s when, with a new husband and a new outlook on life, I suddenly heard my biological clock ticking. I am one of the lucky ones who was able to get pregnant and have a baby at age 40. For me, becoming a parent was truly an act of faith ... faith that the world could be a safe place for our son to survive and thrive.

Fast-forward again to today. Our son is almost 23, but the world is not the safe place I had hoped it would be. I’m not talking about the “war on terror” and the loss of civility and tolerance in society – both of which are scary enough. No, I’m talking about the global climate crisis. We no longer have time to avoid climate change. Rather, we now need to adapt to the world we have created. And that’s a scary place.

The planet is warming, polar ice caps are melting, glaciers are disappearing, deserts are expanding, oceans are rising and becoming more acidic, fresh water is more scarce, pests and diseases now thrive in regions where they once did not, severe weather events are more severe, and dirty energy (e.g., oil, coal, gas) is heavily subsidized whereas clean energy (e.g., wind, solar, hydrothermal) is not.

Sadly, many people do not believe the climate crisis is real, despite the fact that the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that there is a greater than 90 percent chance that the planet is warming and that humans are mostly responsible. The facts support these scientists’ claims. If you don’t believe me, check with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, World Glacier Monitoring Service, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the national academies of science of 45 nations, including the Vatican.

I’ve always been an optimist, believing that good will prevail and that everything is possible with enough effort. But the global climate crisis has raised personal responsibility to a whole new level ... which leads me to why I have chosen to “Do 10 for 10-10-10.”

“10-10-10” stands for Oct. 10, 2010. And by “Do 10,” I mean that I am choosing to make at least 10 changes to my lifestyle by 10-10-10 to cut my “carbon footprint,” or my impact on the earth.

Here are some of the changes I have chosen to make: switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs; unplug appliances and turn off lights when not being used; use a water bottle rather than bottled water; print two-sided and use the back side of old paper; eat less meat; and refuse to buy Styrofoam.

Do I believe these small changes will “stop” climate change? No, that train has long-since left the station. But I DO believe that if enough of us make enough small changes, we will eventually create an atmosphere – a tipping point – in which conservation and personal responsibility replace consumerism and “free” enterprise as core values by which we live. If we – the people – are willing to act, then so, too, must our businesses and government.

On 10-10-10, hundreds of thousands of people will be gathering at more than 5,600 Global Work Parties in 183 countries to address the climate crisis. They’ll be installing solar panels and windmills, planting trees and community gardens, laying out bike paths, cleaning up beaches and parks, and much more. Here at FAMU, we’ll be installing a rainwater-collection system on Jackson-Davis and repainting campus recycling bins as part of the FAMU Green Coalition’s 10-10-10 initiative.

The 10-10-10 call for action has come from 350.org, a group founded by well-known author and environmentalist Bill McKibbon and his colleagues. The number “350” refers to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), the level that scientists believe the earth can sustain and maintain human life as we know it. Unfortunately, we’re at about 390 ppm and rising. In my lifetime, the carbon dioxide level will never return to what it was when I was born.

You cannot use the excuse that “I didn’t know” when you finally start to connect the dots between the way you live and the realities of the climate crisis. Letting your car idle as you sit for 10 minutes in a drive-through so that you can purchase a hamburger, for example, is an incredibly “expensive” habit (in earth terms). According to an article in “Scientific American,” “... producing half a pound of hamburger for someone’s lunch ... releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.”

So I challenge you to “Do 10 for 10-10-10” for YOURSELF and for all living things on the planet. You can download the pledge card from the FAMU Green Coalition's website. Turn in your pledge to any dean’s office, SGA, Coleman Library, Student Health Services or Room 3022 SJGC by noon, Oct. 11. Speak loudly. Act boldly. And be part of the tipping point.

Behind the Tea Party: Grassroots or Astroturf?

I was listening to NPR Friday, Sept. 17, 2010, when I heard a story about how the Tea Party isn’t as much of a grassroots movement as we have been led to believe. True, there are many people who of their own volition have joined together to share their displeasure with the way our government is being run. The Tea Party could be a case study of how the “New Influencers” (or “people like us,” as Paul Gillin defines them) are using social media to build communities without the interference of traditional institutions and organizations.

But then, as radio great Paul Harvey used to say, here’s “the rest of the story.” It turns out that much of the money funding the “spontaneous” outpouring of political angst within the Tea Party actually comes from some of the same people who funded (and continue to fund) the tobacco debate. Rather than simply being “grassroots” operations of and by “the people,” both the National Smokers Alliance and the Tea Party movements either arose as “astroturf” – or fake grassroots – movements or were hijacked by special interest groups.

Let’s look at the tobacco story first.

Over the years, Philip Morris hired two PR giants – Burson-Marsteller and APCO International – to mobilize smokers to “fight for their rights” by forming the National Smokers Alliance, among other things. These PR giants used time-tested strategies to persuade smokers that the issue really wasn’t about “health” but rather about “free choice.”

By denying any wrongdoing, Big Tobacco argued that lots of things cause cancer and that the link between tobacco smoking and cancer was never “proved” beyond a reasonable doubt. They attacked the character of their opponents, saying that anyone who tried to educate people or legislate against tobacco was simply trying to create a “nanny state.” (You hear this same argument today regarding healthcare and the global climate crisis.)

[For more information about how PR has been used to reframe the issue of smoking and cancer, read “Do the Right Thing” and “Climate Cover-Up” by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore. These authors also show how PR strategies and tactics – not science – are being used to persuade people that the global climate crisis is not real, despite significant scientific evidence that it is.]

Big Tobacco advocates also spoke of “sound science” (or anything that contradicted the link between tobacco smoking and cancer), implying that “regular science” (which showed a clear link between smoking and cancer) was somehow not “sound.” The tobacco companies reached out to other industries – especially the Big Energy companies (oil, gas, coal) – to join the “sound science” crusade. And Big Energy answered the call.

Now, let’s look at the Tea Party movement.

Ron Paul, libertarian candidate for president in 2008, has been pushing the Tea Party agenda for years. In 2007, he broke the one-day online record for fundraising up to that point, raising $4.3 million from 40,000 individual donors in support of his Tea Party campaign. So lots of people supported Paul’s approach to governing. But something interesting happened along the way.

On Feb. 19, 2009, CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli gave what has been dubbed the “Santelli Rant,” urging viewers to create a Chicago-style Tea Party to show their displeasure with the way the Obama administration was handling the mortgage crisis. Santelli claims his remarks were not scripted to start a Tea Party movement. And that may be the case, despite the claim in a “Playboy” article by journalists Mark Ames and Yasha Levine that “Santelli’s tirade was a ‘carefully planned trigger’ for the Tea Parties.”

But “someone” WAS ready to start a national Tea Party movement. Within hours after Santelli’s piece aired, the blog OfficialChicagoteaparty.com went live, registered to Eric Odom. Ames and Levine report that this is the same Eric Odom who, in 2008, organized a Twitter-led “DontGo.com” campaign to press Congress and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to “not go home” until they had passed an offshore oil drilling bill. Odom has an interesting résumé, among other things serving as the “new media coordinator” for the Sam Adams Alliance (as in the historical Sam Adams, who led the original Boston Tea Party). The Alliance is affiliated with Koch (pronounced “coke”) Industries. Let’s take a look at that company.

A major beneficiary of an offshore drilling bill is Koch Industries, which, according to SourceWatch.org, “is the largest privately owned company in the United States … . Operations include refining, chemicals, process and pollution control equipment, technologies, fibers and polymers, commodity and financial trading and consumer products.”

According to an Aug. 30, 2010, article by Jane Mayer in “The New Yorker” magazine, Koch Industries is one of the top 10 polluters in the U.S. and spent even more money than ExxonMobil to fight climate change legislation. So the company has a vested interest in any movement that intends to limit government regulation of the energy industry.

Brothers David and Charles Koch, Mayer reports, have funded “foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies – from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program – that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.”

Mayer describes the huge role the Koch brothers have been playing in the Tea Party movement, funneling $45 million just for the midterm elections through such groups as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, of which David is a founder.

In an Aug. 28, 2010, op-ed piece in “The New York Times,” Frank Rich wrote about yet-another Tea Party sponsor, Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. “Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations.”

And in a front-page story in the Sept. 19, 2010, edition of “The New York Times,” reporters Janie Lorber and Eric Lipton wrote about the Tea Party Express, run by long-time Republican operative Sal Russo. “Mr. Russo’s group, based in California, is now the single biggest independent supporter of Tea Party candidates, raising more than $5.2 million in donations since January 2009, according to federal records. But at least $3 million of that total has since been paid to Mr. Russo’s political consulting firm or to one controlled by his wife, according to federal records.” Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, who just won the Republican nomination for senator from Delaware, specifically thanked the Tea Party Express for its help in her win.

So be careful when you hear about “grassroots” organizations. While some of their members may truly embrace the messages of “freedom” and “the right to choose” and “small government,” it’s also quite likely that these groups may also be “astroturf” organizations, funded behind the scenes by industries that stand to prosper greatly from their success. But don’t take my word for it; do your own research.

Not all “New Influencers,” I would argue, are “people like us.”

Coal, Oil & Gas: Digging into the Olympic Moment

I just watched the final televised coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Great games. Engaging TV. And ugly advertising.

The coal, oil and gas industries ran numerous advertisements during the games in an attempt to persuade us that we need these "American" industries ... just the way they are.

One ad by the coal industry uses patriotism to promote "clean coal," an oxymoron if there ever was one. A young coal worker talks about why he feels so proud to be doing his part to "make America secure" in the same way that his brother -- a solider -- is doing overseas. Geez!

Or take this ad by API, the American Petroleum Institute, self-dubbed "The people of America's oil and natural gas industry."

An attractive blond woman rides a pristine, computer-generated elevator supposedly down below the earth's surface. She tells us about the 9.2 million American jobs the oil and natural gas industry has created. As she rides back up, she says: "So the next time we discover more natural gas together underground, think of all the good that means above ground. Log on for more information" [emphasis mine].

After the 10th viewing of the ad, I finally logged on to energytomorrow.org, where you will be urged to write to Congress to protest "massive new taxes and fees on America's oil and natural gas industry" that will "kill jobs" and "hurt consumers and businesses."

Sounds bad. No one wants to "kill" jobs and "hurt" anyone.

BTW, this is an example of Astroturfing, or a fake grassroots campaign. API is trying to persuade us Americans to tell our legislators that we (not API) are "sick and tired and won't take it anymore."

Let me reframe the discussion this way.

How many people and other living things have been killed or hurt as a result of the polluting effects of oil and coal? We have chosen to subsidize these industries, thus making it seem as if they provide "cheap" energy. We conveniently forget the economic, political, environmental, health and social justice costs that come along with chopping off the tops of mountains, spewing particulate matter into the air, and dumping toxic wastes near low-income or minority communities that usually don't have the political power to fight back.

Last November, I participated in an online workshop titled “Covering the Green Jobs Debate: What You Need to Know.” This session was offered by Poynter NewsU to help reporters understand how to interpret information about green jobs. I learned that the common element of green jobs is energy, whether it be renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Why do green jobs matter? While President Obama has planned for $100 billion in additional stimulus bill funds to support alternative energy sources, China plans to spend $200 billion on green jobs, and the G-20 industrialized countries plan to spend $400 billion. We've got to get on board if we want to remain leaders in the world economy.

I learned that according to the Pew Charitable Trust, only about half of 1% of all U.S. jobs (770,000) are clean, renewable-energy jobs. However, green jobs are growing faster – 9.1% to 3.7% – than are those in the traditional energy sector, such as oil, gas and coal ... the dirty, nonrenewable energy sources.

According to the New York Times, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) decided in 2007 to commit between $35 million to $40 million a year through 2010 or 2011 to "protect coal" -- not to explore alternative energy sources or to clean up the way they do business. No, the goal is simply to protect the way they are. And they're being quite effective. Obama has spoken of "clean coal," and the Times reports that lawmakers are hesitating to support energy and climate bills considered "too draconian" because they "would kill jobs and raise energy prices." Really?

So I ask, what is the truly patriotic and American thing to do? Spend money to promote yourself in the short-run, with long-term negative consequences to your industry and to the people you purport to serve? Or spend money now to find ways to maintain your industry's health in the long-run while promoting the well-being of your employees, investors and the consuming public? Seems an easy call to me.

Coal and oil are dirty -- Have been. Always will be. Renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, hydroelectric) is clean. A green economy creates jobs and promotes sustainability. Go green.

Why We Need a Green Tea Party

You’ve heard of the Boston Tea Party, right? As the story goes, Boston colonists in 1773, upset with a British tax on tea, decided to protest the “taxation without representation” by throwing the tea into the harbor. There’s much more to the story than this, but the event has served as a model for anti-tax, anti-government protests ever since.

Today we have the Tea Party movement, which took force in early 2009. People are expressing their anger with President Obama and Congress for spending “the people’s” money on things “the people” don’t like – taxes in general, health care, the stimulus bill, banking and auto bailouts, etc. Things they value include fiscal responsibility, free markets, limited government, upholding the Constitution and, as former Rep. Tom Tancredo said in his opening remarks at this month’s Tea Party Convention in Nashville – “... a commitment to passing on our [emphasis mine] culture – and we do have one you know! It is based on Judeo Christian principles whether people like it or they don't! That's who we are! And if you don't like it, don't come here! And if you're here and don't like it go home! Go someplace else!” Which "home" is he suggesting Americans who disagree with him should go to?

This populist movement is infused with “astroturfing,” – that is, well-financed entities, such as the Freedom Forum, are helping to frame the debate by creating fake grassroots movements (see Paul Krugman, NYT, April 12, 2009). And, sadly, there’s a strain of racism among some in the movement – people who picture Obama as a witch doctor, who label him as a modern-day Hitler, who still do not believe he was born in the U.S., who believe that those who voted for him are illiterate, and so on. But that's another story.

The Tea Party movement has been very effective in rallying a group of people with strong beliefs and in getting their message before the media and elected officials. But they are pushing more than just information and persuasion; they are making things happen, too. For example, members of the Tea Party have claimed credit for Republican Scott Brown winning former Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. We can learn a lesson or two from this group.

It’s time we established a Green Tea Party, a grassroots group dedicated to making elected officials act responsibly by supporting clean energy, creating green jobs, promoting energy conservation, and addressing climate change as the real, human-caused phenomenon it is.

We need to repeat our messages through a variety of media and repeat them often.: We must care for our world, care for our environment, invest in our children’s future, be wise stewards, create green jobs, grow the economy responsibly, and so on. We need to let our elected officials know “We’re angry as heck, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

A Green Tea Party has already started to take form. On Feb. 13 at more than a dozen locations across Florida, people gathered for “Hands Across the Sand” events to protest planned drilling off Florida’s coasts. “Think, baby, think” was the chant – a counterpoint to Sarah Palin’s rallying cry of “Drill, baby, drill.” On Oct. 24, 2009, as part of “International Day of Climate Action," I organized “Tallahassee 350,” which was one of more than 5,200 similar events in 181 countries. This worldwide effort drew attention to the fact that scientists say the earth can sustain 350 ppm of carbon dioxide and maintain human life as we know it. Sadly, we’re at 390 ppm and rising. People around the world are getting the message and spreading the word.

I’m on the mailing list for at least a dozen organizations – such as the Southern Energy Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 1Sky, Repower America, Citizens Climate Lobby – that are seeking to educate the public and our elected officials on the urgency of addressing climate change. Communities across the country – indeed, across the world – are taking action.
Malcolm Gladwell in his seminal book “The Tipping Point” argues that small changes can bring about a social epidemic. We’re already facing an environmental tipping point (think about the unusual weather patterns this past year and the rapidly melting Arctic ice shield). We need to create a social epidemic – a Green Tea Party – to mobilize the political will of the masses to address this most-important issue facing humankind: climate change.

Won’t you join me?