The Awokening– A Climate Change Change Short Story

We didn’t notice it at first.  I certainly didn’t notice, not at the beginning.  I mean how could you notice anything if you didn’t know anything was happening, that there was anything to look for, or what to look for?

We were thinking about things like sea level rise, how it was locked in, so it was a question of thinking about how much sea level rise, how fast, where it would be experienced worst– sea level rise is not just the melting icecaps, it's also that warm water expands, it’s “thicker”– The local tides also factor in with tide-funneling coastline shapes causing some areas to be affected worse– And we were thinking about how to adapt.

Figuring out where to move and when, how long it could make sense to wait, were questions on almost everyone’s minds. Areas that we’d thought of as cool and alpine were warming up.  Anywhere could be where there’d be fires next.  Lots of areas were drying out with local vegetation that evolved in wetter climates becoming dry dead fuel.  And then there were more and more areas that looked like they’d be, unpredictably, at times, too wet and too low lying when floods came.  Ironically, it was sometimes impossible to find potable, unpoisoned drinking water in some of those same areas.

Everyone was aware of the hopelessness and the resignation.  I mean, even if we didn’t consciously acknowledge it, it was there as a sense we all had.  If nothing else, you knew it without knowing it.

Those of us who knew enough, who weren’t listening to the national network, cable or legacy internet programs as our news sources, blamed the fossil fuel companies.  We blamed what we understood was their psycho-graphic control.  We remembered, in the early days, how swathes of people didn’t believe that there was climate change, or if they believed it, they didn’t think it was man made, or maybe they did think humans were causing it.  Maybe they thought it would be good, or not so bad.

Maybe some people thought it would be bad, but not for them.  Or they thought they’d get some personal benefit from what was happening, the way they were plugged into the system, so that the good for them would outweigh the bad. . . Some people, a lot, said it was happening, but didn’t think they could do anything about it.  Others suspected they could do something about it, but just couldn’t figure out what that was.

Some of us did something about it by voting for politicians who said they were going to do something about it but then didn’t.  We voted for those kinds of politicians more than once.  And we spent a lot of time figuring out who to believe as we voted.  It seems we could never be right.  It was a no-win proposition every time.  Many of us just didn’t have time for all of it.  Life was increasing taxing with people struggling to make ends meet.  Or we maybe we did have the time, but we somehow never got around to doing anything.  Escapist fantasy was especially popular.  We could watch it on our tablets indoors while our air conditioners ran.  Life spent with super heroes saving worlds around the universe, frequently earth itself, and CGI generated versions of our favorite old movie stars was a tad more soothing . .

. . . There were a thousand things that could be picked from, essentially an infinite menu of reasons not to do anything about climate change that the fossil fuel companies could deliver in tailored packages to suit our individual personalities and disable us.  “Nano-targeting” was one phrase for it.  The social media companies, data-collecting marketers like Amazon, the search engines, our phone and door bell trackers, provided the manipulators with everything necessary to know about any of us.  They picked our leaders for us too.  It meant they also picked and had a hand in which charismatics were sent into bubble oblivion, maybe assigned small personalized ineffectual followings to be dispensed with at the same time.

We knew they were doing it.  You could tell.  I mean, if you cared to pay attention, you knew.  You didn’t need hints from those occasional leaks.  Besides, some of those leaks were themselves meant to make you think certain things and why get entangled?  Yes, sure, go ahead and connect the dots as proof if you were compulsive about proving things.  But, otherwise, just go with the big overall picture.  You could tell.  You could just easily tell.

First, I’ve got to say that it didn’t seem like anything when you stopped running into people who wanted to tell that there was no climate change, that it wasn’t man made, or wouldn’t be so bad, anything from that whole list of crap.  After all, it made sense that people were simply out of rope to believe the impossible; That was clearly explanation enough. . .

That explanation went far enough to cover that much. . .

 . . I remember young, red-headed Edgar excited about his new job.  Truly excited.  Really?  He was working on solar capture fabrics.  An anomaly?  I remember that first and best.  Then Shaheen was excited about her job— It involved road and highways generating energy, multiple ways actually.  Hester was working on storage, with weights elevating on rails that could spin flywheels coming down.  Her eyes had a certain gleam.

It was the sense of optimism that was disorienting. Each time it seemed unexpected, and now the  repetitiveness of such encounters just made it seem much more improbable. – People, I mean a different kind of people, were actually going back into government and interested in doing all sorts of things there, a ton of it having really positive implications rippling out in all directions for the climate.  Also respecting government, you, of course know the names of the new capable and charismatic leaders who arose.  They emerged pretty much right away.

My friend Joshua had no knack at all for engineering, but his enthusiasm for things that others were achieving got him involved in promoting and spreading the word.  Technically, he was “advertising” the new technologies to help make them successful in finding a market, and, indeed, he was now working at a legacy advertising firm that had taken this on as its specialty. PR firms were going the same route. 

You almost didn’t need the advertising or PR firms: People were hungrily seeking out news everywhere, because there was so much that was terrifically good to learn and potentially take advantage of yourself by finding new endeavors to plug into.  Journalists were plying a new skill: solution identification.  They were doing a real good job to investigate, find and bring solutions to the surface.  A lot of surfaced solutions, or near solutions, were combining with others to make even better ones.

Renewables had already essentially been cheaper than fossil fuel.  The flip over to zero fossil fuel use occurred fast.  Elimination of the subsidies for fossil fuels might never even have been required.  But is was more than that: With the flip, came a vast increase, an upward dizzying spiral, in the efficiency of energy production at lower and lower cost with less and less environmental impact. The energy storage problem for renewables was quickly solved in multiple scores of ways.

We soon had so much extra energy, a vast surplus, beyond what was needed for all our economic needs that it was obvious that there was only one thing to do with it.  We started up all sorts engines and devices to extract carbon from the atmosphere and our oceans. At first the methods for extracting carbon from the seawater took the lead.– Either worked: The oceans, in a continual rebalancing, grabbed carbon from the atmosphere so it was the same thing.  Carbon extraction was easier than dealing with the methane.  Nevertheless, the fact was we were on track to get it all satisfactorily done.

There were a lot of jobs, with attendant excitement and enthusiasm, in the carbon extraction business too.  The work that had once been done to determine the cost to the world of dumping carbon into the atmosphere like trash was handy in setting a price for what people could be paid per ton of carbon extraction.  As the cost of the technology came down, profits attracted wider and wider scale participation.  We turned back the clock.  That was what people said: "We turned back the clock."    The climate catastrophe chaos was reversed.  The planet restored itself to what had been climate normalcy for all the tens of thousands of years any form modern human civilization has existed.

I felt dumb at first not to realize it.  Where the change came from was obvious.  Why the change was so sudden and complete was obvious. But, when you are in the middle of a whirlwind, recognition can come with obstinate slowness.  I, like others, had been so habituated to blaming the fossil fuel industry for the way they commandeered psycho-graphics to immobilize the population and continue their plunder unimpeded, I wasn’t immediately ready to change the lens through which I viewed the world.

It was obvious, truly obvious.  What was obvious was that some other group had taken power behind the scenes.  All those psycho-graphic tools still existed, but now they had been wrested from the fossil fuel industry.  The psycho-graphic tools, the ability to manipulate human beings in a fine tuned personalized way across a huge spectrum of personalities, was being turned around and used for purposes exactly opposite to how the fossil fuel industry had used them.  Through psycho-graphic tools every individual’s strengths in terms of personality and skill, where they might fit in in terms of solving the climate change emergency, was systematically identified and assessed so that they could be tipped into taking the most appropriate personal actions they could take.

It worked.  It worked.

My problem with all this, is that it wasn’t the way it was supposed to happen.  I revile psycho-graphics.  I had this problem with it when it was being used by the fossil fuel industry to keep us consuming fossil fuels.  I had the same problem when it was being used to keep us perpetually at war with huge amount of runaway military spending.  I still have a problem with psycho-graphics.  I ask you, where is the democracy in a group of powerful people, a coordinating elite, deciding the direction that everyone should take?

Where is the democracy?  I thought it was all supposed to happen starting bottom up, grass roots, the wisdom of crowds when people listen to each other.  Where is the democracy?  Is this the way it was supposed to happen?

* * * *

From the Kickstarter page for "The Truth Has Changed" tour.

 Author's Note: The idea for this short story came to me after I saw a Brooklyn performance of Josh Fox’s “The Truth Has Changed.”  It was in Brooklyn, in Mr. Fox's theater company's rehearsal space, because, with some strange controversy involved, his show was kicked out of The Public Theater in Manhattan.  I give credence to Fox’s statements that the eviction probably came about because of the show’s content.

Fox’s one man show (think echos of a Spalding Gray performance) is, in part, about the climate crisis emergency.  He’s written an accompanying book, which has a foreword by climate activist Bill McKibben.  Fox’s show is also largely about information control, the kind that is directed at manipulating the public.  Information control and manipulation of public opinion is charging ahead with the development of new techniques so fast that it is hard to separate a short futuristic science fiction story like this from yesterday’s news.  That aspect of Fox’s show gives it a fair amount of overlap with the issues of censorship, information control and dumbing down the public that have been concerns for Citizens Defending Libraries, of which I am a co-founder.

I will note that Fox’s show is a strenuous tour de force and challenging in the bleakness of some of its urgency.  Project Censored has begun grappling with the notion that negative news reporting that eschews the provision of “solutions” is a form of news abuse.  It results in “negative news overload” that enervates the public, a form of control in itself.  Fox is interested in solutions too.  The program notes for “The Truth has Changed” explains that one of his other endeavors is “The Solutions Project,” co-founded with Mark Ruffalo, Mark Jacobson and Marco Krapels.  Similarly, with respect to the climate crisis, Project Censored notes that there is “The Drawdown Project.”  Personally I believe many solutions would presently be unfolding at a quickening pace if we had a fossil fuels tax and were looking to start paying people to extract carbon from the atmosphere and oceans and I think the two should be related.

Fox’s show does not leave the subject of potential solutions entirely unaddressed, but it is mostly more about the urgency with which we need to find them.  His show does not identify or present the questionable solution posed by the short story above. I hope it leaves your thoughts provoked.

The show was shut down at The Public.  Content too challenging?

On The Political Spectrum, We Are Told That We Are All “Red” or “Blue,” Or Maybe That We should be “Purple”– If All Those Colors Are Taken, And They All Mean “Corporatist” Plus Spending More On War, Maybe We Need A New Color!

Relentlessly "Red" or "Blue"? Aren't there other colors in the political spectrum that don't mean "corporatism"?

If anything should convince us faster of how completely we are coaxed to relentlessly play the “Red Team/Blue Team” game of politics, it probably should be the way that we don’t talk in terms of any other colors to describe the political spectrum.  Matt Taibbi is one of our political observers who notes the that the “Red Team/Blue Team” divisions are designed to encourage the kind of knee-jerk rooting for your chosen “team” that turns off critical thinking and escalates the kind of passions that obscure and interfere with the ability to discern and build upon common interests.  In fact, the cover of Taibbi’s new book, “Hate Inc.,” about how the corporate mass media routinely fuels anger and division in this country confirms the importance of the Red/Blue color meme representing division in half red and half blue.

More honestly, as I have been writing about here in National Notice, the bigger truth is that the public is largely united on most of the most important issues, with huge supermajorities of the public agreeing on what they want for country on a score of those most important issues even while elected officials refuse to provide those things and the corporate press backs those electeds up by relentlessly messaging that these are things that the public can’t expect to have.

Notwithstanding these commonalities, we are being sold the notion that we are divided.  Right after the 2016 election, on the eve of the presidential inauguration, PBS’s seemingly sober and authoritative Frontline rushed in to explain to us that we were in turmoil was because we are a divided nation, broadcasting its “Divided States of America” on January 17, 2017.  More recently, Frontline is back again with more of the same, broadcasting a few weeks ago, “America’s Great Divide: From Obama to Trump,” January 14, 2020.  Not only are we being sold on the idea of these false divides, we are being sold on the idea that the divide is between, and must be thought about in terms of, “red” and “blue,” or “Republican” versus “Democrat.”

Meanwhile, some observers whom I consider more astute because they are thinking the way I do (how is that for my own personal confirmation bias?) are not seeing the poles of the political spectrum in those terms at all.  They see the ranging of opinions in terms of populism versus corporatism, or populism/Democratic Socialism versus corporatist/Neoliberalism. On this spectrum, Trump was elected delivering faux populist promises and, with a switcheroo that he vaguely still tries to deflect attention from, has delivered corporatist crony capitalism, kleptocracy, and more neoliberalism.  Bernie Sanders can, in this light, be seen as a candidate that has more in common with Trump for what Trump initially promised, which explains the attraction of Sanders for so many who once voted for Trump.

Seeing the spectrum this way, both the Republicans and the Nancy Pelosi/Hillary Clinton Democrats represent the corporations and the wealthy global cooperate elite, and both “red” and “blue” are colors that stand for the pursuit of cooperate interests adverse to the general public.  In the case of climate change catastrophe chaos and militarism, these interest are very likely even completely adverse to the continuing survival of mankind and life on this planet.

If we can only now be politically defined in terms of those two pre-selected colors, I think we need some new colors.  Occasionally, when we are not being told how hopelessly divided we are as a country when we are actually not, we are paternalistically told that, rather than being so extreme, we should migrate to somewhere in the political spectrum that’s between, to the color “purple,” viewed as somehow moderate, or maybe even “independent” thinking.  That’s what’s going on with the Purple Project for Democracy.  It has a catchy slogan, “We The Purple,” conveying that it somehow reflects populism, and it bills itself as a “strictly non-partisan, apolitical effort,” but it is a top-down oriented plan for a corporate media coalition to start dictating what should be considered reliable theoretically middle of the road media.  In other words, it is an effort by entities such as The Washington Post, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Hearst newspapers, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, NPR to speak with a more unified and authoritative voice to marginalize the noncorporate reporting and viewpoints that compete with their own.

If “red” represents corporatism and “blue” represents corporatism, then “purple” is just more corporatism that is theoretically peacefully without the “Red Team/Blue Team” squabbling and hate that the media typically conjures up.  A sort of spiritual “corporatism”?  Purple has long been a color identified with spiritualism.  The “purple” they want to sell us instead represents more efforts to separate us from any genuine populism-building narratives.

We obviously need a new color, or new colors.  I should note that one color, green, has already been taken by an alternative party, the Green Party, with a strong identification with, and platform built on, environmentalism.  Rather than just suggest that this is the answer, although the green party has important answers, I’d rather suggest that we go with something not quite so predefined and perhaps not so automatically associated with the environment. "Yellow" might have negative connotations when the path needs to be courageous.  Perhaps, the hard to define color of "teal"?

One other thing we need to change, along with the introduction of new colors, is the way that we hold our elections.  The way that we hold our elections is part of the reason that we only hear about “red” and “blue.”  The way that we currently hold our elections locks us into the rigid constriction of the  duopoly and ensures that it is easy for the corporations to buy off the only two parties who are only theoretically competing. Along with a new political color or colors, we need to be instituting changes that give third parties, parties like the Green Party, a change to rise, strengthen, and become truly competitive when they have valid and important ideas. . .  very likely the ideas that reflect the reasonably longings of huge supermajorities of the population-- That means changes like instant runoff elections, and proportional representation.

Move The Money!: A New York Campaign That Envisions Redirecting For Domestic Benefit The Phenomenal Amount of Money Being Wasted On The Military And Endless Wars

This is about the Move The Money campaign, a campaign in New York City involving a resolution before the city council based on the obvious benefit of redirecting to domestic benefit the huge amount of money now being wasted on the United States military and senseless, never ending wars.  It is a campaign that two groups I am involved with have joined in: Citizens Defending Libraries, of which I am a co-founder, and the social justice committee, Weaving Social Justice, of the First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Brooklyn in downtown Brooklyn, the Heights area.

Here is what I’d like to tell you about the campaign.

*MOVE THE MONEY!*

What If, By Talking About And Realizing How Much We Senselessly Spend On War, We Chose to Do Something Else? . . Think of All The Good Things We Could Pay For Instead!

Resolution 747A before the New York City Council, supported by more than 40 NYC organizations, would put the Council on record as opposing bloated Pentagon war budgets that rob the City and its residents of badly-needed funds for vital public services, many of them now suffering from increasing cutbacks in federal spending.

Let’s Realize How Much We Senselessly Spend On The Military

This chart is from Wikipedia on this date produced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute but these somewhat shifting numbers are hard to keep up to date.  United States for 2018 already went up to $712.55 billion in spending according to the latest figures from the National Priorities Project.

Before beginning to imagine how much good could be done by moving money from our bloated military budget, it is important to know how much we spend on the military and our perpetual wars. . .  We spend vast amounts on the military, more than most people know or can even begin to believe.  How many of us know and can conceptualize that:

    •    The Pentagon and military budget is about 60% of the nation’s discretionary budget.  If all of the unknowable black box spending that goes into the Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex were included, that percentage could well bump up higher.  Current accounting practices let the military and surveillance industries spend money in secret and not account for the money they spend in violation of the Unites States Constitution.

    •    In 2018, taxpayers in the United States are paying $712.55 billion for the military.

    •    We spend more on military spending than the next ten countries combined, and we spend much more than all the rest of the countries in the world left over after that.

    •    In all, the United States spends over one-third of what is spent on the military worldwide.  In addition to that, much of the spending by other countries is on arms we supply making the world more dangerous.

    •    About 70% of the spending on the military worldwide is by the United States along with the countries, such as those in NATO, that the Unites States clearly identifies as allies (and which we sell weapons to), while only about 14% of the spending worldwide military spending is being spent by those we might identify as potentiality unfriendly countries whether or not those countries have ever attacked us or other countries (as we have done numerous times).

    •    Just the increase in the military spending in the last two years, since Trump came in, is as much as Russia spends on its entire military budget ($66 billion).  Similarly just that increase is greater than the entire military budgets of Britain ($55 billion) or France ($51 billion).

    •    In May of 2011 after the U.S. announced that it had killed Osama Bin Laden, the National Priorities Project calculated that, as of that time, “in all, the U.S. government has spent more than $7.6 trillion on defense and homeland security since the 9/11 attacks.”  Point of reference: a “trillion” is one million millions.

    •    New York State projects a $6 billion deficit. It will impact NYC too- By contrast, what New York State sends to the federal government to spend on the military every year is 10.4 times that, $62.4 billion!

    •    Our fixated disposition to keep spending more is entrenched with national level Democrats and Republicans (e.g. Elizabeth Warren, a senator from Massachusetts who promotes herself as a left wing progressive) voting in 2017 to increase the defense budget by $80 billion, surpassing the $54 billion increase requested by President Trump.  60% Of House Democrats voted for a defense budget far bigger than Trump requested.

Is any of the above surprising to you or would it be surprising to some of the people you know?   That's why the information needs to be out so we can start setting better priorities.

What Could We Spend The Money On Instead- Real Needs and Benefits at Home?

War is profitable business.  It busies packs of lobbyists who know a great deal more about often secret budgets than we, as the public, will ever learn.  But that profit drains the resources of our society, enfeebling our ability to accomplish so much else.

Martin Luther King, Jr., from his very famous “Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence” speech given April 4, 1997, one year to the day before his assassination.

We spend these vast amounts on the military while we are told over and over again, (as for instance by the media moderators of Democratic candidate debates, such as CNN’s January 14, 2020 debate) that we don’t have money to spend on public goods like:

    •    Schools, teachers, education,
    •    Libraries,
    •    Housing, including federal funds for the affordable housing of the New York City Housing Authority,
    •    Public infrastructure like roads, bridges, subways, railways,
    •    Employment programs,
    •    All of our human needs at home.

 . .  We would add to this list, for extra emphasis, how the American public is also being told that we don’t have enough money to pay for healthcare, medicare for all, or for measures to address climate change, except that medicare for all and taking actions to address the climate change catastrophe chaos emergency would actually be the far cheaper alternatives so they would costs less. . . . But if we reduced spending on the military, it would help evaporate the excuses about not having enough money.  It should also be noted that the U.S. military contributes mightily, in many ways, to worldwide pollution, burning of fossil furls and the climate crisis.

We have significant needs at home and here in New York.  For instance, New York State is currently projecting a $6 billion deficit. That deficit will impact New York City’s budget too.  By contrast, as noted above, what New York State sends annually to the federal government to spend on the military is 10.4 times that, $62.4 billion!
     
If you want to see more data specific figures about the trade-offs of what reduced military spending could pay for, see the website and use the on-line calculation tools of the National Priorities Project.

An example of the information the on-line calculation tools of the National Priorities Project can produce.

The “Move The Money” Campaign and Coalition

The “Move The Money” Resolution 747A before the New York City Council is being promoted by a campaign that is the work of a growing coalition of more 40 New York City organizations.

The Move The Money coalition has a Move The Money coalition Facebook page, and also posts updates and news on Twitter from @MoveTheMoneyNYC encouraging the use of the hashtag #MoveTheMoneyNYC.

Here’s a list of organizations that have joined the Move The Money coalition to fight for passage of Resolution 747A (you can ask yours to join too)—

        •    1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East
        •    350-Brooklyn
        •    Action Corps NYC
        •    AFSCME Local 1549, DC37
        •    Arab American Association of NY
        •    Bay Ridge United Methodist Church
        •    Black Veterans For Social Justice
        •    Brooklyn For Peace
        •    Brooklyn Society For Ethical Culture
        •    Bronx Community Greens
        •    Bronx Peace Action
        •    CCDS-NYC
        •    Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats
        •    Citizens Defending Libraries
        •    CODA - Coalition For A District Alternative
        •    CODEPINK, New York
        •    Concerned Citizens For Change
        •    Domestic Workers United
        •    DSA Anti-War Working Group
        •    Fort Greene Peace
        •    Fort Greene SNAP
        •    First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Brooklyn, Weaving the Fabric of Diversity Committee
        •    FUREE
        •    Granny Peace Brigade
        •    Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition
        •    Judson Memorial Church
        •    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
        •    NYC Chapter of US. Labor Against the War
        •    NYC Chapter, UAW 1981/National Writers Union
        •    NYC Raging Grannies
        •    NYC War Resisters League
        •    NY State Nurses Association
        •    NYS Peace Action
        •    Occupy Kensington
        •    Park Slope United Methodist Church Social Action Committee
        •    Peace Action Bay Ridge
        •    Peoples Climate Movement - NY
        •    Professional Staff Congress - CUNY
        •    Queens Peace Council
        •    Rise And Resist
        •    Salam Arabic Lutheran Church
        •    Sierra Club, NYC Group
        •    St. Boniface Peace & Justice Committee
        •    St. Peter’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
        •    The Manhattan Project for a Nuclear Free World
        •    United Community Centers
        •    Uptown Progressive Action
        •    UPROSE
        •    Urban Homesteading Assistance Board
        •    Veterans For Peace, Chapter 34

Sponsoring New York City Council Members

New York City Council members who have already signed on to support and sponsor the passage of the Move The Money Resolution 747A include: Ydanis A. Rodriguez, Justin L. Brannan, Carlina Rivera, Antonio Reynoso, Karen Koslowitz, Margaret S. Chin, Stephen T. Levin, Deborah L. Rose, Helen K. Rosenthal, Ben Kallos, Andrew Cohen, Costa G. Constantinides, Daniel Dromm, Brad S. Lander, and James G. Van Bramer.

If you don’t see your city council member listed above please contact them ans ask them to join in sponsoring the bill.

(To find out who your council man is go to “Who Represents Me? NYC”-  And more information about city council members and their districts can be found here.)

What Will Happen When The Bill Is Passed?

The New York City Council would hold in-depth hearings and to that would educate, inform and the public while investigating and revealing the tradeoff in the decisions we are currently making about how we spend our money in this country as money is diverted into the Pentagon, and the priorities we could be setting as alternatives.

On Facebook the coalition says:

    If passed, Resolution 747A would put the City on official record opposing bloated Pentagon budgets that divert 60 percent of the annual Federal discretionary budget to endless wars, nuclear weapons, and hundreds of bases around the globe while slashing money for veterans, mass transit, health care, public schools, and affordable housing and other vital public services.

     Passage of Res 747A would mandate in-depth public hearings to determine just how much money is being robbed from the city and its residents and would have the City urge Congress to reverse its lopsided spending priorities and make substantial cuts to its budget that favors war before people's urgent needs.

What Can You Do To Support The Move The Money Campaign?

Things you can do to support the campaign:

    •    Contact your city council member, call or write and ask them to sign on to the campaign.  Sign the campaign postcards to your city council member.

    •    Get your friends and family to reach out to their Council Members. And write to us at movethemoney.nyc@gmail.com for a supply of postcards that you can get others to sign.

    •    Finally, ask your organization to join the coalition and become part of this important movement.

    •    Modest contributions to the campaign will help pay for more campaign post cards to send.