Hazing Arizona (PDF)

GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL

Long before the state passed its anti-immigrant law, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was taking border enforcement into his own hands.

David de la Fuente might still be alive if his pal David Salazar hadn't been short on cash one day. Both men lived in Phoenix, where they'd settled after making their separate ways north from the Mexican farming village of Colonia Emilio Carranza many years earlier. Salazar and his family came across legally in 1974, while de la Fuente arrived during the 1990s, traversing the desert on foot to cross the border illegally near Nogales, Arizona. De la Fuente, a plumber, and Salazar, a delivery driver, eventually became good friends. Their families grew close, too, often spending weekends and holidays together.

But that all changed one morning in May 2009, when Salazar asked de la Fuente for a ride to the atm. They hopped into de la Fuente's green Nissan Maxima and drove to a nearby Wells Fargo. As they were about to turn into the parking lot, a Phoenix squad car driving behind them hit its flashers.

By Salazar's account, officer Matthew Prutch asked de la Fuente for a driver's license. When he produced a fake, Prutch had him step out of the car and handcuffed him. Salazar asked the officer whether he'd pulled them over because of their skin color; Prutch, he says, replied that he was just doing his job. (In his report, Prutch wrote that he ran the Nissan's plates while following the car and found no driver's license data associated with the registered owner. "He appeared to be a Hispanic male," Prutch added, "and under reasonable suspicion I believe [sic] the driver to be driving with no valid license.") Minutes later, another officer arrived and asked Salazar for his license, even though he hadn't been at the wheel. Prutch then delivered de la Fuente to the police station for booking. From there, the 35-year-old was taken to Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio's notorious Durango Jail, and charged with using a fake ID. A month later, he was dead.

Before SB 1070, the Arizona law that allows police officers to detain anyone they suspect might be in the country without papers, there was 287(g). That's a 1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act under which the feds can deputize state and local law enforcement to capture and detain undocumented immigrants. Some 71 agencies in 26 states operate under 287(g) agreements- Arpaio signed up in 2007.

The man who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff" has long had a knack for drawing media attention-reviving chain gangs, for instance, and humiliating county inmates by forcing them to don pink underwear. He grew obsessed with illegal immigration in 2005, when the state's "coyote statute" took effect, making it a felony to smuggle people for profit anywhere in Arizona. As interpreted by then-county prosecutor Andrew Thomas, the law freed sheriff's deputies to round up undocumented immigrants-after all, hadn't these people conspired to smuggle themselves into Arizona? So Arpaio began sending out posses of citizens and lawmen to conduct immigration sweeps. "I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico," he told the Washington Times. "I'll give them a free ride to my jail."

It was Arpaio's zeal that compelled me to spend five months on his home turf last year. I wanted to see firsthand how his tactics affected the Latino residents who make up 3 1 percent of the county's population. I heard story after storyfrom citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented residents alike-about encounters with deputies and cops determined to play Border Patrol. It got to the point where I raced home in a panic one morning after heading out for a jog without ID-what if a deputy, seeing a Latina running down the street, decided to haul me in?

Native Americans told me they were targeted because deputies mistook them for Latinos. Latinos told me of being stopped randomly on the street and shouted at-or worse-by officers demanding identification. Alex, a third-generation US citizen, was at a Circle K buying water while his parents waited outside. He ran out when he heard a group of Arpaio's deputies yelling at them to produce their papers. Then, Alex said, they demanded to see his ID, too, explaining, "The law says everyone here has to be legal." (Fearing retaliation, Alex asked that we not use his real name.)

Then there was Celia Alejandra Alvarez, who told me deputies broke her jaw during a raid at the landscaping company she worked for. Alvarez said she was denied adequate medical care during her three-month detention-a common complaint that has been the subject of hundreds of lawsuits against Arpaio. Even after surgery, she added, her jaw still isn't back to normal-during our interview she paused periodically to readjust it. (In 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care yanked Maricopa County's accreditation, saying its jails failed to meet national standards.)

Maurilio (who also feared giving his real name) is a construction worker who has lived in the United States without papers for 21 years, raising two kids who are US citizens. He said his family was camping at a lake over the Fourth of July weekend in 2008, when a fellow camper started yelling something about "too many Mexicans" and called the sheriffs office. The deputies, Maurilio and his wife told me, threw him down in the presence of his six-year-old son and shoved his face into the ground. They then yanked his head up by his hair and pepper-sprayed him as they cuffed him. After a few weeks at Durango, he was deported-and immediately headed to the desert to walk back north.

To most anyone who even looks Latino in Maricopa County, the long arm of the sheriff seems inescapable. Indeed, Arpaio's tactics have put his agency at the center of an ongoing civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice. Last fall, without explanation, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded Arpaio's authority to arrest people under section 287(g)-although deputies can still check the immigration status of people arriving at the jails. In anticipation of the crackdown, Arpaio held a press conference. "We have arrested 1,600 illegals that have not committed any crime other than being here illegally," he boasted. "The secret is, we're still going to do the same thing-we have the state laws, and by the way, we'll still enforce the federal laws without the oversight, the policy, the restrictions that they put on us."

When David de la Fuente arrived at Durango, his friends and family say, deputies immediately began grilling him about his immigration status. One of his sisters visited twice, as did Salazar. Each told me that de la Fuente was deteriorating quickly. The guards, he told them, kept dragging him back and forth between the prison yard (where temperatures reached 107 degrees) and the frigid jail-leaving him queasy and disoriented. He also complained of severe chest pains, but fearing the guards might retaliate, told his family not to press the authorities about his condition. Eventually, de la Fuente was hauled before a judge, who fined him and put him on probation for giving an alias to the police. After three weeks in custody, he was turned over to federal immigration authorities, who delivered him the next day to Nogales, Mexico, about 700 miles north of his hometown. By that time, he was gravely ill.

He arrived in Colonia Emilio Carranza three days later, stumbling and barely able to speak. His family got him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute pneumonia. Based on the stage of his illness, the doctors determined that de la Fuente had contracted it about 15 days earlier-roughly a week into his jail stay-according to medical paperwork and an interview with the hospital director. The doctors did what they could, but de la Fuente was too far gone. His cousins and a sister stood vigil as he dwindled and eventually fell into a coma. He was pronounced dead on June 23-exactly four weeks after the traffic stop.

We may never know what exactly happened to David de la Fuente inside Durango. To see his health records, family members would have to file a signed release and affidavit-something they are, not surprisingly, scared to do. What is clear is that Arpaio's flavor of law enforcement will spread around the state if the aclu (which filed suit in May) fails to stop SB 1070 from taking effect. "The intent of the law was that it would be used disproportionately against people who have certain physical attributes," notes Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School. "Police on the ground understand that and will act accordingly."

This past September, during my visit to Colonia Emilio Carranza, Norberto Alvarado Santana said little as he showed me his cousin's grave, in a humble cemetery adorned with plastic flowers and Virgen de Guadalupe figurines. A stout, reserved man, he measured his words cautiously before finally breaking the silence. "There's a word for what happened to my cousin David," he said. "It's homicide." -Aura Bogado

Ixtoc I: Identification and Dramatistic Pentad

As oil gushes from a wellhead 160 feet below the water’s surface in the Gulf of Mexico, how does a company effectively respond to the public? Kenneth Burke’s discussion of persuasive rhetoric, and specifically the concept of Identification provides an adequate starting point. Burke (1950) states that “a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify itself with the speakers interests (p.46).” Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is Mexico’s national petroleum monopoly, which has a distinct interest in the extraction and refinement of raw crude oil. When an incident such as the Ixtoc I or Deepwater Horizon explosions occur, how does an oil company attempt to compel the public to identify with the interests of the company? In the case of the Ixtoc I, the approach of Pemex as accounted through their statements to the press align with a concern for the impact upon the environment and gulf depending industries, and the need for fuel and power.

In better understanding how the communicator attempt to persuade their audience, Burke (1968) presented the Dramatistic Pentad, which focuses upon the act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose of the communication. This approach focuses primarily upon the act, or what the rhetoric attempts to convince the audience of an occurrence or series of events. The Pentad also consists of where the act occurred, who was involved, the method used by the agent to perform the act, and why the act occurred. The following analysis of those aspects is a result of statements made or released to the press by Pemex during the Ixtoc I incident.

Agent

Pemex, as an organization, represents the agent.

Agency

Pemex was able to act given the organizations position as the only petroleum company within Mexico.

Scene

The Gulf of Mexico near the Yucatan Peninsula served as the scene for the blowout of the Ixtoc I. As the oil continued to leak, the scene of the incident extended to the beaches in Mexico and Texas to the west of the Ixtoc I well.

Act

Pemex was initially engaged in the act of drilling an onshore oil well in what was referred to as one of the country’s richest oil fields. After the incident at the Ixtoc I well, leaving the rig “burning out of control,” the act became a response effort on the part of Pemex. Specifically, the act of stopping the oil from gushing out of the well, which was longer connected to the Ixtoc I rig, collecting the oil that had already leaked into the Gulf, and preventing that oil from impacting the area surrounding the well. The act became about divers attempting to stop the leak, installing video cameras to monitor the leak, laying boom to contain the oil, drilling a relief well, then drilling a second (backup) relief well incase the first attempt failed, and burning off the oil that could not be collected at the surface.

Purpose

The goal of the initial act was to collect the fuel source necessary to power the country of Mexico and customers of Pemex. The purpose of the act becomes returning to daily operations, while minimizing the damage done by the oil leaking from the Ixtoc I well.

Adaptive Leadership and Public Perception

As we saw in the 2006 film, The Queen, adaptive leadership is necessary in order to accommodate modern times. In the film, Queen Elizabeth II chooses to ignore the media after the sudden death of Princess Diana. The Queen was very set in her ways, believing it unnecessary to make a public statement. As a result, the press sketched her as very cold and out of touch with the public. Her constituents agreed with this depiction as well - her approval ratings dropped drastically, with 70% of the public disagreeing with the handling of Diana's death.

It wasn't until the Queen took up Prime Minister Tony Blair's recommendations that she was able to save her reputation. She finally agreed to fly the flag half mast over Buckingham Palace, support a public funeral at Westminster Abbey, and make a televised statement regarding Diana's legacy. Through this, her audience got the mediated reality they had been hoping for. While the authenticity of her remarks are up for debate, the British people finally heard one of their prominent leaders come forth regarding the ordeal, providing a sense of hope and direction.

Another example of adaptive leadership includes Barack Obama's use of social media in the 2008 presidential election. In another class I'm currently taking - "Organizational and Political Culture in a Networked Society" - Dr. Linda Gallant discussed how Obama's use of new media played a strong role in his ultimate success. Dr. Gallant described a recent presentation, "Web-based Social Media, Communication, & Politics," where she presented research showing that on Facebook - between January 7th and 14th of 2008 - Obama had 60% of supporters while Hillary Clinton only had 18%. Deftly using new media channels helped Obama gain this lead.

The ability to stay modern and understand the needs of people in present times contributes to a leader's success or failure. Queen Elizabeth and President Obama both illustrate how leaders who adapt are often more well-received by the public.

Sometimes There's Nothing to Do But Take Full Responsibility

I've been focusing this semester on situations involving law enforcement and how communication has impacted tactical decisions as well as how post-event reactions are handled.

One situation that is unfortunately close to home is that of Victoria Snelgrove, who was a 22 year old Junior at Emerson when she died during celebrations after the Boston Red Sox won the ALCS over the New York Yankees in 2004. She was an innocent bystander in the general vicinity of a crowd of people where police reported that some people where getting out of hand. A gun that fires pepper spray packets was accidentally discharged, hitting Snellgrove in the eye and mortally injuring her. She died the next day.

In the aftermath, the Boston Police took full responsibility. It's really all they could have done, as the facts were painfully clear and there was no excuse for what happened. In some cases, police have been known to "protect their own" when events like this take place. But when the rest of the city was so overjoyed with the Red Sox victory, to try to cover it up of shift blame would not have been well received at all.

The police commissioner, Mayor Menino, and Governor Mit Romney attended Snelgrove's funeral as a show of support and sympathy for the family, and the officers involved were all punished.

This situation was a tragic accident, and by accepting full responsibility from the start, the Boston Police avoided what could have been an ugly backlash from the public.

Achieving the "New Normal"

In “Constructing the ‘New Normal’ Through Post-Crisis Discourse”, O’Hair defines the idea of new normal as “a broadly reconstituted order that incorporates new understandings and interpretations of the crisis into a revised status quo” (p. 4). It is basically the version of a company once it has restarted daily activities and has tweaked operations to reflect learning and growth as a result of the crisis. In some cases, the “new normal” is a positive for a company because it has seized the opportunity of a crisis. I believe in the case of Bank of America, this is true.

CEO Lewis resigned at the end of 2009 and Brian Moynihan, the former President of Consumer and Small Business of Bank of America, took over the company. As an employee of Bank of America before becoming CEO, Moynihan was a revised version of the status quo with a less tarnished reputation.

Bank of America also fully repaid the federal bailout it had received. This move diluted existing stock but wiped away an enormous chunk of debt. It gave Merrill Lynch the fresh start it needed and now that it was under the Bank of America umbrella, Bank of America could begin profiting from the merger.

These moves did not directly restore the lost shareholder trust, but they did allow the company to return to normal operations. The chaos associated with a company enduring mounting losses, quieted, and Bank of America resumed working toward its goal – making profit and expanding its reach. As the company stays on track with these goals, shareholder rage will subside and the new normal relationship between the parties will blossom.

Scribd: Effective or Ineffective Communication Strategy?

In October 2009, Bank of America decided to waive its attorney-client privilege and release information about the legal advice it received from its outside lawyers regarding the merger. This was a belated attempt at disclosure. And with the help of the Internet these internal documents spread fast. They were posted on the social publishing site www.scribd.com. Direct links to these Scribd documents were embedded in online newspaper and magazine articles as well as posted on blogs. The public now had immediate access to Bank of America’s internal correspondence and quickly bloggers speculated about the company’s true motive in the Merrill Lynch merger. The released emails clearly detailed the company’s desire for government assistance and proved that upper management was very aware of the losses it would be incurring in acquiring Merrill Lynch.

Interestingly, this strategy drew more negative press than the company anticipated. Shareholders saw it as too little too late, and legal bloggers found the decision to be unconventional. The website was definitely an effective way to give the public all the information in the case. Unfortunately for Bank of America, the information did not portray the company in the best light. It would have been a super effective communication strategy in a crisis if it clearly illustrated the company’s innocence. As this was not the case, the idea was met with mixed reviews on effectiveness.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/bank-of-america-e-mails-shed-light-on-merrill-deal/

The Press as Shaper of Events

A recent Rolling Stone article features General McChrystal and his top aides making critical and disparaging remarks about Obama's national security team. Specifically, McChrystal said Obama appeared "uncomfortable and intimidated" during their first meeting. The article also quotes a McChrystal aide referring to Vice President Biden as "Bite Me."

Regarding the Rolling Stone article, The New York Times says, "Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in what came close to locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to one another and their own concerns about course of the war." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html?hp)

Today, McChrystal resigned from his post and Obama announced General Petraeus as his replacement. This removal illustrates how the press can be a powerful shaper of events. In The Press Effect, Jamieson and Waldman say, "The press both covers events and, in choosing what to report and how to report it, shapes their outcome. In 1959, Douglas Carter dubbed the press 'the fourth branch of government,' arguing that reporters were not merely observers but also were participants with a substantial degree of political power." (p.95)

McChrystal chose to make the comments he said. However, it was in the hands of the journalist, Michael Hastings, to report the comments and the context in which they occurred. The decision to print these comments ultimately led to a change in the leadership of American forces in Afghanistan. Typically, public figures who wish to stay in good stead with their colleagues/constituents try to control the press in order to create a positive image - McChrystal demonstrates how it's always possible to achieve the exact opposite.

Soccer fans and their beer

It seems that the combination of beer and sports is a universal truth. I had written before on how Brazil was clammering for materials to be able to make enough beer for the World Cup. It seems as if South Africa is having a bit of a problem as well. The breweries of South Africa however had been preparing for this competition, because they had estimated that 17.6 million pints would be drank during the games. This crisis though is good news for South African Breweries (They also own Miller)
To ensure that the there will be enough beer for the fans, SABMiller has well-stocked refrigerated vans near host stadiums, so they can re-stock any bar at any time. They have also given a emergency phone number to all their buyers if beer get low. Their was also a statement released by the sales marketing manager for the FIFA World Cup which said, "Our plans are in place to accommodate this increase, so football fans can relax, there will be plenty of beer." This is good marketing for SABMiller especially since the World Cup's official beer is Budweiser
A-B Imbev bought the rights to be the sole distributor of beer at all the stadiums. They are not controlling however the bars in the surrounding areas or World Cup Fan Parks. A World Cup Fan Park is a park which is set-up by FIFA organizers to have big screen TV's and bars for all the fans who couldn't get tickets. It is estimated that these parks have around280,000 people a day.
This means that SAB can try to capitalize on all these other areas and really emphasis their brand name. I bet these local bars and Fan Parks have plenty of free advertising materials such as banners, t-shirts, and other paraphernalia which has a SABMiller logo. It will be interesting to see at the end of the World Cup how well SABMiller sales have done.

References:
http://beerinnovations.com/press/beer-industry-news/4380
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-11/sabmiller-makes-beer-can-to-cut-waste-missile-use-update1-.html

Identification in Checkers Speech and "The Queen"

Kenneth Burke's concept of identification plays a large role in both President Nixon's Checkers speech and Queen Elizabeth's (played by Helen Mirren) public statement in "The Queen." The direct use of identification enables Nixon and Queen Elizabeth to relate to their respective public entities and ultimately stay in good stead.

In her article, Marie Hochmuth Nichols cites Burke: "...we might well keep in mind that a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify itself with the speaker's interests..."

This concept is executed in Nixon's 1952 Checkers speech. In order to regain the public's trust, he insists he is an honest, hardworking family man - just like many other Americans. He further illustrates this persona by incorporating another aspect of Burke's pentad - the scene. He strategically places his obliging wife, Pat, by his side. He delivers his speech at a desk in front of a set of books. While the factual integrity of what he had earned and owed is questionable, he ultimately won over the public by directly identifying himself with the everyday people.

Similarly, when Queen Elizabeth finally agrees to address the public after Princess Diana's death, she employs the Burkean tools of identification and scene. She gives her speech with the mourning public behind her at Kensington Palace. Knowing how low her popularity had dropped due to not addressing the death, the Queen incorporated careful and deliberate wording to relate to the public. She used phrases such as, "as a grandmother," which struck a maternal note, resonating with not only the British, but families everywhere. Like Nixon's speech, it is up for debate regarding how authentic her words were, but the public regained confidence in the monarchy after she stepped out.

Overlooked Apology

While this has nothing to do with what I am looking at for class, I wondered if anyone else had seen this news about the British government's apology for the Bloody Sunday shootings in Ireland? The Bloody Sunday Massacre happened nearly 40 years ago and spurred one of the most violent years in the Northern Ireland conflict.

With BP and the Gulf dominating the media, I think this apology did not get the attention it may have deserved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/bloody-sunday-massacre-ap_n_612763.html

More Chum in Gulf Waters

I know posting about this particular incident - Barton's apology TO BP for the White House "shakedown" - is a little late, but it fits right in with the poor word choice trend that I've been interested in watching.

I see a little bit of the chaos theory we discussed in class emerging, especially in reference to the idea that communication itself may be a form of bifurcation. As the article stated, "Small variences in communication processes, message form or content, timing, or other factors may produce wide fluctuations and bifurcations."

Barton's statements certainy added chum to the water and the subsequent feeding frenzy was not exclusive to one segment of the population: the general public got involved, the Democrats saw an opportunity to further link Republicans to Big Oil, and the Republicans themselves - understanding the image damage that could cause - also had plenty to say to and about Barton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18barton.html?src=mv

The Importance of Trust

According to the SARS article, successful crisis communication begins with “clear explicit objectives, such as providing information, establishing trust, encouraging appropriate actions, stimulating emergency response or involving stakeholders in dialogue, partnerships, and joint problem solving” (p. 5) Chinese authorities failed to do this during the early stages of the SARS crisis and the epidemic spiraled out of control. This lesson is also applicable to the Bank of American crisis.

Prior to the formal announcement of the Merrill Lynch merger on September 15, 2008, Bank of America’s CEO Kenneth Lewis was very optimistic about the deal. Merrill Lynch’s stability had been called into question previously, but Lewis received word from his financial advisor that the company’s balance sheet was becoming more stable. After the deal was announced, however, Lewis began receiving weekly reports about Merrill Lynch’s condition, and he quickly learned that the company was in trouble. By the end of November, its losses totaled $9 billion.

Bank of America officials began to doubt the merger and looked into breaking the deal. There was one clear cut way to do so, but the window for action was closing fast. The deciding factor in any merger is a shareholder vote. If the shareholders vote against a merger, it is dissolved with no legal obligations on either side. Bank of America’s shareholder vote was scheduled to take place on December 5, 2008. If company officials could prove to the shareholders that acquiring Merrill Lynch would result in tremendous losses for Bank of America and convince them to vote against the merger, the deal would be voided.

Bank of America opted not to disclose information about Merrill Lynch’s condition to shareholders, however, and the deal was approved. If the deal was terminated, it would have been an embarrassment for Lewis and a blow to Merrill Lynch. Lewis had publicly championed the deal from the beginning, and Merrill Lynch was dangerously close to bankruptcy and would not have been able to repay its debts without help.

The deal was officially closed on January 1, 2009. On January 16, 2009, Bank of America’s stock closed around $7 per share. Six weeks later, it was at $3.14 per share. This was a 90% decrease from the days before the Merrill Lynch merger. Shareholders were stunned. They felt deceived and took action. An SEC investigation and an investigation by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo commenced, and CEO Lewis announced his resignation for December 2009.

All of this negative press and internal crisis could have been avoided had Bank of America’s higher ups communicated effectively with shareholders from the beginning. The bank may recover financially, but the damage to shareholder trust and loyalty is irreparable.

Reference: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/the-final-days-of-merrill-lynch/7621/

State Police Hope Citizens Learn from Tragedy

Driving the state's highways this lovely Summer weekend, I noticed that digital signboards that usually give traffic reports or remind people to buckle up had a new message:

"It's the law - Slow down and move over for stopped emergency vehicles."

This message follows an accident that occurred early Friday morning in which a state trooper working a detail was struck and killed by a suspected drunk driver as he tended to another suspected drunk driver on the side of the road.

This is an example of state agencies attempting to capitalize on the organizational learning theory of crisis management. The accident and death of Sgt. Douglas Weddleton has been highly publicized the entire weekend. By posting the message to the state highway signboards, state police officials are hoping that raised awareness from this crisis will lead to new behaviors in drivers - in this case, being cognizant of law enforcement vehicles and taking caution when they are stopped on the side of the road.

Sgt. Weddleton was the father of four and his death was tragic. Our primary hope is that this incident helps more people use caution when approaching stopped emergency vehicles, so his death won't be in vain.

Crisis Theories at Work in Obama's Oval Office Address

On June 15, President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office, stating his position on the BP oil spill. Throughout his speech, he utilizes two crisis theories in particular - sensemaking and chaos.

I first saw chaos theory resonate in his speech. Chaos theory posits that crisis can be used to restructure an organization in order to become stronger. The article "Theories of Organizational Crisis," says, "CT, however, focuses on long-term patterns of sustainability and growth and a dynamic relationship to instability and decline. Growth, resurrection, and renewal follow bifurcation, and the latter may be necessary for the former to occur." (p.37)

This concept plays out as Obama announces how strategic action will tackle the situation: "Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again."

Sensemaking also played a role in Obama's speech. He says, "You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I’ve talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don’t know how they’re going to support their families this year. I’ve seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers -– even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I’ve talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists might start coming back. The sadness and the anger they feel is not just about the money they’ve lost. It’s about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost."

Regarding sensemaking, the article states, "During a crisis, actors often undertake specific actions to reduce their perceived powerlessness and create the impression they are making the difference. Following the 9/11 terrorist attack, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars in donations were made to related charities by individuals seeking to help with the crisis" (p.26) Even though there might be no particular solution for a given crisis, those affected by the crisis take different actions in an effort to make sense of the ordeal.

Crisis theories are timeless. Whether the crisis is the BP oil spill, Exxon Valdez, 9/11, or the Challenger - the theories emerge as a way to break down a crisis and digest it.

Grand Isle, LA

On June 12, 2010, while on a trip to New Orleans, LA, I made the two-hour drive to Grand Isle to see the impact of the current Deepwater Horizon crisis on the shores of Louisiana. It was a long drive down route 1, though there wasn’t much traffic. The road was more often dotted with military vehicles than any other, as the tourist that would otherwise be visiting during this time of year were missing. As we approached the Grand Isle area, images of industry became apparent with the large metal arms of cranes reaching toward the sky and large ships visible across Bayou Cochon. It was along Route 1 that the anger of local residents became apparent. Signs expressing frustration and anger, not only towards BP but also the Government and President Obama specifically, appeared along the roadside.

Crossing the bridge onto Grand Isle, boom could easily be seen from the road. It appeared to be poorly maintained, portions of it doubling back on itself, and there were no ships tending to it, attempting to keep the boom in place. Continuing down Route 1 and across the island, signs expression frustration and indication of a military presence became more frequent. The shore itself was not visible from the road. The beach on the southern shore of Grand Isle lies behind a grassy knoll, where “Beach Closed” signs were notably displayed along its crown. Finding a place to park, we ventured past the buildings, over the knoll, and onto the beach.

An ominous scene was set with very few people near our location on the beach, a military vehicle a few hundred yards in the distance and an ATV was making its way toward us. The ATV continued past us without acknowledgment and we continued toward the shore. We found ourselves separated from the water by a three-foot wall of sand and orange boom, which both ran the length of the beach in either direction. On the far side of the boom, piles of sand mixed with balls of tar and oil soaked debris had been placed every few hundred feet down the shore. More evidence of the oil that continues to flow from the Deepwater Horizon drilling well had already collected near the water’s edge.

Returning to the car, we continued down Route 1 to the end of Grand Isle and paid the $1 fee to enter the Grand Isle State Park. While driving entrances to the beach were closed, we were able to walk down a wooden walkway towards a structure, which overlooks the beach. This is where workers were currently collecting tar balls and oil soaked trash into plastic bags. Sand sifting machines parked to their left and oilrigs in the distance, these were the individuals tasked with returning the beach of Grand Isle to its former greatness for BP to publicize in the future. The workers didn’t stop others from walking around the beach, but wouldn’t allow anyone to cross the boom nor would they talk with anyone asking questions.

BP has received criticism overtime about blocking the press’s ability to report what is happening on the ground in places like Grand Isle and across the southern states where the oil has hit land. Given the anger of local residence, the visual impact of oil stained beaches, and the desire for information, what benefit does BP find in preventing the press from covering portions of this crisis? How far can BP work towards message control before they are interpreted as obstructionist or deceptive? How has the communication from BP about the Deepwater Horizon crisis differed from the communication from Pemex during the Ixtoc I crisis? What lessons were learned and what lessons remain to be learned?

Mass Firings: A Sure Sign of Crisis

Bank of America was charged with failing to disclose information about the losses the company would endure with the Merrill Lynch merger to its shareholders. The crisis culminated with the CEO's resignation. But what about the mass exodus that occurred a year before CEO Lewis' resignation? This should have been a sure sign to shareholders that something was amiss with the deal. It should also have been a sure sign that Bank of America was in big trouble.

Kenneth Lewis fired several top legal executives in December 2008. The casualties included: Tim Mayopoulos, the general counsel of Bank of America; Amy Woods Brinkley, the chief risk officer who reportedly fired Mayopoulos and then retired in June 2009; David Onorato, the chief of litigation and securities inquires at Bank of America; Helga Houston, the compliance and risk management executive; and Rosemary Berkery, the general counsel for Merrill Lynch who left the company in January 2009. All of these legal executives would have been directly involved in any disclosure decisions to the shareholders regarding the Merrill Lynch loss.

Sounds fishy, huh? This much house cleaning foreshadows crisis. If a leader has this many people beneath him or her who they feel can't be trusted or who don't trust the leader, how can the company expect to put forth a united front in the face of crisis? They can't.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/following-the-bodies-at-bank-of-america/

Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico

On June 3^rd, 1979, the offshore test well, Ixtoc I, experienced a wellhead blowout, which resulted in uncontrolled gushing of raw crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico for a period of 9 months. As a result of the blowout, the Ixtoc I platform caught fire and was destroyed, leaving an oil leak at the rate of 30,000 barrels per day with little knowledge of how to stop it. Response from the Mexico state-run petroleum monopoly, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), was immediate in attempting to recover the oiling collecting on the surface, but discussion of a permanent solution acknowledge that a relief well would have to be drilled and that the end of this crisis would be months away. Yet, as representatives of Pemex addressed the media, they couldn’t help but focus on how plentiful the oil was where the Ixtoc I had been drilling roughly 200 feet below the surface.

Definitely Lost in Translation

Last night I had not heard about the latest word choices blunder by BP until I got to class.

When I heard about the "small people" comment, all I could do was shake my head in amazement.

It seems like there is no one involved in this crisis who can say the right things. Obama -depending on his audience - picks the right words, but is he backing them up with the body language and emotion he needs? Based on commentary in class last night the answer is a resounding NO.

As for the latest from Carl-Henric Svanberg? Well, now that I've read a little about the comment, I might be willing to cut this man a little slack (and that's a pretty big "might"). English is his second language and sometimes the idiom you're reaching for does get lost in translation. But given the series of blunders and insensitive comments that have gone before this one, I don't think the majority of the public is going to feel so generous to anyone from BP (or the government for that matter) who puts his foot into his mouth.

Or maybe people will be more like Mayor Kennon of Orange Beach and not care what BP says so long as they "write the check."

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/bp-exec-carl-henric-svanberg-sorry-about-small-people-comment/19519828

Beer Can shortages in Brazil

What do you do when you have a growing economy? Well you drink more beer. Brazilian's largest brewery Cia De Bebidas das Americas had to import beer cans after their local manufacturing plant couldn't keep up. This was the first time this brewery had to import can's in its 125 year history. The Brazilian economy has been doing exceedingly well and it is speculated that there economy while have 6.6% growth rate. It is not only beer which there are shortages of but other commodities such as tires.
While beer is not being able to be made quick enough for the rising demand, especially during the FIFA World Cup, companies are responding wisely to this shortage. Anheuser Imbev who owns Brahma beer has not put any of the cost on to customers after having to import materials. This is a wise decision, because if the Brazilian economy is increasing it is important to keep the brand name in people's mind and not the cost of the product. With the increase of the economy, imported beers from other countries could potentially flood in, especially if the local beer can't keep up with production.
The Brazilian government is also helping to keep the beer costs down by lowering the tariff on beer cans and beer labels. This action could be seen as protectionist by the government, but instead of raising prices on imports they have decreased. I doubt there will be any complaints from outside companies, because the biggest supplier of beer Anheuser Imbev is already in that market. This crisis was averted, because of the co-operation of both the government and businesses. It will be interesting to watch the beer industry in Brazil to see how Anheuser Imbev responds to this boom in business.

Reference:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aPMqULFO_alA

Obama Talks Tough from Oval Office

The language that President Obama is using has swung back towards a more hostile tone (as compared to his reassurances to the British Prime Minister and people that it was not the British public who needed an ass-kicking, but rather BP only).

In his Oval Office address, Obama used words and phrases like “recklessness,” “We will make BP pay,” and that we will “fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.”

He does refer to the clean-up effort as long term, something that could take years. I think it was appropriate for him to say it, because it is the truth. There is no magic bullet that is going to solve this crisis overnight. It will be with us for a long time.

I’m just not sure the general public is interested in hearing that.

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/president-barack-obama-delivers-oval-office-address-on-bp-gulf-oil-spill/19517943?icid=mainhp-laptopdl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fgulf-oil-spill%2Farticle%2Fpresident-barack-obama-delivers-oval-office-address-on-bp-gulf-oil-spill%2F19517943

A Symbolic Backdrop for Strong Words

I noticed a definite increase in comments about President Obama’s use of the Oval Office to stage tonight’s media broadcast to the public. Many people have observed that by using the Oval Office, he is “showing that he’s putting the whole force of his presidency behind this crisis.”

Maybe that full force should have come sooner? I mean, it has been two months. But some of the PR pros quoted think the timing might be right because everyone is at the breaking point. I can’t believe it has taken two months to get to the breaking point but that is a discussion for another time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2599

As an aside, I’ve also noticed an increase in BP’s promotion of the fact they are actively paying out legitimate claims. I’m starting to see statements about this not only in TV commercials, but in side bar advertising on the Web.

The Fall and Rise of Dan Beebe

Late last week it seemed that the Big 12 conference was on the verge of collapse. One of its powerhouse schools, Nebraska, was rumored to announce their intentions to move to the Big 10 conference and just hours later Colorado officially announced their intention to move to the Pac-10. The Big 12 was down to ten school and it was rumored that five more schools would transfer to the Pac-10 to make the first mega-conference, the Pac-16.

Almost overnight it seemed the Big 12 had collapsed out of nowhere. There had been many rumors of Missouri or Nebraska transferring to the Big 10, but few had taken them seriously and even fewer thought that one school deciding to leave would lead to such a drastic conference realignment. However, this was a crisis that had been simmering for many years, far before the rumors of a Nebraska move began in February. The fracturing of the conference came down to one things, other conferences could offer the schools more money. The Pac-10 was offering schools around $20 million per season, which is nearly double the amount that most schools were receiving in the Big 12.

Despite the fact that Beebe failed to see the warning signs of the impending crisis and potential dissolution of the Big 12, he did act quickly once it seemed that the Big 12 might be nearing its end. Beebee was an effective crisis leader and because of his swift action he was able to save the Big 12 from a nearly certain end. Beebe quickly identified the stakeholders in the situation and realized the University of Texas would be key to saving the conference. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M would all likely follow Texas and if he could convince Texas to stay he would get all the other schools to stay too.

Beebe also made sure that accurate information was getting to the press and to the public. He held daily conference calls with the press, which were also streamed online for the general public to hear. In these calls he emphasized that the loss of two schools did not mean the end of the conference and that they were tirelessly working to ensure the other schools stayed. Lastly, Beebee recognized that money was important and worked to find ways to ensure that schools received more money, specifically Texas since saving them was essential to his plan. Beebe failed to see all of the warning signs leading to the crisis, but once the crisis occurred and it seemed likely the Big 12 was about to dissolve he was an effective leader and worked to save the conference.

Managing the Media with Cognitive Dissonance

In Unspun, Jackson and Jamieson describe the concept of cognitive dissonance. They say, "It's just no fun to admit we've been wrong. So we strive to avoid that unpleasant feeling of psychological conflict - what Festinger calls cognitive dissonance - that occurs when deeply held beliefs are challenged by conflicting evidence." (p.67)

I saw this concept play out during Nixon's Watergate scandal. Nixon knew he had to control the media, and did so by asserting his innocence in his November 1973 "I'm not a Crook" speech. In his speech, he goes so far to welcome the idea of being examined by the press, saying, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

A 1973 Washington Post article describes how Nixon employed the cognitive dissonance style at the press conference: "In an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors, Mr. Nixon was tense and sometimes misspoke. But he maintained his innocence in the Watergate case and promised to supply more details on his personal finances and more evidence from tapes and presidential documents.

The President was loquacious in his answers and at the end solicited a question on the charges that the administration raised milk support prices in exchange for campaign contributions from the milk lobby." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm)

Vehemently denying the charges was Nixon's way of managing the press. Although this ultimately proved to be a failure, it illustrates the different ways public figures try to spin their rhetoric and control the press.

When Business is Booming cut workers

What does a massive global corporation do when they have made profits? Well you fire 10% of your workforce division in Europe. This statement by itself is quite loaded and is probably what every Belgian union worker for AB InBev is shouting outside the breweries in Leuven. However it does not encompass the whole situation. In reality AB InBev may have made profit in the third quarter of last year, but their sales have dropped 20% in the last eight years. The corporation also has massive debt after purchasing Anheuser-Busch in the middle of 2008. Then added on their sales in two burgeoning markets of Brazil and Russia have declined once the global recession started to hit.

These facts may help AB Inbev not too look like the evil corporation taking jobs away during a bad economy. Yet at the same time Belgium is known for beer and by cutting these workers it can make the country itself look bad and the image of Belgian beer potentially. This corporation can also calls its history to Leuven all the way back too 1366. All this information is nice and may be used as fodder for the Belgian Union workers, but it doesn't have any affect on making more money for Ab Inbev.

The union right now is hoping to keep some jobs, but they don't have any backing from the government or even from the media. They are basically at the whim of AB Inbev and what they want to do. The union could have tried to entice the media into their cause, but after workers kidnapped Management in Jupille, Belgium for 11 hours their image became a little tainted. Not only have they kidnapped management at one location, but at the AB Inbev headquarters they burned crates as a protest. Overall it seems like the union workers really need a crisis communication advisor, but in the end jobs will still be loss and there isn't much they can do about it.

Press As Patriot

Jamieson asserts that “in the patriot role, the impulse to challenge the actions of those who lead and probe their motives wanes” (197). I see evidence of this idea in practice with the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger. There is evidence that the federal government strong- armed the company into completing the merger despite the $15 billion in debt that would come with it. This pressure from above is reportedly what prompted CEO Lewis to withhold information about the losses until after the shareholder vote had approved the deal.
When shareholders learned that they had been deceived, they were outraged, and the media quickly picked up the story. The S.E.C. launched an investigation as did New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The media backlash was so bad that CEO Lewis announced he would resign in December 2009. He was definitely wrong in failing to inform shareholders about the losses, but the federal government was wrong too. Where were the stories in the press about Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chair Bernanke’s ultimatum to Lewis? Why is that not a subject of greater investigation? Why was Bank of America criticized for accepting a federal bailout when it was part of a shady deal the government drew up?
Acting as patriot was easy for the press in this scenario. The public was already against big business after the details of the AIG case were revealed. If AIG was corrupt, then Bank of America must be too, right? Plus the country was in the midst of an economic crisis. It needed to believe the government was trying to make things better, not contribute to the problem. It was more patriotic to report that Bank of America had “manipulated” the federal government into receiving a bailout for a bad decision than to believe the government had bullied the company into going through with the merger. In the spirit of fair, accurate, and unbiased reporting, however, there was more to the story that deserved to be told.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/the-final-days-of-merrill-lynch/7621/

Too much and never enough

I've been curious about the language being used in the whole BP spill, especially in regards to President Obama. One of the qualities that people - if I remember correctly - seemed to value during the election was the fact that he was level-headed and not a "fly off the handle" kind of guy.

Clearly, that same quality has worked against him somewhat in the wake of the BP oil spill. The public and other politicians have called on him to show more emotion and to take a stronger stand. He started to show that emotion with his "ass kicking" comment which I posted about earlier.

But now it seems, that passion has disturbed our friends in the UK - not just the ass-kicking comment, but Obama's comments that BP should suspend quarterly dividends to shareholders. This has caused a kerfuffle in the UK where "Millions of British retirees depend on BP dividends since pension funds are heavily invested in the oil company, the world's third-largest."

In regards to US/UK relations, it has also been reported that the "president had told Cameron 'that our frustration has nothing to do with national identity' but focuses instead on 'ensuring that a large, wealthy company lives up to its obligations.'"

So it seems that no matter what the President says, it is either going to be too strong or too weak for someone.

Full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-tells-Britain-no-hard-apf-3634523538.html?x=0&.v=9

Iran Interfaith Solidarity Vigil

From Dr. Payne:

Where: Boston Public Library, Dartmouth St., Copley Plaza, Boston
When: Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 3:30 p.m.
Speakers: Sohrab Ahmari - Arya Shams - Josh Rubenstein - Fatemah Haghighatjou - Ala Khaki - Rahman Oladigbolu -Mohammed Eljahmi- Giovanna Negretti

Supporters: Congressman Michael Capuano (letter) - Maz Jobrani (letter)
RSVP VIA FACEBOOK - FAQ

Organizers: The Free Iran Coalition unites Iranians and non-Iranians of diverse outlooks and backgrounds around the common agenda of promoting human rights and free elections in Iran. Civic organizations co-sponsoring the vigil include the American Islamic Congress, Oiste, and more.

Next-Generation Steering Committee:
Sohrab Ahmari - Lauren Murphy - Arya Shams
Amanda Attaei - Keith Vedananda - Andrea Dettorre - Nam Hoang

South Carolina Political Spot

From Dr. Payne

South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidates Gresham Barrett and Nikki Haley face a runoff after neither won a majority in Tuesday's primary, and their new ads are already rolling out! In this one, Barrett rather unsubtly points out Haley's rumored affairs.

Barrett's first post-primary ad here, "Shake Up Columbia," is in the style of some recent other ads, a cartoonish drill sergeant tries to determine if Barrett's a Real Conservative. Does he love war and no taxes? Good man.

South Carolina Republican primaries are terrifying.

Note, though, how the drill sergeant calls him a "Christian family man who won't embarrass us." Well who would "embarrass us"? Perhaps his challenger, Nikki Haley, the Tea Party folks' (and Sarah Palin's) preferred candidate, whom at least two people have claimed affairs with recently. Did they happen? It's not clear, and it doesn't matter! Gresham Barrett would never allow anyone to even think about making up infidelity claims on his watch, if he were governor.

http://gawker.com/5560172/south-carolina-gop-runoff-ad-calls-out-opponents-alleged-affairs

The Role of Control in Apologia

There's no question that, when trying manage one's image, taking control of public perception is the best way to go. That is, feed the media using your own strategy, resources, etc. as opposed to letting the media feed off of you.

One of the best examples of how control can shape perception is President Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech versus his Watergate press conference. The Checkers speech was clearly formulated - his backdrop included a collection of books, his wife sat nearby, and he held a script proving everything he had earned and everything he owed. Finally, he insisted that the one thing he was given - and did not intend to give back - was the family dog, Checkers. By painting himself as a humble and honest family man, he earned the sympathy and respect of many voters.

On the other hand, the Watergate press conference (which Nixon thought would focus on energy,) cut him down to the ground. Most reporters' questions focused not on energy, but the Watergate scandal. These questions caught him off guard, causing him to appear anxious and defensive, ultimately undermining his credibility and increasing skepticism among the public. This event illustrates the risks that might occur in an uncontrolled setting - reputations can be easily destroyed in such venues.

Nixon, however, is just one politician who embodies the importance of control in managing image. Bill Clinton, for example, embraced the idea of being photographed with Walter Cronkite after his 1998 sex scandal. The renowned and widely loved journalist supported Clinton after this incident, a time when Clinton was not held in particularly high regards among his constituents. At Cronkite's funeral in 2009, Clinton made the following statement:

"In a very tumultuous summer in my personal life, 1998, we were up on Martha's Vineyard and Walter picked up the phone and said, 'Betsy and I want you to go sailing with us -- you and Hillary and Chelsea -- we'll just go out and sail around.' He said, 'Somebody might take a picture of it, but so what?' At the time, I could have done with a picture with Walter Cronkite." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/bill-clinton-recalls-walter-cronkites-help-during-a-personal-crisis.html)

This statement illustrates Clinton's knowledge that, a photo with a well-respected public figure such Cronkite, would likely significantly improve his standing among Americans. Ultimately, controlled settings are opportunities for politicians, and others, to shape their reputation.

Sacrifice the CEO

After our discussion in class about whether or not BP's CEO should step down, I started researching other companies who have chosen that route to weather a crisis. At the end of 2009, Bank of America lost its CEO, Kenneth Lewis, in the midst of their costly Merrill Lynch merger, government bailout, and SEC investigation. The Board of Directors was accused of lying to shareholders about the extent of the financial losses that would accompany acquiring Merrill Lynch. Shareholder trust was lost and government influence and involvement was strong. It has been speculated that government officials threatened Lewis and forced him to go through with the merger despite knowing full well that billions of dollars in losses that would come with it. The controvery surrounding the deal was a crisis for Bank of America with most of the heat falling and centered around Lewis. In late September 2009, Lewis announced that he would resign at the end of the year.
I found an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal titled "The Fall Guy", which basically claims that by resigning, Lewis became a scapegoat not only for Bank of America's crisis but the nationwide economic crisis as a whole. It depicts him as the government's sacrifcial lamb. Was this fair to Lewis? Is it an accurate depiction? Was it all part of the government's master plan? Did it work? If so, would it work for BP?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447171063275730.html

The pastor who had an addiction

There is an interesting story that I found while browsing through Youtube. A pastor named Michael Guglielmucci based in Australia had told his congregation four years ago that he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He then went on to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for his church by preaching throughout the world about his illness and even wrote a hit single about his situation. Then two years after he had said he had terminal cancer he came out saying it was all I lie and he made it up. Pastor Guglielmucci then confessed that he made up this story because he had been addicted to pornography for sixteen years.

This was obviously a crisis for Edge Church International, where he was a pastor and his father actually started the church. What it is interesting though is how he handled this crisis. The pastor first told his family, because they didn't know and then he went on to do a interview with a news station in Australia. During this interview he explained how ashamed he was of lying to so many people and how he knew it was wrong during the whole two years that he lied. He went on to say how all the money they had collected would be given back and the money made from the music sales would all go to charities. He asked for forgiveness from everyone effected from this lie and he physically looked saddened during the interview with what he had done. This situation was especially hard, because this was the son of the pastor who had started the church.

In the end though this technique of having one on one interview with a news channel and then the father publicly speaking to the congregation was able to stave off any bad effects. They may have lost some followers, but in 2008-2009 annual report they still increased their annual income to accumulate over 6 million dollars. Their approach was to ask for forgiveness and to be open about the lies. Since they are a christian organization the majority of their followers were able to forgive. If he had been in a press conference the situation may have turned out differently, but since it was in a controlled interview the really tough questions were never asked. His ability to show remorse also helped his cause and because this only effected those apart of the church, he was able to focus his message more.

References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcswYwQczPc
http://www.edgechurch.com/filestore/pdf/Edge_Church_International_Ltd_2009_Annual_Report.pdf

Obama: Finally Kicking Ass and Taking Names?

Seems interesting to me that after some of our class discussion last night about how you can't always be the voice of reason in a crisis, that sometimes you need to get a little angry, get passionate about what's going on that there was an article where President Obama was quoted as wanting to find out whose "ass he needs to kick."

I think it is a good thing his pulse rate appears to be going up a little on the situation - and the article notes that this is part of an effort to "show a strong-willed President."

It will be interesting to see how this effort is noted, if it can be sustained, and what results come out of it.

Link to the article: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/08/obama-sought-to-know-whose-ass-to-kick-on-oil-spill/

Iceland Hour to Inspire The World

From Dr. Payne:

Dear Friends
In a world first, the entire nation of Iceland is to gather together online to show the world their country is open for business, open for excitement and open to inspire the world. Backed by the Government of Iceland, the 320,000 inhabitants of the world’s most northern nation will go online and send messages about what they love most about Iceland to friends around the globe. This momentous event will take place for one hour on June 3 at 9 am-10 am EST.
From our powerful nature to the streets of Reykjavík, Iceland is literally bursting with energy like never before. That’s why now isn’t a time to stay away, this is a time to get closer. The Icelandic nation welcomes you. We know this is still a country packed with amazing things to see and do; things that can really inspire and take the breath away of those who come and visit.
We want to share our Iceland inspiration with you here.

Iceland is more awake than ever.Tell your story on www.inspiredbyiceland.com. Smelltu hér til að afskrá þig

June 1 Flotilla Update from the American Jewish Committee

From Dr. Payne:

Dear Friends:

In the wake of yesterday's tragic events in the Mediterranean Sea, we want to share with you some preliminary information that we hope will prove helpful.


1. Immediately after we learned of the incident yesterday, AJC Boston distributed to key media outlets the release below.

According to AJC Boston president, Michael Tichnor, "For those of us who pray for peace in the region, it is shocking that the Israeli soldiers were viciously attacked as they tried to peacefully enforce their policy of direct Israeli aid to the people of Gaza".

The flotilla was led by a Hamas affiliated organization. Hamas rejects co-existence, non-violence, and peace. It was therefore not altogether surprising that they turned a purportedly peaceful humanitarian effort into an opportunity for violence and confrontation. Hamas, which violently took control of Gaza, has been officially designated as a terrorist organization by both the E.U. and the United States.

This is a moment when people of moderation, who support peace, need to speak out against Hamas and its supporters who will stop at nothing to undermine efforts to promote coexistence.

We applaud Israel for continuing to deliver hundreds of thousands of tons of relief supplies to the people of Gaza and pray that outside groups will refrain from supporting Hamas and resorting to violence.


2. AJC National has posted on its homepage (www.ajc.org) critical videos that graphically display the attack on Israeli commandos. We urge you to view this video, which provides vital context for what actually transpired.


3. AJC National is putting together a packet of material that we will forward to you as soon as it becomes available.


4. As you review information about this tragic set of circumstances, we urge that you keep in mind the following key facts:

a. The convoy to Gaza is frequently termed a humanitarian convoy. In fact, it had among its leaders an organization called the Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief or IHH. This is an Islamist organization that was much more invested in confrontation than conciliation.
b. The Israeli government repeatedly tried to avoid a confrontation and even offered to transport all humanitarian cargo from Ashdod directly to Gaza. This proposal was rejected.
c. Israel has been sending 100 trucks a day that provided 15,000 tons of supplies a week to Gaza. Supplies have been getting into Gaza. The convoy was intended to break the Israeli blockade not help needy civilians.
d. The Israeli blockade was necessitated by Hamas commitment to attack Israeli civilians and Israel's obligation to protect its citizens. Israel has made clear that as soon as Hamas foregoes violence and commits to live in peace the blockade can be stopped.

BP: "We Will Make This Right"

In a 6/3 video found on the BP site, CEO Tony Hayward talks about the company taking care of its obligations and apologizes. The video includes statements like "taking full responsibility for clean-up," that the clean-up will "not come at any cost to taxpayers," and that he is "deeply sorry."

The video also highlights the efforts BP is making to clean up and contain the oil that has already spilled but does not address the failed attempts and current attempt to stem the flow of oil into the Gulf.

Hayward ends by saying, "We will make this right."

The right words, but one wonders how much credit the public will give him until more solid actions back these statements up.

To see the full video: http://bp.concerts.com/gom/bp_response_tv_60_060310.htm

The Gaza Flotilla Raid: What Happened On The Ship?

This article is gives a good overview of what is known about what happened with the Gaza flotilla, and it is also gives a balanced description what both sides are claiming occurred.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/the_gaza_flotilla_raid_what_do_we_know.php?ref=fpa

From Dr. Payne:

Ex-EPA Official: BP a 'Serial Environmental Criminal

(June 3) -- The oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico was a "disaster waiting to happen" because BP is a "serial environmental criminal" known for cutting corners, a former federal investigator said in an interview with AOL News today.

"They are known as the bad boys of the oil industry in the U.S., and I don't mean 'bad boys' in a flattering sense," said Scott West, a former top investigator with the Environmental Protection Agency who spent years dealing with a BP disaster in Alaska during the late 1990s. "They are criminals -- they have been convicted of several environmental crimes. They are serial environmental criminals, and that phrase comes out of the mouth of a federal prosecutor."

West, who retired from the EPA in 2008 after 18 years, said he has seen BP skirt the law and cut corners for years. When the oil company's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded six weeks ago in the Gulf of Mexico, West immediately thought of criminal wrongdoing, he said. Federal EPA statutes allow for misdemeanor and felony prosecutions of corporations and individuals stemming from hazardous materials seeping into the environment.

"If I was still on the job and had the area of the gulf, the day I heard this I would've started a criminal investigation just because of the fact that it was BP," West said. "If it was Shell or anyone else, I would've monitored it. But the fact that it's BP, I would have assumed it's criminal and started an investigation before evidence disappeared."

BP officials did not return several phone calls seeking comment.

West now works as an agent for the oceanic environmental organization Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. His wife, Suzanne, runs a Facebook page titled "BP Beyond Prosecution," designed to monitor the British oil company, which is the fourth largest in the world.

West said he first learned about the company's practices in 1999 when it was convicted of dumping hazardous waste down an Alaskan well. Six years later, an Alaskan pipeline burst and West gathered intelligence from workers who said they complained to supervisors about the faulty pipe, but were told to ignore it. Knowing about a disaster in advance would normally constitute a felony, but West said the Department of Justice shut down his probe into the pipeline incident.

BP pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Then in 2005, a Texas refinery exploded, killing workers and releasing toxic fumes into the air.

"It infuriated me and disgusted me," West said of the halt to the earlier investigation. "At first I thought it was [President] Bush's connection to oil. But now that this administration hasn't done anything, I think it's something even more nefarious. I can't even speculate what it might be."

West doesn't buy the attorney general's recent statements that an investigation is under way. If it were, he said, people would be talking about getting grand jury subpoenas and visits from a task force of EPA and FBI agents. None of that appears to be happening, West said.

The whole episode has given the oil industry a black eye, West said, adding that he has talked to oil company insiders who are furious at BP.

"BP is notoriously known for cost-cutting and putting dollars ahead of worker safety," he said. "Personally, in 19 years, I've never investigated other companies like Shell or Mobil. I haven't had to."

Oil spill vigil in Boston

From Dr. Payne:

Dear MoveOn member,
It's just unbelievable.

By Tuesday, the oil spill in the Gulf will have been gushing out for 50 days straight. It might already be five times larger than the Exxon Valdez, and now BP says that the spill probably won't be stopped until August.1

Meanwhile, our political leaders in Washington aren't even talking about the real solution—getting off oil once and for all, and fully powering our economy with clean energy. It's clear we need a major public outcry to make this horrible tragedy a turning point.

So on Tuesday—day 50 since the spill—we're organizing emergency Oil Spill Vigils to demand an end to our dependence on oil, call for stepped-up efforts to end the spill, and stand in solidarity with all those affected in the Gulf.

Can you host an emergency Oil Spill Vigil next Tuesday? Click here to get started:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/create.html?action_id=213&id=20899-14442112-b8Z3iOx&t=5
Hosting a vigil is easy. We'll gather together, read stories from Gulf residents affected by the spill, and observe a moment of silence. All you need to do is find a nearby public location for people to gather, invite friends, and tell the local media about it. We'll help you recruit people and give you all the guidance you need.

By standing together at events coast-to-coast, we can make sure lawmakers understand that the American people are demanding bold action to prevent disasters like this from happening again.

But we have to act now. The people in the Gulf of Mexico are facing the destruction of an entire way of life. Fishermen say they've lost 75% or more of their business, and it's getting worse. Federal officials have closed over one-third of the Gulf of Mexico to fishing. And the oil is poised to reach the beaches of Florida soon.2

As Charlotte Randolph, president of one of the coastal parishes affected by the spill, said, "You see it in people's eyes. You see it. We need to stop the flow. Tourism is dead. Fishing is dead. We're dying a slow death."3

Until we end our dependence on oil, disasters like the BP spill will keep happening. We can't get off oil in a day, but the energy experts say that if we had gotten started 20 years ago after Exxon Valdez we could be most of the way there already.4 But because Big Oil still calls the shots in Washington, such bold action isn't even being discussed. We need to turn this moment of crisis into a rallying cry to finally get America off oil.

We need as many Oil Spill Vigils as possible around the country so that tens of thousands of MoveOn members have the chance to speak out right in their neighborhoods. Can you host a vigil in your area? Click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/create.html?action_id=213&id=20899-14442112-b8Z3iOx&t=6

Thanks for all that you do.

–Steven, Wes, Lenore, Kat, and the rest of the team

BP Gives Course in What Not to Say

BP CEO Tony Hayward has given a course in what a CEO should NOT say during a crisis. Hayward has repeatedly downplayed the importance of the situation and has most recently said that he wanted to end so that he could get his life back. These statements have made him appear out-of-touch and unaware of the impact of the situation.

Hayward should be focusing on the environmental impact of the oil leak and how it is having a negative impact on people's livelihoods. He should be sympathetic to the situation, and not trying to down play the situation. Hayward has portrayed himself as selfish and more concerned with his company than with the people who live on the gulf.

Yesterday images were released that showed animals covered in oil, and there were many reports of oil plumes in the gulf. These are clearly devastating results of the oil leak in the gulf and further the PR problems that BP faces. Clearly Hayward is an inadequate spokesperson for the crisis for BP, but they need someone to step up who can handle the situation and communicate the goals of the company without making the company look only self-interested.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/02/what-not-to-say-when-your-company-is-ruining-the-world-.html