Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation.
Tom Friedman examines the market value of dairy-based confections up close
Yes, that's right: Thomas Friedman got pied.
[asset|aid=786|format=video|formatter=asset_youtube|title=sv6nvMUq10U&hl|width=320|height=260|align=none]
(looks like the YouTube video got yanked. It's available here on Google Video, for now at least...)
It's long overdue that this guy get exposure to the taste of sweet, goopy justice, and I think lots of public figures -- on the left and the right -- could use a good pieing every so often. After he was cleaned up, he did go on to deliver his speech (at Brown University), which focused on market-based and techno "fixes" to the environment.
As it becomes more and more clear that the problems we're facing are rooted in the very foundations of market economics, we can see capitalism's apologists, like Friedman, offering more and more incredulous "solutions" to those problems (something tells me that putting price tags on even MORE things isn't a good solution to the problem created by pricing things in the first place). But one thing is painfully clear: lefties need to learn better aim!
I think it's time for all
I think it's time for all candidates to come out and explain their policies in regard to pie. Will we be eating the left overs of the meat pie that is Iraq for 100 years? Will all Americans get cheap universal apple pies?
...
...
...
Pie is delicious.
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
www.youngpeoplefor.org
blog.youngpeoplefor.org
I dunno
I dunno, Daniel, don't you think your ideas are a little...
(wait for it...)
(waaaaaiitt for it.......)
...pie-in-the-sky?
One nation under pie.
Patrick, all of my ideas are deeply rooted in my faith, Pie-Judaism.
Some beliefs of Pie-Judaism:
1. Pie for a Pie
2. You will not covet your neighbor's pie.
3. Do unto pies as you would have pies do unto you.
4. We think Jesus was a good pie, however we do not believe he was the pie-messiah.
5. Pie is delicious.
PS No Ann Coulter, we do not need Pie Christianity to be perfected--a bit of cinnamon does just fine.
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
www.youngpeoplefor.org
blog.youngpeoplefor.org
Correction to point 4, Dan:
Correction to point 4, Dan: I believe the last word should read "mess-pie-ah."
Pies aren't kosher for Pie-ssover, are they?
Nous sommes grossiste de sacs
Nous sommes grossiste de sacs à main et chaussures en Chine. Nous sommes une entreprise professionnelle exportateurs en Chine. Nous fournissons de nombreux types de chaussures, comme les chaussures Nike, Jordanie 1-24, t-shirt, maillots, air jordan, vêtements, vêtements, LV, Gucci, la BBC, l'entra?neur, bottes UGG, à vendre, slae, acheter, vendre, vendeur, acheteur, bon marché, sans Bienvenue sur notre site Vente en gros Nike Chaussures Nike Chaussures pas cher Nike Chaussures bon marché Vous pouvez acheter à bas prix nike air max chaussures hommes nike shox chaussures nike fashion chaussures mode nike air classic basket nike shoes nike shoes blanche Nike Chaussures Nike Chaussures Vente chaussures Nike commerce de gros Nike Chaussures chaussures nike air max shox rival Vente en gros Nike Chaussures Nike Chaussures pas cher Nike Chaussures bon marché Vous pouvez acheter à bas prix nike air max chaussures hommes nike shox chaussures nike fashion chaussures mode nike air classic basket nike shoes nike shoes blanche Nike Chaussures Nike Chaussures Vente accepter les cartes de crédit paypal et ainsi de suite. shippment prix inférieur rapide avec une qualité supérieure!! Votre satisfaction est notre poursuite éternelle. bijoux pas cher grossiste bijoux bijouterie en ligne bijoux fantaisie grossiste bijou grossiste bijoux fantaisie grossistes bijoux vente en gros bijoux bijoux homme bijoux grossistes grossiste bague homme bijoux argent destockage bijoux bijoux grossiste bijou fantaisie grossiste bijou fantaisie bijoux fantaisie grossiste bague fantaisie destockage bijoux fantaisie grossiste en bijoux grossiste bague fantaisie grossistes bijoux fantaisies bijouterie fantaisie grossiste grossistes bijoux fantaisie grossiste bracelet fantaisie Garantir la livraison rapide et prompte! http://www.achatsacamain.com/blog/ http://www.vente-en-gros-nike-chaussures.com/blog/ http://mode-chaussure-hommes.com/ http://nike-air-jordan-chaussures.com/ http://nike-air-max-chaussures-pas-cher.com/ http://supra-chaussures-pas-cher.com/ http://nike-shox-chaussures-pas-cher.com http://portefeuille-sacs-a-main.com http://prada-chaussures-pas-cher.com http://vente-en-gros-de-la-chine.com http://vente-en-gros-pas-cher-bottes-ugg.com http://vente-gros-sac-main.com/
Come on
How is this constructive to anything Patrick? I'd rather have a discussion with Friedman then see some inane crap like this happen. If anything they just vilify the guy for taking it in jest.
This is from the pamplet they threw all over the audience:
Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face...
* because of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet
* for telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand.
* for helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged
* For his long-standing support for the US Occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Such committed support to the US War Machine and its proxy states overseas cannot be masked behind any twisted mask of "green" - the US Military is the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
* for his pure arrogance.
On behalf of the earth and all true environmentalists -- we, the Greenwash Guerrillas, declare Thomas Friedman's "Green" as fake and toxic to human and planetary health as the cool-whip covering his face.
"true environmentalism" WTF is this? Also Cool Whip is most certainly not toxic, just gross tasting.
These Greenwash Guerillas seem like run of the mill progressives who pine for the old Julian Steward/Marxist historical materialism model of society in relation to environmentalism, since they don't explicitly state that however, I could be wrong.
Why are they against techno fixed though? If anything "techno" fixes show some of the most promise, but are often rejected by knee-jerk environmentalists without any discourse or research. And some technologies that don't show a end all solution still present a good stop gap in comparison to the current technological systems (i.e. nuclear + wind with a reduction in consumption). Try saying that on a Green Peace forum, you will be banned.
Friedman is wrong to think the market will sort everything out but these hooligans are just as wrong for presenting knee-jerk dogmatic views as well, and running instead of discussing them.
Also, just curious, from most of your writings Patrick I take it that you are opposed to the market based system. Obviously there are problems with it but it seems like you want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so what do you think would be better to replace it?
I haven't read Friedman, and
I haven't read Friedman, and I agree that green-technology is really really really exciting--but I think we've put to much into our techno-hopes. Ethanol has turned out to be a big honkin' failure--causing deforestation, water-pollution, food shortages, waste of public funds and to top it off, making biofuels causes green house gasses. The one thing you could say in their favor is that it makes the US less dependent on foreign oil, making us less likely to go to war (yeah sure), but it destabilizes other regions because of the food shortage.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00....
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
www.youngpeoplefor.org
blog.youngpeoplefor.org
Okay, but judging the
Okay, but judging the potential of all biofuels by ethanol is a big mistake. Ethanol was known well in advance to be one of the least efficient, most potentially problematic biofuels.
So why has it gotten so much play in the United States? Two words: farmers' lobby.
Conservation and systematic reuse (collecting discarded vegetable oil from restaurants and using that to fuel cars, for instance) will only go so far, true, but the fact that they get no airtime reflects only on our political system, not their merits.
ADDED: Another take from someone who actually supports ethanol: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/opinion/24cohen.html
I agree
Ethanol is most certainly not high technology. If anything its the DUMBEST idea that we have proposed yet for the environmental crisis. Biofuels will do nothing short of causing a world wide food crisis.
Biofuels != ethanol
Just to be clear: Ethanol is not the only biofuel.
Others may have much more merit. Ethanol has been emphasized (and subsidized) in the United States because it conveniently boosts revenues for corn farmers.
It's shortsighted to write off all biofuels by using ethanol as the only test case.
My point though is that the
My point though is that the propensity TOWARDS high technology is easily manipulated, particularly by politicians who feel they need to yield to public concerns about the environment without having any actual interest in the subject. Americans have an inate love of tech, so much that they're distracted from the conversations we need to be having--about policy, regulation, and even sacrifice.
I agree with both of ya
I agree with both of you! When I say biofuels are pointless I mean with our currently technology. Biofuels hold promise but the R&D hasn't progressed enough to offer viable alternatives. The political and economic acceptance of Willy Nelson's "bio fuel" is what I am deriding here.
Also to Dan, I agree. But I have never once thought politicians knew anything about technology. The American public's lack of science education leads it to think of tech as a form of witch craft as well, which makes it easy to manipulate. Technology is in a constant state of conflict and growth between research, big corps, and the government. Sometimes the later two can help but more often then not they simply corrupt and destroy it. Case in point being the battle over the human genome right now. That holds promise for life altering and changing technologies, improvement on the human gene, etc. But instead big pharmas are attempting to patent it so that any cure derived from a part of "their" genome would get them a hefty fee. Thankfully this is being fought in the courts right now.
Good points, both of ya, thanks for making me clarify.
Thanks for clarifying, Ben.
Thanks for clarifying, Ben. :)
Eeek: Thankfully this is
Eeek: Thankfully this is being fought in the courts? Have you seen the courts lately?
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
www.youngpeoplefor.org
blog.youngpeoplefor.org
haha!
Haha oh man, good point. Looks like our genomes are toast. -_-()
Ah, nothing like the fresh
Ah, nothing like the fresh smell of redbaiting in the morning, eh Ben? Let's stick with arguing ideas, instead of labels.
I'm certainly not against technological improvements toward a greener future - those are a must. Wind, solar, geothermal, recycling, mass transit, etc. But Friedman's point is that's all we need, and that the fundamental logic of our society can remain unexamined. The problem is that it's the fundamental logic of our society that caused this problem in the first place - probably most creatively elucidated in Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff.
As for market capitalism, given the facts that: 1) for just about all of human history it has not existed; 2) it was consciously created by a collaboration between political giants and economic giants as a way to consolidate their power; I'm convinced that if we're interested in liberty, equality, and fairness (for all, not just the few), we can do much better.
It's silly to not insist that those values we declare in the political sphere apply to the economic sphere. We don't spend our productive lives in a democracy, we spend them in the workplace, which is the epitome of medieval-style organization: we are forced, on pain of starvation, to rent ourselves out for 40 hours a week, and agree to do whatever our employer says, with no chance for any meaningful input (they call it "wage slavery" for a reason :). Combine that with the fact that capitalism requires a healthy unemployment rate to function (just ask Alan Greenspan), and you've got a large class of people who exist at the whims of those with the ability to dole out the means of survival.
For a concrete replacement for the whole shebang, Participatory Economics is probably a really good place to start (I have qualms about a few things in it, but it'd be a much better way of arranging things than we have now). Some of the small-scale economic innovations going on in Argentina and Venezuela also point to better ways of organizing production.
-----
And as for the pieing, it certainly wasn't, shall we say, "strategic." There definitely are times where a good pieing can spark a dramatic turning of events, but things certainly weren't developed enough at Brown (otherwise people would have cheered the piers). It doesn't help Friedman's case that he famously refuses to engage in public debate these days.
That being said, I think it was cathartic and delightful for activists who've seen it on YouTube, and it might get a few viewers to actually look into *why* someone would want to pie him in the first place.
Thanks for the response
Thanks for the response Patrick.
I was merely responding to the use of labels used by the "activisits". I agree that its good to spur investigation into Friedman's ideas, but the use of token anti-capitalist rhetoric that is run of the mill in the progressive community doesn't foster conversation like this. Its the same kind of talk that keeps (like I said) discussions of issues such as nuclear power out of the progressive community because it goes against our dogma.
As for the economic discussion, thanks for the clarifications. I agree that market capitalism has serious flaws and exploitative tendencies that must be rectified and guarded against. As far ParEcon, how are you going to implement that?
The world is becoming so interlinked in a capitalist system that its going to be hard to do a complete 180 to an archaist system, and implement that on a large scale. Why not fight for restraining capitalism and harnessing the positive traits of it (such as the power of the market to spur innovation). How can we realistically aspect anarchist decision making to work for 6.5 billion people? This is of course another discussion entirely but it goes back to my point.
We are wasting time using knee-jerk reactions to capitalism and pining for "better days" that wont come just by fancy discourse. In my opinion, the only way to implement these radical systems is through coercion. I certainly would prefer the Scandinavian model to an anarchist small scale model. How are you going to convince me to participate in this system? I think I would most likely represent the majority of Americans, who want a more just market system but aren't willing to attempt the ideal society the SDS and groups like it love so much.
Even if you disagree with me, my last point is this. We can waste time debating the merits of communalism, small scale anarchism, and market place social democracy all we want. This isn't going to start fixing the important problems here and now. My hope is that in working on these, cutting consumption as much as possible, and investing in the promising high-tech (in the fields of nano, bio, etc) we can attempt to solve many of the looming problems. This would need to be coupled with a fight against a lot of the systemic problems that exist in our society. Who knows, perhaps one day technology will allow us to do away with the concept of market based economics altogether. We aren't going to get to that stage by ranting or pining for the mythic days of Marxist small scale society (that never really were if you study the whole debunking of Steward).
These individuals have a right to do what they want, but they are merely pushing their movement further into irrelevancy with actions like pieing, ignoring other sides of the debate (just like Friedman), and run-of-the-mill rants against the market place. I would they wouldn't advocate violence and revolution, the world has had enough of that in the past 60 years (not counting the anti-revolutionary violence that has been brought against said revolutions, the Army SOA comes to mind). It's time we focus on small steps, practical responses, and solutions that can embrace all viewpoints to a degree.
If you disagree with me thats cool, but I ask, how will you convince me to participate in your anarchism when I wholly reject total anarchism? I want a society like Star Trek not one in a state of small-scale "communalism", which was dreamed by Marx.
And thank you for your
And thank you for your response. :)
"The world is becoming so interlinked in a capitalist system that its going to be hard to do a complete 180 to an archaist system, and implement that on a large scale."
I don't really know anyone who's proposing what it at least sounds like you're implying - doing a 180 and all of a sudden turning the world into one along anarchist lines. If we want to be Leninists, then taking things over at the top and ordering everyone into a new social order makes sense. But that won't work if we're trying to empower people, because the curious thing about democracy is that it can't really be imposed -- the people themselves have to want it, and fight for it.
The way I see humanity progressing to a more liberated world is unevenly, and gradually, starting from the grassroots. There won't be a single revolution, or breaking point - those end up pretty nastily, as you correctly point out. It's not likely that there'll be a day when people wake up and say "okay, today we're going to overthrow capitalism;" it's much more likely that there'll be a day when people wake up and say "hey, remember that thing called capitalism?"
"How can we realistically aspect anarchist decision making to work for 6.5 billion people?"
(Just as an aside, let's check out how well current decision making is working out for that 6.5 billion. ;)
Having a radical view of a better society thankfully doesn't hinder one's ability to act pragmatically in the present -- people are still dying of hunger, wallowing in prisons, being blown up today. And it's the height of privilege, not radicalism, to simply daydream while all that's going on. That's why I vote, and am involved in politics today: having a vision of the future allows me to act strategically in the here and now.
And you're certainly right: fancy discourse doesn't get us to a better future. Organizing does. My goal, at least, is to see about creating as many institutions as I can that would be exemplary of the kind of society I'd like to live in - so that'd mean things like worker/consumer cooperatives, radical credit unions, free schools, and grassroots community organizations. What the IWW called "building a new world in the shell of the old." And I'm totally with you on digging a Star Trek future. :D
My view on markets
As the token market socialist on this board, I'm obliged to make the argument that we on the Left set ourselves back quite a lot by equating the market with capitalism. We also help the Right by doing so, by furthering their Thatcherite argument that "there is no alternative" (to neoliberalism).
Markets, in of themselves, are as old as the human race. All a market is is a free relationship between a buyer, a seller and a "cop" (someone to ensure safety, combat fraud, protect property rights, etc.). The Roman Forum was a market; the Silk Road was an international market.
But the Roman Forum and the Silk Road were not capitalistic.
Capitalism, as I'm sure we can all agree, is a very recent and specific relationship between classes and the natural world. I willingly sell my labor to the owner of the means of production; I receive a wage that is enough to sustain me, while the owner takes the rest of my production as a profit. He reinvests his profit into his holdings, and his shareholders experience growth. By commodifying labor, capitalism has a tendancy to commodify all other human relations - we put dollar values on close to everything, and increasingly express ourselves through our choices in consumption (look at the different high school subcultures ("preps", "goths" and "skaters", all defined by their differing taste in music, clothes, and other commodities) for a perfect example). Our relationship to the earth becomes ruthless and detached, as it too becomes nothing more than a raw material to be extracted and sold, regardless of the non-monetary costs ("externalities") incurred.
In short, capitalism is a very specific set of relationships and cultural attitudes. It is not simply a synonym for the market.
In rejecting the piracy of capitalism, we really have only two options: statist socialism or a market-based form of syndicalism. Statist socialism, we have seen, simply does not work. The worker remains alienated from his labor - instead of a private capitalist, a government administrator appropriates and profits from his work.
The crucial task in creating a new and democratic economy, rather than radically overthrowing the current system and imposing a new one, will be to organically grow a new sector of the economy inside of the current one. One that is based in civil society, and not dependent on a cliental government. To that extent, the market must play a crucial role. But it need not be an antisocial one.
The Mondragon Corporacion in Basque Spain is a multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation...owned and controlled wholly by its workers. Its executives and supervisors are annually selected and kept in line through representative democracy through the firm itself. There are many other instances that firmly prove that workplace democracy is not only morally superior to capitalism, but just as - if not more - profitable. Workers have an incentive to work better by being directly invested in the success of their firm. Workers are more likely to notice mistakes and errors than a detached clique of shareholders and managers. And above all, such firms have been found much more capable of retaining workers and sustaining employment in times of economic trouble. In contrast to capitalism, a democratic economy does not need an industrial reserve army of unemployed workers to maintain an authoritarian relationship in the workplace.
ParEcon, I feel, is an inadequate solution to the problem. Mostly because Michael Albert does not enunciate how exactly we get from A to B. Also because his ideas of achieving perfectly balanced, equally-empowering jobs all throughout the economy without having to resort to authoritarianism are impossible.
David Schweickart's model for Economic Democracy is far better articulated. And even cooler, he actually provides basic policy recommendations for how to get there from where we are now.
In rejecting the inadequacies of today, why must we resort to simple-minded absolutism? There is a place for the market and civil society, just as there is a place for government.
some clarifications
If your primary beef with ParEcon is actually getting there, then it's certainly worth reading Albert's writings on that very topic (I'll see if I can dig up some links). I'm with you on the infeasibility of completely-balanced jobs across the economy, and I also have some reservations about the facilitation boards.
I agree that there is a difference between the terms capitalism and markets, but when I say markets, I certainly mean markets. And the description you offer belies their social costs. Competition is the big one, which encourages workers to cut corners, create externalities, and even reintroduce managerial duties and concrete divisions of labor - the "race to the bottom" is inextricable from market-based price setting. Insufficient information about goods is always inherent in market relations too - a simple market-set price just isn't enough for people to make truly informed decisions.
It's also worth noting your two examples are cases of inter-civilization commerce (not intra-). Historically, local economies had been much more about the creation of social relationships (e.g. people) than quantitative calculation and the creation of profitable transactions. Market relations extending into the daily lives of ordinary people were at one point rare and exceptions to the rule, and the turn to them happened only relatively recently (and specifically northern Europe at the beginning of the 19th century); this of course was a conscious decision on the part of the political and economic elites. It expanded from simply international relations, to inter-community relations, to inter-family relations, and along the way, they had a distorting effect on the way people treated and perceived each other.
Markets, pt. II
It would seem that your main qualm against markets is competition and inadequate information. Let me attempt my own clarifications and see if we can understand the problem even clearer.
Your point about competition I do not understand. Are you speaking specifically about aliented labor, or competition itself (as opposed to cooperation)?
If the latter, then I must disagree. That is nothing more than black & white dualism. Human society is an intricate web of cooperation and competition. Individuals and groups compete just as much as they collaborate. Have been since the dawn of human society, and a hell of a lot earlier than capitalism.
Acknowledging that conflict plays an inseparable (and necessary) role in society does not make us Chicaco School apologists. We don't believe in "homo economicus" atomism. Rather than limiting human interraction to a bunch of individuals pursuing greater utility, we choose to introduce a second dimension: the social dimension. Individuals sublimate themselves to the interests of their culture and subculture, and these groups compete with the same ferocity as individuals do. How else could something as quintessentially Marxist as class struggle happen if human competition wasn't a given?
"Race to the bottom" practices and social commodification happens as a direct result of capitalism, not markets. If free economic exchange caused the same kind of social problems we are experiencing today, then our ancestors sure as hell might have noticed.
I agree that markets, in of themselves, are largely irrational. But it is blind to embrace a dogmatic dualism that sees either a complete, neoliberal embrace of market economics, or just as complete a rejection of markets in favor of central planning (or ParEcon, which I still believe is ideological rubbish that is as unattainable as it is undesirable).
Workplace democracy and local management of investment can counteract irrationality with human agency. We can practice economic planning and still have markets. Look at Japan, India and China for a literally world-class example.
The key, as with everything, is balance. Democratic firms combat the bureaucratic tendancies of planners and the short-sightedness of markets. Markets challenge democratic firms to compete. Planning keeps markets from ravaging society and the natural world. Cooperation and competition.
Isn't the token market
Isn't the token market socialist always the first one to be eaten by the monsters in sci-fi movies?
Dan Klein
Communications Intern
Young People For
People For the American Way Foundation
149 5th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10010
212.420.0440 x25
www.youngpeoplefor.org
blog.youngpeoplefor.org
Ohhhhh...
THAT's what they mean when they call them "red shirts" on Star Trek... a double-entendre!
http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/wp-content/photos/expendabili...
HAHA!
I really LOLed at that, good one! I'll never be able to watch Star Trek in the same way again.
What we really need is a explanatory model of the Star Trek economic system. I'll get to work on it ASAP.
On a side note, this is only something I have read briefly but have you all heard of "Fab Labs"? Its a project being worked on by a scientist at MIT, I believe he has a Fab Lab in Harlem, MIT, and a few other countries. Basically he is putting the means of high-tech production (robotic cutters, computer CAD systems, etc.) into small, easy to use systems that can create everything from nanochips to custom vehicles. It's a little pop-sci but an interesting read http://www.amazon.com/FAB-Revolution-Desktop-Computers-Fabri...
Maybe if this takes of selling your labor for food and shelter will become moot. You can just go to the local community center fab lab and say "Computer, Hot Coffee. And a Bicycle." A Star Trek nerd can dream right? -_-
Har har. :-p
Har har. :-p
IMPORTANT UPDATE!
April 28th, 2008 For Immediate Release: Contact: Colonel Custard (aka the corporate criminal creamer) Greenwash Guerillas: contact@GreenwashGuerrillas.org Footage available: www.GreenwashGuerrillas.org
Greenwash Guerrillas Pie Thomas Friedman at Brown University YouTube Censors Video; Pie Thrower Faces University Disciplinary Procedures
Providence, RI - New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman was pied by the Greenwash Guerillas while giving an Earth Day Lecture at Brown University. The Greenwash Guerillas targeted Thomas Friedman because of his support for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, neo-liberal economic policies that harm the world’s poor, and especially for promoting bogus solutions to the global climate crisis.
"We sought to expose the hypocrisy of allowing Friedman, who is known for his influential support of U.S. wars for oil in the Middle East, to call himself an environmentalist,” explained Greenwash Guerrilla Margaree Little. "He has blood on his hands that no amount of 'green' can wash away."
Little, a Brown University student identified as one of the pie throwers, faces University disciplinary hearings, potentially including expulsion. Colonel Custard, the second pie thrower, remains at large.
Little and Custard jumped on stage as Friedman began his talk, entitled “Green is the new Red, White & Blue.” The talk focused on how green technology and corporate environmentalism can restore the United States to its "natural place in the global order."
They tossed two green-colored cream pies at Friedman and dashed off as leaflets denouncing Friedman were thrown to the crowd. According to the pamphlets, “On behalf of the earth and all true environmentalists – we, the Greenwash Guerillas, declare Thomas Friedman’s ‘Green’ as fake . . . as the cool-whip covering his face.”
The Greenwash Guerillas object to Friedman’s support for nuclear power, coal power, industrial biofuels, and carbon trading markets. "These false solutions are smokescreens, intended to generate massive corporate profits while creating global humanitarian and environmental disasters,” said Colonel Custard.
Video of the pie throwing incident was posted on YouTube, and received close to 70,000 views in 36 hours, making it one of the most popular videos on the site. Without notice, YouTube abruptly censored the video, removing it from the website. Hundreds of news outlets, blogs, and websites had linked to the video. The Greenwash Guerillas have reposted the clip at: www.GreenwashGuerrillas.org
"Given the many other pieings on YouTube(1), the removal of the video can only be understood as an act of political censorship," said Little. "It's a sad commentary on how free we are to speak when confronting power."
“The Greenwash Guerillas chose the harmless and humorous tactic of pie-throwing because our goal was to take this perpetual charlatan off his new green pedestal,” said Colonel Custard. “Friedman’s support for coal and nuclear power is as misguided as his counsel on Iraq.”
This is the second time Friedman has been hit by a pie. In October 2002, he received a banana pie to his face while promoting his writings on free-market globalization in Boston.
Footnote:
(1) e.g., http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/04/thomas-frie...
# # #
LOL
Case in point.
Typical propaganda without any relevant debate. I hate how people like Custard apply labels that only force the progressive movement into blind dogmatism.
How much do you know about atomic physics or power generation Custard? How much do you know about "green technology". Your rant is the same old same old. Of course Friedman has ridiculous ideas but you are just as easily dismissed friend and at least he engages in some rational discussion around the issue, even if some of his ideas are quite irrational. There is no talking to people like you because you value theatrics over substantive discussion. To each her/his own I guess.
And I highly doubt that YouTube is censoring you.
Ridicule and censorship
They seem to be taking a page from Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals, which argues in part that when you don't have a lot of power, ridicule can be your most valuable tool.
On YouTube censorship: Check out this article from the New York Times. The censorship covered is mostly audience-driven; the effects are the same.
Hrm
Thats an understandable tactic but I still think its a shame because its disingeuos at best. The issues surrounding environmental degradation are too complex to play the propaganda campaign which is why I feel Friedman is wrong and so are they.
At least I can approach Friedman and attempt to systematically deconstruct his ideas. I can't do that with people who make 10 sec bullet points about the immorality of nuclear energy.
As for the YouTube thing, that is crazy but it is user based. I think its an issue that will need to be addressed though, because YouTube will walk a fine line in trying to police that content. I'm surprised enough users flaged it, when I checked the YouTube video it was swamped by the Ron Paul fanboys, all of whom hate Friedman.
BTW Fureigh, you should checkout "Who Controls the Internet" its a book that came out recently, its really good and traces the historical development of the destruction of total freedom on the web. Very good read if your interested!
Will definitely check out
Will definitely check out the book. Thanks.
What do the Ron Paul folks hate about Friedman?